4 5796417592721672078 PDF

Engineering Tools for Environmental
Risk Management – 4
Risk Management – 4
Risk Reduction Technologies

and Case Studies
Editors
Katalin Gruiz
Department of Applied Biotechnology and Food Science, Budapest
University of Technology and Economics, Budapest, Hungary
Tamás Meggyes
Berlin, Germany
Éva Fenyvesi
Cyclolab, Budapest, Hungary
CRC Press/Balkema is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK
Typeset by Apex CoVantage, LLC
All rights reserved. No part of this publication or the information contained herein may
be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, by photocopying, recording or otherwise, without written prior
permission from the publisher.
Although all care is taken to ensure integrity and the quality of this publication and the
information herein, no responsibility is assumed by the publishers nor the author for any
damage to the property or persons as a result of operation or use of this publication and/
or the information contained herein.
British Library Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Gruiz, Katalin, editor.
Title: Risk reduction technologies and case studies / editors, Katalin Gruiz,
Tamás Meggyes & Éva Fenyvesi.
Description: Leiden, The Netherlands : CRC Press/Balkema, [2019] |
Series: Engineering tools for environmental risk management ; 4 |
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2018048279 (print) | LCCN 2018050830 (ebook) | ISBN
9781315778754 (ebook) | ISBN 9781138001572 (hardcover : alk. paper)
Subjects: LCSH: Soil remediation.
Classification: LCC TD878 (ebook) | LCC TD878 .R56 2019 (print) |
DDC 628.5/5—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018048279
Published by: CRC Press/Balkema
P.O. Box 11320, 2301 EH Leiden, The Netherlands
e-mail: Pub.NL@taylorandfrancis.com
www.crcpress.com – www.taylorandfrancis.com
ISBN: 978-1-138-00157-2 (Hardback)
ISBN: 978-1-315-77875-4 (eBook)
Table of contents
Preface xv
List of abbreviations xvii
About the editors xxiii
1 Contaminated site remediation : role and classification

of technologies 1
K. GRUIZ
1 Introduction 1
2 Sustainable environmental remediation 2
2.1 Measuring sustainability 4
2.2 Remediation technologies – classification, innovation,
biotechnologies 6
3 Classifying remediation technologies 8
3.1 Technology classification defined by the contaminants 9
3.2 Technologies based on contaminant mobilization or
immobilization 9
3.3 Soil treatment technologies based on physical, chemical,
and biological processes 16
4 Treatment of individual soil phases 18
4.1 Soil gas and vapor 19
4.2 Soil water and groundwater 21
4.3 Treatment of the solid-phase soil 28
4.3.1 Physicochemical methods 29
4.3.2 Thermal methods 31
4.3.3 Electrokinetic remediation 33
4.3.4 Biological and ecological methods 33
2 In situ soil remediation: the reactor approach 39

K. GRUIZ
1 Introduction 40
2 Types of remediation reactor 41
2.1 Reactors and operations of ex situ remediation technologies 42
2.2 In situ quasi-reactors 43
vi Table of contents
2.3 Physical processes used for in situ soil remediation 44

2.3.1 Wells and engineered underground reactors for
groundwater treatment 45
2.3.2 Vacuum wells and groundwater circulation 50
2.3.3 Soil heating 54
2.4 Chemical processes for in situ soil remediation 57
2.4.1 Chemical reagents and additives 57
2.5 Technologies based on biological transformation and
its intensification 61
2.5.1 Bioventing 61
2.5.2 Intensification of bioremediation 63
3 Comparison of in situ and ex situ reactors used in soil remediation 63
3.1 The boundaries, openness, and interaction of the reactor with
its surroundings 64
3.1.1 The boundaries of the reactor 64
3.1.2 The openness of the reactor 65
3.1.3 Contacted and endangered environmental phases 66
3.1.4 The treated volume 67
3.1.5 Emission transport and pathway 67
3.2 Inside the reactor 68
3.2.1 Soil phases to be treated 68
3.2.2 Homogeneity and heterogeneity 69
3.2.3 Reactor types classified according to the concentration
gradient 71
3.2.4 Reactor design: single-stage, multi-stage, and
cascade types 72
3.3 Processes and parameters within the reactor 72
3.3.1 Aeration 72
3.3.2 Redox potential setting 72
3.3.3 Moisture content 73
3.3.4 Additives 74
3.3.5 Material output from the soil 75
3.3.6 Recirculation 75
3.4 Microorganisms in the reactor 76
3.4.1 Soil microbiota and its modification 76
3.4.2 The evolution of the soil 78
3.4.3 Contaminant mobility enhancement 78
3.4.4 Revitalization 79
3.5 Comparison of ex situ and in situ reactors for soil remediation 80
4 Technology design 80
5 Monitoring 85
5.1 Technology monitoring 86
5.1.1 Product generation 87
5.1.2 The activity of the transformer/catalyst 88
5.2 Environmental monitoring and post-remediation care 88
6 Verification 89
7 Summary 89
Table of contents vii
3 Natural attenuation in contaminated soil remediation 95

K. GRUIZ
1 Introduction 96
2 Natural attenuation (NA) and related ecotechnologies for soil
remediation 96
3 The fate and behavior of contaminants in the soil 101
3.1 Processes in the soil 102
3.1.1 Physicochemical processes in the soil 102
3.1.2 Biochemical and biological processes in the soil
and groundwater 104
3.2 Mobilization and immobilization 107
3.2.1 Mobilization 107
3.2.2 Immobilization and accumulation 110
4 Methodological background of natural process monitoring 111
4.1 The risk model 115
4.2 Integrated methodology for the assessment and monitoring
of natural attenuation 116
4.2.1 Physicochemical analytical methods 117
4.2.2 Biological and ecological methods useful in natural
attenuation monitoring 119
4.2.3 Measuring the effect – direct toxicity assessment (DTA) 120
4.3 Evaluation and interpretation of natural attenuation monitoring data 121
4.3.1 Corresponding monitoring results 122
4.3.2 Contradictory monitoring results 123
4.3.3 Typical applications 127
4.4 Using the “risk profile” for planning, monitoring, and verification 128
4.4.1 Risk profile of organic contaminants under natural impact 129
4.4.2 Risk profile of toxic metals under natural impact 130
4.4.3 Risk model of source management 131
5 Natural attenuation in environmental remediation 135
5.1 The natural attenuation management scheme 135
5.1.1 Pollution cases where monitored natural attenuation (MNA)
is the best option 137
5.1.2 Pollution cases where engineered natural attenuation (ENA)
is the best option 137
5.2 Natural biodegradation and its enhancement 138
5.2.1 The role of soil microorganisms in natural soil processes
and in NA-based remediation 138
5.3 Engineered natural attenuation 140
5.3.1 A knowledge-based tool 140
5.3.2 Enhancement of biodegradation-based natural attenuation 140
5.4 Summary of engineered natural attenuation 143
6 History and state of the art 144
6.1 Growing utilization of natural attenuation for soil and groundwater
remediation 144
6.2 Some examples worldwide of MNA and ENA 148
6.3 Examples from the authors’ practice 159
viii Table of contents
6.3.1 Engineered natural attenuation of soil and groundwater

contaminated by organic substances 159
6.3.2 Natural attenuation of metals 170
7 Evaluation of NA-based soil remediation – advantages and sustainability 178
7.1 Advantages and disadvantages of natural attenuation-based
remediation 179
7.2 NA and MNA sustainability 180
4 Ecoengineering tools: passive artificial ecosystems 203

R . K O V Á C S , N. S Z I L ÁGYI , I . KE NYE RE S & K. G RU IZ
1 Introduction 203
1.1 Ecological engineering 206
1.2 Advantages and disadvantages 207
1.3 Application fields 207
2 History and development of ecoengineering-driven technologies 208
2.1 Traditional approaches 208
2.2 Modern engineered artificial ecosystems 209
3 Tools of ecological engineering 209
3.1 Basic concepts 209
3.2 Design principles 209
4 Passive systems, constructed wetlands, aquatic plant systems 210
4.1 Constructed wetlands 210
4.2 Aquatic plant systems 214
4.3 Constructed floating islands 215
5 Reactor based solutions – living systems and ecomachines 220
5.1 Conventional living machines 220
5.2 Advanced artificial ecologies 224
5.3 Living machines, ecomachines, ecomachine systems – case studies 227
6 Process monitoring and control possibilities 234
6.1 Process monitoring and instrumentation 234
6.2 Process control considerations 234
7 Summary 234
5 Biodegradation-based remediation – over view and

case studies 243
M . M O L N Á R, K. GRUI Z & É . F E NYVE S I
1 Introduction 244
2 Biodegradation-based remediation: main principles and key reactions 244
2.1 Microorganisms capable of degrading organic pollutants 245
2.2 Electron acceptors and redox transformations 246
2.3 Redox manipulations in soil remediation 248
3 Biodegradability, bioavailability 248
3.1 Biodegradability 249
3.2 Bioavailability and its enhancement 250
4 Mobilizing and solubilizing agents to increase contaminant bioavailability 251
4.1 The use of surfactants in soil remediation 251
4.2 Synthetic surfactants 252
Table of contents ix
4.3 Biosurfactants 253

4.4 Nanoparticles in environmental remediation 256
5 Cyclodextrins in biodegradation-based remediation 256
5.1 Microbial degradation under aerobic conditions 257
5.2 Cyclodextrin-enhanced biodegradation under Fe(III)-reducing
conditions 259
5.3 Cometabolites and cyclodextrins 260
6 Aspects and key reactions of aerobic and anaerobic biotransformation
mechanisms 260
6.1 Aerobic biotransformation pathways 260
6.2 Anaerobic biotransformation pathways 265
6.3 Cometabolic degradation of organic contaminants 266
6.4 Harmful degradation products/hazardous metabolites 268
7 Bioremediation – a case study 269
7.1 Cyclodextrin-enhanced bioremediation technology (CDT) 269
7.1.1 Site description 269
7.1.2 Technology development – from the laboratory to the field 270
7.1.3 Monitoring tool box for CDT and the surrounding
environment 272
7.1.4 Bench-scale and pilot tests 274
7.2 Field demonstration – full-scale remediation 275
6 Traditional and innovative methods for physical

and chemical remediation of soil contaminated
with organic contaminants 285
É . F E N Y V E S I , K. GRUI Z , E . MORI L L O & J. VI L LAV ER D E
1 Introduction 285
2 Technologies based on mobilization 286
2.1 Separation technologies 287
2.1.1 Soil venting 287
2.1.2 Air stripping/sparging 288
2.1.3 Soil washing/chemical extraction for the removal of
the soluble contaminants 293
2.1.4 In situ soil flushing 295
2.2 Destructive physicochemical technologies – chemical degradation 300
2.2.1 Technologies based on redox reactions 300
2.2.2 Chemical dehalogenation 309
2.2.3 Mechanochemical remediation (ball milling) 309
3 Technologies based on immobilization 310
3.1 Immobilization of the contaminants by sorption 312
3.2 Chemical stabilization of contaminants 315
3.2.1 Simultaneous contaminant immobilization and soil
microstructure stabilization by using binders 316
3.3 Soil stabilization 316
3.3.1 Combination of contaminant sorption and stabilization/
solidification of the soil 318
3.3.2 Solidification/stabilization by producing blocks 318
x Table of contents
3.4 Mass stabilization 319

3.5 Containment 320
4 Physicochemical technologies for remediation of pesticides in soil 321
4.1 Separation technologies 322
4.1.1 Soil washing 322
4.1.2 Soil flushing 324
4.2 Destruction technologies 324
4.2.1 Application of chemical oxidation for pesticide-
contaminated soil 324
4.3 Containment and immobilization technologies 326
4.3.1 Containment technologies 326
4.3.2 Sorption technologies 327
5 ISCO combined with inter-well agitation for chlorinated hydrocarbons –
a case study 328
5.1 Site description, history 329
5.2 Step-by-step risk management 330
5.2.1 Site assessment and mapping 330
5.2.2 Site-specific risk characterization 333
5.2.3 Evaluation of the former pump and treat technology 338
5.2.4 Technology selection, comparative evaluation of
the options 339
5.2.5 In-well treatability test 339
6 Full-scale demonstration of the remediation technology 341
7 Leaching, bioleaching and acid mine drainage case study 363

H . M . S I E B E RT, G. F L ORI AN, W. S AND, E . VASZITA , K . G R U IZ, M. CS Ő V Á R I,
G . F Ö L D I N G , Z S . BE RTA & J.T. ÁRGYE L ÁN
1 Leaching and leachate treatment 363
1.1 Introduction – leaching in general and bioleaching in particular 363
1.2 History and principles of AMD treatment – a general overview 365
1.3 Technical solution and applicability of active and passive
treatment systems for AMD 366
1.3.1 Active AMD treatment systems 367
1.3.2 Passive AMD treatment systems 369
1.4 Sustainability of the leachate treatment technologies 372
2 Bioleaching and leachate remediation 374
2.1 Bioleaching 374
2.1.1 Mechanism of bioleaching in sulfidic ores and wastes 374
2.1.2 Contact and non-contact bioleaching 376
2.1.3 Microbial bioleaching community 376
2.1.4 Natural bioleaching process and its industrial application 377
2.2 Acidic leachates and their treatment 377
2.2.1 Active and passive treatment of acidic coal pile drainage 378
2.2.2 Mitigation of AMD production 380
2.3 Monitoring bioleaching, microbiological status, and leaching activity 381
2.4 Impacts of inhibiting agents on bioleaching microorganisms 382
2.5 Conclusions 382
Table of contents xi
3 General overview of the Gyöngyösoroszi mining site, concept for

the remediation of the former zinc-lead mines 383
3.1 Introduction 383
3.1.1 Mine and mining history 383
3.1.2 Geology of the site and development of the ore
mineralization 384
3.1.3 Summary of the mining activity 385
3.2 AMD in the Gyöngyösoroszi mine 387
3.2.1 Quality of the mine water 387
3.2.2 Quantity of AMD 388
3.2.3 AMD flow rate 390
3.2.4 Mine water quality at different mine fields 390
3.2.5 Summary of the AMD at the Gyöngyösoroszi mine 392
3.3 AMD mitigation by backfilling 392
3.4 AMD treatment 395
3.5 ARD from waste rock piles 395
3.6 Ore processing and flotation tailings 398
3.6.1 Ore processing 398
3.6.2 Tailings pond 399
3.7 Surface water reservoirs and creeks 402
3.8 Summary of the Gyöngyösoroszi case study 403
8 Remediation technologies for metal-contaminated

soil and sediment – an over view and a case study of
combined chemical and phytostabilization 415
V. F E I G L
1 Remediation technologies for metal-contaminated soil and
sediment – An overview 415
1.2 Physical-chemical technologies 416
1.2.1 Isolation/containment 416
1.2.2 Mobilization of metals 417
1.2.3 Immobilization 420
1.2.4 Permeable reactive barriers 423
1.3 Bioremediation of metal-contaminated soil 423
1.3.1 Biological mobilization 423
1.3.2 Immobilization 425
2 Combined chemical and phytostabilization of metal-contaminated mine
waste and soil – a demonstration case 426
2.2 Demonstration site and technological conditions 426
2.2.1 Mine wastes and soils at the site 426
2.2.2 Fly ash as chemical stabilizer 428
2.2.3 Plants for phytostabilization 429
2.3 Scaled-up studies 430
2.3.1 Lab-scale microcosm studies 431
2.3.2 Field lysimeter studies 431
xii Table of contents
2.3.3 Field demonstration 432

2.3.4 Monitoring using integrated methodology 434
2.4 Results of the combined chemical and phytostabilization 435
2.4.1 Results of the pre-experiments 435
2.4.2 Results for highly acidic, sulfuric, weathered mine waste 436
2.4.3 Results for non-weathered waste rock 438
2.4.4 Results for the CCP-treated agricultural soil 439
2.4.5 Integrated technology evaluation and verification 441
2.5 Conclusions 441
9 Electrochemical remediation for contaminated soils,

sediments and groundwater 447
C . C A M E S E L L E & K.R. RE DDY
1 Introduction 447
2 Electrochemical technologies for remediation of polluted soils 448
3 Electrochemical transport 449
3.1 Electromigration 449
3.2 Electroosmosis 449
3.3 Electrophoresis 451
3.4 Diffusion 452
4 Electrochemical reaction and transformation processes 452
5 Removal of metals and inorganic contaminants 453
5.1 Toxic metals 453
5.2 Inorganic anionic pollutants 454
6 Removal of organic pollutants 455
7 Removal of organic/inorganic contaminant mixtures 456
8 Electrokinetic/electrochemical barriers for pollutant containment 457
9 Coupled technologies 457
9.1 Electrochemical oxidation/reduction and electrokinetics 458
9.2 PRB – electrokinetics 458
9.3 Bioremediation – electrokinetics 459
9.4 Phytoremediation – electrokinetics 459
9.5 Thermal desorption and electrokinetics 460
10 Economic aspects 460
11 Field applications 460
12 Future perspectives 461
10 Elemental iron and other nanotechnologies for

soil remediation 465
C . C A M E S E L L E & K. R. RE DDY
1 Nanoscale particles 465
2 Environmental application of nanoparticles 466
3 Nanoscale iron particles (NIP): synthesis, properties, and reactivity 468
3.1 Synthesis of NIP 470
3.2 Properties of NIP 471
3.3 Reactivity of NIP 472
Table of contents xiii
4 Modified nanoscale iron particles (NIP) 474

4.1 Modification to increase reactivity 474
4.2 Modification to increase stability 474
5 Applications of NIP for soil and groundwater remediation 475
5.1 Reactivity of NIP and modified NIP in soils 475
5.2 Transport of NIP and modified NIP in soils 476
5.3 Enhanced transport of NIP and modified NIP in soils 477
5.3.1 Enhanced transport of modified NIP 477
5.3.2 Pressurized/pulsed hydraulic delivery 480
5.3.3 Electrokinetic delivery of NIP in soils 480
6 Bimetallic nanoparticles 481
7 Other nanotechnologies with environmental applications 484
7.1 Titanium dioxide 484
7.2 Self-assembled monolayers on mesoporous supports 484
7.3 Dendrimers 485
7.4 Swellable organic modified silica 485
8 Field applications 486
8.1 Field demonstrations and case studies 486
8.2 Cost 489
9 Environmental benefits and risks of NIP (and other nanoparticles) 489
11 Planning, monitoring, verification and sustainability

of soil remediation 497
K . G R U I Z , M . MOL NÁR & É . F E NYVE S I
1 Introduction 497
2 Sustainability, sustainable remediation 498
2.1 State of the art 499
2.2 Technology verification and management sustainability 502
2.3 Management process steps in terms of sustainability assessment 503
2.4 History of sustainability assessment and verification tools 505
3 Integration of sustainability assessment into existing remediation
evaluation methods 509
3.1 LCA for the evaluation of remediation options 509
3.2 Green remediation 511
3.3 Green and sustainable remediation 512
3.3.1 Planning the GSR process 513
3.3.2 Phases and aspects of the GSR process 514
3.4 System-based indicators 516
3.5 Multi-criteria analysis for sustainability assessment by scoring
and weighting 516
3.5.1 SNOWMAN – multi-criteria analysis (MCA) 516
3.6 Sustainability in combination with cost–benefit assessment 518
3.7 SuRF UK – a framework for evaluating sustainable remediation
options 519
4 Verification of in situ bioremediation 520
4.1.1 Assessment of the efficiency of in situ bioremediation 521
xiv Table of contents
4.1.2 Evaluation tools for in situ bioremediation 524

4.1.3 Monitoring of in situ soil remediation 527
4.2 Evaluation of the cyclodextrin technology (CDT) by the MOKKA
verification tool 528
4.2.1 Short description of the site 529
4.2.2 Management and decision making 529
4.2.3 Cost efficiency of the CDT 531
4.2.4 Short description of CDT and its application 533
4.2.5 Mass balance of the CDT technology 536
4.2.6 Environmental and eco-efficiencies: site risks and footprints 536
4.2.7 Summary and conclusion on the CDT technology and the
verification tool 542
Subject index 549

Preface
The four volumes of the book series “Engineering Tools for Environmental Risk Manage-
ment” deal with environmental management, assessment & monitoring tools, environmental
toxicology and risk reduction technologies. This last volume focuses on engineering solu-
tions usually needed for industrial contaminated sites, where nature’s self-remediation is
inefficient or too slow. The success of remediation depends on the selection of an increasing
number of conventional and innovative methods. This volume classifies the remedial tech-
nologies and describes the reactor approach to understand and manage in situ technologies
similarly to reactor-based technologies. Technology types include physicochemical, biologi-
cal or ecological solutions, where near-natural, sustainable remediation has priority.
A special chapter is devoted to natural attenuation, where natural changes can help
achieve clean-up objectives. Natural attenuation and biological and ecological remedi-
ation establish a serial range of technologies from monitoring only to fully controlled
interventions, using ‘just’ the natural ecosystem or sophisticated artificial living systems.
Passive artificial ecosystems and biodegradation-based remediation – in addition to natu-
ral attenuation – demonstrate the use of these ‘green’ technologies and how engineering
intervention should be kept at a minimum to limit damage to the environment and create
a harmonious ecosystem.
Remediation of sites contaminated with organic substances is analyzed in detail includ-
ing biological and physicochemical methods.
Comprehensive management of pollution by inorganic contaminants from the mining
industry, leaching and bioleaching and acid mine drainage is studied in general and spe-
cifically in the case of an abandoned mine in Hungary where the innovative technology of
combined chemical and phytostabilization has been applied.
The series of technologies is completed by electrochemical remediation and
nanotechnologies.
Monitoring, verification and sustainability analysis of remediation provide a compre-
hensive overview of the management aspect of environmental risk reduction by remediation.
Abbreviations
2,4D 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid

2,4-DCP 2,4-dichlorophenol
A.f. Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans
A.t. Acidithiobacillus thiooxidans
ABC alkaline barium calcium (desalination process)
ABS alkybenzene sulfonates
AC activated carbon
ALD anoxic limestone drains
AMD acid mine drainage treatment
AOPs advanced oxidation processes
ARD acid rock drainage
ASAP accelerated site assessment procedure
ASP aspartic acid
BATNEEC best available technology not entailing excessive costs
BCD beta-cyclodextrin
BNP bimetallic nanoscale particle
BMPs best management practices
BOD biological oxygen demand
BTEX benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes
CAH chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons
CAPEX capital expenditures
CARD-FISH catalyzed reporter deposition fluorescence in situ hybridization technique
CBA cost-benefit assessment
CCP combined chemical and phytostabilization
CD cyclodextrin
CDEF cyclodextrin-enhanced soil-flushing technology
CDT cyclodextrin technology
CEC cation exchange capacity
CHCs chlorinated hydrocarbons
CKD cement kiln dust
CMC critical micelle concentration
CMBCD carboxymethyl beta-cyclodextrin
CNT carbon nanotube
COD chemical oxygen demand
CP chlorophenol
xviii Abbreviations
CPEO Center for Public Environmental Oversight

CRD catalytic reductive dehalogenation
CRM conceptual risk model
CSIA compound-specific isotope analysis
CSM conceptual site model
CWA chemical warfare agent
DAS dispersed alkaline substrates
DCE dichloroethylene
DCR dispersion by chemical reaction
DDD dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane
DDE dichlorodiphenylchloroethane
DDT dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
DGGE denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis
DNA deoxyribonucleic acid
DNAPL dense non-aqueous phase liquid
DNT dinitrotoluene
DO dissolved oxygen
DPVE dual phase vacuum extraction
DTA direct toxicity assessment
DW dry mass
EAP environmental action program
EBPR enhanced biological phosphorus removal
EBQC effect-based quality criteria
ECB erosion control blankets
EDTA ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid
EEA European Environmental Agency
EFM engineered fiber matrix
EKSF electrokinetic soil flushing
ENA enhanced natural attenuation
EOM extractable organic material
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s
EPH extractable petroleum hydrocarbon
EPS extracellular polymeric substances
EQC environmental quality criteria
ERD enhanced reductive dechlorination
ERH electrical resistance heating
ESEM environmental scanning electron microscope
ETV environmental technology verification
EZVI emulsified zero-valent iron
FA fly ash
FCR food chain reactor
FFTs fiber filtration tubes
FGM flexible growth medium
FISH fluorescence in situ hybridization technique
FRTR Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference database
FTIR Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy
GC gas chromatography
Abbreviations xix
GC EPH GC-measured extractable petroleum hydrocarbon

GCW groundwater circulation wells
GEM genetically engineered microorganisms
GSR green and sustainable remediation
GW groundwater
HCH hexachlorocyclohexane
HOC hydrophobic organic compounds
HPBCD hydroxypropyl beta-cyclodextrin
HPTRMs high performance turf reinforcement mats
HQC Hungarian quality criteria
HRC hydrogen release compound
ICP-AES inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy
ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry
ICP-OES inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry
IPT integral pumping test
ISAS in situ (in-well) air stripping
ISCO in situ chemical oxidation
ISCR in situ chemical reduction
ISRM in situ redox manipulation
ISTD in situ thermal desorption
KD soil–water partition coefficient for inorganic constituents
Kow octanol–water partition coefficient for organic constituents
Kp soil–water partition coefficient for organic constituents
LCA life cycle assessment
LCM life cycle management
LDS low density sludge
LEV local exhaust ventilation
L.f. Leptospirillum ferrooxidans
LKD lime kiln dust
LM-NIP lactate-modified nanosized zero-valent iron particles
LNAPL light non-aqueous phase liquid
MBBR moving bed biofilm reactors
MBRs membrane bioreactors
MCA multi-criteria analysis
MCPA 4-chloro-2-methylphenoxyacetic acid
MDS minimum data set
MeBCD methyl-beta-cyclodextrin
MIMO multi-input/multi-output (control algorithms)
MNA monitored natural attenuation
MPN most probable number
MPVE multiple phase vacuum extraction
MW microwave heating
NA natural attenuation
NAD(P)H nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide
NAP net acid-generating potential
NAPL non-aqueous phase liquid
NIP nanoscale zero-valent iron particles
xx Abbreviations
NOM natural organic matter

NPL National Priorities List
NRP no-risk product
NRS Nanomaterial Research Strategy
nZVI nano-scale zero-valent iron
OCP organochlorine pesticide
OLD oxic limestone drains
OM outer membrane
ORC oxygen release compound
ORP oxidation reduction potential
PAA polyacrylic acid
PAHs polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
PBDEss polybrominated diphenyl ethers
PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls
PCDD/F polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and -furans
PCFs polychlorinated dibenzofurans
PCE perchloroethylene
PCP pentachlorophenol
PCR polymerase chain reaction
PCTs polychlorinated terphenyls
PDS peroxydisulfate (S2O82−)
PEC predicted environmental concentration
PGM peptone-glucose-meat-extract
PLB pulsed limestone bead
PLFA phospholipid fatty acid
PMS peroxymonosulfate (HSO5−)
PNEC predicted no effect concentration
POP persistent organic pollutants
PPT pressure pulse technology
PRB permeable reactive barrier
PS periplasmic space
P&T pump & treat technology
PVC polyvinyl chloride
QC quality critera
qPCR quantitative polymerase chain reaction
RAMEB randomly methylated beta-cyclodextrin
RAPS reducing and alkalinity producing system
RBA risk – benefit assessment
RBQC risk-based quality criteria
RCAs recycled concrete aggregates
RCR risk characterization ratio
RDX hexahydro-trinitrotriazine, explosive
REC risk reduction, environmental merit and costs
REE rare earth elements
RNA ribonucleic acid
ROM run of mine ore
RR risk reduction
RX halogenated organic compounds
SA sustainability assessment
Abbreviations xxi
SAC soil air circulation systems

SAMMS self-assembled monolayers on mesoporous supports
SAPS successive RAPS
SBRs sequencing batch reactors
SDS sodium dodecyl sulfate
SEA socioeconomic assessment
SEAS surfactant-enhanced air sparging
SEF surfactant-enhanced soil flushing
SEM scanning electron microscope
SEP&T surfactant-enhanced pump & treat technology
SER steam-enhanced remediation
SF soil function
SIP stable isotope technique
SMS spent mushroom substrate
SND simultaneous nitrification/denitrification
SOD soil oxidant demand
SOMS swellable, organically modified silica
SPSH six-phase soil heating
SQC soil quality criteria
SQI soil quality indicator
SRB sulfate-reducing bacteria
SS steel shots
S/S stabilization/solidification
SSI soil service indicator
SuRF-UK UK Sustainable Remediation Forum
SVE soil vapor extraction
SVOC semivolatile organic compound
SWOT analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats
TCE trichloroethylene
TDS total dissolved solids
TE total extract
TEM transmission electron microscopy
TEVES thermal enhanced vapor extraction system
TIC total inorganic carbon
TOC total organic carbon
TNT 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene
TPH total petroleum hydrocarbons
TRMs turf reinforcement mats
VC vinyl chloride
VCH volatile chlorinated hydrocarbon
VOC volatile organic compound
WRP waste rock piles
WS water soluble
WTP willingness to pay
WWTP waste water treatment plant
XPS X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy
XRD X-ray diffractometry
XRF X-ray fluorescence
ZVI zero-valent iron
About the editors
Katalin Gruiz is Associate Professor at Budapest University of

Technology, Budapest, Hungary. She graduated in chemical engi-
neering at Budapest University of Technology and Economics in
1975, received her doctorate in bioengineering and her Ph.D. in
environmental engineering. Her main fields of activities are these:
teaching, consulting, research and development of engineering
tools for risk-based environmental management, development
and use of innovative technologies such as special environmen-
tal toxicity assays, integrated monitoring methods, biological and
ecological remediation technologies for soil and water, both for
regulatory and engineering purposes. Prof. Gruiz has published
70 scientific papers, 25 book chapters, 43 conference papers, and
edited 9 books and a special journal edition. She has coordinated a number of Hungarian
research projects and participated in European ones. Gruiz is a member of the REACH Risk
Assessment Committee of the European Chemicals Agency. She is a full-time associate pro-
fessor at Budapest University of Technology and Economics and heads the research group
of Environmental Microbiology and Biotechnology.
Tamás Meggyes is Research Coordinator in Berlin, Germany.

He is specializing in research and book projects in environmen-
tal engineering. His work focuses on fluid mechanics, hydraulic
transport of solids, jet devices, landfill engineering, groundwater
remediation, tailings facilities, and risk-based environmental man-
agement. He has contributed to and organized several international
conferences and national and European integrated research proj-
ects in Hungary, Germany, United Kingdom, and the US. Tamás
Meggyes was Europe editor of the Land Contamination and Recla-
mation journal in the UK and a reviewer of several environmental
journals. He was invited by the EU as an expert evaluator to assess
research applications and by Samarco Mining Company, Brazil, as
a tailings management expert. In 2007, he was named Visiting Professor of Built Environ-
ment Sustainability at the University of Wolverhampton, UK. He has published 130 papers
including 14 books and holds a doctor’s title in fluid mechanics and a Ph.D. degree in landfill
engineering from Miskolc University, Hungary.
xxiv About the editors
Éva Fenyvesi is senior scientist and founding member of Cyc-

loLab Cyclodextrin Research and Development Ltd, Budapest,
Hungary. She graduated as a chemist and received her Ph.D. in
chemical technology at Eötvös University of Natural Sciences,
Budapest. She is experienced in the preparation and application
of cyclodextrin polymers, in environmental application of cyclo-
dextrins and in gas chromatography. She participated in several
national and international research projects, in the development of
various environmental technologies applying cyclodextrins. She
is author or co-author of over 70 scientific papers, 10 chapters in
monographs, over 50 conference presentations, and 14 patents.
She is an editor of the Cyclodextrin News, the monthly periodical on cyclodextrins.
Chapter 1
Contaminated site remediation :

Role and classification of technologies
K. Gruiz
Department of Applied Biotechnology and Food Science, Budapest University of Technology
and Economics, Budapest, Hungary
ABSTRACT
The first three chapters of this book aim to identify and classify remediation technologies
from the point of view of physicochemical or biological technology and the main physical
phases where contaminants occur and should be treated. The remediation principle is based
on the reactor approach, which suggests that remediation technologies can be characterized
by quantifiable parameters such as mass transport; input and output; physicochemical or bio-
logical transformation; and mass balance in the same way as in any engineering technology
even if the processes are performed in situ or ex situ.
Planning requires the knowledge of tools, operations, modes of application, expected
impacts of the chosen technological parameters and overall efficiencies. All positive and
negative impacts, risks and benefits of the technology should be predicted beforehand and
confirmed after completion. It is essential to verify the technologies, especially in the case
of new technologies, new locations, or unknown geochemical and soil conditions. Environ-
mental, social, and economic risks and benefits should be planned and assessed in order to
keep their acceptable balance. Evaluation of the efficiencies and verification of the technol-
ogy require a multi-skilled team that can select and determine the scope of application and
the key parameters and prepare the monitoring plan to acquire the necessary (measured)
data for a complex evaluation. The evaluation should cover the direct impacts of processes
during their application and the overall impact of the activity on the local environment and
its users. In addition to local aspects, the assessment should include watershed-scale and
global impacts, and sustainability analysis in the widest context. Potential damage before,
during and after remediation (clean-up, rehabilitation) of a small site or a large area may
have extensive and long-term impacts on the health of the ecosystem, the human population
around the watershed or the global atmosphere, but also on the region’s social, economic,
and cultural landscape. The first three chapters give a general overview of remediation tech-
nologies and some of them will be discussed in detail. The last chapter will discuss technol-
ogy verification and sustainability assessment of environmental remediation.
1 INTRODUCTION
The term “remediation” means healing the environment, re-establishing a state in which
water and soil can fulfill their natural role and provide services for the benefit of mankind.
Biogeochemical element and water cycling and provision of a habitat for the ecosystem are
essential for accomplishing nature’s role. The services that the environment provides for
anthropogenic purposes include water resources, agricultural production and forestry, urban
2 Engineering Tools for Environmental Risk Management – 4
and recreational land uses for special economic, social or cultural needs (for more informa-
tion see Volume 1 of this book series Gruiz et al., 2014).
According to the engineering approach, environmental remediation is similar to other phys-
icochemical, biological, and agrotechnologies used for the treatment of solid or liquid-phase
materials. All liquid-, solid-, or slurry-treatment technologies can be implemented either in the
environment in the initial location of the (contaminated) material (i.e. in situ) or in a separate
treatment plant in open, semi-open, or closed systems (see also Chapter 2). The management
of soil remediation is responsible for harmonizing remediation with spatial planning, selecting
the best-fitting technology to the contaminant(s), to the environment, and to the land use; plan-
ning and establishing the treatment plant; implementing the technology; and monitoring and
controlling technological performance and environmental efficiency. Remedial technologies are
extremely versatile: the same soil treatment technology can be used in situ, in a heap or in a built
reactor. Whichever is applied, the treated material is reused, typically in the environment, while
ensuring the required quality of the products, the remediated soil and water.
One must distinguish between impacts of the technology during and after implementa-
tion. During remediation, increased emissions to the atmosphere, groundwater, and surface
waters can be expected and emission control technologies should be applied to manage this risk.
Post-remediation environmental risks and benefits manifest themselves during the reuse of the
treated material or site. Positive and negative impacts of remediation may cover local to water-
shed or global scales, immediate and short- to long-term impacts. Planning should pay special
attention to technological conditions of in situ and subsurface technologies such as methods
applied, processes, risks, and the desired efficiency. Key parameters are to be monitored during
implementation. Short-term, long-term, site-specific, and regional or global impacts of an in situ
remediation technology may differ depending on the actual environment (sensitivity of land use,
urgency of the clean-up) and the interactions between the technology and the environment and
contaminants. Well-known, demonstrated and generally verified technologies still do not fully
guarantee success because each case is different. The evaluation of the feasibility and sustain-
ability of a technology requires a case-by-case approach and the validation of the predicted val-
ues, expected trends and achieved results, i.e. the complete verification of the remediation case.
2 SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION

Contaminated site management and environmental risk reduction favor site remediation for
contaminated land. Prevention does not work “retroactively” and only restrictions such as
the prohibition of certain land uses or users may reduce the risk but they cannot improve
the environment itself. However, the large number of sites (nearly one million contami-
nated sites awaiting reclamation in Europe alone) justifies the use of other environmental
risk reduction (RR) options, which may include temporary interventions such as restrictions
in uses and other preventive measures to control emissions, further risk increases, or land
downgrading. Economic aspects such as the necessary expenditure (financial and labor),
the importance and benefits of future land uses, or aesthetic issues may also play a role in
choosing the most appropriate risk reduction option. On the other hand, remediation may
have much wider applications than repairing contaminated land. Contamination is only one
possible type of soil or land impairment. Organic matter loss, desertification, salinization,
sodification, erosion, landslides, compaction, sealing, and other land takes by human “civi-
lization” cause serious degradations globally. The consequences are fertility decline, loss
Contaminated site remediation 3
of ecosystem diversity and low-quality agricultural products, i.e. low-quality food and vul-
nerable or impaired human health. Soil health is essential for life, food production, human
and ecosystem health, and for buffering climate changes and other adverse impacts such as
droughts and floods. Therefore, it is important that soil remediation maintains soil quality,
and continuously compensates for soil degradation, humus loss, and nutrient decline – includ-
ing not only the lack of macronutrients but also mezo- and microelements and other biologi-
cally active molecules.
The 2012 report of the Joint Research Centre “State of the Soil in Europe” (JRC, 2012)
mentions nearly 3.5 million potentially contaminated sites in Europe alone, while EEA
(EEA, 2015a) cited 1 million identified and 2.5 million estimated contaminated sites in total
in 2015. The origins of contamination are waste disposal and treatment (40% of the sites)
and industry and commerce (35% of the sites). These sites need detailed investigation and in
some cases remediation as well. The number of remedied sites is about 100,000 across the
EU, i.e. 4% of the estimated number to be managed. The specific number of potentially con-
taminated sites per 1000 people is two to four in the EU (EEA, 2015b; ESDAC, 2013a,b,c).
US Superfund (2018) applies a practical approach and maintains a National Priorities
List (NPL, 2017) with a manageable number of priority sites (identified as the most urgent
among the total). It currently lists 1337 sites: remediation has been carried out at 1189 of
them since 1983 and 392 have been deleted from the list (NPL Action, 2017).
Remediation includes the reduction of physical (erosion, landslide), chemical (ignition,
explosion, and corrosion), ecological (aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem), and human health
risks in all environmental compartments, i.e. air, surface water and sediments, and soil and
subsurface water. When dealing with these risks, the aim of remediation is to re-establish a
good quality of the environment with healthy biological diversity and activity and safe use
for humans. The ethics behind remediation involves restoring natural diversity and the qual-
ity of water and soil over the long term, as well as protecting natural resources and ecological
services from adverse anthropological impacts. A feasible solution should achieve optimal
efficiency and harmony between future land uses and the selected remediation technology.
The management team needs exhaustive information on the nature of deterioration, the site,
short- and long-term spatial plans, and on the best available technologies.
Compared to the preparatory work and the necessary knowledge, remediation technolo-
gies (equipment and processes) are rather simple in most cases and can be adopted from
other industries such as mining, agriculture, and from nature itself.
Reducing the risk posed by contaminants in soil includes the treatment of all physical
phases: soil air (soil gas and vapor), soil water (moisture, pore water, groundwater, seepage
water, leachate), and solid phases (soil, base rock, soil slurry or deposited sediment). Soil
phases are linked surface waters and sediments via transport pathways of infiltration, con-
vection, flooding, erosion, etc. Consequently, soil remediation may apply most of the clean-
up technologies used for contaminated waters, liquid and solid wastes, agricultural land, and
the environment in general.
Sustainable remediation or “green remediation” has two main goals: (i) maximizing
environmental benefit in the long term and (ii) minimizing the footprint of clean-up activities
throughout the remediation project. To fulfill the second requirement, innovative technolo-
gies are needed that are more efficient compared to those in conventional use and that meet
site-specific requirements and rely on best management practices and new strategies to fulfill
sustainability requirements.
“More efficient” in this context means that the technology works faster and more effec-
tively meets the site-specific requirements, achieves the target without causing further risks or
damage, and serves long-term land uses in harmony with the environment and its ecosystem.
“Cost efficiency” implies that the specific cost is lower than or equal to that of con-
ventional technologies. This approach only applies when options are compared that are
equivalent in terms of environmental benefits. A more generic economic efficiency assess-
ment compares remediation costs to all benefits such as better environmental quality, human
health, and future land uses. A socioeconomic assessment that assumes the monetization
of environmental, societal, and health issues is required to quantify all these consequences of
remediation. It makes a quantitative comparison of the contaminated and remedied state
of the environment. “Environmentally efficient” technologies reduce environmental and
human-health risk locally (on and near the site) within the shortest possible time and off site
and/or globally over the long term.
“Eco-efficiency” assumes that the technology does not endanger the environment by caus-
ing additional emissions, material and energy utilization and that the equipment and buildings
used do not detract from the natural scenery. Eco-efficiency also includes improved quality and
quantity of the ecosystem services after remediation compared to the preceding status. Com-
bining all three may result in sustainable remediation and is a specific requirement of reme-
diation programs in most European countries (GRI, 2006; Paganos et al., 2013; EC, 2013;
EEA, 2014a; EEA, 2015b; EEB, 2012) and in the US (US EPA, 2008, 2009; Fiksel et al., 2009,
2012; NRC, 2011). WHO (2013) also focuses on contaminated sites and their remediation.
The 7th EAP (2013) provides that “land is managed sustainably in the European Union,
soil is adequately protected and the remediation of contaminated sites is well underway”
by 2020 and commits the EU and its Member States to “increasing efforts to reduce soil
erosion and increase soil organic matter, to remediate contaminated sites and to enhance
the integration of land use aspects into coordinated decision making involving all relevant
levels of government, supported by the adoption of targets on soil and on land as a resource,
and land planning objectives.” It also requires that “the Union and its Member States should
also reflect as soon as possible on how soil quality issues could be addressed using a targeted
and proportionate risk-based approach within a binding legal framework” (EAP 7th, 2013;
Endl & Berger, 2014; Van Liedekerke, 2014). The legal tools are supported by information
collected by the European Soil Data Centre (ESDAC, 2017) with ETC SIA (2013) having
published on soil evaluation instruments or with Payá Pérez et al. (2015) having published
on European success stories.
2.1 Measuring sustainability

Decision makers need measurable indicators to assess, track, and equitably weigh integrated
human health, socioeconomic, environmental, and ecological factors in order to foster sus-
tainability in constructed and natural environments. Several systems of sustainability indica-
tors have been recommended and used for sustainability assessment (Sikdar, 2003; Vyas &
Kumaranayake, 2006; Wilson et al., 2007; Mayer, 2008; Singh et al., 2009; Zamagni et al.,
2009; US EPA, 2010; WBCSD, 2011):
– The common classification covered by most of the legal tools (air, water, land, human
health, ecology) can also be used as the basis of sustainability evaluation as is done in
the US EPA’s reports on the environment (e.g., ROE, 2015).
– Another way to categorize indicators is as follows (Fiksel et al., 2012):
◦ Air, climate and energy;

◦ Chemical safety for sustainability;
◦ Homeland security research;
◦ Human health risk assessment;
◦ Sustainable and healthy communities;
◦ Safe and sustainable water resources.
– System-based indicators, which is a third type of classification, include four major cat-
egories (Fiksel et al., 2012):
◦ Adverse outcome indicates destruction of value due to adverse impacts on indi-

viduals, communities, business enterprises or the natural environment. It may cover
exposure, risk or impact, losses, impairments, e.g. health impacts by air or water
pollution, life cycle footprint of energy use, etc.
◦ Resource flow indicates pressures associated with the rate of resource consump-
tion, including materials, energy, water, land or biota depletion, e.g. material flow
volume, greenhouse gas emissions, water treatment efficacy, recycling rate, and
land use.
◦ System condition indicates the state of the systems being considered. Indicators
are: health, wealth, satisfaction, growth, dignity, capacity and quality of life. Exam-
ples: air, water and land quality, infrastructure, employment, income, etc.
◦ Value creation, including both economic values and the value of well-being through
enrichment of individuals, communities, business enterprises or the natural envi-
ronment. Some of the indicators are profitability, economic output, income, capital
investment, and human development. Examples: cost reduction, increased energy
efficiency, less transport, etc.
Sustainable remediation requires a well-informed selection of available technologies.
The biological and physicochemical basis of remediation must be understood and our
knowledge of the “black box” of soil expanded. To properly select and design engineer-
ing approaches and tools, information is needed about the properties and environmental
impacts of the technological tools, the possible dangers and necessary safety measures.
This information enables ecologically efficient technologies to be successfully designed
and implemented, including biotechnologies that can utilize the natural capacity of soil
microbes or plants. Verified technologies and standard information from their databases
are highly supportive. Some countries (US, Canada, Japan, China) do operate such an
environmental technology verification (ETV) system and, in addition, databases on the
technology and the demonstration or routine application are available (CLU-IN, 2017;
CLU-IN, verified, 2017; Canada verified, 2017; EU verified, 2017). The Canadian system
accepts the claims with the performance testing prepared by a third-party organization and
starts with the assessment based on the data provided by the technology owner. The US
model – started in 1995 and first introduced in 2001 – is based on the collected results of
tests and made public by an organization responsible for verification. Thus, some experi-
ence is available in the US and Canada, but this still is short of a complete and uniform
global system.
In Europe, ETV is a new tool aimed at improving the development and wider use of
environmental technologies and helping innovative environmental technologies reach the
market (EU ETV, 2017a). A current pilot program supports innovative ideas that can benefit
the environment and health but have not been accepted by the market for no other reason
than that they are new and experience with them is lacking (EU ETV, 2017b; EU, verified
2017).
Summing up, the EU initiative verifies the purpose, characteristics, conditions, and per-
formance of an innovative and demonstrated technology. The Statement of Verification pro-
vides the following information:
– An independent proof of verified performance parameters;

– A way to validate innovative technological features that satisfy specific user
needs;
– A tool to demonstrate an added value for the environment.
The EU ETV has not included soil remediation technologies yet in spite of some avail-
able information from the projects under EURODEMO (2004–2008), EURODEMO+
(2017), and the Hungarian MOKKA (2004–2008). These projects established databases for
demonstrated innovative European soil remediation technologies and thus they can be con-
sidered preparatory projects for the ETV database of soil remediation technologies. The con-
cept of life cycle assessment used for energy, waste, and water technologies is not included
because it is not entirely compatible with soil remediation technologies.
2.2 Remediation technologies – classification,

innovation, biotechnologies
The technological databases of the EUGRIS (2017) and ENFO (2017) projects provide
further information on innovative technologies in Europe. Practical documents on sustain-
ability issues can be found on the websites of the European NICOLE (2017) and SNOW-
MAN (2017) networks or in the US Sustainable Remediation Forum white paper (2009).
The “Practical Framework” of ITRC (2011) or the NICOLE Sustainable Remediation (2017)
pages also give valuable information.
A holistic approach is necessary to fulfill economic, ecological, and human require-
ments simultaneously. Rather than resort to drastic solutions that work against nature, the
engineer should use soft and gentle technologies that provide benefits to humans and the
environment.
Excavation and disposal (33% on average) and other ex situ treatments (19% biologi-
cal, 7% physicochemical, and 7% thermal, 33% in total) are currently still the dominant
technologies in Europe (EEA, 2014b). From an average of 7%, the highest rate of in situ
bioremediation is practiced in The Netherlands (20%), whereas it is not applied at all in
some other countries (France and UK). Estonia (not included in the 13 countries shown
in Figure 1.1) gives priority to in situ bioremediation, applying it almost exclusively.
Figure 1.1 shows the average shares of various remediation technologies in 13 European
countries.
European statistics and other literature sources indicate that the basis for classification
is the location of the treatment: i.e. whether it is performed in situ or ex situ. This approach
is secondary in the classification system used in this book because most of the technologies
can be applied both in situ and ex situ depending on site characteristics and case manage-
ment. Technologies used for soil remediation usually consist of simple operations such as
30
%
25
20
15
10
0
In situ In situ In situ Ex situ Ex situ Ex situ Ex situ Excavaon
biological phys-chem. thermal biological phys-chem. thermal other disposal
Figure 1.1 Most frequently applied remediation technologies for contaminated soil in 13 European
countries.
pumping, injection, heating, extraction, mixing, washing, etc. This chapter will classify soil
remediation according to
– The phase of the soil to which the technology is applied;

– The interaction of the technology with the contaminant classified into the main groups
of immobilization, mobilization, transformation or degradation;
– The type of the key processes: physical, chemical, biological, ecological, or a combina-
tion thereof.
Practitioners do not put enough effort into justifying the selection of the technology or
into its classification – most probably due to lack of information about the available tech-
nological options. Most professionals are familiar with one or a few technologies, and they
offer the well-known, regularly practiced technology for all kinds of problems (e.g. excava-
tion for solid soil and “pump and treat” for groundwater).
Small-scale and pilot experiments prior to technology planning and implementation are
very helpful in technology selection and enhance the accuracy of efficiency prediction. Nev-
ertheless, preliminary experiments are often missing from site-remediation tools, although
a simple experiment can help decide whether a technology is suitable to a certain site. Even
the best-fitting technological parameters can be estimated in advance using small-scale and
pilot experiments.
In the literature, the methods used for the treatment of contaminated soil are generally
grouped into three categories: “dig and dump” (excavation and containment); ex situ (on-site
or off-site treatment after removal); and in situ remediation (without removal). The reactor
approach recommended by the author of Chapter 2 does not consider these groups as main
categories (in the case of in situ treatments, the soil volume itself is considered the reactor),
but priority is given to the characteristics of the contaminants and the changes that they
undergo during remediation. The in situ/ex situ differentiation is not clear in many cases
because the water may be treated ex situ while the solid phase is treated in situ or vice versa.
The decision on the best combination of ex situ and in situ treatments is a management issue
and takes into consideration urgency, sensitivity of the surrounding environment, price of
excavation and transport, time and labor requirement, etc.
Most of the remedial technologies (with a few exceptions) can be carried out both in situ
and ex situ. Generally, operations that require extensive homogenization and/or which have
to be carried out in a slurry phase are difficult to perform in situ. Extremely high tempera-
tures are also difficult to apply in situ; however, there are examples that prove this wrong
(e.g. in situ vitrification at significant depths or subsurfaces inaccessible for excavation).
Chemical reagents and/or additives that could cause great risk due to the openness of the
reactor may give rise to special concern (see Chapter 2).
Biotechnologies are classified according to the extent of engineering actions required
since bioremediation is usually based on natural processes that are monitored or supervised –
also called monitored natural attenuation – or can be enhanced after identifying the bottle-
necks (see Chapter 3). The extent and type of action used to enhance natural remediation
show great variety. Aeration, pH adjustment, nutrient supplementation, or the exploitation of
the natural humidification process all need minor technological interventions with moderate
effects. However, changing the temperature or the redox potential and applying mobility/
availability-enhancing additives or microbial inoculants can have a stronger effect, though
additives or physicochemical parameters must always be homogeneously distributed in the
solid soil. Depending on the extent of the action required, soil remediation technologies
based on natural processes include the following (Gruiz, 2009, Chapter 3):
– Natural attenuation (NA);

– Monitored natural attenuation (MNA);
– Enhanced natural attenuation (ENA);
– In situ bioremediation;
– Ex situ bioremediation.
3 CLASSIFYING REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

As mentioned previously, the in situ/ex situ classification is worth redefining because every
soil phase can be treated in situ or ex situ by itself, regardless of the other phases. However, if
one of the soil phases is treated either by an in situ or ex situ method, the choice of treatment
method for the other two soil phases (or a fourth, i.e. the contaminant phase, which occurs
in some cases) is limited.
It is important to note that physicochemical and biological processes occur in the soil even
if the practitioner does not want them to occur or even if the remediation technology is not
based on them. Even if we pump out the groundwater or extract the soil gas and treat ground-
water or soil gas ex situ, the “treatment” of the remaining soil gas and groundwater (including
soil moisture) will continue in situ in the soil. If soil gas is extracted in order to remove the
volatile polluting substances, redox potential is increased in the vented soil and this will have
chemical consequences (e.g. oxidation state of the contaminants) and biological consequences
(e.g. activation of the aerobic soil microbiota and enhancement of biological processes). Pump-
ing out water generates increased subsurface water flows, lowers the water table and, as a con-
sequence, causes higher redox potential in the drained, now three-phase, soil layer.
3.1 Technology classification defined by the contaminants

Soil remediation technologies can also be classified according to the characteristics of the con-
taminant. Physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the contaminants determine basi-
cally the choice of technology, which depends on whether the contaminant tends to be strongly
sorbed; is volatile, water-soluble or can be made water-soluble; or can be degraded, mobilized,
or immobilized either physically, chemically, or biologically. The dynamic nature and tendency
of changes (partitioning among physical phases, changes in mobility or accumulation) and the
impact of the technology will determine technological efficiency; thus it is advisable to assess
it in preliminary experiments. It is also important to know whether the contaminating substance
consists of a single component or more; whether these components are similar to each other
(e.g. petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated biphenyls) or completely different (e.g. PAHs and
metals); or whether they make up a sequence according to their physical – chemical – biological
characteristics. Even in the case of a single contaminating chemical substance, it may be neces-
sary to apply different technologies for different soil phases. If there are several contaminants
in the soil, it is likely that some of the soil phases need combined remediation.
The choice of technology will be influenced by the type and strength of interactions between
the contaminant and the soil, i.e. the partition of the contaminant between the soil phases. This can
be estimated from the physicochemical characteristics of the contaminant and the characteristics
of the soil. If the uncertainty of the estimated interaction is high, laboratory experiments must be
used to determine partition and the partition’s dependence on the planned technological opera-
tions and parameters (pumping, aeration, heating, washing, additives, etc.). These data are almost
always needed for planning and optimizing – both for physicochemical and biological treatments.
The forecast on the fate and behavior of the contaminants in soil is based to a large
extent on their (i) degradability (photodegradability, hydrolytical instability and biodegrad-
ability), (ii) partitioning among physical phases (proportionate to Henry’s constant for gas-
liquid and to Kow for liquid-solid partitioning) and their (iii) adverse effects/toxicities or
other biological impacts (see also Gruiz et al., 2015; Hajdu & Gruiz, 2015). When designing
the technology, the behavior in the actual soil should be estimated from known substance
characteristics. Substance-based estimates (Henry, Kow, biodegradability, hazards) may vary
significantly depending on soil type, current soil status, microbial activity, the ecosystem’s
sensitivity, and on climatic and seasonal conditions. Some of the behavioral characteristics
of the contaminant in real soil can be estimated using models, but experiments are needed to
answer most of the questions. Since uncertainty is generally high, large-scale and pilot plant
experiments should be used to simulate real situations and to acquire refined information to
aid in the selection of the technology and planning of the parameters of operation.
3.2 Technologies based on contaminant mobilization

or immobilization
In line with the reactor approach (see Chapter 2), classification according to the fate of the
contaminant and the changes during performance of the technology takes priority. The risk
posed by the contaminant can be reduced by removal or various eliminations after convert-
ing it into a more mobile, more volatile, water-soluble, desorbable, and more bioavailable
form than the original. The opposite option is not to remove but to irreversibly immobilize
contaminants as much as possible.
Mobilized contaminants can be removed in unchanged (physical, chemical, or biologi-
cal extraction) or in transformed, or partially or completely degraded forms. Transformation
may cover volatilization, hydrolysis, complex formation, solubilization/micelle formation,

photodegradation, thermal degradation, chemical decomposition, oxidation/reduction, and
biological transformation and degradation.
Remediation based on immobilization involves a change of the contaminant into a
stable form in which it cannot be transported and its harmful biological effects cannot be
manifested; in other words, it cannot become volatile or water-soluble and it cannot be trans-
ported from the solid phase to the aqueous or gaseous phase to plants or animals and food
chains. The main processes are thermal stabilization, sorption, precipitation, chemical con-
densation, polymerization, oxidation, and biosorption.
Tables 1.1 and 1.2 show the classification of technologies according to whether the
remediation immobilizes or mobilizes the contaminant.
Table 1.1 Remediation based on the mobilization of soil contaminants.

Physicochemical Contaminated/treated medium
characteristics of Solid-phase soil Groundwater Soil air
the contaminant
Remediation based Remediation based on in situ Photocatalytic
on in situ desorption, photocatalytic degradation; degradation;
volatilization, abiotic reduction or chemical
solubilization, oxidation; aerobic and transformation
dispersion chemical or anaerobic biodegradation, or degradation,
biodegradation reductive dechlorination biodegradation
Phytovolatilization, phytodegradation
Volatile Soil-vapor desorption, Stripping technology (air Extraction of the soil
exhaustion and treatment stripping) in situ or ex situ gas and treatment
of the separated vapor by by conventional
conventional gas/vapor air/gas clean-up
clean-up technologies technologies
Enhanced desorption by Heat-enhanced In situ or ex situ
high air flow or by thermal evaporation from thermal degradation
technologies, in situ or groundwater or catalytic
separate gas/vapor treatment combustion
Remediation based Remediation based on in Remediation
on in situ desorption, situ solubilization, abiotic based on chemical
solubilization, reduction or oxidation, transformation
dispersion, chemical or aerobic and anaerobic oxidation, reduction
biodegradation biodegradation and biodegradation
Phytoremediation: extraction, degradation
Remediation based on electrokinetic operations
Remediation based on soil “Pump & treat”: groundwater Soil-vapor extraction
Water-soluble washing extraction and conventional and separate gas-
water-treatment phase treatment
Thermal enhancement Groundwater treatment Air stripping
of desorption and in permeable reactive
mobilization barriers or in simple or
cascade reactive soil zones
Thermal degradation Thermally enhanced Thermally enhanced
solubilization and desorption and
degradation degradation

characteristics of Solid-phase soil Groundwater Soil air
the contaminant
Remediation based on Remediation based Remediation based
physical, chemical or on in situ desorption, on in situ desorption,
biological transformation mobilization, solubilization, abiotic and biotic
or degradation abiotic and biotic degradation
degradation
Phytoextraction, phytodegradation Phytovolatilization
Electrokinetic operations
Remediation based on “Pump & treat”: Soil gas /vapor
physical, chemical or groundwater extraction extraction and
bioleaching and following and conventional conventional ex situ
leachate treatment treatment treatment
Desorption enhancement Mobilization by Soil gas /vapor
by additives: emulsifiers, solubilization, extraction enhanced
water-solubility-enhancing emulsifi cation by by increased air flow
agents, biosurfactants, etc. physicochemical and
Sorbable biological methods
or additives, then
groundwater
extraction
Thermal-desorption-based Remediation based on Soil gas /vapor
remediation technology mobilization by heat extraction enhanced
by thermal treatment
(low, medium, high
temperature )
Chemical extraction by organic or inorganic solvents
Grain-size fractionation
Soil incineration Soil
pyrolysis
Soil vitrification (partly
stabilization)-based
technologies
This kind of functional classification makes it easier for both professional decision mak-
ers and laymen owners and consumers to understand the nature of the technologies, for
many misunderstandings still persist: a typical case is confusing the technologies with the
operations. “Groundwater pumping,” “biodegradation,” or “pneumatic disaggregation,” etc.
are often called technologies although they are conventional operations or processes applied
for the special purpose of soil remediation. These operations can be used in entirely differ-
ent technologies and for various purposes. For example, groundwater pumping is used for
lowering the water table, setting groundwater flow direction, recycling groundwater, treating
groundwater on the surface in different physicochemical-biological technologies. Soil gas
extraction may have the purpose of treatment on the surface, recycling or heating soil gas,
in situ bioventing, etc.
Table 1.2 Remediation based on the immobilization of contaminants.

characteristics of Solid phase of the soil Groundwater Soil air
the contaminant
Physical immobilization by shifting partition (e.g. by sorption) toward the
solid phase
Chemical immobilization by reactive soil additives (in situ) or reactive filling
Volatile of the reactor (ex situ)
Biological immobilization: direct or indirect biological contribution
Containment
Physicochemical immobilization (sorption, precipitation)
Biological immobilization directly, e.g. in living cells or in biofilms, or
indirectly by producing immobilizing agents or creating environmental
conditions such as pH, redox beneficial for immobilization
Enhanced sorption-based technologies, e.g. by immobilizing additives,
sorption and precipitation enhancing or solubility and mobility reducing
physicochemical or biological impacts
Phytostabilization Biofiltration & Vapor uptake by roots
rhizofiltration
Water-soluble
Chemical oxidation/reduction
Other chemical reactions such as condensation or polymerization
Immobilization/stabilization by in situ reactive
zones, e.g. low redox zone or limestone for
metals in acidic drain water
Immobilization on
the filling of fix or
replaceable permeable
reactive barriers
Containment, encapsulation of the contaminated soil volume
Sorbable Sorption-based technologies and sorption enhancement
Physicochemical stabilization, solubility reduction, precipitation
Chemical oxidation/reduction
Biological immobilization
Phytostabilization Rhizofiltration
Block formation with
physicochemical
stabilization
Vitrification, ceramic
embedding with thermal
stabilization
When planning remediation and selecting the appropriate technology combinations, one
has to consider that not only does the mobility and mobilizability of contaminants differ,
but mobility of the soil phases is also greatly dissimilar depending on the hydrogeological
characteristics of the site and the interventions which may influence it. Common transport
of a solid-bound substance consists of desorption, solubilization in water and transport by
diffusion or water flow, and by uptake by plants or animals, followed by food chains or food
webs. The technology can modify and utilize these steps.
Before interpreting Table 1.1, an explanation is necessary for why degradation is
included in the main group of mobilization. Degradation typically reduces the size of
the molecule. This reduced size generally leads to increased mobility. Degradation is
often partial; even if a substance can be degraded completely in theory, it never happens
fully in the environment. The resulting temporary final products or intermediates may
be harmful. Only some of the degradation processes leads to harmless mineral end prod-
ucts, so we consider it reasonable not to create a separate class for the different types of
degradations, which would allow the misleading conclusion of ultimate degradation with
harmless end products. The classification system presented considers certain contaminant
transformations and degradations as special mobilization types where a chemical or bio-
logical impact changes the molecule structure, thus making the molecule more mobile
and available.
Those processes that ensure ultimate photodegradation, hydrolysis or biodegradation
with the possibility of the contaminant’s complete elimination without significant amounts
of harmful residues are highly favorable and recommendable for the remediation. However,
intermediates and degradation products should be thoroughly assessed.
Tables 1.1 and 1.2 show that the prime residence phase of a contaminant is the result of
partitioning. This means that its presence in soil air, soil water, or soil solid may be domi-
nant but still partial: some part of the contaminant is present in other interacting phases. The
selection of a technology from one specific column of the tables indicates that the equilib-
rium is overwhelmingly shifted into one direction and the majority of the contaminant is
present in one certain physical phase. Partitioning of the contaminants shows great variety;
therefore the same technology may appear in two neighboring columns. If a contaminant
is distributed to a similar extent between two soil phases, two different technologies may
be necessary for remediation of the two physical phases concerned. Dynamic tests and/or
fugacity models can be used to calculate the quantitative measure of mobilization tendency
(by definition, fugacity is the measure of the tendency of a substance to escape from a het-
erogeneous system).
Water-soluble contaminants may occur in each of the soil moisture, the capillary fringe,
or in the groundwater (GW). In addition to the water dissolved/solubilized forms, the con-
taminant may appear as a non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL).
The scheme in Figure 1.2 provides a summary overview on the most common
mobilization-based technological options and Figure 1.3 on the most important tech-
nological operations that play a role in the contaminant-mobilization-based soil
remediation.
Both mobilization and immobilization are based on a shift in partitioning in the
desired direction (increased or reduced mobility) by physicochemical or biological modi-
fication of the contaminant, the soil itself, or soil conditions (temperature, pH, redox
potential, materials present). The tables show very few implications for the implementa-
tion type “in situ” or “ex situ” as both can be realistic options depending only on manage-
rial considerations.
Figure 1.4 provides a summary overview of immobilization-based technological options
and Figure 1.5 on the technological operations in contaminant-immobilization/stabilization-
based soil remediation.
Figure 1.2 Bases of remediation of soils polluted by mobilizable and degradable contaminants.
Figure 1.3 Mobilization and removal or degradation of soil contaminants.

Figure 1.4 Immobilization/stabilization-based remediation for non-mobilizable, non-degradable
contaminants.
Figure 1.5 Stabilization of non-mobilizable, non-degradable soil contaminants.

3.3 Soil treatment technologies based on physical,

chemical, and biological processes
Purely physical, chemical, or biological processes can rarely be used and a combination
of several methods is more typical, e.g. biological processes in combination with physical,
chemical, or thermal treatment in order to enhance the prime biological process. Combined
technology applications are needed to remediate several soil phases with various contami-
nants. Treatments may target the contaminating molecules, the soil phases, or both. Ground-
water extraction is just an operation most often targeting the groundwater together with its
content without contaminant-specific considerations. Chemical treatment of any soil phase is
typically a reaction between the contaminant and a reagent, e.g. organic substances and per-
oxide. Physical treatment may change environmental conditions, water flows, particle sizes,
electric charge, etc. Living organisms may cause direct physicochemical changes in the con-
taminant (typically biotransformation, i.e. a chemical change in the contaminant caused by
biomolecules produced in situ) or may have indirect effects via changing the conditions (e.g.
consumption of air, lowering redox potential by oxygen and nitrate consumption, producing
biosurfactants or hydrogen sulfide [H2S] that react with the contaminating metals).
The most common physical soil treatment technology is extraction of contaminated
soil gas and groundwater for surface treatment. These simple physical operations have a
series of chemical and biological consequences in the soil: the space that was occupied by
the extracted phases is now filled with new (fresh) contaminated or less-contaminated air
or water, but air can also take the place of water. This means that a new equilibrium will be
established in the soil, accompanied by sorption–desorption, dissolution–precipitation, evap-
oration–precipitation, etc. Soil gas extraction not only enhances evaporation and desorption
in the pore volume of the three-phase soil, but it provides fresh air for the microorganisms
living in soil pores, activating their metabolic functions and activity. If the reduction in water
level brought about by groundwater extraction desaturates a layer of the originally saturated
soil, this increases redox potential so that formerly anoxic conditions become aerobic. This
leads to major changes in the composition and functioning of soil microbiota and may also
directly influence the chemical form of contaminants.
Physicochemical reactions are used extensively for the treatment of contaminants,
mainly for those that occur in dissolved and sorbed forms. The objective of the chemical
transformation can be the following:
– Enhancement of mobility (volatilization, solubilization by enhanced dissolution, emul-

sification, or dispergation in water, and enhancing accessibility/availability);
– Immobilization (transforming the substance into an insoluble form by precipitation,
sorption enhancement, condensation, polymerization, incorporation into stable miner-
als or humus aggregates); or
– Full or partial chemical degradation, or otherwise changing the components (e.g. by
transformation, condensation, polymerization) that are responsible for adverse effects
such as toxicity, mutagenicity, etc. (e.g. using dechlorination).
The applicable chemical reactions are photolysis, photodegradation, hydrolysis, oxida-

tion, reduction, substitution, dechlorination, condensation, polymerization, etc.
Thermal processes increase the temperature of the soil by applying low, medium, high,
or extremely high temperatures. Soil can be heated both ex situ or in situ using temperatures
as high as 100–120°C for a short period and without damaging the soil and its biology. The
100–800°C temperature range is used to enhance desorption, mainly ex situ, in closed reac-
tors, but in situ application is becoming more and more widespread. Surprisingly, soil can eas-
ily be revitalized after being heated up to 100–350°C over a short time. The high-temperature
thermal methods can also be used for deeper soil layers or surface water sediments up to
temperatures that melt the silicates (1200°C or higher: this involves vitrification).
Electrokinetic technologies use electric potential difference for the transportation within
the soil and collection of charged molecules on the electrodes placed into soil (see Chapter 9).
Biotechnologies can be applied to both soil gas and groundwater and to the entire soil.
Among the various biotechnologies, those based on biodegradation play a special role since
the biodegrading organisms fully or partially utilize the contaminant in their energy-producing
processes, thus removing them from the environment. In addition to energy production, a
portion of organic materials and catabolic products is assimilated, i.e. it is incorporated into
the protoplasm of soil microbes through biosynthesis. Another mechanism is cometabolic
degradation when the xenobiotic substance is accepted by the microorganism’s degrading
enzyme system (when the xenobiotic’s 3D structure is similar to common enzyme sub-
strates). However, energy cannot be produced from this process (the enzymes of the entire
electron-transport chain do not accept the xenobiotic as a substrate), so an additional energy
source (applied as an additive in the remediation technology) is necessary to continuously
maintain the degradation process (see more in Chapter 5). The cometabolic processes may
be accompanied by the hazard of cometabolic end products, which can be more toxic than
the initial contaminant itself. Therefore, a technology based on cometabolic degradation
needs careful design and checks.
Some biotechnologies use specific – separately produced – enzymes of micro- or mac-
roorganisms and apply them in an organism-free form to the soil: these are the so-called
enzyme technologies. Most of the contaminants, especially mixtures, require the concerted
cooperation of several enzymes, and that is why the use of enzymes for soil remediation
needs a thorough selection of commercially available products or a tailor-made enzyme
preparation produced by organisms adapted to the target mixture.
In addition to biotransformation- and biodegradation-based soil remediation, the indi-
rect biological processes that change the pH or redox potential of the soil are also significant.
Risk reduction of the contaminants can be achieved by the physicochemical consequences of
the biologically induced changes in certain soil parameters in the following ways:
– Chemically oxidizing the contaminants;

– Transforming them into an insoluble chemical form;
– Precipitating them;
– Leaching them from the soil by acidification.
These processes can serve as a basis of remediation.

Cometabolic and symbiotic contaminant transformations can be classified within the
group of indirect biological effect, where one of the partners makes the other enter into
action or finalize biotransformation. Examples for that are the aerobic soil bacteria consum-
ing soil oxygen to give room for facultative and anoxic microorganisms or the rhizosphere
community stimulating the growth of remediating plants by nutrient supply. Figure 1.6 pro-
vides an overview of indirect biological effects playing a role in physicochemical and bio-
logical transformation of soil contaminants.
Figure 1.6 Indirect biological effects that may play a role in soil remediation.
Technologies that use plants or plant microorganisms make up a separate group of bio-
technologies. The enzyme system of plants can extract and accumulate primarily metal-type
contaminants from the soil, evaporate (volatilize), degrade, and transform the volatile ones
or immobilize (stabilize) the soil and its contaminants. With the help of plant microorgan-
isms, it is possible to further decrease the risk posed by soil contaminants. The bacteria of
the rhizosphere can directly transfer the mineralized organic contaminants next to the plant’s
roots. The “living machine” type technologies (see more in Chapter 4) are based on this
phenomenon. They are used for the remediation of groundwater and the soil’s root zones and
also for surface waters and sediments. When toxic metals are also present, they may accu-
mulate in the root zone and/or be taken up by the plant material of the artificial ecosystem
called “living machine.”
A detailed overview of soil bioremediation is presented in Chapter 5.
4 TREATMENT OF INDIVIDUAL SOIL PHASES

As indicated earlier, contaminants may be partially present in each physical soil phase
depending on their partitioning between gaseous, liquid, and solid phases (characterized
by Kow and Henry’s law) and the properties of the soil (sandy, loamy, clayey). This partial
presence can theoretically vary between 1 and 99% in each physical soil phase but domi-
nant presence typically occurs in only one or two: water-soluble contaminants are mainly
distributed between water and solid, volatile ones between gas and liquid or gas and solid,
sorbable ones are chiefly bound to the solid soil phase and only a small fraction to soil water
or soil gas. Unfortunately, this “small” part may still pose high risk, given that water and air
are mobile phases and their exposure routes (respiration, drinking) result in more intake of
mobile contaminants by sensitive target organs than ingestion of soil solid or plant uptake.
This fact is mirrored by risk-based soil quality criteria: SQCsoil is generally several orders of
magnitude greater than SQCgroundwater.
Since soil is a dynamic system, contaminant partition never reaches equilibrium. Par-
titioning therefore changes all the time, and the direction of the processes depends on con-
centration gradients and environmental conditions. The source of pollution, i.e. which soil
phase initially hosted a contaminant and how much of it, is the prime determining factor of
contaminant distribution. If a sorbable contaminant enters the groundwater, a large part of it
is sorbed to the solid phase, which temporarily reduces the concentration in water but creates
a risky accumulation. If a large amount of a water-soluble contaminant exceeding sorption
capacity enters the three-phase soil, precipitation-infiltration and gravitation will sooner or
later transport it to the groundwater.
4.1 Soil gas and vapor

Soil contaminants contained in the gaseous and vapor phase can be treated after extraction
together with the contaminated soil gas or groundwater. Desorption and/or volatilization
(enhanced by air flow and heat input) can purge contaminants from the solid soil phase and
air stripping can do the same from water. Figure 1.7 shows the simplest method for soil air
extraction from the vadose zone and its following ex situ treatment. Air resupply in this case
is ensured by atmospheric air inflow through the soil surface. Instead of a simple extraction
well, a combined well can also be used, which contains a treatment unit based on any physi-
cochemical or biological gas/vapor treatment method.
Figure 1.7 Ex situ and in-well soil air treatment.

Figure 1.8 Enhancement of soil gas/vapor extraction from the two- and three-phase soil by air and
heat injection and recirculation.
Figure 1.8 shows the cases when soil gas flow is enhanced by higher rate flow and/or
heat. The flow can be enhanced and controlled by passive air inlet into a certain soil depth or
by the use of air injection wells under pressure. Another option for gas flow control and treat-
ment enhancement can be recirculation. Figure 1.8 shows an optional soil gas treatment (with
an inserted treatment unit) and recirculation alternatively into the three- or two-phase soil.
Contaminated soil air is treated after extraction in the same way as any contaminated air
or gas. Contaminant-specific sorption (on solid filters or sorbers, in wet scrubbers, or in bio-
filters) can be used to separate, recover, or transform gaseous or vapor-state contaminants.
Physicochemical and thermal degradation, e.g. wet oxidation or incineration (with or without
a catalyst), photochemical degradation, and destruction by oxidation or by other chemical
reactions, as well as biodegradation are feasible options for treating gaseous and vapor-state
soil contaminants. The prerequisite is that transport processes, reactions and reactors ensure
the proper treatment technology including the correct mass balances, sufficient residential
and contact times, and other technological conditions. Operations and technologies as well
as their optimal compilation should consider contaminant vapor, soil characteristics, and
the size of the area and select in situ or ex situ physical, chemical, or biological methods
accordingly. Polluted soil gas can be treated using filters, sorbers, or reactors in the soil and
controlled subsurface air flow instead of using external equipment.
A special case of soil air/gas treatment is the removal of the accumulated products of
biological activities – typically CO2, the inhibitory end product of aerobic biodegradation –
and supply oxygen at the same time to optimize aerobic biodegradation.
If the remediation of the contaminant is more efficient in three-phase soil due to the
use of gas-phase-based mobilization or biodegradation, groundwater lowering is helpful.
Figure 1.9 Soil aeration to enhance aerobic biodegradation in three- and two-phase soil by raising air
flow in the vadose zone, deepening three-phase soil by groundwater lowering or by aerat-
ing two-phase soil.
For example the capillary fringe polluted by volatile or semivolatile contaminants can more
easily be treated by vapor suction from or aerobic biodegradation in the aerated three-phase
soil (see Figure 1.9).
While volatile contaminants can be removed together with the soil gas and the efficiency
increased by higher flow rate, the semivolatiles should be desorbed by thermal enhancement
at various temperatures (from 30°C to 800°C) both by a subsurface heating system or in
desorber equipment combined with contaminated air treatment technologies.
4.2 Soil water and groundwater

Contaminated groundwater can be collected and treated in free surface wells or ponds,
in extraction or extraction/injection wells, or first extracted and then treated by any
existing batch or continuous technology. Groundwater is often treated in situ in the soil
without using wells just by in situ aeration, heating, pH adjustment, or by directly inject-
ing reactive agents. Groundwater flow can be utilized to create an in situ flow-through
reactor packed with the soil itself or a reactive filling (permeable reactive barriers =
PRB) (Figure 1.10).
Extracted polluted groundwater is treated like any wastewater in simple reactors or
complex reactor systems. Most frequently, degradation- or removal-based technologies are
applied to eliminate the contaminant. The technology is usually performed on site after water
extraction, and may be phase separation, decanting, filtration, physical sorption, chemisorp-
tion, precipitation from solution, or other chemical transformations, mainly oxidation or
reduction. Other common methods are stripping (removal of gas or vapor from water); ther-
mal treatment to evaporate volatile contaminants; high-temperature thermal treatment for
the degradation of organic matter (wet oxidation, thermal degradation); and methods based
on electrokinetic and biological processes (mainly biodegradation). In most cases the suit-
able selection is a combination of the methods mentioned earlier.
Conventionally, the groundwater contaminated by volatile contaminants is extracted
and stripped on the surface but water-dissolved volatile contaminants can also be stripped in
Figure 1.10 Ex situ and in situ groundwater treatment options: after extraction, in well or by PRB.
Figure 1.11 Treatment of volatiles-contaminated groundwater by ex situ or in-well stripping.
subsurface wells. In this case, contaminated air from the stripper is extracted to the surface
and treated further, contained, or disposed of as shown in Figure 1.11.
In situ groundwater treatment (aeration or additives, etc.) is applied to two-phase
soil but it can also be used for a separate aqueous phase collected in wells, for example in
wells specially designed for stripping, skimming, and other physicochemical or biological/
biochemical treatments. The residential time of the water in the well should be specified
according to the time requirement of the treatment process. Another innovative solution is
the application of underground permeable reactive barriers, which are reactive walls (Meg-
gyes et al., 2009) or reactive zones arranged in the path of groundwater flow and filled
with reactive material. Reactive barriers are underground trenches filled with contaminant-
specific sorbents, filters, biofilters, alkalic or acidic, oxidizing or reducing filling, etc. and
their thickness ensures the necessary contact time. Figure 1.12 shows the two main types
of arrangement, the continuous permeable barrier and the funnel and gate type assembly.
The funnel serves to direct the water flow to the gate and the “gate” may represent a wide
variety of water treatment solutions from a simple, filled flow-through system to multi-unit
subsurface treatment lines with vessels and reactors to collect, treat, and drain – thus fully
controlling the groundwater. The passive systems utilize the energy of the groundwater flow
and no additional energy source is implemented for the transport of the water to be treated.
An important requirement of these underground reactive structures is that they must not
adversely change water pathway and flow rate.
Full or partial recirculation of ex situ treated groundwater may be necessary: the treated
groundwater can be returned into either the saturated or unsaturated soil zone. To return
groundwater into the unsaturated zone, infiltration is applied via the surface with the help of
shallow or deep infiltration ditches, trenches, underground injectors, perforated tubes or a
network of tubes. The large amounts of water infiltrating through the unsaturated zone can
wash out not only contaminants but also nutrients and useful soil components, which means
that extensive recirculation can lead to soil damage. The washing out of the water-soluble
contaminants from the unsaturated zone to the groundwater is acceptable only under lim-
ited conditions and with perfect emission control. Recirculation or guiding the groundwater
treated in reactive barriers or reactive zones in the correct direction could also be necessary;
in such cases the passive system should be supplied by pumps, taps, and tanks.
To control contaminated groundwater flow, continuous water extraction or circulation
wells can be used. A stably maintained depression directs the dissolved contaminant flow
toward the extraction well and limits the spread of the contaminant (the scheme on the left
on Figure 1.13).
Figure 1.12 In situ groundwater treatment with continuous and funnel and gate-type permeable reac-
tive barriers.
Figure 1.13 Controlling subsurface water flow by depression and circulation/vacuum wells.
The treatment of contaminated groundwater in wells is based on a vacuum created in the

well, high enough to lift the water, but not to pump it out to the surface; thus the water level
will rise in the well and reach the unsaturated zone. The well is perforated in such a way that
the higher column of water infiltrates the unsaturated soil. Therefore, a flow develops between
the well bottom and the perforated part at a higher level in the unsaturated zone. The well
becomes a flow-through reactor in which water treatment takes place, enabling stripping,
heating, and the addition of additives or chemical reagents. Nutrients and other additives
can also be introduced into the groundwater or the soil through the well. The well can be
considered a mixed reactor or a vertical tube reactor that uses recirculation and the portion
of the well between its bottom and the perforation is continuously replaced depending on the
groundwater flow rate. In addition, the well can be used to control water cycling in its impact
zone, following an arbitrarily created 3D pattern. Wells that already perform this function
are called circulation wells (the scheme on the right in Figure 1.13). Additives and reagents
injected into the well can be sent into the soil volume reached by the circulating water and
the groundwater flowing through the volume reached by the circulation. Reactive units can
be built into circulation wells utilizing the created water flow in the well volume, which func-
tion as a reactor for in-well air stripping (air injection is necessary), for additives and reagents
addition or for containing a permeable reactive packing that the water flows through.
Analogously, the permeable reactive barrier can also be considered a flow-through
solid-phase reactor or a filled column. The reactive process may be adsorption, absorption,
oxidation, reduction, or any other chemical reaction or biological transformation, includ-
ing biodegradation. The polluted groundwater flows continuously through the filled reactor,
driven by the elevation difference, i.e. the natural groundwater flow. These natural flow cir-
cumstances can be influenced by manipulating the flow route and pressures (Meggyes et al.,
2009). Hydrogeology of the surrounding soil is an important “technological parameter” in
these cases as it (also) determines flow parameters.
Chemical oxidation is one of the most widespread degradation-based methods for
organic groundwater pollutants such as chlorinated solvents and petroleum hydrocarbons.
Persulfate is generally used in the form of peroxydisulfate (S2O82−). It easily dissolves in

water, leaves no harmful by-products and is easier to handle compared to peroxide or ozone.
Persulfate itself is reactive but sulfate radicals derived from the persulfate by activation
degrade a wider range of contaminants and work faster. The most common activator is iron
II (ferrous iron) but zero valent iron (ZVI) and many other agents can be applied as catalysts:
UV, heat, high pH, transition metals, and hydrogen peroxide.
Permanganate in the form of potassium (KMnO4) or sodium permanganate (NaMnO4)
is applied in solution for chlorinated solvents such as perchloroethylene (PCE), trichloro-
ethylene (TCE) and vinyl chloride (VC). It is not efficient enough for petroleum products.
When hydrogen peroxide is mixed with iron III (ferric iron) (Fenton’s reagent), hydroxyl
radicals (OH) are formed that efficiently oxidize both chlorinated solvents and petroleum
hydrocarbons. This is a very rapid, non-specific (for a wide range of organic compounds),
and cheap oxidizing agent for remediation. An application risk to manage is the production
of explosive off-gases. Chelated iron can catalyze the reaction at neutral pH.
Biological methods for groundwater remediation are used both ex situ and in situ.
Aerobic and anaerobic reactor technologies are feasible options for ex situ biological
groundwater treatment. They include the following:
– Activated sludge or biofilm reactors;

– Pond treatment;
– Rhizospheric wastewater treatment using wetland and aquatic plants combined with
microbes in man-made ponds, marshes or wetlands in vertical flow-through or tidal
arrangements;
– Ecoengineering technologies, e.g. the combination of pond treatment and rhizospheric
wastewater treatment for water and sediment treatment, known as “living machines”
(see details in Chapter 4).
In situ biological treatment of the groundwater can be performed in the saturated zone
of the soil where the redox potential is usually low or negative. Thus, there are two options to
influence the biological process: either the redox conditions are pushed towards more inten-
sive aerobic biodegradation or the original redox potential is maintained and the effective-
ness of the existing biological processes is enhanced by redox potential and pH adjustment.
Our choice depends on what redox potential is optimal for the microbiota to degrade the
contaminants. Other possibilities for intensification of the biological groundwater decontam-
ination are addition of nutrients and energy sources, adjustment of the temperature and the
ion/dissolved material concentrations or addition of specific microorganisms. Figure 1.14
summarizes the in situ biological groundwater treatment options based on the microbiologi-
cal and plant-based transformation of the contaminants.
When groundwater contaminants originate from the solid phase, partitioning modifying
agents are useful tools aimed at either solubilizing or stabilizing. Solubilizing agents facilitate
a shift in partition toward the liquid phase (mobilization by desorption, dissolution, solubiliza-
tion, micelle formation and emulsification, etc.). Stabilizing agents strengthen sorption of con-
taminant molecules onto (adsorption) or into (absorption) the solid phase by physicochemical
processes (condensation, polymerization, humidification, or other type of incorporation).
Continuous control of the “reaction mixture” is needed to achieve enhanced in situ
groundwater remediation, i.e. the groundwater being treated and the environmental condi-
tions in the soil should be monitored. The technological parameters can be specified based
Figure 1.14 In situ groundwater remediation based on intensified and controlled microbial and plant
activities.
on technology monitoring data, primarily by controlling material flow (inputs and outputs)
and the concentrations of contaminants, metabolites and additives, the pH, and the redox
potential (see also Gruiz & Fenyvesi, 2016).
Air, ozone, or compounds that supply oxygen (hydrogen peroxide, magnesium perox-
ide, ORC: oxygen release compound, etc.) can be introduced into the saturated zone to make
it more aerobic. Since hydrogen peroxide is toxic to the soil microbiota, a finely tuned dos-
age is needed to prevent overloading the soil with it.
Some peroxide derivatives do not dissolve well. They decompose slowly and are only
slightly toxic, and they can therefore provide the aerobic microorganisms with oxygen over
a long period of time in the following process: CaO2 + 2H2O = Ca(OH)2 + 2O2+ H2O.
Calcium peroxide (CaO2) and magnesium peroxide (MgO2) serve as long-term sources
of oxygen as they are orders of magnitude less water-soluble than sodium percarbonate
(2Na2CO3 × 3H2O2).
Some oxidants produce large amounts of reduced products, which may cause clogging
and reduce the permeability of the soil: these are limiting factors for in situ application but
may be useful in ex situ technologies.
Alternative forms of respiration such as nitrate and sulfate respiration (using facultative
anaerobic microorganisms) are applied to low-redox-potential microbiological degradation.
These processes can be optimized by ensuring constant concentrations of nitrates and sulfates.
Obligate anaerobic microorganisms that work under negative redox potential use car-
bonate respiration. This type of respiration can be optimized by ensuring negative redox
potential (also in order to compensate for the higher value of inflowing groundwater). This
can be done by supplying biodegradable substrates for nitrate- and sulfate-respiring faculta-
tive anaerobes, which can lower the redox potential by utilizing nitrates and sulfates.
If the soil microbiota cannot directly transform the contaminant into energy but can
decompose it through cometabolism, an energy source must be provided.
It is important to take into consideration in planning and maintaining the technology that
the in situ soil/groundwater volume – the “quasi-reactor” – is in most cases a flow-through sys-
tem with inputs and outputs characteristic of the geological/pedological context. Thus, com-
pensating for the changes caused by the ongoing decontamination does not suffice to maintain
optimal conditions in this reactor volume. It is also necessary to counteract the changes due
to uncontrolled inflows causing dilution, concentration, pH, and redox potential changes and
sometimes unknown material flows and other physicochemical or biological impacts.
Similar to the ex situ groundwater treatment, a multi-stage water treatment process
within the soil can be devised creating different conditions and spatial gradients in the des-
ignated soil volumes. Figure 1.15 shows the cascade arrangement of a biological water treat-
ment option and Figure 1.16 demonstrates the ex situ and the in situ placement of this layout.
By manipulating the treatment volumes within the soil, stable conditions can be reached
in favor of the desired physicochemical or biological process. Typical in situ interventions are
these: aeration or injection of oxygen release compounds, pH and redox adjusters, surfactants,
chemical reagents, nutrients, energy sources for cometabolic degradation, etc. While the tech-
nological stages of the ex situ groundwater treatment are established in independent reactors in
a cascade layout, the designated volumes of the soil can be considered reactors that have differ-
ent optima and the natural or artificial groundwater flow directs the water through the specifi-
cally designed soil volumes. This way an aerobic stage can be added (via aeration or another
type of oxygen supply) after an anaerobic groundwater treatment step (lowering the redox
potential by substrate addition) (see Figure 1.16) or an alkalic volume after an acidic one, and
so on. The residence time can be determined from the flow rate and the soil volume’s dimen-
sion in the flow direction. In practice the reaction time will determine the necessary size of this
soil volume; this is equal to the pass time of the groundwater through the treatment volume.
Other bio- and ecotechnologies that use vegetation for in situ groundwater treatment are
man-made ponds and wetlands and in situ rhizofiltration (see Chapter 4). The essence of the
latter is usually that the root-zone microorganisms degrade the contaminants and transform
Figure 1.15 Generic scheme of cascade arrangement for biological groundwater treatment.The stages
and the sequence are optional.
Figure 1.16 A two-stage arrangement for in situ (left) and ex situ (right) biological groundwater treat-
ment: the anaerobic is followed by an aerobic biodegradation stage.
them into a mineralized form to be utilized by plants. Non-degradable contaminants are

immobilized at the same time. Rhizofiltration treatment can be used as follows:
– In surface waters and sediments;

– Under periodically flooded (tidal type) wetland-like arrangements (wetlands, ponds, reactors);
– In wetlands, ponds or in hydroponic reactors with horizontal water flow;
– In water flowing underground; in this case, a good water permeability through the soil
must be ensured over the long term;
– In wastewater (using any of the previously listed solutions).
4.3 Treatment of the solid-phase soil

Treatment of the three-phase soil is possible by treating the three physical phases together
without separating them or only one or two phases after separation. It depends on both the
contaminant(s) (type, number and partitioning between soil phases) and the soil (type, tex-
ture, groundwater level and flux). The whole soil (three-phase soil) can be treated either ex
situ after excavating it from the original location or in situ in its original location. In situ soil
treatment can be carried out as follows:
– In a completely undisturbed soil volume (analogous to a solid-phase batch reactor);

– In an undisturbed solid phase (analogous to a flow-through filled column);
– By extracting and recirculating the contaminated mobile soil phases (analogous to a feedback
reactor). The feedback can be either connected to the saturated or the unsaturated soil layers.
The summary Figure of 1.17 differentiates the so called “in situ” soil remediation ver-
sions, emphasizing that it is important to design which soil phases are treated in situ and
which are not.
Figure 1.17 Version of in situ soil remediation: the solid phase is treated in situ, the mobile phases are
optionally treated in situ or ex situ. If the solid phase is removed, soil remediation is called ex situ.
4.3.1 Physicochemical methods

Of the physical and chemical methods that can be used to treat the whole soil, methods based
on mobilization of the contaminants are most widespread:
– Extraction/recirculation of soil gas in order to remove the volatile components from

the soil, thus enhancing desorption and activating the soil microbiota.
– Groundwater extraction and recirculation to remove the contaminant from the whole
soil, i.e. both from soil water and soil solid. Increased water flow can enhance desorp-
tion and dissolution. Mobilizing agents can be added with recycled water. This case
can be considered in situ soil washing. It is worth differentiating between two-phase
and three-phase soil washing. While two-phase soil can be purged both by vertical and
horizontal water flows, the three-phase soil can only be by vertical flows, except when
temporarily flooded. Spontaneous or directed vertical water flows for leaching the three-
phase soil can be combined with the use of additives and the leachate can be collected
before reaching the water table or alternatively extracted together with the groundwater.
The latter solution is acceptable only when the groundwater is also contaminated and
should be extracted anyway.
– Ex situ soil washing means the mechanical and/or chemical washing of the three-
phase soil or the solid phase only. Its application is recommended for water-soluble
contaminants and for those that can be transformed into a water-soluble form. One of
the versions of mechanical washing involves the application of high-pressure
washers. Here, when applying a strong shear force, not only are the water-soluble
contaminants removed from the surface of the soil particles, but also the absorbed
contaminants.
These types of treatments are only feasible for in situ soil remediation if the dominant
part of the contaminant is removable by the mobile and extractable soil phases. If the solid
phase functions as an infinite source due to a high solid/liquid partitioning, the removal of
the mobile soil phases has low remediation efficiency. Ex situ washing combined with par-
ticle size fractionation and physicochemical treatments can rescue the solid phase from most
of the contaminants and is useful for both soil and sediments.
Nowadays, ex situ soil washing is carried out in mobile soil treatment facilities that
integrate a series of physical and chemical processes and the individual operations can be
purposefully combined (Figure 1.18). Several types of contaminated soil can be treated in
these facilities because the technology can be adjusted flexibly to the contaminant and soil
type. Treatment operations in slurry-state soils and sediments combine homogenization;
grain-size fractionation; precipitation; sedimentation; flotation; washing with water or with
additives; extraction; implementation of chemical reactions; aeration; and biological treat-
ment. Sieves, jiggers, centrifuges, cyclones, and filters are used for the separation of the
treated phases or those to be treated. Conveyor belts and screws are used to transport the soil
to be treated. The same facilities are also suitable to treat dredged sediment slurries as well
as wastes that occur in slurry form or as silts.
In situ soil washing is a method in which the solid phase is washed in situ, and the
washing water is treated ex situ after extraction. In situ water washing can affect the
saturated zone of the soil by transporting the pollution there (Figure 1.19). The following
Figure 1.18 Scheme of a versatile soil washing plant.
Figure 1.19 In situ washing of the contaminated soil volume between two wells.
options can protect the uncontaminated saturated zone against the negative impacts of
the washing water:
– Using a hydraulic barrier (negative pressure in the relevant soil volume);

– Extracting the used water downstream of the groundwater flow and recycling it upstream.
If water washing is extended to the unsaturated zone of the soil, then the washing water
has to flow through the contaminated unsaturated soil volume (infiltration from the sur-
face, a ditch, perforated pipe network or injection), and it has to be gathered in the aquifer
and extracted from there. This kind of operation increases the environmental risk since it
contaminates the groundwater (temporarily); thus, it is advised to only apply it in cases
where the groundwater is already contaminated and further pollution can be satisfactorily
prevented using a hydraulic barrier or by surrounding the treated site with a cut-off wall or
permeable reactive barrier.
Another basic requirement for using in situ soil washing is that the contaminant should
be water-soluble or easily solubilizable to preclude the necessity of vast amounts of wash-
ing water to remove a contaminant from the soil. The proportions are determined not only
by water solubility of the contaminant but also by the partition coefficient between the solid
phase and the groundwater (Kp = csoil/cwater), which is also influenced by the characteristics
of the soil. The determination of Kp is fundamental in planning every operation based on
transport between soil phases. The partition coefficient of single organic contaminants can
be calculated from the Kow, but measured data are more reliable as they are based on actual
site conditions.
Properly chosen detergents (surfactants, tensides) can increase the effectiveness of soil
washing, but they can also be harmful to soil biota; thus its in situ application may be accom-
panied by an increased environmental risk. The use of natural solubilizing or complexing
agents is usually preferred (Fenyvesi et al., 2009). A large number of soil microorganisms
produce so-called biosurfactants to mobilize their nutrients. In spite of several years of
research and development in this field and relative availability of biosurfactants (produced
for food and cosmetics industry purposes), biosurfactant-facilitated remediation is uncom-
mon and mainly used for toxic metal mobilization (Hong et al., 2002; Mulligan & Wang,
2006; Wang & Mulligan, 2009).
Soil grain-size fractionation can itself be the basis of decontamination, since a large
percentage of the contaminants are bound to colloidal organic matter (humus) or clay frac-
tions that make up only a small portion of the soil (usually less than 5–10%). If the separa-
tion of these polluted fractions according to grain size or density can be achieved, then a
large percentage of the soil becomes harmless and generally only the humus or clay fractions
will require further treatment.
Solvent extraction can be applied using a solvent in place of water. Any kind of solvent
that dissolves contaminants and does not cause an unacceptable level of damage to the soil
can be used for the extraction. Acidic, alkaline, or organic solvent extractions are mainly
used ex situ due to operational needs and the risks posed by the emissions but a properly
controlled in situ “quasi-reactor” can also provide a solution.
4.3.2 Thermal methods

Thermal methods can be efficient for the treatment of the whole soil when contaminated
with volatile, volatilizable, thermally mobilizable, or degradable contaminants. In some
cases stabilization can also be achieved using thermal techniques. Raising the temperature
by a few degrees enhances volatility, solubility, and the extent of desorption, and will thus
enhance mobility and/or biological availability and consequently the removal of the con-
taminant. An increase in temperature will change the distribution of the contaminant and
make it more homogeneous. It may activate microorganisms. Soil heating can be applied
both ex situ and in situ. It can be implemented by injection or by otherwise admitting hot
air, vapor, or hot water, which can heat the soil and may be removed by continuous flow.
Soil can be heated by electrodes and an electric current (electrical resistance heating), by an
electrothermal method (electrical heating using fluid movement), electromagnetic heating,
or by vibrations at various frequencies (e.g. microwave).
When planning an increase in temperature, one has to consider the following:
– The heat absorption of the actual soil;

– Thermal conductivity and thermal diffusivity of the actual soil;
– The optimum temperature of the remediation process, e.g. evaporation of the contami-
nant, the temperature optimum of the relevant physicochemical processes or activation
of the biota (typically microorganisms that perform the biodegradation).
Many soil-living communities dislike temperatures higher than the usual 12–15°C;
thus, there is no point in increasing the biological availability of the contaminant if the
microbiota is deactivated at the same time. That is why the in situ remediation technologies
that use temporary heating have proved more successful: sudden heating allows a part of the
contaminant to desorb; microbiota is left to work for a few days; then the mobilizing thermal
treatment is repeated. In addition to enhancing microbial activity, soil temperatures also
greatly influence seed germination, seedling emergence and growth, and root development.
Soil heating in agriculture is a common technology for plant growth enhancement. In the
case of soil contaminated with human or plant pathogens, soil heating aims at sterilizing the
soil where the lethal temperature is the governing parameter.
Temperatures higher than biological systems can tolerate are mainly applied ex situ,
except when soil removal/excavation is technically unfeasible (located under buildings
or in other inaccessible locations) or the disturbances would increase the risk, e.g. due to
increased contaminant discharge into air or water or unacceptable harm to employees work-
ing on the site. For in situ soil heating, the heating apparatus is placed into the soil and the
off-gas treatment on the surface of the soil. For ex situ treatment, portable and stable equip-
ment can be applied.
Low- (180–350°C) and high-temperature (400–800°C) desorption of contaminants is
carried out in rotating furnaces with gravitational transport or inner conveyor belts or screws,
excluding air and applying indirect heating. The contaminants evaporated at high tempera-
tures are transferred from solid to vapor phase and removed from the soil. The exhausted
gaseous/vapor phase is treated in multiple stages by cyclones, washers, sorbers, and incin-
erators. Low-temperature treatment may cause an acceptable damage to the soil: humus
will not be damaged permanently and some of the microorganisms can survive and become
revitalized. The product can also be utilized as sterilized soil. When the soil is wet, there is
a greater need for energy for heating. Some contaminants are more volatile in the presence
of water vapor. Contaminant mixtures with compounds of different volatilities may leave
significant residual contamination behind.
Incineration, i.e. the complete chemical oxidation through heat, requires a higher tem-
peratures than desorption does. When applying catalysts, a lower temperature can achieve
the same perfect oxidation. Incineration destroys the fundamental characteristics of soil: it
becomes a dead material that often cannot be revitalized because the soil’s organic matter
also burns away. If the temperature is not high enough or oxygen is limited, preventing com-
plete oxidation, incomplete combustion produces harmful residues in the soil. The treated
soil/solid material can be utilized as neutral filler in geotechnical constructions or revitalized

and used for plant cultivation. As an alternative, it can be utilized as sterile soil for biotech-
nological purposes (e.g. in plant cloning).
Pyrolysis or wet oxidation is the chemical decomposition/degradation of soil contami-
nants under exclusion of air. Organic materials are transformed into gaseous components
and a solid residue containing fixed carbon and ash. Depending on the contaminant, oil/tar
residues can be condensed from off-gases by cooling. Pyrolysis typically works under pres-
sure and at operating temperatures of 400–800°C. Pyrolysis gases require further treatment.
Vitrification – i.e. turning soil material into glass – can decontaminate soil combined
with the production of useful products (ceramics). Vitrification is performed via the melted
form of the material at extremely high temperatures (1600–2000°C). Vitrification comprises
several processes ranging from thermal desorption through incineration (where oxygen is
present) to pyrolysis and to melting the matrix. The in situ vitrified material is left in place,
so its result is equivalent to containment or controlled disposal. Ex situ, it is reasonable to
limit this expensive method to the vitrification of certain fractions of grain-size-fractionated
soil: since the colloid-sized fractions (humus and clay) contain the contaminants, treatment
of this small portion can render the whole soil harmless. Moreover, utilization of the sepa-
rated fractions is more advantageous: cleaned gravel and sand can be sold and vitrified clay
can be utilized as processed building material.
Off-gas treatment is a key element of thermal soil treatment technologies, both in situ
and ex situ. Reactor technology makes it relatively easy to collect gaseous/vapor phases.
However, complete collection of these potential airborne contaminants needs special tech-
nology and extra care when in situ thermal technologies are used. Treatment technologies
applied to the extracted or otherwise collected gas/vapor from soil are the same as those
used for common air, vapor, and off-gas treatments (e.g. condensation, washing, absorption,
incineration).
4.3.3 Electrokinetic remediation

Electrokinetic solutions are widely used in countries where cheap energy is available. The
electrokinetic process is suitable for the removal of certain ionic contaminants in the soil
and those transported by groundwater. Electrokinetic solutions can also be combined with
surface extraction of groundwater or with biological or thermal treatment. Electrokinetic
methods are introduced in Chapter 9.
4.3.4 Biological and ecological methods

Biological and ecological methods should be given priority in every case when the soil
should be maintained as part of the terrestrial ecosystem (both natural and agroecosystem).
Bioremediation uses soil microbiota as the core catalyzer of the biotechnological process
based on biotransformation, biodegradation, bioleaching, or biostabilization. Phytoremedia-
tion uses specific plants or trees for remediation purposes, e.g. removal by volatilization,
extraction, or degradation, as well as stabilization by stopping the transport of contaminants
or contaminated soil. (There is a detailed overview on soil bioremediation in Chapter 5.)
Ecological solutions combine the use of soil microorganisms and plants, particularly in
the root zone (plant roots together with rhizosphere microorganisms) for filtering, sorbing,
extracting, transforming, and degrading contaminants from the soil.
Biological and ecological remediations are soft technologies using biologically accept-
able conditions (environmental temperatures, pH values, and concentrations). They are
more compatible to the ecosystem than technologies using drastic temperatures, pH values,
chemical reagents, and additives, and killing soil microbiota and requiring revitalization if
the treated material is going to be used as an ecosystem soil and not building material or
industrial raw material.
The short summary on the classification of soil remediation technologies in this chapter
is the basis for the next, more detailed summary on the reactor approach and the follow-
ing presentation of individual soil remediation technologies with emphasis on those that
are innovative and environmentally efficient. The classification introduced here is based
on the contaminant, the soil phases, the basic processes, and the technology itself. Neither
operations, nor equipment, nor management aspects have high priority here. Operations and
equipment are secondary since they have to fulfill the requirement of a problem-specific
technology. Any specific problem can trigger the development of innovative equipment.
Management, planning, and sustainability will be discussed in Chapter 11.
REFERENCES
Canada Verified (2017) Current Verified Technologies. ETV Canada. Available from: http://etvcanada.
ca/home/verify-your-technology/current-verified-technologies. [Accessed 8th October 2017].
CLU-IN (2017) Providing Information About Innovative Treatment and Site Characterization Tech-
nologies. Available from: https://clu-in.org; https://clu-in.org/remediation; https://clu-in.org/
characterization/#90. [Accessed 8th October 2017].
CLU-IN, verified (2017) Hazardous Waste Clean-Up Information. On-line Characterization and
Remediation Databases Fact Sheet. US EPA Clue-in. Available from: https://clu-in.org/s.focus/c/
pub/i/1386. [Accessed 8th October 2017].
EAP 7th (2013) General Union Environment Action Programme to 2020 ‘Living Well, Within the Lim-
its of Our Planet’. Decision No 1386/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of
20 November 2013. Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE
X:32013D1386&from=EN. [Accessed 8th October 2017].
EC (2013) In depth report ‘Soil Contamination: Impacts on Human Health’. Science for Environmental
Policy, September 2013, Issue 5. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/
newsalert/pdf/IR5_en.pdf. [Accessed 8th October 2017].
EEA (2014a) Environmental Indicator Report 2014: Environmental Impacts of Production-Consumption
Systems in Europe. Available from: www.eea.europa.eu/publications/environmental-indicator-
report-2014. [Accessed 8th October 2017].
EEA (2014b) Most Frequently Applied Remediation Techniques for Contaminated Soil. Figure 7 in:
Progress in Management of Contaminated Sites. EEA. Available from: www.eea.europa.eu/data-
and-maps/indicators/progress-in-management-of-contaminated-sites-3/assessment. [Accessed 8th
October 2017].
EEA (2015a) Progress in Management of Contaminated Sites (CSI 015). European Environment
Agency. Available from: www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/progress-in-management-
of-contaminated-sites-3/assessment. [Accessed 8th October 2017].
EEA (2015b) SOER 2015 – The European Environment – State and Outlook. A Comprehensive Assess-
ment of the European Environment’s State, Trends and Prospects, in a Global Context. Available
from: www.eea.europa.eu/soer. [Accessed 8th October 2017].
EEB (2012) EEB Position on the 7th Environmental Action Programme “Staying Within Ecological
Boundaries”. European Environmental Bureau. Available from: www.eeb.org/index.cfm/activities/
sustainability/7th-environmental-action-programme. [Accessed 8th April 2017].
Endl, A. & Berger, G. (2014) The 7th Environment Action Programme: Reflections on Sustainable
Development and Environmental Policy Integration. European Sustainable Development Net-
work. Available from: www.sd-network.eu/quarterly%20reports/report%20files/pdf/2014-March-
The_7th_Environment_Action_Programme.pdf. [Accessed 8th October 2017].
ENFO (2017) Environmental Information. Available from: www.enfo.hu/drupal/en. [Accessed 8th Octo-
ber 2017].
ESDAC (2013a) Progress in the Management of Contaminated Sites in Europe. Available from: http://
eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/content/progress-management-contaminated-sites-europe-0#tabs-
0-description=1. [Accessed 8th April 2017].
ESDAC (2013b) Soil Threats Data. Available from: http://eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/resource-type/soil-
threats-data. [Accessed 8th April 2017].
ESDAC (2013c) Potentially Contaminated Sites Per 1000 Person. ESDAC Datasets. Available from:
www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/progress-in-management-of-contaminated-
sites-3/assessment. [Accessed 8th October 2017].
ESDAC (2017) European Soil Data Centre. Available from: http://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu. [Accessed
8th October 2017].
ETC SIA (2013) Land Planning and Soil Evaluation Instruments in EEA Member and Cooperating
Countries (with inputs from Eionet NRC Land Use and Spatial Planning). Final Report for EEA
from ETC SIA.
EU ETV (2017a) Environmental Technology Verification in Europe. Eco-Innovation at the Heart of
European Policies. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecoap/etv. [Accessed 8th
October 2017].
EU ETV (2017b) EU Environmental Technology Verification. EC. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/
environment/etv/ [Accessed 28th May 2017].
EUGRIS (2017) Portal for Soil and Water Management in Europe. Available from: www.eugris.info/
[Accessed 8th October 2017].
EURODEMO (2005–2008) European Coordination Action for Demonstration of Efficient Soil and
Groundwater Remediation. Available from: www.umweltbundesamt.at/eurodemo & www.eugris.
info/displayProject.asp?ProjectID=4500&Aw=EURODEMO&Cat=Project. [Accessed 28th May
2016].
EURODEMO+ (2017) EU Projekt zur Unterstützung innovativer Sanierungstechnologien auf dem
Markt. Available from: www.umweltbundesamt.at/eurodemo. [Accessed 9th October 2017].
EU Verified (2017) Verified Technologies in Europe. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/
ecoap/etv/verified-technologies_en. [Accessed 8th October 2017].
Fenyvesi, É., Leitgib, L., Gruiz, K., Balogh, G. & Murányi, A. (2009) Demonstration of soil biore-
mediation technology enhanced by cyclodextrin. Land Contamination and Reclamation, 17(2),
611–618.
Fiksel, J., Eason, T. & Frederickson, H. (2012) A Framework for Sustainability Indicators at EPA (Ed.
Eason, T.). National Risk Management Research Laboratory, US-EPA, Washington, DC, USA.
Fiksel, J., Graedel, T., Hecht, A.D., Rejeski, D., Sayler, G.S., Senge, P.M., Swackhamer, D.L. & Theis,
T.L. (2009) EPA at 40: Bringing environmental protection into the 21st century. Environmental Sci-
ence & Technology, 43(23), 8716–8720.
GRI (2006) Sustainability Reporting Guidelines: Global Reporting Initiative. Amsterdam, The Neth-
erlands. Available from: www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/G3-Guidelines-Incl-Technical-
Protocol.pdf. [Accessed 8th October 2017].
Gruiz, K. (2009) Soil bioremediation: A bioengineering tool. Land Contamination & Reclamation,
17(3–4), 543–552.
Gruiz, K. & Fenyvesi, É. (2016) In-situ and real-time measurements in water monitoring. In: Gruiz, K.,
Meggyes, T. & Fenyvesi, É. (eds.) (2014) Engineering Tools for Environmental Risk Management.
Volume 3. Site Assessment and Monitoring Tools. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA. pp. 181–244.
Gruiz, K., Meggyes, T. & Fenyvesi, É. (eds.) (2014) Engineering Tools for Environmental Risk
Management: Volume 1. Environmental Deterioration and Contamination – Problems and Their
Management. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA.
Gruiz, K., Molnár, M., Nagy, Z.M. & Hajdu, C. (2015) Fate and behavior of chemical substances in
the environment. In: Gruiz, K., Meggyes, T. & Fenyvesi, E. (eds.) Engineering Tools for Environ-
mental Risk Management: Volume 2. Environmental Toxicology. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA.
pp. 71–124.
Hajdu, C. & Gruiz, K. (2015) Bioaccessibility and bioavailability in risk assessment. In: Gruiz, K.,
Meggyes, T. & Fenyvesi, E. (eds.) Engineering Tools for Environmental Risk Management: Volume 2.
Environmental Toxicology. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA. pp. 337–400.
Hong, K.J., Tokunaga, S. & Kajiuchi, T. (2002) Evaluation of remediation process with plant-derived
biosurfactant for recovery of heavy metals from contaminated soils. Chemosphere, 49(4), 379–387.
ITRC (2011) Green and Sustainable Remediation: A Practical Framework. Available from: www.
itrcweb.org/GuidanceDocuments/GSR-2.pdf. [Accessed 9th October 2017].
JRC (2012) The State of the Soil in Europe. Joint Research Centre. Available from: http://eusoils.
jrc.ec.europa.eu/ESDB_Archive/eusoils_docs/other/EUR25186.pdf. [Accessed 9th October 2017].
doi:10.2788/77361. [Accessed 8th April 2017].
Mayer, A.L. (2008) Strengths and weaknesses of common sustainability indices for multidimensional
systems. Environment International, 34(2), 277–291. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2007.09.004.
Meggyes, T., Csővári, M., Roehl, K.E. & Simon, F.G. (2009) Enhancing the efficacy of permeable
reactive barriers. Land Contamination & Reclamation, 17(2), 635–650.
MOKKA (2004–2008) MOKKA: Innovative Decision Support Tools for Risk Based Environmental
Management. Available from: http://enfo.hu/mokka/index.php?lang=eng&body=mokka; www.
mokkka.hu/index.php?lang=eng&body=mokka. [Accessed 8th October 2017].
Mulligan, C. & Wang, S. (2006) Remediation of a heavy metal contaminated soil by a rhamnolipid
foam. Engineering Geology, 85(1–2), 75–81. doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2005.09.029.
NICOLE (2017) Network for Industrially Contaminated Land. Available from: www.nicole.org/
NICOLE Sustainable Remediation (2017) Sustainable Remediation Roadmap. NICOLE. Available
from: www.nicole.org/uploadedfiles/2010-wg-sustainable-remediation-roadmap.pdf. [Accessed
8th October 2017].
NPL (2017) National Priorities List. Available from: www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-national-
priorities-list-npl. [Accessed 8th October 2017].
NPL Action (2017) Number of NPL Site Actions and Milestones by Fiscal Year. Available from: www.
epa.gov/superfund/number-npl-site-actions-and-milestones-fiscal-year. [Accessed 8th October
2017].
NRC (2011) Sustainability and the US EPA (The Green Book). The National Academies Press, Wash-
ington, DC, USA. ISBN 10: 0-309-21252-9.
Paganos, 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. Journal of
Environmental and Public Health, 2013, Article ID 158764. doi:10.1155/2013/158764.
Payá Pérez, A., Peláez Sánchez, S. & Van Liedekerke, M. (eds.) (2015) Remediated sites and brown-
fields: Success stories in Europe. A report of the European Information and Observation Network’s
National Reference Centres for Soil (Eionet NRC Soil). doi:10.2788/406096.
ROE (2015) Report on the Environment, 2015. US EPA, Office of Research and Development. Avail-
able from: www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/roe_factsheet_07-17-15_not508c.
pdf. [Accessed 8th April 2017].
Sikdar, S.K. (2003) Sustainable development and sustainability metrics. Journal of American Institute
of Chemical Engineers (AIChe), 49(8), 1928–1932. doi:10.1002/aic.690490802.
Singh, R., Murty, H., Gupta, S. & Dikshit, A. (2009) An overview of sustainability assessment meth-
odologies. Ecological Indicators, 9(2), 189–212.
SNOWMAN (2017) Knowledge for Sustainable Soils. Available from: http://snowmannetwork.com/

US EPA (2008) Green remediation: Incorporating sustainable environmental practices into remedia-
tion of contaminated sites. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, US-EPA.
US EPA (2009) Development and evaluation of sustainability criteria for land revitalization. NSCEP
US EPA. Washington, DC, USA, EPA/600/R-09/093.
US EPA (2010) San Luis Basin sustainability metrics project: A methodology for evaluating regional
sustainability. EPA Number: EPA/600/R-10/182.
US EPA (2018) Superfund. Available from: https://www.epa.gov/superfund [Accessed 1st Novem-
ber 2018].
US Sustainable Remediation Forum White Paper (2009) Sustainable remediation white paper –
Integrating sustainable principles, practices, and metrics into remediation projects. Remediation
Journal, 19(3), 5–114. doi:10.1002/rem.20210.
Van Liedekerke, M. (2014) Progress in the management of contaminated sites in Europe. Technical
Report EUR 26376 EN. doi:10.13140/RG.2.1.4213.5444.
Vyas, S. & Kumaranayake, L. (2006) Constructing socio-economic status indices: How to use prin-
cipal components analysis. Health Policy and Planning, 21(6), 459–468. Available from: http://
heapol.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/6/459.full. [Accessed 8th October 2017].
Wang, S. & Mulligan, C. (2009) Arsenic mobilization from mine tailings in the presence of a biosur-
factant. Applied Geochemistry, 24(5), 928–935.
WBCSD (2011) Guide to Corporate Ecosystem Valuation: A Framework for Improving Corporate
Decisionmaking. World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). Available
from: www.wbcsd.org/contentwbc/download/573/6341. [Accessed 8th October 2017].
WHO (2013) Report of Two Workshops on Contaminated Sites and Health. Syracuse (Italy) 2011
and Catania (Italy) 2012. Available from: www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/186240/
e96843e.pdf. [Accessed 8th October 2017].
Wilson, J., Tyedmers, P. & Pelot, R. (2007) Contrasting and comparing sustainable development indi-
cator metrics. Ecological Indicators, 7, 299–314.
Zamagni, A., Buttol, P., Buonamici, R., Masoni, P., Guinee, J.B., Huppes, G., Heijungs, R., van der
Voet, E., Ekvall, T. & Rydberg, T. (2009) CALCAS D20 Blue Paper on Life Cycle Sustainability
Analysis. Institute of Environmental Sciences, Lieden University, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Chapter 2
In situ soil remediation :

The reactor approach
K. Gruiz
ABSTRACT
Remediation can be classified according to contaminant type, soil phase and the core transfor-
mation process, as shown in Chapter 1. The goal of remediation is to reduce adverse effects
and the resulting environmental and human risks posed by the contaminants. This goal can be
achieved by their elimination, degradation or other transformation to non-hazardous or less
hazardous and non-mobile forms. This chapter applies the reactor approach, an interpretation
common in chemical and bioengineering, to describe the overall remediation technology. This
description is based on a transformation process that (i) is characterized by material balances;
(ii) takes place in reactor volumes; (iii) is equipped with machinery to perform certain opera-
tions; and (iv) aims to design, operate, and maintain “the plant,” i.e. the processes in the reactor.
What this means in the context of soil remediation is that processes take place in real
reactors or in quasi-reactors. Quasi-reactors have no walls or other built boundaries, but they
are limited by the boundaries of the impact volume of operation, usually by an engineered
volume – with in situ soil remediation as an example. The entire technology, equipment, pro-
cesses, material transport, inputs to and outputs from the reactor, and optimal technological
parameters and their control, including mass balances, should be planned and implemented
as for any other technology. Reactors can be characterized by size, type, and the process tak-
ing place in them. They can be closed, semi-closed, or entirely open, but always containing
a certain volume of soil or range of operation.
Soil and groundwater remediation covers a sequence of operations, the mass transport
route within the reactor or from one reactor to another in a cascade arrangement, and the
mass balance of the individual steps and the whole process.
Remediation as a “reactor” differs from other engineering devices in its extreme complexity
and heterogeneity and the limited accessibility of the solid material in which the transformation
takes place, which hampers predictability and design. Pilot testing, high versatility, and a com-
bination of technologies, suitable monitoring, and control may ensure efficient soil treatment.
Soil remediation is redefined in this chapter based on a generic engineering approach: a
controlled transformation produces valuable end products in a reactor, and the processes can
be characterized by mass and energy balances.
The author believes that this approach is necessary to clarify confusion regarding ter-
minology and the way of thinking that still prevails in environmental remediation. Today’s
practice often uses terms of processes or operations instead of those for treatment tech-
nologies and confuses technological considerations with managerial aspects. The reactor
approach will help in situ natural or near-natural bio- and ecotechnologies to obtain recogni-
tion and will contribute to their spread and acceptance.
1 INTRODUCTION
The reactor approach is based on the fact that natural soil processes obey physical, chemical,
and biological/ecological laws, and thus all these processes can be described by common
engineering tools (mathematical models) and engineers can intervene in a predictable way.
The technologies can be classified according to the degree of engineering interventions,
starting with the most careful “soft interventions” such as just monitoring natural remedial
processes or modifying in situ environmental conditions to boost beneficial processes or
suppress harmful and risky ones. Soft interventions can move soil conditions into biologi-
cally acceptable ranges of temperature, pH, redox potential, salt, and additive concentrations
without destroying soil life. More intrusive technologies strongly change physical, chemical,
and biological soil processes and soil characteristics. However, the accompanying degrada-
tion in the soil is temporary, with the treated material remaining a “living soil” and continu-
ing to be healthy after remediation. The most drastic type of technological intervention kills
soil biota and destroys soil composition and structure. Such extremely degrading remedial
technologies can be characterized by the ratio of the reduction of risk posed by the contami-
nant to the damage caused by soil excavation and treatment.
Conventional classification of remediation into types of in situ or ex situ is an oversim-
plification (Gruiz, 2009) that ignores key parameters such as type, extension, concentration,
and physical phase of the contaminants and ignores soil type and hydrogeology. The clas-
sification system recommended in Chapter 1 of this volume is based on this information,
which is crucial from a technological point of view. Another drawback of the ex situ–in situ
distinction is that it is exclusively based on the solid soil phases, although mobile soil phases
(soil gas or groundwater) can be treated both ex situ and in situ regardless of the treatment
of the solid phase. A more precise definition considers the process as a combination of ex
situ treatment of mobile soil phases and in situ treatment of the solid phase in cases where
the mobile (gaseous or liquid) soil phases have been transported from their original place to
the surface. When soil gas or groundwater is treated ex situ, the technology always fails to
remove a part of the mobile phase, which is then affected by in situ technology. Assuming
a more complex situation, the mobile phase controlled by the technology can be treated not
only by surface but also by underground operations, optionally in a certain soil volume (a
quasi-reactor) or in a real built underground reactor. A more precise definition can be for-
mulated based on the reactor approach: in situ soil remediation is a soil treatment procedure
where the solid soil phase remains in its original place. The processes and the operations take
place and the machinery needed is arranged in situ in the soil (subsurface), while soil vapor
and/or groundwater may be treated simultaneously also in situ or ex situ (i.e. on the surface)
after being extracted from the ground. Mobile soil phases can be treated in subsurface reac-
tors after removal or in situ in their original arrangement and state without being removed.
The phrase “in situ groundwater treatment” is interpreted and used in a broad sense. It encom-
passes a range of treatments from completely passive and monitored natural attenuation through
in situ manipulation using intensive engineering tools. The latter can involve either injection of
substances into the groundwater or treatment of the groundwater in special wells, underground
reactors or reactor systems. Subsurface permeable reactive barriers and reactive soil zones are
also used increasingly for groundwater remediation: these are reactors of various geometries
filled with a reactive medium that enables contaminant-specific physicochemical or biological
processes. These subsurface installations also implement in situ technologies, special features
being that the water is not pumped to the surface and that the installation cannot be seen. More-
over, the equipment is not placed into the soil to be treated but into a separate underground space.
In situ soil remediation 41
The reactor approach considers the soil volume treated in situ as a reactor, and for those
cases where the machinery is placed or material is delivered in the soil, it is classified as a
quasi-reactor that does not have walls, i.e. it is open on all sides and in direct contact with
the surrounding non-contaminated soil or external atmosphere (surface soil layer). On the
other hand, the terms “built in situ reactor” or “subsurface reactor” are used for a real reactor
vessel placed or constructed underground.
The openness of the in situ reactor has different meanings from the perspective of soil
phases since there are distinct transport processes within the soil gas (without a pressure dif-
ference, this mainly involves diffusion and partition), in the groundwater (flow, diffusion and
partition), and in the solid phase of the soil (partition and diffusion).
A reactor that is open on all sides has no walls, but this does not mean that it is bound-
less. Its limits are defined by the boundaries of the pollution, by the treated soil volume and
by the range of operation of the technology. The boundaries of the pollution and the tech-
nology’s range of impact may or may not be identical, and the treated volume may be both
smaller and larger than the volume occupied by the pollution.
There can be further divisions within the in situ technologies depending on whether or
not an undisturbed soil volume is being treated. There is a full spectrum: from systems that
are largely undisturbed through systems where the soil gas or groundwater is only circulated
and those where the solid phase is extensively mixed, for example, by slurry preparation.
The operations and processes in in situ quasi-reactors should also be redefined or given a
suitable interpretation. Most of the operations are identical to ex situ processes used in tanks
or flow-through reactors. However, the effect of the operation is different, first, because the
system is a heterogeneous solid-phase system, and, second, because the system is open. This
means that the impacts within the quasi-reactor are neither homogeneous nor consistent as
in a normal batch (homogeneous or gradient) or flow-through reactor (more or less linear
gradient), but it shows various gradients in three dimensions, influenced by inner (treated
soil heterogeneity and operational parameters) and outer (surrounding soil conditions and
fluxes) parameters and heterogeneities.
Verification of remediation technologies, particularly verification of in situ remediation
is the key for their use and acceptance. A user-friendly verification tool and uniform prac-
tice are necessary to increase trust in innovative, mainly in situ, biological and ecological
remediation technologies. To establish such a uniform verification methodology for envi-
ronmental remedial technologies (Gruiz et al., 2008), our way of thinking must be changed
with regard to in situ, biological, and ecological technologies: they must be considered to be
engineering tools and prepared, selected, planned, maintained, controlled and evaluated in
the same way as any other technologies in engineering practice (see Chapter 11).
Uncertainties appear to be larger in the case of in situ technologies, as engineers lose
total control over processes (what is a fiction when working with soil anyway). On the
other hand, when using soft and environmentally friendly technologies, i.e. interventions
in harmony with natural soil processes, better results can be achieved by supporting natural
processes with engineering tools and facilitating their optimal performance.
2 TYPES OF REMEDIATION REACTOR

The design of the reactor can vary considerably, according to whether ex situ or in situ tech-
nology is applied. In the case of in situ technology, the “reactor” does not even resemble the
usual type of reactor that is normally surrounded by walls. It can be a completely open soil
volume in a water-saturated or unsaturated soil zone, the internal space of a water-supply
well or the pore volume of a natural or engineered compartment of the soil, which contains
the soil gas and groundwater to be treated.
Reactors can be classified according to the following criteria:
– The phase of the soil: gas-, liquid-, slurry- (mud-), or solid-phase reactor;
– The concentration gradient: stirred homogeneous or heterogeneous tank reactor, tube
reactor, or a filled column with a gradient;
– The number of technologies applied simultaneously, in accordance with the number of
the treated soil phases or contaminants;
– The number of consecutive technologies: single-stage, multi-stage (the latter version
can be arranged in series or parallel), or cascade reactor;
– Its connection with the exterior: closed, semi-open, or open;
– Concentration change with time: periodic, continuous, or quasi-continuous;
– Input, output and material flux: output only, input only, or involving recirculation;
– Redox potential: the treated volume is aerobic, anoxic, or anaerobic.
The most common remedial technologies arise from combinations of the aforemen-
tioned classification criteria. The same criteria can be applied to both in situ and ex situ
remediation.
2.1 Reactors and operations of ex situ remediation

technologies
According to the soil phase to be treated, ex situ technologies can use the following reactors:
1 Reactors for soil gas treatment are identical to off-gas or air-treating reactors and work
in continuous or periodic mode, with or without recirculation.
2 Reactors for groundwater treatment are identical to the reactors used for water and
wastewater treatment, in which physical, chemical, or biological treatments or a com-
bination thereof are applied to the soil liquid phase. Considering the reactor itself and
its operation, it can be a periodic-batch, continuous-batch or filled flow-through reactor
(see Figure 2.1). In-well treatment uses the extraction well’s inner volume as a reactor
for treating the residential groundwater in passive (without pumping) or in active (with
pumping) mode (Figure 2.2).
Figure 2.1 Typical reactor types for ex situ groundwater treatment.

Figure 2.2 Typical in-well groundwater treatment solutions.
3 Reactors for treating the solid phase or the whole soil can be three-phase or two-
phase systems. Slurries of different densities, ranging from dense silts to water-like
thin suspensions, can be treated by slurry reactors, washers, sedimentation equipment,
phase separators, sieves, cyclones, and flotation cells. The soil slurry/sediment passes
through an arbitrary combination of this equipment in an optimal order, tailored to the
quality and quantity of contaminants and soil texture. A washing plant usually includes
mixers, gravel and sand separators, equipment for organic solvent extraction, and a
washer to remove the extractant from the slurry. Post-treatment units for wash waters,
extractant and different grain-size solids are also linked.
Three-phase soil-treatment technologies can be based on physical, chemical, ther-
mal, or biological processes or a combination thereof. There is a wide range of solid-
phase reactors and quasi-reactors. Solid materials can be amassed in heaps or prisms
or simply layered on a solid surface, and prisms can be equipped with injectors and
collector-tube systems. Simple tank reactors are widely used for longer-term treat-
ments with little or no equipment. More complex versions of tank reactors contain stir-
ring, aeration, injection, and water-collection devices. Another reactor type, the tube
reactor, is equipped with conveyor belts or pulleys for solid material transfer. Screw
reactors ensure solid-phase handling, transport, and stirring.
2.2 In situ quasi-reactors

An in situ treated soil volume that has no physical walls but is still limited – by the dimen-
sions of the pollutant plume or the range of the operations – can be considered a reactor and
it is termed a quasi-reactor. It is characterized by the type of contaminant, the core process on
which the remediation is based, the operations and equipment that ensure the process taking
place, and the scope of engineering activities.
Applicability and verification of in situ remediation is based on the ratio of risk or dam-
age of the intervention to the benefits and the avoidance of damage that would have been
caused by the eliminated problem. This should be assessed in light of future land use.
2.3 Physical processes used for in situ soil remediation

The most frequently used physical processes in soil remediation are soil aeration and soil
gas/vapor extraction, groundwater extraction and injection and soil heating. The processes
can be classified according to the intensity of intervention and the type of impact, i.e. whether
it is identical to natural processes, in harmony with or opposed to the nature of the soil.
– Soft physical interventions originating from agricultural soil reclamation include mechan-
ical soil loosening, regulation of the soil–water regime by irrigation, drainage, and water-
ing as well as mild heating. The target of these operations is the upper soil layer up to a
depth of about one meter.
– Manipulation of the soil-air regime includes the following: soil loosening, aeration by
passive wells (atmospheric air input) or by ventilation, soil gas and vapor exhaustion
from the vadose zone, and air stripping from the aquifer by a vacuum.
– Soil moisture and the soil–water regime, groundwater flow and level can be manipu-
lated by irrigation, drainage, watering or flooding the soil, water extraction, injection
and recirculation using simple and special extraction wells, mechanical and hydrologi-
cal barriers, or permeable walls.
– Manipulation of soil air and water may target soil pH, redox potential, or temperature
changes and the concentrations and partitions of contaminants and additives.
– Manipulation of the solid phase covers loosening and mixing the soil (typically the
surface layer), and slurry formation in order to mix additives. In situ soil mixing of the
deeper layers is one of the most invasive and energy-demanding operations in soil and
is mainly used for geotechnical purposes.
– Thermal reclamation and remediation vary from mild heating to in situ vitrification (1200°C)
to increasing the evaporation and desorption rate, contaminant mobility, or thermal destruc-
tion of contaminants and melting soil silicates. Heating can be used for biological control, to
activate or inactivate living organisms, microorganisms or seed germination (Section 3.3).
– Additives for correcting soil texture and structure or for soil conditioning are discussed
in Section 2.4, “Chemical processes for in situ soil remediation.”
Figure 2.3 is a summary scheme showing frequent in situ operations to control soil air
and groundwater flows during soil remediation. Air and water inputs and discharges shown
can be applied in an arbitrary combination, depending on the characteristics of the soil and
groundwater, the pollutants and the activity of soil microbiota. Several cases are shown
in Figure 2.3 to explain the essence of in situ soil treatment and the reactor approach. The
operations shown are optional. The outline shows a pollution incident that affects both the
saturated and unsaturated zones. The arrows in the figure are integrated fluxes of soil mobile
phases, contaminants, and additives used for in situ treatment.
An in situ treatment of the solid phase may be connected with the extraction of soil air
with or without treatment on the surface. Atmospheric air can be injected into the soil at an
atmospheric or higher pressure, either into the saturated or the unsaturated zone to improve
living conditions for the soil microbiota.
Figure 2.3 Schematic arrangement of in situ operations in soil remediation (yellow: air/gas/vapor; blue:
water/solution/liquid contaminant; red: reagents/additives).
An ex situ water treatment can be combined with in situ solid-phase and gas or vapor
treatment. Water can be collected by a drainage system, extracted by water extraction wells,
or just circulated within the soil using groundwater circulation wells (see Section 2.3). Cir-
culation wells can perform in-well water treatment, and purpose-built installations can facil-
itate out-of-the-well subsurface treatment of the circulated water. Alternatively, extracted
water is treated on the surface, (partly) returned or not returned to the soil. The treated water
can be re-admitted from the surface through shallow ditches into the unsaturated zone in
order to adjust soil moisture or use for continuous or periodic flooding and washing of the
solid phase. Water treated ex situ can be directly reinjected into the groundwater, primarily
to raise the groundwater level and encourage the groundwater to flow towards the depression
wells. Water infiltration systems and injection wells are also used to input liquid, dissolved
or suspended additives or reagents. Their transport and distribution are greatly influenced
and limited by the sorption (filtering) capacity of the soil and by heterogeneous pore distri-
bution. Gas injection wells can be used for injecting any gas-phase additives (reagents) and
hot air or moisture.
2.3.1 Wells and engineered underground reactors

for groundwater treatment
Underground water treatment facilities are often called in situ reactors, probably because the
early reactors were placed into the groundwater flow path, and the water to be treated was
flowing through the treatment space more or less passively due to gravity. Later technological
developments have managed to fully control groundwater flow by applying specific pressure
differences and various flow-directing tools (barriers and gates, circulation cells, etc.) or by
using cascade reactor systems and special reactors filled with fixed or removable fillings.
The term “in situ” is used today for all groundwater treatment technologies that do not pump
groundwater to the surface and for all subsurface water treatment reactors.
There are three main types of engineered in situ groundwater treatment reactors:
– Vacuum wells, groundwater circulation wells, and these wells equipped with in-well
reactors for (e.g. packed bed reactors) for water treatment (see also Figure 2.2).
– Permeable reactive barriers (PRB).
– Engineered in situ reactive soil zones, also referred to as “treatment zone,” an exem-
plary quasi-reactor within the soil, with minimal engineering. These soil zones include
constructed subsurface structures or the soil itself with or without engineering manipu-
lation (e.g. additives or reagents input).
– Figure 2.4 shows three technological solutions for groundwater treatment: the perme-
able reactive barrier and a larger reactive zone filled with contaminant-specific reactive
medium. Both are placed in the way of the groundwater. These constructions function
as packed bed reactors of various geometry. The third case outlines a soil with intrinsic
reactive character, e.g. capable of biodegradation. Figure 2.5 shows reagent placement
by injection or through an infiltration trench. The activation a certain soil volume this
way creates an in situ treatment zone. Activation may involve redox manipulation, or
the addition of mobilizing agents or chemical reagents.
2.3.1.1 Permeable reactive barriers and in situ reactive soil zones

Permeable reactive barriers (PRBs) are underground structures intercepting a contaminant
plume and channeling the groundwater flow horizontally or vertically through the reactive
material in the permeable wall of the reactor, employing a natural or artificial pressure dif-
ference. Some types of PRBs use funnels and gates, i.e. the entire cross-section of the barrier
is not permeable. The contaminated groundwater interacts with the reactive material of the
reactor on a relatively short pathway. The interaction results in reduced risk by immobilizing
or transforming/degrading the contaminant.
Engineered reactive soil zones – installed also in the pathway of the groundwater flow,
but unlike PRBs, these have larger volumes ensuring a longer pathway for the groundwater
Figure 2.4 Groundwater treatment in the soil using (i) reactive barrier, (ii) reactive soil zone, or just
(iii) the soil as an active medium.
Figure 2.5 Creating an in situ treatment zone: activation of the soil by injecting or infiltrating additives
and reagents.
flow, consequently longer contact times between the contaminant and the reactive soil vol-
ume. With these conditions, reactive zones provide a good opportunity for soft, natural, and
ecological processes.
PRBs and reactive soil zones are underground versions of the filled (packed) flow-
through reactors. Both of them may work as simple reactors or as cascade reactor systems.
These built and in situ real reactors have well designed dimensions, represented by built or
natural gates and barriers, and an inflow and outflow. Many innovations exist in the field
of PRBs (Debreczeni & Meggyes, 1999); their operation can rely on physical, chemical,
or biological treatment of the contaminants (Meggyes et al., 2001; Meggyes et al., 2009;
Roehl et al., 2005; Simon et al., 2001; Simon et al., 2002; Simon & Meggyes, 2000). The
technological solutions vary from the simplest gravitational flow-through reactor to the more
sophisticated, strictly controlled and regulated multi-stage reactors with distributor and col-
lector systems (Meggyes & Simon, 2000; Roehl et al., 2007; Meggyes, 2010). Another
direction of development favors a suitable combination of PRBs and specialized circulation
wells or removable cartridges instead of fixed packing.
Engineered reactive soil zones differ from PRBs in size and degree of openness: they gen-
erally have large volumes, enabling a long pathway, i.e. a long residence time for the contami-
nant to interact with the reactive medium and suitable gradients to develop in the groundwater.
Reactive zones do not often have walls. Groundwater flow in reactive zones is typically gravita-
tional. The reactive filling is a cheap, natural or partly artificial material, or the soil itself, and is
specialized for pH or redox adjustment, sorption, chemical reaction, typically oxidation, reduc-
tion or degradation, as well as for biological transformation. The combination of a PRB and a
reactive soil zone can have built walls similar to PRBs and dimensions similar to reactive zones.
When classifying subsurface reactive installations according to the reactor approach,
there is a continuous transition from passive in situ groundwater treatment to greatly
equipped wells, PRBs, including built or otherwise engineered reactive soil zones and sub-
surface reactor systems (see also US EPA, 1998; Simon et al., 2002; Meggyes, 2009).
Active and passive systems

Both reactive barriers and reactive soil zones can work as passive and active systems. In pas-
sive systems, the groundwater is transported through the reactive medium by the natural/
gravitational groundwater flow and the reactive bed is established when the system is being
built and is not manipulated later on; neither are additives injected into or water or products
extracted from the passive reactor. Dissolved groundwater contaminants react with the reac-
tive material and, as a result, are sorbed, precipitated, or chemically and biologically degraded.
Active systems use injection and extraction wells, hydraulic barriers, circulation wells, or any
operation for directing the groundwater to an in situ (subsurface) reactor or one located on the
surface where the treatment is carried out. The active system needs regular maintenance and
continuous reagent addition and several operations such as pumping, mixing, separating, etc.
(see more in Chapter 4.4).
2.3.1.2 Reactive barriers, reactive soil zones, and multi-stage

subsurface reactors
A reactive soil volume is a quasi-reactor, where the conversion of contaminants and the
reduction of risk, i.e. the remedial process, is occurring. It can be a spontaneously formed
and naturally working, a passive (no operations or maintenance) in situ quasi-reactor, or an
engineered subsurface reactor with high operation and maintenance requirement. Passive
or active, both are flow-through, usually packed reactors (open or surrounded by permeable
walls), in a single or cascade arrangement.
The physicochemical conditions and/or active microorganisms will modify, degrade, or
stabilize the pollutant in such a reactive soil zone when the contaminated water or soil gas
flows through the reactor volume. Suitable environmental parameters (pH, redox potential,
reagent concentration, etc.) in a passive or active operation, or a microbiota with conversion
ability and activity can ensure groundwater or soil gas/vapor decontamination. Biologically,
reactive zones often need soft interventions to maintain their activity over the long term
such as nutrient or air injection, introduction of alternative electron acceptors, or addition of
chemical agents for supplementary treatment.
Underground reactive soil zones use a variety of natural or artificial remedial processes and
engineering operations and can be natural, basic, or sophisticated. They can be built for the treat-
ment of groundwater, seepage, landfill leachate, wastewaters, or mine drainage. Long-term perme-
ability, gravitational transportation of the water to be treated, water level gradients and the right
composition (organic matter content, alkalinity, and acidity) should be planned and controlled.
The reactive zones created in situ can be quasi- and real reactors, depending on whether
only the processes or the volume itself are manufactured. Both single- and multi-stage or
cascade reactive zones may function as a so-called passive system, i.e. they can work with-
out energy and material input (no additives and no injection, only gravitational water flow).
Some of them do not require labor at all, and so they can be controlled remotely (Jarvis &
Younger, 2001; Johnson & Younger, 2006).
The well-known root-zone treatment (rhizofiltration) of wastewater is closely related
to the built reactive soil zones used in groundwater treatment. These artificially established
zones are entirely open reactors, but their properties (pH, redox potential, microbial status,
etc.) differ from those of the surrounding soil. They interfere directly with both the ground-
water and the solid phase. They can be located close to the surface or at greater depths.
Reactive zone systems

Reactive zones for various water treatment purposes can be connected successively to each
other, for example an anaerobic zone can be followed by an aerobic one for the treatment
of groundwater contaminated with chlorinated hydrocarbons. This arrangement produces
Figure 2.6 In situ treatment zone train created by redox manipulations.
a long flow path, along which the contaminated water meets different conditions and can
be treated by consecutive processes. An anaerobic zone is created by injecting adequate
substrates (e.g. lactate, special oils, or fats) into the groundwater to provide a substrate for
sulfate-reducing microorganisms. These organisms will use the sulfate content of the anoxic
groundwater arriving at this soil volume and gradually decrease the redox potential to a value
suitable for chloro- or carbonate-respiring microorganisms to achieve reductive dehalogena-
tion. Following reductive dechlorination, the aerobic stage (an oxygen release compound =
ORC addition to the saturated soil zone) ensures full biological degradation of chlorinated
hydrocarbons and the produced organic compounds such as methane. A treatment zone train
is shown in Figure 2.6.
Reactive permeable barriers differ from the reactive zones because they only come into
direct contact with the groundwater and not with the solid phase of the soil, and the flow
path is relatively short, as the gradients formed on this short path do not play a significant
role. Some of them have permeable walls, but in some modern applications only the filling is
permeable, not the wall. The filling is placed into a container through which the groundwater
flow is channeled.
This brief overview illustrates that soil remediation usually applies the same processes
as chemical and biological industries. The main tool is also similar: the method of mass bal-
ance or material balance is used to calculate the “reactor” capacity. This is the basic calcula-
tion method of chemical engineering: the mass that enters a system must, by the principle of
conservation of mass, either leave the system or accumulate within the system. Its feasibil-
ity is best demonstrated in the method used for technology verification (Gruiz et al., 2009,
Chapter 11 in this volume).
2.3.1.3 Active and passive systems for the treatment of acid mine drainage
In situ passive and active systems are frequently applied to acid mine drainage treatment
(AMD) (see also Chapter 7 in this volume), pH neutralization (using carbonate rock), metals
precipitation (in hydroxide or sulfide forms), and organic matter providing alkalinity and
reducing conditions. Low acidity and low flow rate AMD can be treated in passive sys-
tems such as oxic and anoxic limestone drains or limestone beds, limestone diversion wells,
aerobic or anaerobic wetlands, systems containing reducing and/or alkali-producing organic
materials, permeable reactive barriers, slag leach beds, sulfide passivation beds, microbial
reactor systems, etc.
Active treatment systems are needed for a high range of acidity and high flow rates by
appropriate operational parameters. These operations incur a high cost, so AMD treatment
can be of low economic efficiency. Fixed or small portable plants can be applied for treating
pumped AMD, implementing reagent addition, mixing to AMD and separation and disposal
of the resulting sludge. Subsurface (in situ) active installations may provide pH control and/
or metal precipitation, electrochemical concentration, biologically mediated redox control
(e.g. sulfate reduction), ion exchange, sorption, flocculation, filtration or crystallization
(Hammarstrom et al., 2003; PIRAMID, 2003; Taylor et al., 2005; Trumm, 2010; Trumm &
Watts, 2010; Younger et al., 2002).
2.3.2 Vacuum wells and groundwater circulation

Vacuum wells can be used not only for soil vapor or water extraction and pumping these
mobile phases to the surface but also for establishing arbitrary water flows, i.e. in situ
groundwater circulation and recirculation between any depths of the subsurface soil. These
groundwater circulation wells are modified groundwater wells with two or more screens and
in various depths. Groundwater can be extracted from the aquifer through the lower screen,
for example, and released through the upper screen into the aquifer or the vadose zone
according to purpose. Using such installations, contaminated water is not pumped to the
surface but circulated within the soil to accelerate contaminant mobilization by water and/or
additives, natural attenuation, or any other physical, chemical, or biological processes. The
enhanced water exchange established in the well also provides good opportunity for in-well
groundwater treatment.
Summing up, circulation wells can be used just for circulating the water within the well’s
range of impact or for in situ treatment – inside or outside the well. Water just circulated or
also treated continues to flow downstream, out from the well’s range of impact (Figure 2.7).
The direction of groundwater circulation in these wells can be changed from upward
to downward and it is possible to build stacked-flow and multiple circulation cells within
the soil. Circulation can enhance percolation, soil washing, and mixing, and the addition,
delivery, and mixing of air, reagents, microbiological nutrients, and liquid additives into the
circulation well, which are then transported further with the circulating groundwater (see
more in Alesi, 2008; US EPA Clue in, 2017).
Figure 2.7 Circulation wells with an upper and a lower screen allowing in situ vertical groundwater
circulation by pumping and recharging the same well. The groundwater circulates several
times before flowing downstream.
Flexible water circulation schemes can precisely control groundwater flow and direct it
through a reactive soil zone or a reactor built into the well. The reactor is usually arranged
between a lower and upper screen and facilitates physicochemical (sorption, oxidation, or
reduction) or biological processes (biosorption or transformation/degradation). These reac-
tive treatment wells comprise subsurface tube reactors where the water’s flow rate is deter-
mined by the applied vacuum and the flow direction/circulation by the position of the screens
in the well. The hydrogeological situation, primarily water permeability of the surrounding
soil matrix also has a strong influence.
Summing up, groundwater circulation and vacuum wells can be used for the following:
– Vapor extraction from the vadose or capillary zone;

– In-well stripping, i.e. the removal of vapor-state contaminants from groundwater;
– Recovery of non-aqueous phase liquid type contaminants (both light and dense);
– Groundwater recycling to intensively wash, percolate or flush unsaturated and saturated
soil zones;
– Circulating water for any purpose, e.g. to pass through a reactor placed into the well
between two screens (inflow and outflow);
– Aerating the groundwater, flushing and mixing additives into soil, accelerating bio-
degradation by aeration and nutrient addition, and introducing additives and reagents
into the aquifer to enhance physical, chemical or biological transformation of the
contaminant;
– Hydraulic reactive barriers that are similar to conventional permeable reactive barriers,
but instead of permeable walls, vacuum wells direct the water through an in-well reactor
or a reactive soil volume.
2.3.2.1 Vacuum wells and circulation wells for volatile-contaminated

soil and groundwater
Vacuum vapor extraction wells are used to extract gases or vapors from three-phase soil,
from the capillary zone or from two-phase soil. The combination of gas/vapor extraction
with water extraction is another solution commonly used.
To extract gas or vapor from three-phase soil, the screen in the well is placed close to the
water table in the vadose zone. The extracted volatile substance can be soil air/gas with low-
risk components of microbiological origin (such as CO2, nitrous oxide N2O, nitric oxide NO,
methane, etc.), or contaminant vapors (desorbed from the solid phase or evaporated from
groundwater) with various scales of risk. Extracted volatiles are most commonly treated on
the surface by well-controlled common gas/air treatment technologies.
The capillary zone can be cleaned from volatile contaminants at best after the water
table is depressed to a certain extent. The capillary fringe at a contaminated site generally
concentrates water-insoluble contaminants by collecting them and those that are less dense
than water, so they float on the surface of the water. Depending on the groundwater fluctua-
tion level, this pollution is smeared in a thinner or thicker layer. The capillary fringe also
collects vapors, which spontaneously escape from the two-phase soil.
Special wells are used to extract vapor and water at the same time: vapor from the
capillary zone and water from the two-phase soil. Accordingly, one of the screened sec-
tions of these wells is located in the three-phase soil and the other under the water table
in the two-phase soil. The common two-phase extraction uses a combined well and the
extracted gas/vapor and groundwater are removed in two separate ways (extracted by two
different pumps or blowers). The dual-phase extraction applies a high vacuum and the
contaminant vapor and the contaminated water are removed together through the same
conduit (extracted by one single vacuum pump) and separated and treated in a surface
installation.
In-well stripping is carried out in circulation wells where the contaminated water is
lifted by the vacuum to the upper screen (located in the vadose zone) without pumping
water to the surface. This way the well works as a flow-through reactor and is characterized
by an inflow (lower screen) and outflow (upper screen), the reactor size (the well volume
between the two screens), and the groundwater flow rate. To strip volatile contaminants out
from the contaminated groundwater, air is injected into the in-well reactor volume from
the surface. Cleaned groundwater is discharged into the vadose zone through the upper
screen, and a negative well pressure transports contaminant vapor to the surface. Negative
pressure is generally provided by a blower mounted above the ground. The exhausted soil
air containing vapor is treated by an air decontamination system comprising traps, filters,
activated carbon sorbents, and catalyzed gas combustion (see also Alesi, 2008 and US EPA
Clue in, 2017).
2.3.2.2 Vacuum wells for dual-phase and multiphase extraction

Dual-phase or multiphase extraction is implemented by vacuum-enhanced extraction to
remove hydrocarbon vapor, contaminated groundwater, or separate-phase petroleum-type
contaminants one by one or in combination. A high vacuum is established in the well by a
blower on the surface. This well may be screened above and/or below the water table and the
position of the extraction tube’s end is adjusted to the soil depths from where the contami-
nants should be extracted. The water table lowered around the well favors vapor extraction
from the newly formed three-phase soil and also for trapping the non-aqueous free phase
from the surface of the water. In addition to the vacuum system, submersible pumps (for
separate water extraction), and slurping/bioslurping (suction of the free phase by a vacuum
through a slurp tube) can also be applied. The extracted mixture of vapor and liquid con-
taminants and contaminated water are treated after separation by surface installations using
common air and water treatment technologies.
Dual-phase extraction is mainly used for volatile soil contaminants, fuels, and solvents,
which form a separate phase from water. It can be applied in heterogeneous soil formations,
but an unknown or inaccessible location and distribution of the contaminant and low perme-
ability of the soil may limit its applicability (see also CPEO, 2017; FRTR, 2016; US EPA,
2016; US EPA, 1999; Figure 2.8).
2.3.2.3 Circulation wells for water-soluble or mobilizable soil contaminants

Groundwater circulation and in situ treatment is the main field of application for ground-
water circulation wells (GCW). It may concern the aquifer exclusively or both the vadose
zone and the aquifer. Placing a GCW in a contaminant plume in the aquifer, the well creates
a hydrolytically controlled spherical soil zone from where water is directed into the well.
Hydraulically controlled flushing may result in efficient contaminant elimination both from
the two- and three-phase soil. Circulation ensures enhanced water flow that extracts mobi-
lizable sorbed contaminants by physical (just high water-solid ratio), chemical (addition
Figure 2.8 Dual-phase extraction.
of surfactants, solvents, reagents) or biological (biosurfactant production, transformation,

degradation) methods. The physically or chemically mobilized contaminants may be further
treated in in-well flow-through reactors by separation, solid phase extraction, sorption, or
chemical transformation. The treated water can be discharged into the aquifer or the vadose
zone and the contaminant removed for surface handling. The use of GCW for water-dis-
solved contaminants is demonstrated by these two examples:
1 In situ reduction of chlorinated solvents or toxic metals by using zero-valent iron (ZVI)
can be intensified by GCW. ZVI is placed into a permeable reactor vessel and ground-
water flow through the ZVI-packed reactor is hydraulically controlled and directed by
the GCW. The packed reactor can be located inside the well, outside the well near the
entry screen, or arbitrarily placed in the circulation path to ensure that the water flows
through. The aim and use of this arrangement is similar to the ZVI-filled permeable
reactive barriers. It only differs in the mode of controlling the water flow.
2 Aerobic microbiological degradation can be enhanced by injecting atmospheric air and
supplemental nutrients into the circulation well for further distribution in the impact
zone. To increase the concentration of the beneficial microorganisms, a sorbent-packed
bioreactor can be placed into the well that concentrates the contaminant and supplies
the (naturally occurring) microbial cells adhered to the sorbent with air and nutrients.
Thus the specific microorganisms will propagate intensively and catalyze biodegrada-
tion both in the reactor itself and in the impact zone after leaving the bioreactor. Special-
ized artificially propagated microorganisms can also be used in such an in-well placed
packed bioreactor.
2.3.2.4 GCW for strongly sorbed contaminants

For chemical or biological transformation of poorly mobilizable soil contaminants (typi-
cally aged contaminants with large molecular weight that are dominantly sorbed on a
solid), GCW-aided delivery can be applied. The additives, nutrients, or reagents (which can
enhance the chemical or biological availability and transformation) are injected into the well
and spread via the hydrolytically controlled water circulation. This way the additives and
reagents get more easily to their destination and in contact with the target molecules (even
if they are sorbed on solid surfaces). As a result, the efficiency of the key process can be
enhanced. An intensifying effect occurs mainly in the impact area of the well, and to a lesser
extent downstream from the well. In such applications the cycled water is the carrier medium
and is responsible for additive or reagent delivery to the place of use. For example, in situ
chemical oxidation (ISCO) can be intensified this way: the dissolved reagent is injected into
the well, and the hydrolytically controlled water cycling delivers and uniformly spreads
permanganate or peroxide into the contaminated soil.
Beside significant benefits, there are several shortcomings of GCWs in soil and ground-
water remediation such as these:
– Its limited use when vertical permeability of the soil is small or strongly variable;
– The design and monitoring requirement can be a disproportionate burden to hydrogeo-
logically heterogeneous sites;
– The intervention results in pH or redox changes, and the chemical reactions, may cause
precipitation and clogging.
Several solutions are offered to reduce these shortcomings, for example:
– Denser well placement by using simplified, small-diameter wells and inexpensive con-
struction, e.g. direct push technology (Borden & Cherry, 2000);
– Suitable combinations of permeable reactive barriers and GCWs;
– Multipurpose wells (e.g. the same well for the vadose zone, the capillary fringe and the
aquifer) with adaptable screening and flow-direction adjustment (upward or downward).
In addition to the technological possibilities and benefits, there are several managerial
advantages of GCW-aided soil remediation such as not requiring pumping or surface treat-
ment, the water drawn can be reintroduced to the aquifer after treatment, environmental
impact (treatment, storage, land take by occupying the surface) is reduced, and thus the
permission procedure may be easier.
2.3.3 Soil heating

The temperature of the soil can be raised to shift the distribution between physical soil phases,
i.e. partition of the sorbed or otherwise bound pollutants towards the more mobile vapor and
dissolved forms. Heat can be applied both to saturated and unsaturated soil zones. A wide
range of soil-heating technologies are used in practice to intensify mobilization (desorp-
tion, dissolution, degradation) of pollutants. Up to a certain scale, heating also has a benefi-
cial effect on biodegradation. Solid-bound water (soil moisture) is significantly affected by
heating/mobilization; the result is increased soil dehydration, so moisture replacement may
be necessary. Above 100°C, steam is produced from soil moisture, which has an intensive
stripping and flushing effect primarily on steam-volatile substances (both contaminants and
natural soil material). High temperatures can mobilize higher boiling contaminants (PAHs,
PCBs, dioxins) and may cause their direct degradation, i.e. thermal destruction.
Heat-enhanced soil remediation has several advantages such as a relatively short treat-
ment duration (from a few months to a year) and suitability for non-uniform subsurface
conditions and contaminant distribution. A disadvantage is the increased desiccation in the
vadose zone and potential cooling (due to energy loss) in the aquifer in the case of high
groundwater influx. The identification of the contaminant source and focusing the treat-
ment on it significantly increases the overall efficiency of the technology, including cost
efficiency. Future land use determines if thermal degradation of the soil matrix and soil
microbiota can be accepted or not. A temperature higher than 70°C selectively degrades soil
microorganisms; 300°C kills most of them and may also cause humus degradation. Above
500–600°C, thermal treatment completely converts soil into dead material: not only micro-
organisms, but humus may also be fully destroyed, and toxic residues are left behind in the
worst case. Up to a certain scale of degradation, soil can be revitalized depending on the
duration and temperature of the treatment. Therefore, thermal treatment requires a thorough
study on the impacts and residual risks.
The most widespread heating method for in situ thermal desorption of contaminants
is electrical resistance heating with closely spaced electrodes for energy input. Chlorinated
solvents and petroleum hydrocarbons are typical target contaminants for thermal desorption
(see also Johnson et al., 2009; Triplett Kingston, 2008).
2.3.3.1 Thermal treatment to enhance desorption and vapor recovery

Thermal treatment intensifies in situ thermal desorption (ISTD), resulting in a higher-efficiency
remediation and shorter operation time, and is applicable to heterogeneous and low-permea-
bility formations. Volatile and semivolatile compounds require a wide range of temperature.
Heat can reach deep soil layers and pollutants under buildings and other structures.
Thermal treatment of soil can be combined with vapor extraction when contaminants are
volatile or semivolatile, but the real aim of thermal treatment is to better dissolve contaminants
in a washing/flushing liquid, increase availability for chemical reagents, or enhance bioavail-
ability for the soil microbiota. High temperatures can also stabilize certain contaminants.
Thermal treatment is often based on indirect heating, which is performed by injecting
hot air or steam through wells or small-diameter pushed injectors. However, direct heat-
ing, with the in situ conversion of some type of energy to heat up the soil, is more energy
efficient. Soil heating is most often used for contaminant desorption both in ex situ and in
situ soil remediation. High-temperature thermal degradation and vitrification is only applied
in situ for extremely toxic contaminants and inaccessible subsurface contaminants. Ex situ
thermal technologies such as high temperature desorption, wet oxidization, and vitrification
are extensively used for strongly contaminated soil, sediment, and hazardous waste.
2.3.3.2 Indirect heating

Indirect soil heating is implemented by injecting hot air, hot water, or steam either in situ or
ex situ into the soil through wells around a smaller or within a larger contaminant source.
The impact zone then keeps growing radially around the injection wells. When soil gas and/
or groundwater is simultaneously extracted, the heat transfer medium pushes the mobilized
contaminant(s) toward the soil vapor-extraction wells in the vadose zone or in the ground-
water wells in the saturated zone.
Hot air is applied to volatile or semivolatile organic contaminants. Hot water enhances
contaminant expulsion or solubilization from the solid phase both in three- and two-phase
soils, displaces organic contaminants (e.g. hydrocarbons) from the pores and reduces the vis-
cosity of liquid contaminants (e.g. NAPL). Steam can also be used to heat soil and ground-
water and mobilize contaminants, especially those that are steam-volatile. In addition, steam
destroys certain contaminants, mainly under reductive or oxidative conditions.
2.3.3.3 Direct soil heating

The three main tools for direct soil heating are electrical resistance, microwave, and radio
frequency heating.
Electrical resistance heating (ERH) uses electrical current flowing through the contam-
inated soil volume between electrodes and produces heat across the electrical resistance of
the soil. Volatile and semivolatile contaminants are stripped in situ by hot soil air or flushed
by hot groundwater or steam. Temperature primarily depends on the contaminant, while
electrode spacing and operating time are mainly determined by soil characteristics.
A special type of soil heating using electrical current leads to in situ vitrification, i.e.
the melting of contaminated soil, including strongly bound stable contaminants. The tem-
perature in this treatment varies between 1,600 and 2,000ºC. Mobilizable organic substances
(both soil components and contaminants) are removed or destroyed at this high a tempera-
ture (thermal degradation). Stable contaminants such as toxic metals, including radionu-
clides, are incorporated after cooling down into the glass-like amorphous material formed
from the melted sand and clay minerals (see more in Beyke & Fleming, 2005; ERH, 2007;
Heron et al., 2005).
Microwave heating (MW) has been used from the 1990s for the remediation of soils
contaminated with hydrocarbons and more recently for in situ groundwater treatment. MW
has the potential to significantly reduce treatment times and costs mainly due to a better
heat transfer compared to indirect heating (Falciglia et al., 2013; Falciglia et al., 2016; Fal-
ciglia et al., 2017). Its application for hazardous wastes was first proposed by Dauerman
(1992). Since that time, several applications have been published, e.g. for PCBs by Huang
et al. (2011) or hexachlorobenzene removal by Lin et al. (2010). Microwave absorbers, e.g.
MnO2, can further intensify heat transfer in soil.
Radio frequency heating uses electromagnetic energy to heat soil and enhance soil
vapor extraction. Heated soil volume is bounded by two rows of vertical ground electrodes
with energy applied to a third row midway between the ground rows. The three rows act as a
buried triplet capacitor. The technique can heat soils to over 300ºC (Triplett Kingston, 2008;
Johnson et al., 2009).
2.3.3.4 Soil heating to intensify biodegradation-based in situ remediation

Heat increases the efficiency of biodegradation because pollutants become more accessible
and better distributed. While desorption (mobilization) steadily increases with temperature,
the activity of the microbes exhibits a maximum. At the beginning, around the biological
optimum temperature, mobilization and microbial activity may support each other, but if
mobilization requires a temperature that is too high to be biologically acceptable, it is worth

separating the two processes into two phases: a short-term, intensive heating phase followed
by a longer-term biodegradation phase. Biodegradation experiments on soil polluted with
residual heavy fuel oil (mazout) showed that the microbial community of the soil had better
degrading capabilities at 15°C than at 30°C, but temporary short-term heating increased the
bioavailability of the contaminant without restricting microbial activity (Molnár et al., 2003).
2.4 Chemical processes for in situ soil remediation

Chemical tools in soil remediation are aimed either at modifying physicochemical soil prop-
erties or at decreasing the damage caused and the risk posed by the contaminants by trans-
forming or degrading the contaminant itself.
2.4.1 Chemical reagents and additives

Soft chemical methods aim at compensating disadvantageous chemical and physical soil
properties by adding natural or man-made chemical substances to stabilize soil acidity,
alkalinity or salinity to supply microorganisms and plants with nutrients and to control soil
organic content and overall structure by adding organic material, humus, or conditioning
substances. Soft interventions are applied to natural and agroecosystems, where conserva-
tion of soil as a habitat and its ecosystem is an important issue for future land use. In cases
where soil-endogenous microbiota will be utilized for bioremediation, similar requirements
should be fulfilled in order to keep the active microbiota alive.
Soft chemical interventions are also used as agrotechnologies and called soil reclama-
tion or soil amelioration. These are also useful solutions in soil remediation, especially as
concerns the upper soil layer, and the original quality and use of the deteriorated, degraded,
or contaminated soil should be restored.
Not all chemicals used for soil remediation are natural or near-natural, but most of them
are synthetic substances applied for modifying soil structure and mobilizing or stabilizing
contaminants. Some of them are very reactive and hazardous and are used to transform or
degrade contaminants chemically. See train in Figure 2.6.
Chemical reagents (direct oxidants or reductants) can facilitate contaminant conversion
by themselves and the optimal technological parameters should support the chemical reac-
tions. They can also encourage certain natural or technological processes (by setting pH or
redox potential) or can have an indirect remediation effect (nutrients, sorbents, catalyzers).
The chemical additives used are summarized in the following list (see also Maslov, 2009).
1 Modifying the pH of acidic or alkaline soils: the most frequently used chemicals are
CaCO3 (lime), CaSO4 (gypsum), CaCl2 (calcium chloride), and H2SO4 (sulfuric acid).
Treatment options for solonetz and soda-saline-alkali soils are the addition of natural
organic matter and mineral fertilizers. Soil liming is one of the most ancient agrotech-
nologies. Liming materials include the following:
– Limestone, typically calcite and dolomite, burnt and hydrated lime; marl or the
shells themselves; industrial by-products such as slags or alkaline ashes;
– Waste materials are increasingly used for soil liming; 2 billion tons per year of
diverse alkaline residues are produced and available globally (Gomes et al., 2015;
SOILUTIL, 2018). They include food industry wastes and by-products, e.g. shells,
refuse lime from sugar beet processing, alkaline paper mill waste, flue dust from the
cement industry, lime from alkaline washers used in air pollution control systems,
wastes from water softening plants and several other industrial and mining wastes
such as red mud from bauxite processing (aluminum production), steelworks slags,
fly ash from coal combustion, concrete crusher fines, rock wool waste, flue gas
desulphurization waste, waste from the Solvay process (sodium carbonate produc-
tion), calcium carbide production, and (chromium, lead) ore processing (see appli-
cation cases: Chang et al., 2013; Goulding, 2016; Molnár et al., 2016; Pértile et al.,
2012; Ujaczki et al., 2016a,b; Zambrano, 2007).
2 Adjusting redox potential (Eh) in the soil is a basic tool to control chemical and bio-
logical processes. The most advantageous redox potential is determined by favorable
chemical or microbial processes such as chemical oxidation or reduction, microbiologi-
cal transformation, and plant-microbe cooperation. Oxidants (electron acceptors) have
significant buffering capacity, so the following additives can set the Eh and maintain the
remedial process:
– Atmospheric air introduction by venting or air injection can increase oxygen con-
centration in soil air. Atmospheric air has lower CO2 and higher O2 content com-
pared to soil air and can thus activate aerobic microorganisms and plant roots.
– Aquifer oxygenation – as an alternative to energy-intensive aeration of the
groundwater – can be carried out by oxygen release compounds (ORC) such as
Ca(OH)2, supplying molecular oxygen for aerobic biodegradation in the aquifer
over the long term (e.g. ORC supply, 2017).
– Alternative electron acceptors such as nitrate, manganese (IV), iron (III), sulfate,
and CO2 in favor of anoxic and anaerobic microbial activities.
– Strong oxidation reagents are used to induce direct oxidation reactions with the
following contaminants:
◦ Permanganate, in form of potassium permanganate (KMnO4) and sodium

permanganate (NaMnO4). Relatively slow oxidation is advantageous, but the
resulting MnO2 causes clogging in the soil.
◦ Peroxide or the mixture of ferrous or ferric iron salts and hydrogen peroxide.
Iron plays the role of a catalyst in the production of hydroxyl radicals from
peroxide.
◦ Persulfate, or more precisely peroxydisulfate in the form of a sodium salt
(Na2S2O8). It works with a ferrous iron, Fe(II) catalyst to produce reactive sul-
fate radicals.
◦ Ozone (O3) is 12 times more soluble than O2 and, being a gas, minimal residue
is left over after oxidation. It is very reactive and, in addition to the target mol-
ecules, may oxidize all oxidizable soil components.
– Direct chemical reduction of contaminants in soil with reducing agents to convert
contaminants into less toxic or less mobile chemical forms. The chemical agent is
injected into or otherwise fills permeable reactive barriers or other surface or subsur-
face flow-through reactors. Contaminant reduction is used for water-soluble chlori-
nated toxicants, very toxic chromium VI to be reduced to chromium (III), and for
in situ elimination of dense non-aqueous contaminant layers, typically chlorinated
solvents (e.g. trichloroethylene). The best-known reducing agent is metallic iron

(also called zero-valent iron or ZVI) and its variations such as micro or nano ZVI
(increased reactive surface) or palladium- or silver-coated ZVI. Polysulfides or
sodium dithionite are also frequently used as reducing agents.
– Indirect chemical reduction covers isolation of the treated soil volume from
atmospheric air by encapsulation or flooding by water, by establishing oxygen-
consuming chemical and biological processes that produce reductive conditions in
the soil and groundwater.
3 Soil structure amendment by additives includes soft interventions using conditioners,
humus or natural and synthetic polymers that upgrade stability and the water regime
to strengthen soil functions. Another type of intervention is soil stabilization; in this
case natural soil function is secondary, and geotechnical goals such as base (sub-base)
stability or landslide management get priority, and the used stabilizers cause drastic
changes in soil structure, e.g. solidification or block formation (see next paragraph and
Chapter 7).
– Conditioners or structure-forming materials can increase porosity, optimize infil-
tration properties and water permeability, resulting in increased water and aggre-
gate stability;
– Humus and extracts from humus;
– Biochar is a newly rediscovered natural soil amendment, used both for structural
and functional purposes for degraded and contaminated soils. Biochar is produced
from organic waste by a thermochemical decomposition technology called pyroly-
sis. It is a material of high eco-efficiency complying with carbon sequestration,
normalizing global element cycling, soil structural amendment and buffering of the
soil nutrient regime (see Chapter 5).
– Polymers interacting directly with the soil matrix: binding both to humus and clay
minerals (coagulation and formation of strong hydrogen bridges):
◦ Inorganic polymer silicates, e.g. sodium silicate;

◦ Cellulose-based polymers: viscose, methylcellulose, carboxymethyl cellulose;
◦ Synthetic polymers, copolymers, polymer salts (acrylic, metacrylic and maleic
acid polymers), polyacrilamide, polyacrylonitrile, non-ionic polyvinyl alcohol
or calcium and ammonium lignosulfonates (Maslov, 2009);
◦ Peat glue: a mixture of peat, perlite and a polymer.
– Polymer-based emulsions and dispersions: bitumen, latex, polyvinyl acetate-
based emulsions, polyurethane resins, or carbamide-formaldehyde can form a thin
film on the surface of the microparticles, resulting in a looser soil structure.
– Polymer foams: inert polymers that do not react directly with the soil, but their
foam-like structures modify (loosen) soil structure and increase water absorption
after being mixed in.
– Swelling polymer hydrogels are more practical than foams: they can increase their
volume to 300x by water uptake. They are ideal amendments for sandy and arid
soils and can significantly increase water retention and amend soil–water regimes.
– Stabilizing agents (see also Chapter 8) may increase the partitioning ratio of the
contaminant between soil solid and liquid by modifying the chemical form of
the contaminant, the soil solid or the soil water or by modifying the interaction
between contaminant and soil-solid particles. Addition of sorbents and stabilizing

agents such as clay and lime or the listed polymers can modify soil solid to bind
contaminants more strongly. Solidifying agents such as bitumen (not environmen-
tally friendly) or cement incorporate contaminants into the new block-like solid
structure.
– Mobilizing agents (see also Chapters 5 and 6) may have a significant impact on
contaminant availability for the transformation process, whether it is physical (e.g.
removal of the contaminant), chemical (e.g. chemical transformation), or biological
(e.g. biotransformation). The mobilizing agents’ availability-enhancing effect acts
against the strong binding of contaminants to soil solid causing a bottleneck in soil
remediation. No matter which concept is used for remediation (removal or trans-
formation), the lowering of the solid/water partition, i.e. the ratio of solid-bound
to mobile/solubilized contaminant forms, is a step that increases the efficiency of
the main conversion process. Mobilizing and solubilizing agents help contami-
nants with limited mobility/solubility to move from the solid to aqueous phase
and enhance in situ physicochemical or biological soil treatment, which usually
includes remediation based on soil washing, flushing, percolation or chemical- or
biodegradation. Several mobilizing agents are available on the market, the most
widespread ones being synthetic surfactants, but biosurfactants are also rapidly
becoming more available. Synthetic surfactants and biosurfactants are not the only
mobilizing and solubilizing agents used for strongly bound, persistent contami-
nants. Other agents include these: solvents, complex-forming molecules, micelle-
forming agents, cyclodextrins, dendrimers, and other nanomaterials. A number of
developments and ideas are being implemented in this field (also see Chapters 5
and 6).
4 Biologically active amendments such as nutrients, hormone-like stimulants, additives
to adjust environmental conditions so that they are beneficial for soil biota:
– Additives to adjust pH and redox potential that are beneficial for the required
biota;
– Alternative electron acceptors enhancing anoxic biological degradation;
– Supplemental nutrients, typically N and P sources when the contaminant supplies
only C, or an energy-providing cometabolite for cometabolic degradation or micro-
nutrients required by the key species of the soil biota;
– Sorbents and soil structural amendments, especially to ensure better surfaces and
a better habitat for soil biota including microorganisms, plants, and soil-dwelling
animals.
5 Nanomaterials is a multifunctional group of chemicals applicable to mobilizing, deliv-
ering, sorbing or otherwise stabilizing, oxidizing, reducing, etc. contaminants, additives
or the soil’s structural compartments. Thus, their introduction as a separate group is not
justifiable based on their use in technologies. Rather their novelty, their common large
surface-to-volume ratio and their similar production processes may account for their
being grouped together.
The introduction of chemical substances into soil or groundwater has required proper
dispersion technologies to be developed. Traditional agrotechnologies such as irrigation or
spraying can mix liquid or dissolved additives into the upper soil layer while solid additives
are applied using tilling, plowing, harrowing and digging. However, homogeneous applica-
tion poses a challenge even in this relatively simple task. Deeper soil layers can be reached
by injecting liquid chemical agents into the contaminated area or placing solid additives into
the path of contaminant plumes in front of subsurface reactors, permeable reactive barriers
or engineered reactive zones.
Chemical additives can fulfill their role by themselves (e.g. chemical oxidation), as part
of a major technology (surfactant-enhanced biodegradation, or biochar-enhanced bioremedia-
tion), or as part of combined technologies such as a combination of chemical stabilization with
phytoremediation of soils contaminated with toxic metals. These applications will be discussed
later in the book in several chapters reviewing certain technologies (see Chapters 3, 5, and 6).
2.5 Technologies based on biological transformation

and its intensification
A number of enhanced biotechnologies have been developed and implemented in the last
20 years. Some developments concentrate on aerobic biodegradation primarily in the vadose
zone. Its optimal performance requires aeration and a suitable amount of moisture and sup-
plemental nutrients (in addition to the contaminant) for microbial growth. If the contami-
nant is mobilized by enhanced desorption or solubilization, bioavailability is also enhanced,
which further intensifies aerobic degradation.
Main desorption tools are increased soil airflow and heating, and solubilization can
be enhanced by surface-active, solvent-type, or complexing agents. Aerobic degradation
in the aquifer needs more engineered intervention to saturate the aquifer with oxygen or
supply alternative oxygen sources (peroxides) or electron acceptors (e.g. nitrates) by injec-
tion. The addition of emulsifiers or other solubilizing agents is generally necessary to make
sorbed contaminants water-soluble. Providing anoxic or anaerobic processes for decon-
tamination in the aquifer may be more feasible compared to creating aerobic conditions.
Those biochemical pathways and microbiological processes suitable for decontamination/
degradation should be identified first, then the technological parameters should be estab-
lished to create an optimal environment (temperature, pH, redox potential, nutrient supply,
etc.) for those microorganisms that can catalyze the decontamination process. Alternative
electron acceptors such as nitrate, Fe(III), Mn(IV), sulfate, or CO2 are necessary for effi-
cient degradation by microorganisms in the absence of atmospheric oxygen. The product
of the electron-transport chain is nitrite or ammonia, Fe(II), Mn(III), sulfide, and acetate
or methane accordingly. In cases where the soil does not contain microorganisms in a suit-
able and sufficiently high concentration for decontamination, the soil can be inoculated by
separately grown living microorganisms in the form of a cell suspension injected into either
the three- or two-phase soil.
Innovative technological solutions for bioremediation are based on one or more param-
eters and the additives necessary to reach maximal performance.
2.5.1 Bioventing
Bioventing is the technology that supplies the aerobic soil microorganisms living and work-
ing in the vadose zone with a sufficient amount of atmospheric oxygen necessary for max-
imum-scale aerobic biodegradation. Venting in the context of soil remediation requires the
normal air exchange. The soil air in the pore volume should be exchanged by exhausting
used air with high CO2 and letting fresh, atmospheric air with high O2 into the same space.
The most appropriate remediation in the three-phase soil for biodegradable pollutants of
good or poor water solubility is a biodegradation-based technology implemented in situ. The
soil’s aerobic microbiota should be kept in an active state by ensuring optimum conditions for
their growth and energy-producing/degrading metabolic activity. In addition to fresh air, this
means the provision of suitable soil moisture content and supplementary nutrients – generally
N and P, which occur in disproportionately low concentration in a polluted soil compared to
the carbon source represented by contaminants.
The groundwater can be extracted parallel to venting in order (i) to treat it on the surface
if contaminated or (ii) to lower in this way the water table and increase the thickness of the
three-phase soil. Lowering the water table increases the soil volume being treated, including
the capillary fringe that may significantly concentrate contaminants.
Figure 2.9 shows a solution that has been frequently applied by the author’s research
team since 1990 (Gruiz et al., 1996; Gruiz & Kriston, 1995; Fenyvesi et al., 2009; Molnár
et al., 2005; Molnár, 2007; Molnár et al., 2007). The treated volume of the contaminated
three-phase soil, i.e. the volume under the operations’ impact, represents the in situ quasi-
reactor: it is in fact the space between the two rows of passive air injection wells (C1, C2,
C3 and C4, C5, C6) with the air extraction well row (B1, B2, B3) in the middle. In terms of
reactor technology, the soil-solid and adherent water (i.e. soil moisture) of this volume rep-
resent a fixed bed through which the third phase, i.e. soil air/gas, flows. Due to the pressure
Figure 2.9 In situ bioventing to enhance biodegradation in the vadose soil zone: used air is exhausted
by a mild vacuum, fresh air is introduced by passive wells.
difference between the soil-gas extraction wells (B) and the wells for fresh air inlet from the
atmosphere (C) into the soil, fresh air starts to flow in and air with a higher oxygen and lower
carbon dioxide content travels directly to the vicinity of the biofilms (in the microcapillar-
ies), while, at the same time, the soil air exhaled by microorganisms is removed. This is the
mechanism of ventilation. When volatile pollutants are present, the extracted gas must be
treated ex situ (to prevent emissions into the air). This is useful from the soil’s perspective
because it decreases pollutant concentration in the soil, and gas (vapor) extraction and bio-
logical degradation are additional benefits.
The activity of aerobic microorganisms can be greatly enhanced by manipulating the unsat-
urated soil zone. However, airflow must not be allowed to desiccate the soil; if there is a real risk
of this happening, moisture must be supplemented by irrigation or infiltration. In addition to an
in situ treatment of the solid phase, groundwater can be treated either ex situ or in situ.
The system, which seems static at first sight, is greatly responsive to any impacts: air-
flow can generate concentration gradients in the soil, which has an impact on the air/water,
air/solid and water/solid partitioning of the contaminants and other mobilizable soil com-
ponents (including soil moisture). The process pairs involved are evaporation-precipitation,
sorption-desorption, oxidation-reduction, and diffusion. If airflow increases or contaminant
partitioning between soil phases changes, microbiological activity also changes immediately.
2.5.2 Intensification of bioremediation

Additives, pH and redox adjustment, heating, bioavailability-enhancing agents, physico-
chemical agents that are suitable to help bioremediation with physical or chemical reactions,
and, finally, microbial inoculation can increase the efficiency of bioremediation. The techno-
logical solutions enhancing bioremediation are discussed in detail in Chapter 5.
The interventions and additives described in Section 2 may represent the core process
of a technology or be part of a complex technology involving several processes. This is why
they are presented independently of the technology. Another specialty of the flexible use of
the interventions and additives presented is the measure of application: the scale of heating,
the concentration of the additive, etc. For example, surfactants in high concentration can
be used for soil washing or in a biologically acceptable low concentration for bioavailabil-
ity enhancement. Biologically acceptable quantities from any additive allow the microor-
ganisms to survive, while larger quantities used for physicochemical transformation of the
contaminants may irreversibly deteriorate soil microbiota. All these considerations must be
implemented in the technology application.
3 COMPARISON OF IN SITU AND EX SITU REACTORS USED

IN SOIL REMEDIATION
This comparison considers technological differences and risks arising from various structures,
applications and locations of ex situ and in situ remediation processes. An analysis of the
differences and causes explains that consequences and environmental risks arising from the
technologies mainly depend on the pollutant’s physicochemical characteristics modified by
the design (ex situ or in situ) plus discharges and emissions. Risk estimation requires detailed
information about emissions and reactor types: while in situ reactors are typically open, i.e.
they have no walls or other closed/sealed boundaries (quasi-reactors), neither do ex situ soil
treatments usually imply closed reactors. Risks posed by emissions from excavations and ex
situ technologies are often higher than those from in situ applications. Impacts on the indi-
vidual environmental compartments may be different, e.g. the atmosphere is less affected by
in situ than ex situ technologies, while groundwater can often be better protected when the
soil is excavated and treated ex situ. Thorough risk assessment and analysis are necessary
to calculate the overall risks and compare in situ and ex situ implementations. In addition to
environmental and human risks, economic and spatial planning also play a role in decision
making (see also Gruiz et al., 2014).
Let us consider, for example, a moderately volatile toxic pollutant. Ex situ biological
treatment in layers or prisms creates a large free surface that is in contact with the atmosphere
and through which the toxic substance can escape into the air. The very same soil treated by
in situ bioremediation combined with gas extraction and ex situ gas treatment may be fully
controlled and risk-free. Treatment in a fully closed reactor on the surface with gas emission
control also poses some risk in terms of emissions (failure, leak, maintenance, repair), but
the large emission caused by soil excavation and additional machinery use surpasses it many
times over. Comparing excavation and reactor construction costs and the problems arising
from the limited size of the reactor shows that the in situ solution is more advantageous from
the perspective of both cost efficiency and environmental efficiency.
In addition to environmental and human risks and direct costs of remediation implemen-
tation, spatial planning, current and future land uses, accessibility, etc. should also be taken
into consideration when choosing between in situ or ex situ soil remediation.
In the following section, the relationship with the environment, the internal characteris-
tics, and the processes taking place within real and quasi-reactors will be discussed in detail.
3.1 The boundaries, openness, and interaction of the

reactor with its surroundings
3.1.1 The boundaries of the reactor

Most ex situ reactors have physical boundaries or walls, and they can be fully or partly sur-
rounded by these. The boundaries can be artificial (e.g. steel, concrete) or natural (a natu-
ral watertight layer, etc.). Built in situ reactive soil zones arranged inside the soil have no
walls or other boundaries and are integral parts of the subsurface system, but their material
(man-made filling) and permeability differ from that of the natural surroundings. Permeable
reactive barriers (PRBs) are also inserted into the subsurface soil system, but they are only
in direct contact with the groundwater phase through their water-permeable walls, which do
not allow contact between the solid phases of the soil and the PRB.
In situ quasi-reactors rarely have built boundaries, but in some cases a volume treated
in situ over the long term is surrounded by an underground barrier just for emission control.
It is also possible that the quasi-reactor is surrounded by natural isolating layers, e.g. in
situ soil treatment in an area between a lower and an upper watertight clay layer. In cases
like this, water and air transport occur only horizontally. In the most common case, there is
neither an artificial interface nor an isolating layer around the in situ treated soil, rather the
maximum range of operations and scope of impacts (the physical distance over which the
processes exert their effects) and the relevant natural processes determine the boundaries of
the quasi-reactor.
Figures 2.10 and 2.11 show the boundaries in a quasi-reactor and in a reactor vessel in
homogeneous and in heterogeneous matrices.
Figure 2.10 Soil treatment in a reactor vessel: the boundaries of the vessel and soil resistance limit the
impact range – homogeneous and heterogeneous matrix.
Figure 2.11 Soil treatment in a quasi-reactor, i.e. directly in soil: the boundaries are equal with impact
range limited only by soil heterogeneity.
3.1.2 The openness of the reactor

Some of the reactors used for ex situ treatment of the excavated soil are closed (e.g. steel
tank reactors, isolated soil pools with a surface cover, concrete pools with a surface cover,
etc.). However, some of them are partly open (e.g. isolated soil ponds or concrete pools with
an open surface, or prisms or thin layers of soil isolated from the working area surface only
by a bottom liner) and some are fully open: for example, prisms or soil layers that are not
fully isolated. Analyzing the in situ quasi-reactors, the same combinations can be found, but,
logically, the physically open reactors are more common and the contacting environmental
phases are different: an ex situ open reactor has a dominant contact with the atmosphere.
Their bottom surface may meet the soil below when isolation is lacking, and the leachates
can get into the soil and interact with soil waters when they are not collected. The interac-
tion of ex situ reactors covers mainly emission and some interaction with atmospheric air
(ventilation, gas exhaustion) or water (rainwater or wash-water).
Figure 2.12 Potential emission to air (yellow) and water (blue) from in situ, heap, open tank, and closed
reactors.
In situ quasi-reactors have extensive contact with soil solid and groundwater: this avail-
ability to contact is responsible both for remediation (e.g. while groundwater flows through)
and emission (contaminant diffusion into soil air and surrounding soil solid). Their openness
(emission) can be limited by natural isolation (i.e. a watertight layer) or by operations such
as the depression of the water table in order to establish a hydraulic barrier or by built struc-
tures (subsurface barriers).
The built underground reactors interact with their surroundings on a limited scale, and
the interactions are mostly controlled (see Figure 2.12).
3.1.3 Contacted and endangered environmental phases

The design and the artificial or natural boundaries of the reactor (or quasi-reactor) limit or
enable the interaction of the polluted (treated) soil with certain environmental compartments
and phases, and thus limit or enable also material discharge into the environment. Most of
the ex situ soil reactors are open, and contaminated soil can easily get into contact with the
external atmosphere. During the treatment of the soil in a thin layer or in a prism, the pol-
luted soil is separated from the local soil and, with the incorporation of a proper collector
system, also from the groundwater. Soil treatment plants (e.g. soil washing plants) may
ensure the control of water and solid, but air, volatiles and small-size particulate matter are
typically less controlled or not at all. There is no direct contact with the external atmosphere
in the in situ treated subsurface soils. The treated three-phase soil does not directly get into
contact with the groundwater, and contaminant transport can be easily prevented by lower-
ing the water table. The contaminated saturated soil is in direct contact with other subsurface
waters. However, the transport of the contaminated water can be restricted by the application
of a hydraulic barrier or a PRB.
3.1.4 The treated volume

In real reactors (above or below ground) that are completely closed or those that have
boundaries but are open to the atmosphere, the treated volume can be the gas phase, liq-
uid phase, solid phase or all three, as well as a slurry within the physical boundaries. The
treated volume is the useful volume of the reactor. The treated volume of an in situ quasi-
reactor, which is fully open, is determined as the volume under the impact of the techno-
logical operations. Safety is paramount during the planning process, and the operations
and processes must reach the whole volume that poses an unacceptable risk. Since the risk
posed by a pollutant depends on its mobility and transport, a transport model should be used
to determine the volume to be treated and its underground position and extension as well
as the changes over time.
3.1.5 Emission transport and pathway

The pathways of emission from open, semi-open, and closed reactors are discussed accord-
ing to the soil phases involved.
Contaminated soil gases and vapors are usually released into the atmosphere or the
surrounding soil air through diffusion and sometimes by convection. Artificial venting influ-
ences the flux of the gas phase: compared to diffusion it can promote more effective trans-
port processes, and – provided that ventilation is applied – the vented soil air, gases, and
vapors can be fully controlled. Other possible ways to control soil gas transport are covering
the surface of the soil or working under a tent that provides a controlled air space.
Contaminated groundwater is carried by convection, in accordance with the flow con-
ditions of the groundwater, and it transports the dissolved pollutants. The pollutants may
enter the clean groundwater, solid soil, or soil air from the contaminated soil moisture and
pore water, via precipitation-infiltration, mixing, diffusion, or partitioning. The most danger-
ous case is when the contaminated pore water (originating from the surface or from under-
ground sources) moves downwards and enters the groundwater or the deeper subsurface
waters.
The pollutants may form a separate liquid phase in the soil, called a non-aqueous-phase
liquid (NAPL) layer, a separate phase, which can be either volatile or non-volatile, less dense
or denser than water. The transport processes and mobility of these liquids are varied – the
most typical are those hydrocarbons that float on the surface of the groundwater and only
mix with the water to a limited extent, but they move semi-independently by more and more
extensive spreading on the surface of the water in the capillary fringe due to water table
level fluctuation and by partial sorption onto the adjacent solid phase. The supernatant layer
is smeared onto the soil solid and the thickness of this smear varies according to the fluctua-
tion in the level. This leads to the contamination of large amounts of unsaturated soil. As a
result, increased biological activity may lead to intensive biosurfactant production, which
encourages the pollutants to enter the groundwater. High-density non-aqueous-phase liquids
(DNAPL) act differently to the supernatant liquids; they are located at the bottom of the
water table in a separate phase layer or lens, directly above the watertight layer. They remain
hidden and may serve as a virtually unlimited supply of multiple risks. The watertight layer
does not necessarily mean a barrier for certain DNAPLs such as some chlorinated solvents
that can cut tunnel-like passageways/gaps in the watertight clay layer, through which they
can easily enter the subsurface waters of greater depths.
Contaminated three-phase soil can easily contaminate soil gas and groundwater by
partition, diffusion, and convection driven by gravitation or facilitated by infiltrated rain-
water. The same transport processes occur during in situ soil treatment, so depending on the
extent of risk (toxicity of the contaminant and sensitivity of the groundwater, etc.), it must be
decided whether to apply in situ treatment or the removal of the contaminated soil volume.
Emission and transport from the aquifer require a different consideration as the con-
taminant is typically transported in a plume from a distant source. Additional transport can
move the plume toward sensitive water resources. To protect them, the flow direction of the
plume should be changed (by hydraulic barriers) or the plume decontaminated by permeable
reactive barriers or by reactors placed into recirculation wells.
3.2 Inside the reactor
3.2.1 Soil phases to be treated

The three main phases of the soil – gas, liquid, and solid – can be treated together or sepa-
rately, and a wide range of in situ and ex situ solutions and their combinations are available.
Soil gases and vapors can be treated both ex situ and in situ. Ex situ treatment is worth-
while when most of the (volatile) contaminants occur in the soil gas phase and the pollutant
can be removed from the whole soil by soil-gas extraction. Also, sorbed volatile contami-
nants can be treated by mobilizing and removing soil gases from the soil by means of ven-
tilators or vacuum pumps, which is fairly straightforward. If it is not possible to alter the
partition of the volatile substance between the soil solid and gas phases, and it cannot be
shifted artificially (e.g. by heating) towards the gas (vapor) phase by enhanced desorption, it
is advisable to treat the soil as a whole and not to separate the gas phase. Soil gases can be
removed from the liquid phase by stripping, which can be applied both in situ without water
extraction and ex situ after water extraction.
Groundwater can be treated independently of or together with the solid phase. Water
and solid phases can even be treated partly together and partly separately. The decision
depends on the partition of the contaminant between the phases. If it is largely dissolved or
emulsified in the groundwater or it can be transferred into the groundwater by solubilization,
emulsification, or other manipulation, it is reasonable to treat the groundwater separately
from the solid phase, thus exploiting its easy mobility and extractability from saturated soil.
Thus, the partition of the pollutant between the phases is crucial in decision making. The
partition between the soil phases (Kp = Csoil/Cwater) calculated from the Kow (the octanol–
water partition coefficient) is not always authentic since the modified forms of the pollutant
and its interactions with the soil matrix and soil microbiota (i.e. spontaneous biosurfactant
production) can result in a Kp that differs from the calculated version by several orders of
magnitude.
Liquid pollutants that form a separate phase should be treated separately. The super-
natant can be slurped or skimmed off from the surface of the groundwater. It can also be
separated from the groundwater ex situ after it is extracted to the surface together or partly
together with the groundwater. Phase separation can be facilitated by additives and imple-
mented both ex situ and in situ, e.g. in wells. DNAPL can rarely be extracted as a separate
phase, even if the volume is large and the location is well known, but they are typically dis-
solved in or mixed with water. DNAPL–water ratio is crucial: if only the dissolved amount
can be removed with water, the concentrated DNAPL piled up in permeable sand or gravel
lenses will provide a long-term supply of groundwater contamination. Dissolution can be

increased by in situ enhanced contaminant mobility via solubilization using surfactants,
cosolvents or other mobilizing agents such as cyclodextrins. The other way of intensifying
removal is the maximal approximation of the location of the lens and increasing DNAPL-
water ratio by mixing.
The treatment of silts and slurries (dredged sediments) is rarely performed in situ, since
their excavation (dredging) is mostly justified by river or harbor management. Transportation
of the slurry is also feasible, so therefore their treatment in a well-controlled soil/sediment-
treatment plant is more efficient than in situ treatment. Such complex soil/sediment treat-
ment plants are also called soil-washing plants because of the watery slurry form of the soil/
sediment, although they perform generally much more than just washing the soil. They apply
grain-size fractionation prior to the remedial treatment that consists of physical, chemical,
thermal, and biological steps or an arbitrary combination thereof. Grain-size- and density-
based classification (cycloning, flotation, sedimentation) is particularly beneficial because it
can provide clean, utilizable course fractions (gravel and sand) as early as in the first stage,
leaving a relatively small amount (10–20%) that needs to be further treated. The treatments
yield utilizable fine fractions (clay for ceramics) and only a minimal amount of hazardous
waste.
Under special conditions, for example in situ containment by stabilization or block for-
mation, slurry-phase treatment can be carried out in situ by adding a stabilizing agent, e.g.
cement, lime or fly ash, etc. Excavation and transportation of soil can be avoided when using
this method and, as a result, the hazards from pollutants can be reduced, the physical and
static stability of the treated soil volume can be increased, and erosion prior to construction
can be prevented.
“Solid soil” usually means three-phase soil, the treatment of which can be carried out
either ex situ or in situ. In situ remediation methods often combine the in situ treatment of
the solid phase with the ex situ treatment of soil air and groundwater, but “ex situ” almost
always means treatment of the three phases together.
Two-phase soils are rarely excavated. Instead, following the excavation of three-phase
soil (or a part of the saturated soil after lowering the groundwater level), the groundwater is
most often treated in situ separately in ponds, or in water-treatment reactors ex situ.
3.2.2 Homogeneity and heterogeneity

Soil air and groundwater are usually homogeneous after extraction. Slurry-phase soil is nor-
mally homogenized and treated in reactors by mixing. Mixed-type tank reactors can achieve
high-grade homogeneity.
In situ soil treatment is always carried out in a heterogeneous medium. Gas and liquid
phases can be homogenized by continuous recirculation, but not the solid phase – since it
will maintain its original heterogeneous structure. Homogeneity in soil cannot be achieved,
nor is it a goal, since heterogeneity, concentration gradients, and biological gradients are
often key drivers of the technology.
Technologists have to consider soil and pollutant heterogeneity. The heterogeneous
distribution and composition of the pollutants are due to the source of pollution, transport
processes or the physicochemical changes and partitions occurring in the contaminated area
over a long period of time. Pollutants can move in the soil due to gravity, diffusion and cap-
illary forces. They may be partitioned between the physical soil phases: they can be sorbed
from the groundwater to the solid phase and desorbed from the solid phase and enter the gas
(vapor) or liquid phase. Over time, changes in chemical and biological processes can influ-
ence propagation, movement and phase changes of the pollutants. The soil solid phase filters
some of the water-dissolved substances. Leaching into the water from the solid also can
occur, depending on the dynamic equilibrium and natural soil conditions. Volatile substances
accumulate in the gas phase, water-soluble substances gather in the water phase, and sorb-
able substances accumulate in the solid phase. However, this can lead to major and unpre-
dictable heterogeneity in pollution, depending on conditions, type of soil, and distribution of
contaminants in soil phases. Pollutant sources and transport have an important role in creat-
ing contaminant heterogeneities. In addition to primary pollutant sources, secondary sources
may emerge within the soil due to invisible accumulations. These secondary accumulations
and their effects cause not only heterogeneities but also upset the transport models. Further
types of heterogeneity occur if the pollutants have multiple components. Depending on their
ability to partition between the phases, the pollutants are introduced into the soil phases and
become further fractionated during their movement. The example of petroleum derivatives,
which can have several hundred components, shows that the components may act differ-
ently in the soil, and have different interactions with the soil phases and the microbiota. As
a result, selection occurs within the components: some become diluted over time and over
greater volumes, while others will accumulate.
Heterogeneity, including microbiological heterogeneity, can play a particularly signifi-
cant role in biological soil treatment. The heterogeneity in the soil’s biological system can
have three sources:
– Hydrogeological and geological heterogeneity: three-phase (unsaturated) or two-phase

(saturated) soil; water table; the type and layers of the soil; pollutant-binding capacity;
air and water content; organic matter (humus) content and clay content of these layers,
etc. These heterogeneities play a key role and must be considered by technologists,
especially during in situ soil treatment.
– Environmental-parameter-related soil heterogeneities usually appear in the form of gra-
dients, for example, redox potential and humus content decreasing as functions of depth.
The transition between the external temperature and soil temperature at a certain depth
can create a positive or negative gradient depending on the season. Humidity gradients
will depend on the extent of irrigation or precipitation. Different gradients can emerge
if water comes from the surface or if capillary water is absorbed from the groundwater.
These gradients may occur in either (non-mixed) reactors containing the solid phase or
in in situ quasi-reactors.
– Heterogeneity arising from the partition of the contaminants: the concentration and
toxicity of the pollutants are greater in the source and decrease with increasing dis-
tance from the source. They are greater along the transport routes and smaller concen-
trations prevail further away from the routes due to dilution during transport. Rarely,
accumulation can happen during transport. Where the utilizable substrate can be found
in greater amounts, the number of soil microorganisms will be greater; the amount of
carbon dioxide produced will increase; the level of oxygen will decrease; metabolites
and end products will appear; and toxicity will usually decrease but may also increase
(intermediate or end products of toxic degradation). These heterogeneities usually char-
acterize solid-phase-containing non-mixed reactors. In extreme cases, the heterogeneity
of multi-component pollutants can lead to the accumulation of very toxic, persistent
residues causing further disposal problems. Typical gradients can emerge in both in situ
and ex situ treatment prisms depending on the environmental parameters and due to
pollutant transport within the soil. These gradients and heterogeneities can either be uti-
lized or eliminated using technological processes. Heating and ventilation can keep the
temperature of a static prism or an in situ soil volume constant, and ventilation can also
influence redox conditions. If the goal is to replace aerobic microorganisms with fac-
ultative anaerobic ones, a lower optimum redox potential should be set by reducing the
frequency of ventilation in order to provide ample time for the decreased redox potential
to establish and for the facultative anaerobic microorganisms to work. The development
of such gradients can be encouraged or inhibited, depending on the requirements of the
processes responsible for soil remediation.
3.2.3 Reactor types classified according to the concentration gradient

Mixing in homogeneous batch reactors used for groundwater or soil slurry treatment can
prevent spatial concentration gradients from being developed. In flow-through reactors,
near-linear concentration profiles develop. Flow-through reactors can be filled by packing
and operate as fixed or fluidized bed reactors. Two-phase soil can be considered to be a spe-
cial type of fixed-bed flow-through reactor filled with soil solid. Groundwater is the liquid
phase flowing through the pores of the granular packing. Initial heterogeneity of the solid
phase and gradients due to time-dependent pollutant transport are superposed in such a con-
tinuously working in situ quasi-reactor.
An ex situ, e.g. tank reactor for water treatment, can work both in batch or flow-through
mode. A batch reactor has neither inflow nor outflow during the treatment, but a simple tank
reactor can work with or without recirculating the treated water or slurry or by recirculating
the mobile soil phase only when the reactor is packed. A spatial or time-related pollutant
concentration gradient can develop in continuous reactors built for groundwater or slurry
treatment. In a tube reactor, the pollutant exhibits an almost linear concentration gradient due
to the core transformation process.
The treatment of contaminated soil and groundwater combined with air and/or water
recirculation in a soil volume is equivalent to a continuously operated filled reactor. The spa-
tial pollutant concentration in the circulating air and water is nearly constant and decreases
as a function of time. At the same time, the solid phase shows a heterogeneous distribution
in space and time. Heterogeneity, as already mentioned, can be caused by hydrogeologi-
cal and external conditions and by pollutant partition. Heterogeneity in ex situ reactors is
mainly caused by environmental conditions (precipitation, evaporation, temperature, wind,
etc.) or technological parameters (irrigation, injection, venting, etc.) while in situ technolo-
gies are mainly affected by hydrogeological conditions and by the fate and transport of the
pollutant.
Remediation can be based on heterogeneities or gradients within quasi-filled ground-
water treatment reactors if a redox gradient develops in a biodegradable contaminant plume.
The higher the concentration, the more intensive the biodegradation, so therefore microor-
ganisms may completely consume atmospheric and alternative oxygen sources, which can
result in a negative redox potential in the source zone. Redox potential will decrease in lesser
scale alongside the plume because the contaminant concentration is lower and biodegrad-
ing microorganisms need fewer electron acceptors. Natural or artificial heterogeneities or
gradients may result in a quasi-technological sequence of coupled reactor volumes with
different technological conditions. Such a type of quasi-reactor sequences with decreasing

redox potential can be used for the biodegradation of contaminant mixtures, microbiologi-
cally moderated chemical stabilization (immobilization) of toxic metals or for dehalogena-
tion of organic contaminants.
3.2.4 Reactor design: single-stage, multi-stage, and cascade types

Ex situ batch and continuous homogeneous reactors (water and slurry treatment) and in situ
water treatment may involve multiple stages. The stages of ex situ reactors can apply to dif-
ferent technological processes and operations. With regard to in situ treatment, this means
different conditions within the solid volumes where the groundwater flows through: redox
potential (aerobic, anoxic, anaerobic), nutrient supply, temperature, residence time, etc.
3.3 Processes and parameters within the reactor
3.3.1 Aeration
Aerobic biodegradation or other chemical and biological oxidizing processes require oxy-
gen, and this can be derived from the air or from chemical compounds. Aeration methods,
such as ventilation, injection of air and sometimes oxygen or ozone can be applied to intro-
duce atmospheric air into the soil. Here too, a distinction must be made between the aera-
tion of the water, slurry, three-phase or two-phase soils, and the aeration of ex situ or in situ
reactors.
When water or slurry is aerated, the aim is to increase the concentration of oxy-
gen dissolved in the water. The efficiency is low because the contact time of air bub-
bles is short compared to the time required for dissolution. The aeration of saturated
soil by injecting air or by recirculating dissolved oxygen-saturated water is an expen-
sive method. Instead, introducing hydrogen peroxide or other peroxide compounds or
oxygen-releasing chemical compounds (ORCs) into the groundwater can be used as
alternative solutions.
In the three-phase soil, the pressure difference caused by the effect of ventilation gen-
erates a current within the pore volume, which provides fresh air for the respiration and
biodegradation of the soil microbes. In addition to introducing oxygen, gaseous metabolic
products are also removed. Both ex situ and in situ aerations are performed through perfo-
rated wells/tubes or injectors introduced into the three-phase soil for exhaustion or injection,
and the pressure difference needed to move the air is generated by a ventilator or vacuum
pump or by a compressor.
3.3.2 Redox potential setting

An aerobic, anoxic or anaerobic environment can be created in real or quasi-reactors. Soil
exhibits an inherent natural gradient from a high redox potential near the surface through a
low, but still positive, redox potential in the upper layers of the saturated soil zone to a nega-
tive redox potential in the deeper saturated soil layer.
The technology applied can control both aerobic and anaerobic conditions inside closed
ex situ reactors and in deeper soil layers. Aerobic technologies are preferred in open reactors
or in the upper layer of the in situ treated soil, while anaerobic technologies are preferable
in the naturally anaerobic deeper soil layers. Depending on the character of the pollutant, it
may be necessary to
– Change an initially anaerobic soil to an aerobic one or vice versa;

– Exclude the air from an initially aerobic soil;
– Apply various alternative electron acceptors to adjust a certain redox potential and ini-
tiate or enhance the required biological degradation, e.g. petroleum hydrocarbons are
most degradable under aerobic conditions while some chlorinated organic substances
are most easily broken down under strictly anaerobic conditions;
– Initiate transformation processes, e.g. acidic bioleaching of metals from sulfidic ores
under aerobic conditions or the stabilization of mercury or other toxic metals in sulfidic
form under anaerobic conditions.
Redox potential can be controlled by aeration or the exclusion of air, by chemical addi-
tives or indirectly through microbiological activities. The reduction of the soil’s redox poten-
tial to lower or negative values can be based on the activity of those microbes that can utilize
(consume for energy production) alternative electron donors, e.g. an easy-to-degrade sugar,
starch or hydrocarbon without supplying any atmospheric molecular oxygen. After having
used (oxidized) these carbon sources, the redox potential drops. To remove nitrates from the
soil, for example, the nitrate-reducing (nitrate-respiring) soil microbes can be stimulated by
providing high-level sugar, hydrocarbons, BTEX or other suitable substrates. If the redox
potential has to be reduced further, the same can be done to the sulfates by supplementing
sulfate-reducing bacteria together with a biodegradable substrate. After reducing all avail-
able sulfates, the redox environment will become advantageous for microbiological chlorine
respiration and methanogenesis.
It must be noted that monitoring redox potential in the soil has special problems: if we
try to directly measure redox potential or to analyze redox indicators from a groundwater
sample, it must be realized that the water sample taken from a well is a mixture representing
the whole vertical length and not the spatial redox distribution. In situ measurement of redox
potential (by soil-specific redox sensors, e.g. Vorenhout et al., 2004) is required if redox
potential adjustment is part of the technology and monitoring is necessary.
3.3.3 Moisture content

The moisture content of the soil is an important technological parameter. Certain soil treat-
ments can only be effective at a specific moisture content: it is reasonable to use high-
temperature thermal treatment in a dry soil and chemical reactions in homogeneous slurries.
The biological processes are strongly dependent on the moisture content. Water demand of
microorganisms and plants can differ according to species, and in general the water activity
cannot be decreased below the lower limit of biological availability (the ability of microor-
ganisms or plant roots to absorb and use the water in the soil). Biological availability of the
pollutant to be degraded/transformed also depends on the moisture content since many pro-
cesses enhancing availability include hydrolysis/enzymatic hydrolysis. The moisture con-
tent of the three-phase soil can be adjusted using conventional watering and trickle watering
from the surface or by injecting water (through an injector or a perforated pipe system) both
in situ and ex situ. There are additional possibilities in situ that can provide the capillary
water by maintaining a constant high groundwater level or temporarily flooding/flushing
the unsaturated soil. Another concept is the use of natural or man-made polymeric additives
(swelling gels) that can keep moisture in their molecular structure for a long time and release
it later than natural soil components and thus supplying moisture for soil biota. Maintaining
a constant and homogeneous moisture content is an important technological task in soils
since bioremediation efficiency may be limited by moisture content. Homogeneous moist-
ening of the soil in situ or in static heaps (prisms) is strongly limited by other gradients and
requires special care. In the practice of ex situ treatment, the three-phase soil is overwetted
and the excess moisture is carefully disposed of, e.g. the leachate is collected. In situ, the
soil is temporarily flooded, and the excess water enters the groundwater. In such cases, the
resultant risk should be assessed and managed (e.g. by hydraulic barriers and extraction).
Ensuring moisture by capillary forces from an elevated groundwater level is a good solution
from an environmental risk perspective but can help only a certain layer above the water
table (the capillary fringe).
3.3.4 Additives
Adding and distributing dissolved, solubilized, emulsified, or suspended substances homo-
geneously into soil is an even more complicated task than just moistening it. It is feasible in
water or in a slurry phase, but it is a major issue in solid phases both ex situ and in situ. In the
case of liquid phase addition, first, soil permeability, water/solute conductivity and the soil’s
filtering effect must be taken into account. The filtering effect is based on a mixture of pro-
cesses such as ion exchange, ad- and absorption, desorption as well as partitioning between
phases (evaporation-precipitation, dissolution-precipitation) resulting in the retention of the
additive substance in soil solid. The transport and flow of the injected liquid substance may
be limited by its local sorption and its intrusion into the capillaries blocking the transport/
distribution and damaging the soil. The distribution of soil heterogeneities and the concen-
tration gradient must also be considered. Water-soluble soil additives can be introduced by
flooding the soil volume to be treated. The solution of the additive fills the pore spaces and
a fairly homogeneous partitioning can be achieved. If the water-soluble material is sprayed
onto the soil surface and infiltrates through the surface or is introduced through a deeper-
placed drain or well system or is injected, a filtering effect takes place. This effect means that
the solute substance will partition between the solid phase of the soil and soil water. Organic
and inorganic additives – unless they are markedly polar – usually attach to the solid phase
in a 102−106 times higher concentration compared to water. This means that an additive
dissolved in water and diffusing from the injection source will quickly be adsorbed onto a
solid surface and a steep concentration gradient will develop. The partitioning can be shifted
towards the water phase by solidifying agents such as solvents of surfactants.
If the additive is not water-soluble but is in a suspension or emulsion, the situation is
more difficult and depends on polarity and stability of the suspension/emulsion. Solid, non-
soluble substances can only be introduced homogeneously into homogeneous groundwater
or slurry reactors. If the reactors/quasi-reactors are filled with solid soil (both ex situ or in situ
types), the suspended additive can be dissolved consistently using high-intensity injection or
the three-phase soil can be flooded with water containing the additive. This time-consuming
sorption and partition do not proceed instantly during sudden flooding. Additives, solubiliz-
ing agents, tensides, or special nanoparticles may aid this process to a certain extent.
A solid additive may be introduced into the soil in solid form by mixing. This can be
done in relatively thin soil layers using agrotechnologies. Wetting agents may be necessary
for hydrophobic agents. Only the suspension form of solid additives can be introduced into
deeper soil layers.
3.3.5 Material output from the soil

Removing or recycling mobile soil phases is easy and similar in the ex situ and in situ tech-
nologies, but the solid phase can only be removed in ex situ reactors.
Soil air can be exhausted by a ventilator or a vacuum pump and collected through a ver-
tical, horizontal, or inclined perforated pipe system. In situ, air extraction wells are applied,
which – in terms of installation – are similar to water extraction wells, but only the disposi-
tion of the screen differs. Vented air can be treated in a controlled way, depending on its
pollutant content.
Soil moisture can be collected by a drainage system; a perforated, vertically or horizon-
tally installed pipe; or a ditch system from where water is pumped (in situ) in accordance
with depth and accessibility, or is transported by a pipeline, e.g. gravitationally (ex situ) to
the treatment site. When ex situ soil treatment is applied, seepage water (leachate) is col-
lected in a ditch system, in an area above the isolating layer.
Groundwater is extracted by extraction wells from the saturated soil zone: the wells or
well curtains can be free-surface wells, depression wells or vacuum wells equipped with
submersible or surface-installed pumps.
Removal of mobile or mobilizable pollutants can take place along with soil gas (vol-
atilizable) or groundwater (water-soluble) extraction. Vapor and gas are extracted through
collection pipe systems by ventilators and pumps. If the pollutant is explosive, special explo-
sion-proof equipment must be used. If the pollutant forms a separate phase, it can be extracted
from the top or bottom of the groundwater, together with or separated from groundwater using
submersible pumps, “scavenger” pumps or pumps connected to slurping tubes. Submersible
pumps will pick up the layer according to its location, and when the pollutant phase forms a
very thin layer, it will pump a groundwater-pollutant mixture to the surface. This mixture will
have to go to phase separation. The scavenger pump is equipped with a hydrophobic filter,
which can separate the phases and extract the organic phase only, even if the layer is only
1 mm thick. The supernatant layer can be slurped by a weak vacuum or skimmed from the
free surface of wells, ditches or lakes mechanically or manually or by using sorbents.
3.3.6 Recirculation
Soil air/soil gas recirculation: there are four main options available for a three-phase soil:
– Recirculation of a part or the whole of the soil gas without treatment;

– Treatment of the soil gas after extraction, followed by the recirculation of the treated gas;
– The extraction of soil gas and introduction of the fresh (atmospheric) air;
– Exhaustion of soil air and introduction of the additive-enriched air.
Groundwater recirculation: the possible solutions in a two-phase soil are as follows:
– Recirculation of a part or the whole of the groundwater;

– Treatment of the groundwater after extraction, followed by the recirculation of the
treated water;
– Extraction of the groundwater and introduction of additive-enriched water into the

groundwater;
– Extraction of the groundwater and introduction of additive-enriched water into the
unsaturated soil by flooding or temporarily increasing the water level.
In practice, when the slurry phase is treated,
– The whole slurry is recirculated, or

– Water is recirculated only after phase separation (sedimentation, filtering, cycloning, etc.).
3.4 Microorganisms in the reactor
3.4.1 Soil microbiota and its modification

Some 99% of the soil’s microbiota lives in biofilms tightly attached to the surface of the
solid phase of micro-pores and micro-capillaries. Only a very small percentage of the micro-
organisms can be found in the groundwater, they either initially lived in the water or origi-
nated from detached cells of the biofilm. The biofilm is a mucosal layer that consists of
extracellular polymeric substances produced by the microorganisms and serves as a glue to
attach microbes to the particle surface and to retain water, solubilize and fix/retain nutrients
and other substances in this special habitat of soil microbiota. Biofilms generally represent
a highly organized biological system where microorganisms form structured, coordinated,
and functional communities. Similar mucous material covers plant root surfaces and the
intracellular space and capillary vessels of higher organisms. Mainly aerobic and facultative
anaerobic bacteria, fungi, single-cell plants, and animals live in soil pores and capillaries of
the three-phase soil. In the two-phase soil, depending on the redox conditions, mainly fac-
ultative anaerobic or obligate anaerobic bacteria are present, in biofilms or in lesser extent
in free forms.
If the soil conditions change, microbiota will also change, immediately responding to
actual conditions. The changes can be followed by species diversity and density as well as
community structure and function, more recently via metagenome analysis (Gruiz, 2015,
2016a). Any changes in soil conditions such as the result of natural processes (dilution,
acidification, soil compaction, flood, etc.) or technological operations (aeration, irriga-
tion, air and water extraction, pH or redox potential change, homogenization, injecting
additives, pollution, etc.) will affect soil microbiota (Gruiz, 2009, Chapters 3 and 5 in this
volume).
Bioremediation applies controlled changes that aim at efficiently rendering the pollut-
ants harmless. If the technology is based on the activity of aerobic microorganisms, aera-
tion of the three-phase soil should be chosen, rather than slurry-phase soil treatment where
the redox conditions favor the facultative anaerobic microorganisms, and it takes immense
efforts to aerate the slurry to keep the aerobic bacteria active and alive. The same must be
considered when the groundwater level is increased or reduced during in situ remediation:
an aerobic community should never be underwater for a long period of time, and vice versa:
anaerobes should not be aerated if their initial activity should be maintained.
A balanced natural microbiota is a community with a complex composition and a com-
plicated web of mutual collaborative relationships. If the community has already adapted
to the existing environmental conditions and pollutants – and can utilize every available
organic non-contaminating and contaminating substance as a substrate – this ability should

be used as the basic condition of remediation. When technologists ensure optimal condi-
tions for the activity of existing microorganisms, the method is known as enhanced natural
biodegradation. The difficulty is caused by the fact that every contaminated soil has its own
path of evolution, and as the remediation proceeds, the optimum requirements may change
according to the changing diversity, especially in the case of mixed contaminants. This is
why it is important to continuously monitor those indicators that indicate remediation prog-
ress and the needs of the microbiota responsible for the core catalysis.
The conditions can be more flexibly changed in ex situ technologies to suit the micro-
biota than in in situ ones. Moreover, the microbiota itself can be modified. If the biodeg-
radation of the contaminants requires alternating aerobic and anaerobic conditions, the
technological parameters can be changed by saturating the soil with water and supporting
the facultative anaerobic microbes by additives, and then the water can be removed so that
the aerated volume ensures advantageous conditions for the aerobic ones. Some persistent
chlorinated pesticides can be biodegraded by technologies applying strongly controlled
alternating redox potentials.
The microbiota can be manipulated by mixing artificially cultivated microorganisms
with the native microorganisms. This procedure can have two objectives:
– Increasing population density by returning the same microorganisms after an isolated

cultivation;
– Improving the quality by introducing other microorganism(s) that are different from the
native ones.
Introducing a microorganism into the solid soil faces the same difficulties as the non-
water-soluble solid substances: the filtering effect of the soil does not let the cells spread far
from the point of introduction. However, the microorganisms can distribute themselves over
the long term if the treated soil provides a suitable habitat.
Foreign microorganisms may favorably supplement the indigenous soil community, but
competition may easily develop between native and foreign microorganisms. If the native
organisms prevail, then the inoculation was a wasted effort; but if the foreign microorgan-
isms win with a “knockout,” the destruction of native ones may become a disadvantage
over the long term. A good example of this situation is the addition of fast-action aggressive
hydrocarbon utilizers into soils polluted with a mixture of petroleum hydrocarbons. Isolated
and artificially cultured species that are accustomed to a laboratory culture medium (usu-
ally rich culture media ensuring fast growth) or a growth medium containing only one or
a few components of the targeted hydrocarbon mixture, will feed on easily utilizable nutri-
ents and ready-to-degrade pollutants on re-entering the soil and leave only hard-to-degrade,
unbalanced residues for the native microorganisms. Thus, they disturb the well-balanced
nutritional community (of commensal microorganisms) where the species share everything
and consume all the “leftovers.” The consequence is that the easy-to-degrade pollutants will
degrade faster, but a large amount of residue will remain, and this residue is more difficult
to degrade than if the inoculum would not have been applied (Gruiz, 2009, Chapter 3 in this
volume). Broad-spectrum bacterial mixtures or the enrichment of the natural microbiota
(when it works slowly but otherwise properly) can provide an appropriate solution. Isolated
petroleum degrading enzymes of microbial or higher animal origin can also be utilized in
some cases as an eco-friendly soft technology.
Foreign microorganisms often fail to survive in the soil, but their genes can endure even
after their death, and horizontal gene transfer may transplant them into native microorgan-
isms. However, these processes cannot yet be used in a controlled manner for enhancing the
efficacy of bioremediation.
3.4.2 The evolution of the soil

Living soil that is treated ex situ or in situ, will evolve in its own unique path. The initial
stages of evolution are the ones affected by the presence of contaminants. Pollutant-tolerant
and pollution-utilizing species gain an advantage, while the more sensitive species decline
in numbers or disappear altogether. The privileged species affect the conditions of the whole
community but – unless the contaminant is very toxic – those microbial communities prevail
that adapt to the new conditions and learn to utilize the contaminant as a new substrate.
The second stage that influences the soil’s own evolution is a technological interven-
tion. This intervention changes soil conditions, modifies the distribution of the species and
initiates adaptive mechanisms such as mutations, subsequent selections and horizontal gene
transfer. The effect of an intervention into the soil ecosystem is generally stronger in ex situ
technologies, given that the technological parameters may largely differ from biologically
acceptable conditions. Ex situ treatments do not typically conserve the soil microecosystem
because the variety of geotechnological reuses is large. It is most important to conserve the
initial biological state when the original ecosystem and the (agricultural or natural) land use
is supposed to be maintained or the land use becomes more sensitive (e.g. transition from
industrial use to residential use).
3.4.3 Contaminant mobility enhancement

Remediation based on mobilization is often limited by a reduced mobility of the contami-
nant, both ex situ and in situ. Physicochemical mobility such as volatility, water solubility,
and partition towards more mobile phases can be enhanced as part of the technology by
suitably adjusting technological parameters such as temperature, pressure, flow conditions,
additives etc. If contaminant mobility cannot be increased in order to establish a feasible and
efficient mobilizing technology, the concept has to be changed and a remediation method
based on contaminant immobilization or stabilization must be implemented.
Biodegradation and bioavailability have a special role in remediation because biodeg-
radation itself may be an efficient process, as it results in harmless products such as CO2
or ammonia, the same as during natural organic material degradation. Biological processes
basically occur in the aqueous phase biofilms, which develop on micro surfaces that are sup-
plied by nutrients and by oxygen from diffusion. This is the habitat of biodegrading microbes
in the soil. Non-polar organic pollutants find it difficult to intrude into these biofilms because
they are hydrophobic and cannot be dissolved in water. The two most important steps that
facilitate contaminants to get closer to the microorganisms are these:
– A partition of the pollutant between the soil phases toward the aquatic phase, including
the biofilm;
– An intensive contact and interaction between solubilized/mobilized contaminants and
the microbes.
The equilibrium partitioning of the organic pollutants, initially attracted to the solid
phase (humus), has to be shifted towards the biofilm-integrated water phase of the soil. This
can be done by using surfactants (surface-active agents such as tensides, detergents, soaps,
emulsifiers), polarity-enhancing or micelle-forming substances, complexing molecules,
solvents or molecular encapsulating substances. The aforementioned substances can be of
synthetic or natural origin and they may be produced by the soil’s own microbiota (biosur-
factants). If biosurfactant production occurs in the soil, it can be enhanced. If the native
microorganisms are not capable of producing biosurfactants in adequate quantities and of the
required quality, remediation must enhance their availability.
Soil temperature greatly influences contaminant availability: continuous or temporary
heating increases the bioavailability of some organic pollutants by increasing their solubil-
ity or volatilization. The vaporized organic compounds change their distribution in the soil:
from a continuous liquid film (which covers soil particles in a biologically unavailable, even
inaccessible form) to a dispersedly sorbed form. When subjected to a temperature increase
of a few degrees Celsius, e.g. volatile hydrocarbon molecules can vaporize, disperse, and
condense on more distant colder surfaces. Thus, the original continuous hydrophobic layer
transforms into a disperse form, sorbed on a much bigger solid surface, making these tiny
oily islands easily accessible to biofilm microorganisms.
Optimized flux of soil gas and groundwater make interaction with biofilms more inten-
sive, and, as a result, biodegradation becomes more efficient. In the aquifer, microbial attack
and biodegradation occur only on the plume surface. By increasing the surface of the plume,
biodegradation can be activated and its efficiency increased. A contaminant plume can be
directed and distributed by adjusting the pressure of the groundwater by simple pumping.
3.4.4 Revitalization
Soil revitalization means the restoration of the soil’s vitality and fertility or the establish-
ment of biological activity for future soil uses. Since ex situ processes are more aggressive,
revitalization of soils treated ex situ may be necessary, mainly after applying solvents, strong
acids or alkali, oxidizing chemicals such as ozone or peroxides, reducing agents, harmful
solubilizing agents, and high-temperature thermal desorption. Damage to the delicate bal-
ance of the soil’s microflora can be traced back to several causes: the pollutant itself can
destroy essential microorganisms directly by its toxicity or indirectly by privileging contam-
inant-utilizing species at the expense of others. A lack of nutrients can wipe out certain spe-
cies entirely. If the technology works at higher moisture levels and a lower redox potential
than the optimum of the normal microbiota, it can reduce the population of strongly aerobic
species. Conversely, drying out the soil by ventilation is disadvantageous for facultative
microbes living in the pore water.
As far as ex situ treatments are concerned, additives, nutrients, organic supplements,
balancing additives, loosening substances or microorganisms needed for the revitalization
can be mixed into the soil in the same reactor after treatment. Revitalization of the surface
layer of soils treated in situ is similar to ex situ revitalization. Deeper layers are usually
revitalized based on the natural groundwater flow and the necessary additives are injected
into groundwater wells upstream of the target area. However, problems are similar to those
of material input in general: soil heterogeneity, a filtering effect and limited transport of the
revitalizing additives can impair the treatment.
3.5 Comparison of ex situ and in situ reactors

for soil remediation
Following the overview of reactor types and technological solutions, Table 2.1 displays six
different reactor types typically used for soil remediation:
1 Ex situ closed reactor (a conventional reactor);

2 Ex situ open reactor (an open tank or basin, heap or prism);
3 In situ surface soil layer (the top 40–50 cm);
4 In situ three-phase soil (including the deep unsaturated layers next to the groundwater);
5 In situ groundwater and saturated soil: undisturbed natural solid phase;
6 In situ groundwater: treatment by PRBs or reactive soil zones.
4 TECHNOLOGY DESIGN
A detailed analysis of differences and similarities between ex situ and in situ soil remediation
allows conclusions to be drawn for their design.
The design of an ex situ technology is based on the contaminant type and concentration,
the soil type and amount. When this information is available, designing and dimensioning
the reactor and determining the amount of reagents, additives and the aeration rate – based
on material balances – are relatively easy. The extent of heterogeneity, moisture content,
and temperature can also be influenced and optimized if necessary. In spite of a relatively
controllable situation, some soils may behave in unexpected ways. Remediation plans have
to be supported by laboratory and pilot experiments to minimize the risk posed by uncertain-
ties. The plans will enable the proper selection of the technology itself and the technological
parameters, which can ensure optimal conditions for the core process. If the design is not
validated by the pilot experiments or the full-size technology applications, longer residence
times, higher recirculation rates, more additives, etc. can compensate for any alterations.
The design of in situ remediation should be more “dynamic” and much greater uncer-
tainties should be managed in the subsurface: heterogeneity is generally greater than in ex
situ remediation and the efficiency of processes such as aeration and reagent-, additive-,
or nutrient-addition is lower. On the other hand, the unchanged position of the solid soil
is not the complete satisfactory condition for an “in situ” technology, but the soil’s natural
structure and internal ecosystem must also be maintained using soft technologies. A healthy
natural structure and an active ecosystem may greatly improve the efficiency of remediation
by their buffering capacity and resistance to adverse effects and conditions and can help
restore soil quality and activity.
The design of an in situ technology starts with a dynamic technology-related assess-
ment of the contaminated site. The design of groundwater remediation relies heavily on the
hydrogeology of the site.
Biodegradation-based remediation of the unsaturated soil zone requires information
about the activity of indigenous microbes, their biodegrading or transforming capacity, the
optimum conditions to reach their maximum activity, as well as their response to activating,
biodegradation-enhancing interventions. When going deeper towards the saturated zone, the
most suitable types of respiration and any bottlenecks of the biological conversion must
be identified, and the most effective enhancement must be chosen. The best information
can be acquired by in situ assessment of the site-specific properties of the soil and the soil
Table 2.1 Technological comparison of ex situ and in situ soil remediation.
Reactor Ex situ Ex situ In situ or ex situ In situ In situ groundwater & PRB &
characteristics closed reactor open reactor surface soil layer three-phase soil saturated soil reactive soil zone
Physical limits Built walls Partly built walls No built borders No built borders No built borders PRB: built
Partly natural Partly natural Partly natural Partly natural walls, placed
borders borders borders borders underground
No limits from No limits from Underground Underground Reactive zone:
above above isolating wall isolating wall partly built
Covered top or around the treated around the treated
tent volume volume
Openness Closed Semi-open or Open (completely) Open (completely) Open (completely) PRB: closed
Open Semi-open (from Semi-open Semi-open Reactive zone:
above) Artificially closed Artificially closed semi-open or open
Artificially closed
Treated Within the Within the Within the range of Within the range of Within the range of PRB: within built
volume physical borders physical borders operation operation operation borders
Within artificial Within artificial Reactive zone:
borders borders within zone
Contact with None Atmosphere Atmosphere Atmosphere Groundwater/layer PRB: only
environmental Surrounding soil Groundwater/layer Groundwater/layer water groundwater
compartments Groundwater water water Surrounding soil
Surrounding soil Surrounding soil
Treatable A/GW/2S/3S/ GW/2S/3S/slurry A/3S A/GW/3S GW/2S GW/2S
phases slurry
Type of Controlled Gas/vapor into Gas/vapor into Gas/vapor into Gases and vapor Gases and vapor
emission atmosphere atmosphere and atmosphere and into soil air into soil air
Runoff: into soil air soil air GW: into the GW: into the
surface water Runoff: into surface Runoff: into surface surrounding surrounding
Infiltration: GW/S water water groundwater or groundwater or
Solid: erosion/ Infiltration: GW/S Infiltration: GW/S surface water surface water
deflation Solid: erosion/ Solid: erosion/
deflation deflation
(Continued)
Table 2.1 (Continued)
Homogeneity Homogeneous: Homogeneous: Gradient: A/W Gradient: A/GW Gradient: GW Homogeneous

A/W/S/slurry A/W/S/slurry Heterogeneous: 3S Heterogeneous: 3S Heterogeneous: GW
Heterogeneous: Heterogeneous: GW/2S Gradient: GW
2S/3S 2S/3S
Characteristics Homogeneous Depending on: Depending on: Depending on: Depending on: Depending on:
and slurry Technology type Technology Technology Technology Hydrogeological
dependence of Homogenized 3S: environmental Hydrogeological Hydrogeological Hydrogeological parameters
the whole soil depending on parameters parameters parameters parameters Environmental
heterogeneity Environmental The partition of Environmental Environmental Environmental parameters
parameters pollutant parameters parameters parameters The partition of
The partition of The partition of the The partition of the The partition of the the pollutant
pollutant pollutant pollutant pollutant
Design Single-stage: Single-stage: Single-stage: 3S Single-stage: 3S Single-stage: Single-stage: GW
A/W/S/slurry A/W/S/slurry GW/2S Multi-stage: GW
Multi-stage: W/ Multi-stage: W/ Multi-stage: GW Cascade: GW
slurry slurry Cascade: GW
Cascade: W/ Cascade: W/
slurry slurry
Classification Homogeneous Homogeneous Heterogeneous Heterogeneous Heterogeneous Tank reactor with
according to tank reactor in tank reactor in quasi-tank reactor quasi-tank reactor quasi-tank reactor homogeneous
concentration batch mode batch mode in batch mode in batch mode in batch mode filling and GW flow
gradient Homogeneous Heterogeneous Heterogeneous Heterogeneous Heterogeneous Quasi-tank reactor
tank reactor with tank reactor in quasi-tank reactor quasi-tank reactor quasi-tank with with homogeneous
recirculation batch mode with recirculation with recirculation recirculation or heterogeneous
Heterogeneous Homogeneous (A/W) (A/GW) (A/GW) filling and GW flow
tank reactor with tank and Heterogeneous
recirculation recirculation continuous quasi-
Heterogeneous Heterogeneous tank reactor with
tank reactor with tank and GW flow
recirculation recirculation
Continuous Continuous
homogeneous homogeneous
Cont. Continuous
heterogeneous/ heterogeneous
gradient
Aeration/ Ventilation: Ventilation: Tilling/mixing/ Ventilation: Injection Injection
oxygen supply exhaust/pressure exhaust/pressure ventilation: exhaust/pressure Chemical redox Chemical redox
Injection Injection Injection Injection control control
Chemical redox Chemical redox Chemical redox Chemical redox Anaerobic Anaerobic
control control control control respiration forms respiration forms
Anaerobic Anaerobic Anaerobic Anaerobic
respiration respiration respiration (flood) respiration
Redox Aerobic/anoxic/ Aerobic/anoxic Aerobic/anoxic Aerobic/anoxic Aerobic/anoxic/ Aerobic/anoxic/
potential anaerobic anaerobic anaerobic
Moisture 3S: irrigation/ 3S: spraying/ 3S: spraying/ 3S: spraying/ 2S: saturated 2S: saturated
content and its infiltration/ infiltration/ infiltration/ infiltration/ Increase in water
manipulation injecting/ injecting/ injecting/ injecting/ level
temporary temporary temporary flooding temporary flooding/ Increase in water
flooding flooding uptake flow
2S: saturated with 2S: saturated with by capillary forces
water water
Slurry: suspension Slurry: suspension
in water in water
Form of Homogeneous Homogeneous Dissolved in water/ Dissolved in water/ Dissolved in water/ Built into PRB or
additive input/ reactor: water- reactor: water- emulsified or emulsified or emulsified or reactive zone
inflow into the soluble or solid soluble or solid suspended suspended suspended
reactor Heterogeneous Heterogeneous Mixable solid
reactor: dissolved reactor: dissolved
in water/ in water/
emulsified/ emulsified/
suspended suspended
Output/ Soil air Soil air Soil air Soil air Groundwater Groundwater
outflow Pore water/soil Pore water/soil Pore water/soil Pore water/soil Pollutant
moisture moisture moisture moisture
Groundwater/ Groundwater/ Groundwater/ Groundwater/
leachate leachate leachate leachate
Slurry Slurry Pollutant Pollutant
Pollutant Pollutant
(Continued)
Recirculation Soil air Soil air Soil air Soil air Groundwater Groundwater
Groundwater/ Groundwater Runoff Runoff
leachate Drain water/ Drain water/ Groundwater
Slurry leachate leachate Drain water/
Slurry leachate
Microbiota Aerobic: W/3S Aerobic: W/3S Aerobic: 3S Aerobic: 3S Aerobic: aerated Aerobic: aerated
Facultative: W/S/ Facultative: W/S/ Facultative: W/2S Facultative: GW/2S GW PRB
slurry slurry Facultative: GW/2S Facultative: GW
Anaerobic: W/S/ Anaerobic: W/S/ Anaerobic: GW/2S Anaerobic: GW
slurry slurry
Modification of By optimizing By optimizing By optimizing By optimizing By optimizing By optimizing
the microbiota technological technological technological technological technological technological
parameters and parameters and parameters and parameters and parameters and parameters and
by inoculation by inoculation by inoculation by inoculation by inoculation by inoculation
Evolution Modified Modified Own natural Own natural Own natural Own natural
Induced Induced Modified Modified Modified Modified
Induced Induced Induced Induced
Revitalization Spontaneous Spontaneous Spontaneous Spontaneous Spontaneous Not relevant
Artificial Artificial Artificial Artificial Artificial
Agent that Addition into the Addition into the Injecting into the Injecting into the Injecting into Not relevant
increases reactor reactor soil soil groundwater
availability Flooding/infiltrating Flooding/infiltrating
Monitoring Soil air Soil air Soil air Soil air Pore water/ Groundwater
Groundwater/ Groundwater/ Pore water/ Pore water/ groundwater Filling
pore water/ pore water groundwater groundwater Whole soil
Whole soil Whole soil Whole soil Whole soil
Slurry Surry
Regulation Based on A/W/S/ Based on A/W/S/ Based on A/W Based on A/W Based on A/GW Based on GW
slurry slurry
Post- Soil quality Soil quality Soil quality control Soil quality control Soil and GW quality GW quality
monitoring and control control Environmental Environmental control control
aftercare Groundwater Groundwater monitoring monitoring Environmental Environmental
quality control quality control monitoring monitoring
A: air; GW: groundwater; S: soil; slurry: slurry phase; 2S: saturated soil; 3S: unsaturated soil; W: water
ecosystem. A variety of contaminated site assessment strategies and assessment tools are
available today for sampling, analyzing and testing in mobile or remote laboratories. An
accelerated site assessment procedure (ASAP) applies direct-push sampling methods com-
bined with an on-site mobile laboratory. If this demanding technology is not available or is
not acceptable from a financial point of view, simple and affordable innovative assessment
tools such as in situ rapid chemical, biological, and toxicological tests, field handheld or
other mobilized measuring devices, in situ real-time sensors and push-and-pull devices can
be applied in the first assessment step (Gruiz, 2016b). The assessment should be combined
with immediate evaluation and on-site decision making on the next assessment step or the
suitable remediation technologies (Triad approach, 2015).
Push-and-pull technology is a dynamic in situ method for studying the response of the soil.
It uses controlled air injection or test solutions (reagents, additives, nutrients, oxygen release
compounds, etc.) or tracers and measures the response at the same point. Push-and-pull can
determine the feasibility of a planned remediation, predict certain technological parameters
and collect information for technology design. Push-and-pull has provided useful experience
about natural biological processes and their enhancement in the saturated soil zone.
On completing the problem- and site-specific assessment and evaluation, the design of
both in situ and ex situ remediation shall survey all suitable technologies for the relevant
problem/site. The usually long list of technologies has to be narrowed down based on prior-
ity issues for management purposes such as urgency, available resources, staff, know-how,
site accessibility, site management, future land uses, etc. After narrowing down the list to a
few technologies, a comparative study is needed that considers technological, environmen-
tal, and socioeconomic efficiencies and cultural issues. The monetized efficiencies of the
technological options are compared (the reference base is the zero option, meaning that no
action is done on the site), and the most efficient remediation method is selected, designed,
and implemented (Gruiz et al., 2009, Chapter 11).
5 MONITORING
Monitoring in situ remediation can be aimed at two different operation targets:
1 Technology monitoring: measuring the technological parameters to follow the progress

of the technology, ensure its optimal functioning and control the efficiency of the tech-
nology application (based on the material balance).
2 Environmental monitoring: observing the emissions or other adverse impacts of the
technology application on the surroundings or the wider environment. In addition to the
impact of the technology itself, the materials used, the transport and other connected
operations should also be monitored.
Long-term monitoring and aftercare of remediated sites are key issues in environmental
management. The continuous monitoring of the environment and the soil is equally impor-
tant in order to observe as early as possible the damage to and deterioration of soil functions.
This kind of generic monitoring with the goal of early warning and early intervention is one
of environmental management’s priority tasks. Long-term, preventive monitoring requires
tools that are different from those of a one-off urgent assessment of contaminated sites where
damage is obvious, as for the latter, the site is relatively small, assessment cost is not a prior-
ity issue and soft and long-term working assessment tools are rarely needed.
Today, sampling and analysis still face problems as they lack robust methods for many
soil problems in spite of a large number of innovations implemented. Physicochemical soil
analyses still fail to provide a reliable basis for modeling site-specific biological and eco-
logical effects, even if measurements are as closely spaced as one centimeter. Methods to
measure and predict probable values for the biological effects of a pollutant, its biological
availability, the response of the actual ecosystem and the risk posed on them are unfortu-
nately still in their infancy. Remote sensing provides extensive information, but it cannot
be interpreted without the knowledge of the relevant ecosystem. This demonstrates that not
only are the methods undeveloped, but so is the interpretation and evaluation of the results.
Integrated testing and evaluation of the physical, chemical analytical, biological, and (eco)
toxicological methods as recommended by applied sciences and practical developers (Gruiz,
2005, 2016b) can provide a solution to this problem.
5.1 Technology monitoring

Reactors used for ex situ soil remediation – containing the more or less homogeneous
soil phases (water, slurry) or the heterogeneous whole soil – are easy to access, so sam-
pling is a fairly straightforward issue. A sampling plan, which takes into account hetero-
geneities and gradients in ex situ reactors has maximum impact on the interpretability
and quality of the monitoring results. This influences the success of control operations
and the overall technology efficiency to a large extent. Technology monitoring is usually
focused on:
– The decrease of the contaminant concentration in the soil;

– The increase of the transformation/degradation product in the soil or in soil air/water;
– The activity of the catalyst or biocatalyst;
– The concentration of the additives;
– Direct testing of the adverse effect of the pollutants;
– The beneficial effect of the remediation.
Most of these parameters can be measured in the three-phase soil using physicochemi-
cal, biological, or ecotoxicological methods and evaluated in an integrated way.
Sampling the (whole) soil for in situ remediation faces the following difficulties:
1 Spatial heterogeneities of soil and pollutants may exceed several times the time-related
decrease in the amount of the pollutant.
2 It is often necessary to change and adjust the flow conditions of the soil air and ground-
water, and leave the solid phase undisturbed.
3 Core sampling based on drilling changes the flow conditions of soil air and groundwater.
4 Sampling and analysis of soil air, soil moisture and/or groundwater must have priority
in aftercare monitoring of in situ soil remediation.
5 The physicochemical and microbiological processes in the soil must be modeled based
on air and water data. This is only possible if the basic remediation processes are known
and the mathematical functions/equations describing the relationships between the mea-
sured parameters and the soil conditions are understood.
6 Data about the mobile soil phases represents the average over the treated soil vol-
ume and no information about the internal gradients and heterogeneities is available.
A groundwater sample taken from a well or from the extracted water is a mixture of
samples from different depths, different redox conditions and this applies to all resulting
parameters (redox indicators, chemical and microbial activities and products, etc.).
The essence of the transformation/catalysis facilitated by soil remediation is that a

harmless product is produced from the pollutant:
transformation/catalysis
Contaminant  → NRP
This equation indicates that the pollutant is transformed by the catalyst into a no-
risk product (NRP). The transformation can be triggered by a physical agent, chemi-
cal reagent or biologically active molecule or organism. The same equation implies the
physical destruction, chemical transformation, degradation, biological, or enzymatic
transformation of the pollutant, regardless of whether the process means mobilization or
immobilization.
Several products may be produced from one contaminant (mainly from the large and
difficult-to-degrade substituted molecules), and risky ones (RP) may also occur among them.
Soil pollutants are typically complex, consisting of several components and producing an
increasing number of products.
Contaminant  → x NRP + y RP
n Contaminant  → nx NRP + ny RP
Several options are available for the aftercare of this type of soil remediation (based
on the transformation activity): measuring the pollutant decrease, transformation product
increase or transformation activity based on mass, concentration and the scale of the physi-
cochemical or biological transformation activity.
The decrease in pollutant content in the soil and/or groundwater during soil bioremedia-
tion is tantamount to a decrease in the substrate that provides energy for the soil microorgan-
isms, so therefore biological activity will be proportional to the substrate concentration. This
does not apply to harmful contaminants, which are best to be monitored by their effects.
Their transformation to harmless components decreases their adverse effects (toxicity, muta-
genicity, carcinogenicity, reproductive toxicity, etc.), which can be measured by toxicity
tests. The environmental risk of the soil can be directly extrapolated from the measured
adverse effect (Gruiz et al., 2009; Gruiz, 2016b).
5.1.1 Product generation
The intermediate and end products of the transformation process (e.g. chemical oxidation or
bioremediation) are harmless products in ideal cases (e.g. NO2, HCl, NH42+ etc.). The pro-
cess can be followed by measuring the concentration of the end products.
If harmful intermediates or side-products are anticipated, it is expedient to base the
monitoring on their adverse effects (see more in Gruiz, 2016a,b). Adverse effects can be
checked – at least at the end of remediation – by providing evidence about the acceptable
quality of the soil.
5.1.2 The activity of the transformer/catalyst

The catalyst can be a physical agent, a chemical or biochemical reagent or the biological
activity of living organisms. The activity or the quantity of the catalyst can be monitored; the
activity is generally easier to measure in soil than the concentration of a rather small quantity
of a not completely homogeneously distributed, reactive compound or a microorganism.
There are a number of options available to monitor biological transformation: cell con-
centration and its changes (the total number of cells in the soil: aerobic bacteria, fungi,
etc.); the specific transformation or degradation capability of the microorganisms (hydro-
carbon, PAH- or PCB-degrading, metal mobilizing, etc.); the number of particularly tolerant
microorganisms (metal-tolerant); genetic markers (indicator genes); biochemical markers
(enzymes responsible for specific biochemical potential), etc.
Those conditions in the soil that directly influence the activity of the transforming
physical, chemical or biological agents and the rate and quality of the remedial process are
also good indicators in technology monitoring. If the technology is based on oxidation or
reduction, the redox potential and redox indicators can be monitored. If the technology is
temperature-dependent, the temperature is an easy parameter to measure. In bioremediation,
the nitrogen or phosphorus content (the N and P source) of the soil and/or groundwater,
redox conditions and their changes are primary parameters (atmospheric O2, NO3−, SO42−,
Fe3+) directly influencing the activity of the microbiota.
In samples originating from relatively homogeneous, mobile soil phases, the transfor-
mation end products or the non-transformed residues can be detected directly by analytical
methods. Volatile or water-soluble products are most suitable for monitoring among the
detectable ones because they enter the relatively easy-to-sample mobile phases through par-
titioning. Those pollutants or products that are bound to the solid phase can only be analyzed
from solid soil. Sampling and analysis problems may lead to inaccurate concentrations, also
because spatial heterogeneities may exceed the short-term changes caused by remediation.
Nutrient and air supply and temperature and humidity are the key technological param-
eters of bioremediation, which need to be around the optimum of the transforming microbial
consortium.
Thus, the technology can be regulated based on the environmental parameters mea-
sured, and the conditions can be set at the optimum required for the catalyst, be it chemical
or biological.
5.2 Environmental monitoring and

post-remediation care
The aim of environmental monitoring during remediation is to prevent the surrounding envi-
ronment from being polluted and increasing the risk to humans and the ecosystem. Envi-
ronmental monitoring plays a particularly important role in the case of in situ technologies,
since the contaminated and treated soil volume is in direct contact with the atmosphere, the
groundwater and the surrounding soil. Environmental monitoring of an in situ quasi-reactor
must be performed within or directly outside the range specified by the pollution and the in
situ processes.
Environmental remediation monitoring that relies on the mobilization of pollutants
includes both the measurement and control of the emissions and the monitoring of the pre-
ventive measures. For example, the groundwater cannot leave the treated volume, due to the
hydraulic barrier being applied simultaneously with the mobilization of the water-soluble
pollutant, and the monitoring should determine the efficacy of the preventive measures.
Post-monitoring takes place after terminating the remediation. Post-remediation moni-
toring on the site is needed only when the groundwater is still exposed to risk. In an ex situ
soil remediation, post-monitoring usually ends with a check on the treated soil or at the site
of its utilization. If the soil is returned to the environment and is not completely risk-free
after treatment, comprehensive monitoring is necessary, similar to that of contaminated sites.
An integrated methodology (physicochemical, biological, and environment toxicological
testing) is most appropriate in both cases. The future use of the soil must be known for the
selection of a suitable analytical and risk assessment methodology so that the actual results
can be compared with the soil-use-related acceptable risks.
More stringent requirements must be fulfilled after completion of in situ soil treatment
because soil-use-specific quality requirements must be met not only by the treated soil vol-
ume, but also by the whole site and its surrounding, including the local environmental com-
partments, e.g. surface and subsurface waters, natural habitats, and human land uses such as
residential, agricultural, or recreational, etc. and the exposures of humans via environment.
Environmental monitoring is necessary to control each transport route from the treated soil
and to prove that the exposure of the habitats is under a certain threshold, and that no adverse
effects are posed at the receptor organisms because it is not possible to look inside the black
box of the in situ treated volume and assess each kilogram of soil to ensure that its quality
is unlikely to cause any problem. Thus, only a long-term negative result of the source (the
in situ treated soil volume), transport pathways and the potentially exposed receptors can
determine that the treated soil is harmless and that the previously contaminated site has been
cleaned up.
6 VERIFICATION
The reactor approach and related engineering tools such as material balance, time require-
ment, optimum maintenance, regulation and emission control, etc. make it possible to verify
remediation, including in situ remediation. Only a verified, technologically, environmentally
and socioeconomically efficient technology will be acknowledged, enter the market, become
popular and be widely used. The main reason for aversion to and refusal of in situ biological
or ecological remedial technologies is a lack of insight into these technologies and a lack
of opportunities for verification. However, there are other reasons too; one of them is its
time requirement. In some cases, such as with major investments, a cost-benefit analysis
may suggest that an expensive but fast remediation has to be preferred to an inexpensive
but long-lasting one. On the other hand, sustainable soil quality maintenance requires in
situ biological and ecological remedial methods, which may already exist, and making them
better known and enhancing their image by using a prudent verification system so they may
contribute to their use in wider circles (Gruiz et al., 2008) (see more in Chapter 11).
7 SUMMARY
In situ soil treatment methods should be considered genuine technologies and proper engi-
neering tools to which the planning, design, monitoring, control, and regulation and veri-
fication procedures can be applied as they are to any other technologies. This also holds
for bioengineering and ecoengineering tools that utilize their inherent or modified remedial
potential based on the soil microbiota or ecosystem. The same is true for other environmental
compartments such as surface waters and sediments, runoffs, leachates, and mine outflows.
The reactor approach enables engineers to apply traditional engineering tools to in situ
remediation, bioremediation, and eco-remediation. This involves designing and planning
the technology, calculating the treated volumes, establishing the material balance, monitor-
ing the technological parameters and developing an optimum by controlling and regulating
processes, controlling emissions and verifying the remediation, i.e. providing evidence for
its efficiency.
While the reactor walls set exact boundaries to a tank reactor, an in situ quasi-reactor is only
limited by the pollutant plume geometry and the processes’ range of action that define boundar-
ies somewhat ambiguously. Gradients and the impact area of operations, rather than the confines
of the pollution, determine the treated volume, and a hydraulic barrier is applied instead of a
built one, etc. The effect and efficiency of the technological intervention can be controlled and
regulated with the help of an adequate technology monitoring based on the material balance.
The efficiency of the technology can be quantified based on these monitoring data.
The direct contact of the quasi-reactor with the surrounding environment, due to possible
discharge and/or mutual material transport, may pose a higher risk compared to ex situ treat-
ment in real reactors. Environmental impacts such as discharge of hazardous substances can
be controlled by engineering tools, e.g. hydraulic barriers, soil-gas extraction or PRBs. The
results of these preventive measures are validated by environmental monitoring, i.e. measur-
ing the parameters that characterize the environmental risk outside of the quasi-reactor.
The technological efficiency of in situ technologies can be increased considerably by
using the reactor approach, i.e. by handling the contaminated soil volume as a reactor with
material and energy input and output and the transformation process in between. As with an
in situ technology designed and implemented as any other technology based on mass and
energy balances, process control/regulation and technology monitoring can be as efficient
from a technological point of view as ex situ ones.
The environmental efficiency of in situ technologies relevant to energy and water con-
sumption and to using and saving natural resources is much greater than that of ex situ
technologies, which are always burdened by excavation and transport. Emission control and
environmental monitoring can increase the environmental efficiency of in situ technologies.
Quantified socioeconomic efficiency of in situ technologies is often much greater com-
pared to ex situ ones because of smaller expenditures (no excavation and transport), soft,
eco-friendly technologies (less emissions and energy consumption), and maintaining the
original soil structure, surface, and former land use (or permitting more valuable land uses).
Another advantage of in situ methods is the conservation of soil quality and the preservation
of the soil as a habitat.
However, heterogeneities will continue to cause uncertainties and problems for in situ
soil remediation. Innovative soil characterization, existing in situ testing methods and geo-
physical mapping of the soil will further reduce the uncertainties and disadvantages of in situ
remediation in the near future.
REFERENCES
Alesi, E.J. (2008) General Principles of Groundwater Circulation Well (GCW) Technology for Soil and
Groundwater in-situ Remediation. Available from: www.eco-web.com/edi/00384.html. [Accessed
22nd May 2017].
Beyke, G. & Fleming, D. (2005) In situ Thermal Remediation of DNAPL and LNAPL using electrical
resistance heating. Remediation, 15(3), 5–22.
Borden, R.C. & Cherry, R.S. (2000) Direct Push Groundwater Circulation Wells for Remediation of
BTEX and Volatile Organics, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Idaho
Falls, ID, USA, 83415.
Chang, Y.T., Hsi, H.C., Hseu, Z.Y. & Jheng, S.-L. (2013) Chemical stabilization of cadmium in acidic
soil using alkaline agronomic and industrial by-products. Journal of Environmental Science and
Health Part A Toxic/Hazardous Substances & Environmental Engineering, 48(13), 1748–1756. doi:
10.1080/10934529.2013.815571.
CPEO (2017) Dual Phase Extraction. Center for Public Environmental Oversight. Available from:
www.cpeo.org/techtree/ttdescript/dualphex.htm. [Accessed 22nd May 2017].
Dauerman, L., Windgasse, G., He, Y. & Lu, Y. (1992) Microwave Treatment of Hazardous Wastes:
Feasibility Studies. The Hazardous Management Research Centre, New Jersey Institute of Tech-
nology, Newark, New Jersey, USA. Published online in 2016: doi.org/10.1080/08327823.1992.11
688167.
Debreczeni, E. & Meggyes, T. (1999) Construction of cut-off walls and reactive barriers using jet
technology. In: Christensen, T.H., Cossu, R. & Stegmann, R. (eds.) Seventh Waste Management
and Landfill Symposium. CISA Environmental Sanitary Engineering Centre, Cagliari, Italy, IV.
pp. 533–540.
ERH (2007) Electrical Resistance Heating: Design and Performance. Criteria Battelle, presentation
from Remediation Innovative Technology Seminar (RITS). Available from: https://clu-in.org/
download/contaminantfocus/dnapl/Treatment_Technologies/RITS_2007A_ERH.pdf. [Accessed
28th June 2018].
Falciglia, P.P., Scandura, P. & Vagliasindi, F.G.A. (2016) An overview on microwave heating applica-
tion for hydrocarbon-contaminated soil and groundwater remediation. Oil Gas Research, 2, 110.
doi:10.4172/2472-0518.1000110.
Falciglia, P.P., Scandura, P. & Vagliasindi, F.G.A. (‎2017) Modelling of in situ microwave heating
of hydrocarbon-polluted soils. Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 174, 91–99. doi:10.1016/j.
gexplo.2016.06.005.
Falciglia, P.P., Urso, G. & Vagliasindi, F.G.A. (2013) Microwave heating remediation of soils
contaminated with diesel fuel. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 13, 1396–1407. doi:10.1007/
s11368-013-0727-x.
Fenyvesi, É., Leitgib, L., Gruiz, K., Balogh, G. & Murányi, A. (2009) Demonstration of soil biore-
mediation technology enhanced by cyclodextrin. Land Contamination and Reclamation, 17(3–4),
611–618.
FRTR (2016) Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide. Available from:
https://frtr.gov/matrix2/section4/4-37.html. [Accessed 8th April 2017].
Gomes, H.I., Mayes, W.M., Rogerson, M., Stewart, D.I. & Burke, I.T. (2015) Alkaline residues and
the environment: A review of impacts, management practices and opportunities. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 112(4), 3571–3582. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.111.
Goulding, K.W.T. (2016) Soil acidification and the importance of liming agricultural soils with par-
ticular reference to the United Kingdom. Soil Use and Management, 32(3), 390–399. doi:10.1111/
sum.12270.
Gruiz, K. (2005) Biological tools for the soil ecotoxicity evaluation: Soil testing triad and the interac-
tive ecotoxicity tests for contaminated soil. In: Fava, F. & Canepa, P. (eds.) Innovative Approaches
to the Bioremediation of Contaminated Sites. Soil Remediation Series, No. 6, INCA, Venice, Italy.
pp. 45–70.
Gruiz, K. (2009) Soil bioremediation: A bioengineering tool. Land Contamination and Reclamation,
17(2), 543–552.
Gruiz, K. (2015) Terrestrial toxicology. In: Gruiz, K., Meggyes, T. & Fenyvesi, É. (eds.) Environmen-
tal Toxicology. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA. pp. 149–155.
Gruiz, K. (2016a) Monitoring and early warning in environmental management. In: Gruiz, K., Meg-
gyes, T. & Fenyvesi, É. (eds.) Site Assessment and Monitoring Tools. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL,
USA. pp. 255–259.
Gruiz, K. (2016b) Integrated and efficient characterization of contaminated soil. In: Gruiz, K., Meg-
USA. pp. 1–98.
Gruiz, K., Fenyvesi, É., Kriston, É., Molnár, M. & Horváth, B. (1996) Potential use of cyclodex-
trins in soil bioremediation. Journal of Inclusion Phenomena and Macrocyclic Chemistry, 25,
233–236.
Gruiz, K. & Kriston, É. (1995) In-situ bioremediation of hydrocarbon in soil. Journal of Soil Contami-
nation, 4(2), 163–173.
Gruiz, K., Molnár, M. & Feigl, V. (2009) Measuring adverse effects of contaminated soil using interac-
tive and dynamic test methods. Land Contamination and Reclamation, 17(3–4), 443–460.
Gruiz, K., Molnár, M. & Fenyvesi, É. (2008) Evaluation and verification of soil remediation. In: Kur-
ladze, G.V. (ed) Environmental Microbiology Research Trends, Nova Publishers, Hauppauge, NY,
USA. pp. 1–57.
Gruiz, K., Sára, B. & Vaszita, E. (2014) Risk management of chemicals and contaminated land: From
planning to verification. In: Gruiz, K., Meggyes, T. & Fenyvesi, É. (eds.) Environmental Deteriora-
tion and Contamination. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA. pp. 227–312.
Hammarstrom, J.M., Sibrell, P.L. & Belkina, H.E. (2003) Characterization of limestone reacted with
acid-mine drainage in a pulsed limestone bed treatment system at the Friendship Hill National His-
torical Site, Pennsylvania, USA. Applied Geochemistry, 18, 1705–1721.
Heron, G., Carroll, S. & Nielsen, S. (2005) Full-Scale removal of DNAPL constituents using steam-
enhanced extraction and electrical resistance heating. Ground Water Monitoring & Remediation,
25(4), 97–107.
Huang, G., Zhao, L., Dong, Y. & Zhang, Q. (2011) Remediation of soils contaminated with polychlo-
rinated biphenyls by microwave-irradiated manganese dioxide. Journal of Hazardous Material,
186, 128–132.
Jarvis, A.P. & Younger, P.L. (2001) Passive treatment of ferruginous mine waters using high surface
area media. Water Research, 35(15), 3643–3648.
Johnson, K.L. & Younger, P.L. (2006) The co-treatment of sewage and mine waters in aerobic wet-
lands. Engineering Geology, 85, 53–61.
Johnson, P., Dahlen, P., Triplett Kingston, J., Foote, E. & Williams, S. (2009) State-of-the-practice
overview: Critical evaluation of state-of-the-art in situ thermal treatment technologies for dnapl
source zone treatment. ESTCP Project ER-0314.
Lin, L., Yuan, S., Chen, J., Wang, L., Wan, J. & Lu, X. (2010) Treatment of chloramphenicol-contaminated
soil by microwave radiation. Chemosphere, 78, 66–71.
Maslov, B.S. (ed) (2009) Agricultural Land Improvement: Amelioration and Reclamation. Vol-
ume II. EOLSS Publications, UNESCO eBook. Available from: https://www.eolss.net/outline
components/Agricultural-Land-Improvement-Amelioration-Reclamation.aspx. [Accessed 8th Octo-
ber 2018].
Meggyes, T. (2010) Preventing pollution caused by mining activities. In: Sarsby, R.W. & Meggyes, T.
(eds.) Construction for a Sustainable Environment. CRC Press/Balkema, Taylor & Francis Group,
Boca Raton, FL. pp. 23–38.
Meggyes, T., Csővári, M., Roehl, K.E. & Simon, F.-G. (2009) Enhancing the efficacy of permeable
reactive barriers. Land Contamination and Reclamation, 17(3–4), 635–650.
Meggyes, T. & Simon, F.-G. (2000) Removal of organic and inorganic pollutants from groundwater
using permeable reactive barriers. Part 2. Engineering of permeable reactive barriers. Land Con-
tamination & Reclamation, 8(3), 175–187.
Meggyes, T., Simon, F.-G. & Debreczeni, E. (2001) New developments in reactive barrier tech-
nology. In: Sarsby, R.W. & Meggyes, T. (eds.) The Exploitation of Natural Resources and the
Consequences: Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Geotechnics Related to the

European Environment, June 21–23, 2000. Thomas Telford, London, UK. pp. 474–483.
Molnár, M. (2007) Intensified Bioremediation of Contaminated Soils With Cyclodextrin: From the
Laboratory to the Field. PhD Thesis, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Hungary.
Molnár, M., Fenyvesi, É., Gruiz, K., Leitgib, L., Balogh, G., Murányi, A. & Szejtli, J. (2003) Effects
of RAMEB on bioremediation of different soils contaminated with hydrocarbons. Journal of Inclu-
sion Phenomena and Macrocyclic Chemistry, 44, 447–452.
Molnár, M., Gruiz, K. & Halász, M. (2007) Integrated methodology to evaluate bioremediation poten-
tial of creosote-contaminated soils. Periodica Polytechnica, Chemical Engineering, 51(1), 23–32.
doi:10.3311/pp.ch.2007-1.05.
Molnár, M., Leitgib, L., Gruiz, K., Fenyvesi, É., Szaniszló, N., Szejtli, J. & Fava, F. (2005) Enhanced
biodegradation of transformer oil in soils with cyclodextrin: From the laboratory to the field. Bio-
degradation, 16, 159–168.
Molnár, M., Vaszita, E., Farkas, É., Ujaczki, É., Fekete-Kertész, I., Tolner, M., Klebercz, O.,
Kirchkeszner, C.S., Gruiz, K., Uzinger, N. & Feigl, V. (2016) Acidic sandy soil improvement
with biochar – A microcosm study. The Science of the Total Environment, 563–564, 855–865.
doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.01.091.
ORC supply (2017) Oxygen Release Compounds. Available from: www.environmental-expert.com/
companies/?keyword=oxygen+release+compound. [Accessed 22nd May 2017].
Pértile, P., Albuquerque, J.A., Gatiboni, L.C., da Costa, A. & Warmling, M.I. (2012) Application of
alkaline waste from pulp industry to acid soil with pine. Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo,
36(3), May/June. doi:10.1590/S0100-06832012000300024.
PIRAMID Consortium (2003) Engineering guidelines for the passive remediation of acidic and/or
metalliferous mine drainage and similar wastewaters. European Commission 5th Framework RTD
Project no. EVK1-CT-1999-000021 Passive in-situ Remediation of Acidic Mine/Industrial Drain-
age (PIRAMID). University of Newcastle Upon Tyne, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK. 166 pp.
Roehl, K.E., Meggyes, T., Simon, F.-G. & Stewart, D.I. (eds.) (2005) Long-term Performance of Per-
meable Reactive Barriers. Trace Metals and Other Contaminants in the Environment. Volume 7
(Series editor: Nriagu, J.O.). Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Boston, MA, USA, Heidel-
berg, Germany & London, UK. p. 326. ISBN: 0-444-52536-4.
Roehl, K.E., Simon, F.-G., Meggyes, T. & Czurda, K. (2007) Improvements in long-term performance
of permeable reactive barriers. In: Sarsby, R.W. & Felton, A.J. (eds.) Geotechnical and Environ-
mental Aspects of Waste Disposal Sites. Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK. pp. 163–172.
Simon, F.-G. & Meggyes, T. (2000) Removal of organic and inorganic pollutants from groundwater
using permeable reactive barriers. Part 1. Treatment processes for pollutants. Land Contamination
& Reclamation, 8(2), 103–116.
Simon, F.-G., Meggyes, T. & McDonald, C. (eds.) (2002) Advanced Groundwater Remediation: Active
and Passive Technologies. Thomas Telford, London, UK. p. 356. Available from: www.ttbooks.
co.uk/advanced-groundwater-remediation. [Accessed 14th March 2015].
Simon, F.-G., Meggyes, T., Tünnermeier, T., Czurda, K. & Roehl, K.E. (2001) Long-term Behaviour
of Permeable Reactive Barriers Used for the Remediation of Contaminated Groundwater. Proceed-
ings 8th International Conference on Radioactive Waste Management and Environmental Remedi-
ation, 30 September–4 October 2001. ASME, Tech. Inst. Royal Flemish Soc. of Engineers, Belgian
Nuclear Society, Bruges, Belgium.
SOILUTIL (2018) Waste Application on Soil Management Concept and Results. Available from: www.
enfo.hu/en/elearning/7369. [Accessed 14th March 2015].
Taylor, J., Pape, S. & Murphy, N. (2005) A summary of passive and active treatment technologies
for Acid and Metalliferous Drainage (AMD). Earth Systems. Fifth Australian Workshop on Acid
Drainage, 29–31 August 2005, Fremantle, Western Australia.
Triad Approach (2015) A New Paradigm for Environmental Project Management. Available from:
www.clu-in.org/conf/itrc/triad_021005/ [Accessed 14th March 2015].
Triplett Kingston, J.L. (2008) A Critical Evaluation of in situ Thermal Technologies. PhD Dissertation,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Arizona State University.
Trumm, D. (2010) Selection of active and passive treatment systems for AMD – Flow charts for New
Zealand conditions. New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, 53(2–3). doi:10.1080/002
88306.2010.500715.
Trumm, D. & Watts, M. (2010) Results of small-scale passive systems used to treat acid mine drainage,
West Coast Region, South Island, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics,
53, 229–239.
Ujaczki, É., Feigl, V., Farkas, É., Vaszita, E., Gruiz, K. & Molnár, M. (2016a) Red mud as acidic sandy
soil ameliorant: A microcosm incubation study. Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnol-
ogy, 91(6), 1596–1606. doi:10.1002/jctb.4898.
Ujaczki, É., Feigl, V., Molnár, M., Vaszita, E., Uzinger, N., Erdélyi, A. & Gruiz, K. (2016b) The
potential application of red mud and soil mixture as additive to the surface layer of a landfill cover
system. Journal of Environmental Sciences, 44, 189–196. doi:10.1016/j.jes.2015.12.014.
US EPA (1998) Permeable Reactive Barrier Technologies for Contaminant Remediation. EPA/600/R-98/125.
Available from: https://clu-in.org/download/rtdf/prb/reactbar.pdf. [Accessed 22nd May 2017].
US EPA (1999) Multi-Phase Extraction: State-of-the-Practice. Available from: https://clu-in.org/
download/remed/mpe2.pdf. [Accessed 22nd May 2017].
US EPA (2016) Dual-Phase Extraction. Chapter XI in: How to Evaluate Alternative Cleanup Tech-
nologies for Underground Storage Tank Sites: A Guide for Corrective Action Plan Reviewers (US-
EPA). Available from: www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-03/documents/tum_ch11.pdf.
[Accessed 8th April 2017].
US EPA Clue in (2017) Ground-Water Circulating Wells. Available from: https://clu-in.org/techfocus/
default.focus/sec/Ground-Water Circulating Wells/cat/Overview/ [Accessed 22nd May 2017].
Vorenhout, M., van der Geest, H.G., van Marum, D., Wattel, K. & Eijsackers, H. (2004) Automated
and continuous redox potential measurements in soil. Journal of Environmental Quality, 33(4),
1562–1567. doi:10.2134/jeq2004.1562.
Younger, P.L., Banwart, S.A. & Hedin, R.S. (2002) Mine Water: Hydrology, Pollution, Remediation.
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Zambrano, M., Parodi, V., Baeza, J. & Vidal, G. (2007) Acids soils pH and nutrient improvement when
amended with inorganic solid wastes from kraft mill. Journal of the Chilean Chemical Society,
52(2), 1169–1172.
Chapter 3
Natural attenuation in
contaminated soil remediation
K. Gruiz
ABSTRACT
Waters and soils have an almost infinite healing capacity, including negative feedback mech-
anisms responsible for reinstating an optimal equilibrium in element cycling and ensuring
an acceptable habitat for the biota. In addition to negative feedback processes, high diversity
and flexibility of the biota is required to ensure a dynamic equilibrium and adaptation to
actual conditions. The biota is constantly short of nutrients, which leads to maximal exploi-
tation of the available resources, thus even contaminants may serve as nutrient supply for
aquatic and soil microorganisms. This way, contaminants become part of the biogeochemi-
cal element cycling and, depending on their persistency, may disappear or accumulate in
the environment. Water and soil processes have considerable impact on the atmosphere as
well, as hydrogeochemical element cycling may result in gas emissions/release with a long
residence time in the atmosphere. Biological CO2 sequestration and high soil organic matter
content could mitigate the release of greenhouse carbon dioxide into the air.
If the natural buffering and balancing system of the environment does not function prop-
erly, many of the unregulated processes lose their capacity of self-control. In spite of being
aware of this, we hardly learn from it, and our environmental management is still not based on
it. One of the positive lessons learned is to use natural attenuation in environmental remedia-
tion. Unfortunately, this “attenuation” in the environment is often identified/interpreted as a
concentration decrease. However, from the point of view of environmental load, the total con-
taminant amount and, from the perspective of the ecological and human receptors, the specific
land use risk posed should be considered. Those natural processes are acceptable in environ-
mental remediation, which can diminish adverse impacts of contaminants and irreversibly
reduce the environmental risk posed to the ecosystems and humans via the environment.
A proper attenuation process reduces the contaminant quantity in parallel with its con-
centration. Decreasing the concentration without removing the contaminant may affect
increasingly large areas. In the short term this may not be visible locally, but a generic
increase in the contaminants’ background concentration poses a high risk to element cycles
and ecosystem stability at watershed or even global scale. This phenomenon has been expe-
rienced in the last century, and today nobody knows what the result of these changes will be,
such as the increases in the background values and the additional environmental loads, as
surplus to the already existing levels. We can only hope that the Earth finds a new equilib-
rium that is still beneficial to the human species.
Natural attenuation and engineered (enhanced) natural attenuation used in environmen-
tal remediation are considered real technologies/processes occurring in quasi-reactors (see
Chapter 2) operating with or without engineering interventions. Depending on the scale
of intervention, management activity is denominated differently such as monitored natural
attenuation, engineered or enhanced natural attenuation, soft remediation, close-to-nature

bio- or ecotechnologies, in situ bioremediation, phytoremediation, artificial wetlands, living
machines, etc. Many of these technologies include almost no intervention, while others can
be highly controlled and regulated bio- or ecotechnologies.
This chapter discusses the process itself and the monitoring of natural attenuation as
well its application as a remedial option and its management as a nature-based technology.
1 INTRODUCTION
Chemical contaminants in the environment are subject to several physical, chemical and bio-
logical impacts, and while interacting with the environment and with the actual ecosystem
members they are transported, diluted or converted by physicochemical and biological (bio-
chemical) processes or incorporated into soil structures or living cells and organisms. In for-
tunate cases, contaminants are transformed into less hazardous or non-hazardous products or
degraded (partially or fully). The contaminant transport and fate processes in contaminated
areas are determined both by the properties of the chemical substance and the characteristics
of the environment.
The inherent properties of the contaminant such as its volatility, water solubility, partition-
ing between physical phases (described by Kow), and its availability and degradability serve as
the basis to forecast the contaminant’s fate and effects in the environment. The properties of
the contaminant however are strongly modified by environmental properties and conditions.
The spontaneous physical, chemical, and biological processes involving contaminants in
the environment are the same as or very similar to natural processes, which play a considerable
role in element cycling and regulate material balances at a global scale. Interactions in the envi-
ronment can, in most cases, involve the contaminants in the element cycles. In other cases it is
not possible to take the contaminant along through the entire biochemical pathway because its
continued advancement is blocked at a certain step, the reason being that the natural biochemi-
cal apparatus is faced with unfamiliar conditions, an unfamiliar substrate, toxic by-products,
etc. without being equipped with alternative biochemical protection mechanisms.
Natural attenuation plays an increasingly important role in contaminated land remedia-
tion. It provides generally a low-cost means of remediating contaminated soil and ground-
water. The cost items are the long-term monitoring and the soft interventions to enhance
natural processes if necessary. Assessment and modeling of contaminant transport and fate is
essential in evaluating natural attenuation as a remediation option. The information provided
is used for planning, and the evaluation (verification) of the technology and its efficiency in
decreasing the risk to humans and the ecosystem.
2 NATURAL ATTENUATION (NA) AND RELATED

ECOTECHNOLOGIES FOR SOIL REMEDIATION
When planning and implementing eco-efficient technologies for environmental risk reduc-
tion, it is worth exploiting the existing natural risk reduction capability of the soil, taking
into account the actual natural attenuation processes in the soil. Topography, hydrogeology,
and soil structure are responsible for the transport processes while moisture content, pH,
redox potential, and ion-concentrations are key parameters influencing chemical and bio-
logical transformations. The cell factory, responsible for the biology-based changes in the
soil is in the focus of biotechnologies playing a role in environmental risk reduction. The
Natural attenuation in soil remediation 97
technological parameters are selected/adjusted so that they do not damage the soil ecosystem
but rather support the useful (risk-reducing) cell community, and do not increase the hazard
and the risk, not even temporarily or outside the treated soil volume. If such a temporary risk
increase cannot be avoided, additional protective technologies should be planned and imple-
mented. The optimal technological conditions can be formed spontaneously in natural and
artificial ecosystems or created in the engineered system as part of the technology control.
Key conditions are the size of the quasi or engineered in situ reactor, the distribution and
transport of the contaminant and the potential additives, as well as the functionally selected
and adjusted technological parameters (flow conditions, residence time, temperature, pH,
osmosis pressure, nutrient and oxygen supply, redox potential, special additives, biological
and ecological parameters, i.e. species diversity and activity, etc.).
Natural attenuation is an intrinsic remediation process, meaning that the risk of a
contaminant being present in the environment is reduced by natural physicochemical and
biological-ecological processes. These processes can be destructive, causing disappearance
by degradation/breakdown or something non-destructive, such as when the concentration
decrease is attributed to dilution, dispersion, or volatilization. The concentration decrease
of a certain contaminant alone is not satisfactory. Concentration decrease only due to non-
destructive transport processes may cause diffuse pollution and a higher risk than the origi-
nal concentration. Risk-reducing natural attenuation can be considered a passive, in situ
remedial process and soil remediation can be based on it. Even if it is considered a passive
remedial option, this does not mean doing nothing. In order to manage the risk, the monitor-
ing of NA is necessary.
Monitored natural attenuation (MNA) refers to the deliberate application of natural
attenuation processes for contaminated land remediation and intends to ensure the fulfill-
ment of site-specific remedial objectives, i.e. a reduced and acceptable level of environmen-
tal risk within an acceptable time frame. MNA provides data for the control and verification
of the remediation and to justify the comparable efficiency and sustainability with conven-
tional, highly engineered remediation (see also CIR, 2000a; Alvarez & Illman, 2005; Looney
et al., 2006).
Engineered natural attenuation (ENA) covers real technological interventions to stim-
ulate and enhance the natural attenuation processes with the input of additives, substrates, or
activators, etc. (see also SNOWMAN, 2018; Clue-in, 2018a,b).
Natural attenuation-based remediation is an innovative remedial approach that relies
on natural attenuation processes in contrast to highly engineered, costly remediation with
complex machinery and energy demand. Nevertheless, soft interventions may be necessary
to enhance, accelerate, and mildly modify natural processes. The scale of intervention cov-
ers a wide range of manipulations from slight ventilation or other physicochemical methods,
through bioavailability enhancement of nutrient supply for the biota, including soil microor-
ganisms and plants to artificially formed or modified ecosystems.
Engineered natural attenuation and engineered ecotechnologies overlap largely; a dis-
tinction is made by professionals because natural attenuation is mainly used in the context of
groundwater plume and the ecotechnologies in the much wider context of soil, sediment, or
surface water remediation by bio- and ecoengineering measures.
Ecoengineering encompasses methods to force an ecosystem to remediate a con-
taminated environment. It integrates ecology, biology, biochemistry, genetics, engineering
sciences – especially bioengineering and computer engineering. The tools of ecoengineer-
ing cover a large range, starting from the exploitation of natural processes without human
intervention (which means only the observance and monitoring of the processes), through
various levels of engineering and ecological manipulations to the artificial ecosystems (arti-
ficial mesocosms, living machines).
The application areas of the natural processes-based ecotechnologies focus on the
following:
1 Environmental technologies, waste treatment and waste utilization technologies: i.e.

protecting and ensuring an acceptable environmental status of surface waters and soils
exposed to permanent contaminants load, treatment of runoff waters prior to entering
the receiving water body, development of shore protection strips along surface water
bodies, waste water treatment, utilization of wastewater, and wastewater sludge in soil.
2 Managing the self-healing of contaminated areas by bioremediation and phytoreme-
diation, enhancing the efficiency of natural reduction in contaminant concentration or
adverse effect, as well as ensuring beneficial environmental conditions and healthy
material balance for the natural ecosystem.
3 Prevention of soil degradation and amendment of degraded soils, i.e. addition of nutri-
ents and increasing nutrient binding capacity of the nutrient-deficient soils (macro-,
meso- and microelements), organic matter-deficient soils, prevention of acidification,
secondary salinization and sodification, erodibility, compaction, etc.
4 Studying prevailing trends within the ecosystem and harmonizing the anthropogenic
impacts with the desired healthy ecosystem status. “Engineering” of the ecosystems in
the service of sustainable development.
5 Incorporating the ecological aspect into all management and engineering activities,
from the selection of technology through planning to implementation.
6 Developing methods and tools to quantitatively measure ecological characteristics and
ecological risk.
Thus, natural attenuation is an exceptional tool for long-term maintenance of surface

and groundwater, soil and sediment quality and in the sustainable management of diffuse
pollution (primarily the risk of water catchments), degraded soils and contaminated land.
There are even today many abandoned historically polluted (known as superfund) sites all
over the world. Abandoned industrial and mining sites, storage and commercial facilities,
and ports are left behind, relying on time to be cured, without any monitoring or interven-
tion, but often with unclear and changing ownership status. “Time” in most cases does its
work since nature is able to mobilize astounding forces for survival under changed condi-
tions, even adapting to the presence of contaminants, e.g. by utilizing them as nutrient and
setting a new equilibrium in element cycling.
The mass balance calculation helps to estimate if the input rate exceeds the natural
attenuation rate, in which case a growing plume is expected (Figure 3.1B); a shrinking plume
is expected for the opposite condition, where natural attenuation exceeds the input rate.
Engineering interventions intend to decrease the input or increase the attenuation rate. MNA
works best where the source of pollution has been removed, as shown in Figure 3.1C. A non-
removed active source results in growing plumes in all directions (compared to Figure 3.1A
and B). Surface input must be terminated or buried waste removed and disposed of properly.
After the source is removed, natural processes may successfully cause the residual amount in
the soil and groundwater to be settled and the plume to shrink. The soil and groundwater are
monitored regularly to make sure they are cleaned up (Kueper et al., 2014; Clue-in, 2018b).
Figure 3.1 Contaminants plume (A) without (B) and after (C) source removal.
Interventions enhancing natural attenuation, even source removal, isolation, or the

intensification of the natural attenuation processes, cover a wide range of processes, opera-
tions, and complex technologies. These interventions utilize existing natural processes and
combine them with directed mass flow and/or enhanced degradation. The scheme in Fig-
ure 3.2 illustrates the merely natural processes, the engineered natural processes, and the
growing rate of engineering.
Ecoengineering applications of natural attenuation processes in the risk management
of abandoned contaminated sites have not yet become widespread because they do not
require “serious” machines, “spectacular” equipment, but “only” scientific knowledge on
processes occurring out of sight below the surface. Switching from an approach center-
ing on technology to the improvement of environmental knowledge would result in wider
acceptance and a breakthrough for the consideration and application of engineered natural
attenuation as a technology and ecoengineering tools for corrective or remedial purposes.
Natural Aenuaon: Remediaon based on

NA spontaneous natural processes without
engineered control
Monitored Natural Aenuaon: Remediaon

MNA is planned and controlled based on
monitoring data
Enhanced Natural Aenuaon: So

ENA intervenon to accelerate beneficial
processes and lower the risk
The combinaon of natural and engineered

NA-based in situ
processes, e.g. reacve barriers/soil zones,
remediaon leachate collecon
Remediaon or correcve acons based on

Eco-technologies the acvity of natural or arficial ecosystems
under engineered control
Figure 3.2 Increasing scale of engineering in utilizing natural attenuation in environmental remediation.
More respect to and a realistic attitude towards nature and the environment assumes
complex environmental/ecological knowledge. The abandoned contaminated land on one
hand and the accidental contamination spills on the other have demonstrated that nature
itself is able to fight for pollution mitigation and in fortunate cases remediate itself without
human intervention.
For example, in Hungary after the withdrawal of the Soviet army, investigations in the
area of the former Soviet army military areas showed high petroleum pollution. The country
had not had enough financial resources at that time for immediate remediation/utilization of
the assessed sites, thus quite often the remediation had started only after 10–15 years, once
the land had been sold or the regional development or spatial planning determined its utiliza-
tion. At many sites, contaminated with various petroleum hydrocarbons – such as fuels, heat-
ing oil, car and lubricant oils and greases – the contamination had attenuated spontaneously
due to the degradability of its constituents. Pollution from industrial and mining activities, as
well as from the disposal and landfilling of hazardous wastes – such as chlorinated benzenes
and phenols or mine wastes containing lead, cadmium, uranium, or other metals – belongs
to a different category than petroleum hydrocarbons, given that these are persistent, hardly
degradable or non-degradable substances. The subsurface transport and dilution of these per-
sistent and toxic contaminants gradually affect water supplies and produce a continuously
growing environmental and human health risk.
To expand the spread of soft technologies (i.e. bio- and ecotechnologies) based on natu-
ral processes, the following requirements can be considered:
1 Identification, assessment and modeling of natural attenuation processes. Distinguish-

ing the risk-reducing natural processes from the risk-enhancing processes based on
monitoring. Assessing the risk quantitatively.
2 Improvement of the knowledge level of engineers, landowners, environmental policy

makers, managers, and other stakeholders.
3 Calling and turning the attention of the relevant contaminated site policy and management
representatives toward soft, clean, and inexpensive remediation such as engineered natural
attenuation and soft interventions. Beyond the solutions to the acute problems, drawing atten-
tion to the necessity of long-term thinking and planning; long-term sustainment of environ-
mental quality and ecosystem services; monitoring of contaminated and deteriorated land and
its continuous management. Early interventions using cost- and eco-efficient methods.
4 Introduction of the dynamic system of risk-based land use in order to optimize land uses
and harmonize land quality and land use. The less contaminated land should get the most
demanding future land use (e.g. residential, recreational) and the future industrial and
commercial or other less demanding land uses should be implemented in former “brown-
fields” after remediation. Another economical efficiency-increasing solution can be the
utilization of the land during the remediation. Subsurface natural attenuation and soft in
situ technologies often leave the surface free and allow for its temporary utilization.
5 We must endeavor to change the demand and availability of new processes in environ-
mental technology market to make low-cost bio- and ecoengineering soil treatments
more competitive while simultaneously reducing reliance on high profit but costly phys-
icochemical and unjustified soil replacement technologies.
3 THE FATE AND BEHAVIOR OF CONTAMINANTS

IN THE SOIL
The fate of contaminants in the environment is determined by the physicochemical proper-
ties of the chemical substance and by the environment’s physicochemical-biological-eco-
logical conditions and characteristics. In addition to the environmental compartments – air,
surface water and sediments, soil, and groundwater – the biota as a fundamentally important
component also has to be considered.
The chemical and biological processes may transform the contaminants into non- or less
harmful materials compared to the original compound. However, in some cases the transfor-
mation may lead to a more hazardous product and a higher risk than existed beforehand.
The contaminant concentration at a given site may decrease due to diffusion, dilu-
tion, and/or partition between phases along the transport pathway. However, concentra-
tion decrease does not necessarily mean risk reduction, rather in most cases it may actually
increase the risk if, for example, the contaminant from the solid soil phase gets into the
groundwater, threatening a more sensitive land use or water supply compared to the pre-
vious situation, where the contaminant did not interact with groundwater. A hydrophilic
low-risk contaminant bound to the soil when getting into water may reach dangerously high
concentrations. The groundwater may transport contaminants to sensitive areas, e.g. from
an out-of-use subsurface area to a region of water bases. Relatively low-concentration con-
taminants can accumulate in soil volumes, e.g. in the rhizosphere of high sorption capacity
and biological access. Degradation may yield toxic products/compounds, increasing the risk
while the concentration of the original contaminant decreases. Finally, the expansion of the
contaminated area that appears to dilute the original pollution source or plume brings an
elevated risk to new areas. Even if the risk is acceptable at these newly exposed areas, the
background levels will be higher. This tendency continuously increases global background
levels and speeds up disadvantageous ecological trends.
Therefore, contaminated soil assessment must take into account not only the contami-
nant concentration but also the contaminant mass input, i.e. the total amount reaching the
environment. Physicochemical and biological pollutant degradation is capable of reducing
both concentration and amount, but dilution results in a concentration decrease without mass
reduction. Physicochemical-biological immobilization reduces the available quantity with-
out decreasing the total amount of contaminants. These processes may lead to real risk reduc-
tion by decreasing the mass of either the contaminant or the available contaminant, provided
irreversible immobilization takes place. Irreversible immobilization/stabilization leads to
a reduced risk with the mass present in the environment unchanged, but easily reversible
processes may create a constant threat, referred to as “chemical time bombs.” In the case of
toxic hazard, degradation can decrease the contaminants’ potential adverse effects, unless
toxic intermediaries and/or by-products are formed. The risk due to the contaminants is pro-
portional to the material balance and its changes so that predictions and estimations about
NA time requirement and efficiencies should be based on the contaminants’ mass balance.
3.1 Processes in the soil

The main physicochemical and biological processes that the contaminant may undergo in
the soil are reviewed here.
3.1.1 Physicochemical processes in the soil

– Physical transport of the contaminant in gas, vapor, liquid as a separate phase, dissolved
in water or solid, or sorbed on solid and in slurry form. The driving force may be gravity
or pressure difference.
– Diffusion is a transport process driven by concentration gradients: the molecules move
from higher toward lower concentrations;
– Dilution is the result of the process that decreases the concentration by adding and mix-
ing more water to the solution. The total solution amount will increase, but the dissolved
amount remains unchanged.
– Evaporation–condensation is a process pair in the phase transition of volatile liquids
or solids caused by environmental conditions (typically temperature) or concentration
differences.
– Dissolution–precipitation is a process pair covering the phase transition of water-soluble
substances on the effect of temperature, concentration differences or cosolvents. Many of
the chemical and geochemical reactions in the soil are accompanied by phase transition,
so these transformations can be utilized for mobilization or stabilization of contaminants,
mainly metals. Some redox potential-dependent transformations of metals, where phase
transition results in non-soluble metal species (see also Figure 3.3), are these:
◦ Cu2+ + 2 (FeOH) = 2 (FeO)Cu + 2 H+

◦ CrO42− + 3 Fe2+ + 4 OH− + 4 H2O = 3 Fe(OH)3 + Cr(OH)3
◦ Ni2+ + Fe2+ + HS– = Fe Ni S + H+
◦ Pb2+ + HCO3− = PbCO3 + H+
– Sorption–desorption: this process pair covers phase transitions from the point of view of
the solid phase of the soil, which can bind substances on its surface both in gas/vapor, or
liquid/dissolved (e.g. ionic) forms and release the molecules into the gas or liquid phase
Figure 3.3 Redox potential-dependent processes in the soil and in a contaminant plume: A – vertical
redox gradient in soil; B – central redox gradient in a contaminant plume.
of the soil after desorption. The sorbed amount of a hydrophobic organic contaminant
can be many thousands or millions of times greater than the dissolved amount in the
equilibrium aquatic phase.
– Partition between phases means a condition-dependent distribution of the contami-
nant between the three physical phases of the soil. Even if a contaminant is mainly
split between two phases, e.g. between soil solid and liquid, some (maybe a very small
amount) will be found in the third phase in the soil gas.
– Abiotic reactions such as photochemical reactions, hydrolysis, oxidation-reduction-
chemical transformation, condensation, etc. contribute greatly to environmental trans-
formation and making chemicals harmless. Photodegradation in water can reach a
significant level and may result in complete elimination, but in deeper water layers and
in soil it is negligible. Highly reactive substances may be quickly transformed chemi-

cally under soil conditions. The analyses of degradation/transformation products and
the assessment of their risk are always necessary.
– Weathering of rocks and soil formation are part of natural soil evolution, involving
several physicochemical and biological processes and interactions. Regarding con-
taminants, it may cause mobilization by fragmentation, dissolution, leaching, runoff,
erosion, etc. Natural immobilization/stabilization may take place during soil formation
such as clay mineral formation, or microstructure/aggregate formation.
– Humus formation and fossilization result in organic structural building blocks. It is a
complex process in which large organic contaminant molecules or small particulate
matter can be incorporated into organic soil structure elements.
– Disintegration and leaching of the humus materials and podzolization are soil degrada-
tion processes, which may result in poor sorption capacity of the soil and the release of
incorporated contaminants.
3.1.2 Biochemical and biological processes in the

soil and groundwater
Several spontaneous responses are produced by the biota, which may create abilities to sur-
vive in the presence of contaminants and/or to utilize them. Knowing the internal (organism-
dependent) and external (environment-dependent) conditions that led to the adaptation of
an active transformation by the biota, technologists can also apply as engineering tools the
same conditions to enhance biological transformation. Natural processes to be considered
are the following:
– Adaptation of the ecosystem and the microorganisms is a typical and complex pro-
cess in the soil. The microbial communities containing up to 109 cells in 1 cm3 of soil
include complex food webs that behave as one organism with a highly versatile metage-
nome. The metagenome is the total genome of several thousand individual species. This
metagenome can adapt swiftly to conditions by changing the distribution of its compo-
nent genes according to the requirement of the available substrates, the environmental
conditions, and the toxic materials. The adaptation mechanisms may be due to one or
more of the following: (i) the owner microorganisms of the desired genes will propa-
gate themselves faster, (ii) the required/beneficial genes will be switched on if formerly
inactive, and (iii) the best genes will be distributed after propagation by horizontal gene
transfer, i.e. by donating the useful gene to the neighboring microorganisms.
– Extracellular enzymes are secreted by microorganisms into the soil, but intracellular
and cell-bound enzymes may also survive the producing organisms (Shukla & Varma,
2011). These enzymes are bound to the humus and are responsible for several soil activ-
ities, degrading processes, catalysis, etc., generally speaking for the health of the soil.
They play an important role in contaminant degradation and can be used as additives in
soil remediation after their production by means of various biotechnologies.
– Partitioning of the chemical substance between the environment and the biota is a pro-
cess that is similar to but less passive than physicochemical partitioning. Living cells
and their membranes do not only sorb molecules having affinity to the cell surface but
also ensure certain selectivity (not binding to any molecules except for those already
known and preferred). They may function as a pump when transferring the molecules
taken up through the membrane into inner organs/tissues, making free again the binding
sites (structural templates of the substance) on the membranes.
– Microbiological transformation, mineralization, and cometabolism are the common
biochemical processes taking place in the cells. The cells try – and in many cases suc-
ceed – to use the contaminants similarly to natural substrates they commonly use for
biosynthesis and energy production by degradation, incorporation, or accumulation.
The preferred biochemical pathway is determined by the suitable conditions (e.g. redox
potential), the need for energy sources, and the biodegradation products so it is essential
to be aware of the mechanisms of biodegradation or transformation to control the natu-
ral process and manage the accompanying and residual risks.
The redox potential-dependent biodegradation (see Figure 3.3) and the necessary elec-
tron acceptors are demonstrated by the equations elaborated for benzene by Wiedemeier
et al. (1995a):
– Aerobic respiration: C6H6 + 7.5 O2 → 6 CO2 + 3 H2O

– Denitrification: C6H6 + 6 NO−3 + 6 H → 6 CO2 + 6 H2O + 3 N2
+
– Iron reduction: C6H6 + 60 H+ + 30 Fe(OH)3→ 6 CO2 + 78 H2O + 30 Fe2+

– Manganese reduction: C6H6 + 30 H+ + 15 MnO2 → 6 CO2 + 18 H2O + 15 Mn2+
– Sulfate reduction: C6H6 + 7.5 H+ + 3.75 SO 2−
4 → 6 CO2 + 3 H2O + 3.75 H2S
– Methanogenesis: C6H6 + 4.5 H2O → 2.25 CO2 + 3.75 CH4
The vertical redox gradients in soils and the related geobiochemical reactions are simi-
lar to the redox gradient that evolved in the plume from the center toward the plume surface.
As the plume is moving, it becomes more and more anoxic, finally anaerobic in the middle,
since the biodegradation in the surface layer that encounters the new soil consumes soil air,
then the nitrate, sulfate, oxidized iron, and manganese until no electron acceptor remains
(see Figure 3.3). In addition to the lack of electron acceptors, shortage of water also contrib-
utes to the inhibition of biodegradation.
– Plant transformation processes cover those biochemical processes from volatilization

through degradation to bioaccumulation that change the location, form, and concentra-
tion of the contaminant.
– Bioaccumulation results in a higher concentration in a cell, in tissue, in an organ or in
an organism (plant, fungal, animal, or human) relative to the environment. Hyperac-
cumulating organisms such as some special plant can be used for the bioextraction of
otherwise hardly mobilizable contaminants, e.g. certain metals.
– Biomagnification means multiple bioaccumulations along the food chain, resulting in
the worst-case deadly concentrations in top predators or predator-eating humans even if
the accumulation rate is not very high in the individual food chain stages.
The processes in the soil are actually process pairs and their effects are shifted in
one direction or the other depending on the equilibrium conditions, while trying to estab-
lish a homeostatic plateau. These processes can be controlled with the environmental
parameters determining the equilibrium. In the case of process pairs, the main aim is to
set equilibrium that results in an acceptably low risk. In the case of processes not involv-
ing balancing pairs or processes shifted in one direction, i.e. contaminant transport and
dilution, the risk can be reduced mainly by removal of the source or by a physical or
chemical barrier.
Some of the environmental processes trigger negative feedback while others trigger
positive feedback loops. The systems controlled by negative feedback can establish long-
term steady-state conditions, i.e. the great amount of biomass entering the soil seasonally –
providing energy and a growth substrate for the microorganisms – enhances the growth
(multiplication) of soil microorganisms. Once the microorganisms have consumed the
organic matter, the decrease in nutrient supply reduces their number so their population
reaches the usual “resting” level. Moreover, the food chain members relying on these micro-
organisms return to their average level with some delay, so the whole of the food chain, even
the members of the highest trophic levels, is limited by the nutrient source decrease. Until
the sources occur repeatedly, the cycle continues unchanged from season to season. Mean-
while, the processes with positive feedback strengthen the ecosystem and divert it from the
equilibrium status. According to a typical trend, once a certain limit has been exceeded, the
system cannot revert to the original equilibrium with the compensating forces of a negative
feedback. In a fortunate situation, new (different from the previous) equilibrium values may
be established, but the forces driven by positive feedback may divert the system from this
equilibrium status repeatedly or continuously. A typical example of a positive feedback is
the continuous decrease of soil organic matter (humus degradation, leaching and no humus
supplementation) involving less nutrient retention/bonding, the result of which is decreasing
biomass production, i.e. the natural process responsible for soil organic matter replacement.
The outcome is complete humus degradation, soil nutrient loss, low nutrient plants, a low
water holding capacity of the soil, no plant growth, podzolization and a high risk of soil
erosion.
Weathering of sulfidic rocks is also a typical risk-increasing process that cannot be
grouped into an antonymic process pair, thus representing a positive feedback. During
weathering, chemical and biological oxidation of sulfides (in the presence of oxygen) results
in sulfates, contributing to an ever-growing mobilization of toxic metal cations contained
in the rock until the sulfides get exhausted. During this process, the solid form (s) pyrite
becomes soluble (aq), and the iron hydroxide precipitates (s):
4 FeS2 (s) +15 O2 + 14 H2O = 16 H+ (aq) + 8 SO42− (aq) + 4 Fe(OH)3 (s)
The lack of sulfate reduction – which is far slower than oxidation and in addition requires
anoxic conditions – leads to extreme acidification and metal leaching. It may occur that acid
mine and acid rock drainage represents a pH of zero or very close to it, and the metal content
reaches the order of magnitude of 1% in the leachate.
The characteristics of the natural processes differ in the case of degradable (mainly organic
and C-, N-, or S-containing inorganic) and non-degradable contaminants (i.e. toxic metals spe-
cies). It is advisable to distinguish processes occurring in the unsaturated, three-phase and in
the saturated two-phase soils and those occurring in the sediments because, due to different
redox potentials, the prevailing physicochemical and biological processes are different.
Most of the natural processes are ambivalent in terms of environmental risk; in fortunate
cases they diminish but may also increase environmental risk. Apart from intensifying/accel-
erating the useful processes by engineering tools, the aim of monitoring and human inter-
vention is to reduce the risk-enhancing processes and support natural remedial potential.
Mobilization is one of the natural processes to be highlighted, given that it is the prerequi-
site of natural attenuation by contaminant removal. Removal may occur with and without
degradation. Mobilization and removal without degradation results in the transport of the
contaminant into environments not yet contaminated. Isolation of such processes from an
unaffected environment can control risk (e.g. by collection and treatment of leachates and
runoffs). Removal combined with slow degradation (e.g. aquatic photo- or biodegradation)
pose a temporary risk to a limited area so it can be controlled by soft engineering tools, e.g.
by hydrostatic barriers. The impact of natural mobilizing processes has to be controlled
based on risk assessment. This risk should then be compared to the benefit resulting from
mobilization, e.g. shortened treatment time.
The factors influencing NA (pH, redox, chemical form, biological activity, etc.) can be
applied as technological parameters to manipulate a naturally evolved situation. For exam-
ple, to increase the transformation rate and force transformation processes in the desired
direction, the biodegradation rates of certain chemicals can be increased using in situ bios-
timulation and/or bioaugmentation (see more in Chapter 6):
– Biostimulation, i.e. the enhancement of the activity of indigenous microorganisms by

adding nutrients, surfactants, alternative electron acceptors or cometabolites.
– Bioaugmentation is a manipulation of adding the best possible biological catalyst,
e.g. microorganisms having specific degrading capability to a contaminated medium.
Instead of microorganisms, any microbial product – typically enzymes – can be
applied.
3.2 Mobilization and immobilization

Both mobilization and immobilization cover several physicochemical and biological
processes and play a priority role in natural attenuation as well as in soil remediation in
general.
3.2.1 Mobilization
In terms of mobilization, the following questions are frequently raised:
– Can the pollutant be mobilized and to what extent?

– Is there any mobilization in the contaminated area?
– Is there any equilibrium between mobilization and immobilization?
– Is the mobilization advantageous or disadvantageous to the ecosystem of the area, and
what is the relationship between damage and benefits?
– Is the mobilization detrimental to the humans using the area?
– Could mobilization be the basis of a site-specific remediation technology?
– Does the physicochemical or biological mobilization prevail?
– Would mobilization pose a risk in the case of an in situ technology?
– Can the extent of mobilization be measured? Does it show a constant, a decreasing, or
an increasing trend?
– What are the measures and additives able to increase or decrease mobilization at the
respective site?
transformaon
Bio/chemical
Organic
substances
Sorpon Precipitaon
Soil solid
Desorpon Dissoluon
Biogeochemical
transformaon
Metals
Figure 3.4 Fate of contaminants in soil.
Mobilization is a complex process including contaminant transport and fate (Figure 3.4):
– Transport processes such as diffusion and advection result in:

◦ Surface runoff,
◦ Seepage, and
◦ Infiltration.
– Fate processes resulting in contaminant translocation:
◦ Evaporation,
◦ Dissolution,
◦ Desorption, and
◦ Partition shifted towards the more mobile phase.
– Fate processes resulting in degradation:
◦ Photodegradation,
◦ Hydrolysis, and
◦ Biodegradation.
– Changing of the chemical form of the contaminant.
These processes in turn are all dependent on exterior conditions, primarily temperature,
pH and redox potential, polarity, affinity and binding capacity of the medium, as well as on
non-target chemicals present in the soil.
Mobilization often occurs spontaneously in a contaminated area, but the opposite may
also take place, namely spontaneous immobilization.
Spontaneous mobilization can be as follows:
– Influenced by changing the exterior conditions (temperature, pH, redox potential, sorption);
– Mitigated with physical and hydrogeological barriers (decreasing the groundwater
level, construction of reactive barriers); or
– Reduced or stopped by chemical immobilization.
The physical and chemical immobilization may involve biological systems, i.e. modifi-
cation of redox potential or pH by microorganisms, fungi, and plants (see Figures 3.4–3.6):
– Establishing reductive conditions below ground by oxygen consumption;

– Metal precipitation by means of the sulfides produced by sulfate-reducing microorganisms;
– Metal leaching by acid-producing fungi;
– Modification of the soil’s sorption capacity by plants and microbes (i.e. sorption-based
filtering effect of the root area).
transformaon
Bio/chemical
Organic
substances
Mineralizaon
Biosorpon Transformaon Uptake
Microbial cell
Metal sequestraon
Solubilizaon Bioaccumulaon
extracellular polymers
Metals
Exclusion by
Figure 3.5 Impact of soil microorganisms on organic and inorganic contaminants (metals).
transformaon
Bio/chemical
Organic
substances
Sorpon Bioaccumulaon
Plant & microorganism
consorum
Rhizofiltraon Phytoextracon
Metals
Extracellular
stabilizaon
Figure 3.6 The role of plant and microorganisms consortium in contaminants’ transport and fate.
In case the mobilization is detrimental, the extent of the risk has to be assessed and
mitigated if necessary. Risk mitigation can be affected by hydrogeological barriers, directed
material flows, isolation, etc. Should the mobilization be useful then its extent has to be
assessed and intensified to become the basis of remediation.
Mobilization is generally simultaneously useful and potentially detrimental. Therefore,
adequate measures shall be developed and implemented for its monitoring and manipu-
lation. Technologically, this means separation/confinement in space of the technologically
useful process from the process detrimental to the environment. For example, biological
leaching of metals from sulfidic rock without any confinement results in leaching of metals
(the residual rock will be depleted in metals, plants may spontaneously settle on the metal-
depleted material after the pH reverted to normal), but the leached metal load transported
by runoff contaminates the surface waters. For this reason, uncontrolled disposal into the
environment of mining waste containing toxic metals is very dangerous.
3.2.2 Immobilization and accumulation

Spontaneous immobilization of contaminants in soil, sediment or biological systems may
significantly lower the contaminant load in the water phase but represent at the same
time, a potential contaminant source, from where contaminant release may occur upon
changing environmental conditions. This potential release depends on the scale of the
following:
– The stability of the contaminant characterized by its water solubility and partitioning
between the solid and the liquid phases, which is strongly shifted toward the solid in the
case of high stability.
– Irreversibility of the immobilizing process: the potency of the process to revert in
changing conditions due to water content and flux, turbulence, pH, redox potential, ion-
concentrations, etc.
Immobilization/stabilization may include various processes (see Figures 3.4–3.6):
– Filtration of particulate matter (by constraint).

– Sorption and filtration of dissolved substances: inorganic contaminants mainly sorb on
clay minerals, organic contaminants, on humus materials.
– Biosorption can be a passive physicochemical process when biomass passively binds
and concentrates the contaminants on its cell surface or in the cell structure; but it can
include an active process too, when the contaminant taken up is also transformed into a
more stable form for longer-term storage or degraded.
– Physical isolation based on natural processes.
– Chemical immobilization based on chemical transformation and precipitation, due to
pH (e.g., metal ions by limestone or other calcareous rocks) or redox (metal ions by
reduction under water) conditions.
The contaminants accumulated and concentrated by spontaneous immobilization can

reduce the risk in the long term, but this establishes a “chemical time bomb” in the soil
with a lower or higher likelihood to explode. Usually, a combination of the aforementioned
processes occurs.
For example, a contaminant in the sediment under anaerobic conditions may be immo-
bile (many of the metals are in a non-soluble sulfide form), but if flooding relocates it onto
the surface of the flood plain soil, it becomes mobile after oxidation due to formation of ionic
metal forms. Another example is the contaminated runoff or wastewater entering a wetland,
where intensive filtration, sorption, biosorption, chemical transformation, and precipitation
may occur. These processes may retain the contaminants and result in a good quality out-
flow. The wetland soil becomes increasingly contaminated, the non-degradable compounds
get concentrated and the degradable ones are degraded. When utilizing or draining such a
wetland, these risks must be considered.
Soils and sediments, depending on their particle size distribution, will filter and bind
contaminants at different concentrations. The fine fractions and the soil layers in the aquifer
or certain sediment layers or deposits in rivers consisting of fine particles can be extremely
contaminated, while sand or gravel is in most cases not contaminated.
In summary, a thorough contaminant and site assessment is needed before making
deciding about a remediation based on immobilization or stabilization. Especially the risk
posed by sites (soils and sediments) highly polluted with immobilized contaminants should
be primarily assessed.
4 METHODOLOGICAL BACKGROUND OF NATURAL

PROCESS MONITORING
Natural processes and the way they may attenuate or increase the risk of contaminants in
the environment are reviewed in this chapter. The methodology required to assess natural
processes will be introduced first, followed by details on data collection, measurement and
test methods, processing and evaluation of measured data and interpretation of the results.
To explore and determine properly the environmental processes and the concept of
monitoring (location, time interval, sample amount, type of measurements and evaluation),
the area concerned should be thoroughly tested for potential damage likely to be caused by
the contaminants present and transported in the environment and their adverse effects. This
risk can be determined based on the conceptual model of the site that combines the con-
taminant’s transport model (from the source via transport pathways through the receptors)
and the exposure model (ecological and human receptors using the land and the exposure
pathways typical for the land uses and the land users) (see Figure 3.7).
Measurements and tests employed for the assessment of contaminated sites and for
natural attenuation monitoring represent a complementary integrated methodology (Leitgib
et al., 2005; Gruiz, 2016a; Gruiz et al., 2016a). “Integrated” means that the traditionally used
physicochemical results are completed with biological and ecotoxicity results to get a full
picture of the black box of the “contaminated land.” Soil is a complex system within which
the contaminant, or very often a multi-component contaminant blend, interacts with the soil
matrix with the physical phases and chemical constituents as well as with the soil ecosys-
tem. A soil ecosystem is a continuously changing, flexible, and adaptive community able
to convert the contaminant into energy or stabilize/neutralize it while striving for survival.
Consequently, any of the indicators of interaction, reactions, and responses of the system
components can be included in the integrated methodology.
Several methodological innovations enable NA assessment and monitoring such as the in
situ and real-time monitoring tools (Gruiz et al., 2016c), the direct push methods (Nemeskéri
et al., 2016), statistical methods (Gruiz et al., 2015b), 2D and 3D analytical or numerical modeling
tools, developed especially for NA evaluation and prediction such as NAS (Widdowson et al.,
2005; NAS, 2018) for the NA time requirement estimation, the BIOPLUME (1997) and BIO-
SCREEN (1997) tools for biodegradation-based NA, and the BIOCHLOR (2002) or RT3D
(2018) for chlorinated solvents (see also Chapelle, 2004; US EPA, 2011, US EPA Models, 2018).
Mass balance (i.e. the equal input and output mass) should be the basis of all calcula-
tions, including biobalance. The mass balance can be determined most properly from flux
(mass per time) data and expressed as the ratio of or the difference between loading and
attenuation. From mass balance data, the nature of the soil pollution or the subsurface plume
(shrinking, stable, or growing) as well as the attenuation time can be derived.
Mass and flux data of the contaminants cannot be determined only from the groundwa-
ter flux because contaminants, even the dissolved ones, do not move together with the water,
due to their different scale of retention by the soil matrix compared to the water. Alterna-
tively, several specific assessment and monitoring methods, as well as transport and fate
modeling (both for forecasting and long-term evaluation), are used to quantify contaminant
flow, dispersion, and elimination from the environment.
– Aquifer mapping using geophysical methods, e.g. tomography (Hoffmann & Dietrich,
2004) and the use of tracers for flux measurement (Gödeke et al., 2004);
– Special pumping tests, e.g. multiple wells and mathematical models such as the integral
pumping test (IPT) for quantitative characterization of contaminant plumes by consid-
eration of linear, instantaneous sorption/degradation (Bayer-Raich et al., 2004, 2006);
– Direct push methods for mass transfer (Mass transfer, 2015);
– Assessing soil matrix capacity to immobilize contaminants, e.g. reactive multi-tracer
test, and modeling contaminant retention based on these results (Wachter et al., 2000);
– Characterization of biodegradation by compound-specific isotope analysis (CSIA), an ana-
lytical method measuring the ratios of naturally occurring stable isotopes in environmental
samples. Its use for the detection of degradation and identification of contaminant sources
is based on the ratio of 12C to 13C, which changes in a systematic way in the course of deg-
radation (both biotic and abiotic) (Hunkeler et al., 2008; US EPA, 2008; CSIA, 2015);
– Characterization of microbiological populations and their adaptation/biodegradation by
molecular methods, e.g. identifying indicator genes of enzymes or other active proteins
in the metagenome responsible for interactions with the contaminant. These proteins
may protect the organism from a toxicant or be responsible for the utilization of a sub-
stance as a nutrient (Haack and Bekins, 2000; Haack et al., 2004; MNA-DNA, 2011;
USGS DNA, 2018);
– Characterizing biodegradation by the stable isotope technique (DNA/RNA-SIP) to reveal
the consumption of contaminants as energy substrates. The contaminant is enriched with
a heavier stable isotope – typically 13C – that is incorporated into organisms utilizing the
contaminant as a substrate. 16S rRNA is the most informative biomarker because more
than 120,000 sequences are available from databases. After extracting the RNA from the
soil, it is separated to normal and heavy fractions by isopycnic centrifugation. Heavy RNA
reveals carbon assimilation, i.e. the presence and activity of contaminant degraders, while
sequencing heavy RNA identifies which organisms can consume the contaminant. With
the increasing availability of DNA techniques, the method has become popular as shown
by a large number of publications (Morasch et al., 2001, 2002; Vieth et al., 2002, 2003;
Richnow et al., 2003; Mancini et al., 2003; Meckenstock et al., 2004; Griebler et al., 2004;
Kopinke et al., 2005) and is still in widespread use today (Sims, 2013; Kuder et al., 2014);
– Measuring toxicity of the plume directly gives a toxicity value (lethality, inhibition of
biological activity, mutagenicity, genotoxicity, immunotoxicity, endocrine disruption,
etc.) directly associated with environmental or human health risk (Gruiz et al., 2015a,
2016b; Gruiz, 2016a);
– Applying an integrated approach that combines more methods and evaluates the result
in an integrated way (Gruiz, 2016a,b);
– Long-term monitoring and evaluation of all results versus time based on a risk-time
curve, denominated in this chapter as “risk profile.”
The risk profile curve (see Section 4.4 and Figures 3.10–3.13) shows the trend of the
environmental risk in time, making it the best tool for interpretation of the monitoring
results. A risk profile can be drawn from time-serial data. Quantitatively, the environmental
risk is most simply described using the risk characterization ratio RCR (PEC/PNEC), which
is the ratio of the predicted environmental concentration (PEC) to the predicted no-effect
concentration (PNEC), i.e. the concentration in the environment that is not likely to impact
adversely the whole of the ecosystem. The risk, expressed as RCR, changes in time due to
changes of both the PEC and the PNEC. The PEC of the contaminant typically changes in
the course of its transport by dilution and concentration (accumulation), mobilization or
immobilization and other transport and fate processes. The PNEC changes along the same
transport route, depending on the actual land uses and users. A runoff after reaching sensi-
tive surface water (the habitat of a sensitive aquatic ecosystem) suddenly represents a much
greater risk than along its transport pathway. The human risk of a subsurface plume far away
from drinking water bases may be low, but it may represent a greater risk in the vicinity of
a drinking water well.
Displaying a real picture of the risk in time and space, a risk map can be drawn and
utilized for planning and managing environmental risk in an area, even subsequent to treat-
ment. The risk can be estimated not only in space but also in time; the latter interpretation
results in the risk profile used in this chapter to illustrate changes in time. Assuming a simple
plume and linear transport, the profile is two dimensional (one spatial and the time dimen-
sion). To reflect the real transport process correctly, the transport should be mapped by a
three-dimensional set of surfaces in time (both surface runoffs and subsurface plumes cover
three spatial dimensions and the change in time).
After having detailed information about the area, the contaminant and its probable spa-
tial and temporal distribution, an integrated risk model can be developed (see Figure 3.7). It
is based on the transport and fate model, as well as land uses, land users and their exposure
model from which the quantity of risk will be calculated. This kind of risk models are gener-
ally created for a certain time point and a certain locality, but with the help of the currently
available information technology, it could even be a time map showing the quantity of risk
and its changes spatially and temporally as a video. The risk manager should just read the
location of the plume and the time point in question.
Such an integrated risk model should be the basis of all engineering activities in the
environment – planning and implementing site assessment and monitoring, remediation,
post-remediation activities, and future land uses. In the course of qualitative and quantitative
risk assessment, increasingly more information can be utilized in a stepwise iterative meth-
odology to refine the risk model and make the assessment procedure as efficient as possible.
The risk model should describe the site entirely: the contaminant, exposed receptor organ-
isms, ecosystems and the interactions between all these participants. Exclusion of certain
Figure 3.7 The risk model of an MNA site and the neighborhood of the site.
components of the model can be justified if a chemical substance, a pathway or a subsite does
not contribute to the risk. All other details of the created risk model should be validated.
The integrated risk model is often referred to as the conceptual model because it should
reflect the management concept. It is exceptional when natural attenuation is chosen as the
primary remediation option. By this, a risk-based environmental management can be estab-
lished and the autocratic managerial baseline information and judgment about the state of
the art and priorities can be excluded. Priorities, e.g. the receptors that are taken into consid-
eration, can be responsible for incorrect results. Risk models based only on human recep-
tors may lead to ecosystem deterioration. Moreover, when considering only some protected
species, most of the ecosystem may remain endangered, e.g. soil microbiota is often the last
in line and not considered as a highly exposed receptor. The requirements of a good site
assessment/environmental risk management are these:
1 To draw a risk model that is as objective as possible covering all possible environmental
compartments and their users.
2 To create a management and decision-making scheme to set priorities from an environ-
mental risk perspective.
3 Finally, to take socioeconomic, cultural, and political issues into account.
The site assessment and site and technology monitoring should not rely only on the results
of a physicochemical analysis, having the main disadvantage of providing data only on a few,
arbitrarily selected contaminants. They must also include the ecosystem, its observable dete-
rioration, and the biological conditions of the soil. The living “cell factory” shall acquire a pri-
mary role, mainly in cases where natural attenuation is based on soil biology or where the soil
ecosystem and function should be conserved. To measure the extent and type of environmental
toxicity is an efficient means for environmental prevention, as information can be acquired on
adverse effects posed by the contaminated environmental matrix (water or soil), even without
(or before) identification of the contaminant(s). The actual adverse effects in soil or water
caused by the pollutants may provide results that are contradictory to those of the physico-
chemical analytical methods, the reason for which may be one or more of the following:
– The analytical program does not include/identify all contaminants.

– Some contaminants at non-detectable low concentrations may have unacceptable high
detrimental/adverse effects.
– The biological availability or non-availability of contaminants causes great differences
compared to the toxicity of a pure substance or even to the predictable toxicity based
on the chemically measured concentration (because the availability of the soil contami-
nants to the solvent used for chemical analysis differs from its biological availability).
– The picture gets more complicated due to the potential interaction of the contaminants
with each other and with the soil matrix. These unpredictable complicated interactions
may be strengthening, weakening, or even diminishing each other.
In summary, the quantitative environmental risk is
– Characterized by the RCR = PEC/PNEC ratio, which is determined from

– Modeled concentrations relying on calculated or measured data, and from
– Modeled effect results obtained from ecotoxicity tests and/or from default human toxicity data.
The risk profile is the variation of the quantitative risk in time substantiating the deci-
sions made during the management of contaminated sites.
4.1 The risk model

The integrated risk model combines the transport and the exposure models (Figure 3.7). The
transport model includes the pathway and the fate of the contaminant, starting from the source
and leading to the environmental compartments likely to be reached by the contaminant. In
the representation of a quantitative model the width of the arrows may be proportional to
actual mass flows. In addition to the contaminant amount, the transport and fate models
identify the physicochemical forms of the contaminant and its transformation/degradation.
Transport and fate can be characterized by generic equations from available or newly mea-
sured data or can be based on measured data. The available software types are one-, two-, or
multi-compartment models working generally predominantly with default data.
The exposure model (lower part of Figure 3.7) differentiates between exposures at the
site and in its neighborhood. For instance, at an already identified contaminated site, it is
mainly the workers that are exposed both to indoor and outdoor pollution. Exposures to and
via the ecosystem are negligible, while in the neighborhood it is humans including children
and pregnant woman and the members of the ecosystem that are targeted (potential recep-
tors) by the air, water, and soil contaminants directly and via the food chain. The integrated
risk model can map precisely the interactions between the environmental compartments
(water-sediment, soil-air, etc.) and the receptors (e.g. food chains, human exposures via the
ecosystem).
NA processes typically pose a risk to the following:
– Air – by the evaporation of volatile soil contaminants such as chlorinated solvents.

Toxic soil vapor may intrude into indoor spaces and render toxic the air of residential
buildings.
– Subsurface water – by soluble contaminants typically deriving from leaking contain-
ers or tubes disposed at the surface or the subsurface of the soil and transported by the
groundwater in the form of plumes. A contaminant plume is the most common and best-
known underground formation that may endanger water bases and residential areas.
– Surface waters – by runoffs contaminated by various dissolved soil contaminants and
solid material. Acidic leachates containing toxic metals, industrial and mining wastes,
pesticides, and nutrients from soil are the most common contaminants in runoffs.
– Soils – by all kinds of organic and inorganic contaminants from a primary or secondary
source. Contaminants of the soil endanger/threaten an ecosystem and humans directly
or indirectly via the food chain.
The site-specific risk model covers all the above-mentioned sources and transport routes
and the local hydrogeological, meteorological, climate and contaminant data, receptors and
interactions identified on the site. The water system (both surface and subsurface) and the
characteristics of the soil are of major importance. The site-specific risk model refers to
local industries, mining, and agriculture and the relevant occupational risks, as well as other,
at highest risk the residential land uses, with focus on air quality, water uses, and the local
population.
4.2 Integrated methodology for the assessment

and monitoring of natural attenuation
An integrated methodology is the special combination of physicochemical, biological, and
ecotoxicological methods (Gruiz, 2016a), also called the soil testing triad (STT, see more
in Gruiz et al., 2016a), providing complex information about the condition of the contami-
nated environment. The STT results cover the occurrence and the concentration of the con-
taminant, the characteristics of the environment, and the biota and its damage or potential
damage, the latter demonstrated by the ecotoxicity of the environmental samples. Soil tox-
icity is in direct relation to environmental risk. One risk assessment approach that is worth
applying to the monitoring of natural attenuation is the use of biological (e.g. biodegrada-
tion) and ecotoxicity results as priority information and all the other information on the con-
taminant, the environment and land uses can refine the results. Of course, the chemical data
may have priority too, and in this case the biological and ecotoxicity data are supplemental
and refine the chemical model. Applying either one or the other, the resulting integrated
information is more comprehensive than merely the physicochemical analytical methods or
the biological-ecotoxicological data. The STT methodology provides dynamic information
by comparing the actual (contaminant) quantities and the produced effects. From time-serial
data, the natural attenuating processes can be understood better, and a more correct forecast
and decision can be made.
Sampling should fulfill the generally accepted sampling requirements (Gruiz et al.,
2016d) based on statistical patterns and site characteristics. One part of measuring and test-
ing methods are the customized ones based on guidelines and protocols, while other parts
are selected based on the first results on an iterative basis. Assessment and monitoring of
natural attenuation may use in situ, real-time, on-site, or laboratory methods and modeling.
For the evaluation, a wide range of statistical analyses is generally necessary, including an
analysis of the trends.
The contaminants, hydrogeological environment, and microbiological activities are
monitored in parallel by applying geological/geochemical survey methods, physicochemi-
cal analytical methods, biochemical, biological, as well as direct toxicological studies. The
evaluation should be done in an integrated way. The interpretation of data differs in the dif-
ferent tiers of MNA management, but the conceptual risk model of the site always provides
essential information.
Modeling is essential for mapping the contaminant and its spread at the site and the
probabilities for reaching the receptors. Modeling is suitable to identify the dominating NA
processes and the parameters that influence most their efficiency. The model can predict
the most important parameter, the long-term transport and attenuation, as well as the time
requirement of NA to reach the target (see also US EPA, 2011; US EPA Models, 2018; NAS,
2018).
4.2.1 Physicochemical analytical methods

The physicochemical analytical methods alone cannot satisfy the requirements of the man-
agement of natural attenuation because to correctly characterize beneficial biological and
microbiological processes or the chemical time-bomb formation, a more complex consider-
ation is necessary.
Physicochemical methods can characterize well the environment (geochemical charac-
teristics, environmental parameters, i.e. pH, temperature, redox potential etc.) and the con-
taminant, if it has already been identified. In such cases, the physicochemical methods are
the best for delineating the contamination and for monitoring the changes. If the contaminant
is unknown, very complex (e.g. a mixture of different chemicals), or includes transforma-
tion products, the chemical methodology should be supplemented by tests for measuring the
adverse effects.
What are the most frequently measured physicochemical parameters for the character-
ization of the contaminated environment and for monitoring natural processes? And what
are the advantages and shortcomings? These questions will be answered in the following
section.
4.2.1.1 Analysis of the contaminant

– Physicochemical analysis may determine the mass, flow rate, and concentration of the
contaminant without (in situ) or with sample preparation (mainly in the lab).
◦ Geological, geophysical, and hydrogeological measurements provide input param-

eters for modeling and predicting contaminant mass and flow rate.
◦ Chemical analysis targeting the detection and the contaminant concentration can
be carried out by direct analysis using selective sensors/detectors or after digestion/
extraction of the sample and separation of the contaminant to analyze. In such a
sample, the analyte is in a completely different state than it was in the environment.
◦ Analytical methods work within a certain concentration range, which may require a
largely different – more concentrated or diluted – analyte than in the natural sample.
For example, in the case of an old mineral oil pollution instance, the already com-
plex contaminant together with the transformation products may contain several
hundred constituents. Whatever solvent is used to extract this complex contami-
nant, the extraction will be selective since none of the solvents can extract every
contaminant to the same extent.
◦ Most of the analytical methods are based on fractionation and/or separation (e.g.
liquid- or gas-chromatography), which cause further selections in favor of the tar-
geted analytes.
◦ At the end of the chemical analytical procedure, a detector is used to determine
the concentration by comparing the received signal to that of a reference material,
which in environmental analytics is rarely identical to the environmental contami-
nant to be analyzed.
– Only those contaminants and components are analyzed that are foreseen and ordered
from the lab. Typically, only the regulated contaminants are included in the analytical
plan and many others are ignored. Neither are the degradation products always included;
sometimes the degradation pathway is not completely known. This bad management
practice endangers many soils all over the world.
– The chemical form (speciation) of a contaminant may be measured, but it is a labor-,
time- and cost-intensive effort, and thus it is often not done. Even when it is done, the
results cannot be always properly interpreted.
– Based on chemical analytical results only, the extrapolation from analytical data to the
adverse effects on the ecosystem and humans involves high uncertainties because:
◦ Not all chemical substances are taken into consideration; minor components and
metabolites are often ignored;
◦ The mobility and biological availability of the contaminants are not measured, in
spite of their main influence on the realization of adverse effects (e.g. toxicity),
so the actual toxicity cannot be judged correctly from the concentration-response
function;
◦ The interactions (antagonistic, additive, synergetic) between chemicals are not
measured.
4.2.1.2 Characterization of the environment

Those environmental characteristics should be assessed that influence natural attenuation.
– For water/groundwater:
◦ Depths, flow rates;

◦ Temperature, pH;
◦ Redox potential: dissolved oxygen, other oxygen supply, alternative electron accep-
tors such as nitrate, reduced Fe and Mn, sulfate, chloride, carbonate, or the presence
of methane;
◦ Ion content, inorganic and organic material contents, suspended solids, ash;
◦ Material contents relevant to the element cycles and material balances: TOC, N
forms, Ca, Mg, methane, etc.;
◦ Salinity (can inhibit biological processes).
– For soil/sediment:
◦ Soil type, soil texture;

◦ Depths and layers;
◦ Porosity, capillary head;
◦ pH, redox potential (redox indicators, as for water);
◦ Salt content, ion content and ion-binding capacity;
◦ Humus content and composition;
◦ Contents relevant to the element cycles and material balances.
These widespread measurement methods may characterize the entire environment at
a specific point in time. However the dynamic nature of the complex, real, interaction-rich
environment cannot be described properly by physical and chemical methods only, the bio-
logical/ecological and ecotoxicological responses are also needed, especially in the case of
a contaminated environment.
4.2.2 Biological and ecological methods useful in natural

attenuation monitoring
This group of assessment tools includes methods for the characterization of the living system
of the environment (biota), for example the distribution of species in water and sediment
ecosystems, the determination of the quantity and activity of soil-living organisms or the
presence or lack of some typical/indicator species or genes. Molecular biology and DNA
techniques gain increasing roles in characterizing the environment and its activities and
health by indicator species or genes and the community with genomes and the metagenome
(see more in Gruiz et al., 2016b). Most frequently measured biological characteristics:
– For water: microorganisms and algae counts, indicator species of aquatic animal and
plant, species density, activities, diversity, specific communities such as micro- and
mesoplankton, microorganisms associated with suspended solids, bioaccumulation
in fish and other aquatic animals, food-chain effects, and biomagnifications. Enzyme
activities, microbial degradation, and possible activation play a role in element cycles
and contaminant transformations.
– For sediment: density and diversity of bottom sediment-dwelling organisms, density

and diversity of micro-, meso-, and macrozoobenthos, indicator species (e.g. mussels,
larvae), density and diversity of sediment-dwelling fish, bioaccumulation, density,
diversity, and bioaccumulation of macroplants in bottom sediment, food-chain studies,
biomagnification, microbial activities, degrading activity, and processes and activities
playing roles in element cycling and contaminant transformations.
– For soil: density, diversity of soil microorganisms, indicators for microbial respiration,
alternative types of respiration, degradation, activities in element cycles, and contami-
nant transformations, density, diversity and accumulation of plants, density and diver-
sity of soil-living animals, accumulation, food chain, biomagnification, and indicator
species.
Ecological monitoring follows the site-specific characteristics in time or, in the case of
a missing time scale; the measured values are compared to a reference site. The assessment
requires sophisticated statistical evaluation and separation of the effect of anthropogenic
environmental damages from the natural trends and from adverse effects independent of the
contamination, i.e. the damaging effect of pathogens independent of anthropogenic activity.
The available tool box is large, starting with the morphological identification of the
entities and with determination of their percentage under a microscope and by biochemical
methods to refined molecular biology methods. Molecular biology methods are fast and
describe communities existing in situ in real time, compared to traditional assays based on
incubation and propagation that never reflect the inherent situation. DNA and immune tech-
niques provide information that is otherwise not available and that reflects most realistically
the natural state of the ecosystem. Unfortunately, these methods are not yet standardized and
are even as loaded by environmental heterogeneities and sampling bias as the conventional
methods are.
DNA techniques for the monitoring of natural processes such as a biodegradation-based
NA are possible and may give a highly refined picture of changes to the metagenome of the
soil community responsible for the activities in the soil, but in practice the metagenome
characteristics have not been translated properly yet into activities and soil health status.
Nevertheless, these are promising techniques for following and understanding the response
of nature to external conditions.
Both the biological and ecological characteristics should be evaluated in relation to the
spatial direction and time scale of the presumed natural attenuation or for the validation of
the modeled changes.
4.2.3 Measuring the effect – direct toxicity assessment (DTA)

An adequately designed test system can measure the present adverse effect (e.g. toxicity) of
an environmental sample (i.e. contaminated water or soil) posed on certain, selected organ-
isms. The extent of this measured effect is in direct relation to the magnitude of local envi-
ronmental risk and makes predictions on expected damage or the necessary attenuation rate
possible (see also Gruiz, 2016a). The test system may be applied/placed in situ into the envi-
ronment to be studied, and alternatively it may be studied on site or in the lab after having
taken the sample. Depending on the aim of the study, the test system can be a standard one or
a site-specific one simulating actual conditions and processes using standard or site-specific
test organisms. Based on the results, conclusions may be drawn on the effects and processes
at the site where the sample derives from and by careful extrapolation to the whole of the
relevant ecosystem.
Effects and end points in DTA

Direct toxicity testing of environmental water, sediment or soil samples means that the test
system establishes/ensures contact between the sample and a controlled population of test
organisms, generally one of the well-known, standardized species such as algae, daphnia, or
fish for water and sediment-dwelling invertebrates, mussels, insect larvae, or bottom-fish, as
well as plants rooted in sediment, and soil microorganisms, insects, and plants for the soil.
A more sophisticated concept is the use of a microcosm, i.e. a small-scale artificial eco-
system, when a natural or similar artificial ecosystem is placed into the contaminated water,
sediment, or soil under study and monitored. In such microcosms, complex natural processes
can be simulated and detailed information can be obtained on natural attenuation in a con-
taminated environmental matrix: processes, trends and rates can be measured. The impacts
of the planned interventions can also be estimated based on the response of the small-scale
artificial ecosystem (see more in Gruiz et al., 2015c).
All of the usual ecotoxicity end points can be utilized for characterizing environmental
toxicity and its possible attenuation such as a lethal effect on living organisms, a decrease
in growth, a change in the number of individuals, reproduction inhibition, or an inhibitory
effect on any life phenomenon, e.g. respiration, enzyme activities, movement, behavioral
disturbances, mutagenicity, and teratogenicity.
From ecotoxicity results, direct conclusions can be drawn about the quality and quantity
of the risk. The ecotoxicity results in comparison to the chemical analytical results provide
refined conclusions on the dynamic behavior and fate of contaminants on the biological
availability and interactions between contaminants and on any changes in time or on the
presence of a chemical time bomb.
4.3 Evaluation and interpretation of natural attenuation

monitoring data
Monitoring data on NA can be evaluated and interpreted for different management phases
and for various purposes.
– To prepare decision making on whether NA, MNA, or ENA can be applied:
◦ Exploration and identification of ongoing natural processes;

◦ Identification of potential risk-reducing processes;
◦ Estimation of the scale of NA and the mass balance;
◦ Estimation of time requirement and residual risk;
◦ Necessity of source removal or treatment;
◦ Feasibility of NA for proper risk reduction at local and larger spatial scales and
future land uses.
– Making the decision: selection of the best option such as these:
◦ Use of MNA as the sole remediation;

◦ Use of MNA as a component of a complex engineering solution involving the com-
bination of different technologies;
◦ Rejection of MNA as it does not serve as a feasible solution and the selection of
another, e.g. conventional technology.
– During implementation of remediation using MNA or ENA:
◦ Ongoing processes and velocities;

◦ Short- and long-term trends;
◦ Risk assessment;
◦ Validation of the prognosis.
– For aftercare and verification:
◦ Assessing long-term risks and the stability of environmental quality.
In addition to the environmental monitoring of energy consumption and cost assess-

ment, it is also necessary to estimate and validate cost efficiency. Risk communication and
educating stakeholders about natural attenuation are also important parts of the management.
The joint evaluation, the possible outcomes, and the interpretation of corresponding and
contradicting physicochemical, biological, and ecotoxicity data will be discussed in the next
two sections.
4.3.1 Corresponding monitoring results

Physicochemical analytical results (i.e. concentration) match the biological-ecotoxicologi-
cal results.
1 Low concentration and low or no toxicity: Environmental risk is low.

For example, the soil did not show any toxicity according to the ecotoxicity tests performed
with test organisms from three trophic levels. There is no visible sign of toxicity at the site
and the performed chemical analytical tests are also negative. Therefore, it is very likely
that the contaminant does not pose an unacceptable risk level to the site. However, this is
not absolutely certain because undetected, unevenly distributed chemical substances, those
missed by sampling and many others without acute effects missing from the analytical plan
still can disprove the result of low or no risk. There might be adverse effects that can only be
observed in the long term and by special tests, for example endocrine disruption. So, even
if the situation looks clearly negative based on short-term monitoring, the negative results
must be validated in long-term ecological monitoring and in biological or epidemiological
studies on humans.
2 High concentration and significant toxicity: Environmental risk is high

The chemical analysis shows high lead concentration and the vegetation at the site is scarce
and weak, while the toxicity of the soil samples is high. It is very likely that the adverse
effect is already visible and the predicted damage is connected with the lead content. The
certainty of this assumption may be checked with a multi-component analysis of metals to
exclude the presence of other toxic metals. If e.g. cadmium or zinc cannot be excluded, the
toxicity may be attributed to the joint effect of lead, cadmium, and zinc. In addition, unde-
tected organic contaminants may also be in the soil.
4.3.2 Contradictory monitoring results
4.3.2.1 Analytically approved presence of a contaminant without

adverse effects
1 The chemical substance has no adverse biological effect: Low-risk contaminated area
Some chemical substances are not referred to in the regulations and have no limiting val-
ues since they are not considered to be hazardous to the environment and humans via the
environment. In such cases it is justified that the ecotoxicity study exhibits negative results.
Some chemicals may pose adverse effects only in the long term or may have not been recog-
nized or discovered yet to have hazardous effects such as the endocrine or immune disrupt-
ing effects. The presence of contaminants at chemically measurable quantities needs special
attention and documentation because land users are not secured against risks emerging in
the long term.
The lack of adverse effects due to low toxicity, low or missing bioavailability and the
effects not reflected by the ecosystem should be differentiated. The explanation for the latter
case can be the long-term adaptation of the biota of the contaminated site. Soil microorgan-
isms, plants, and insects can adapt to certain contaminants. Ecotoxicological tests with stan-
dard species can circumvent this problem, but ecological assessment covering only a few
species may lead to false negative results.
Some adverse effects may be of an aesthetical nature, showing disorder or mass, which
should also be managed by different means using the tool box dedicated to reducing the
ecological and human health risk of contaminants.
2 The contaminant is biologically non-accessible: Chemical time bomb! High risk!

Contaminants claimed to be non-hazardous in an unjustified way have to be fully separated
from the intrinsically non-hazardous chemical substances. Seemingly non-hazardous con-
taminants may easily become hazardous under certain conditions. For example, those chem-
ical substances that are hazardous via the atmosphere after evaporation are not risky at stable
low temperatures, even if they are present at high concentrations or in bulk form. However,
they are present and some risk of evaporation still remains (e.g. by lightning, fire, warming).
Another example: undissolvable metal precipitates may be produced in the form of sulfides,
e.g. from cadmium, zinc, or lead under anoxic conditions in a temporarily flooded three-
phase soil or in bottom sediments. In the presence of pyrite (iron sulfide), arsenic, cadmium,
copper, mercury, lead, and zinc co-precipitate with the pyrite. Metal sulfides are unavailable
to biota, therefore the members of the ecosystem cannot perform uptake, and consequently
the toxicity tests under anoxic condition fail to measure toxicity. But if such a soil/sediment
gets dry and has the opportunity to come into contact with the atmosphere, the chemical
form changes and the harmless substance becomes mobile, water-soluble, and biologically
available. Stability of metal sulfides is strongly dependent on environmental conditions,
as the “chemical time-bomb” easily explodes under oxygen-rich conditions. The mobiliza-
tion of metals by the oxidation of sulfide minerals (or any other risk-increasing mobilizing
affects) can be simulated or even provoked by “dynamized” simulation tests triggering the
anticipated negative changes. Planning for these tests that show a realistic worst case for
risk assessment purposes assumes good knowledge of the mechanisms influencing mobility/
biological availability and the inclusion of appropriate negative and positive controls.
4.3.2.2 Adverse effects without analytically detected presence

of the contaminant
Results of physicochemical analytical methods are negative, but visible or measurable
adverse effects occur.
1 The contaminant has not been included into the analytical plan: Uncertainty! High
or no risk
The first assessment plan of natural attenuation is mainly prepared based on historical infor-
mation of former land uses, locally applied technologies, and on the results of previous
assessments. It is typical for an abandoned industrial, mining, or disposal site that chemical
substances with potential toxic effects may be missing from the analytical record, since some
unknown/non-identified chemicals that no one is presently aware of could have been used
on the site illegally. For this reason, stepwise assessment is important: repeated and refined
integrated assessment is necessary until all questions are answered: in this case, toxic com-
pounds or other agents with inhibitory effects should be identified.
2 Toxic transformation products are formed: Unknown scale of risk

During long-term interaction of the chemical substance with air, water, soil, and living
organisms, toxic metabolites may be produced. In such cases, the results of ecotoxicity tests
are the best decisive indicators. The measurement of toxicity by direct contact with environ-
mental samples is a suitable risk assessment tool because the toxicity of the samples to living
(test) organisms is associated with the risk, and a quantitative risk indicator, the risk charac-
terization ratio (RCR = measured toxicity/no effect level), can be derived from the results.
To identify the formation/presence of potential toxic metabolites for toxicity warning during
the monitoring of NA processes, the mode of action, the biochemical mechanisms and the
degradation pathway should be explored.
In summary, the integrated monitoring of natural attenuation and the comparative evalu-
ation of the physicochemical, biological, and ecotoxicological results enable the identifica-
tion of natural trends and the nature of attenuation, i.e. whether a real risk-reducing or just a
concentration-decreasing (i.e. by dilution) process is in progress and what is the forecasted
residual risk.
This integrated approach is extremely beneficial in the case of abandoned sites his-
torically polluted by unknown, often complex contaminants. Using this approach, the short-
comings of the exclusive use of physicochemical models are avoided. On the other hand,
the exclusive use of ecotoxicity tests, given the lack of chemical analytical results, enables
quantification of the environmental risk (proportional to the scale of the adverse effect), set-
ting of the target risk (no effect) and estimation for example of how many times the risk has
exceeded the acceptable level or how many fold decrease is necessary to reach an acceptable
no-effect level.
As MNA is always a long-term process, the model-based forecasts play a priority role.
Using a transport model, e.g. to estimate the expansion or the final attenuation of a contami-
nant plume, the validation of the model can be done based on monitoring data. On an iterative
basis, a realistic site-specific model can be developed from the original generic model. With
the help of such transport models, planning and implementation provide information on:
– The scale of the necessary source reduction;

– The time until the plume stabilizes (does not continue to grow);
– The time of attenuation to the target concentration.
Modeling MNA in a contaminant plume can be based both on chemical concentrations

and on the directly measured toxicity.
The chemical model evaluates the transport and fate of constituents to calculate an
aggregated attenuation rate (see Figure 3.8), while the direct toxicity model is based on the
measured (overall) toxicity attenuation (see Figure 3.9).
Figure 3.8 Chemical approach for the assessment, monitoring, and modeling of NA and decision mak-
ing on its enhancement.
Figure 3.9 Direct toxicity assessment for the assessment, monitoring and modeling of NA, and deci-
sion making on its enhancement.
A well-established model such as the NAS (2018) requires the following data/information:
– Source data, plume length and width, thickness of the contaminated aquifer;
– Hydrogeologic and aquifer assessment data: hydraulic conductivity, hydraulic gradient,
porosity, organic carbon content;
– Contaminant composition, concentration as a function of distance, redox indicators

such as nitrate, sulfate, Fe(II), Mn(II), hydrogen, and their concentration as a function
of distance.
From direct toxicity monitoring data as a function of the plume extension and time,
similar modeling can be executed to determine the time requirement for natural attenuation to
reach the no risk (no or acceptable adverse effects) situation. Ready-made software for directly
measured toxicity-based modeling is not available. At unused sites and at those contaminated
a long time ago, natural attenuation could already have eliminated the contaminants. For such
cases, the DTA-based approach shown in Figure 3.9 offers an efficient solution involving no
toxicity and no risk. This shortcut in the management process results in savings in costs and
time. If the no risk state of the site cannot be verified, there are two possibilities:
1 Natural attenuation with DTA-based monitoring: this option is advantageous, when:

– Toxicity is not too high;
– Toxicity attenuation has been proven;
– The contaminant resupply is not significant;
– Enhancement is not necessary; or
– Biology-based enhancement is feasible.
2 Natural attenuation with conventional, concentration-based monitoring is advantageous if:
– The contaminants become known;
– All components can be monitored by chemical analysis;
– The degradation products are known and not toxic; or
– Chemical-related enhancement is planned.
4.3.3 Typical applications

The integrated physicochemical, biological and (eco)toxicological testing – i.e. the appli-
cation of STT (Soil Testing Triad) – is best for those cases where the chemical model has
limited use, i.e. where risk estimation is accompanied by high uncertainty from chemical
analytical data such as in the case of the following:
– Abandoned land;
– Sites out of control;
– Sites with long-term contamination;
– The occurrence of more contaminants together;
– Unknown natural attenuation processes, unknown changes in the contaminants and their
degradants;
– Complex environmental problems: several contaminants, several compartments, fast-
changing situation.
The STT methodology is in particular useful for:
– Assessment and monitoring of abandoned contaminated land;

– Assessment and monitoring of natural attenuation;
– Monitoring of dynamic soil simulation tests to model natural attenuation;

– Monitoring of the enhancement of natural attenuation.
STT methodology supports the following:
– The quantitative, site-specific risk assessment;

– The quantitative, risk-based assessment of natural attenuation;
– Validation of the applied transport and fate models;
– Planning interventions into the natural attenuation;
– Controlling the technology to enhance natural attenuation;
– Controlling biological processes playing a role in natural attenuation;
– Controlling the residual risk of natural attenuation;
– Verifying the decision and the risk-reduction activity.
What cannot be controlled by the STT methodology is the uncertainty of sampling due
to environmental heterogeneities. Spatial uncertainty can always jeopardize the environmen-
tal decisions.
4.4 Using the “risk profile” for planning, monitoring,

and verification
The decision on the application of natural attenuation for reducing the risk at a contami-
nated site should be supported by technological, environmental, and economic efficiency
assessment before (input for a feasibility study), during (input for MNA control), and after
(verification of the remediation) NA implementation. A monitoring plan ensures the acqui-
sition of those data that are necessary for the mass balance calculations, the estimation of
time required and the enhancement of technological interventions, the trend and scale of risk
reduction and the quantity of the residual risk. Monitoring provides data for cost estimation,
which can then be compared to the costs of other remedial options or to the benefits from
future land uses.
The risk profile, i.e. the change of the environmental risk in time, is the most important
tool for engineering and managing natural attenuation. It is a forecast showing how the
changes in the contaminants are likely to reduce or increase the extent of the predictable
damage during a spontaneously occurring process in the environment.
The risk profile curve shows the quantitative variation of the risk in time. The risk is
quantified in the simplest way by the ratio of the predicted environmental concentration and
the predicted no-effect concentration (RCR = PEC/PNEC). PEC is a result of transport and
fate modeling; PNEC is a result of extrapolation from a limited number of species to the
whole ecosystem. In some cases, not the whole ecosystem but only some or one (largely
protected, sensitive) species is targeted by NEC or NOEC values (since other ecosystem
members are ab ovo protected when the target is calculated for the most sensitive one).
Human risk via the environment is approached similarly. In this case, the predicted harmless
(no-effect) concentration of an environmental contaminant will be calculated from available
no-effect – likely harmless or acceptable – doses found in databases or in regulations. From
the default limiting values (e.g. acceptable daily intake) and from the default intake rates (by
inhalation, ingestion, or dermal exposure), the harmless environmental concentration can be

calculated (see more in Gruiz et al., 2015b).
In the planning and maintenance phases of natural attenuation, it is worthwhile to use
default human and ecosystem limiting values, but for verification, the site-specific ecosys-
tem and human population and land uses should also be considered (a safe threshold in a
fishing lake is lower than in a large river, or the acceptable soil threshold should be much
lower in hobby gardens, where vegetables are grown for long-term consumption by families/
children).
Evolution of the risk in time may be gradually or suddenly decreasing or increasing and
changing as a function of time.
4.4.1 Risk profile of organic contaminants under natural impact

Natural biodegradation of organic contaminants and adequately engineered natural biodeg-
radation usually lead to risk reduction. In the case of an ideally degrading microbiota, a
continuously decreasing risk can be achieved during a relatively long term as shown in
Figure 3.10. Biodegradation can be effectively enhanced by supplementation of the bottle-
neck substrate, which is most often oxygen in aerobic biodegradation and other electron
acceptors in anoxic microbial processes. Due to toxic intermediaries or a toxic final product,
a transitional risk increase or final residual risk may occur. In complex systems (several
contaminants and several degradation products), the related risk increase is superimposed
on the general decreasing trend.
Degradation, including biodegradation is not always well balanced. The lack of light/
sunshine can limit photodegradation, drought limits hydrolysis, and limited bioavailability
and the lack of bottleneck substrates and co-substrates or the presence of toxic metabolites
can complicate the simplified scenario of a seamlessly constant decrease.
Figure 3.10 Risk profile of a well-balanced biodegradation-based natural attenuation process without
the resupply of contaminants.
Table 3.1 Natural processes and their outcome for organic contaminants.
NA process for organic contaminants Outcome of the process
Well-balanced natural degradation, Unequivocal risk reduction

including photodegradation, hydrolysis
and biodegradation
Dilution by groundwater Decrease in the source/secondary sources but
increase in the contaminated volume or area.
Local risk may be smaller, but dispersion may
reach more sensitive receptors, e.g. water bases
or conservation areas. Diffuse pollution and
high background concentration are generated
Evaporation of volatile contaminants Increased risk in atmosphere from an endless
source
Partitioning from soil to groundwater or Increased risk in water, while negligible
surface water decrease in soil, so contaminated soil can be
considered an endless source
Accumulation in high sorption capacity Increased risk in the targeted medium and in
solid medium (e.g. in bed sediment) and accumulating organisms. Food chain/web effect:
in living organisms biomagnification
Partial or selective degradation Persistent residue, residual risk
Limited biological availability Delayed biodegradation and risk reduction
Toxic metabolites Temporarily increased risk
Asynchronous mobilization and Temporarily increased risk
biodegradation
Enhancement of contaminants’ availability Increased mobility, faster leaching, faster
biodegradation, temporarily increased but
finally more rapid risk reduction
Stabilization by incorporation into soil’s Low mobility, low bioavailability, latent
humus presence until humus degradation during soil
deterioration
Enhancement of biological activity: More intensive biotransformation,
ensuring optimal conditions for degrading/ biodegradation, bioleaching, biostabilization,
transforming microbiota by optimal redox biosurfactant production. Faster risk reduction
potential, suitable electron acceptor, pH,
temperature, cometabolites.
The natural attenuation processes involving organic contaminants and the result of these
processes are summarized in Table 3.1.
4.4.2 Risk profile of toxic metals under natural impact

Some pollution sources containing toxic metals – such as abandoned mine wastes, hard
rock and waste ore disposal sites, sediments disposed after dredging or by flood – give a
typical increasing risk profile because weathering of these solid waste materials gradually
increases the mobility of the contained toxic metals, which are then spread by leachates
and runoffs. The decrease of the metal concentration in the source is accompanied by an
Figure 3.11 Risk profile downstream of a weathered metal-bearing mine waste.
increase in the vicinity, mainly downstream of the source. In such cases, the trend of the
risk curve – characteristic for the downstream vicinity of the source – is increasing as
shown in Figure 3.11. The risk increases until the full toxic metal content from the source
becomes mobile and bioavailable (a chemical time bomb). Extrapolating the process in
time, toxic metal content will spread from the contaminated area (functioning this time as
a secondary source), continuously diluting and finally reaching a level that is considered
not risky. But we cannot be happy because the background concentration has increased
with the amount spread.
Figure 3.11 also shows the biomagnification risk profile indicating further risk increase
in addition to the maximum risk in the soil. This surplus risk is posed to the ecosystem via
bioaccumulation of interdependent members of the food chain.
The monitoring, the required technological intervention and the admissible land use
may be planned according to the variation of the risk profile. The risk profile can also be
used for the estimation of the benefits from any interventions such as monitoring, control,
and enhancement.
Natural processes that reduce or increase risk with regard to metals and other inorganic
contaminants are listed in Table 3.2.
4.4.3 Risk model of source management

Source management plays an essential role when using NA for remediation and also when
enhancing it. Source removal is the only efficient solution to diminish the risk of non-degradable
contaminants and significantly enhance risk reduction for the degradable ones. Large sources
(deposits, leaking subsurface tanks and pipe systems, etc.) may release contaminants to
Table 3.2 Natural processes and their outcomes for metals.
NA process for contaminating toxic metals Outcome of the process
Leaching of (not isolated) sulfide rock and Increased risk in downstream water and soil, while
ore or sulfur-containing material/waste negligible decrease in the source
Dilution of the contaminants by Decrease in the source/secondary sources but
groundwater or erosion increasing contaminated volume or area. The risk
may be smaller but also greater if more sensitive
receptors are reached. Diffuse pollution is produced
with high background concentrations
Changes, e.g. increase in the redox Increased metal mobility and increased risk in soil
potential and groundwater
Changes, e.g. increase or decrease in pH Increased metal mobility and increased risk
Changes in the chemical species of the If mobility increases, the risk increases
metal in the presence of organic matter, If mobility decreases, the risk decreases. Stability of
iron hydroxides, carbonate minerals, the metal species is the key: irreversible stabilization
H2S or pyrite to form insoluble sulfides, results in long-term risk reduction
silicates to incorporate metals
Biological methylation of some metals, Highly increased risk, as the methylated forms are
e.g. Hg, As, Sb, Se, etc. volatile and much more toxic than just the metal
Changed partitioning between physical If mobility increases, the risk increases.
soil phases If mobility decreases, the risk decreases
Weathering of metal-containing waste Increased mobility, increased risk
or rock
Immobilization/stabilization of metals in The risk of the water phase decreases, but the risk
deeper soil and sediment layers of the accumulating soil layer or sediment increases,
creating a chemical time bomb
Adaptation of the ecosystem to Smaller risk to adapted indigenous biota, but the
contaminants same or increased risk, e.g. to humans, as the
site looks healthy, or to the food chain in case of
bioaccumulative contaminants
Revegetation of contaminated land Risk due to lower metal mobility decreases, but a
food-chain effect may significantly increase the risk
Flood Deposition of contaminated sediment on soil:
oxidation, mobilization and increased bioavailability
increase the risk
Bioaccumulation In plants and animals, including human nutrition
Biomagnification Multiplied bioaccumulation along food chains and in
food webs. Increased risk, mainly for predators and
top predators
groundwater for decades. Small and declining contaminant sources may be liquidated by
NA without removal, but it may increase the time requirement for NA-based remediation.
For new sources, no matter whether it is degradable or not, whether small or large, the best
management method is removal. The risk profiles of degradable and non-degradable con-
taminants are shown in Figure 3.12. In this figure, the risk is characterized by the risk char-
acterization ratio RCR. When using the chemical model, RCR is interpreted as the ratio of
the environmental concentration (a model prediction) to the no-effect concentration (default
fixed by regulations or tested locally). If the toxicity approach is used, RCR is calculated as
Figure 3.12 Impact of source removal on the risk profile of degradable and non-degradable contaminants.
sample toxicity/reference toxicity. Reference toxicity is often the non-toxic threshold (see
also Gruiz et al., 2015b; Gruiz, 2016a). According to the risk profiles:
1 Non-degradable contaminants in non-removed sources result in a continuously grow-

ing amount of risky discharges, leachates and runoffs, growing subsurface contaminant
plumes and a larger area exposed to adverse impacts.
2 Degradable contaminants of non-removed sources generate stable, shrinking or growing
contaminant plume, depending on the flux ratio of degradation and addition from the source.
3 Removed sources of non-degradable contaminants – this case should be handled by sep-
aration or immobilization to achieve smaller contaminant flux, shrinking underground
plumes and decreasing risk.
4 Removal of the source of degradable contaminants results in the fastest contaminant
flow reduction, shrinking plumes and the shortest time requirement.
MNA as the only remedial intervention is generally accepted for naturally decreasing
contaminant flows, e.g. shrinking plumes. In the case of stable and growing fluxes, continu-
ous release is very likely, so, source treatment or removal is necessary.
– Case A: Removed source and degradable contaminant: the original 100% decreased to
18%, below the 20% threshold.
– Case B: Non-removed source and non-degradable contaminant: constantly growing risk
due to an increasing amount released.
– Case C: Removed source and non-degradable contaminant: the original 100% decreased
to 60% in the long term by dispersion, dilution, and other transport processes.
Degradable contaminants have a good chance to be eliminated from the soil and groundwa-
ter, but the final success depends on contaminant resupply from non-removed sources. The mass
balance gives the answer to the question of whether or not degradation-based natural attenuation
can overcome the continuous contaminant input (input into the soil but release from the source).
According to this relation, three cases may occur, as shown by Figure 3.13A.
NA can be enhanced in any of these three cases by source removal. Figure 3.13B shows
the change of the risk curves after source removal at time point 8.
Figure 3.13A Non-removed source of degradable contaminant. Green: the original 100% decreased to
40%; reddish-orange: stable 100% – the input compensates the output; red: increase to
160%, in spite of degradation.
Figure 3.13B Enhancing NA by source removal of degradable contaminants at time point 7. Green:
faster decrease below threshold; reddish-orange: stable 100% turns to decrease; brown:
increasing risk (concentration or toxicity) turns to decrease.
5 NATURAL ATTENUATION IN ENVIRONMENTAL

REMEDIATION
The assessment of natural attenuation, the monitoring data as well the prognosticated risk
profile of a contaminated site, provide support for risk management, and for choosing
between natural attenuation and engineered natural attenuation as the best possible and most
efficient remediation option. Monitoring provides information for all management steps
when using NA as a remedial option. The management steps are the following:
– Studying the situation: stepwise site characterization and evaluation.

– Conceptual risk model of the site.
– Preliminary evaluation of evidence supporting NA:
◦ Do NA processes occur? Do they reduce risk? Partially or fully?

◦ Which kind of processes: sorption, dilution, degradation, partition, accumulation?
– Treatability study: Only MNA? Source removal and MNA? Primary treatment and
MNA? ENA and soft engineering? Other kind of engineering?
– Modeling and refining the NA model with the stepwise expanding information and
long-term prediction on time requirement and residual risk.
– Feasibility study: Is NA efficient enough to serve as basis for remediation? Is it efficient
enough compared to other options? Forecasting technological efficiency, environmental
efficiency, costs and socioeconomic efficiency.
– Planning the monitoring of NA to follow processes and validate the result of the model
used.
– Following the attenuation by problem-specific monitoring, characterizing environmen-
tal risk and checking the trends.
– Validation and correction of the remediation plan and the conceptual model of NA.
– Verification of the NA-based remediation: performance, efficiencies (technological,
environmental, socioeconomic, cultural). Did it fulfill the planned objectives? Does it
fulfill regulatory requirements in the long term?
– Post-monitoring, long-term verification, sustainability: proving that the risk will further
decrease or not increase again, if it has decreased once.
5.1 The natural attenuation management scheme

The preparatory and decision-making procedure for the application of natural attenuation to con-
taminated site remediation is the same as in any other remediation activity, except for an additional
requirement to justify that NA fulfills remedial objectives in the long term (see Figure 3.14).
To control and verify natural attenuation at a contaminated site, thorough monitoring
is necessary, including not only that of the contaminant in one soil phase but the soil condi-
tions, the transformation (also the intermediate) products and the possible adverse effects.
Especially important is to monitor the spread of the contaminant and the transformation
products in such cases when the mobile contaminants can reach new areas and volumes with
sensitive users. Monitoring, prevention, and control of such kinds of processes is of utmost
importance. There are three typical cases for this type:
– Volatile groundwater contaminants such as chlorinated solvents migrate from the sur-
face of the groundwater upwards through the vadose zone and, depending on the depth
First consideraon of MNA;

Exisng data collecon;
Stepwise site characterizaon and evaluaon;
Creaon of the conceptual risk model for the site;
Preliminary evaluaon of evidences supporng NA.
Evidence on ongoing NA;

Treatability studies:
Modeling;
Refining the risk model and calculating me requirement.
Feasibility study:
is NA efficient enough to apply for remediaon?
Prospecve evaluaon of NA:
performance, environmental and socioeconomic efficiency.
Decision on MNA
Planning and implemenng monitoring;
Following the aenuaon, checking the trends;
Validang and correcng the monitoring plan if necessary;
Decision on engineering, i.e. enhancement.
Retrospecve evaluaon of NA:

performance, environmental and socioeconomic efficiency;
Verificaon: the fulfillment of the planned objecves;
Long-term risk assessment, planning post-NA safety
monitoring;
Implemenng post-monitoring;
Long-term verificaon.
Figure 3.14 Management of natural attenuation-based remediation: stepwise procedure.
of the plume and the permeability of the soil layer above it, can reach the atmosphere or
enter buildings, if present, endangering people living, working, or spending time there.
– Water-soluble metal species from solid waste may contaminate huge volumes of water;
subsurface water if buried and runoffs when located on the surface. In the latter case,
additional solid transport worsens the situation.
– Solid-bound contaminants, which may form secondary pollution sources after random
deposition and diffuse pollution in entire watersheds.
5.1.1 Pollution cases where monitored natural attenuation (MNA)

is the best option
– In most of the abandoned and long-term contaminated sites, where nature found the way
to heal itself without additional risks.
– Reduction of the risk of contaminated subsurface waters without any disturbance on the
surface, e.g. at a residential area.
– Treatment of the groundwater and the soil without disturbing the surface in areas (e.g.
at a natural conservation area) where disturbances are not desired.
– Large contaminated areas with contaminants at low concentration where the applica-
tion of conventional remedial technologies such as excavation, pumping and treating
extracted water, or placing and maintaining any machinery and operation is not costly.
– In combination with other remediation technologies, e.g. residual contamination after
removal of the contaminant source or of the non-liquid phase from the surface of surface
water or groundwater.
5.1.2 Pollution cases where engineered natural attenuation (ENA)

is the best option
All cases where soft interventions can enhance the beneficial natural processes or reverse
the seemingly disadvantageous natural processes are good candidates for engineered natural
attenuation (ENA).
– Reversion of the natural process by physical technologies:

◦ When a natural process appears to be disadvantageous because – as in the case of
toxic metal mobilization – the result of leaching endangers the surrounding envi-
ronment, isolation and leachate control can help;
◦ Lowering or increasing water table;
◦ Recycling soil air;
◦ Recycling groundwater;
◦ Controlling (directing, changing) flow direction of a plume by controlling hydrau-
lic pressure and its spatial distribution;
◦ Reversion of the natural process by physicochemical tools;
◦ Collection and treatment of runoffs, leachates, eroded solid;
◦ Supplementation of natural transport with subsurface filters, PRBs, wetlands, reactive
soil zones, or other soft engineering tools to maintain its benefits but compensate for
the disadvantageous natural processes.
– Supplementation and enhancement by biological tools:
◦ Optimization of the natural conditions, i.e. pH, oxygen and nutrient supply, redox poten-
tial (by adding alternative electron acceptors), moisture content, additives to enhance or
repel mobility, adjust redox potential and other “technological parameters”;
◦ Identification of the bottlenecks, i.e. lack of oxygen, nutrients, micronutrients,
accessibility/availability of the contaminant, attenuation of cometabolic activity,
unsuccessful adaptation of the microbiota;
◦ Removal of the bottlenecks by adding nutrients, air or alternative electron accep-
tors, co-substrates (energy substrate) for cometabolic degradation/decomposi-
tion, increasing the redox potential with aeration/ventilation, decreasing the redox
potential (e.g. by temporary induction of aerobe processes for the consumption

of atmospheric oxygen) or increasing the availability by the addition of mobility-
enhancing agents or by the application of starter cultures (bioaugmentation).
Typical contaminants that natural attenuation has been applied to the following:
– BTEX: main constituents of fuel hydrocarbons: benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene;
– CAH: chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, with various degrees of volatility (VOC);
– Chlorinated aromatic compounds;
– Explosives such as trinitrotoluene (TNT), dinitrotoluene (DNT), or hexahydro-trinitro-
triazine (RDX);
– PAHs: polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons;
– Petroleum hydrocarbons, mineral oil derivatives;
– Some pesticides;
– Toxic metals and radionuclides;
– Other inorganic contaminants such as nitrate, various salts, perchlorate.
5.2 Natural biodegradation and its enhancement

Remedial technologies relying on the activity of the natural microbiota may target the vadose
zone, the saturated soil zone, or just the groundwater. Even if the groundwater is the targeted
compartment, the solid phase will play a significant role in the implementation and control,
while the efficiency of the natural attenuation-based technology will also be considered. Soil
depth, pore conditions, pH and redox conditions, buffering capacities, habitat function, and
the scale of heterogeneity will strongly influence the efficiency of the MNA or ENA and the
uncertainties regarding the final risk.
5.2.1 The role of soil microorganisms in natural soil processes

and in NA-based remediation
Once the soil gets contaminated, the soil microbiota reacts immediately to the new condi-
tion, i.e. the presence of the alien substance. In the case of a biodegradable contaminant,
the species capable of degrading will proliferate better and those that can produce adaptive
enzymes required for the degradation of the contaminant become activated, and the propor-
tion of these species will increase within the microbial community. For example, diesel oil
is an easily degradable contaminant. As a result of diesel oil contamination, the number of
hydrocarbon-degrading cells in the soil increases in a few days from 102–103 cells/g of soil to
105–107 cells/g of soil. Behind the variations in species diversity in favor of the contaminant,
changes of the metagenome (the totality of the genes in a community) can be identified. The
flexibility of the metagenome makes these adaptive changes reversible, ensuring the health
and the balanced functions and services of the soil – to a certain extent.
The huge genetic and biochemical potential of the soil and its continuous adaptation to
contaminants is insured in the environment by various processes at population and gene level:
– Change in the species distribution;

– Switching to adaptive genes, and activating adaptive enzymes, enzyme systems;
– Natural mutations and subsequent selections;
– Increase of the mutation rate, i.e. due to the mutagenic effect of the contaminant;
– Horizontal gene transfer, the direct transfer of useful genes from one individual to
another, and their dispersion in the population and community. This process may occur
primarily in environmental compartments where the cells can meet and connect with
each other, i.e. in biofilms.
The extent of natural biodegradation depends to a great extent on the soil type, soil air
conditions, and nutrient supply. These characteristics may easily become limiting factors
during spontaneous degradation, but in case they are available at the right time and in an
adequate amount and the metagenome has optimally adapted to the contaminant, degrading
microorganisms will completely degrade it to CO2 and water under aerobic conditions. If the
contaminant has a complex chemical structure and the degradation is only partial, degradation
products can be formed. Adaptation of the microbiota to a mixture of contaminants cannot
be perfect: in an optimal case, a multistep adaptation and degradation process can remedi-
ate the soil. In a worse case, significant residual contamination should be expected. Several
degradation pathways require lower redox potential than aerobic degradation: environmental
conditions/technological parameters should be adapted to the effective biochemical pathway.
Natural attenuation in saturated soils and groundwaters is a thoroughly studied process
because it is one of the most frequent problems, as it poses a high risk to the environment
for endangering water bases. Therefore, advanced technologies are available for monitoring
and modeling it. Chemical analysis of the pumped groundwater provides data on contami-
nant concentration decrease and the redox potential or alternatively the quality and quantity
of the electron acceptors (O2, NO3−, Fe3+, Mn2+, SO42−, etc.). The situation is certainly more
complicated than that indicated by the analysis of the water samples, but the system may be
modeled and handled as a quasi-packed flow through reactor. However, refined models can
distinguish the processes occurring at the interfaces. Biodegradation in the saturated soil is
relatively slow under anoxic or anaerobic conditions, so the extent of contaminant supply
and the rate of biodegradation may be comparable in scale. When the scale of biodegrada-
tion compensates for or slightly over-compensates for the contaminant input, the polluted
groundwater is under biological control, and the contaminant plume will not continue to
grow/spread. But when the biodegradation is slower than the input supply, the plume will
progress further. That is why the removal of the source is an essential task in contaminated
land management in general and in the case of NA-based remediation, when the decision
makers have to give NA a chance to heal our soils and groundwaters in the long term. A
further limitation is that biodegradation occurs only on the surface of the plume, which is a
relatively small volume compared to the total volume of the plume. The processes may be
intensified, in addition to source removal, with the injection of additives (primarily electron
acceptors, nutrients, and bioavailability-increasing agents) into the groundwater. The pH and
redox potential can be monitored and controlled based on the information provided on the
process status and on the biodegradation potential of the saturated soil.
The situation is different in unsaturated soil where the oxygen comes from the soil air and
the speed of the microbiological degradation processes is an order of magnitude higher than
that of the groundwater interface. The transport of the contaminant is also different. Instead
of groundwater transport as a plume, diffusion and gravitational transport is typical from the
surface or from a shallow location to a deep one by a separate phase or by water. The dissolved
and mobile constituents of all three soil phases, including the mobile and less mobile fractions
of the humus substances, play an important role in the C, N, and P metabolism of the unsatu-
rated soil. The monitoring should cover not only the contaminants, serving as a carbon source
for the microorganisms but the whole carbon cycle to get valuable information to evaluate and
verify remediation by natural biodegradation. If the contaminant is a more complex molecule,
e.g. with high chlorine (Cl) content, the related element cycle should also be monitored.
5.3 Engineered natural attenuation
5.3.1 A knowledge-based tool

Engineered natural attenuation (ENA) suggests a soft intervention to transform a natural pro-
cess into a remedial technology with acceptable technological, economic, environmental, and
social efficiencies. Soft interventions are compatible with the ecosystem, do not cause distur-
bances in ecosystem functioning, and represent a mixture of natural and engineering tools.
The removal of a separable contaminant source is in most cases compatible with NA and a
desired criterion. In general, reasonable isolation and separation of processes and mass flows
may be able to change even risky processes to beneficial ones such as the supplementation of
natural leaching with leachate collection and treatment. Groundwater extraction or recycling
may restrain the contaminated groundwater plume from water bases by a properly estab-
lished depression cone. Targeted depression cones can change the flow direction of the plume
toward a natural sink or a filtration system. At the same time, depression lowers the water
table and enhances aerobic biodegradation in the capillary fringe. A small or medium power
blower or vacuum pump can exchange the soil air (soil venting) in a rather large soil volume
and increase the redox potential for the benefit of aerobic biodegradation. Biodegradation of
petroleum hydrocarbons may require a supplemental N source because the carbon surplus
from the contaminant disturbs the proper C:N ratio, and the interventions aiming to increase
bioavailability of hydrophobic contaminants result in natural biodegradation enhancement.
5.3.2 Enhancement of biodegradation-based natural attenuation

Enhancement of natural attenuation is the most efficient solution for living soils and bio-
degradable contaminants. It is reasonable to base the intervention on the reactor approach
(see Chapter 2) by considering the impacted soil volume as a reactor and the biodegrading
microbiota as the catalyst responsible for the rate of the transformation/degradation. Engi-
neering ensures optimal conditions for the transforming/degrading microbiota (redox, pH,
temperature, nutrient supply, etc.).
How can technologists optimize natural biodegradation? The technology should consider
all three parts of the process: environmental conditions, contaminants, and the microbiota.
5.3.2.1 Setting optimal environmental conditions

The microbial community creates its food web, having the ability to utilize also the con-
taminants, but it has special needs determined by the aggregated individual nutrient require-
ments, pH, temperature, electron acceptors for energy production, etc. Those changes
in environmental conditions that satisfy the needs of the original biota will trigger changes
in the composition of the community that may or may not be ideal for the ultimate/final
degradation of the contaminant. Engineered natural attenuation aims at strengthening that
biota composition, which proves to be the best catalyst in the degradation of the contami-
nant that is present. If the contaminant is degradable by aerobic microorganisms, aeration,
or an alternative oxygen source (e.g. an oxygen release compound) is necessary. If the best
possible degradation takes place under a lower redox potential than the atmospheric value,
then the conditions should be made more beneficial by lowering soil air oxygen (e.g. by
isolating it from fresh air and letting it deplete oxygen levels by spontaneous aerobic respi-
ration) and adding nitrate, Fe3+, Mn4+ or other electron acceptors to ensure an optimal redox
potential. If the degrading microbiota needs higher temperature, special nutrients, activators,
or a cometabolite, the engineered NA enhancement should provide the optimal ranges or

dosages. The most frequent interventions for NA enhancement are these:
– Aeration using bioventing;

– Nutrient and electron acceptor addition by injection;
– Flushing through existing extraction wells, push-pull tools or trenches, even by manual
injection.
Groundwater flow and additive distribution can be adjusted in the soil at any rate and
direction using air and water injection and extraction wells. The increasing scale of engi-
neered intervention enables arbitrary 3D distributions to be designed and created. Thus
multi-stage in situ processes or complex technologies can be implemented within the soil
based on natural attenuation processes while maintaining microbiota viability and the habitat
function of the soil (see more in Chapter 2).
5.3.2.2 Modifying contaminant availability

Environmental conditions not only strongly influence the microbiota but also determine the
physicochemical state of the contaminant and the interaction between the microbiota and the
contaminant. From the point of view of degradation, the mobility, and bioavailability of the
contaminant is crucial, which can be influenced by physicochemical and biological tools.
To ensure the access of the catalyst and the availability of the contaminant, contaminant
mobility as well as chemical and biological availability should be increased by desorption, vol-
atilization, solubilization, shifting of partitioning toward mobile physical phases (soil air and
water), plus chelate and complex formation. Thermal treatment, the application of cosolvents,
surfactants, and chelating and complexing agents may lead to enhanced mobility and avail-
ability for physical, chemical, and biological transformation and degradation (see Chapter 2).
5.3.2.3 Bioaugmentation
If the microbiota is not capable of eliminating the contaminant(s) due to missing or inhibited
degradation potential (missing genetics, low adaptive potential, low viability, etc.), but the
contaminant is otherwise biodegradable, then bioaugmentation by living (micro)organisms
may be necessary (see Chapter 2). Bioaugmentation works either by adding a great number of
active microbes or ones with special degrading abilities. Products from living organisms spe-
cialized in direct degradation or increasing bioavailability of the contaminants can also be used
as soil additives. These are typically degrading enzymes, which have ab ovo specific degrading
abilities or biosurfactants, which are produced in great amount by some specialized cells.
The direct application of microbial preparations to soil raises a number of questions
and issues. Our understanding of native, adaptive soil is limited, and often it is even less
understood how the artificially produced supplemental microorganisms influence the soil
community and its activities. Studying soil microbiota with conventional culturing methods,
only a very small fraction of the microorganisms can be detected and isolated. Most of the
cells, mainly the minor components of the community, remain hidden from the researchers.
Although today’s DNA techniques allow the study of the complete genome – the
metagenome – of the soil microbiota, the proper interpretation of the DNA results is often
difficult.
The composition of a well-balanced and efficiently working soil community can hardly
be imitated by artificially prepared bacterial mixtures, and this is justified from the many
unsuccessful applications of inoculants made from some pure cultures of microorganisms.

They are even more unsuitable for mixed pollutants, where a highly complex food web is
behind the biodegradation. Their chance to remain active or even survive in the “wildness”
of real soil is also questionable.
Laboratory study results on hydrocarbon mixtures and other biodegradable petroleum
products prove that artificial preparations cannot surpass the adapted indigenous soil micro-
biota. However, the adapted microbiota can be promoted easily by satisfying their air and
nutrient demand, so this way should be preferred if possible. On the other hand there are
xenobiotics, which are completely non-degradable because the soil does not contain micro-
bial species with the required genes of enzymes for degrading these alien molecules. Inocu-
lation with a xenobiotic-degrading superbug in such cases may help. Even if the survival of
the living cells is not ensured in the long term, interestingly their genes may “survive” and
get incorporated into indigenous species and function until the xenobiotic is present and
serving as energy substrate in the soil.
Ready-made inoculants, instead of accelerating the existing microbiota, may harm the
well-balanced indigenous community, while aggressively consuming the easy-to-degrade com-
ponents of a mixture, leaving behind a less degradable residual mixture, which will become
degradable only after long-term adaptation. A laboratory microcosm study (unpublished results
of the author) demonstrates the biodegradation of a high molecular weight, slowly degradable
contaminant mixture of petroleum origin (given as extractable petroleum hydrocarbon = EPH)
in soil without and with the addition of 1x and 5x inoculant concentrations. The inoculant
was a self-developed mixture of isolated and in-vitro propagated microorganisms from the
same soil that was inoculated. The 1x inoculant enhanced biodegradation evenly and reduced
the final EPH content from 40% to 20% after 20 weeks, but the 5x amount caused a sudden
decrease to 50% (consuming the easily degradable constituents). After this stage, the degra-
dation stopped for a long while and the final degradation rate was smaller than without treat-
ment (53% compared to 40% of the original 100%). The changes of the EPH content upon
inoculation are shown in Figure 3.15. The increase in the initial phase is explained by a high
Figure 3.15 The effect of bioaugmentation by inoculant application in two concentrations.

mobilization rate (by biosurfactants), which overcomes the consumption rate. In the control
soil, mobilization and consumption was equal during the first two weeks.
Bioaugmentation with artificial microbial inoculants –

applicability, advantages, risks
– The soil inoculant should be specific both to the contaminant and the soil. Inoculants are
not omnipotent.
– It is recommended to differentiate nutrients, mobilizing additives (typically surfactants)
and soil inoculants containing living microbes and the relevant effects. The commer-
cially available products are generally a mixture of these.
– The living cell count of the inoculant and the recommended dose give a picture of the
likely effect when comparing with local or generic cell counts and microbial activities
of soils.
– The inoculant should be applied to contaminant biodegradation only in cases when:
◦ The indigenous microbiota is inactive and cannot be activated by providing conve-

nient soil conditions for them;
◦ The fresh contamination is completely “unknown” to the local native microbiota;
◦ The contaminant is toxic or otherwise inhibits the local native biota.
– The inoculant can be beneficial and its application is recommended in cases when:
◦ The contaminant is persistent, non-degradable under generic soil conditions, and

the local microbiota have not adapted or could not adapt;
◦ Contaminant degradation requires special enzyme systems of specialized
microorganisms;
◦ Cometabolic degradation should be applied, and the useful microbes are not present
in the soil;
◦ Local adaptation of the microbiota would need too long of a time.
– The application of alien microorganisms in the inoculum may have risks, given that
viability of the inoculant microorganisms is questionable at the new place, and too many
or too aggressive additional microorganisms can disturb the balance of the endogenous
community by:
◦ Competition for available nutrients;

◦ Competition for the contaminant;
◦ Production of antibiotics or other substances with inhibitory effect;
◦ Consumption of easy-to-degrade nutrients and contaminants, which leaves a disad-
vantageous mixture behind;
◦ Partial degradation with toxic end products.
5.4 Summary of engineered natural attenuation

Risk reduction is typically the joint result of physicochemical and biological processes in
soils contaminated with organic chemicals. Processes of fundamental importance are mobi-
lization of contaminants with focus on partitioning between phases and biodegradation. The
transport and dilution are always present as accompanying processes that have to be taken
into account during modeling and calculations. The soil microbiota plays a primary role in
the mobilization/immobilization and in the biotransformation/biodegradation processes.
Thorough assessment, modeling and planning as well as treatability studies are neces-
sary before making the decision on the most suitable engineering tools to enhance natural
attenuation. It is an increasingly popular solution that natural biological processes are com-
bined with soft physicochemical treatment technologies such as the use of mild oxidizers or
solubilizing agents together with biodegradation, ex situ water treatment with in situ biodeg-
radation in the vadose zone, or combined chemical and phytostabilization.
The risks associated with in situ operations, the use of additives and the increased con-
taminant mobility should be continuously managed. Seemingly innocent processes, for
example contaminant biodegradation, can lead to highly toxic intermediates of final products.
To manage engineered natural attenuation, the “reactor approach” (see Chapter 2)
should be adopted by considering the soil volume affected by NA processes as a quasi-reac-
tor and the operations necessary for monitoring and enhancement, as part of the remedial
technology.
6 HISTORY AND STATE OF THE ART

Natural attenuation is an emerging concept all over the world. The huge number of con-
taminated and potentially contaminated sites and the finalized or likely numbers of yearly
implementations of remediation show a deep gap. This justifies the use of NA for contami-
nated site remediation, even if it has a relatively long time requirement (between 3 and 15
years based on published results). In addition to limited human capacity, further benefits
from NA are that costly technologies can be avoided and the site, its neighborhood, the
ecosystem, and human land uses remain undisturbed or only very slightly disturbed. Of
course, the long-term monitoring may generate expenditures (even as much as 30 years of
monitoring may be required and this is equivalent to 100,000–300,000 USD). However, the
costs of environmental monitoring as part of the aftercare of conventional remediation are
at a similar range.
6.1 Growing utilization of natural attenuation for soil

and groundwater remediation
Evidence has been presented on the existence and efficacy of natural attenuation already
in the nineties in the US by the National Research Council (NRC, 1994) and in Canada by
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL, 1995). These studies suggest that natural
bioremediation is a general phenomenon at sites contaminated by petroleum hydrocarbons
and related substances and is responsible for the attenuation of these pollutants in ground-
water (Hinchee & Leeson, 1996; Bradley et al., 1997; Landmeyer et al., 1998, 2001; Wise,
2000; CIR, 2000a,b; Chapelle et al., 2002a,b). The first technical protocol was prepared by
the US Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence (US AFCEE) (Wiedemeier et al.,
1995d). Newell and his coworkers in 1996 worked out the BIOSCREEN (1997) decision
support tool for natural attenuation and its feasibility as a risk reduction option (Newell
et al., 1996). Rifai et al. (1997) modeled contaminant transport by plume and developed
software BIOPLUME (1997) that is a two-dimensional contaminant transport model for
use under the influence of oxygen, nitrate, iron, sulfate, and methanogenic biodegradation.
A similar decision support system was created soon afterwards for dissolved chlorinated
solvents (Aziz et al., 1999), known as BIOCHLOR (2002). These software tools are still in
use as screening models that simulate remediation through natural attenuation of petroleum
and chlorinated hydrocarbons dissolved in groundwater under both aerobic and anaerobic
conditions (see also US EPA Models, 2018).
In parallel to developing new monitoring methodologies and establishing the screen-
ing models to simulate remediation, the AFCEE Monitoring and Remediation Optimization
System (MAROS) software has been developed for long-term monitoring optimization at
contaminated groundwater sites in accordance with the Optimization Guide. This topic
came into the fore because long-term monitoring (for process control, performance mea-
surement, or compliance purposes) results in very high cumulative costs (several contami-
nants, attenuating activities, adverse effects, many monitoring points and long-term, i.e.
years). The idea behind optimization is improving the efficiency of the monitoring system
by optimally compiled, optimally timed in situ and real-time measuring techniques (Aziz
et al., 2000, 2003).
The US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA, 1997, 1999a,b) incorporated MNA
into the risk management of superfund and underground storage tank sites (OSWER Direc-
tive, 1999), dissolved fuel hydrocarbons (Wiedemeier et al., 1998a; US EPA, 2011), and
chlorinated solvents (Wiedemeier et al., 1998b; Wiedemeier & Haas, 1999; Bradley et al.,
2000; US EPA, 1998a; Looney et al., 2006; US EPA, 2007a). US EPA issued useful materi-
als about natural biological processes and their assessment (US EPA, 1998b, 1999a,b) and
the American Society for Testing Materials prepared a standard guide for groundwater reme-
diation using NA (ASTM, 1998). The US Department of the Navy (USDN, 1998) and the
Washington State Department of Ecology published technical guidelines on MNA for their
own contaminated sites (WSDE, 2005). Later on, specific technical protocols were estab-
lished for assessing biodegradation of organic contaminants (US EPA, 2008), especially for
chlorinated organics (ITRC, 2008) and for chlorinated solvents (US EPA, 2007c, 2013). For
volatile organics (US EPA, 2004, 2012), several field methods, protocols, guidelines, and
strategies (e.g. US EPA, 2012) as well as projects were developed, such as the Wisconsin
one for chlorinated solvents (WDNR, 2014). The United States Geological Survey (USGS,
2018a,b) – approaching practical and economic conditions – made calculations for the time
requirement of remediation based on MNA (Chapelle et al., 2003). The evaluation of MNA
of metals and other inorganics (US EPA, 2007a,b; Ford et al., 2007) and the decision frame-
work for inorganic contaminants and radionuclides (ITRC, 2007, 2010; US EPA, 2015) all
together established the basis for wider acceptance and application of MNA for contami-
nated land, mainly groundwater remediation (see also Clue-in, 2018b).
In spite of a significant amount of literature – books, studies, and protocols – and the
growing number of applications, many questions still arise and doubts hinder wider accep-
tance, so it is still necessary to publish convincing overviews and reports on success cases
and good practices.
Pachon (2011), in a presentation at the SNOWMAN Conference on MNA, summarized
the US state of the art (Superfund, 2013):
– MNA is being used as part of long-term response actions for groundwater;

– MNA works as a finishing step for low levels of contamination, especially petroleum-
related, chlorinated solvents and inorganics;
– Selecting MNA as a remedy shows growing tendency.
From the latest Superfund report, the application of MNA in percentages is shown here:
– 35% of Superfund sites with MNA combined it with some form of treatment;
– 21% of sites selected MNA alone with no additional form of source control or ground-
water treatment.
A FAQ from the Environmental Security and Technology Certification Program (Adam-
son & Newell, 2014) provides a concise overview of current knowledge regarding the man-
agement of subsurface contaminant releases using monitored natural attenuation. Several
research programs of the US Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program
(SERDP, 2018) aim for better understanding, assessing, and monitoring as well as modeling
of natural processes (Mass transfer, 2015; NA of TCE, 2015; CAH degradation, 2015; CAH
diffusion, 2015; NMR for MNA, 2015; CSIA, 2015).
The early research by the USGS (Wiedemeier et al., 1996b; Chapelle et al., 2003)
on the calculation of the necessary time for hydrocarbons NA, led to the development of
the first version of the software (Widdowson et al., 2005). Further research on biodeg-
radation modeling of various organic compounds (Blum et al., 2007) made the software
more precise and generally useful. NAS is today a software package that provides a
decision-making framework for determining the time needed to clean up groundwater
contamination sites (NAS, 2018). The package has been upgraded several times and the
newest version
– compares times of cleanup associated with monitored natural attenuation to pump and
treat remediation;
– expands the kinds and numbers of contaminants considered and
– allows for concurrent consideration of solvents (chlorinated ethenes) and petroleum
hydrocarbons (USGS, 2018c).
In Europe, Sinke and le Hencho (1999) prepared an overview on existing guidelines and
protocols, and the following year, UK’s Environment Agency published a relevant guidance
document (Carey et al., 2000). This guideline zooms the definition of natural attenuation for
groundwater and risk-reducing natural processes. This narrowing may simplify the regula-
tion and communication for practitioners working with small contaminated sites but does
not support a more holistic approach, which requires the integrated evaluation of natural
processes in soil, groundwater, air, surface water, and sediment and deals with larger spatial
scales.
The Germany-based DECHEMA (2018), recognizing the importance of NA in envi-
ronmental management, organized the first European Conference on Natural Attenuation in
Heidelberg, which was followed by the second and third ones in 2005 and 2007 in Frankfurt
am Main (NA Frankfurt, 2005, 2007).
One of the early projects including NA and MNA for groundwater remediation was the
IN-CORE project (INCORE, 2003), which covered several aspects of NA, evaluated case
studies on the possible use of NA as a remedial option, mainly for BTEX and PAH (Bock-
elman et al., 2001a; INCORE Case Study 9, 2003). A methodology for the quantification
of the mass flux and attenuation rate was first published by Bockelmann et al. (2001a,b,c;
2003). The development of monitoring and modeling methods did not stop with expanded
knowledge but to the contrary: the new analytical, biotechnological, and molecular methods
were immediately applied and transformed from laboratory-based techniques to in situ field
methods (e.g. Berghoff et al., 2014).
The European Network for Industrially Contaminated Land (NICOLE, 2018) prepared
a cartoon booklet for better understanding (NICOLE, 2005) and put sustainability of NA in
focus from 2007 (NICOLE, 2007).
The European SNOWMAN MNA (2018), being active from 2009, summarized the state-
of-the-art information here based on a European survey in six countries (Declercq, 2011):
– MNA is a recent concept, a well-known remediation method in Europe;

– There is a certain level of heterogeneity across countries that will continue to exist, but
nevertheless similarities between the different countries do exist;
– MNA is implemented in different ways such as stand-alone, parallel or follow-up action;
– Lack of “return on experience”!
To enhance dissemination and information transfer, the SNOWMAN Network orga-

nized a conference in 2011, the first demonstration of how the network wants to facilitate the
exchange of knowledge on soil remediation between countries (SNOWMAN, 2018; MNA
Conference, 2011). SNOWMAN stated that MNA presents a challenge in terms of technique
and performance to harmonize with soil policy, the sociological impact, and financial and
legal implications. They hope for a breakthrough via knowledge exchange and the inclusion
of a broader audience. In this spirit, several general reviews and position papers were pre-
pared for science and policy professionals (e.g. Rügner et al., 2006; LABO, 2011).
An interesting view came from industry, showing openness toward MNA, saying that
nature works for free and the existence of guidelines (in some countries) supports its applica-
tion. At the same time, essential tasks have been marked (Jacquet, 2011) such as the following:
– Implementation on the market should be enhanced;

– Europe-wide inclusion into local and national legislations is necessary;
– Harmonization of the time frame for NA with administrative and management time
frames;
– Relaxing the rigid implementation of protocols (from the side of authorities);
– The approach should fit into a risk-based management of contaminated sites;
– NA can be considered in any project;
– NA need not be considered as a stand-alone solution only;
– Long-term uncertainties must be reduced;
– Long-term sustainability is a prime target;
– Investment is needed in NA demonstrations;
– Changing ownership is a problem yet to be solved;
– Stakeholders must be practical when using NA as a remedial option.
Canada developed a study to assess evidence of NA at upstream oil and gas facilities,
established a database and analyzed the site characterization and monitoring information for
124 sites (CAPP, 2002; Epp et al., 2002).
Database review showed that the greatest amount of information was related to petroleum
hydrocarbon contamination, particularly benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes
(BTEX). Measured data demonstrated that natural attenuation occurs for petroleum hydrocar-
bons: 47% of the plumes were interpreted to be stable, 26% as shrinking, and 6% as expanding.
No correlation was found between the hydrogeological factors such as geology, permeability,
flow velocity, and plume classification. Plume lengths did not appear to correlate with ground-
water velocity (data uncertainty was identified) but tended to be greater for inorganic and
non-petroleum hydrocarbon plumes compared to petroleum hydrocarbons. Bacterial activity
was identified in all monitoring wells except one with high salinity. Sulfate reduction was the
typical biodegradation reaction. Estimated biodegradation rates tended to be lower than values
reported in the literature, possible causes including cooler temperatures in Canada.
Published studies reflect the presence of biological and toxicity-based tools in the
assessment and monitoring of NA in the early years. Biodegradation rates were measured
to characterize NA by Suarez and Rifai (1999), ecotoxicity and genotoxicity in parallel with
chemical analysis by Helma et al. (1998), a cell bioassay was performed by Schirmer et al.
(2004a,b) for monitoring pollution and its attenuation.
The Australian Department of Environmental Protection (DEP, 2018) started in 2004
with MNA for groundwater remediation (DEP, 2004). After collecting data on background
and realized cases (McLaughlan et al., 2006; Beck, 2010), CRC CARE published the national
framework in 2013 on how MNA can be applied for groundwater contaminated with hydro-
carbons and how to manage its risk to protect humans and the ecosystem (CRC CARE,
2013; CRC CARE, 2018). The guidance recommends a tiered methodology for MNA:
1 Preliminary assessment from technological feasibility and economic, social, and legal
aspects (time frame, liability, sustainability, etc.).
2 Initial evaluation of NA and technological indicators.
3 Detailed characterization, evidence for an efficient NA.
4 Comprehensive monitoring of the performance and verification of the technology.
5 Documented closure and demonstration that the requirements set have been met.
Some MNA or ENA cases of the last 30 years from around the world will be discussed
in the next section. In addition to the thoroughly studied and published cases, several sites
have remediated/healed themselves spontaneously, without any human intervention. These
sites were definitely polluted during former industrial, agricultural or mining activities, or
inadequate land use and showed significant presence of the contaminant in the first assess-
ment rounds, the reason why they were put on the contaminated site list. Nonetheless, if
the time was long enough between the preliminary and detailed assessments, their detailed
assessment showed that in time they became slightly contaminated or non-contaminated.
Unfortunately, these cases are not always properly documented, so the uncertainties are sig-
nificant. Assessment failures and overestimation can also play a role.
6.2 Some examples worldwide of MNA and ENA

In Table 3.3 some typical case studies are collected from the last 25 years to demonstrate the
viability and feasibility of natural attenuation as a remedial option for soil and groundwater.
The list includes the most frequently targeted contaminants worldwide. The development
of the concept is also nicely reflected by the cases. The early applications were designed to
prove that NA works at all. Then the benefits were compared to conventional engineered
technologies, and, ultimately, they were acknowledged as a full-fledged sustainable tech-
nological solution. The acceptance has grown significantly and it resulted in a better under-
standing and cooperation between engineers and nature.
Table 3.3 Collection of published applications of MNA for environmental management – case studies.
Contaminants Site Problem Way of application Reference

MNA only or together with others
TPH and other Denver, Colorado, US Contaminated MNA + ENA based on intrinsic Wiedemeier et al., 1993
organic chemicals groundwater biodegradation
TPH: fuel hydrocarbons Airport, US Contaminated MNA + ENA based on intrinsic Wiedemeier et al., 1994,
groundwater biodegradation 1995b, c
TPH: fuel hydrocarbons Mining area, Tatabánya, Diesel-contaminated ENA based on intrinsic Gruiz and Kriston, 1995
Hungary, EU soil biodegradation enhanced by soil
venting in the vadose soil zone
BTEX Hill Air Force Base, BTEX plume and NAPL recovery + MNA of Wiedemeier et al., 1995d
Utah, US light NAPL ( jet fuel) dissolved BTEX
BTEX Patrick Air Force Base, BTEX plume MNA: intrinsic bioremediation Wiedemeier et al., 1995d
Florida, US with long-term monitoring
TPH Jet-fuel tank farm, Contaminated MNA and ENA: natural and Vroblesky et al., 1996,
Hanahan, South groundwater engineered remediation 1997
Carolina, US
TPH: fuel hydrocarbons Four US air force bases: BTEX plume MNA: technology demonstration Air Force Center, 1999
BTEX Hill AFB, Utah,
Elmendorf, Alaska,
Travis, California
Langley, Virginia, US
BTEX Traverse City Coast BTEX plume Extensive NA of BTEX was CIR, 2000 b
Guard Base, Michigan, measured Wilson et al., 1990
US Source removal by pump and treat
+ MNA of the plume
BTEX Bassendean Sands BTEX plume MNA: natural degradation Thierrin et al., 1993
in the Perth basin, rates were obtained from a
Western Australia groundwater tracer test
BTEX and MTBE Vandenberg Air Force Fuel leak. Persistent MNA: While BTEX attenuated Durrant et al., 1999
Base, California, US MTBE in a Fuel Spill rapidly, MTBE did not CIR, 2000 b
Benzene from gasoline Swan Coastal Plain, BTEX plume MNA: intrinsic benzene Franzmann et al., 1999
Western Australia mineralization
(Continued)

BTEX from Swan Coastal Plain, BTEX plume MNA: intrinsic sulfate reduction Franzmann et al., 2002
gasoline Western Australia of toluene
PAH: fuel hydrocarbons Agricultural machine Contaminated soil Intrinsic biodegradation occurs, Leitgib et al., 2008
and lubricant oil station, Hungary, EU and groundwater enhancement by soil venting and Leitgib et al., 2005
by mobilization/solubilization using Gruiz et al., 1996
cyclodextrins
BTEX 124 upstream oil and BTEX plumes, other MNA results: CAPP, 2002
gas facilities in Alberta, toxicants in some 47% stable plumes Cross, 2002
Canada cases 26% shrinking plumes Corseuil et al., 2000
25% growing plumes
BTEX NICOLE demonstration BTEX plume MNA feasibility study: NA is NICOLE MNA, 2005
site, EU active, remediation can be based
on it
BTEX and mineral oil NICOLE demonstration Contaminant plume NA occurs, and can be protective NICOLE MNA, 2005
site, EU and efficient enough
TPH, VOC, toxic Trollberget, an TPH plume and MNA: biodegradation-based NA EU Life Project, 2006
metals abandoned dump metals in the soil has been proven by an integrated
site outside the city assessment. Residual risk is
of Hanko, Southern acceptable for recreational land
Finland, EU use
TPH Népliget, Budapest, Inhibited transformer ENA with soil venting and Molnár et al., 2009
Hungary, EU oil both in soil and availability enhancement. Gruiz et al., 2008
groundwater Comparison with pump and treat Gruiz et al., 1996
TPH Australia TPH plume and Source removal + MNA based on Naidu et al., 2012
capillary fringe smear intrinsic biodegradation
PAHs South Glens Falls, New Coal tar remaining Source removal + MNA based on Taylor et al., 1996
York, US in groundwater microbiological transformation Wilson and Madsen, 1996
from former coal tar and chemical immobilization in Madsen et al., 1991
production humus
BTEX, TPH, PAH NICOLE demonstration Inherited industrial MNA is highly efficient by itself NICOLE MNA, 2005
site, EU site
PAH, mazout (heavy Mazout storage ponds, Inherited industrial Source removal + MNA based Molnár et al., 2002 , 2005
fraction of petroleum) Budapest, Hungary, EU site with mazout- on intrinsic biodegradation Molnár, 2006
contaminated soil and (bioavailable PAHs) and parallel
diesel- contaminated immobilization of the large-
groundwater molecule PAHs by humidification
PAH, creosote (coal Wood preservation Creosote- MNA: NA potential based on Molnár et al., 2007
tar) plant, Hungary, EU contaminated soil biodegradation under aerobic or
anoxic conditions. 10–50% residual
PAH do not pose significant
toxicity due to immobilization
BTEX 40-acre site in a coastal BTEX plume ENA: surficial application of Kolhatkar and Schnobrich,
region of New Jersey, US sulfate salts (gypsum, Epsom 2017
salts) over a groundwater plume. Kolhatkar, 2015
Infiltration process provides
elevated sulfate concentrations
and facilitates ENA: 4 years
monitoring demonstrated the
viability of surficial sulfate delivery
Explosives: Near Hawthorne, Shallow aquifer MNA: natural microbiological and Van Denburgh et al., 1996
trinitrotoluene and Nevada, US contaminated geochemical processes degraded
other nitrogen-rich by nitrogen-rich dissolved explosives leaving nitrate
explosives explosives behind
Explosives: Near Hawthorne, Shallow aquifer MNA: intrinsic mineralization of Bradley et al., 1997
dinitrotoluene (DNT) Nevada, US contaminated with DNT in groundwater has been
dissolved DNT proven
2,4,6-trinitrotoluene Louisiana Army Explosives in Source removal + MNA: Pennington et al., 1999a,b
(TNT) Ammunition Plant, groundwater primary treatment: soil excavation
l,3,5-trinitro-l,3,5- Minden, LA, US and incineration
hexahydrotriazine Joliet Army MNA based on intrinsic
(RDX) Ammunition Plant, biodegradation
degradation products Joliet, IL, US
(Continued)

Munitions Louisiana Army Groundwater Source removal + MNA-based Toze et al., 2003
Ammunition Plant site, contaminated bioremediation Zakikhani et al., 2003
active 1942–94, near from production Pennington et al., 1999a,b
Doyline, Louisiana, US wastewater stored in
a “pink lagoon”
CAH: bromoform, Borden Air Force Base, Mixed plume MNA: partial degradation: mass of CIR, 2000 b
carbon tetrachloride; Canada bromoform, dichlorobenzene and Criddle et al., 1986
PCE;1,2- hexachloroethane decreased, but
dichlorobenzene; that of carbon tetrachloride and
hexachloroethane PCE did not
CAH: TCE St. Joseph, Michigan, US Contaminated MNA: extensive anaerobic NA CIR, 2000 b
groundwater of CAH due to coincidental Lendvay, 1998
occurrence of organic pollution in Dolan and McCarty, 1995
the groundwater, which satisfied Semprini et al., 1995
the high organic demand of the Haston et al., 1994
anaerobic biodegradants present Wilson et al., 1994
McCarty and Wilson,
1992
AH South Municipal Water 2,200-foot long Source pump & treat + MNA of Turley and Rawnsley, 1996
Supply Well Superfund plume of dissolved the dissolved CAH in the plume
site in Peterborough, contaminant
New Hampshire, US
CAH: trichloroethene; Plattsburgh, Air Force Soil and groundwater MNA: significant natural Wiedemeier et al., 1996a, c
cis-1,2-dichloroethene; Base, New York, US of a fire training area biodegradation by iron(III) reduction
vinyl chloride; and methanogenesis. BTEX
and BTEX degradation resulted in oxygen,
nitrate, and sulfate depletion
CAH: solvents and 14 different US air force DNAPL plume MNA: anaerobic dechlorination at AFC, 1999
degradation products bases, US 13 out of 14 sites. Enhancement
proved to be feasible
CAH: trichloroethene Picatinny Arsenal site TCE plume MNA: based on intrinsic Smith et al., 1999
in Morris County, New biodegradation and compared to Imbrigiotta and Ehlke,
Jersey, US pump and treat 1999
CAH: solvents Twin Cities Army DNAPL plume MNA: anaerobic dechlorination Ferrey et al., 2000
Ammunition Plant, Site proved to be efficient after source
A, MA, US removal
CAH: di- and Brooklawn site Petro- Solvent production MNA: anaerobic biodegradation Clement et al., 2002
trichloroethene, Processors Inc. (PPI), alone fulfills criteria
vinyl chloride, Baton Rouge, LO, US
dichloropropane and
degradation products
CAH Contaminated megasite Contaminated MNA in a strictly anaerobic Heidrich et al., 2004
chlorobenzene Bitterfeld/Wolfen, groundwater environment based on Wycisk et al., 2003
and BTEX Eastern Germany, EU methanogenesis, sulfate and
iron reduction, reductive
dechlorination
Mixed: CAH: VOC, NICOLE demonstration Inherited industrial NA of VOC occurs, MNA is a NICOLE MNA, 2005
BTEX, mineral oil, site, a harbor area, EU site feasible option
styrene
Mixed: CAH: VOC, NICOLE demonstration Inherited industrial MNA occurs and proved to be NICOLE MNA, 2005
TPH, BTEX, site in EU site protective for all contaminants. A
styrene buffer zone is recommended
CAH: VOC NICOLE demonstration Inherited industrial NA is weak by itself, the redox NICOLE MNA, 2005
site in EU site potential is not supportive.
ENA is recommended by redox
modification
CAH: chlorinated Fairbanks, Alaska, US Groundwater plume, MNA + ENA with HRC additions USGS, 2016d;
ethenes cold environment for reductive dechlorination Bradley et al., 2005
Bradley and Chapelle, 2004
(Continued)

CAH: trichloroethene Offutt AFB in eastern TCE contaminated ENA: biowall from mulch-sand Early, 2007
(TCE) Nebraska close to the groundwater plume mixture. Slow degradation
city of Omaha, US of (organic) mulch provides
substrates to generate hydrogen,
the electron donor in reductive
dechlorination
CAH: dichloroethene Several TCE No or less MNA based on aerobic Bradley, 2012
(DCE) and vinyl contaminated sites, US accumulation of DCE mechanisms contributes to DCE
chloride (VC) and VC under anoxic mineralization even as low as
conditions, compared 0.01 mg/L dissolved oxygen!
to the calculated value
CAH: Medley Farm Superfund A former waste ERD by lactate solution injection O’Steen and Howard,
tetrachloroethene, Site, South Carolina, US solvent dump into GW 2014
trichloroethene, and
their degradation
products.
CAH: chlorinated Naval Air Station Cecil Disposal pit for spent MNA + in situ air sparging USGS, 2016b
ethenes; chlorinated Field, Jacksonville, fuels, oils, solvents,
benzenes Florida, US paints
Chlorinated benzene Naval Air Station in Groundwater plume In situ oxidation by passive curtain USGS, 2016c
Pensacola, Florida – of ORC + MNA
demonstration site, US
CAH: chlorinated Textron Realty TCE plume from a Source remediation + MNA in the USGS, 2016e
ethenes Operations Inc., neutralization pond plume
Niagara Falls, New
York, US
Tetrachloroethene and U.S. Naval Submarine Leaking landfill MNA + chemical oxidation USGS, 2016a
vinyl chloride Base Kings Bay, et al., 2007
Georgia, US Chapelle and Bradley,
1998 , 1999
Chloroethenes and Naval Air Station in Sulfuric acid leak MNA feasibility under acidic Bradley et al., 2007
sulfuric acid together Pensacola, Florida – resulted in a co- conditions: NA is not precluded,
demonstration site, US contaminant plume so it can be combined by source
treatment causing acidification
TCE and breakdown Boeing, Auburn, 20 Groundwater plumes 263 active sampling points, stable LAI, 2016
products locations Washington, at different depths and shrinking TCE plumes, MNA
US is a feasible solution for TCE and
breakdown products
56 organic compounds, Brown & Bryant Pesticides, Source treatment + MNA USACE, 2012
e.g. chloroform Superfund Site herbicides, fumigant
1,2-dibromo-3- Arvin, California, US formulation
chloropropane A Superfund site
1,2-dichloropropane
1,3-dichloropropane
l,2,3-trichloropropane
ethylene dibromide,
dinoseb
Perchlorate Naval Surface Perchlorate in MNA based on natural reductive ESTPC, 2010
Warfare Center, Indian groundwater biodegradation;
Head, MD, US Performance and cost evaluation
Volatile organic Aberdeen Proving Volatile contaminants ENA with a reactive mat that Majcher et al., 2009
contaminants (VOCs) Ground – West Bank sorbs VOCs and enhances their Wein et al., 2007
Canal Creek, US biodegradation by allowing
longer processing times for
microbial breakdown and by
VOCs phytovolatilization and
phytodegradation
PCBs The Hudson River, PCBs in sediment Incomplete NA: combined Bedard and Quensen,
Manhattan, US due to discharges aerobic-anaerobic biodegradation 1995 ;
from a PCB process, very slow and stops McNulty, 1997
manufacturing facility without enhancement, so ENA is Quensen et al., 1988
recommended
(Continued)

PCB and dioxins Several places around PCBs and dioxins in Slow and partial degradation. Billings, 2014
the world soil and groundwater Enhancement is necessary by Nelson et al., 2014
surfactants, nutrients, electron Viisimaa et al., 2013
acceptors and/or donors Wang and Oyaizu, 2011
(alternating aerobic and anaerobic Krumins et al., 2009
conditions) and co-substrates. Ahn et al., 2008
Evidence mainly from microcosms. Fava et al., 2002 , 2003
Field degradation rate is generally Kao et al., 2001
not significant or very small, long- CIR, 2000 b
term MNA is needed Juhasz and Naidu, 2000
PCBs Santa Susana Field PCB-contaminated MNA based on biodegradation Nelson et al., 2014
Laboratory, California, aerobic soil of PCBs unlikely, also because no
US anaerobic conditions exist at the
site
Dioxins Santa Susana Field Dioxins MNA based on biodegradation Nelson et al., 2014
Laboratory, California, contaminated is slow, time requirement is
US aerobic soil proportional to the concentration:
estimated as 1–50 years under
aerobic conditions
Red mud: Ajka, Hungary, EU, red Na-ions and pH in NA of Na-ions were monitored Gruiz et al., 2012
Alkalinity and Na ion mud spill flooded soil for two years: fast attenuation was Rékási et al., 2013
observed in the flooded soil
Red mud Ajka, Hungary, EU, red Metals, Na-ions and Metals accumulate after partition/ Mayes et al., 2011
Metals: Al, As, Co, Cr, mud spill alkalinity in water sorption in sediment. Gypsum Gruiz et al., 2012
Mo, V and sediment addition lowered metal release Renforth et al., 2012
Klebercz et al., 2012
Lehoux et al., 2013
Anton et al., 2014
Metals: arsenic Cape Canaveral Fire Arsenic in Arsenic MNA: adsorption to the Reisinger et al., 2005
Training Area, US groundwater sediment particles from the plume
Metals: copper, cobalt, Pinal Creek Basin, US Copper, cobalt, NA: multiple physical, chemical, Brown et al., 1997
nickel, zinc nickel, zinc in a microbiological processes ensure Stollenwerk, 1994
groundwater plume NA within 2 km of the plume. ENA: Brown and Harvey, 1996
pH increase by carbonate enhances CIR, 2000 b
precipitation and sorption
Metals: Fe, Zn, Pb and Mining area Murcia, Metals in sediment Sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRB) Jong and Parry, 2006
sulfate Spain, EU and soil produce sulfide, which precipitates Van Roy et al., 2006
ionic metals under anaerobic Bernardes et al., 2007
conditions. Metals bond to sulfide
and carbonate
Metals: As, Cd, Zn Abandoned mining Metals in sediment Source removal/isolation + Gruiz et al., 2006, 2009a,b
and Pb area, Gyöngyösoroszi, and soil enhanced immobilization of metals Feigl et al., 2007, 2009,
Hungary, EU by adding steel shot, carbonate 2010
rock, and fly ash for sorption
to iron hydroxides, carbonate
minerals and formation of
insoluble silicate minerals. Planting
crops results in humus formation,
and sorption on organic matter
Chromium VI 100 Area, Hanford, US Widespread Cr Cr VI reduction occurs in Truex et al., 2015
VI in groundwater two-phase soil and sediment.
endangers drinking Sediment’s reductive capacity
water and Columbia is active in the presence of
river dissolved oxygen
Radionuclides: uranium Hanford, US Uranium Source removal + NA Ford et al., 2009
contamination Waichler and Yabusaki,
2005
Yabusaki et al., 2008
CIR, 2000 b
US EPA, MNA, 2018
(Continued)

Radionuclides: 137Cs Chernobyl, Ukraine 137Cs contamination NA processes: Chernobyl, Ukraine, 2018
in water, soil, and Radioactive decay Konoplev, 2017
ecosystem Surface runoff Grygolinska and Dolin, 2003
Vertical migration in soil Shestopalov et al., 2003
immobilization in sediment and Sobotovich et al., 2003
organic soil Davydov et al., 2002
Biogeochemical migration Ivanov and Dolin, 2001
Ivanov and Kashparov, 2003
Ivanov, 2006
Panin et al., 2001
Sadolko et al., 2000
Kudelsky et al., 1996
Radiocesium Fukushima, Japan 137Cs contamination NA processes: radioactive decay, Konoplev, 2017
in water, soil, and surface runoff and flood, vertical Konoplev, 2016a
ecosystem migration in soil immobilization in Konoplev et al., 2016b
sediment, organic soil and flooded Konoplev et al., 2016c
soil, biogeochemical migration Al-Masri et al., 2015
NA is faster compared to
Chernobyl due to 3x times higher
yearly precipitation and flood
Multiple contaminants: Tank farm of a former Multi-contaminant Verified intrinsic sulfate reduction Schirmer et al., 2004a,
tar oil, crude oil, hydrogenation plant plume and methanogenic process. 2006
gasoline, smoldered (lignite-based gasoline NA with long-term monitoring Gödeke et al., 2004
lignite-tar oil, and production) at megasite is feasible for regional water
sulfuric acid, caustic Zeitz, Germany, EU protection
soda, phenol,
dimethylformamide
CWA VX: O-ethyl S-(2- Indoor surfaces at any Attenuation time 99% NA within 10 days, on Oudejans et al., 2016
[diisopropylamino]ethyl) place after application various materials under different Columbus et al., 2012
methylphosphonothioate environmental conditions US EPA, 2010
Munro et al., 1999
MNA: monitored natural attenuation; ENA: engineered/enhanced natural attenuation
TPH: total petroleum hydrocarbon; BTEX: benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes; PAH: polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
CAH: chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons;TCE: trichloroethene; CWA: chemical warfare agent;VOC: volatile organics
ORC: oxygen release compound; HRC: hydrogen release compound; ERD: enhanced reductive dechlorination.
6.3 Examples from the authors’ practice

In the early 1990s, the withdrawal of the Soviet army and the changes in basic ownership by
privatization of state property in Central and Eastern Europe revealed an enormous number
of contaminated sites. These sites could not be remediated because of the lack of financial
resources, preparedness, and capacity, but several site assessments have been carried out
mainly for valuation of the necessary remediation and compensation between owners. These
assessments opened the door for research and development on the affected sites. Authors
of this chapter also had the opportunity to assess and monitor former industrial and min-
ing sites, and to test several new engineering tools and implement innovative technologies,
including MNA and ENA, as well as the combination of MNA with conventional engineered
technologies (Gruiz, 2002, 2009).
6.3.1 Engineered natural attenuation of soil and groundwater

contaminated by organic substances
In this section, examples are introduced for monitored and engineered natural attenuation
from the author’s practice. The examples include sites polluted with organic and inorganic
(metals) contaminants, environmental compartments such as soil groundwater and surface
water, and examples of combined technologies. All the examples are related to actual con-
taminated sites and pilot or full-scale field applications.
6.3.1.1 Spontaneous biodegradation and its enhancement

in the vadose zone
In relation to natural attenuation, generally groundwater plumes are meant although soil
surfaces, runoffs and leachates, surface waters and the inside of the three-phase soil are also
highly exposed to natural transport and fate processes, and spontaneous contaminant attenu-
ation with various consequences. In this section, several cases are introduced, where the
ongoing natural processes have been utilized for remediation of the three-phase soil, or the
three-phase soil and the groundwater together.
Positive impact of soil venting and nutrient addition – a success story

Diesel oil, a biodegradable organic contaminant (i.e. hydrocarbon) mixture was identified
at 0–3 m depths at a former coal mine area at Tatabánya, Hungary. The site is characterized
by good quality soil and active intrinsic biodegradation with a soil microbiota well-adapted
to the mixture of contaminants. The remediation of the abandoned site had started sponta-
neously prior to the first assessment. According to microcosm study results, the microbial
degradation could be enhanced just by aeration, so a soil venting technology had been estab-
lished in the field.
A rather low air flow rate – replacing pore air only two to five times daily – was enough
to provide an adequate amount of atmospheric air for aerobic biodegradation and to remove
the accumulated carbon dioxide. Figure 3.16 shows the soil venting scheme and the position
of the soil gas extraction wells (middle row) connected to the blower and the atmospheric air
“injection” wells (outer two rows), which consisted of perforated tubes (or just boreholes)
for passive air input into the deeper soil layers. Alternatively, fresh air could be supplied
Figure 3.16 Bioventing scheme.
from the soil surface or through trenches instead of passive wells/boreholes. The air col-
lected from the extraction wells by the connected blower may be subject to the gas treatment
depending on the contaminant. In this demonstration case, no volatile contaminant compo-
nents were present. Intermittent nutrient supply (commercial nitrate-containing fertilizer) was
applied twice.
The gas chromatographic composition of the contaminant did not show significant
selection amongst the components of the extractable hydrocarbon fraction after biodegrada-
tion, compared to the initial. This indicates that the soil microbiota was well prepared to min-
eralize all (extractable) components of the contaminant mixture at a more or less similar rate.
Table 3.4 data – gas chromatographic (GC) contaminant concentration of the hexane-
acetone extract – reflects effective degradation of the 1000–20,000 mg/kg diesel oil within
2 and 3 months (Gruiz & Kriston, 1995). Soil reached the quality criteria (1000 mg/kg for
this industrial site) after 3 months, and the environmental risk of the site also decreased to
the acceptable level as shown by the risk profile in Figure 3.17.
Failed enhancement at a long-time contaminated site

Another area of the Tatabánya, Hungary, coal mine, filled up with gravel and cinders,
was contaminated with diesel oil and engine oil at 0–1.5 m depths forming a poor-
quality soil-like medium. The hydrocarbon content was high (30,000 mg/kg), but the
Table 3.4 Contaminant concentration (GC) in soil during the bioventing field experiment.
Depth Sampling point 1 Sampling point 2 Sampling point 3

(cm) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
Start 8 weeks 12 weeks Start 8 weeks Start 8 weeks
0–50 3,600 420 320 6700 520 650 320

50–100 8600 1500 300 19,500 210 920 310
100–150 12,700 3,360 580 19,200 540 990 280
150–200 8800 1,790 400 18,700 840 960 370
200–250 6000 1,010 260 15,000 460 860 110
300–350 3300 990 200 400 ND 240 80
350–400 9600 800 200 100 ND 650 ND
Figure 3.17 Risk profile of natural attenuation and of engineered natural attenuation at a diesel-
contaminated site.
concentration of oil-degrading cells and the biodegradation rate was very low. Aera-
tion and nutrient supply in treatability studies showed a low biodegradation rate. Gas
chromatographic analysis of the contaminant explained the failure: the high share of
non-paraffin isomers and large-molecule cyclic hydrocarbons. These are typical resi-
dues of an unbalanced biodegradation where the easily biodegradable components were
consumed by the microbes and thus the amount of less degradable/available components
increased. The main reason identified for poor degradation and unsuccessful activation
by aeration and nutrients was the poor soil quality (bare gravel-like material), providing
an improper habitat for soil microbes. Organic waste and compost as well as a self-
developed inoculant prepared from a well-adapted soil were added to the soil, which
accelerated biodegradation in microcosm studies (Figure 3.18). In spite of this possibil-
ity, the decision was taken for the soil not to be remediated in situ, but rather extracted
and its place refilled with new soil.
Residual contaminant
%
120
Without enhancement Compost addition Compost and aeration
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 2 4 6 10 20 Time (weeks)
Figure 3.18 Biodegradation-based remediation after soil organic amendment and aeration (microcosm
study for the Tatabánya, Hungary, coal mine contamination).
6.3.1.2 Enhancement of MNA with bioaugmentation

Natural bioremediation has limitations such as the bioavailability and degradability of the con-
taminants. From the catalyst perspective, it raises the question on whether the soil microbiota is
able to produce biosurfactants and degrading enzymes in an adequate quantity and quality or to
intensify the biodegradative capacity of the soil biota to detoxify and/or eliminate the contaminant.
The example of a transformer station at the Hejőcsaba, Hungary, cement works demon-
strates that the degrading capacity of the soil biota may show high heterogeneities depending
on soil conditions. The pollution at the transformer station originated from the product of
TO-40, a PCB-free inhibited transformer oil, a mixture of C15–C50 hydrocarbons, stored
and used at the site. The contaminant concentration in the soil showed a heterogeneous dis-
tribution with a maximum of 78,000 mg/kg (see Table 3.5) in the 1–1.5 m deep surface layer.
The water table has not been affected.
Treatability studies proved that the biota could be activated significantly.
The most contaminated 20 × 20 m subarea was selected for demonstration purposes. The
compacted soil was loosened, nutrients and water were injected by manual tools, as shown in
Figure 3.19. Frequent soil sampling and analyses showed a sudden and significant decrease in
contaminant concentration to 500–800 mg/kg in most parts of the site, but at some places the
decrease failed to go below 13,000–20,000 mg/kg concentration. Looking for the reason, one
of these troublesome spots was explored. Hard clayey aggregates completely impenetrable
to air were found at a depth of 1.5 meters. Aerobic biodegradation was slow in these aggre-
gates, but the anoxic degradation process was active. Therefore, two artificial inoculants were
applied to enhance remediation: a self-developed mixture of bacteria isolated from the clayey
aggregate and propagated in the lab and a commercially available “microaerophilic super-
bug”. The two inoculants could reach similar results. The contaminant depletion in the soil is
shown in Table 3.5: the clayey aggregates resisted enhancement with only aeration, but inocu-
lation with adapted microorganisms brought success at the end (reddish brown highlights).
Table 3.5 Enhanced natural biodegradation-based soil remediation at Hejőcsaba, Hungary, cement
works.
Soil sample Contaminant Contaminant Treated by

content – content – after inoculant –
initial 6 weeks after 6
(mg/kg) (mg/kg) months
1 3200 500 80
2 6600 600 100
3 10,000 800 250
5 25 000 4000 90
6 25,000 7300 890
7 78,000 5300 600
8 28,000 19,000 90
9 n.d. 13,000 700
10 n.d. 20,000 880
Figure 3.19 Inoculant delivery options: spraying onto the surface or into trenches for spontaneous
infiltration, using injection wells or a handheld direct-push tool with an injector.
6.3.1.3 Natural attenuation enhanced by mobilization and bioventing

A mixture of diesel and engine oil at the Kutricamajor, Hungary, former agricultural machine
yard with gas stations polluted both the soil and groundwater. The volume of the subsurface
soil (a heterogeneous refill) contaminated with 1000 mg/kg average concentration of extract-
able hydrocarbons (EPH) was 280 m3. The highly contaminated central core with an average
of 10,000 mg/kg contaminant was 20 m3 in volume. The highest contaminant concentration
was 28,800 mg/kg at a 1.5 m depth.
The groundwater level was 3±1 m, and the EPH content 0.1–145 mg/L groundwater.
The volume of the contaminated groundwater was estimated at about 600 m3.
The microbiota was active and could easily be further activated. The hydrocarbon-
degrading cell concentration was 10–1000 CFU/g soil and 1–100 CFU/mL groundwater.
Biodegradation was enhanced by soil venting (one central active and five passive
wells around) and by contaminant mobilization/solubilization using RAMEB = randomly
methylated β-cyclodextrin (see also Fenyvesi et al., 2016). The aim of the field study was to
compare the efficiency of only biodegradation-based soil remediation with parallel applica-
tion of pump and treat technology for the groundwater. The solubilizing agent was intro-
duced into the three-phase soil intermittently by impulsive flushing and extracted together
with the groundwater. For this purpose and to limit contaminant transport, a slight depres-
sion was established by water extraction (5 m3/day) parallel to soil aeration and contaminant
mobilization.
Technology monitoring included continuous or daily analyses of CO2 in extracted soil
gas and the EPH content in the extracted groundwater. Soil sampling and analysis was done
before and after remediation in order not to destroy the soil gas and groundwater flow pattern
by additional drilling.
Figure 3.20 shows the increase of extractable contaminants in the water phase after
RAMEB treatment: significant increase in CO2 production (mainly in the vadose zone), in
parallel to contaminant depletion in the water phase as a function of time and repeated treat-
ments. Aeration in itself (for 18 weeks) did not increase the degradation rate, but aeration
together with cyclodextrin application significantly enhanced biodegradation. It is typical
for aged, strongly bound, large-molecule contaminants, similar to those at Kutricamajor
that these strongly bound soil contaminants need to be mobilized to become available for
biodegradation (Leitgib et al., 2008; Gruiz et al., 1996).
The repeated application of RAMEB confirmed the feasibility of the combined enhance-
ment of a natural biological process, and the stepwise decreasing mobilizable amount of
pollution of petroleum origin. The trends are clear in spite of an unexpectedly occurring
alien contaminant (in groundwater flow), most likely stemming from uncontrolled fertilizer
release independently of the study site.
The material balance is based on the mass of contaminants in soil and groundwater, its
transfer from soil to groundwater by flushing and its elimination by biodegradation in the
Figure 3.20 Contaminant mobilization and degradation enhanced by aeration and cyclodextrin addi-
tion to soil at the Kutricamajor, Hungary, former agricultural machine yard.
form of CO2. Together with the contaminant, a certain part of soil organic matter was also
degraded, so the amount calculated from the formed CO2 was shared between the contami-
nant and the soil organic carbon, based on soil TOC and contaminant quantitative analyses:
408 kg of contaminant was eliminated from the 300 m3 soil and only 7 kg from the ground-
water according to the calculated values; and 5 kg from the 7 kg contaminant derives from
the three-phase soil (flushed into the groundwater after temporary flooding) and only 2 kg
from the groundwater.
This type of mobilization aided by a combination of aeration and cyclodextrin addition
with or without water treatment was applied for several demonstration cases in Hungary, as
shown in Table 3.3. It was a general observation that the removed contaminant mass dis-
solved in groundwater was a minimum two orders of magnitude smaller than the contami-
nant mass from soil removed by biodegradation. This also proves that pump and treat alone
cannot be a feasible solution if both soil and groundwater are contaminated.
The risk profiles in Figure 3.21 illustrate the biodegradation-based natural attenuation
of bioavailable contaminants (green curve) and of the less available ones, which should be
mobilized from time to time to artificially increase the size of the bioavailable fraction, or
otherwise degradation would slow down. From the risk curves it is also clear that the mobili-
zation of toxic contaminants results in a temporary risk increase, which should be managed.
6.3.1.4 Combination of soil ENA with physicochemical groundwater

treatment
Soil and groundwater pollution was found at a former transformer station in Budapest, Hun-
gary. The contaminant was an inhibited transformer oil, a PCB-free insulating oil, a mixture
of C15–C50 hydrocarbons. The transformer oil pollution derived from a leaking spare trans-
former and reached the groundwater. The concentration of the contaminant in the soil was
Figure 3.21 Engineered natural attenuation of bioavailable and artificially mobilized contaminants.
about 20,000 mg/kg (site-specific quality criteria: 500 mg/kg) and close to 1 mg/L in the
groundwater (site-specific limit value: 0.5 mg/L). Intrinsic bioremediation has been proven,
and enhancement was necessary because the biodegradation was slow. Soil biota could be
activated by aeration and nutrient addition.
Based on treatability studies in microcosms, a complex technology was designed and
applied for the remediation of a more-or less isolated subsite at the large-scale contaminated
transformer station.
The 50 m3 soil and 1000 m3 groundwater at the subsite was treated for 47 weeks includ-
ing a winter break of 20 weeks. The soil and the groundwater were treated under the heavy
spare transformer without its removal as shown in Figure 3.22.
The in situ bioventing of the unsaturated soil was combined with groundwater recircula-
tion: extraction and desiccation in gravel-filled trenches, ensuring the moisture supplement
and the continuous flushing of the highly contaminated unsaturated soil. A combined well
was used for pumping out groundwater and exhausting soil gas. Nutrients (N, P, K) were
added three times at the 9th, 13th, and 21st weeks, and 2 × 10 kg RAMEB (to mobilize the
transformer oil) was added to the soil on the 9th and 13th weeks.
Technology monitoring included continuous in situ soil gas analyses and frequent (min-
imum two daily) groundwater sampling and laboratory analyses. The solid soil was analyzed
using core samples before and after remediation.
Biodegradation is demonstrated in real time by the increased CO2 and decreased O2
content of the constantly extracted soil gas after the first and second RAMEB and nutrient
addition (Figure 3.23). The extracted water was partly recycled and partly treated by ex situ
stripping.
Figure 3.22 Bioventing of a soil volume underneath an unused transformer.

Figure 3.23 CO2 (dark blue) and O2 (green) content of the extracted soil gas measured in situ and in
real time.
The soil and groundwater cleaning was completed in 47 weeks: 99% of the transformer
oil was removed and the toxicity tests measured no toxicity both in the soil and in the
groundwater.
This field application demonstrated that engineered natural attenuation can be applied
in combination with groundwater extraction and ex situ water treatment (pump and treat)
(Molnár et al., 2009; Gruiz et al., 1996, 2008). The verification and sustainability assessment
of the complete case is introduced in Chapters 5 and 11.
6.3.1.5 Engineered natural attenuation of mazout-contaminated soil

Abandoned mazout storage ponds without isolation have been used for years to store heavy
heating oil for industrial purposes. The mazout is rather dense oil; its transport in the soil’s
pore volume is strongly limited: it has a kind of self-isolating character. This was the argu-
ment for its storage in non-insulated ponds. Moreover, it would not have spread to the extent
we experienced in the course of the assessment if it had not been regularly diluted with diesel
oil in the winter cold to be able to be pumped out of the reservoirs. At this point, the transport
of the diesel-dissolved mazout escalated and directly polluted a large soil volume and the
groundwater. The groundwater has already been treated using pump and treat for many years
without any success when our team investigated the site and recommended source removal
and source treatment.
With regard to intrinsic biodegradation, mazout in the soil showed limited bioavailabil-
ity, so its treatability was tested in laboratory microcosms by the addition of the mobilizing
agent cyclodextrin (RAMEB), besides the implementation of aeration and nutrients supply.
RAMEB increased the mobility and biological availability of the high-molecular weight and
strongly bound contaminant. Aeration and nutrient supply resulted in 51% and 34% removal
Table 3.6 Effect of RAMEB on mazout removal from biovented soils.
Applied Removed
RAMEB (%) mazout (%)
Soil 1 Soil 2
0 51 34
0.3 72 20
0.5 73 54
0.7 53 40
1.0 69 45
from the soil contaminated with 13 and 21 g mazout/kg soil, and cyclodextrin could enhance
this removal to 73% and 54%, respectively, in the best case as shown in Table 3.6. Gravi-
metrically measured, the initial mazout content in soil 1 was 12,780 mg/kg and in soil 2 it
was 21,040 mg/kg.
The concentration of mazout-degrading bacterial cells in the soil increased 10–100
times upon addition of RAMEB. The relatively low concentration and the long biodegra-
dation half-life of RAMEB (one year in soil) (Fenyvesi et al., 2005) justified the conclu-
sion that the increased bacterial cell number was the consequence of increased contaminant
bioavailability. Interestingly, the toxicity of all soils was negative; it also demonstrated the
limited bioavailability of mazout in soil – similar to the degrading microorganisms, the con-
taminants were not available for the test organisms either.
Environmental risk of the in situ application of solubilizing and bioavailability-increas-
ing substances needs careful monitoring because higher mobility may endanger subsurface
waters. An optimal concentration and dosage may prevent overdone mobilization but still
allow for a proper increase in bioavailability (Molnár et al., 2002; Molnár, 2006).
6.3.1.6 Coal tar creosote-contaminated soil: enhancement

by bioaugmentation
The large molecular weight PAHs that make up coal tar creosote and coal tar oil were partly
biodegraded and partly built into the matrix of the clayey humic soil of a former railway
repair facility and waste disposal site in Hungary. Both the unsaturated and the saturated soil
zones were highly polluted, but the groundwater only slightly, so the dominant part of the
contaminant was sorbed on the solid phase of the clayey humic soil. The water table was at
1.5–2.5 meters. Seemingly, the risk decreased during decades of natural attenuation to an
acceptable level; no signals of toxicity were observed. More detailed assessment of the site
showed high creosote contents – 8,000 at subsite A and 133,000 mg/kg at subsite B.
Enhancement of aerobic biodegradation by aeration in treatability studies at first increased
the extractable PAH content and the toxicity of the soil, but after this temporary increase (likely
due to intrinsic biosurfactant production), the PAH content decreased to only 7000 mg/kg in
the less contaminated site and to 65,000 mg/kg in the site with high creosote content within
4 weeks. Figure 3.24 shows the risk profile based on direct toxicity assessments. With a high
level of pollution, the slow degradation could not be enhanced in soil A contrary to soil B. It is
Figure 3.24 Risk profile of NA and ENA of coal tar creosote in the vadose zone: orange: slow NA;
blue: NA enhanced by aeration; green: NA enhanced by solubilization and aeration; red:
toxic residue inhibits NA.
Table 3.7 Summary of the most important measured data at the creosote-contaminated subsites at a
former railway repair facility in Hungary.
Subsite A A B B
Characteristics Before treatment After treatment Before treatment After treatment
Soil type, ingredients Dark clayey soil; humus: 1.3% Black muddy filling; humus: 3.6%
N: 0.1 mg/kg; P: 77 mg/kg N: 0.8 mg/kg; P: 109 mg/kg
TE (mg/kg) 20,000 165,000
EPH (mg/kg) 8000 7000 134,000 65,000
Creosote-degrading 4.6 × 105 4.7 × 105 4.6 × 105 4.7 × 107
cell (CFU per g soil)
Toxicity measured by Toxic Toxic Very toxic Slightly toxic
four soil organisms
also interesting that the gravimetrically extracted content (total extract = TE) compared to the
gas-chromatographically determined hydrocarbon content (EPH) shows large differences for
the two subsites: the 8000 mg/kg EPH derives from 20,000 mg/kg TE (40%) at site A, while
the 133,000 at the site B from 165,000 mg/kg (80%) (see Table 3.7).
The pollution at site A was likely the residue of long-term NA with selective biodeg-
radation and stabilization, while the pollution at site B was of a later origin, where NA had
just started. This theory was supported by the oil-degrading cell concentrations and the treat-
ability study, applying aeration.
By aeration, the degradation in soil A did not show significant increase, e.g. the pro-
duced CO2 or the creosote-degrading cell number had not increased significantly. While in
soil B the CO2 production showed a ten-fold increase, for the creosote-degrading cell con-
centration, it was 100-fold.
The average toxicity measured by two bacteria (Azotobacter agile and Pseudomonas
fluorescence), plant (Sinapis alba), and animal (Folsomia candida) test organisms also indi-
cated the very likely presence of a persistent and toxic residue in soil A, while the justi-
fied high toxicity of soil B decreased to a slightly toxic value after four weeks. Using an
extremely sensitive toxicity test (Aliivibrio fischeri luminescence), both soils showed toxic-
ity, and, due to bioavailability increase during aeration, the toxicity of soil A increased to 3x
and that of soil B to 1.5x of the original.
The anoxic method of contaminant degradation was also tested because the sites were
temporarily muddy due to excess water. Treatability was studied with and without bioaug-
mentation. Both the commercially available microaerophilic inoculant and the self-made
one (separately propagated mixture of indigenous bacteria) significantly accelerated the
initial degradation, but after 10–12 weeks, the difference was not so expressive between
inoculated and non-inoculated parallel microcosms. The final degradation rates of soil A was
77% (without inoculant), 81% (commercial inoculant), and 87% (self-made inoculant), so
the 8000 mg/kg creosote decreased in the best case to 1040 mg/kg and the degradation rate
of soil B was 48%, 56%, and 63%, respectively, so 133,000 mg/kg decreased in the best case
to 49,000 mg/kg within 10 weeks. The toxicity decreased significantly on both subsites, and
both soils became classifiable as non-toxic. Even the most sensitive bioluminescence test
was negative after 10 weeks of treatment.
The biodegradation of such high hydrocarbon concentrations in soil is often stated by
professionals to be impossible, but the present example of creosote and some other examples
from the author’s experience refute such a statement (Molnár et al., 2007).
The residual risk in this creosote case is attributed to the creosote fraction covalently
bound to the stable part of the humus, where they are no longer bioavailable for the hydro-
carbon-degrading biota. Under controlled circumstances, the natural immobilization of
PAHs may reduce the risks posed to subsurface waters or to plant uptake, but other exposure
routes such as dermal contact and direct soil ingestion still remain. A soil organic matter that
binds strongly or has incorporated toxic PAHs in the humus should be considered a potential
chemical time bomb because humus degradation may come to the point where PAHs became
available again. Nevertheless, natural stabilization during humus formation can be a good
solution for many low-toxicity PAHs and other large molecules or nanoparticles.
6.3.2 Natural attenuation of metals

Two examples are introduced where the authors actively assessed natural processes and
studied the risk profile and the natural attenuation-based engineered solutions:
– An abandoned zinc-lead mine in Gyöngyösoroszi with several non-isolated surface sources

of sulfidic mine wastes with acid rock drainage (ARD) and acidic mine drainage (AMD).
– The red mud flooded soil after the Ajka red mud disaster in 2010 resulting in high alka-
linity and Na ion concentration in agricultural soil.
6.3.2.1 The former zinc-lead mine

Natural attenuation of sources containing toxic metals focuses on physical transport and
dispersion, and chemical transformations, mainly dissolution and acidification. These trans-
port and fate processes result in growing contaminant fluxes at watershed level and lead to
unacceptably high contaminant concentrations in surface waters, in sediments and in soils in

a diffuse form. The extensive diffuse contamination elevated the background concentrations
in the long term.
The Toka Valley case is a typical example of toxic metals pollution of abandoned sul-
fide ore mine origin. In mines of this type, various contaminant sources can be found with
more or less uniform characteristics all over the world (Younger et al., 2002a, 2002b). These
sources and the related transport and fate processes are summarized later. Most of these risk
sources have been eliminated in the last 10 years, but prior to the complete rehabilitation of
the site, the following natural processes and risk sources have been identified.
Acid mine drainage (AMD): the origin of AMD is the mine, where sulfides are exposed
to air and water, thus the chemical and biological oxidation of metal sulfides generates sul-
furic acid and dissolved toxic metals. Underground mining often takes place below the water
table, so the acidic mine water must be constantly pumped out of the mine. When a mine
is abandoned, the pumping ceases, and water floods the mine. Depending on the hydro-
geology of the mine, acidity and metal content of the AMD will or will not be reduced by
this. The fate of AMD without engineered water treatment is dilution and proportional pH
increase, and metal precipitation and accumulation in the sediment. Intensive translocation
of sediments to soil by floods is typical for mining in hilly areas with heavy runoffs. The
displacement of the anoxic or anaerobic bottom sediment to the soil surface causes second-
ary acidification and metal mobilization.
Acid rock drainage (ARD): tailings piles and ponds, mine waste rock heaps or just the
pyrite-containing rocks close to the surface are also a major source of acid drainage and dis-
solved metals. At the Toka Valley study site, hundreds of waste rock heaps were abandoned
(some were more than 100 years old) without remediation, reclamation, or isolation. Natural
bioleaching occurs on the heaps. The surface of the oldest heaps is completely leached, and
in some cases spontaneous revegetation has started. Acidity and metal content of the leach-
ate is attenuated by infiltration into the surrounding forest soil or by flowing into the surface
water system where it is diluted. It results in increasingly extended diffuse pollution and
creates chemical time bombs by insidious accumulations.
Contaminated sediment: Sediment may derive from acid rock and other mine wastes,
having ab ovo high metal contents. Due to its fine texture, it has high metal sorption. Metal
precipitation from these sediments is pH dependent. Liming of acid leachate could lower the
risk posed to the water but may result in significant metal accumulation in sediments along
the surface water system. Contaminated sediment may pose a high risk via site-specific land
uses such as bathing in the creek and reservoirs, irrigation of agricultural land by sediment
slurry, or sediment translocation by floods.
Soil contaminated by sediment: due to floods and irrigation, soil contamination was
typical at the study site. Land users have not been aware of the hazards and risks of the sedi-
ment for decades. After floods, the sediment was transported by the creek to the soil surface,
and the formerly immobile metals started to be mobilized naturally, becoming available for
plant uptake in hobby gardens. Regular floods continuously increased the metal content of
the soil. Vegetable and fruits grown by the owners to substitute market purchases for the
family made the situation extremely risky.
Tailings pond: the residue of the flotation technology had extremely high toxic metal
concentrations. The tailings pond was covered improperly by a thin soil layer (15–20 cm)
without isolation. This erosion-prone soil cover was in direct contact with the tailings as
shown in Figure 3.25.
Figure 3.25 Improper soil cover on top of tailings.
The tailings were less permeable for water than the cover soil. Infiltrated precipitation
and aerobic conditions slowly mobilized the metals in the tailings and these metals were
immediately transported by the capillaries and plant roots into the vegetation (Dobler et al.,
2001; Sipter et al., 2002, 2005; Gruiz et al., 2006, 2009b).
The first warning was provided by metal concentrations accumulating in plants, both
in natural vegetation (Table 3.8) and in home-grown vegetables from the regularly flooded
hobby gardens: in the Toka Valley it was usual to have metal concentrations that were 50- to
100-fold of the quality criteria. The toxicity assessment of the flotation tailings from the tail-
ings pond and the cover soil explained plausibly the slow weathering even of the relatively
stable mine waste. The tailings itself was not toxic (containing stable, not bioavailable toxic
metals), but the cover layer and the mixture of the cover soil and the tailings were highly
toxic. The chemically measured metal contents were contradictory to the toxicity: total metal
content was extremely high in the tailings but relatively low in the cover soil (Table 3.8). The
water-soluble metal concentrations correlate better with the toxicities.
The vegetation grown in the improper soil cover showed high metal tolerance and accu-
mulation capacity: some plants had over 1100 mg/kg Zn and 20 mg/kg Cd concentration.
The natural mobilization of toxic metals at the interface of the tailings and the cover soil
without isolation significantly increased the risk.
The soils of the same flooded gardens are highly polluted, and a decreasing gradient can
be observed with increasing distance from the creek.
In summary, uncontrolled natural processes (i.e. leaching, acidification, runoff, and erosion)
lead to enormous pollution of large areas, and in this way the whole catchment area may become
endangered in a relatively short time. The source is practically infinite and the transport from
primary sources results in an increasing number of diffusely distributed secondary sources. The
early control of such sources may prevent expansion of the transport. The best approach was to
remove the sources of manageable volume and to isolate the non-removable ones and to mitigate
contaminant discharge and reduce the risk. Other solutions would be to control the risk some-
where along the transport pathway (runoff and leachate collection and treatment, erosion control)
and the less-efficient solutions would be to remediate the already existing diffuse pollution, which
Table 3.8 Metal contents of natural vegetation on the improperly covered flotation tailings pond in
1998 (courtesy of Brandl, H. & Bachofen, W., University of Zurich, unpublished data).
Species/Sample Location Metal content (mg per kg dry weight)
Uncontaminated site Cd Zn Cu
Achillea millefolium Dam, upper sediment 1.2 29 6

reservoir
Robimia pseudoacacia Károly tunnel 0.2 42 8
Silene vulgaris Bagolyirtás 0.4 27 4
Contaminated sites
Achillea millefolium Tailings pond 2.4 255 17
Agrostis sp. Tailings pond (Northwest) 6.3 410 32
Carex sp Tailings pond (Northwest) 3.0 355 55
Echium vulgare Tailings pond (Northwest) 5.0 608 45
Equisetum palustre Tailings pond 0.7 755 8
Phalaris canadiensis Tailings pond 0.5 145 4
Phragmites australis Tailings pond (Northwest) 0.7 768 41
Populus sp. Tailings pond (Northwest) 20 1160 13
Robinia pseudoacacia Tailings pond 0.9 160 13
Robinia pseudoacaci Tailings pond (top) 0.7 213 9
Silene alba Tailings pond (Northwest) 2.6 694 50
Silene vulgaris (cucubulus) Tailings pond (Northwest) 4.6 506 21
Solamum dulcamare Tailings pond (Northwest) 10.7 32 52
Tussilago farifara Tailings pond (Northwest) 8.8 569 39
Table 3.9 Toxicity and water-soluble (ws) metals content of the flotation tailings and the cover soil.
Test method Azotobacter agile Sinapis alba Vibrio fischeri pH Zn (mg/kg) Pb (mg/kg) Cu (mg/kg)
Sample dehydrogenase root and shoot luminescence total/ws total/ws total/ws
Black soil layer Very toxic Toxic Very toxic 4.7 603/42 186/1.9 72/0.5
Gray flotation Non-toxic Slightly toxic Non-toxic 7.0 31,850/3.4 4970/1.2 2450/0.6
tailings
makes no sense in cases where primary and secondary sources still exist. Without reducing the
exposure, the risk would constantly increase: the exposed area keeps growing and the pollution
may reach highly sensitive localities and receptor organisms, amongst other children, pregnant
women, or protected species as well as the food chains, posing a magnified risk relative to the
risk at the original mining area. The risk profile of such cases includes a constantly growing curve
both in time and space due to increasing concentrations and exposed areas (Figure 3.26). Another
reason of the increase is the superposition of the risks due to the food-chain effect, or new land
uses and receptors as well as other risky events and processes crossing the risk profile of metal
pollution of mining origin. The risk in the source area is not decreasing either due to acidification
and low-grade end products, but even if some decrease would be detectable in the source area, it
would be absolutely negligible compared to that of the target area.
Table 3.10 Metal content of plants from the regularly flooded hobby gardens (selected data from an
assessment campaign of the Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, by Záray, Gy. – unpublished
data, 1991).
Vegetable/Fruit Cd Pb Zn Cu
(mg/kg dw) (mg/kg dw) (mg/kg dw) (mg/kg dw)
Beetroot 21 217 35,300 2800

Carrot 142 470 32,000 3280
Garlic 104 148 14,700 1530
Green beans 12 168 12,900 2790
Green salad 35–220 200–560 4500–94,000 600–3800
Horse-radish 80–50 170–280 9700–52,000 900–2100
Kohlrabi 433 325 67,000 4270
Onion 100–200 150–850 33,000–38,000 250–9000
Parsnips 130 427 16,600 2040
Peach 6 75 3590 550
Plum 7 100 600–1850 1100–2100
Pumpkin 5 79 1410 231
Rhubarb 101 199 6700 854
Strawberry 80 130 2280 830
Tomato 10 88 1850 790
30 flooded 1–6 200–600 1000–2000 50–200
gardens 25 1500 3600 400
maximum
dw = dry vegetable mass
%
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
Food chain effect: seasonal superposion of a sensive predator
20 Superposed sensive human land use (spaal) or consumpon (seasonal)
Superposed sensive receptor (spaal or temporal)
10 Constantly growing background exposure
Background exposure
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 Time & space
Figure 3.26 Risk profile of the target area.

Natural isolation could also be observed in this abandoned area, for example on the sur-
face of the tailings pond where a new soil layer had formed from the dead organic matter of
the surrounding forest. This was a humic carpet on the surface of the low-lying tailings after
desiccation of the supernatant water on the top of the tailings pond. The strong organic “carpet”
completely and continuously isolated and physically stabilized the risky tailings prone to ero-
sion, separating it from the terrestrial ecosystem. Interestingly, the 15–20 cm thick layer could
be removed as a real carpet because the roots avoided the tailing material, so that the “carpet”
was not bound/crosslinked to the tailings material. Nevertheless, the risk via the food web (due
to capillary transport and plant uptake) is still high (Gruiz, 2005; Gruiz et al., 2009a).
6.3.2.2 Ajka, agricultural soils flooded by red mud

The dam of a red mud storage pond broke at the alumina production facility of MAL in
Ajka, Hungary, in October 2010: 800,000 m3 of red mud of high alkalinity (pH = 13) rushed
with high velocity, sweeping bridges and cars, and unfortunately led to human casualties – 10
people died and 60 were injured. A highly polluted residential area, seriously damaged sur-
face waters (a 10-km long section of the Torna Valley) and more than 1000 hectares flooded
agricultural land are the tragic consequences (Figure 3.27). Several studies were carried
Figure 3.27A The border of the red mud flood on agricultural land.
Figure 3.27B Flooded landscape from a higher point and a location covered by a 2–5 cm red mud layer.
out to estimate the short- and long-term damage and a detailed quantitative risk assessment
was made by Gruiz et al. (2012) for all possible human and environmental risks related to
soil uses.
The initially suspected hazards such as dusting and toxic metals concentrations did
not reach an unacceptably risky level. Neither was the mobilization of the natural Se and
As content of the soils (due to alkaline conditions) considered to be of a level requiring
intervention or restrictions. In summary, a comprehensive risk assessment showed that the
risks of the red mud to agricultural soil mainly derive from the presence of Na ions and
alkalinity, as well as from fine particles that clog the pores (Gruiz et al., 2012). The Na
content of the soils – even in soils set free from red mud – was significantly higher than the
reference. Removal of the solid phase red mud from the soil surface (after several weeks
of the accident) could not invert adverse effects due to alkaline infiltrate into soil pores,
which immediately impacted the soil after the red mud flood. Another problem was that
the 20 or 30 cm red mud layers could be removed by earthwork machinery, but the removal
of the 2–5 cm thin layers was hardly feasible. Heterogeneities related to an uneven surface
and distance from the source and the flow path. The density of the red mud suspension fur-
ther complicated the situation. Alkalinity has mostly leached from the thin red mud layer
and infiltrated into the soil in a few days, resulting in a risk from high sodium ion content.
The main risk of the desiccated red solid stems from its fine particulate consistency, which
caused the clogging of soil pores, sealing the soil from atmospheric air and causing the
soil biota to perish.
The yearly rate of attenuation of the Na concentration was calculated based on three
months of monitoring and proved to be 3.5 for the upper and 2.0 for the deeper soil layer
and only 0.8 for the red mud cover layer on the top of the soil. The half-life time estimate
for Na ions in the soil is 3 months. From this value, the risk of four scenarios was calculated
after 7 months:
1 Leaving red mud on the top of the soil.

2 Removing red mud completely.
3 Leaving a thin layer of residual red mud on the top and incorporating 5% of red mud
into the soil.
4 Leaving a thin layer of residual red mud on the top and incorporating 10% of red mud
into the soil.
The calculated risk characterization ratios (RCR) are shown in Table 3.11. To calculate
the RCR values, a pH-based risk scale – created specifically for the impacted agricultural
soil – and the risk of toxicity to soil-living organisms were considered, including pore occlu-
sion and limited soil aeration in the top layer.
The recommended remediation based on the risk assessment is to remove red mud if its
amount on the soil surface exceeds 10% and incorporate it into the upper 50 cm of soil if it
is less than 10%. This view is supported by the RCR values: red mud incorporation under
10% is acceptable, but close to 10%, depending on soil type, risk may occur, so increased
monitoring and specific measures may be necessary.
Environmental toxicity of field samples measured by soil-living organisms are shown in
Table 3.12. Plants selected for cultivation (e.g. maize or energy woods) are much less sensi-
tive for alkaline and high Na ion conditions, as found by the Sinapis alba (white mustard) test.
Table 3.11 Soil’s Na content, its predicted attenuation and the risk of sodification (Gruiz et al., 2012).
Scenario Na (mg/kg) RCR Verbal risk 7 months after removal

in 7 months in 7 months characterization
Red mud on top 3100 RCR Na =3.4 High Not acceptable,

of the soil remove
Complete 200 RCRNa=0.1 Negligible Unlimited use but
removal of RM technical difficulties
Incorporation of 420 RCRNa=0.2 Negligible Unlimited use, simple
5% RM or deep plowing
Incorporation of 800 RCRNa=0.8 Moderate Usable with conditional
10% RM restrictions, plowing
Incorporation of 1600 RCR Na =1.6 Significant Usable with specific
10% RM plants.
Assuming lowest Increased monitoring
attenuation and control
Legend: RM = red mud; normal letter: measured value, bold: estimated value
Table 3.12 Inhibitory effect of red mud on soil ecosystem members (Gruiz et al., 2012).
Test % red mud % red mud % red mud

in soil causing in soil causing in soil causing
10% inhibition 20% inhibition 50% inhibition
Soil microorganisms 30 35 40
Seed germination 13 18 25
Test plant shoot growth 5 8 18
Test plant root growth 6 8 15
Collembolan lethality 15 20 25
Field assessments indicated that there is a good chance for long-term attenuation of
Na ions due to their mobility and the high groundwater flow rate. As groundwater has not
been utilized in the Torna Valley and the surface waters’ flux is high enough to immediately
dilute alkaline- and Na-containing inputs, the media representing long-term risk are not the
groundwater, but soil and sediment.
6.3.2.3 Potential use of desiccated red mud for contaminated soil

The thorough study of the behavior of red mud in soil contributed to our previous
research into risk reduction of zinc-, cadmium-, and lead-polluted soils in the Gyöngyö-
soroszi mining area using various stabilizing additives (see Section 6.3.2.1). In addition
to metal-contaminated soils, other degraded soils such as sandy acid soils, unproductive
waste soils, and barren materials were investigated. Figure 3.28 shows the results of a
microcosm study on the soil of the mining site: a decrease in the water-soluble Cd and
Zn concentrations and the enhanced plant growth upon red mud addition of 2% and 5%.
Figure 3.28 The effect of red mud addition to a cadmium- and zinc-contaminated soil: water-soluble
metal contents and plant growth – microcosm experiment.
7 EVALUATION OF NA-BASED SOIL REMEDIATION –

ADVANTAGES AND SUSTAINABILITY
Natural attenuation and other natural processes play an increasing role in environmental
management. The following reasons should be considered in this respect:
1 The lack of unlimited financial resources and still available cheap building sites in many
countries give greenfield investments priority, so brownfield sites that require costly
remediation are avoided by developers and investors.
2 After the first large remediation wave, the most hazardous point sources have been reme-
diated. A significant number of technologies have been tested and demonstrated. Hun-
dreds of thousands of less hazardous, long-term abandoned contaminated sites remained
untreated, where nature and natural processes dominate the situation, without or with
monitoring or other engineering interventions. If such sites get into the horizon of spatial
planning, it often turns out that the sites have spontaneously recovered or only a mild
intervention is needed to reach an acceptable quality and utilizable state of the site.
3 Maintaining ecological value and ecosystem services of agricultural and natural land is
especially important, thus in these cases only soft interventions are recommended that
are in harmony but a minimum one, not in rough contrast to the natural environment and
its quality. This agrees with the requirement of many natural conservation and ecologi-
cal initiatives and legal requirements.
The requirements for eco-friendly and sustainable remediation have established an

endless list of applicable technologies. However, owners, decision makers and managers
do not trust these soft remedial methods because, based on their experience, they are only
impressed by technologies that implement heavy machinery and spectacular gadgets and
handle large quantities of materials. A longer period of time is needed to learn and appreciate
“invisible” engineering that relies on knowledge-based soft interventions at the right time
and the right place.
From the MNA of contaminated sites, there is an endless variability in potential engi-
neering solutions through keeping agricultural soils in a healthy state until generic manage-
ment of our entire environment, including ecosystem, is instated. This kind of fine-tuned
environmental management requires continuous information about the environment, the

monitoring of selected “health” indicators reflecting health or deterioration as well as tech-
nological tools suited to the level of the problem. Environmental management today concen-
trates largely on endangered environments and on those where the economic interest triggers
it. Very rough visual or physicochemical indicators are used, such as pollutant concentra-
tions in residential, industrial, and contaminated sites or the density or extinction of species
at natural conservation sites. The early indication of unhealthy changes in the diversity has
yet to be solved (except for some special cases), and even if the metagenome were moni-
tored, the interpretation of the measured data would not be applicable to decision making
and intervention.
7.1 Advantages and disadvantages of natural

attenuation-based remediation
After decades of application, advantages and disadvantages of MNA and engineered NA, and
other soft/ecoengineering technologies based on natural processes will be summarized here.
Advantages
Environmental and ecological advantages

– The full life cycle of the contaminant is isolated (enclosed inside the soil) and its com-
ponents (apart from volatilization) return to the soil element cycle.
– The contaminant may be neutralized without harmful end products.
– The soil life is disturbed only to a minimum extent.
– The soil ecosystem and its function are preserved.
– It results in a relatively low environmental footprint.
Technological advantages
– Having information on the fate and behavior as well as the full life cycle of a contami-
nant, the suitable NA can then be designed and modeled.
– Observing/measuring only adverse effects, an effect-based management system should
be applied.
– The technology can be implemented easily and inexpensively.
– The monitoring of the engineering interventions gives the possibility for control and
corrective actions to operate at or close to optimum.
– The monitored process can be evaluated and verified continuously.
Economic advantages
– NA and MNA are low-cost technologies compared to conventional highly engineered
solutions (excavation, soil washing, thermal methods) and the costs of MNA are generally
much lower.
– Spontaneous physicochemical processes do not need engineering manipulation, or sim-
ple isolation may bring the result.
– Natural biochemical/biological processes use the contaminant as a substrate for trans-
formation or degradation. Manipulation of the redox conditions may be necessary.
– MNA is applicable both under aerobic and anoxic/anaerobic environments.

– The operating environment is biological, so high temperature, pressure, and concentra-
tions can be avoided.
– Low environmental and economic risk.
– NA can be applied in combination with other technologies such as source removal,
treatment, and enhancement under biological conditions.
Disadvantages
– Long-term process, and the site cannot always be utilized during the NA.
– Long-term monitoring activity may be necessary: it needs generally a longer time com-
pared to conventional highly engineered technologies.
– High uncertainties in the predictions regarding:
◦ Transport and fate of contaminants;

◦ Changes in site conditions;
◦ Interactions with the soil matrix;
◦ Dispersion of the pollution;
◦ Future land uses;
◦ Attenuation rate and duration until achieving remedial goals.
However, these uncertainties can be lowered by continuous monitoring and validation
of the prognosticated values.
– Residual contamination and residual risk associated with MNA is likely (similar to other
in situ remediations).
– Migratory contaminants may reach larger areas, increasing background concentrations.
– On their transport path, contaminants may reach more sensitive land and may interact
with other contaminants, increasing the risk without a greater mass or concentration.
– Our understanding on soil microbiota functioning and natural processes in the soil, in
spite of significant development, is still poor, so the design and evaluation of NA pro-
cesses (similar to all other processes in the environment) includes uncertainties.
– Acceptance of NA, MNA, and other in situ technologies as well as the necessary com-
munication needs to be increased.
7.2 NA and MNA sustainability

Measuring sustainability of soil remediation has developed a lot in the last 15 years, and the
principles have been clarified to date, but the methodology is still under permanent change.
There are good approaches, guidelines, and international standards (ASTM E2876–13,
2013; ISO, 18504, 2017) available, but a ready-made, uniform sustainability assessment
method has not yet been developed. The actual sustainability assessment method should be
compiled as part of the contaminated land management, considering the aim and scope and
the site-specific conditions. Therefore, the published sustainability assessments show a large
variety and several subjective or technology- and site-related features.
The essence of sustainability is that the risk-benefit balance should cover all possible
ecological/environmental, human health, and social impacts in the widest sense, including
all ecosystem services (provisioning, regulating habitat, and cultural services, see Gruiz,
2014). The actual quantitative parameter of the negative and positive impacts and the costs
should be compared to each other as far as possible. The short-term balance can differ from
the long-term one. Many of the components of sustainability include uncertainties and sub-
jective judgments, so information should be gathered from the widest circle of stakeholders
and the community.
Technological aspects of natural attenuation, “sustainability” of the natural process
itself, meaning whether the natural remedial process indeed takes place and will be com-
pleted in the long run, and time requirement of the complete process play a major role. The
sustainability of natural attenuation and enhanced NA are mainly driven by these technologi-
cal (ongoing processes and time requirement) and economic (necessary costs and compara-
tive economic benefit) aspects. The holistic sustainability approach has not been specialized
for NA/MNA, but the same methodology has been used that was recommended for all other
remediation technologies (see also Chapter 11).
More and more definitions and quantitative metrics are coming up within the compre-
hensive holistic-system approach that can characterize social, environmental, and economic
aspects of sustainable soil remediation (see Chapter 11). An innovative solution has been
developed by US EPA-ORD called “triple value” (3V) framework that helps capture the
dynamic interactions among industrial, societal, and ecological systems (Fiksel et al., 2012).
There is an effective choice of indicators, which are classified into four major categories that
are applicable as follows:
– Adverse Outcome – indicates destruction of value due to impacts upon individuals,

communities, business enterprises or the natural environment.
– Resource Flow – indicates pressures associated with the rate of consumption of resources,
including materials, energy, water, land, or biota.
– System Condition – indicates the state of the systems in question, i.e. individuals, com-
munities, business enterprises, or the natural environment.
– Value Creation – indicates creation of value (both economic and well-being) through
enrichment of individuals, communities, business enterprises, or the natural environment.
Natural environment and costs are in the focus when MNA sustainability is evaluated.
The innovative Battelle EcoVal™ “Environmental Quality Evaluation System” tool may fit
well to MNA sustainability assessments. EcoVal™ addresses the need for an integrative tool
for the evaluation of human impacts on ecosystems and their services. The weighted envi-
ronmental quality parameters are these:
– Ecosystem integrity;
– Intrinsic value;
– Ecosystem services value.
The intrinsic value is expressed as maintenance of rare and endangered species. Eco-
system service value is a monetized value. The aforementioned three ecosystem quality
parameters are further divided into components (e.g. various ecosystem services such as
groundwater uses and agricultural production) and the relevant measurable parameters
(drinking water quality criteria, soil quality criteria, etc.) are evaluated.
Generic sustainability assessment justifies that the remediation protects human health
and the environment while maximizing environmental, social, and economic benefits throughout
the entire life cycle. In addition, there are some natural attenuation-specific aspects and
indicators that can prove that the core natural processes facilitate reaching the remediation
objectives of the site.
There are some generic key issues that could be responsible for NA and MNA sustain-
ability. The following conditions should be thoroughly assessed and based on the acquired
data model calculations carried out to decide whether or not the attenuating process will go
on until complete decontamination. This can be considered as a basic criterion for the tech-
nological sustainability of MNA that determines the time requirement and the residual risk,
two important components in MNA sustainability.
– The presence of the physicochemical or biological process that can be responsible for
the attenuation and the presence of a satisfactory amount of driving force to maintain
the urgent process for the required length of time.
– Physicochemical condition in the soils: water fluxes, recharges, contaminant fluxes, and
transport pathways such as dissolution, partitioning, and abiotic degradation cycles and
rates.
– Biological conditions, diversity of the biota, cycles, and biochemical pathways of trans-
formation or degradation processes.
– Quantitative mass balance, energy balance, mass fluxes including degradations.
– Modeling mass balance and estimating the time required for contaminants to dissolve/
disperse/degrade/biodegrade in the subsurface (duration of remediation).
– Short-term and long-term sustainability.
Biodegradation-based natural attenuation is sustainable from the technological point

of view when the energy balance and the electron acceptor mass balance do not indicate a
shortage in the energy source or in the available electron acceptors (Chapelle et al., 2007).
Specifically, the energy needs of the biochemical reaction for complete biodegradation (to
harmless by-products) should be calculated and then compared to the available energy (used
by microorganisms from organic substances). In addition to the energy balance, the density
of the degrading microbiota (the catalyst) and the environmental conditions (primarily the
redox potential and the responsible electron acceptors), are also basic requirements to be
fulfilled. If energy and electron acceptors are available, and there is no other bottleneck,
natural attenuation will go on until complete degradation and the process of biodegradation
is sustainable. The progress and the completion of the natural process should be proven by
monitoring. If monitoring data do not justify the predicted progress, enhancement or other
interventions are needed based on thorough diagnosis. If the natural attenuation slows down,
the cost of the monitoring will increase, and it may cause other remedial options to be more
suitable. If the rate of the biodegradation-based NA decreases due to a shortage in the energy
source, nutrients, or electron acceptors, then these should be supplied for the degrading
microbiota and the expected duration recalculated.
The sustainability of the NA process (whether and when it is completed) and of the whole
remediation based on NA (positive balance of the aggregated environmental, social, and eco-
nomic risks and benefits) is often blurred. Although it could be differentiated properly if we
consider NA-based remediation similar to any other remedial technology, considering NA as
a controlled engineering activity and the affected soil/groundwater as a reactor that accom-
modates the technology. The engineer’s task is to achieve optimal operation and process com-
pletion in time by a self-sustainable natural process such as biodegradation or bioleaching.
On the other hand, NA-based technologies pose various impacts on the natural and social
environment that should be assessed similar to any other remediation (see also Chapter 11).
Maintaining a technology in a natural environment is beneficial because the processes
are mainly performed by nature and the emission is partly excluded (mobilization, dissolu-
tion, and volatilization still exist). It is true however that the uncertainties are much higher
compared to an isolated and completely controlled (engineering) technology. Implementing
MNA in homogenous isotropic soils results in limited uncertainty with regard to perfor-
mance. When dealing with heterogeneous anisotropic conditions, however, the uncertainty
can be significant and may result in stakeholders being reluctant to accept MNA.
The risk from volatile emission and vapor migration of free or residual toxic substances
is a critical issue, an example is chlorinated hydrocarbon plumes. The risk of chlorinated
volatiles escaping from the soil may be extremely high, e.g. when residential homes, schools,
or other public buildings may be affected. The chemical species, its mass loading and physi-
cal form (free, dissolved, or sorbed) in the soil as well as soil structure and type between the
plume and the surface, are crucial in vapor intrusion.
Other risks and uncertainties are connected to water-soluble contaminants, high and
low density non-aqueous phase liquids, the smeared zone (which is a potential long-term
secondary source), and the degradation rate and its dependency on environmental condi-
tions. Constant mass loading, long-term secondary sources and unstable biodegradation may
necessitate monitoring over an extended period. Efficient MNA can be achieved only after
the source mass loading has ceased.
In summary, even in cases when the occurrence of NA can be proven and the techni-
cal aspects clarified, extensive documentation on the evidence is required. Monitoring data
should demonstrate the progress of the natural attenuation processes and validate the model
setup and the time requirement estimated at the beginning (Lebrón et al., 2013).
REFERENCES
Adamson, D.T. & Newell, C.J. (2014) Frequently Asked Questions About Monitored Natural Attenua-
tion in Groundwater. ESTCP Project ER-201211. Environmental Security and Technology Certifi-
cation Program, Arlington, VA, USA.
AFC (1999) Natural Attenuation of Chlorinated Solvents: Performance and Cost Results From Mul-
tiple Air Force Demonstration Sites. Technology Demonstration Technical Summary Report OMB
No. 0704-0188. Parsons Engineering Science Inc. for Air Force Center for Environmental Excel-
lence Technology Transfer Division. 101 pp. Available from: www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/
a425022.pdf. [Accessed 22nd May 2018].
Ahn, Y.-B., Liu, F., Fennell, D.E. & Häggblom, M.M. (2008) Biostimulation and bioaugmentation to
enhance dechlorination of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins in contaminated sediments. FEMS
Microbiology Ecology, 66(2), 271–281.
Al-Masri, M.S., Falck, E.W., Read, D. & Konoplev, A. (2015) Applicability of Monitored Natural
Attenuation at Radioactively Contaminated Sites. IAEA, Technical Report Series, No. 445. Avail-
able from: www.researchgate.net/publication/284859160_Applicability_of_monitored_natural_
attenuation_at_radioactively_contaminated_sites. [Accessed 22nd May 2018].
Alvarez, P.J.J. & Illman, W.A. (2005) Bioremediation and Natural Attenuation: Process Funda-
mentals and Mathematical Models. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Published Online December 2005.
doi:10.1002/047173862X.
Anton, A.D., Klebercz, O., Magyar, A., Burke, I.T., Jarvis, A.P., Gruiz, K. & Mayer, W.M. (2014)
Geochemical recovery of the Torna-Marcal river system after the Ajka red mud spill, Hungary.
Environmental Science: Processes and Impacts, 16(12), 2677–2685. doi:10.1039/c4em00452c.
ASTM (1998) Standard Guide for Remediation of Ground Water by Natural Attenuation at Petroleum
Release Sites. E 1943–98, American Society for Testing Materials, ASTM International, West Con-
shohocken. Available from: www.astm.org/Standards/E1943.htm. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
ASTM E2876–13 (2013) Standard Guide for Integrating Sustainable Objectives into Cleanup. Avail-
able from: www.astm.org/Standards/E2876.htm. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
Aziz, C.E., Newell, C.J., Gonzales, J.R., Haas, P., Clement, T.P. & Sun, Y. (1999) BIOCHLOR Natural
Attenuation Decision Support System – User’s Manual. Air Force Center for Environmental Excel-
lence, Brooks AFB, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Aziz, J.J., Ling, M., Rifai, H.S., Newell, C.J. & Gonzales, J.R. (2003) MAROS: A decision support sys-
tem for optimizing monitoring plans. Ground Water, 41(3), 355–367. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6584.2003.
tb02605.x.
Aziz, J.J., Newell, C.J., Rifai, H.S., Ling, M. & Gonzales, J.R. (2000) Monitoring and Remediation
Optimization System (MAROS): Software User’s Guide. Available from: www.environmentalres-
toration.wiki/images/8/8d/Aziz-2000-Monitoring_and_Remed._Opt._Syst._Guide.pdf. [Accessed
7th July 2018].
Bayer-Raich, M., Jarsjö, J., Liedl, R., Ptak, T. & Teutsch, G. (2004) Average contaminant concentra-
tion and mass flow in aquifers from temporal pumping well data: Analytical framework. Water
Resources Research, 40(8), W08303. doi:10.1029/2004WR003095.
Bayer-Raich, M., Jarsjö, J., Liedl, R., Ptak, T. & Teutsch, G. (2006) Integral pumping test analyses of
linearly sorbed groundwater contaminants using multiple wells: Inferring mass flows and natural
attenuation rates. Water Resources Research, 42, W08411. doi:10.1029/2005WR004244.
Beck, P. (2010) Use of monitored natural attenuation in management of risk form petroleum hydrocar-
bons to human and environmental receptors. 19th World Congress of Soil Science, Soil Solutions for
a Changing World, 1–6 August 2010, Brisbane, Australia. Published on DVD.
Bedard, D.L. & Quensen III, J.F. (1995) Microbial reductive dechlorination of polychlorinated biphe-
nyls. In: Young, L.Y. & Cerniglia, C.E. (eds.) Microbial Transformation and Degradation of Toxic
Organic Chemicals. Wiley-Liss Inc., New York, NY, USA. pp. 127–216.
Berghoff, A., Berning, A., Wortmann, C., Möller, A. & Mahro, B. (2014) Comparative assessment of
laboratory and field based methods to monitor natural attenuation processes in the contaminated
groundwater of a former coking plant site. Environmental Engineering & Management Journal,
13(3), 583–596.
Bernardes, F., Silva, D., Pérez, A.B. & Muñoz, J. (2007) Natural Attenuation of Soils Contaminated
With Heavy Metals. Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Available from: pendientedemigracion.
ucm.es/info/ . ./Informe_Felipe%20Duarte.pdf. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
Billings, M.L. (2014) Microcosm Study of Natural Attenuation, Biostimulation, and Bioaugmentation
of Soils Contaminated With PCBs, Dioxins, PAHs, and Petroleum Hydrocarbons. Thesis, California
Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, USA. doi:10.15368/theses.2014.171. Available
from: http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/theses/1319. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
BIOCHLOR (2002) Natural Attenuation Decision Support System for Chlorinated Solvent Release
Sites, ver 2.2. US EPA. Available from: www.epa.gov/water-research/biochlor-natural-attenuation-
decision-support-system. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
BIOPLUME (1997) BIOPLUME III: A Two-Dimensional Contaminant Transport Model for NA. US
EPA. Available from: www.epa.gov/water-research/bioplume-iii. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
BIOSCREEN (1997) Natural Attenuation Decision Support System, ver 1.4. US EPA. Available from:
www.epa.gov/water-research/bioscreen-natural-attenuation-decision-support-system. [Accessed
7th July 2018].
Blum, P., Hunkeler, D., Weede, M., Beyer, C., Grathwohl, P. & Morasch, B. (2007) Quantification of
biodegradation for various organic compounds using first-order, Michaelis-Menten kinetics and
stable carbon isotopes. Geophysical Research, 9, 07285.
Bockelmann, A., Ptak, T., Liedl, R. & Teutsch, G. (2001b) Mass flux, transport and natural attenua-
tion of organic contaminants at a former urban gasworks site. In: Prospects and Limits of Natural
Attenuation at Tar Oil Contaminated Sites. Dechema e.V. Texte, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
pp. 325–336. ISBN: 3-89746-029-7.
Bockelmann, A., Ptak, T., Liedl, R. & Teutsch, G. (2001c) Transport and natural attenuation of selected
organic contaminants at a former urban gasworks site. International Workshop ‘Prospects and Lim-
its of Natural Attenuation at Tar Oil Contaminated Sites’, Dechema e.V., March 22–23, 2001, TU
Dresden. INCORE Publication P7. Available from: www.eugris.info/displayresource.aspx?r=66.
[Accessed 7th July 2018].
Bockelmann, A., Ptak, T. & Teutsch, G. (2001a) An analytical quantification of mass fluxes and natural
attenuation rate constants at a former gasworks site. Journal Contaminant Hydrology, 53(3–4),
429–453.
Bockelmann, A., Zamfirescu, D., Ptak, T., Grathwohl, P. & Teutsch, G. (2003) Quantification of mass
fluxes and natural attenuation rates at an industrial site with a limited monitoring network: A case
study. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 60(1–2), 97–121.
Bradley, P.M. (2012) Microbial Mineralization of Cis-Dichloroethene and Vinyl Chloride as a Compo-
nent of Natural Attenuation of Chloroethene Contaminants Under Conditions Identified in the Field
as Anoxic. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5032. p. 30. Available
from: https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/5032/ [Accessed 7th July 2018].
Bradley, P.M. & Chapelle, F.H. (2004) Chloroethene biodegradation potential. ADOT/PF Peger Road
Maintenance Facility, Fairbanks, AK. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2004–1428.
Bradley, P.M., Chapelle, F.H., Landmeyer, J.E. & Schumacher, J.G. (1997) Potential for intrinsic bio-
remediation of a DNT-contaminated aquifer. Ground Water, 35(1), 12–17.
Bradley, P.M., Dinicola, R.S. & Landmeyer, J.E. (2000) Natural attenuation of 1,2-diochloroethane by
aquifer microorganisms under Mn(IV)-reducing conditions. In: Wickramanayake, G.B., Gavaskar,
A.R. & Kelley, M.E. (eds.) Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds: Natural
Attenuation Considerations and Case Studies. Battelle Press, Columbus, OH, USA. pp. 169–174.
Bradley, P.M., Richmond, S. & Chapelle, F.H. (2005) Chloroethene Biodegradation in Sediments at 4°C.
Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 71(10), 6414–6417. doi:10.1128/AEM.71.10.6414-6417.
Bradley, P.M., Singletary, M.A. & Chapelle, F.H. (2007) Chloroethene dechlorination in acidic ground-
water – Implications for combining Fenton’s treatment with natural attenuation. Remediation Jour-
nal, 18(1), 7–19. doi:10.1002/rem.20149.
Brown, J.G., Brew, R. & Harvey, J.W. (1997) Research on acidic metal contaminants in Pinal Creek
Basin Near Globe, Arizona. FS-005-97. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA, USA.
Brown, J.G. & Harvey, J.W. (1996) Hydrologic and geochemical factors affecting metal contaminant
transport in Pinal Creek basin near Globe, Arizona. In: Morganwalp, D.W. & Aronson, D.A. (eds.)
U.S. Geological Survey Toxic Substances Hydrology Program: Proceedings of the Technical Meet-
ing, 20–24 September 1993, Colorado Springs, CO, USA. Geological Survey Water-Resources
Investigations Report 94–4015. Vol. 2. USGS, Tallahassee, FL, USA. pp. 1035–1042. DOI: doi.
org/10.3133/wri944015
CAH degradation (2015) Biologically Mediated Abiotic Degradation of Chlorinated Ethenes: A New
Conceptual Framework. SERDP, ER-2532. Available from: www.serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/
Environmental-Restoration/Contaminated-Groundwater/Persistent-Contamination/ER-2532.
CAH diffusion (2015) A Field Method to Quantify Chlorinated Solvent Diffusion, Sorption, Abiotic
and Biotic Degradation in Low Permeability Zones. SERDP, ER-2533. Available from: www.
serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Environmental-Restoration/Contaminated-Groundwater/Persistent-
Contamination/ER-2533. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
CAPP (2002) Assessment of Monitored Natural Attenuation at Upstream Oil & Gas Facilities in
Alberta: Final Report. Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. Available from: www.ptac.
org/attachments/762/download. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
Carey, M.A., Finnamore, J.R., Morrey, M.J. & Marsland, P.A. (2000) Guidance on the assessment
and monitoring of natural attenuation of contaminants in groundwater. Environment Agency, R&D
Publication 95.
Chapelle, F.H. (2004) A mass balance approach to monitored natural attenuation. Proceedings of the
Fourth International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds,
24–28 May 2004, Monterey, CA. Battelle Press, Columbus, OH, USA. (Contact The Conference
Group Inc. for information on the availability of the proceedings).
Chapelle, F.H. & Bradley, P.M. (1998) Selecting remediation goals by assessing the natural attenuation
capacity of groundwater systems. Bioremediation Journal, 2(3–4), 227–238.
Chapelle, F.H. & Bradley, P.M. (1999) Selecting remediation goals by assessing the natural attenuation
capacity of groundwater systems. In: Morganwalp, D.W. & Buxton, H.T. (eds.) U.S. Geological Sur-
vey Toxic Substances Hydrology Program: Proceedings of the Technical Meeting, 8–12 March 1999,
Charleston, SC. Volume 3 of 3: Subsurface Contamination from Point Sources: U.S. Geological
Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 99–4018C. USGS, Tallahassee, FL,USA. pp. 7–19.
Chapelle, F.H., Bradley, P.M., Lovley, D.R., O’Neill, K. & Landmeyer, J.E. (2002a) Rapid evolution
of redox processes in petroleum hydrocarbon-contaminated aquifer. Ground Water, 40, 353–360.
Chapelle, F.H., Landmeyer, J.E. & Bradley, P.M. (2002b) Identifying the distribution of terminal elec-
tron-accepting processes (TEAPS) in ground-water systems. Workshop on Monitoring Oxidation-
Reduction Processes for Groundwater Restoration. Workshop Summary, 25–27 April 2000, Dallas,
TX, USA. EPA/600/R-02/002.
Chapelle, F.H., Novak, J., Parker, J., Campbell, B.G. & Widdowson, M.A. (2007) A Framework for
Assessing the Sustainability of Monitored Natural Attenuation. U.S. Department of the Interior
and U.S. Geological Survey. Available from: https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1303/pdf/circ1303.pdf.
Chapelle, F.H., Widdowson, M.A., Brauner, J.S., Mendez III, E. & Casey, C.C. (2003) Methodol-
ogy for Estimating Times of Remediation Associated With Monitored Natural Attenuation. USGS
Water-Resources Investigations, Report 03–4057, Columbia, SC, USA. Available from: https://
pubs.usgs.gov/wri/wri034057/pdf/wrir03-4057.pdf. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
Chernobyl, Ukraine (2018) Chernobyl. Available from: www.natural-analogues.com/nawg-library/na
. . . /195-chernobyl/file. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
CIR (2000a) Natural Attenuation for Groundwater Remediation. Chapter 3: Scientific Basis for Natu-
ral Attenuation. Committee of Intrinsic remediation. National Academy Press, Washington, DC,
USA. Available from: www.nap.edu/read/9792/chapter/5#66. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
CIR (2000b) Natural Attenuation for Groundwater Remediation. Committee on Intrinsic Remedia-
tion, Water Science and Technology Board, Board on Radioactive Waste Management, National
Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA. Available from: www.nap.edu/
catalog/9792.html. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
Clement, T.P., Truex, M.J. & Lee, P. (2002) A case study for demonstrating the application of U.S.
EPA’s moniored natural attenuation screening protocol at a hazardous waste site. Journal of Con-
taminant Hydrology, 59, 133–162. Available from: www.eng.auburn.edu/~clemept/publsihed_pdf/
npcpaper.pdf. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
Clue-in (2018a) Contaminated Site Clean-Up Information. Available from: https://clu-in.org/tech
focus/default.focus/sec/Natural%5FAttenuation/cat/Overview. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
Clue-in (2018b) Natural Attenuation. Available from: https://clu-in.org/techfocus/default.focus/sec/
Natural_Attenuation/cat/Overview. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
Columbus, I., Waysbort, D., Marcovitch, I., Yehezkel, L. & Mizrahi, D.M. (2012) VX Fate on Common
Matrices: Evaporation versus Degradation. Environmental Science & Technology, 46, 3921–3927.
Corseuil, H.X., Fernandes, M. do Rosário, M. & Seabra, P.N. (2000) Results of a natural attenuation
field experiment for an ethanol-blended gasoline spill. Proceedings of the 2000 Petroleum Hydro-
carbons and Organic Chemicals in Ground Water: Prevention, Detection, and Remediation, 14–17
November 2000, Anaheim, CA, USA. pp. 24–31.
CRC CARE (2013) Defining the philosophy, context and principles of the national framework for
remediation and management of contaminated sites in Australia. Cooperative Research Centre for
Contamination Assessment and Remediation of the Environment, Technical Report Series, 27.
CRC CARE (2018) Natural Attenuation: A Scoping Review. CRC CARE Technical Report 03. Avail-
able from: www.crccare.com/4CABA9D0-F973-11E2-B4EA005056B60026 AUSTRALIA.
Criddle, C., Elliott, C., McCarty, P.L. & Barker, J.F. (1986) Reduction of Hexachloroethane to Tetra-
chloroethylene in Groundwater. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 1(1–2), 133–142.
Cross, K.M. (2002) Natural Attenuation at Upstream Oil and Gas Sites in Western Canada. MSc The-
sis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta.
CSIA (2015) Extending the Applicability of Compound-Specific Isotope Analysis to Low Con-
centrations of 1,4-Dioxane. ER-2535. Available from: www.serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/
Environmental-Restoration/Contaminated-Groundwater/Emerging-Issues/ER-2535/(language)/
eng-US.
Davydov, Y., Voronik, N., Shatilo, N. & Davydov, D. (2002) Radionuclide speciation in soils contami-
nated by the Chernobyl accident. Radiochemistry, 44(3), 307–310.
DECHEMA (2018) The Expert Network for Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology in Germany.
Available from: http://dechema.de/ [Accessed 7th July 2018].
Declercq, I. (2011) The use of monitored natural attenuation (MNA) in the SNOWMAN partner coun-
tries. SNOWMAN MNA Conference, November 7th 2011, Paris, France.
DEP (2004) Use of Monitored Natural Attenuation for Groundwater Remediation, Land and Water
Quality. Branch, Environmental Regulation Division, Department of Environmental Protection,
Perth, Australia. Available from: www.scribd.com/document/88228675/Use-of-Monitored-Natural-
Attenuation-for-Groundwater-Remediation-WA. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
DEP (2018) Australian Department of Environmental Protection. Available from: www.environment.
gov.au/ [Accessed 7th July 2018].
Dobler, R., Burri, P., Gruiz, K., Brandl, H. & Bachofen, R. (2001) Variability in microbial population in
soil highly polluted with heavy metals on the basis of substrate utilization pattern analysis. Journal
of Soils and Sediments, 1(3), 151–158.
Dolan, M.E. & McCarty, P.L. (1995) Small column microcosm for assessing methane-stimulated
vinyl-chloride transformation in aquifer samples. Environmental Science and Technology, 29(8),
1892–1897.
Durrant, G.C., Schirmer, M., Einarson, M.D., Wilson, R.D. & Mackay, D.M. (1999) Assessment of the
dissolution of gasoline containing MTBE at LUST Site 60, Vandenberg Air Force Base, Califor-
nia. Proceedings of the 1999 Conference on Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Organic Chemicals in
Ground Water: Prevention, Detection, and Remediation, 17–19 November, Houston, TX. National
Ground Water Association, Westerville, OH, USA.
Early, T.O. (ed) (2007) Enhancements to Natural Attenuation: Selected Case Studies. SRNL for the
U.S. Department of Energy. Available from: https://energy.gov/lm/downloads/enhancements-natural-
attenuation-selected-case-studies. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
Epp, T., Armstrong, J. & Biggar, K. (2002) MNA Guideline Development in Alberta. Available from:
www.esaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/02-Epp.pdf. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
ESTPC (2010) Monitored Natural Attenuation of Perchlorate in Groundwater: Cost and Performance
Report. Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTPC), U.S. Department of
Defense, Project ER-200428. Available from: https://clu-in.org/download/contaminantfocus/
perchlorate/Perchlorate-ER-200428-C&P.pdf. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
EU Life project (2006) Demonstration of the Use of Monitored Natural Attenuation as a Reme-
diation Technology. DEMO MNA. Project Report of LIFE03 ENV/FIN/000250. Available
from: www.environment.fi/syke/demo-mna and http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/
Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=2561#PD. [Accessed 7th July
2018].
Fava, F., Bertin, L., Fedi, S. & Zannoni, D. (2003) Methyl-β-cyclodextrin enhanced solubilization and
aerobic biodegradation of polychlorinated biphenyls in two aged-contaminated soils. Biotechnol-
ogy and Bioengineeering, 81, 384–390. doi:10.1002/bit.10579.
Fava, F., Di Gioia, D., Marchetti, L., Fenyvesi, E. & Szejtli, J. (2002) Randomly methylated
β-cyclodextrins (RAMEB) enhance the aerobic biodegradation of polychlorinated biphenyls in
aged-contaminated soils. Journal of Inclusion Phenomenon and Molecular Recognition Chemistry,
44, 417–421. doi:10.1023/A:1023019903194.
Feigl, V., Anton, A. & Gruiz, K. (2009) Combined chemical and phytostabilisation: Field application.
Land Contamination and Reclamation, 17(3–4), 577–584.
Feigl, V., Atkári, Á., Anton, A. & Gruiz, K. (2007) Chemical stabilisation combined with phytostabili-
sation applied to mine waste contaminated soils in Hungary. Advanced Materials Research, 20–21,
315–318.
Feigl, V., Gruiz, K. & Anton, A. (2010) Remediation of metal ore mine waste using combined chem-
ical- and phytostabilisation. Periodica Polytechnica, 54(2), 71–80. doi:10.3311/pp.ch.2010-
2.03.
Fenyvesi, É., Gruiz, K., Verstichel, S., De Vilde, B., Leitgib, L., Csabai, K. & Szaniszló, N. (2005)
Biodegradation of cyclodextrins in soil. Chemosphere, 60, 1001–1008.
Fenyvesi, É., Hajdu, C. & Gruiz, K. (2016) Potential of cyclodextrins in risk assessment and monitor-
ing of organic contaminants. In: Gruiz, K., Meggyes, T. & Fenyvesi, É. (eds.) Engineering Tools
for Environmental Risk Management III. Site Assessment and Monitoring Tools. CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL, USA, London, UK, New York, NY, USA & Leiden, The Netherlands. pp. 403–424.
Ferrey, M., Estuesta, P., Wilson, J. & Kampbell, D.H. (2000) Evaluation of the Protocol for the Natural
Attenuation of Chlorinated Solvents: Case Study at the Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant, Site
A. Report No: EPA 600-R-01-025. 49 pp. Available from: www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/
na-casestudy-tcaap.pdf. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
Fiksel, J., Eason, T. & Frederickson, H. (2012) Framework for Sustainability Indicators at EPA. US
EPA, Office of Research and Development. Available from: https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_
record_report.cfm?dirEntryId=254270. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
Ford, R.G., Miller, G., Fimmen, R. & Strauss, P. (2009) Monitored natural attenuation case study
evaluations. Presented at Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council Meeting, Cincinnati, OH,
USA. Available from: https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryId=209509.
Ford, R.G., Wilkin, R.T. & Puls, R.W. (2007) Monitored natural attenuation of inorganic contaminants
in ground water. Volume 2: Assessment for non-radionuclides including Arsenic, Cadmium, Chro-
mium, Copper, Lead, Nickel, Nitrate, Perchlorate, and Selenium. US EPA.
Franzmann, P.D., Robertson, W., Zappia, L. & Davis, G.B. (2002) The role of microbial popula-
tions in the containment of aromatic hydrocarbons in the subsurface. Biodegradation, 13, 65–78.
doi:10.1023/A:1016318706753.
Franzmann, P.D., Zappia, L.R., Power, T.R., Davis, G.B. & Patterson, B.M.N. (1999) Microbial miner-
alisation of benzene and characterisation of microbial biomass in soil above hydrocarbon-contam-
inated groundwater. FEMS Microbiology Ecology, 30, 67–76.
Gödeke, S., Weiß, H., Geistlinger, H., Fischer, A., Richnow, H.H. & Schirmer, M. (2004) Strömungs- und
Tracer-Transportmodellierung am Natural Attenuation Standort Zeitz. Grundwasser, 9(1), 3–11.
Griebler, C., Safinowski, M., Vieth, A., Richnow, H.H. & Meckenstock, R.U. (2004) Combined appli-
cation of stable isotope analysis and specific metabolites determination for assessing in situ deg-
radation of aromatic hydro-carbons in a tar oil contaminated aquifer. Environmental Science and
Technology, 38(2), 617–631.
Gruiz, K. (2002) Relation of natural attenuation to environmental risk. Book of Abstracts, European
Conference on Natural Attenuation, October 2002, Heidelberg, Germany. pp. 68–71.
Gruiz, K. (2005) Biological tools for soil ecotoxicity evaluation: Soil testing triad and the interactive
ecotoxicity tests for contaminated soil. In: Fava, F. & Canepa, P. (eds.) Soil Remediation Series No. 6.
INCA, Venice, Italy. pp. 45–70.
Gruiz, K. (2009) Soil bioremediation: A bioengineering tool. Land Contamination and Reclamation,
17(3–4), 543–551.
Gruiz, K. (2014) Ecosystem and man: Ecosystem services. In: Gruiz, K., Meggyes, T. & Fenyvesi, É.
(eds.) Engineering Tools for Environmental Risk Management, Volume 1. Environmental Contami-
nation and Deterioration. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA, London, UK, New York, NY, USA &
Leiden, The Netherlands. pp. 16–22.
Gruiz, K. (2016a) Integrated and efficient characterization of contaminated sites. In: Gruiz, K., Meg-
gyes, T. & Fenyvesi, É. (eds.) Engineering Tools for Environmental Risk Management, Volume 3.
Site Assessment and Monitoring Tools. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA, London, UK, New York,
NY, USA & Leiden, The Netherlands. pp. 1–98.
Gruiz, K. (2016b) Monitoring and early warning in environmental management – 5.2. Indicators in
biomonitoring. In: Gruiz, K., Meggyes, T. & Fenyvesi, É. (eds.) Engineering Tools for Environmen-
tal Risk Management, Volume 3. Site Assessment and Monitoring Tools. CRC Press, Boca Raton,
FL, USA, London, UK, New York, NY, USA & Leiden, The Netherlands. pp. 143–155.
Gruiz, K., Fekete-Kertész, I., Kunglné-Nagy, Z., Hajdu, C., Feigl, V., Vaszita, E. & Molnár, M. (2016b)
Direct toxicity assessment – Methods, evaluation, interpretation. Science of the Total Environment,
563–564, 803–812. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.01.007.
Gruiz, K., Fenyvesi, E., Kriston, E., Molnar, M. & Horvath, B. (1996) Potential use of cyclodextrins
in soil bioremediation. Journal of Inclusion Phenomena and Molecular Recognition in Chemistry,
25(1–3), 233–236.
Gruiz, K., Fenyvesi, É., Molnár, M., Feigl, V., Vaszita, E. & Tolner, M. (2016c) In situ and real time
measurements for effective soil and contaminated site management. In: Gruiz, K., Meggyes, T. &
Fenyvesi, É. (eds.) Engineering Tools for Environmental Risk Management, Volume 3. Site Assess-
ment and Monitoring Tools. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA, London, UK, New York, NY, USA
& Leiden, The Netherlands. pp. 245–342.
Gruiz, K., Fenyvesi, É., Molnár, M., Feigl, V., Vaszita, E. & Tolner, M. (2016d) In situ and real time
measurements for effective soil and contaminated site management – Sampling. In: Gruiz, K.,
Meggyes, T. & Fenyvesi, É. (eds.) Engineering Tools for Environmental Risk Management, Volume
3. Site Assessment and Monitoring Tools. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA, London, UK, New
York, NY, USA & Leiden, The Netherlands. pp. 312–322.
Gruiz, K., Hajdu, C. & Meggyes, T. (2015b) Data evaluation and interpretation in environmental toxi-
cology. In: Gruiz, K., Meggyes, T. & Fenyvesi, É. (eds.) Engineering Tools for Environmental Risk
Management. Volume 2. Environmental Toxicology. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA. pp. 445–544.
Gruiz, K. & Kriston, E. (1995) In situ bioremediation of hydrocarbon in soil. Journal of Soil Contami-
nation, 4(2), 163–173. doi:10.1080/15320389509383490.
Gruiz, K., Meggyes, T. & Fenyvesi, É. (eds.) (2015a) Engineering Tools for Environmental Risk Man-
agement, Volume 2. Environmental Toxicology. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA, London, UK,
New York, NY, USA & Leiden, The Netherlands.
Gruiz, K., Meggyes, T. & Fenyvesi, É. (eds.) (2016a) Engineering Tools for Environmental Risk Man-
agement, Volume 3. Site Assessment and Monitoring Tools. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA,
London, UK, New York, NY, USA & Leiden, The Netherlands.
Gruiz, K., Molnár, M. & Feigl, V. (2009a) Measuring adverse effects of contaminated soil using inter-
active and dynamic test methods. Land Contamination & Reclamation, 17(3–4), 443–462.
Gruiz, K., Molnár, M., Feigl, V., Vaszita, E. & Klebercz, O. (2015c) Microcosm models and tech-
nological experiments. In: Gruiz, K., Meggyes, T. & Fenyvesi, E. (eds.) Engineering Tools for
Environmental Risk Management, Volume 2. Environmental Toxicology. CRC Press, Boca Raton,
FL, USA. pp. 401–444.
ladze, G.V. (ed) Environmental Microbiology Research Trends. Nova Science Publishers, Inc., New
York, NY, USA. pp. 1–57. ISBN: 1-60021-939-X. Available from: www.novapublishers.com/catalog/
product_info.php?products_id=9423. [Accessed 10th July 2018].
Gruiz, K., Vaszita, E., Feigl, V., Klebercz, O. & Anton, A. (2012) Environmental risk assessment of
red-mud contaminated land in Hungary. In: Hryciw, R.D., Athanasopoulos-Zekkos, A. & Yesiller,
N. (eds.) GeoCongress 2012 – State of the Art and Practice in Geotechnical Engineering. Geotech-
nical Special Publication No. 225, Proceedings of the Annual GeoCongress of the Geo-Institute of
ASCE, Oakland, CA, USA. pp. 4156–4165. ISBN: 978-0-7844-1212-1.
Gruiz, K., Vaszita, E. & Síki, Z. (2006) Regional scale environmental risk assessment of point and
diffuse pollution of mining origin. Methodological Baselines for Risk Based Inventories of Mining
Sites, CD of the EC Workshop in Krakow, 24–25 November. EUR 22515 EN.
Gruiz, K., Vaszita, E. & Siki, Z. (2009b) Environmental Risk Management of diffuse pollution of
mining origin. In: Sarsby, R.W. & Meggyes, T. (eds.) Construction for a Sustainable Environment.
CRC Press/Balkema, Leiden, The Netherlands. pp. 219–228.
Grygolinska, N.M. & Dolin, V.V. (2003) Self-clearing and natural attenuation rates in radioactive
contaminated ecosystem. Sixth International Symposium and Exhibition on Environmental Con-
tamination in Central and Eastern Europe, at Prague. Available from: www.researchgate.net/
publication/270620018_SELF-CLEAR-NG_AND_NATURAL_ATTENUATION_RATES_IN_
RADIOACTIVE_CONTAMINATED_ECOSYSTEM. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
Haack, S.K. & Bekins, B.A. (2000) Microbial populations in contaminant plumes. Hydrogeology Jour-
nal, 8(1), 63–76. doi:10.1007/s100400050008.
Haack, S.K., Fogarty, L.R., West, T.G., Alm, E.W., McGuire, J.T., Long, D.T., Hyndman, D.W. &
Forney, L.J. (2004) Spatial and temporal changes in microbial community structure associated with
recharge-influenced chemical gradients in a contaminated aquifer. Environmental Microbiology,
6(5), 438–448. doi:10.1111/j.1462-2920.2003.00563.x.
Haston, Z.C., Sharma, P.K., Black, J.N. & McCarty, P.L. (1994) Enhanced reductive dechlorination of
chlorinated ethenes. Symposium on Bioremediation of Hazardous Wastes: Research, Development,
and Field Evaluation. EPA/600/R-94/075. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
DC, USA. pp. 11–14.
Heidrich, S., Weiss, H. & Kaschl, A. (2004) Attenuation reactions in a multiple contaminated aquifer
in Bitter-feld (Germany). Environmental Pollution, 129, 277–288.
Helma, C., Eckl, P., Gottmann, E., Kassie, F., Rodinger, W., Steinkeller, H., Windpassinger, C. &
Schulte-Hermann, R. (1998) Genotoxic and ecotoxic effects of groundwaters and their relation to
routinely measured chemical parameters. Environmental Science and Technology, 32, 1799–1805.
Hinchee, R.E. & Leeson, A. (1996) Soil Bioventing: Principles and Practice. Lewis Publishers, Boca
Raton, FL, USA
Hoffmann, R. & Dietrich, P. (2004) Geoelektrische Messungen zur Bestimmung von Grundwasser-
fließrichtungen und -geschwindigkeiten. Grundwasser, 9, 194–203.
Hunkeler, D., Meckenstock, R.U., Sherwood Lollar, B., Schmidt, T.C. & Wilson, J.T. (2008) A Guide
for Assessing Biodegradation and Source Identification of Organic Groundwater Contaminants
Using Compound Specific Isotope Analysis (CSIA). EPA/600/R-08/148. U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Washington, DC, USA. Available from: www.environmentalrestoration.wiki/
images/a/a9/Hunkeler-2008-A_Guide.pdf. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
Imbrigiotta, T.E. & Ehlke, T.A. (1999) Relative importance of natural attenuation processes in a tri-
chloroe-thene plume and comparison to pump-and-treat remediation at Picatinny Arsenal, New
Jersey. In: Morganwalp, D.W. & Buxton, H.T. (eds.) Proceedings of the Technical Meeting of U.S.
Geological Survey Toxic Substances Hydrology Program, 8–12 March 1999, Charleston, SC. Vol-
ume 3 of 3: Subsurface Contamination from Point Sources. USGS Water-Resources Investigations
Report 99–4018C,USGS, Tallahassee, FL, USA. pp. 615–624.
INCORE (2003) Integrated Concept for Groundwater Remediation: INCORE, Final Report. European
Project. UW Umweltwirtschaft [CD-ROM], Stuttgart, Germany.
INCORE Case Study CS9 (2003) Evaluation of the Field Study Kraftwerk Ost: Kohlebandbruecke
with Respect to the Use of NA for BTEX and PAH. Available from: www.eugris.info/displayresource.
aspx?r=58. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
ISO 18504 (2017) Soil Quality: Sustainable Remediation. Available from: www.iso.org/standard/62688.
html. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
ITRC (2007) A Decision Flowchart for the Use of Monitored Natural Attenuation and Enhanced Atten-
uation at Sites with Chlorinated Organic Plumes. Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council.
Available from: www.itrcweb.org/Documents/EACODecisionFlowchart_v1.pdf. [Accessed 7th July
2018].
ITRC (2008) Enhanced Attenuation: Chlorinated Organics. Technical and Regulatory Guidance.
The Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council, Enhanced Attenuation: Chlorinated Organics
Team. Available from: www.itrcweb.org/Team/Public?teamID=31 and http://itrcweb.org/Guidance/
GetDocument?documentID=28. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
ITRC (2010) A Decision Framework for Applying Monitored Natural Attenuation Processes to Met-
als and Radionuclides in Groundwater. APMR-1. Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council,
Attenuation Processes for Metals and Radionuclides Team, Washington, DC, USA. Available from:
www.itrcweb.org/GuidanceDocuments/APMR1.pdf. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
Ivanov, Y.U. & Dolin, V. (eds.) (2001) Autorehabilitation Processes in Chernobyl Exclusion Zone
Ecosystems. Kiev, Ukraine.
Ivanov, Y.A. (2006) Autorehabilitation processes in ecosystems of abandoned areas and taking into
account of these ones for planning of remediation measures. Proceedings of the International Sci-
entific Seminar “Radioecology of Chernobyl Zone”, 27–29 September, Slavutych, Ukraine.
Ivanov ,Y.A. & Kashparov, V.A. (2003) Long-term dynamics of radioecological situation in terrestrial eco-
systems on the territory of exclusion zone. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1, 13–20.
Jacquet, R. (2011) The MNA Concept, a View From Industry. Solvay. Available from: http://snowman-
network.com/wp-content/uploads/MNA-concept-a-view-from-industry-Roger-Jacquet-Solvay.
pdf. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
Jong, T. & Parry, D.L. (2006) Microbial sulfate reduction under sequentially acidic conditions in an
upflow an-aerobic packed bed bioreactor. Water Research, 40, 2561–2571.
Juhasz, A.L. & Naidu, R. (2000) Bioremediation of high molecular weight polycyclic aromatic hydro-
carbons: A review of the microbial degradation of benzo[a]pyrene. International Biodeterioration &
Biodegradation, 45(1), 57–88.
Kao, C.M., Chen, S.C., Liu, J.K. & Wu, M.J. (2001) Evaluation of TCDD biodegradability under dif-
ferent redox conditions. Chemosphere, 44(6), 1447–1454.
Klebercz, O., Mayes, W.M., Anton, Á.D., Feigl, V., Jarvis, A.P. & Gruiz, K. (2012) Ecotoxicity of
fluvial sediments downstream of the Ajka red mud spill, Hungary. Journal of Environmental Moni-
toring, 14(8), 2063–2071. doi:10.1039/c2em30155e.
Kolhatkar, R.V. (2015) In situ bioremediation of contaminated groundwater using electron acceptor
salts. US Patent 8986545.
Kolhatkar, R.V. & Schnobrich, M. (2017) Land application of sulfate salts for enhanced natural attenu-
ation of benzene in groundwater: A case study. Groundwater Monitoring and Remediation, 37,
43–57. doi:10.1111/gwmr.12209.
Komex (1997) Effectiveness of Intrinsic Bioremediation at Alberta Sour Gas Plants. Final Report.
Komex International Ltd. Public Works and Government Services Canada. Contract No. 23440–6–
1011/002/SQ.
Konoplev, A. (2016a) Fukushima and Chernobyl: Similarities and Differences in Radiocesium
Behavior. Radioactivity After Nuclear Explosions and Accidents: Consequences and Countermea-
sures. pp. 202–218. Available from: https://researchmap.jp/?action=cv_download_main&upload_
id=132975. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
Konoplev, A. (2017) Fate and transport of radionuclides in soil-water environment. Review. EGU
General Assembly. Geophysical Research Abstracts, 19, EGU 2017–3231.
Konoplev, A.,Golosov, A., Nanba, V., Omine, K., Onda, Y., Takase, T., Wada, T., Wakiyama, Y.,
Yoschenko, V., Zheleznyak, M. & Kivva, S. (2016c) Radiocesium solid-liquid distribution and
migration in contaminated areas after the accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant.
Proceedings of International Conference on Environmental Radioactivity ENVIRA 2015, Thessa-
loniki, 21–29 September, New Challenges With New Analytical Technologies. pp. 54–58.
Konoplev, A.V., Golosov, V.N., Yoschenko, V.I., Nanba, K., Onda, Y., Takase, T. & Wakiyama, Y.
(2016b) Vertical distribution of radiocesium in soils of the area affected by the Fukushima Dai-ichi
nuclear power plant accident. Eurasian Soil Science, 49(5), 570–580.
Kopinke, F.D., Voskamp, M., Georgi, A. & Richnow, H.H. (2005) Carbon isotope fractionation of
organic contaminants due to retardation on humic substances – Implications for natural attenuation
studies in aquifers. Environmental Science & Technology, 39, 6052–6062.
Krumins, V., Park, J.-W., Son, E.-K., Rodenburg, L.A., Kerkhof, L.J., Haeggblom, M.M. & Fennell,
D.E. (2009) PCB dechlorination enhancement in Anacostia River sediment microcosms. Water
Research, 43(18), 4549–4558.
Kudelsky, A., Smith, J., Ovsiannikova, S. & Hilton, J. (1996) Mobility of Chernobyl-derived 137Cs in
a peatbot system within the catchment of the Pripyat River, Belarus. Science of the Total Environ-
ment, 188(2–3), 101–133.
Kuder, T., Philp, P., van Breukelen, B., Thouement, H., Vanderford, M. & Newell, C. (2014) Inte-
grated Stable Isotope-Reactive Transport Model Approach for Assessment of Chlorinated Solvent
Degradation. SERDP, ESTPC, ER-201029. Available from: www.serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/
Environmental-Restoration/Contaminated-Groundwater/ER-201029/ER-201029. [Accessed 7th July
2018].
Kueper, B.H., Stroo, H.F., Vogel, C.M. & Ward, C.H. (2014) Chlorinated Solvent Source Zone Reme-
diation. Springer, New York, NY, USA.
LABO (2011) Consideration of Natural Attenuation in Remediating Contaminated Sites – Position
Paper of 10/12/2009. Germany, German Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt).
LAI (2016) 2016 Natural Attenuation Assessment: Work Plan, Boeing Auburn Facility, Auburn,
Washington. Landau Associates, Inc. Available from: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/gsp/DocViewer.
ashx?did=56476. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
Landmeyer, J.E., Chapelle, F.H., Herlong, H.H. & Bradley, P.M. (2001) Methyl tert-butyl ether biodeg-
radation by indigenous aquifer microorganisms under natural and artificial oxic conditions. Envi-
ronmental Science & Technology, 35, 1118–1126.
Landmeyer, J.E., Chapelle, F.H., Petkewich, M.D. & Bradley, P.M. (1998) Assessment of natural
attenuation of aromatic hydrocarbons in ground water near a former manufactured gas plant, South
Carolina, USA. Environmental Geology, 34, 279–292.
Lebrón, C.A., Chapelle, F.H., Widdowson, M.A., Novak, J.T., Parker, J.C. & Singletary, M.A. (2013)
Verification of Methods for Assessing the Sustainability of Monitored Natural Attenuation. US
EPA. Available from: https://clu-in.org/download/techfocus/na/MNA-ER-200824.pdf. [Accessed
7th July 2018].
Lehoux, A.P., Lockwood, C.L., Mayes, W.M., Stewart, D.I., Mortimer, R.J.G., Gruiz, K. & Burke, I.T.
(2013) Gypsum addition to soils contaminated by red mud: Implications for aluminium, arsenic,
molybdenum and vanadium solubility. Environmental Geochemistry and Health, 35(5), 643–656.
doi:10.1007/s10653-013-9547-6.
Leitgib, L., Gruiz, K., Fenyvesi, É., Balogh, G. & Murányi, A. (2008) Development of an innovative
soil remediation: ‘Cyclodextrin-enhanced combined technology’. Science of the Total Environ-
ment, 392, 12–21. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2007.10.055.
Leitgib, L., Gruiz, K., Molnár, M. & Fenyvesi, É. (2005) Intensification of in situ bioremediation
of hydrocar-bon-contaminated soils. Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Natural
Attenuation, Soil and Groundwater. Risk Management, 18–20 May. Dechema, Frankfurt am Main,
Germany.
Lendvay, J.M., Dean, S.M. & Adrianes, P. (1998) Temporal and spatial trends in biogeochemical con-
ditions at a groundwater-surface water interface: Implications for natural attenuation. Environmen-
tal Science and Technology, 32(22), 3472–3478.
LLNL (1995) Rice, D.W., Dooher, B.P., Cullen, S.J., Everett, L.G., Kastenberg, W.E., Grose, R.D. &
Marino, M.A.: Recommendations to Improve the Cleanup Process for California’s Leaking Under-
ground Fuel Tanks (LUFTs). Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, University of California,
Livermore, CA. Submitted to the California State Water Resources Control Board and the Senate
Bill 1764 Leaking Underground Fuel Tank Advisory Committee, UCRL-AR-121762.
Looney, B.B., Early, T.O., Gilmore, T., Chapelle, F.H., Cutshall, N.H., Ross, J., Ankeny, M., Heit-
kamp, M., Major, D., Newell, C.J., Waugh, W.J., Wein, G., Vangelas, K.M., Adams, K.M. & Sink,
C.H. (2006) Advancing the Science of Natural and Enhanced Attenuation for Chlorinated Sol-
vents. Final Technical Document for the Monitored Natural Attenuation and Enhanced Attenuation
for Chlorinated Solvents Project: Washington Savannah River Company WSRC-STI-2006-00377.
Available from: www.researchgate.net/publication/236442501_Advancing_the_science_of_natural_
and_enhanced_attenuation_for_chlorinated_solvents. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
Madsen, E.L., Sinclair, J.L. & Ghiorse, W.C. (1991) In situ biodegradation: Microbiological patterns
in a contaminated aquifer. Science, 252, 830–833.
Majcher, E.H., Lorah, M.M., Phelan, D.J. & McGinty, A.L (2009) Design and Performance of an
Enhanced Bioremediation Pilot Test in a Tidal Wetland Seep, West Branch Canal Creek, Aberdeen
Proving Ground, Maryland. Scientific Investigations Report No 5112. U.S. Department of the Inte-
rior and U.S. Geological Survey. Available from: https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2009/5112/pdf/sir2009-
5112.pdf. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
Mancini, S.A., Ulrich, A.C., Lacrampe-Couloume, G., Sleep, B., Edwards, E.A. & Lollar, S.B. (2003)
Carbon and hydrogen isotopic fractionation during anaerobic biodegradation of benzene. Applied
Environmental Microbiology, 69(1), 191–198.
Mass Transfer (2015) Estimating Mobile-Immobile Mass Transfer Parameters Using Direct Push
Tools. SERDP, ER-2529. Available from: www.serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Environmental-
Restoration/Contaminated-Groundwater/Persistent-Contamination/ER-2529/(language)/eng-US.
Mayes, W.M., Jarvis, A.P., Burke, I.T., Walton, M., Feigl, V., Klebercz, O. & Gruiz, K. (2011) Disper-
sal and attenuation of trace contaminants downstream of the Ajka bauxite residue (red mud) depos-
itory failure, Hungary. Environmental Science & Technology, 45(12), 5147–5155. doi:10.1021/
es200850y.
McCarty, P.L. & Wilson, J.T. (1992) Natural anaerobic treatment of a TCE plume, St. Joseph, Michi-
gan, NPL site. Bioremediation of Hazardous Wastes. pp. 47–50. EPA/600/R-92/126. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency Center for Environmental Research Information, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
McLaughlan, R.G., Merrick, N.P. & Davis, G.B. (2006) Natural Attenuation: A Scoping Review. CRC
CARE, Adelaide, Australia.
McNulty, A.K. (1997) In situ Anaerobic Dechlorination of PCBs in Hudson River Sediments. Master’s
Thesis, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.
Meckenstock, R.U., Morasch, B., Griebler, C. & Richnow, H.H. (2004) Analysis of stable isotope
fractionation as a tool to monitor biodegradation in contaminated aquifers. Journal of Contaminant
Hydrology, 75, 215–255.
MNA Conference (2011) Monitored Natural Attenuation Conference in Paris. Available from: http://
snowmannetwork.com/?page_id=266. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
MNA-DNA (2011) Guidance Protocol: Application of Nucleic Acid-Based Tools for Monitoring Moni-
tored Natural Attenuation (MNA), Biostimulation, and Bioaugmentation at Chlorinated Solvent Sites.
ESTCP Guidance Protocol. Environmental Restoration Project ER-0518. Available from: https://clu-
in.org/download/ . . . /Bio-MNA-ER-200518-Guidance.pdf. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
Molnár, M. (2006) Intesified Bioremediation of Contaminated Soil With Cyclodextrins: From the Lab
to the Field. PhD Thesis, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Budapest, Hungary.
Molnár, M., Fenyvesi, É., Gruiz, K., Leitgib, L., Balogh, G., Murányi, A. & Szejtli, J. (2002) Effects of
RAMEB on Bioremediation of Different Soils Contaminated with Hydrocarbons. Journal of Inclu-
Molnár, M., Gruiz, K. & Halász, M. (2007) Integrated methodology to evaluate bioremediation
potential of creosote-contaminated soils. Periodica Polytechnica, Chemical Engineering, 51(1),
23–32.
Molnár, M., Leitgib, L., Fenyvesi, É. & Gruiz, K. (2009) Development of cyclodextrin enhanced soil
bioremediation: From laboratory to field. Land Contamination & Reclamation, 17(3–4), 601–612.
degradation, 16, 159–168. doi:10.1007/s10532-004-4873-0.
Morasch, B., Richnow, H.H., Schink, B. & Meckenstock, R.U. (2001) Stable hydrogen and carbon iso-
tope fractionation during microbial toluene degradation: Mechanistic and environmental aspects.
Applied Environmental Microbiology, 67, 4842–4849.
Morasch, B., Richnow, H.H., Schink, B., Vieth, A. & Meckenstock, R.U. (2002) Carbon and hydrogen
stable isotope fractionation during aerobic bacterial degradation of aromatic hydrocarbons. Applied
Environmental Microbiology, 68, 5191–5194.
Munro, N., Talmage, S., Griffin, G., Waters, L., Watson, A., King, J. & Hauschild, V. (1999) The
sources, fate, and toxicity of chemical warfare agent degradation products. Environmental Health
Perspectives, 107(12), 933–974.
NA Frankfurt (2005) Second European Conference on Natural Attenuation, Soil and Groundwater
Risk Management, Frankfurt am Main (Germany) 2005. Available from: http://dechema.de/en/3_+
European+Conference+on+Natural+Attenuation+and+In_Situ+Remediation-p-20039960.html.
NA Frankfurt (2007) 3. European Conference on Natural Attenuation and in situ Remediation,
19–21 November 2007, Frankfurt am Main. Available from: http://dechema.de/en/Europ_+
Conf_+Natural+Attenuation-p-20044185.html. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
NA of TCE (2015) Biogeochemical Processes that Control Natural Attenuation of Trichloroethylene
in Low Permeability Zones. SERDP, ER-2530. Available from: www.serdp-estcp.org/Program-
Areas/Environmental-Restoration/Contaminated-Groundwater/Persistent-Contamination/
ER-2530.
Naidu, R., Nandy, S., Megharaj, M., Kumar, R.P., Chadalavada, S., Chen, Z. & Bowman, M. (2012)
Monitored natural attenuation of a long-term petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated sites: A case
study. Biodegradation, 23(6), 881–895. doi:10.1007/s10532-012-9580-7.
NAS (2018) Natural Attenuation Software. Available from: www.nas.cee.vt.edu/index.php. [Accessed
7th July 2018].
Nelson, Y., Croyle, K., Billings, M., Caughey, A., Poltorak, M., Donald, A. & Johnson, N. (2014)
Feasibility of Natural Attenuation for the Remediation of Soil Contaminants at the Santa Susana
Field Laboratory. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, California Polytech-
nic State University. Prepared for the US Dept of Energy. Available from: www.dtsc-ssfl.com/
files/lib_doe_area_iv/soiltreatstudies/evaluation_report/66902_SSFL_AreaIV_STS_Natural
AttenuationPhase1_report.pdf. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
Nemeskéri, R.L., Neuhaus, M. & Pusztai, J. (2016) Dynamic site characterization for brownfield risk
management. In: Gruiz, K., Meggyes, T. & Fenyvesi, É. (eds.) Engineering Tools for Environmen-
tal Risk Management 2. Site Assessment and Monitoring Tools. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA,
London, UK, New York, NY, USA & Leiden, The Netherlands. pp. 343–360.
Newell, C.J., McLeod, R.K. & Gonzales, J.R. (1996) BIOSCREEN Natural Attenuation Decision
Support System. User’s Manual (Ver. 1.3), R.S. Kerr Environmental Research Center, Ada, OK:
EPA/600/R-967-087.
NICOLE (2005) Natural Attenuation, Cartoon Booklet, NICOLE Publication. SUSTAINABILITY. Avail-
able from: www.nicole.org/uploadedfiles/2005-Natural-Attenuation-Cartoon-booklet.pdf. [Accessed
7th July 2018].
NICOLE (2007) Sustainability of natural attenuation of aromatics (BTEX). NICOLE Project Final Report.
NICOLE (2018) Network for Industrially Contaminated Land in Europe. Available from: www.nicole.
org/ [Accessed 7th July 2018].
NICOLE MNA (2005) Monitored Natural Attenuation/Demonstration & Review of the Applica-
bility of MNA at 8 Field Sites. NICOLE Project Final Report. Available from: www.nicole.org/
uploadedfiles/2005-Monitored-Natural-Attenuation-finalreport.pdf. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
NMR for MNA (2015) NMR-based Sensors for in situ Monitoring of Changes in Groundwater Chem-
istry. SERDP, ER-2534. Available from: www.serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Environmental-
Restoration/Contaminated-Groundwater/Monitoring/ER-2534. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
NRC (1994) Alternatives for groundwater clean-up. National Research Council (NRC), National
Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.
O’Steen, W.N. & Howard, R.O. Jr. (2014) Challenges in Planning for Groundwater Remedy Transition
at a Complex Site, U.S. EPA Region 4, Atlanta, Georgia. Available from: https://clu-in.org/download/
techfocus/bio/Challenges-in-Planning-for-Groundwater-Remedy-Transition-at-a-Complex-Site-
Feb-2015.pdf. [Accessed 8th July 2018].
OSWER Directive (1999) Directive 9200.4–17: Use of Monitored Natural Attenuation at Superfund,
RCRA Corrective Action, and Underground Storage Tank Sites. Available from: www.gpo.gov/
fdsys/granule/FR-1999-05-10/99-11712 and www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-02/ . ./
d9200.4-17.pdf. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
Oudejans, L., Lemieux, P., Kaelin, L., Young, C., Fitzsimmons, Ch. & Englert, B. (2016) Natural
Attenuation of Persistent Chemical Warfare Agent VX on Selected Interior Building Surfaces.
EPA/600/R-16/110. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development
National Homeland Security Research Center.
Pachon, C. (2011) Groundwater monitored natural attenuation at cleanup sites in the United States.
Office of Superfund Remediation & Technology Innovation. SNOWMAN MNA Conference, 7 Novem-
ber 2011, Paris.
Panin, A., Walling, D. & Golosov, V. (2001) The role of soil erosion and fluvial processes in the post-
fallout redistribution of Chernobyl-derived 137Cs: A case study of the Lapki catchment, Central
Russia. Geomorphology, 40(3–4), 185–204.
Pennington, J.C., Zakikhanf, M. & Harrelson, D.W. (1999a) Monitored natural attenuation of explo-
sives in groundwater. Environmental Security Technology Certification Program Completion
Report. Technical Report EL-99-7, ER-199518.
Pennington, J.C., Zakikhani, M., Harrelson, D.W. & Allen, D.S. (1999b) Monitored Natural Attenua-
tion of Explosives in Groundwater: Cost and Performance. Technical Report EL-99–7, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Environmental Security Technology Cer-
tification Program, U.S. Department of Defense. Available from: www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/
a607329.pdf. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
Quensen III, J.F., Tiedje, J.M. & Boyd, S.A. (1988) Reductive dechlorination of polychlorinated biphe-
nyls by anaerobic microorganisms from sediments. Science, 242, 752–754.
Reisinger, H.J., Burris, D.R. & Hering, J.G. (2005) Remediating subsurface arsenic contamination
with monitored natural attenuation. Environmental Science & Technology, 39(22), 458A–464A.
Renforth, P., Mayes, W.M., Jarvis, A.P., Burke, I.T., Manning, D.A.C. & Gruiz, K. (2012) Contaminant
mobility and carbon sequestration downstream of the Ajka (Hungary) red mud spill: The effects of
gypsum dosing. Science of the Total Environment, 421–422, 253–259.
Rékási, M., Feigl, V., Uzinger, N., Gruiz, K., Makó, A. & Anton, A. (2013) The effects of leaching
from alkaline red mud on soil biota: Modelling the conditions after the Hungarian red mud disaster.
Chemistry and Ecology, 29(8), 709–723. doi:10.1080/02757540.2013.817568.
Richnow, H.H., Annweiler, E., Michaelis, W. & Meckenstock, R.U. (2003) Microbial in situ degrada-
tion of aromatic hydrocarbons in a contaminated aquifer monitored by carbon isotope fractionation.
Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 65, 101–120.
Rifai, H.S., Newell, C.J., Gonzales, J.R., Dendrou, S., Kennedy, L. & Wilson, J.T. (1997) BIOPLUME
III Natural Attenuation Decision Support System. Version 1.0 User’s Manual. Air Force Center for
Environmental Excellence, Brooks AFB, San Antonio, TX, USA.
RT3D (2018) Multi-Species Reactive Transport Simulation Software for Groundwater Systems. ONNL.
Available from: http://bioprocess.pnnl.gov. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
Rügner, H., Finkel, M., Kaschl, A. & Bittens, B. (2006) Application of monitored natural attenuation in
contaminated land management – A review and recommended approach for Europe. Environmental
Science & Policy, 9, 568–576.
Sadolko, I.V., Demchenko, L.V. & Lavrov, P.I. (2000) Effect of 137Cs vertical migration process in
grounds of natural landscapes for reduction of external exposure doze. Collection of Treatises of
State. Scientific Center for Environmental Radiogeochemistry, 1, 59–77.
Schirmer, K., Bopp, S., Russold, S. & Popp, P. (2004a) Dioxin-ähnliche Wirkungen durch Grundwasser
am Indust-riestandort Zeitz: Erfassung und Ableitungen für Sanierungsstrategien. Grundwasser, 9(1),
33–42.
Schirmer, K., Dayeh, V.R., Bopp, S.K., Russold, S. & Bols, N.C. (2004b) Applying whole water samples
to cell bioassays for detecting dioxin-like compounds at contaminated sites. Toxicology, 205, 211–221.
Schirmer, M., Dahmke, A., Dietrich, P., Dietze, M., Godeke, S., Richnow, H.H., Schirmer, K., Weiss,
H. & Teutsch, G. (2006) Natural attenuation research at the contaminated megasite Zeitz. Journal
of Hydrology, 328(3–4), 393–407.
Semprini, L., Kitanidis, P.K., Kampbell, D.H. & Wilson, J.T. (1995) Anaerobic transformation of chlo-
rinated aliphatic hydrocarbons in a sand aquifer based on spatial chemical distributions. Water
Resources Research, 31, 1051–1062.
SERDP (2018) Monitoring of NA: Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program
(SERDP). Available from: www.serdp-estcp.org/News-and-Events/Blog/Natural-Attenuation-Processes-
A-New-Understanding. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
Shestopalov, V., Kashparov, V. & Ivanov, Y. (2003) Radionuclide migration into the geological envi-
ronment and biota after the Chernobyl accident. Environmental Science & Pollution Research,
Special Issue, 39–47.
Shukla, G. & Varma, A. (eds.) (2011) Soil Enzymology, Soil Biology 22. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Ger-
many & Heidelberg, Germany. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-14225-3.
Sims, G.K. (2013) Current trends in bioremediation and biodegradation: Stable isotope probing. Jour-
nal of Bioremediation & Biodegradation, 4, e134. doi:10.4172/2155-6199.1000e134. Available
from: www.omicsonline.org/current-trends-in-bioremediation-and-biodegradation-stable-isotope-
probing-2155-6199.1000e134.php?aid=14580. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
Sinke, A. & Hencho, I. (1999) Monitored natural attenuation: Review of existing guidelines and pro-
tocols. 2864, TNO Institute of Environmental Sciences, Energy Research and Process Innovation,
Apledoorn, the Netherlands.
Sipter, E., Auerbach, R. & Gruiz, K. (2005) Ecotoxicological testing and risk assessment of a heavy
metal contaminated site. Toxicology Letters, 158(1), 253–254.
Sipter, E., Menczel, I., Ferwagner, A. & Gruiz, K. (2002) Natural processes in a toxic metal polluted
site as potential risk source. Book of Abstracts, European Conference on Natural Attenuation, Octo-
ber 2002, Heidelberg, Germany. pp. 195–197.
Smith, J.A., Katchmark, W., Choi, J.-W. & Tillman, Jr, F.D. (1999) Unsaturated-zone air flow at
Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey: Implications for natural remediation of the trichloroethylene-
contaminated aquifer. In: Morganwalp, D.W. & Buxton, H.T. (eds.) U.S. Geological Survey
Toxic Substances Hydrology Program: Proceedings of the Technical Meeting, 8–12 March
1999, Charleston, SC. Volume 3: Subsurface Contamination from Point Sources. USGS Water-
Resources Investigations Report 99–4018C, USGS, USA. pp. 625–633.
SNOWMAN (2018) Knowledge for Sustainable Soils. Available from: http://snowmannetwork.com.
SNOWMAN MNA (2018) Monitored Natural Attenuation. Available from: http://snowmannetwork.
com/?page_id=266. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
Sobotovich, E., Bondarenko, G. & Dolin, V. (2003) Biogenic and abiogenic migration of 90Sr and
137Cs of Chernobyl origin in terrestrial and aqueous ecosystems. Environmental Science & Pollu-
tion Research, Special Issue, 1, 31–38.
Stollenwerk, K.G. (1994) Geochemical interactions between constituents in acidic groundwater and
alluvium in an aquifer near Globe, Arizona. Applied Geochemistry, 9(4), 353–369.
Suarez, M.P. & Rifai, H.S. (1999) Biodegradation rates for fuel hydrocarbons and chlorinated solvents
in groundwater. Bioremediation Journal, 34(4), 337–362.
Superfund (2013) Superfund Remedy Report, Fourteenth Edition. EPA 542-R-13-016. Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response, United States, Environmental Protection Agency (5203P),
Washington. Available from: https://clu-in.org/asr/ and https://clu-in.org/download/remed/asr/14/
SRR_14th_2013Nov.pdf. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
Taylor, B., Mauro, D., Foxwell, J., Ripp, J. & Taylor, T. (1996) Characterization and monitoring
before and after source removal at a former Manufactured Gas Plant (MGP) disposal site. EPRI
TR-105921. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA.
Thierrin, J., Davis, G.B., Barber, C., Patterson, B.M., Pribac, F., Power, T.R. & Lambert, M. (1993)
Natural degradation rates of BTEX compounds and naphthalene in a sulphate reducing groundwa-
ter environment. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 38(4), 309–322. Published online in 2009. Avail-
able from: www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02626669309492677. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
Toze, S., Zappia, L. & Davis, G.B. (2003) Determination of the potential for natural and enhanced
biotransformation of munition compounds contaminating groundwater in a fractured basalt aquifer.
Land Contamination & Reclamation, 8, 225–232.
Truex, M.J., Szecsody, J.E., Qafoku, N.P., Sahajpal, R., Zhong, L., Lawter, A.R. & Lee, B.D. (2015)
Assessment of Hexavalent Chromium Natural Attenuation for the Hanford Site 100 Area. US Dept.
of Energy. Available from: www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/ . . . /PNNL-24705.pdf.
Turley, W.L. & Rawnsley, A. (1996) Applying natural attenuation of chlorinated organics in conjunc-
tion with ground-water extraction for aquifer restoration. Proceedings of the Symposium on Natural
Attenuation of Chlorinated Organics in Ground Water, September 11–13, Dallas, TX, USA. 174
pp. Hull & Associates Engineering, Inc., Austin, TX, USA. Available from: https://cfpub.epa.gov/
si/si_public_file_download.cfm?p_download_id=438427. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
USACE (2012) Site-Specific Work Plan [Monitored Natural Attenuation]: Brown & Bryant Superfund
Site, 600 South Derby Street, Arvin, California. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Avail-
able from: https://clu-in.org/download/techfocus/na/BB-Site-MNA-Plan.pdf. [Accessed 7th July
2018].
US EPA (1997) Use of monitored natural attenuation at superfund, RCRA corrective action, and under-
ground storage tank sites. Directive 9200.4–17.
US EPA (1998a) Technical Protocol for Evaluating Natural Attenuation of Chlorinated Solvents in
Ground Water. EPA/600/R-98/128. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, Washington, DC, USA. Available from: www.epa.gov/superfund/health/conmedia/
gwdocs/protocol.html. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
US EPA (1998b) Monitoring and Assessment of in-situ Biocontainment of Petroleum Contaminated
Ground-Water Plumes. EPA/600/R-98/020. Available from: http://nepis.epa.gov/Simple.html.
US EPA (1999a) Ground Water Issue, Microbial Processes Affecting Monitored Natural Attenuation of
Contaminants in the Subsurface. Available from: http://nepis.epa.gov/Adobe/PDF/10002E30.pdf
12. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
US EPA (1999b) Use of monitored natural attenuation at superfund, RCRA corrective action, and under-
ground storage tank sites. OSWER. April 21. OSWER Directive No. 9200.4–17P. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC, USA.
US EPA (2004) Performance Monitoring of MNA Remedies for VOCs in Groundwater. Available from:
http://nepis.epa.gov/Adobe/PDF/10004FKY.pdf. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
US EPA (2007a) Monitored Natural Attenuation of Inorganic Contaminants in Ground Water, Volume
1: Technical Basis for Assessment. EPA/600/R-07/139. Available from: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/
ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=60000N4K.TXT. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
US EPA (2007b) Monitored Natural Attenuation of Inorganic Contaminants in Ground Water, Vol-
ume 2: Assessment for Non-Radionuclides Including Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead,
Nickel, Nitrate, Perchlorate, and Selenium. EPA/600/R-07/140. Available from: https://cfpub.epa.
gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryId=187248. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
US EPA (2007c) Monitored Natural Attenuation of Inorganic Contaminants in Ground Water, Vol-
ume 3: Assessment for Radionuclides Including Tritium, Radon, Strontium, Technetium, Uranium,
Iodine, Radium, Thorium, Cesium, and Plutonium-Americium. Available from: http://nepis.epa.gov/
Adobe/PDF/P100EBXW.pdf. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
US EPA (2008) A Guide for Assessing Biodegradation and Source Identification of Organic Ground
Water Contaminants using Compound Specific Isotope Analysis (CSIA). Available from: http://
nepis.epa.gov/Adobe/PDF/P1002VAI.pdf. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
US EPA (2010) Decontamination of Residual VX on Indoor Surfaces Using Liquid Commercial
Cleaners. EPA/600/R-09/159. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, Washington, DC, USA. Available from: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.
cgi?Dockey=P100RBD6.txt. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
US EPA (2011) An Approach for Evaluating the Progress of Natural Attenuation in Groundwater.
Available from: http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100DPOE.pdf; www.epa.gov/ada/
gw/mna.html and www.clu-in.org/techfocus/default.focus/sec/natural_attenuation/cat/guidance.
US EPA (2012) Framework for Site Characterization for Monitored Natural Attenuation of Volatile
Organic Compounds in Ground Water. EPA 600/R-12/712. Available from: http://nepis.epa.gov/
Adobe/PDF/P100HYBY.pdf. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
US EPA (2013) Ground Water Issue Paper: Synthesis Report on State of Understanding of Chlo-
rinated Solvent Transformation. Available from: https://clu-in.org/download/techfocus/na/NA-
600-R-13-237.pdf. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
US EPA (2015) Use of Monitored Natural Attenuation for Inorganic Contaminants in Groundwater at
Superfund Sites. Directive 9283.1–36, August 2015, United States Office of Solid Waste and Moni-
tored Natural Attenuation of Inorganic Contaminants in Ground Water. Available from: ne-pis.epa.
gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=P100ORN0. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
US EPA, MNA (2018) Monitored Natural Attenuation for Radionuclides in Ground Water: Technical
Issues. EPA Science Inventory. Available from: https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.
cfm?dirEntryId=205697. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
US EPA, Models (2018) Models Website. www2.epa.gov/water-research/methods-models-tools-and-
databases-water-research. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
USDN (1998) Technical guidelines for evaluating monitored natural attenuation of petroleum hydrocar-
bons and chlorinated solvents in ground water at naval and marine corps facilities. US Department
of the Navy.
USGS (2016a) A Landfill Leaking Chlorinated Ethenes. U.S. Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, Geor-
gia. Available from: https://toxics.usgs.gov/topics/rem_act/solvent_plume.html. [Accessed 7th July
2018].
USGS (2016b) Biodegradation of Chlorinated Ethenes and Benzenes, Site 3, Naval Air Station (NAS)
Cecil Field, Jacksonville, Florida. Available from: https://toxics.usgs.gov/highlights/nas_2.2.0/
case_study5.html. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
USGS (2016c) Natural Attenuation of a Chlorinated Benzene Plume, U.S. Naval Air Station in Pen-
sacola, Florida. Available from: https://toxics.usgs.gov/topics/rem_act/benzene_plume.html.
USGS (2016d) Natural Attenuation of Chlorinated Ethenes in a Seasonally Cold Environment, Peger
Road Operations and Maintenance Facility, Fairbanks, Alaska. Available from: https://toxics.usgs.
gov/topics/rem_act/natatten_ethenes.html. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
USGS (2016e) Biodegradation of Chlorinated Ethenes in Fractured Dolomite, Textron Realty Opera-
tions Incorporated, Niagara Falls, New York. Available from: https://toxics.usgs.gov/highlights/
nas_2.2.0/case_study2.html. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
USGS (2018a) U.S. Geological Survey Website. www.usgs.gov/ [Accessed 7th July 2018].
USGS (2018b) Environmental Health: Toxic Substances Hydrology Program. Available from: https://
toxics.usgs.gov/highlights/nas_2.2.0/ [Accessed 7th July 2018].
USGS (2018c) Software Provides Estimates of How Long It Will Take for Remediation Efforts to
Achieve their Goals. Available from: https://toxics.usgs.gov/highlights/remediation_software.html.
USGS DNA (2018) Application of Molecular Methods in Microbial Ecology to Understand the Natu-
ral Attenuation of Chlorinated Solvents. USGS, Environmental Health: Toxic Substances. Available
from: https://toxics.usgs.gov/sites/molecular_methods.html. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
Van Denburgh, A.S., Goerlitz, D.F. & Godsy, E.M. (1996) Depletion of nitrogen-bearing explosives
wastes in a shallow ground-water plume near Hawthorne, Nevada. In: Morganwalp, D.W. & Aron-
son, D.A. (eds.) U.S. Geological Survey Toxic Substances Hydrology Program: Proceedings of
the Technical Meeting, 20–24 September 1993, Colorado Springs, CO. USGS Water-Resources
Investigations Report, 94-4015, 2, USGS, USA. pp. 895–904.
Van Roy, S., Vanbroekhoven, K., Dejonghe, W. & Diels, L. (2006) Immobilization of heavy metals in
the saturated zone by sorption and in situ processes. Hydrometallurgy, 83, 195–203.
Vieth, A., Fischer, A., Kästner, M., Gehre, M., Knoeller, K., Wachter, T., Dahmke, A. & Richnow, H.H.
(2003) Isotope fractionation processes used to characterise natural attenuation of organic contami-
nants. In: Annokkee, G.J., Arendt, F. & Uhlmann, O. (eds.) CONSOIL 2003, Proceedings of the 8th
International FZK/TNO Conference on Contaminated Soil, 12–16 May 2003, ICC Gent, Belgium.
pp. 2384–2391.
Vieth, A., Voskamp, M., Kopinke, F.-D., Meckenstock, R.U. & Richnow, H.H. (2002) Isotope
fractionation as a tool to document the in-situ biodegradation of organic pollutants in con-
taminated aquifers. In: Third International Conference on Water Resources and Environment
Research, Vol. II. Eigenverlag des Forums für Abfallwirtschaft und Altlasten e.V., Dresden,
Germany. pp. 198–202.
Viisimaa, M., Karpenko, O., Novikov, V., Trapido, M. & Goi, A. (2013) Influence of biosurfactant on
combined chemical-biological treatment of PCB-contaminated soil. Chemical Engineering Jour-
nal, 220, 352–359.
Vroblesky, D.A., Bradley, P.M. & Chapelle, F.H. (1996) Influence of electron donor on the minimum
sulfate concentration required for sulfate reduction in a petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated aqui-
fer. Environmental Science and Technology, 30(4), 1377–1381.
Vroblesky, D.A., Robertson, J.F., Petkewich, M.D., Chapelle, F.H., Bradley, P.M. & Landmeyer, J.E.
(1997) Remediation of Petroleum Hydrocarbon-Contaminated Ground Water in the Vicinity of a
Jet-Fuel Tank Farm, Hanahan, South Carolina. U.S. Geological Survey, Branch of Information
Services [distributor]. Water-Resources Investigations Report 96–4251, vii. 61 p.
Wachter, T., Dethlefsen, F., Gödeke, S. & Dahmke, A. (2000) Räumlich-statistische Charakterisierung
der Hydrogeochemie einer BTEX-Grundwasserkontamination am Standort “RETZINA/Zeitz”.
Grundwasser, 9(1), S21–S32.
Waichler, S.R. & Yabusaki, S.B. (2005) Flow and Transport in the Hanford 300 Area Vadose Zone-
Aquifer-River System. PNNL-15125, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA,
USA. Available from: www.hanford.gov/docs/gpp/library/programdocs-300/PNNL-15125.pdf.
Wang, Y. & Oyaizu, H. (2011) Enhanced remediation of dioxins-spiked soil by a plant-microbe sys-
tem using a dibenzofuran-degrading Comamonas sp. and Trifolium repens L. Chemosphere, 85(7),
1109–1114.
WDNR (2014) Understanding Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Behavior in Groundwater: Guidance
on the Investigation, Assessment and Limitations of Monitored Natural Attenuation. Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources, RR-699. Available from: www.environmentalrestoration.wiki/
images/f/f6/WIS-DNR-2014-Understanding_Chlorinated_Hydrocarbon_Behavior_In_GW.pdf.
Wein, G., Michelle Lorah, M. & Majche, E. (2007) Wetland enhancement – Reactive mat at the Aber-
deen proving ground – West Bank canal creek. In: Early, T.O. (ed) Enhancements to Natural Atten-
uation: Selected Case Studies. SRNL for the U.S. Department of Energy, Aiken, SC, USA.
Widdowson, M.A., Mendez III, E., Chapelle, F.H. & Casey, C.C. (2005) Natural Attenuation Software
(NAS) User’s Manual Version 2. Available from: www.environmentalrestoration.wiki/images/1/16/
Widdowson2005-NAS_Users_Guide.pdf. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
Wiedemeier, T.H., Benson, L.A., Wilson, J.T., Kampbell, D.H., Hansen, J.E. & Miknis, R. (1996a)
Patterns of natural attenuation of chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons at Plattsburgh, Air Force Base,
New York. Platform Abstract of the Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Solvents,
Salt Lake City, UT.
Wiedemeier, T.H., Blicker, B. & Guest, P.R. (1994) Risk-based approach to bioremediation of fuel
hydrocarbons at a major airport. Federal Environmental Restoration III & Waste Minimization
Conference & Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Wiedemeier, T.H., Guest, P.R., Henry, R.L. & Keith, C.B. (1993) The use of BIOPLUME to support
regulatory negotiations at a fuel spill site near Denver, Colorado. Proceedings of the Petroleum
Hydrocarbons and Organic Chemicals in Ground Water: Prevention, Detection, and Restoration
Conference, NWWA/API. pp. 445–459.
Wiedemeier, T.H. & Haas, P. (1999) Designing monitoring programs to effectively evaluate the perfor-
mance of natural attenuation. Natural Attenuation of Chlorinated Solvents, Petroleum Hydrocarbons,
and Other Organic Compounds, 5(1), 313–323.
Wiedemeier, T.H., Miller, R.N., Wilson, J.T. & Kampbell, J.W. (1995a) Significance of anaerobic pro-
cesses for the intrinsic bioremediation of fuel hydrocarbons. Proceedings of the 1995 Petroleum
Hydrocarbons Conference, November 29 to December 1, Houston, TX, USA.
Wiedemeier, T.H., Swanson, M.A., Moutoux, D.E., Gordon, E.K., Wilson, J.T., Wilson, B.H., Kamp-
bell, D.H., Haas, P.E., Miller, R.N., Hansen, J.E. & Chapelle, F.H. (1998b) Technical Protocol for
Evaluating Natural Attenuation of Chlorinated Solvents in Ground Water. National Risk Manage-
ment Research Laboratory Office of Research and Development, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, OH, USA, 45268.
Wiedemeier, T.H., Swanson, M.A., Wilson, J.T., Kampbell, D.H., Miller, R.N. & Hansen, J.E. (1995b)
Patterns of intrinsic bioremediation at two United States Air Force Bases. In: Hinchee, R.E., Wil-
son, J.T. & Downey, D.C. (eds.) Intrinsic Bioremediation. Battelle Press, Columbus, OH, USA.
Wiedemeier, T.H., Swanson, M.A., Wilson, J.T., Kampbell, D.H., Miller, R.N. & Hansen, J.E. (1996b)
Approximation of biodegradation rate constants for monoaromatic hydrocarbons (BTEX) in ground
water. Ground Water Monitoring & Remediation, 16(3), 186–194.
Wiedemeier, T.H., Wilson, J.T. & Kampbell, D.H. (1996c) Natural attenuation of chlorinated aliphatic
hydrocarbons at Plattsburgh Air Force Base, New York. Proceedings of the Symposium on Natu-
ral Attenuation of Chlorinated Organics in Ground Water, September 11–13, Dallas, TX, USA.
pp. 76–84. Available from: https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_file_download.cfm?p_download_
id=438427. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
Wiedemeier, T.H., Wilson, J.T., Kampbell, D.H., Miller, R.N. & Hansen, J.E. (1995d) Technical Pro-
tocol for Implementing Intrinsic Remediation with Long-Term Monitoring for Natural Attenuation
of Fuel Contamination Dissolved in Groundwater. U.S. Air Force Center for Environmental Excel-
lence, San Antonio, TX, USA. Vol. 2, ADA324247. Available from: www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRD
oc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA324247. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
Wiedemeier, T.H., Wilson, J.T., Kampbell, D.H., Miller, R.N. & Hansen, J.E. (1998a) Technical Pro-
tocol for Implementing Intrinsic Remediation with Long Term Monitoring for Natural Attenua-
tion of Fuel Contamination Dissolved in Groundwater. EPA/600/R-98/128, US EPA. Available
from: https://nepis.epa.gov/EPA/html/DLwait.htm?url=/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/30003ONO.PDF?Dockey=
30003ONO.PDF. [Accessed 7th July 2018].
Wiedemeier, T.H., Wilson, J.T. & Miller, R.N. (1995c) Significance of anaerobic processes for the
intrinsic bio-remediation of fuel hydrocarbons. Proceedings of the Petroleum Hydrocarbons
and Organic Chemicals in Ground Water: Prevention, Detection, and Restoration Conference:
NWWA/API.
Wilson, B.H., Wilson, J.T., Kampbell, D.H., Bledsoe, B.E. & Armstrong, J.M. (1990) Biotransformation
of monooaromatic and chlorinated hydrocarbons at an aviation gasoline spill site. Geomicrobiology
Journal, 8, 225–240.
Wilson, J.T., Weaver, J.W. & Kampbell, D.H. (1994) Intrinsic bioremediation of TCE in ground water
at an NPL Site in St. Joseph, Michigan. Symposium on Intrinsic Bioremediation of Ground Water.
EPA/540/R-94/515. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, Wash-
ington, DC, USA.
Wilson, M.S. & Madsen, E.L. (1996) Field extraction of a unique intermediary metabolite indicative of
real time in situ pollutant biodegradation. Environmental Science and Technology, 30, 2099–2103.
Wise, D.L. (2000) Bioremediation of Contaminated Soils. Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, NY, USA.
WSDE (2005) Guidance on remediation of petroleum-contaminated ground water by natural attenua-
tion. Publication No. 05-09-091 (Version 1.0), Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia.
Washington State Department of Ecology.
Wycisk, P., Weiss, H., Kaschl, A., Heidrich, S. & Sommerwerk, K. (2003) Groundwater pollution and
remediation options for multisource contaminated aquifers (Bitterfeld/Wolfen, Germany). Toxicol-
ogy Letters, 140–141, 343–351.
Yabusaki, S.B., Fang, Y. & Waichler, S.R. (2008) Building conceptual models of field-scale uranium
reactive transport in a dynamic vadose zone-aquifer-river system. Water Resources Research, 44,
W12403. doi:10.1029/2007WR006617.
Younger, P.L. & Banwart, S.A. (2002b) Time-scale issues in the remediation of pervasively contami-
nated groundwaters at abandoned mines sites. In: Oswald, S.E. & Thornton, S.F. (eds.) Ground-
water Quality: Natural and Enhanced Restoration of Groundwater Pollution. IAHS Special Publ,
Sheffield, UK. No 275. pp. 585–591.
Younger, P.L., Banwart, S.A. & Hedin, R.S. (2002a) Mine Water: Hydrology, Pollution, Remediation.
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Zakikhani, M., Pennington, J.C., Harrelson, D.W. & Gunnison, D. (2003) Monitored natural attenu-
ation of explosives at the Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant. Land Contamination and Reclama-
tion, 70, 233–239.
Chapter 4
Ecoengineering tools : Passive

artificial ecosystems
R. Kovács 1 , N. Szilágyi 1 , I. Kenyeres 1* & K. Gruiz 2
1Organica, Budapest Hungary
2Budapest University of Technology and Economics
*Biopolus Institute, 1117 Budapest, Infopark, Hungary
ABSTRACT
Ecological engineering or ecotechnology, the exciting mixture of applied ecology, envi-
ronmental engineering, biotechnology, systems control and complexity sciences has been
matured recently into a well-established discipline with its own methodology. Its application
fields range from natural habitat preservation and restoration, sustainable resource manage-
ment to treatment of waste streams of high variety.
While the basis of ecoengineering is the ecological design – i.e. the principle which mimics
efficient natural processes – the “reactor,” the construction and the technology show a wide vari-
ety. The solutions vary from the simplest natural lakes with minimal engineering (e.g. controlled
inflow, outflow, water level) to highly engineered artificial reactor systems placed on the surface
or built under the surface combined with greenhouses and/or fisheries. The most common solu-
tions use for surface and subsurface waste streams treatment (i) in situ placed operations such as
aeration, or water recycling, (ii) artificially constructed wetlands with deep and shallow pools,
marshes, various water flows and vegetation, or (iii) reactive subsurface constructions.
This chapter gives an overview of ecoengineering tools and technologies, covering passive
systems, conventional reactor-based solutions and new developments in the field of advanced arti-
ficial ecosystems along with their main performance figures and characteristic application areas.
1 INTRODUCTION
Engineering science took a long time to reach the level of development where industrial
and agricultural biotechnologies and their application in environmental technologies (such
as biological wastewater treatment, composting, soil bioremediation, phytoremediation,
and other phytotechnologies were transformed into proper engineering tools. After sev-
eral decades of parallel development in the field of wastewater, solid waste, contaminated
land, and natural habitat rehabilitation, the knowledge and experience became integrated
into innovative applications such as integrated water resources management, closing water
cycles, restoration ecology and habitat reconstruction, renewable energy production, waste
utilization and solids recycling systems, green architecture and integrated building tech-
niques, modern city planning, and in many other new disciplines.
Once the ecological processes and the ecosystem became the core compartment of engi-
neering, the kinetics and the mass balance of basic processes were recognized and put into
the focus of planning, implementation, monitoring, control and regulation of the ecotechnol-
ogy, similar to other engineered processes (see more in Moo-Young et al., 1996; Jördening &
Winter, 2006; Ratledge & Kristiansen, 2006).
Environmental technologies based on living systems have the same problems as their
advantages: a complex ecosystem plays the role of catalyst; thus engineering should ensure
the optimum conditions in support of the best possible functioning/operation of that complex
system. Moreover “the optimum” is a dynamic phenomenon, as a result of the combination
of natural (spontaneous) and artificial (engineered) processes. The task of ecoengineering
is to support the useful and to compensate the undesirable natural processes and supple-
ment the ecological control system when needed. Thus engineering control should cover the
monitoring of the natural processes by well selected indicators and comparing these to their
required optimum or maximum. Technological operations may supplement the system with
additives and/or with the appropriate environmental conditions such as flow rates, tempera-
ture, redox conditions, ion-concentrations, etc. To achieve the expectations, an ecotechnol-
ogy should ensure that the continuously changing inflows are transformed with constant
efficiency by the complex system of natural or artificial ecosystems.
When designing and planning a relatively simple biotechnological process, reactors and
technological parameters, optimum operating conditions must be provided for the biocataly-
sis performed by a living and effectively working organism. Ecoengineering works with a
much more complex catalyst, a living community and possibly its ideal habitat, which is a
mixture of environmental and artificial establishments. Great uncertainty is involved in mod-
eling the processes and implementing the operations/technologies as well as concerning the
effect of the interventions. Ecoengineers should manage the uncertainties due to the complex-
ity of both the catalyst ecosystem and the habitat matrix. Some tools are available to reduce
these uncertainties such as laboratory studies, microcosms, and pilot mesocosms which provide
information for planning and forecasting efficiency. Healthy and efficiently working, and in
particular self-sustaining natural ecosystems such as lakes, wetlands, marshland, floodplains,
mangrove swamps, and surface or subsurface soils can serve as good examples. Based on these
complex systems the actively working community, the natural environmental gradients, the sea-
sonal changes, and many other regularities of natural systems can be studied, understood, and
copied.
Benyus (2002) defines this approach of “biomimicry” as a new discipline that studies
nature’s best ideas and then imitates these designs and processes to solve human problems
by “innovation inspired by nature.” Biomimicry relies on three key principles:
– Nature as model: study nature’s models and emulate these forms, processes, systems,
and strategies to solve human problems.
– Nature as measure: use an ecological standard to judge the sustainability of our
innovations.
– Nature as mentor: view and value nature not based on what we can extract from the
natural world, but what we can learn from it.
By understanding material flows, functions and control within healthy/self-sustaining

natural systems and the way how they heal themselves and regain their balance, the ecoen-
gineer can design a technology that mimics positive natural tendencies while utilizing an as
complex as possible catalyst ecosystem of high diversity.
The engineering tools called “ecotechnologies” have mainly been applied to water
treatment – including natural streams, lakes, runoff waters, effluents, wastewaters, and sub-
surface waters – but the field of ecoengineering expands in the direction of complex systems
involving natural conservation, agriculture, forestry, and waste treatment technologies, e.g.
Ecoengineering tools 205
sustainable water systems (full recycling, ecological sanitation, blackwater management,

composting toilet, etc.). Biological soil treatment should be considered as a special case of
ecoengineering, where the soil ecosystem plays the role of catalyst. This ecosystem consists
of the soil microbiota and macro-animals and the plants in the surface soil. The soil eco-
system is increasingly considered as the core factor, e.g. in environmental remediation, that
should be supported by the technology. Unfortunately many soil technologies and manage-
ment concepts still do not care about the health and functionality of the soil ecosystem, this
primary environmental resource.
The tendency for expanding ecotechnologies to become part of everyday life is slow,
but unstoppable. In the best case it can contribute to long-term sustainable use of our envi-
ronment and to humans becoming an integral part of natural ecosystems.
Artificial ecosystems became increasingly complex, and today they can be character-
ized by high diversity and naturally forming hydrogeochemical cycles (with a shorter cycle
time compared to natural systems). While a healthy natural ecosystem is self-sustaining, the
artificial ecosystem should be controlled and supported by man to become sustainable over
the long term. High species diversity can increase stability, and this has to be ensured by the
man-made technology in complex, tiered artificial ecosystems.
Todd and Josephson (1996) and Todd et al. (2003) define the ecosystem-centered envi-
ronmental technologies as “ecomachine technologies” and characterizes them as technolo-
gies which “reintegrate human and natural ecosystems to become mutually beneficial toward
one another.” The “ecomachines,” the artificial living systems try to copy natural ecosystems
by ensuring
– High species and genetic diversity;

– Long food chains and complex food webs;
– The use of sunlight as the primary energy source;
– Ecological succession;
– Stabilized state in hydrogeochemical cycling;
– High sustainability in technological terms (long-term stability and activity).
There are other characteristics in which ecotechnologies definitely differ from natural
ones:
– Ecotechnologies are pragmatic with definite goals;

– They are more fragile compared to the robust natural systems;
– A higher value from ecosystem services is expected (productivity, purification, etc.);
– Ecotechnologies serve the exploitation of the ecosystem by man using refined tools to
keep the “service provider” alive and in good health. It is important to find the ethically
acceptable scale of intervention/interference.
In summary, the core catalyst of ecotechnologies is a partly artificial ecosystem, very

similar to and not contradicting natural ecosystems and is controlled by humans. It mimics a
natural ecosystem but generally is less complex and has a lower genetic diversity. Ecotech-
nologies are essential participants in a circular economy and regenerative design (see more
in Braungart & McDonoug, 2002; Stahel, 2010).
The artificial ecosystem may have concrete technological goals (e.g. water purification,
wastewater treatment, cultivation of plants or animals), but it can function as part of the
residential environment in cities (parks, gardens, zoos, artificial lakes, aquaria, green belts,
etc.), and even cities themselves are artificial ecosystems. In the absence of human interfer-
ence, a man-made ecosystem fails to thrive. Ecoengineering should integrate environment
and society based on equal opportunities.
1.1 Ecological engineering

The term “ecological engineering” used in its recent meaning can be found first in Odum’s
publications (Mitsch, 1997). The synonym “ecotechnology” is also widely used for denoting
the scientific/technical field that can be defined as the design of sustainable systems, consis-
tent with ecological principles, which integrate human society with its natural environment
for the benefit of both (Bergen et al., 2001).
The original definitions emphasized the self-designed ecosystems, the subsequent sav-
ings of non-renewable resources, the conservation ethic for ecosystems and an integrative
rather than reductionist approach to ecology as the key characteristics of ecological engi-
neering (Mitsch, 1997).
Odum (1962) defines ecological engineering as environmental manipulation by man
using small amounts of supplementary energy to control systems in which the main energy
drives are still coming from natural sources. The utilization of biological species, communi-
ties and ecosystems distinguishes ecotechnology from the traditional remedial technologies,
which rely on devices and facilities to remove, transform or contain pollutants but which do
not consider direct manipulation of ecosystems.
The goals of ecological engineering according to Bergen et al. (2001) are (i) to provide
human welfare while simultaneously protecting the natural environment from which goods
and services are drawn; (ii) to harness the self-design or self-organizational properties of
natural systems; (iii) to establish systems where humans do not need to add matter or energy
to maintain a particular ecosystem state.
To define ecological engineering, comparing with similar fields such as ecology, environ-
mental engineering, biotechnology, and the traditional restoration-oriented sciences and the
identification of the main differences, may also help. Both basic and applied ecology provide
fundamentals to ecological engineering, but they do not define it completely. Environmental
engineering applies scientific principles to solve pollution problems, but the concepts usually
involve energy and resource intensive operations such as scrubbers, filters, chemical precipita-
tors, etc., instead of natural solutions. Traditional biotechnology focuses usually on one or a
few selected organisms for pollutants/waste treatment. Modern biotechnologies have opened
up to the possibility of genetic manipulation to produce new strains and organisms to carry out
specific functions. Conventional restoration-oriented applications usually lack the most impor-
tant aspect of ecological engineering namely the self-sustainment of the designed ecosystem.
One questionable point with regard to traditional ecological engineering is its economic
efficiency (Ierland & Man, 1996). The traditional economic standpoint cannot properly
quantify the efficiency of ecotechnologies; socioeconomic cost and benefit assessment and
life-cycle analysis are necessary in order to include all environmental, health, social and
cultural aspects over the long term.
Some basic principles of ecoengineering are summarized here:
– Ecoengineering is ecologically based;

– Incorporates and adapts engineering and technology-based solutions;
– Is based on sustainable development;

– Is mutually beneficial to humans and the environment;
– Represents integrated systems;
– Focuses on reuse and recovery of waste;
– It is based on stakeholder participation during the design process.
1.2 Advantages and disadvantages

The most important among the ecological engineering advantages is that it strives to achieve
sustainable solutions that it takes into account not only the interests of the actual project but
the interests of the broader environment as well. Exploiting the potentials in complex eco-
systems leads to better solutions in terms of (i) better removal performances and efficiencies
in waste treatment processes; (ii) more robust solutions can be achieved owing to exploiting
the diversity in the complex ecosystems.
Enhanced diversity in ecologically engineered systems means better removal perfor-
mance and better system resilience. Holling (1996) makes a clear difference between engi-
neering resilience and ecological resilience. Engineering resilience measures the degree to
which a system resists moving away from its equilibrium point and how quickly it returns
after a perturbation. In general, this is what is taken into account during usual design tasks.
Ecological resilience reflects how large a disturbance an ecosystem can absorb before it
changes its structure and function by changing the underlying variables and processes
that control behavior. Diverse systems are more ecologically resilient and able to persist
and evolve. Diversity can be measured as (i) the number of species present in the system;
(ii) genetic variation within species; and (iii) functional diversity (redundancy), where a cer-
tain number of species or processes in the system can perform similar functions.
The biggest disadvantage of the approach is that it is a method without established rou-
tine processes for design. However, the reason for this is that the whole concept is quite new.
Established processes are to be formed when more and more users become familiar with the
discipline. It is true although that since ecological engineering deals with complex systems,
properly working design methods will presumably require complex design tools.
1.3 Application fields

The literature uses the following categories for the identification of main application fields
of ecological engineering:
– Ecological engineering is used to reduce or solve pollution problems that otherwise

would be harmful to the ecosystems. This is probably the best known wide application
area of the discipline: typical applications include wastewater or groundwater treatment
using either constructed wetlands, or ecologically based “green machines” with indoor
greenhouse-based applications (Guterstam & Todd, 1990). In these terms the design of
ecological systems acts as an alternative to man-made/energy intensive systems to meet
the respective human needs.
– Ecosystems are imitated, modified, or copied in an ecologically sound way to reduce or
solve a resource problem.
– The tools of ecotechnology support the recovery of an ecosystem after significant distur-
bance (good examples are detailed e.g. in Luo et al., 2009 or in Jones & Hanna, 2004).
– The management, utilization and conservation of natural resources (Bergen et al., 2001).
– Integration of society and ecosystems in built environments – for example in landscape
architecture, urban planning and urban horticulture applications.
The components in artificial ecosystems cover almost the whole range of the natural
system components. The exact composition of the respective artificial ecosystem is of course
very much depending on the targeted application, however in general it is true that in these
systems prokaryotic microorganisms, eukaryotic simple organisms, plants and higher order
animals (arthropoda, worms, etc.) play always significant roles. The role of the plants is
especially crucial since in addition to taking part in the metabolic processes occurring in the
ecosystem, they serve as habitats for other organisms as well (biofilm formation in the root
zones, humidity and shading control for other species, etc.) and, in many modern ecologi-
cally engineered systems, this habitat effect has utmost importance.
2 HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF

ECOENGINEERING-DRIVEN TECHNOLOGIES
Ecological engineering has its parallel roots in China and in the US emerging from the 1960s
on. Initially this interdisciplinary field had quite a strong philosophical side as the defini-
tion in Section 2.1 also suggests; its scientific fundamentals were established only later, in
the 1970–1980s, with the appropriate evolution of its most important boundary disciplines:
applied ecology, biotechnology, and environmental engineering.
2.1 Traditional approaches

The roots of the discipline are more or less based on the activity of people coming from the
ecological/social fields. According to this, initial publications are organized around the new
approach of bringing together ecological principles and the results of science/engineering.
The first and to date the strongest school of ecological engineering deals with pollu-
tion removal processes, enhancing the traditional, biology-based engineered solutions using
ecological principles. According to this kind of ecosystem-based design concept, the first
experiments were conducted for wastewater treatment in small, environment-oriented com-
munities. A few similar communities are prospering even now (e.g. the Findhorn ecovillage
in Scotland), applying such traditional ecological engineering solutions.
From these experiments a logical way leads to the “living machines,” that are actually
small wastewater treatment plants installed under greenhouses, usually established in reactor
cascades, with high numbers of higher organisms, most notably plants involved in the treat-
ment process, installed on the top of traditional biological reactors.
In addition to the early communities the development of these technologies was per-
formed at special research institutions. The most notable one was the New Alchemy Insti-
tute between 1971 and 1991. Recently it is called the Green Center and its main profile is
education and supporting projects that demonstrate ecologically derived forms of energy,
agriculture, aquaculture, housing, and landscapes, and living in harmony with the nature
(The Green Center, 2010). John Todd, an emblematic figure of the early ecological engi-
neering was among its founders. Later he founded Ocean Arks, a non-profit research and
educational organization dedicated to the creation and the dissemination of the technologies
for a sustainable future.
It is important to note that these early approaches had very strong ideological roots,
and looking for philosophically sound solutions was equally important to create technically
appropriate results.
2.2 Modern engineered artificial ecosystems

The most important difference between the traditional approaches and modern engineered
artificial ecosystems is that modern methods mostly abandoned the philosophical back-
ground and take from the ecological side only those aspects that are usable and technically
advantageous, after rigorous evaluation.
Another characteristic of these systems is that, originally, they are more or less engi-
neered processes and have recently been developed into ecological systems.
The solutions falling into this group are the following: (i) constructed wetlands and other
natural treatment processes in their modern form, with solid scientific background and (ii) vari-
ous reactor-based solutions that aim at combining the advantages of traditional ecological
systems with state-of-the-art biological technologies. It is important to note that, independently
from these efforts, recently introduced biological processes for pollution prevention have very
strong ecological bases. These are typically new multi-reactor designs that rely very much on
interactions among more and more different species with various activities, as in the technolo-
gies of enhanced biological phosphorus removal (EBPR), simultaneous nitrification/denitrifi-
cation (SND), Anammox process, DEMON process, and various biofilm-based systems.
3 TOOLS OF ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING
3.1 Basic concepts

Special concepts of ecological engineering are outlined usually as follows (Mitsch, 1997):
one of the central concepts of ecotechnology is “self-design.” This means that the design and
construction relies upon the adaptation capacity of ecosystems to the changing environment
and this adaptation or self-organization is a central aspect in operation as well. The second
essential characteristic of ecological engineering is the effort to construct systems that are as
self-sustaining as possible. In practice this means reducing energy consumption and includ-
ing solar power as much as possible.
3.2 Design principles

Ecological engineering has a few ecological design principles that are discipline specific and
have an important effect on the designed systems (Bergen et al., 2001). Ecosystems have
the capacity to self-organize, and this capacity of ecosystems that ecological engineering
recognizes as a significant feature because it allows nature to do some of the engineering
(Mitsch & Jorgensen, 1989).
The tools that ecological engineering uses are quite diverse and cover the following:
knowledge and use of cultivated microorganisms, aquatic plant purification processes,
constructed wetlands, stabilization lagoons, hydraulic engineering, biological membranes,
architectural aspects (e.g. application of eco-concrete), multi-natural riverways, combined
biotechnology, mathematical modeling/numerical methods, complex systems/system identi-
fication and control theories, architecture, and urban planning.
4 PASSIVE SYSTEMS, CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS,

AQUATIC PLANT SYSTEMS
4.1 Constructed wetlands

Constructed wetlands are often recognized as natural treatment technologies. Natural treat-
ment may be defined as treatment systems in which specific ecological environments found
in nature are utilized for the treatment of wastewater (Tchobanoglous, 1997). The design of
aquatic systems must be based on the contaminants of concern and knowledge of the pro-
cesses that affect them.
The two principal categories of constructed wetlands are free water surface and subsur-
face flow wetlands. Free water surface wetlands consist of basins with channels containing a
suitable medium to support the growth of emergent vegetation, open areas, and water flow-
ing at relatively shallow depths (Figure 4.1). The open surface is exposed to atmospheric
impacts and poses a risk to humans and ecosystem members through digestion and direct
contact. Beside emergent plants, an increasing number of floating plants are applied in the
free surface systems as detailed in Section 2.
A subsurface flow wetland (Figures 4.2 and 4.3) is constructed as a bed or channel con-
taining coarse rock, gravel, sand, and soil to ensure a free flow of water to be treated and a
growth medium for emergent plants. The bed medium is typically planted with marshland
Figure 4.1 Surface flow constructed wetland – horizontal flow, free water surface.
Figure 4.2 Subsurface flow constructed wetland – horizontal flow, solid medium on the surface.
Figure 4.3 Subsurface flow constructed wetland – vertical flow, solid medium on the surface.
Figure 4.4 Hybrid of a horizontal surface flow and a vertical subsurface flow constructed wetland.
vegetation. In the subsurface flow wetlands water can flow horizontally or vertically (Fig-
ures 4.2 and 4.3). The water surface is below the surface of the bed medium so the appear-
ance is just soil overgrown by plants. The advantages of a subsurface flow are prevention
of mosquitoes and odors as well as stopping human contact with the contaminated waste
stream. Horizontal and vertical water flows are the two options, and problem-specific com-
binations are also widespread.
Three major factors play a role in the design of wetlands:
– Selection and design of the most appropriate plant community: (i) emergent wetland;
(ii) mixed wetland: emergent and forest; (iii) emergent and pond combination;
– Hydrological design: groundwater, surface runoff and solid flows and their control;
– Design of the landscape: linear design, basin, cascade of basins, and combination.
Surface and subsurface as well as horizontal and vertical constructed wetlands can be
applied in combination generally known as a hybrid (see Figure 4.4).
The combination of wetlands with other types of wastewater treatment technologies are
the “integrated systems.” These may represent the combination of constructed wetland with
compartments of traditional wastewater treatment (Figure 4.5) and/or with advanced ecoma-
chine technologies or other reactor-based artificial ecosystems (Figure 4.6).
Figure 4.5 Integrated constructed wetland with ponds and marshes.
Figure 4.6 Scheme of a constructed ecomachines containing wetland.
The integrated system in Figure 4.5 is a conventional open-air basin system placed
between the natural or anthropogenic waste source and the receiving natural water, a river or
lake, or possibly groundwater. Pumps are often used to feed the wetlands though gravity and
automatic siphons are also used. The layout in Figure 4.5 represents a mixed design: ponds
(primary/receiving tank for water level control, deep treatment ponds, and a detention pool
at the end) and marshes (low marsh and high marsh) with emergent and forest plants.
Constructed wetlands can be installed indoors and partly underground as part of an
advanced ecomachine such as the one in Figure 4.6. The scheme shows constructed ecoma-
chines containing a wetland: (i) settlement tank for solid removal; (ii) buffer tank for quan-
tity control; (iii) anoxic or anaerobic reactor for microbiological wastewater treatment; (iv)
free surface constructed wetland with horizontal flow for water treatment; (v) aerated pond
or lagoon for tertiary treatment; and (vi) sand filter before release to surface water or other
recipient water body.
Table 4.1 Design guidelines for artificial ecosystems for water treatment with different setup.
Parameter Constructed Traditional Conventional Advanced artificial

wetlands living machines biological WWT ecologies
Hydraulic detention time (h) 48–380 48–168 24–32 8–16

Water depth (m) 0.1–1 3–5 4–5 4–5
Specific footprint (m2/m3/day) 20–40 2.4–4.0 0.6–0.8 0.4–0.5
A comparison of typical design parameters for constructed wetlands and a few com-
petitive solutions – such as traditional activated sludge-based wastewater treatment (WWT),
living machines and advanced artificial ecologies – are included in Table 4.1.
Constructed wetlands are primarily for biological oxygen demand (BOD), suspended
solids and nitrogen removal. Pathogenic microorganisms, metals and trace organics are also
removed, but to a lesser extent. The basic removal processes are biological conversion (micro-
bial mineralization and plant uptake), sedimentation, chemical precipitation, and sorption.
Constructed wetlands have extensive literary and regulatory backgrounds; the first
worldwide initiative was the World Convention on wetlands (RAMSAR Convention, 1971).
The US regulated the construction of wetlands for different purposes such as agriculture and
municipal wastewater, animal waste, etc. from 1991 (USDA, 1991; US EPA, 1993–2000;
1993a,b, 1995, 1998, 1999a,b, 2000a,b, 2001a,b, 2004). In addition to lake eutrophication
control, integrated constructed wetlands became widespread in many European countries
for water treatment and pollution including diffuse pollution control: e.g. in the Nether-
lands (Harrington et al., 2005; Scholz, 2006), in Denmark (Brix et al., 2007), in Sweden
(Hedmark & Jonsson, 2008), in Ireland (Babatunde et al., 2008), and all over the world
(e.g. Wu et al., 2008). Design and performance evaluation guidelines were laid down (e.g.
Vymazal, 2007; Carty et al., 2008; Molle et al., 2008; Kayranli et al., 2010; Scholz, 2011),
thus today the constructed wetland technology can efficiently combine the built and natural
remedial potential and become an integral part of the innovative ecological technologies.
There are several websites and books containing up-to-date information on new applications
and results: Centre for Advancement of Water and Wastewater Technologies (2018); US
EPA – Constructed Wetlands (2018); UNEP – Phytotechnology (2018); US EPA – Wetlands
(2018); Wetlands for the Treatment of Mine Drainage (2018); Dotro et al. (2017); Higgins et
al. (2017); Nagabhatla and Metcalfe (2017); Jørgensen et al. (2014); Green (2010); Kadlec
and Knight (2004); Zedler (2000).
A topic often discussed is the exact function of macrophytes (larger aquatic plants). It
is commonly agreed that most important functions are the physical effects: they stabilize the
surface of the beds, provide good conditions for physical filtration, prevent vertical flow sys-
tems from clogging, insulate the surface against frost during winter and provide huge surface
area for microbial growth (Brix, 1997; Brix et al., 2007; Hoffmann et al., 2011).
It is commonly assumed that the plant nutrient uptake is significant; however, this is
only true in low loaded systems. The uptake capacity of emergent macrophytes and thus
the amount that can be removed if the biomass is harvested is roughly in the range of
30–150 kg P/ha year and 200–1500 kg N/ha year (Gumbricht, 1993; Brix, 1994). If these
values are compared to typical load values of low loaded constructed wetlands (approxi-
mately 300 kg P/ha year, 2700 kg N/ha year), it can be seen that the plants’ contribution is
significant in such cases, however it does not cover the entire degraded load.
An important contribution of plants is the macrophyte mediated transfer of oxygen to

the rhizosphere by leakage from roots. This contributes to aerobic degradation of organic
matter and nitrification in the rhizosphere. Although this transfer slows down during win-
tertime due to slower metabolic activities at lower temperatures, this comes together with
oxygen solubility which has an overall result of equalized oxygen transfer conditions during
the whole year. The plant mediated oxygen transfer rates are in the range of 10–160 ng O2/cm2
root surface/min (Brix, 1997), which – taken into account typical low-loaded systems – is a
very significant amount even at the lower domains of this range.
An advantageous feature of the plants is that they are able to excrete a small amount of
various organic compounds on the surface of the roots which in certain situations can act as
food source for the biofilm during the low-load periods. This way the plants contribute to
bacterial survival. Consequently, there will be a biomass in the system when the wastewater
load is re-established. This is one source of the greater flexibility compared to conventional
ones.
Another typical example is the excretion of antibiotics. As Seidel (1964) reported in
case of bulrushes it is a usual phenomenon that has a very remarkable effect: a range of
bacteria (Coliforms, Salmonella, Enterococci) disappear from polluted water by passing
through a vegetation of bulrushes.
4.2 Aquatic plant systems

Aquatic plant systems are typically shallow ponds of channels with floating or submerged
aquatic plants. Submersed and emerging plants are typical wetland and marsh vegetation
such as edges, bulrushes and cattails, as well as shrubs and trees. Two major floating plant
types – water hyacinths (Eichhornia crassipes) and duckweed (Lemna spp.) are used in
general, both in aerated and non-aerated variations (Figure 4.7). A significant characteristic
of these systems is that periodic harvesting is required for proper operation. Aquatic plant
systems are effective in the removal of carbon and nitrogen both from dissolved and solid
biodegradable matter.
Naturally floating plants have less developed root system, so the rhizosphere-based
clean-up processes are less efficient compared to emergent plant species, on the other hand
the plant material can easily be removed.
Tchobanoglous (1997) defines the following goals that current research with regard
to constructed wetlands and aquatic systems has to address: (i) understanding how plants
function, (ii) operate new configurations/improve operating techniques, and (iii) engineered
application of plants in the system.
The classical example of the fields requiring more attention is the fact that a number of
aquatic plants are able to transport oxygen from the atmosphere to the root zone – what is
Figure 4.7 Horizontal surface flow constructed wetland with floating plants.
unknown is how to optimize the rate of oxygen transport to the root zone selectively. Cur-
rently, fully empirical approaches are used for the design so one of the most important goals
here is to establish systematic design methods with solid scientific basis.
One way to innovate is to combine root-zone activity with aqueous phase processes and
eliminate the construction and maintenance problems of a self-sustaining constructed bed.
The result of these kinds of development are the floating constructed wetlands or floating
islands which function similarly to traditionally constructed wetlands that foster vegetation
to harvest nutrient or other pollutants from water. Vegetation is planted into soil or soil-like
growth medium placed into the planting holes/wells formed/configured on the floating plat-
form. The platform is constructed from a very light and porous fibrous material with a loose
grid structure which supports but still lets the roots grow down to the water.
4.3 Constructed floating islands

Floating islands utilize terrestrial and wetland species grown in floating beds on the surface of
stormwater sediment ponds and wetlands, eutrophic lakes and wastewater lagoons to treat the
water. This kind of floating biofiltration restores ecological integrity to the aquatic ecosystem.
Floating islands are embedded into the surrounding aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem mopping
up nutrients and pollutants. They help tertiary treatment of wastewater through absorption and
utilization of nitrogen, phosphorus, and suspended solids by plants and removal of colloidally
suspended heavy metals out of the water body and into the rhizosphere (root zone). In addition,
they allow denitrification and release of nitrogen gas to the atmosphere (Reinsel, 2018).
Wetland plants grown on top of the water can effectively purify water and can fulfill
stringent quality standards (Duncan, 2012).
The world’s largest aquaponics project in China’s third largest aquaculture lake (Lake
Taihu in the Yangtze Delta plain) experienced its worst ever algal bloom in 2004, pushing
researchers to find innovative solutions. A large (4 acres) aquaponics system was designed
to remove nutrients that fuel algal blooms. Experiments growing rice on fish ponds provided
a foundation for scaling-up to lakes and larger water bodies for water repair (Duncan, 2014).
Sun et al. (2017) monitored the efficiency of water spinach and sticky rice in hydro-
ponic floating bed systems for high-salinity tidal delta lakes. The total nitrogen removal rates
were 89.7, 92.3, 85.1 (spinach) and 81.2 and 78.9% (rice), while total phosphorus removal
rates were 94.4, 96.4, 93.5 (spinach) and 75.7 and 80.0% (rice) under different salinities.
The results indicate that the two-plant species significantly contributed to the remediation of
a polluted tidal river.
Floating islands of different size (from as small as 1.5 × 1.5 or 5 × 5 square feet to 20 ×
20 square feet or even to 200 × 200 square feet) are increasingly popular around the world,
from the Far East (where floating gardens represent a traditional practice such as the ones on
the Inle lake in Myanmar) to the US, Australia, and Europe. The smaller ones are available as
ready-made commercial products with complete planting pocket kits of growth medium and
plant species. The platform itself is generally prepared from light natural plant material or
from low-risk recycled foamed polymers. The starter plant compilation can be supplemented
by local native species.
The floating roots have direct contact with the water to be treated and serve as a solid
carrier which the degrading microorganisms bind to form a food net for pollutant utilization.
Floating wetlands/islands can be used both for constructed wetlands, natural water bodies,
agricultural and fishery ponds, wastewater lagoons, and stormwater and retention basins
Figure 4.8 Floating island developed on a solid foam-type foundation.
with shallow or deep-water levels. Floating islands treat polluted water bodies directly and
may become part of the local ecosystem, performing widespread aquatic and terrestrial eco-
system functions such as fish refuge and providing a spawning habitat as well as a bird
breeding ground (Figure 4.8).
Benefits of floating islands:
– Good clean-up efficiency in BOD, N, P and suspended solid removal;

– Improved water quality;
– Adaptability: can fit into the native ecosystem;
– Environmental sustainability: low energy requirement;
– An inexpensive option;
– Can be produced in any size and shape;
– Applies to existing lagoon and pond systems;
– No additional land is required;
– Can be expanded, modified, or combined with other water quality tools (e.g. aeration);
– Protecting aquatic ecosystems in streams, lakes, ponds, fish ponds, water retention, and
storage ponds;
– Efficient in erosion control and shoreline protection;
– Can be used for cultivation of useful (e.g. edible) cultivars;
– Contributes to natural beauty (e.g. formal gardens with flowers);
– It can be moved to another place or removed if required;
– It has a worldwide potential to improve surface water quality.
The reviews of Chen et al. (2016) and Pavlineri et al. (2017) give a good overview
on the use of floating wetlands for wastewater treatment and on the design, operation and
management aspects of floating wetlands. Several case studies and good examples are pub-
lished, some of them are listed here for further study of the topic.
– Bega, New South Wels (AU) – Stormwater wetlands were installed in 2007 using Aqua
BiofilterTM reed beds. The dense root mass of the 200 m2 floating reedbed was located
directly in the stormwater stream intercepting the polluted flows and mopped up the
majority of the nutrients, suspended solids, metals, and toxicants. Carex was the most
successful plant. After 14 months the small 30-cm plants had grown to 2.2 m in length,
including roots. Root tissue lab analysis revealed a significant uptake of pollutants,
nutrients, metals, and toxicants (Duncan, 2012).
– Drinking water reservoir remediation in China in 2009 involved a 67-hectare reser-
voir with toxicants, health risks, toxic algal blooms, and wind-wave action resulting in
sediment resuspension. Floating reed beds were placed near the shore to prevent wave
action stirring up sediment and large-scale floating reed beds were deployed across the
reservoir to treat the toxicants in the water and reduce nutrients. The project is being
replicated across China (Duncan, 2009).
– Coastal Restoration in Louisiana and Florida (US) – Human-made floating islands
have been established to support plant life in coastal areas since 2009 (BioHaven®
Living Shorelines, 2013). The root zones of these plants extend below the solid grow-
ing medium of the island and take up nitrogen and phosphorous directly from the water
(Coastal Restoration, 2018).
– McLean’s Pit Landfill, Greymouth (New Zealand) (2009) – Landfill leachate contain-
ing BOD, nitrogen and suspended solid was treated by floating wetland technology in
2009 as a demonstration. The first stage of the development proved to be effective in
suspended solid and color removal (about two-fold removal compared to preceding con-
ventional treatment). BOD and total nitrogen removal increased by 1.5-fold (McLean’s
Pit Landfill, 2011). The performance of the Greymouth Landfill leachate treating float-
ing wetland was compared in a study (Comparative Studies, 2009) to the performance
of several hundred conventional wetlands used for the same purposes (Vymazal, 2009).
The comparative results are shown in Table 4.2.
– Rehberg Ranch Residential Subdivision, Billings, Montana (US) (2009) is an early
example of floating wetland application in an aerated wastewater lagoon. A 214-m2
floating wetland was established covering 6.4% of the 3345 m2 lagoon (Rehberg
Ranch, 2010). The combination resulted in intensive nutrient and BOD removal. The
increase in BOD removal was 38%, suspended solid removal: 27%, N and P removal:
9–9%, compared to the simply aerated control lake. The cost was reduced by 50%.
Table 4.2 Comparison between the performance of floating and conventional wetlands in landfill
leachate treatment.
Parameter Floating wetland Conventional wetland
BOD 46% 33%

Total N 40% 33%
Suspended solid 89% 55%
Size 288 m2 872 m2
Table 4.3 Comparison between the performance of floating and conventional wetlands in municipal
wastewater treatment.
Parameter Floating wetland Conventional wetland
BOD 89% 81%

Total N 69% 39%
Ammonium-N 83% 21%
Suspended solid 53% 68%
Size 214 m2 1197 m2
The performance of the Rehberg floating wetland system was compared to the average
of several hundred conventional wetlands (Vymazal, 2009) for municipal/household
wastewater. The main results of the comparative study are shown in Table 4.3 in per-
centage of removal (Comparative Studies, 2009).
– Fish pond surplus nutrient (2009) was reduced by planting aquatic vegetables on arti-
ficial floating beds in concrete fish ponds in China. After 120 days of treatment, 30.6%
of total nitrogen and 18.2% of total phosphorus was removed by a 6-m2 floating bed
planted with Ipomoea aquatica (water spinach) (Li & Li, 2009).
– Mermaid Pool, Somerset County, New Jersey (US) (2010) – Phosphorus reduction
was stable and effective with 83-m2 passive floating wetlands treatment, 2% of the
one-acre waterway. The platform was prepared from post-consumer polymer fibers.
The 0.1–0.25 mg/L total phosphorous content of the inlet decreased to 0.05–0.065 mg/L
in the outlet (Mermaid, 2011).
– Lake Taihu, China(2010) – An integrated ecological floating bed was constructed and
used employing plant, freshwater clam and biofilm carrier. Mesocosm experiments
were carried out to determine the optimal water exchange period (Li et al., 2010).
– Louisiana wastewater facility (US) (2011) – Nutrient removal with passive floating
islands. BioHaven floating treatment wetlands were installed (145 m2 in total) in the
wastewater treatment plant in 2011 and monitored during a 17-month period by monthly
sampling. Chemical oxygen demand (COD), ammonia and phosphate were reduced to
consistently manageable levels to keep the facility in compliance (Louisiana Wastewa-
ter Facility, 2011).
– Sydney Olympic Park (2012) – Authority owned floating islands habitat for migratory
birds: the world’s first marine species of saltmarsh floating islands was established in
2012 for a migratory water bird habitat. Two islands of 120 m2 in total were installed.
Black swiftlets, black swans, and migratory birds use the floating islands for a habitat
(Ecoplan Australia, 2018).
– Fish Fry Lake (2014) – A dying lake in Montana (US) containing high levels of nitrogen
and phosphorous and animal waste was remediated using rafts planted with marshland
vegetation. The floating island helped the 6.5acre lake to recover, and regular fish har-
vesting contributed to the nutrient removal of the fish biomass. Fish growth increased to
120–135% compared to the control lake (Fish Fry Lake, 2014, 2018; Andresena, 2017).
– Hayden Lake (2017) in Idaho (US) is polluted, primarily with phosphorus, which has
led to algae blooms and the proliferation of invasive aquatic plants. The combined
pressures of increasing water temperatures and dropping dissolved oxygen levels are
threatening the cold-water habitat. Experiments since 2011 confirmed the feasibility and
efficiency of floating islands so seven installations were established in 2017. The float-
ing fundament is made from recycled plastic bottles and natural wetland vegetation was
planted on top. The floating wetlands solved the problem of nutrient pollution and the
long-term stormwater runoff treatment. The effectiveness of 23 m2 of floating wetland
is equivalent to half a hectare of natural wetland surface area (Hayden Lake, 2017).
– Marton (New Zealand) (2013) – Treatment of an anaerobic lake, eliminating odors by using
the floating wetland as a blanket to exclude odor transport and to form a low-rate anaerobic
digestor for energy-efficient BOD removal from the wastewater. In September 2013 (after
more than 3 years in operation), the system still performed optimally (Marton, 2013).
– Urban river with a high nutrient and metal content in China: the water in the floating
wetland area became more transparent and showed efficient removal of nutrients and
chemical and biological oxygen demand as well as metals content. However, the reme-
diation area showed higher concentrations of organic carbon, total nitrogen, nitrate,
sulfate, Fe, Cu, Pb, and Zn in the sediment compared to the control area. Similar to
conventional wetland accumulation the same problem should be managed in relation to
floating islands (Ning et al., 2014).
– Yangtze River Delta, China (2016) – Three floating wetlands were constructed and
planted to investigate the influence of seasonal change on contaminant removal and har-
vesting strategy. The best removal efficiency was achieved by Thalia dealbata (canna;
a wetland plant): 71% for chemical oxygen demand (COD), 70% for total nitrogen, and
82% for total phosphorus. The COD and total N concentrations in effluent water were
under 20 and 1.5 mg/L (Ge et al., 2016).
– High-salinity river in China – Water spinach and sticky rice was used in hydroponic
floating bed systems (Sun et al., 2017).
– Royal Botanic Garden (2018) in Melbourne (AU) – By installing floating treatment
wetlands water quality improved in the lakes, blue-green algal blooms were reduced in
warmer months, as well as improvements were observed in wetland habitat for aquatic
fauna and effective stormwater purification. Due to quality improvement, the water can
be utilized for irrigating the botanic garden (Figure 4.9) (Royal Botanic Garden, 2018).
Figure 4.9 Guilfoyle’s Volcano, the lake with floating wetlands in the Melbourne Royal Botanical Garden
(Guilfoyle was an Australian landscape gardener and botanist).
– Floating islands and floating riverbanks are constructed by Biomatrix (2018a) using
2D, 3D, and 4D modular, thermo-fused, tough float systems. The modular float system
has been deployed in the UK for food industries and also for residential developments
in Scotland. The product is suitable both for industrial (including food and beverages
industries) and municipal wastewaters. The floats are durable and UV resistant and the
attached growth medium supports aquatic plants and the connected ecosystem. The con-
struction is rapid (some weeks), the design is flexible, and the system can also be used
for upgrading existing treatment plants (Biomatrix, 2018b).
– Floating Island International (2018) creates sustainable ecosystems for healthy natural
microbial and plant processes resulting in better water quality and a diverse habitat for
pollinators, wildlife, and fish.
– Midwest Floating Islands (2018) published many different applications on their web-
site advertising several applications that closely mirror the fields of applications of float-
ing islands in general:
◦ Stormwater treatment;
◦ New and retrofit for stormwater ponds;
◦ Wastewater and gray water lagoons and stabilization ponds;
◦ Aquaculture;
◦ Algae reduction;
◦ Improving water quality in lakes and rivers;
◦ Wetland restoration;
◦ Erosion control and wave dampening;
◦ Fish spawning platforms;
◦ Wildlife habitat restoration and promotion, e.g. establishing nesting bird habitat;
◦ Carbon sequestration;
◦ Aesthetic waterscape.
5 REACTOR BASED SOLUTIONS – LIVING SYSTEMS

AND ECOMACHINES
5.1 Conventional living machines

The maximum degradation rate achievable with natural systems is determined by the environ-
mental conditions (in most cases the temperature and/or dissolved oxygen concentration). In
order to eliminate or diminish the limiting effects of these factors, the natural environment is
imitated under controlled conditions within bioreactors. An important difference between tradi-
tional biotechnologies and the solutions of ecological engineering is that, in the latter, owing to
the active presence of higher organisms (including plants), not only do the classical tanks act as
reactors but their closed environment is involved in the treatment as well. For being able to con-
trol this environment, the reactors are covered by a greenhouse with temperate climate zones.
The application of reactors makes significantly higher process rates available. Table 4.1
gives an overview about comparable process rates achievable with natural treatment
approaches and various reactor-based systems. As it turns out, the hydraulic detention time
data show that it at least doubles the process rate that can be achieved with traditional living
systems compared to constructed wetlands, and this still can be increased by a factor of ten
using modern advanced artificial ecosystems.
Obviously, the process rate increase comes with an increase in capital and operational
costs. A general comparison of capital expenditure (CAPEX) could be an important part of
the overall technology comparison, however, such an analysis can be misleading as the dif-
ferent technologies can achieve different effluent limits with almost the same CAPEX. There
is a very special difference however, in operational costs in the case of the ecologically
enhanced systems. The cost of heating the greenhouse is a cost group that no competitive
technologies have. Table 4.4 gives an estimation of these costs for different plant sizes. It
is worth noting that this is around 10% of the total energy consumption of such treatment
plants.
Ecomachines are always multi-reactor systems where each reactor is designed for host-
ing its own specialized ecosystem as comprehensively as possible. The reactors are half-
way between natural habitats and conventional wastewater treatment tanks operated under
anaerobic, anoxic or aerobic conditions. A typical reactor scheme of an ecomachine plant
is illustrated in Figure 4.10 as published by Organica® (2018). The scheme visualized the
different reactors with plants on their surface.
Table 4.5 gives an overview of the applied cell types in living systems. The combination
and respective numbers and volumes of these cells depend on the respective influent charac-
teristics and effluent limit requirements.
Table 4.4 Energy consumption for greenhouse heating of ecomachine installations at different sizes
(0°C external average temperature during wintertime).
Plant capacity (m3/day) Energy consumption (kWh/year)
500 35,770
2000 76,600
5000 140,500
Figure 4.10 Typical reactor scheme of a multi-cellular living system plant.

Table 4.5 Reactor types in ecomachine technologies and in enhanced artificial ecosystems.
Type Function Conditions Sensors installed*
Closed aerobic First step of organic matter DO ≥ 2 mg/L DO, pH, COD/
removal with odor control BOD
High-load Organic matter removal DO < 1.0 mg/L DO, pH, COD/
aerobic (I) usually covered by BOD
shallow biofilters
Low-load Simultaneous nitrification, DO ≈ 2.0 mg/L DO, pH, NH+4 -N,
aerobic (II–IV) denitrification; excess sludge NO3-N
reduction, biological phosphorus
removal
High-load Denitrification/organic matter DO ≈ 0 mg/L ORP, COD/BOD,
anoxic removal NO3-N
Low-load Denitrification/organic matter DO ≈ 0 mg/L ORP, COD/BOD,
anoxic removal NO3-N
Anaerobic Anaerobic fermentation, DO ≈ 0 mg/L & ORP, COD/BOD
biological phosphorus removal NO3-N ≈ 0 mg/L
usually covered by
shallow biofilters
Clarifier/phase Suspended solids removal
separator
Ecological Suspended solids/nutrient DO ≈ 4–5 mg/L DO, pH
fluidized bed removal, effluent polishing
*Traditional living machines are usually operated with a minimum number of sensors. However, derivative tech-
nologies applying the same cell types rely very much on additional process control possibilities provided by the
instrumentation, hence it is logical to include the sensors here.
The arrangement of a typical reactor cell can be seen in Figure 4.11. As the scheme
shows, the plants are installed on top of the reactors with their roots dangling 1–1.5 m into the
upper part of the basin. The root zone – just like in the natural systems – provides a healthy
habitat for bacteria and a whole range of other organisms such as algae, protozoa, zooplank-
ton, and worms. The clarification is followed by post-filtration treatment steps, usually in the
form of ecological fluidized beds that act as living habitats for higher organisms, typically
snails and fish (see also Laylin, 2010).
The functions of the plants are slightly different to that which was summarized in Sec-
tion 4.2. In these reactor-based, high-load systems, the primary function of plant roots is
being present as biofilm carriers. In addition to the carrier function, the oxygen transfer
taking place across the root tissues is an important advantage of such systems. The oxygen
transfer rates merely from plant roots can cover 1.2–10 g O2/m3 reactor volume/h respira-
tion rates in planted reactors which is a significant contribution to the oxygen balance in the
system.
As outlined in Section 4.2, the amount of nutrients absorbed by the plants (nitrogen and
phosphorous) is very small compared to the amounts removed by the microorganisms, so it
is usually neglected during the design process.
In recent decades the original living machine concept was further developed. The main
development directions – as outlined in Section 5.2 – focus on combining the advantages of
Figure 4.11 A typical reactor in an ecomachine installation.
the ecological design with the beneficial properties of conventional biological wastewater
treatment technologies. The most notable representative of this new generation is the Organ-
ica technology. In certain installations the technology combines the suspended biomass in
the system (similar to conventional activated sludge) with fixed biomass present in two spe-
cial forms in the reactors. First, the biomass lives on the surface of the plant root system. In
order to optimize the aeration efficiency, an additional significant part of the active biomass
resides on artificial fixed film carriers placed in the lower region of the reactors.
Todd and Josephson (1996) formulated a few design and operation criteria for living
machine plants and introduced the term “ecomachine”.
– Steep gradients. A waste stream will benefit from passing through a series of stages that
have different oxygen regimes, redox potentials, pH, temperature, etc. This principle
is mostly about diversifying the habitats present in the treatment system so in this way
fostering the development of highly diverse ecosystems.
– High exchange rates. The goal is to maximize the surface area of living material to
which the waste stream is exposed.
– Periodic and random pulsed exchange. According to Todd and Josephson (1996), not
only spatial variations but gradients in time can also contribute strongly to an increase
in the treatment efficiency.
– Cellular design and structure of the system. As discussed previously, compart-
mentalization contributes to achieving extended biodiversities, maximizing the
number of sub-ecosystems, so contributing to system stability and increasing treatment

performance.
– Solar based photosynthetic foundations. Algae and higher plants are seen in conven-
tional civil engineering as nuisance organisms to be eliminated physically and chemi-
cally from the treatment process. In the case of ecomachines these are integral parts of
the treatment pathway.
– Diversity of higher organisms. Higher organisms in living systems consume the excess
microbial biomass that develops on the degraded waste, so contributing to excess sludge
reduction.
– Biological exchanges beyond the system. Operation of traditional living machines relies
on periodic re-inoculation of the reactors so providing constant linkage with larger natu-
ral systems. The function of re-inoculation maintains or even enhances diversity in the
systems.
5.2 Advanced artificial ecologies

This technology group emerged from the merger of conventional living machines and con-
ventional activated sludge systems. These systems inherited the reactor layout of living
machines and the process knowledge, equipment and instrumentation of activated sludge.
After the initial combination of these two approaches, significant development led to the
current state-of-the-art of these systems. One of the most notable solutions with the origins
outlined previously is the Organica technology.
Artificial ecological solutions are positioned as a competitor of mainstream biological
wastewater treatment technologies like activated sludge, membrane bioreactors (MBRs),
moving bed biofilm reactors (MBBR) or sequencing batch reactors (SBRs). They are highly
competitive both in capital and operational costs as well as footprint or manpower require-
ments. The beneficial features originate from the presence of artificial ecosystems in the
reactors similar to living machines: there are plants in the system, and the plant roots act as
biofilm carriers. The interior view of Organica technology-based waste treatment plants can
be seen in Figure 4.12. The activity of biofilm organisms is added to that of the activated
Figure 4.12 Interior view of a wastewater treatment plant applying the Organica ecomachine technology.
sludge. This quantitative effect results in the increase of treatment efficiency. Higher ani-
mals with longer lifecycles (unicellular cilia, worms, arthropods) establish themselves on the
biofilm. The formation of such a complex ecosystem enables a wider spectrum of nutritive
material to be broken down. This qualitative effect leads to a lower organic matter content of
the effluent and to higher efficiency of ammonia removal.
The specific surface area of plant roots is comparable to modern artificial carrier media,
but plant roots are not susceptible to clogging. The oxygen transfer of plant roots contributes
to lower aeration requirements.
In addition to the natural biofilm carriers, artificial “root systems” are installed in the
reactors that contribute to the available biofilm carrier surface. The application of artificial
biofilm carriers in combination with the plant roots has several advantages. The plant roots
are protected from the shearing force of the air bubbles and a large surface area is provided
for additional biofilm growth. Even when the plant roots have not grown (typical situation
after system start-up), biomass can attach to these artificial carriers: the efficiency of the
treatment is good, even just after the planting period.
Figure 4.13 shows the micro- and nanofiber structure of the artificial biofilm carrier
which provides an active surface for microbial adhesion. The specialty fibrous product
serves as a fix bed in flow-through bioreactors. The micro- and nanofibrous net becomes
covered by a thick biofilm, as shown by Figure 4.14. It is also apparent in the pictures that
the two biofilms from two different bioreactors significantly differ from each other.
The combination of natural and artificial root systems (see Figure 4.15) improves the
wastewater treatment process by leveraging a fixed-bed biofilm (attached growth and not
floating suspended in the water) that grows on both natural (plant) and engineered (biofiber
media) root structures in the reactors allowing a much greater quantity and diversity of organ-
isms to thrive in the same physical space compared to conventional activated sludge tech-
nologies. The larger and more diverse biomass per unit of reactor volume results in reduced
construction costs as well as improved stability, increased nutrient removal performance,
and reduced energy consumption. The reactors are placed into greenhouses, appearing as
an odorless botanical garden, so it can be placed directly into the source of the wastewater.
Figure 4.13 Micro- and nanofibers function as an active surface for microbial adhesion. The specialty
product serves as a fixed-bed in flow-through bioreactors.
Figure 4.14 Micro and nanofiber net covered by a thick biofilm, derived from two different reactors.
Figure 4.15 Schematic representation of natural and artificial root system in the fixed-bed biofilm
technology: artificial enlargement of plant roots increases microbial density in the reactor.
Higher microbial density results in enhanced mineralization and an accelerated wastewa-
ter treatment process.
5.3 Living machines, ecomachines, ecomachine

systems – case studies
The first living machine projects are dated from the 1990s, 30 years after the birth of the
term “ecoengineering,” when the design of sustainable ecosystems was called Odum in 1962
(Odum, 1962; Odum et al. 1963). Living machine- or ecomachine-type technologies use
integrated wetland-based technologies, the main difference being that while wetlands are
open air technologies, ecomachines use reactors placed inside. Ecomachines can integrate
any type of wetlands, resulting in horizontal flow ecomachines, vertical flow ecomachines,
tidal flow or hydroponic ecomachine systems, wastewater gardens, or even reactor-based
floating ecomachines built on a boat or raft (the reactor-version of floating islands). Living
machine systems may vary largely in size, design and capacity and the time needed for the
development of a self-sustaining community (1–3 years). Ecomachine systems are typically
combined with botanical gardens and teaching facilities in higher education. Ecomachines
and ecomachine systems can solve local household wastewater/sewage treatment and water
reuse and can serve as the basis for sustainable cities and sustainable agriculture and hus-
bandry. Ecomachine systems utilize all nutrients and energy from wastes converting it to
biomass and products that can join the normal biogeochemical cycles.
First developers of living- or ecomachines and systems:
– US-based John Todd Ecological Design (Todd, 2018);

– Ocean Arks International (Ocean Arks, 2018);
– Worrell Water Technologies (Worrell, 2018);
– The Scottish Biomatrix Water (Biomatrix, 2018a);
– Organica in Hungary (Organica, 2018).
The most popular fields of application are these:
– Replacement of small size wastewater treatment plants with ecoengineered living sys-
tems, named as living machines, ecomachines or food-chain reactors (a series of various
rectors) and their systems, which are placed into botanical garden looking greenhouses.
– Supplemental application of the ecotechnology to large capacity traditional wastewater
treatment plants: these kinds of facilities adequately insert the ecotechnologies and the
greenhouses into existing conventional technological steps.
– Surface water restoration by using known restorer systems, which can be placed in-
stream, directly into the water, as a floating reactor system (anchored or built on a
boat) or off-stream; in this case a side-stream will flow through the treatment unit.
Re-inoculation plays an important role in both cases.
– Recycling and reusing water to reduce primary water consumption in arid areas or in
any case of water shortage (cf. global warming).
– Recycling and reuse of water in cases of activities with high water requirement, e.g.
sports fields, zoo parks and botanical gardens, and industrial technologies where the
water is used for washing/cleaning.
– Recycling and reuse of water in green buildings: water treatment locally by using the aes-
thetic greenhouse-based technology and reuse the treated water for non-potable purposes.
– Living factories: a kind of aggregate of various bio and ecotechnologies in multifunc-
tional buildings in the urban environment. The aim is to close the metabolic loop by
integrating biological production and waste and wastewater recycling in adequate archi-
tectural forms fusing public spaces with bio-manufacturing and water reuse (e.g. recrea-
tion, urban farming, education and research) (Kenyeres, 2015).
– The previous approach is supported by those technologies which provide simultaneous
wastewater treatment and electricity generation by the combination of an upflow con-
structed wetland and a microbial fuel cell (Oon et al., 2015; Xu et al., 2015; Song et al.,
2017). The oxidation reduction potential (ORP) and dissolved oxygen (DO) profile in
the study of Oon et al. (2015) showed that the anaerobic and aerobic regions were well
developed in the lower and upper beds and the removal efficiencies of COD, NO3−, and
NH4+ were 100%, 40%, and 91%, respectively. A maximum power density of 6.12 mW/m2
was achieved
Some living machine and ecomachine-type ecotechnologies and systems are introduced
as examples in this section, starting with the early installations and showing some of the
recent ones. Several variations have been developed and combined with other biological
and ecological technologies for today after the initial trials brought success, and the US EPA
published an evaluation of performance and system costs in 2001 clearly demonstrating the
advantages (US EPA, 2001b).
Findhorn Ecovillage (1995) in Scotland was the very first settlement in Europe that
established an ecologically engineered sewage treatment plant for wastewater from about
500 residents. This cost-effective and aesthetic ecological water treatment system utilizes a
set of sequenced ecologies built up in tanks in a visually appealing greenhouse. The tanks
contain biofilters with complete ecological systems made up of diverse communities of bac-
teria, algae, members of the micro-fauna, and numerous plant (aquatic and mash vegetation,
including trees) and animal species (snails and fish). The quality of the outflow from the
series of tanks meets environmental standards without chemical additives or disinfectants.
Biomatrix (2018a) company operates the Findhorn ecovillage today simultaneously provid-
ing a research and educational facility.
South Burlington (1995) municipal ecomachine, in Vermont, US, demonstrated high
performance in the treatment of 80,000 gallon/day wastewater from 1200 residents in cold
temperatures. Sewage flowed to a greenhouse with two treatment trains, each with five aer-
obic reactors, a clarifier and three ecological fluidized beds. The aesthetic beauty of the
greenhouse and the surroundings as well as the lack of offensive odor (compared to previous
wastewater treatment plant) makes the system compatible with the residential environment
and can be used as an educational center for local schools.
Darrow School ecomachine (1998) in New Lebanon, New York, was an early example
of a cost-effective, environmentally friendly solution to repair an inadequately functioning
wastewater treatment plant. The Darrow school ecomachine treats 8500 gallon/day waste-
water from campus buildings before returning the water to the Hudson River watershed.
The diversity of microorganisms, snails, fish, and higher plants break down and mineralize
organic pollutants. The ecomachine is placed into a botanical garden like greenhouse which
provides a setting for educational activities: monitoring water quality and ecosystem activi-
ties and receiving more than 500 guests per year.
Oberlin College (2000) in Ohio, US, between Toledo and Cleveland, represents a com-
plex eco-friendly solution which includes an ecomachine setting among other things. All
the materials within the Adam Joseph Lewis Center for Environmental Studies are recycled,
reused, or sustainably grown and harvested. Lighting, plumbing, and air-conditioning all
represent energy-efficient and passive solutions. The variety of native ecosystems con-
structed not only provide food, but also solve stormwater management and storage, and
wastewater treatment and reuse by living machine technology. The living machine contains
two underground anaerobic tanks, two covered aerobic reactors, a series of hydroponic
indoor reactors hosting aquatic plants, a clarifier, a vertical-flow constructed wetland and a
reuse tank with disinfected water. The reactors and the reactor-based wetlands are all placed
inside a greenhouse which also provides educational purposes for the college.
Emmen Zoo living machine (2002) in the Netherlands. These works have been oper-
ating since 2002 and treat 830,000 m3/day wastewater in the Noorder Zoo. A closed water
cycle has been established and the effluent of the living machine is treated by ultrafiltration
before it goes back in the reuse cycle. The living machine is placed in a heated building to
create a constant climate and to optimize the biological processes. The system consists of
three small and one large wastewater cycle. The large cycle combines the residues of the
three small cycles from zoo animals which is mixed with the restaurant wastewater, the
toilets and with the dirty pond water. Rainwater from the pavements is also collected and
reused. Tap water use has been reduced from 180,000 m3 to 30,000 m3 per year and the
system produces less waste. Total investment of the water treatment system was 10 million
Euro. The total system can be visited by visitors to the zoo to learn more about water and
aquatic ecosystems.
Telki (2004) is a rapidly growing village near Budapest, Hungary. Due to the rate of
development the wastewater treatment plant reached its maximum capacity in 2002, so it
required a complete upgrade. The municipal government selected the Organica system (a liv-
ing machine-type ecotechnology) to solve the problem. The facility was constructed during
2004–2005 for the treatment of 800 m3/day municipal wastewater. The technological system
consists of several closed and open aerobic and anoxic reactors to efficiently degrade organic
components and wastewater nutrients. The microbiologically prepared water flows through
the enhanced artificial ecosystems contain constructed wetland type reactors (called FCR =
food chain reactors) to remove residual organics and nutrients as shown in Figure 4.10. The
highly versatile Organica system and the Telki greenhouse garden (Figure 4.16) have been
providing a home for several research projects over the past years so their operation was fol-
lowed by intensive monitoring; the main water quality parameters are shown in Table 4.6.
Furman University (2006) Liberal Arts college in Greenville, South Carolina, US,
selected the living machine technology as the most energy-efficient option with the lowest
Figure 4.16 The Organica ecomachine system in Telki, Hungary.

Table 4.6 Average input and output water characteristics of the Telki Organica system.
Measured parameter Average Average Standard

influent effluent quality criteria
(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 890 52 100

Biological oxygen demand (BOD) 430 9 30
Ammonium-nitrogen (NH4 -N) 64 3 10
Total nitrogen (TN) 87 10 35
Total phosphorous (TP) 21 1 5
Total suspended solid (TSS) 426 9 50
Table 4.7 Average input and output water characteristics of the Etyek (Hungary) Organica system.
Measured parameter Average Average Standard

influent effluent quality criteria
(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 630 43 100

Biological oxygen demand (BOD) 325 7 30
Ammonium-nitrogen (NH4 -N) 79 4 10
Total nitrogen (TN) 99 17 35
Total phosphorous (TP) 10 3 5
Total suspended solid (TSS) 283 11 50
life cycle costs: 5000 gallons of wastewater from the campus sewer is collected in an under-
ground primary settling tank and pumped into the living machine®. A tidal flow wetland
is integrated into the living machine system mimicking coastal wetlands with fill and drain
cycles and intensive oxygenation. After treatment and disinfection by UV radiation, the
water is reused for toilet flushing.
Etyek (2007), a small village just outside Budapest, was chosen by Hollywood pro-
ducers to build the world-class Korda film studio. The increased wastewater production
could not be handled by the existing wastewater treatment plant, thus its capacity had to be
increased to the predicted demand of the studio while considering the seasonally fluctuating
water demand of the wine country. The Organica system was built in a greenhouse with the
capacity of 1000 m3/day (Table 4.7).
Guilford County Schools (2007) Greensboro, North Carolina, US, invested in the liv-
ing machine® system after they had been told that the cost just to connect to the nearest
municipal wastewater treatment plant would be US$ 4 million. Guilford County decided
to invest in a “green” onsite wastewater treatment system, so they chose to feature a living
machine system. The hybrid wetland type living machine designed for Guilford is comprised
of horizontal flow and tidal flow wetland cells and disinfection and ultrafiltration units for
the outflow of the wetlands. The main benefit of the system is a significant water saving
(2 million gallon/year) and savings in the construction of sewer lines to reach the conven-
tional wastewater treatment plant.
The Omega Center (2009) in Rhinebeck, New York, started to establish an ecoma-
chine system in 2003 as an alternative for the failing field system of wastewater treatment.
The ecomachine treats up to 52,000 gallon/day of wastewater for irrigation to a leach field.
The technology contains (i) septic and equalization tanks, (ii) anoxic tanks, (iii) aerated
aquatic cells, (iv) an outdoor wetland, and (v) a recirculating sand filter. The reactors are
placed in a greenhouse that is also used as a classroom and event space.
The stepwise structure of the ecomachine: (i) sewage is collected and pumped to under-
ground septic tanks where the anaerobic microbiological degrading process starts spontane-
ously and where the solid phase is separated from water. (ii) Equalization tanks regulate
the uneven inflow by distributing it into two anoxic reactors where nitrate and phosphate is
partly removed. (iii) Four constructed wetlands receive the effluent of the anoxic reactors.
Here the root zone microorganisms mineralize organic matter providing nutrients for plants
and convert nitrate surplus into nitrogen gas. (iv) The ecomachine lagoon within the green-
house contains a complex ecosystem of high species diversity for polishing the outflow of
the wetlands. The artificial ecosystem includes microscopic algae, fungi, bacteria, protozoa,
snails, fish, and zooplankton. Plants, shrubs and trees are grown on floating racks within
the system. Air compressors are installed to maintain oxygen levels. (v) The final cleansing
process is filtering by a recirculating sand filter. The water leaving the filter is usable for any
non-potable purposes. The water is utilized for irrigation, for flushing toilets and for water
gardens or fish ponds.
San Francisco (2010) Public Utilities Commission, California, US, decided to use a
sustainable design when planning a huge administration building in downtown San Fran-
cisco (525 Golden Gate Avenue). A living machine® system was established to treat and
reuse the wastewater from the building. The living machine integrated the lobby, the front
walk, and the sidewalk of the building. The technology consists of four stages:
– Primary treatment after sewage collection in a subsurface storage tank;

– Another subsurface tank-system for equalization and recirculation of the water;
– Tidal flow wetland for mimicking the filling and draining cycle 12 times a day;
– The vertical flow wetland cell for polishing the treated water. Both wetlands are planted
and function as indoor and outdoor gardens.
– The water treated in the wetlands is filtered and disinfected in underground reactors and
reused for flushing toilets.
The benefits of the San Francisco living machine system are savings of 750,000 gallons
water per year in the building itself and providing 900,000 gallons per year for off-site uses.
The attractive foliage also contributes to a pleasant public space in the town.
Port of Portland (2010) Headquarters, in Portland, OR, US, uses a tidal flow wet-
land-type living machine®. The wetlands are situated in the lobby and along the exterior
front walkway of Port of Portland administrative office building. The wastewater goes
through:
– Primary treatment after collection;

– Equalization;
– Six tidal flow living machines for secondary and tertiary wastewater treatment;
– A vertical flow cell for polishing;
– The treated effluent is filtered and disinfected with ultraviolet radiation and chlorine.
Benefits from this living machine technology are: savings in water use, reuse of treated
wastewater for the building’s cooling system, and the planted wetlands function as gardens
for recreation. The project attained a LEED Platinum certification by the US Green Building
Council.
The Fisherville Mill Canal (2012) restorer is a hybrid of in-stream and side-stream
technologies, combined into a circulating loop. The ecomachine provides a healthy ecology
for re-seeding the contaminated canal. The complex system consists of interlinking tech-
nologies: a greenhouse with solar aquatic tanks, a mycelial loop, and a floating plant raft
anchored in the canal. Water passes from the canal through the greenhouse and back into the
canal in a continuous loop. The system provides a large number of beneficial organisms to
the canal on a year-round basis. Since the installation of the system, the canal water quality
has improved significantly, and amphibians and turtles have returned.
Moskito Island (2015) ecomachine on the British Virgin Islands where water is a lim-
ited resource was designed and constructed for 29,000 gallon/day domestic sewage with the
aim of reusing the treated water for non-potable irrigation purposes. The terraced configura-
tion allows the ecomachine system to be sited on a steep hillside as a hillside garden and
utilizes the power of gravity.
– Wastewater is received by underground septic storage tanks where primary treatment

takes place and the settled solid phase is removed.
– The wetland setting consists of a deep aerated wetland chamber and a vertical- and a
horizontal-flow wetland. The wetland zones of aeration and mixing are followed by
anoxic areas to efficiently remove nitrogen.
– Gravity continues to move water from the lowest wetland into a series of six deep
aquatic cells working as small aerobic ponds with a high species diversity to consume
any remaining nutrients.
– A series of cartridge filters and ultraviolet disinfection provide final polishing of the
treated effluent.
South Pest (2012) wastewater treatment plant was built in 1966, but by the 2000s it
could no longer comply with the increased needs of Budapest, Hungary. Serious capacity,
operational and odor problems as well as intensive foaming had arisen, mainly due to the
increased contaminant concentrations. The facility of 80,000 m3/day capacity (wastewater
from 300,000 residents and numerous local industries), was completely redesigned and the
following technological steps developed:
1 Screen to remove grit and a primary clarifier;

2 Distribution chamber;
3 Two anoxic reactors;
4 Five aerobic reactors with fine bubble aeration;
5 Secondary clarification;
6 BIOFOR system for nitrogen removal.
The BIOFOR technology needs methanol to efficiently remove nitrogen and its capacity is
limited by the costs. The methanol consumption can be reduced by the inserted Organica
ecomachine-type reactors (iii) (iv) (v), which are housed in three huge greenhouse systems
at the South Pest facility (see Google map in Figure 4.17). The Organica reactor system is
vegetated and additionally supplied by the artificial root system (see Figure 4.15) which,
together with the natural root system and the adherent microorganisms, ensures the removal
of all residual organics and nutrients resulting in a good quality effluent water with low
chemical and biological oxygen demand, low nutrient and metal content, reduced odors and
no foaming. The effluent fulfills even the most stringent standards as it is shown in Table 4.8.
In summary, the result of the upgrade in South Pest was more than a 50% reduction in
air requirements compared to conventional solutions and more than 40% increase in load-
ing capacity without increased footprint and operational savings mainly due to savings in
nitrification and denitrification.
Table 4.8 Water quality parameters of the effluent water of the South Pest water treatment facility.
Measured parameter Effluent water Quality standard

(mg/L) (mg/L)
COD <10 80
BOD <10 25
pH 7.4 6.5–9.0
Extractable by organic solvent <2 5
TSS <10 35
TN average cold season 3.5 20
NH4 -N average cold season 2.54 4
TP 0.04 1.8
Phenol-index <0.05 0.1
Total Cd <0.001 0.005
Total Cr <0.002 0.2
Total Pb <0.002 0.05
Total Cu <0.01 0.5
Total Ni 0.003 0.5
Total Hg <0.0001 0.001
(Source: FCSM, 2018)
Figure 4.17 Bird’s eye view of the South Pest WWTP: the combination of the primary and secondary
clarifier and the greenhouses with the complex living system.
In Tianshan, China (2018), similar upgrading to South Pest is introduced by the Organ-
ica technology where a poorly working, 70,000 m3/day capacity wastewater treatment plant
was “repaired.” The Chinese WWTP will produce an effluent complying with the standard
while maintaining its capacity without additional reactors. The upgraded plant is odorless
and has the visual appearance of a series of botanical gardens. Upgrading the wastewater
treatment makes real-estate development in the area possible.
6 PROCESS MONITORING AND CONTROL POSSIBILITIES
6.1 Process monitoring and instrumentation

Process monitoring and instrumentation in natural systems are usually kept at the lowest
possible level, mostly containing periodical manual inspection only. Practically the same
approach is applied in conventional living machines. Extensive instrumentation is only used
in modern reactor-based artificial ecologies because they originate from conventional waste-
water treatment technologies like activated sludge.
The instruments and sensors are similar to those applied in traditional wastewater treat-
ment plants. The most frequently monitored parameters are dissolved oxygen, temperature,
pH, and, in some situations, turbidity (these are the low-price probes that are easily available
are robust and work reliably and, in addition, provide useful information about the ongoing
biological processes). However, with the decreasing price of various in-line probes the con-
stant monitoring of ammonia, nitrate, suspended solids, and organic matter (the latter two in
the forms of chemical oxygen demand or biochemical oxygen demand) is often used.
In addition to monitoring and control of biological processes, the conditions within the
greenhouse (temperature, humidity) and those environmental parameters that determine the
greenhouse operation (like wind speed and rainfall) are constantly monitored and used in
greenhouse operation control (operation of internal humidification, temperature control with
shading, heating or opening the windows, etc.)
Irrespective of how sophisticated instrumentation is applied, periodical manual inspec-
tion is unavoidable. The most important area of manual intervention is plant nursing (removal
of dry floral parts, excessive growth, etc.).
6.2 Process control considerations

Just like sophisticated process monitoring, automated process control emerged with the
advanced reactor-based artificial ecologies. The signals coming from the sensors are mostly
used in traditional wastewater treatment plant algorithms (e.g. dissolved oxygen control by
modifying the blower frequency using a Proportional-Integral-Derivative = PID algorithm).
In addition to the traditional process control methodologies, the complexity of the ecosys-
tems applied and the elaborate instrumentation open up possibilities for different multi-
input/multi-output (MIMO) control algorithms. In these control situations artificial neural
networks or genetic algorithms combined with detailed dynamic system models are used.
7 SUMMARY
Ecological engineering started with very strong philosophical motivations in the 1960s. Since
then, with the progress in disciplines like applied ecology, biotechnology, and environmen-
tal engineering, it gradually moved toward a scientifically solid alternative to conventional
methods in the field of waste treatment, habitat reconstruction, urban planning, or resource
control. Artificial ecosystems brought new advantages when they were combined with con-
ventional technologies that helped in establishing more sustainable solutions.
Taking a look at the current trends, the development direction of both ecological and
conventional engineering shows a path where the difference between the two fields gradu-
ally fades away.
Attracting and maintaining wider biological diversity in the waste stream treatment pro-
cesses gives wider biodegradation ranges and better removal performances along with lower
excess biomass production thus contributing to a more economical operation.
REFERENCES
Andresena, A. (2017) Nature’s Water Purifiers Help Clean Up Lakes. Available from: www.linke-
din.com/pulse/natures-water-purifiers-help-clean-up-lakes-aan-andresena. [Accessed 16th March
2018].
Babatunde, A.O., Zhao, Y.Q., O’Neill, M. & O’Sullivan, B. (2008) Constructed wetlands for environ-
mental pollution control: A review of developments, research and practice in Ireland. Environment
International, 34, 116–126.
Benyus, J.M. (2002) Biomimicry. Innovation Inspired by Nature. Perennial, Harper Collins Publisher,
New York, NY, USA.
Bergen, S.D., Bolton, S.M. & Frindley, J.L. (2001) Design principles for ecological engineering. Eco-
logical Engineering, 18, 201–210.
BioHaven® Living Shorelines (2013) BioHaven® Living Shorelines, BioHaven® Floating
Breakwaters. Available from: www.floatingislandinternational.com/wp-content/plugins/fii/
casestudies/35.pdf. [Accessed 16th March 2018].
Biomatrix (2018a) Biomatrix Water Company. Available from: www.biomatrixwater.com. [Accessed
16th March 2018].
Biomatrix (2018b) Helix Flow Reactor. Available from: www.biomatrixwater.com/helix-flow-reactor.
[Accessed 16th March 2018].
Braungart, M. & McDonoug, W. (2002) Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things. North
Point Press, New York, NY, USA.
Brix, H. (1994) Functions of macrophytes in constructed wetlands. Water Science and Technology,
29(4), 71–78.
Brix, H. (1997) Do macrophytes play a role in constructed treatment wetlands? Water Science and
Technology, 35(5), 11–17.
Brix, H., Schierup, H.-H. & Arias, C.A. (2007) Twenty years experience with constructed wetland
systems in Denmark – What did we learn? Water Science and Technology, 56, 63–68.
Carty, A., Scholz, M., Heal, K., Gouriveau, F. & Mustafa, A. (2008) The universal design, operation
and maintenance guidelines for farm constructed wetlands (FCW) in temperate climates. Biore-
source Technology, 99, 6780–6792.
Centre for Advancement of Water and Wastewater Technologies (2018) Available from: https://cawt.ca
and https://cawt.ca/centre/publications-and-presentations/ [Accessed 28th May 2018].
Chen, Z., Cuervo, D.P., Müller, J.A., Wiessner, A., Köser, H., Vymazal, J., Kästner, M. & Kuschk, P.
(2016) Hydroponic root mats for wastewater treatment – A review. Environmental Science and Pol-
lution Research, 23(16), 15911–15928.
Coastal Restoration (2018) Available from: https://capecodgreenguide.wordpress.com/floating-wetlands
and www.floatingislandinternational.com/research/case-studies/#cs_4. [Accessed 16th March 2018].
Comparative Studies (2009) Floating Islands Outperform Constructed Wetlands. Available from:
www.floatingislandinternational.com/wp-content/plugins/fii/casestudies/3.pdf. [Accessed 16th March
2018].
Darrow School (1998) Darrow School Eco-Machine. Available from: www.toddecological.com/index.

php?id=projects and www.toddecological.com/data/uploads/casestudies/jtedcasestudy_darrow.
pdf. [Accessed 16th March 2018].
Dotro, G., Langergraber, G., Molle, P., Nivala, J., Puigagut Juárez, J., Stein, O.R. & von Sperling, M.
(2017) Treatment Wetlands. Volume 7. Biological Wastewater Treatment Series. IWA Publishing,
London, UK. ISBN: 9781780408767. OCLC 984563578.
Duncan, T. (2009) Floating New Ideas. Available from: www.aquabiofilter.com/Tom%20Duncan%20
Aqua%20BiofilterTM%20October%202009%20WME%20Magazine.pdf. [Accessed 16th March
2018].
Duncan, T. (2012) Floating reedbeds biofilter performance in urban stormwater treatment wetlands
(Ecoplan Consulting Pty Ltd and Aqua Biofilter™). National Conference: Stormwater Australia,
2012. Available from: www.aquabiofilter.com/Tom%20Duncan%20Stormwater%2009%20Floating%
20Biofilter%20Conference%20Paper%20V1.pdf. [Accessed 16th March 2018].
Duncan, T. (2014) Lake Taihu: World’s Largest Aquaponics Project, in China’s Third Largest Aquacul-
ture Lake. Available from: https://permaculturenews.org/2014/10/14/worlds-largest-aquaponics-
project-chinas-third-largest-aquaculture-lake. [Accessed 16th March 2018].
Ecoplan Australia (2018) Available from: www.ecoplan.net.au. [Accessed 16th March 2018].
Emmen Zoo living machine (2002) Northern Zoo, Emmen, the Netherlands. Available from: www.
livingmachines.com/Portfolio/Zoos-Animal-Shelters/Norther-Zoo,-Emmen,-Netherlands.aspx and
www.urbangreenbluegrids.com/projects/water-factory-in-emmen-zoo-the-netherlands. [Accessed
16th March 2018].
Etyek (2007) The Organica® System in Etyek, Hungary: A Case Study. Available from: www.
organicawater.com/case-study/ and www.organicawater.com/case-study/organica-detailed-case-
study-etyek-cs/ [Accessed 16th March 2018].
FCSM (2018) Water Quality Parameters of 28. 02. 2018. Available from: www.fcsm.hu/szolgaltatasok/
szennyviztisztitas/delpesti_szennyviztisztito_telep. [Accessed 16th March 2018].
Findhorn Ecovillage (1995) Biomatrix Operates Living Machine in Findhorn. Available from: www.
biomatrixwater.com/portfolio-posts/biomatrix-operates-living-machine-in-findhorn. [Accessed
16th March 2018].
Fisherville Mill Canal (2012) The Fisherville Mill Canal Restoration Pilot. Todd Ecological. Avail-
able from: www.toddecological.com/index.php?id=projects and www.toddecological.com/data/
uploads/casestudies/jtedcasestudy_grafton.pdf. [Accessed 16th March 2018].
Fish Fry Lake (2014) Transforming Fish Fry Lake From a Eutrophic Pond to a Productive Fishery.
Available from: www.floatingislandinternational.com/research/case-studies/ and www.floatingisland
international.com/wp-content/plugins/fii/casestudies/40.pdf. [Accessed 16th March 2018].
Fish Fry Lake (2018) Available from: www.bbc.com/future/story/20120925-natures-water-purifiers?
goback=.gde_94811_member_169923730. [Accessed 16th March 2018].
Floating Island International (2018) Available from: www.floatingislandinternational.com. Accessed
16th March 2018].
Furman University (2006) Living Machine® System, Worrell Water Technologies. Available from: www.
livingmachines.com/Portfolio/Schools-Universities/Furman-University.aspx. [Accessed 16th March
2018].
Ge, Z., Feng, C., Wang, X. & Zhang, J. (2016) Seasonal applicability of three vegetation constructed
floating treatment wetlands for nutrient removal and harvesting strategy in urban stormwater reten-
tion ponds. International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation, 112, 80–87.
The Green Center (2010) Available from: http://thegreencenter.net. [Accessed 16th March 2018].
Green, J. (2010) Integrated constructed wetlands for treating domestic wastewater. Uniting the built
and natural environment. The Dirt. American Society of Landscape Architects. Available from:
https://dirt.asla.org/2010/09/10/using-constructed-wetlands-for-wastewater-treatment. [Accessed
16th March 2018].
Guilford County Schools (2007) Living Machine® System, Worrell Water Technologies. Avail-
able from: www.livingmachines.com/Portfolio/Schools-Universities/Guilford-County-Schools,-
Greensboro,-NC.aspx. [Accessed 16th March 2018].
Gumbricht, T. (1993) Nutrient removal processes in freshwater submersed macrophyte systems. Eco-
logical Engineering, 2, 1–30.
Guterstam, B. & Todd, J. (1990) Ecological engineering for wastewater treatment and its application
in New England and Sweden. Ambio, 19, 173–175.
Harrington, R., Dunne, E.J., Carroll, P., Keohane, J. & Ryder, C. (2005) The concept, design and per-
formance of integrated constructed wetlands for the treatment of farmyard dirty water. In: Dunne,
E.L., Reddy, K.R. & Carton, O.T. (eds.) Nutrient Management in Agricultural Watersheds: A Wet-
lands Solution. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 179–188.
Hayden Lake (2017) Available from: http://stormwater.wef.org/2015/07/idaho-groups-utilize-monitor-
floating-wetlands. [Accessed 16th March 2018].
Hedmark, Å. & Jonsson, M. (2008) Treatment of log yard runoff in a couch grass infiltration wetland
in Sweden. International Journal of Environmental Studies, 65, 273–278.
Higgins, J., Mattes, A., Stiebel, W. & Wootton, B. (2017) Eco-Engineered Bioreactors: Advanced
Natural Wastewater Treatment. CRC Press. Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL, USA.
Hoffmann, H., Platzer, Ch., Winker, M. & von Muench, E. (2011) Technology Review of Constructed
Wetlands. Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetlands for Greywater and Domestic Wastewater
Treatment. Sustainable Sanitation – Ecosan Program. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale
Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, Eschborn, Germany. Available From: https://www.susana.org/en/
knowledge-hub/resources-and-publications/library/details/930. [Accessed 8th October 2018].
Holling, C.S. (1996) Engineering resilience versus ecological resilience. In: Schulze, P.C. (ed) Engi-
neering Within Ecological Constraints. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA. pp. 66–80.
Ierland, E.C. & Man, N.Y.H. (1996) Ecological engineering: First step towards economic analysis.
Ecological Engineering, 7, 351–371.
Jones, K. & Hanna, E. (2004) Design and implementation of an ecological engineering approach to
coastal restoration at Loyola Beach, Kleberg County, Texas. Ecological Engineering, 22, 249–261.
Jördening, H.-J. & Winter, J. (2006) Environmental Biotechnology: Concepts and Applications. Wiley-
VCH Verlag GmbH, Weinheim, Germany.
Jørgensen, S.E., Ni-Bin, C. & Xu, F. (eds.) (2014) Ecological Modelling and Engineering of Lakes and
Wetlands. Elsevier, New York, NY, USA.
Kadlec, R.H. & Knight, R.L. (2004) Treatment Wetland. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, USA.
Kayranli, B., Scholz, M., Mustafa, A., Hofmann, O. & Harrington, R. (2010) Performance evaluation of
integrated constructed wetlands treating domestic wastewater. Water, Air & Soil Pollution, 210, 435–451.
Kenyeres, I. (2015) BIOPOLUS Introduction: From Living Machines to Living Factories. Available
from: www.kazincbarcika.hu/_mellekletek/s_ptalalkozo20150817_Biopolus.pdf and www.biopo-
lus.org/technology. [Accessed 16th March 2018].
Lake Taihu, China (2010) see Li et al. (2010).
Laylin, T. (2010) The living machine: An ecological approach to poo. Ecologist, 8th June 2010. Avail-
able from: https://theecologist.org/2010/jun/08/living-machine-ecological-approach-poo. [Accessed
16th March 2018].
Li, W. & Li, Z. (2009) In situ nutrient removal from aquaculture wastewater by aquatic vegetable Ipo-
moea aquatica on floating beds. Water Science and Technology, 59, 1937–1943.
Li, X.N., Song, H.-L., Li, W., Lu, X.-W. & Nishimura, O. (2010) An integrated ecological floating-bed
employing plant, freshwater clam and biofilm carrier for purification of eutrophic water. Ecological
Engineering, 36, 382–390.
Louisiana Wastewater Facility (2011) Nutrient Removal With Passive Floating Treatment Wetlands.
Available from: www.floatingislandinternational.com/research/case-studies/#cs_4 and www.float-
ingislandinternational.com/wp-content/plugins/fii/casestudies/32.pdf. [Accessed 16th March 2018].
Luo, H., Huang, G., Wu, X., Peng, J., Fu, X. & Luo, L. (2009) Ecological engineering analysis and
eco-hydrodynamic simulation of tidal rivers in Shenzhen City of China. Ecological Engineering,
35, 1129–1137.
Marton (2013) Using the Floating Wetland as a Blanket to Exclude Odor Transport and to Form a
Low-Rate Anaerobic Digestor. Eliminating Odors Using BioHaven Technology. Available from:
www.floatingislandinternational.com/research/case-studies/ and www.floatingislandinternational.
com/wp-content/plugins/fii/casestudies/24.pdf. [Accessed 16th March 2018].
McLean’s Pit Landfill (2011) Demonstrating Treatment of Landfill Leachate Using Floating Treatment
Wetland Technology. Available from: http://www.floatingislandinternational.com/research/#case_
studies and www.floatingwetlandsolutions.com/pdfs/McLeans-Pit-CS-032513.pdf. [Accessed
6th October 2018].
Mermaid (2011) Phosphorus Reduction With Passive Floating Treatment Wetlands. Available from:
www.floatingislandinternational.com/research/case-studies/#cs_4 and www.floatingisland
international.com/wp-content/plugins/fii/casestudies/27.pdf. [Accessed 16th March 2018].
Midwest Floating Island (2018) Available from: www.floatingislandinternational.com/wp-content/
plugins/fii/news/54.pdf. [Accessed 16th March 2018].
Mitsch, W.J. (1997) Ecological Engineering: The roots and rationale of a new ecological paradigm. In:
Etnier, C. & Guterstam, B. (eds.) Ecological Engineering for Wastewater Treatment. 2nd ed. CRC
Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA.
Mitsch, W.J. & Jorgensen, S.E. (1989) Introduction to ecological engineering. In: Mitsch, W.J. & Jor-
gensen, S.E. (eds.) Ecological Engineering: An Introduction to Ecotechnology. Wiley, New York,
NY, USA. pp. 79–101.
Molle, P., Prost-Boucle, S. & Lienard, A. (2008) Potential for total nitrogen removal by combining
vertical flow and horizontal flow constructed wetlands: A full-scale experiment study. Ecological
Moo-Young, M., Anderson, W.A. & Chakrabarty, A.M. (1996) Environmental Biotechnology: Prin-
ciples and Applications. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Moskito Island (2015) Moskito Island Eco-Machine. Todd Ecological. Available from: www.todd
ecological.com/index.php?id=projects and www.toddecological.com/data/uploads/casestudies/
jtedcasestudy_moskito.pdf. [Accessed 16th March 2018].
Nagabhatla, N. & Metcalfe, C. (eds.) (2017) Multifunctional Wetlands. Springer, New York, NY, USA.
Ning, D., Huang, Y., Pan, R., Wang, F. & Wang, H. (2014) Effect of eco-remediation using planted
floating bed system on nutrients and heavy metals in urban river water and sediment: A field study
in China. Science of the Total Environment, 485–486, 596–603.
Oberlin College (2000) Oberlin College: Setting a Sustainable Example in Ohio. Available from:
https://inhabitat.com/oberlin-college-setting-a-sustainable-example-in-ohio/ and www.youtube.com/
watch?v=fmdsBlWwSTU. [Accessed 16th March 2018].
Ocean Arks (2018) Ocean Arks International. Available from: www.oceanarksint.org.
Odum, H.T. (1962) Man in the ecosystem. In: Proc. Lockwood Conference on the Suburban Forest and
Ecology. Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin, 652, 57–75.
Odum, H.T., Siler, W.L., Beyers, R.J. & Armstrong, N. (1963) Experiments with engineering of marine
ecosystems. Publications of the Institute of Marine Science (University of Texas), 9, 374–403.
Omega Center (2009) Omega Center for Sustainable Living Eco-Machine®. Ocean Ark. Avail-
able from: www.toddecological.com/index.php?id=projects and www.toddecological.com/data/
uploads/casestudies/jtedcasestudy_omega.pdf. [Accessed 16th March 2018].
Oon, Y.-L., Ong, S.-A., Ho, L.-N., Wong, Y.-S., Oon, Y.-S., Lehl, H.K. & Thung, W.-L. (2015) Hybrid
system up-flow constructed wetland integrated with microbial fuel cell for simultaneous waste-
water treatment and electricity generation. Bioresource Technology, 186, 270–275. doi:10.1016/j.
biortech.2015.03.014.
Organica (2018) Available from: www.organicawater.com. [Accessed 16th March 2018].
Pavlineri, N., Skoulikidis, N.T. & Tsihrintzis, V.A. (2017) Constructed floating wetlands: A review of
research, design, operation and management aspects, and data meta-analysis. Chemical Engineer-
ing Journal, 308, 1120–1132.
Port of Portland (2010) Port of Portland Headquarters Living Machine® System. Worrell Water Technol-
ogies. Available from: www.livingmachines.com/Portfolio/Municipal-Government/Port-of-Portland-
Headquarters,-Portland,-OR.aspx and http://sustainablewater.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/
POP-Case-Study-070213.pdf and https://urbanecologycmu.wordpress.com/2016/10/14/port-of-
portland-headquarters. [Accessed 16th March 2018].
RAMSAR Convention (1971) World Convention on Wetlands. Available from: www.ramsar.org/sites/
default/files/documents/library/original_1971_convention_e.pdf. [Accessed 16th March 2018].
Ratledge, C. & Kristiansen, B. (2006) Basic Biotechnology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Rehberg Ranch (2010) Achieving Significant Nutrient Removal in Aerated Wastewater Lagoons
Using floating Island Technology. Available from: www.floatingislandinternational.com/research/
case-studies/#cs_4 and www.floatingislandinternational.com/wp-content/plugins/fii/casestudies/
5.pdf. [Accessed 16th March 2018].
Reinsel, M.A. (2018) Floating wetlands help boost nitrogen removal in lagoons. WaterWorld. Avail-
able from: www.waterworld.com/articles/print/volume-28/issue-6/editorial-features/floating-wetlands-
help-boost-nitrogen-removal-in-lagoons.html. [Accessed 16th March 2018].
Royal Botanic Garden (2018) Available from: http://spel.com.au/news/greening-royal-botanic-gardens-
melbourne. [Accessed 16th March 2018].
San Francisco (2010) Public Utilities Commission Living Machine® System. Worrell Water Technolo-
gies. Available from: www.livingmachines.com/Portfolio/Municipal-Government/San-Francisco-
Public-Utilities-Commission,-San-Fra.aspx and https://sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=1156.
Scholz, M. (2006) Wetland Systems to Control Urban Runoff. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Scholz, M. (2011) Wetland Systems. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Seidel, K. (1964) Abbau von Bacterium coli durch höhere Wasserpflänzen. Naturwissenschaft,
51, 395.
Song, H., Zhang, S., Long, X., Yang, X., Li, H. & Xiang, W. (2017) Optimization of bioelectricity gen-
eration in Constructed wetland-coupled microbial fuel cell systems. Water, 9(3), 185. doi:10.3390/
w9030185.
South Burlington (1995) South Burlington Municipal Eco-Machine. Designed by Living Technolo-
gies, Inc. and John Todd with Ocean Arks. Available from: www.toddecological.com/data/uploads/
casestudies/jtedcasestudy_southburlington.pdf. [Accessed 16th March 2018].
South Pest (2012) Upgrade South Pest, Hungary, Organica Case Study. Available from: www.organica
water.com/case-study/ and www.organicawater.com/case-study/south-pest-upgrade-cs/and www.
budapestvideo.hu/attachments/917_viz-vilagnapja-nyilt-nap.mp4. [Accessed 16th March 2018].
Stahel, W.R. (2010) The Performance Economy. 2nd ed. Palgrave MacMillan, London, UK.
Sun, S., Sheng, Y., Zhao, G., Li, Z. & Yang, J. (2017) Feasibility assessment: Application of ecological
floating beds for polluted tidal river remediation. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 189,
609. doi:10.1007/s10661-017-6339-y.
Sydney Olympic Park (2012) see Ecoplan Australia (2018).
Tchobanoglous, G. (1997) Land-based systems, constructed wetlands, and aquatic plant systems in
the United States: an overview. In: Eitner, C. & Guterstam, B. (eds.) Ecological Engineering for
Wastewater Treatment. 2nd ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA.
Telki (2004) The Organica® System in Telki, Hungary: A Case Study. Available from: www.organica
water.com/case-study/ and www.organicawater.com/case-study/organica-detailed-case-study-telki-
cs. [Accessed 16th March 2018].
Tianshan (2018) Real Estate Development in Tianshan, China. Organica Case Study. Available from:
https://www.organicawater.com/case-study/real-estate-development-potential-cs/
and https://d3o1jlvchszf6h.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/RealEstateDevelopment_Tianshan.pdf.
Todd, J. (2018) John Todd Ecological Design. Available from: www.toddecological.com/ [Accessed
16th March 2018].
Todd, J., Brown, E.J.G. & Wells, E. (2003) Ecological design applied. Ecological Engineering, 2003,
421–440.
Todd, J. & Josephson, B. (1996) The design of living technologies for waste treatment. Ecological
UNEP – Phytotechnology (2018) Examples of Environmental Applications of Phytotechnology. C.
Constructed Wetlands. Freshwater Management Series No. 7. Available from: www.unep.or.jp/ietc/
Publications/Freshwater/FMS7/14.asp. [Accessed 16th March 2018].
USDA (1991) A Guide to Creating Wetlands for Agricultural Wastewater, Domestic Wastewater, Coal
Mine Drainage Stormwater. Volume 1, General Considerations. United States Department of
Agriculture.
US EPA (1993–2000) Constructed Wetlands Handbooks (Volumes 1–5): A Guide to Creating Wetlands
for Agricultural Wastewater, Domestic Wastewater, Coal Mine Drainage and Stormwater in the
Mid-Atlantic Region). United States Environmental Protection Agency. Available from: www.epa.
gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/hand.pdf. [Accessed 16th March 2018].
US EPA (1993a) A Handbook of Constructed Wetlands: A Guide to Creating Wetlands For: Agricul-
tural Wastewater Domestic Wastewater Coal Mine Drainage Stormwater. Available from: www.
epa.gov/wetlands/handbook-constructed-wetlands. [Accessed 16th March 2018].
US EPA (1993b) Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment and Wildlife Habitat: 17 Case Stud-
ies by Spenser, E., Port Blakely Mill Company, EPA 832/R-93/005. Available from: www.epa.
gov/wetlands/constructed-wetlands-wastewater-treatment-and-wildlife-habitat-17-case-studies.
US EPA (1995) Constructed Wetlands for Animal Waste Treatment: A Manual on Performance,
Design, and Operation with Case Histories. United States of America Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (USEPA) Number: 855B97001. Available from: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.
cgi?Dockey=200054US.TXT. [Accessed 16th March 2018].
US EPA (1998) Constructed Wetlands and Aquatic Plant Systems for Municipal Wastewater Treat-
ment. EPA/625/1–88/022. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
US EPA (1999a) Free Water Surface Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment: A Technology Assessment.
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/9100JFW4.PDF?Dockey=9100JFW4.PDF.
US EPA (1999b) Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment: A Technology Assess-
ment. Available from: http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/2000475V.PDF?Dockey=2000475V.
PDF. [Accessed 16th March 2018].
US EPA (2000a) Design Manual: Constructed Wetlands Treatment of Municipal Wastewater.
EPA/625/R-99/010. Available from: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/30004TBD.PDF?Dockey=
30004TBD.PDF. [Accessed 16th March 2018].
US EPA (2000b) Guiding Principles for Constructed Treatment Wetlands: Providing for Water Quality
and Wildlife Habitat. EPA 843-B-00-003. Available from: www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/constructed/
guide.html and http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/2000536S.PDF?Dockey=2000536S.PDF.
US EPA (2001a) Constructed Wetlands: Passive Systems for Wastewater Treatment by Lorion, R.
Available from: www.epa.gov/wetlands/constructed-wetlands. [Accessed 16th March 2018].
US EPA (2001b) The Living Machine (R) Wastewater Treatment Technology: An Evaluation of Per-
formance and System Cost. National Service Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP).
Available from: https://nepis.epa.gov/EPA/html/DLwait.htm?url=/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/91022RS0.
PDF?Dockey=91022RS0.PDF. [Accessed 16th March 2018].
US EPA (2004) Constructed Treatment Wetlands. EPA 843-F-03-013. Available from: http://nepis.
epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/30005UPS.PDF?Dockey=30005UPS.PDF. [Accessed 16th March 2018].
US EPA – Constructed Wetlands (2018) The Science of Wetlands: Constructed Wetlands. www.epa.
gov/wetlands/constructed-wetlands and http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/30005UPS.PDF?
Dockey=30005UPS.PDF.
US EPA – Wetlands (2018) Constructed Wetlands. Available from: www.epa.gov/wetlands and www.
epa.gov/wetlands/constructed-wetlands and www.epa.gov/wetlands/wetlands-restoration-definitions-
and-distinctions. [Accessed 16th March 2018].
Vymazal, J. (2007) Removal of nutrients in various types of constructed wetlands. Science of the Total
Environment, 380, 48–65.
Vymazal, J. (2009) The use of constructed wetlands with horizontal sub-surface flow for various types
of wastewater. Ecological Engineering, 35, 117.
Wetlands for the Treatment of Mine Drainage (2018) Available from: http://technology.infomine.com/
enviromine/wetlands/welcome.htm#examples_constr. [Accessed 16th March 2018].
Worrell (2018) Worrell Water Technologies Living Machine Systems. Available from: www.living
machines.com/Company/Worrell-Water-Technologies.aspx. [Accessed 16th March 2018].
Wu, Y., Chung, A., Tama, N.F.Y., Pia, N. & Wong, M.H. (2008) Constructed mangrove wetland as
secondary treatment system for municipal wastewater. Ecological Engineering, 34, 137–146.
Xu, B., Ge, Z. & He, Z. (2015) Sediment microbial fuel cells for wastewater treatment: Challenges
and opportunities. Environmental Science: Water Research & Technology, 1, 279. doi:10.1039/
c5ew00020c.
Zedler, J.B. (2000) Handbook for Restoring Tidal Wetlands. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA.
Chapter 5
Biodegradation-based remediation –
overview and case studies
M. Molnár 1 , K. Gruiz 1 & É. Fenyvesi 2
1Department of Applied Biotechnology and Food Science, Budapest University of Technology
2CycloLab Cyclodextrin Research & Development Laboratory Ltd, Budapest, Hungary
ABSTRACT
Biodegradation of hazardous contaminants in soil may lead to complete mineralization and
elimination from soil under biological (compatible with life) conditions. Biodegradation-
based in situ remediation belongs to the group of green and eco-friendly soft technologies
characterized by high efficiency in clean-up, low secondary impacts on the surrounding
environment, and low ecological footprint. In spite of biodegradation’s excellent perfor-
mance, more aggressive technologies using heavy machinery and conditions far from those
of nature’s still often get priority. Energy-, material-, water-, and labor-intensive “pump and
treat,” “dig and dump” or “dig and treat” technologies are still practiced, even in cases when
high risk or economic interest does not justify urgency.
Bioremediation, natural attenuation, and remediation based on biodegradation has long
been involved in research and development and thousands of papers have been published in
this field and the number of technology demonstrations and patents are also significant. In
the practice biodegradation-based in situ soil remediation is less popular due to the lack of
knowledge from the engineering side and the lack of trust from the managers and owners.
Biodegradation-based natural attenuation has a pioneering role in this field – mainly through
the approved spontaneous biodegradation on long-term abandoned sites – proven that the
soil biota is capable of cleaning up the groundwater and the soil in many cases and they
deserve the support by engineering tools, which is needed to work at maximum efficiency.
Environmental technology verification and sustainability assessment also became a require-
ment for remediation. Sustainability assessment is applied to remediation both as a prospective
evaluation tool in support of decision making and as a retrospective one for the validation of the
predictions in technology efficiencies and approval site (soil) quality (see more in Chapter 11).
Sustainability assessment clearly presents the advantages and benefits of biodegradation-based
in situ technologies in an absolute sense and in comparison to conventional geotechnical and
physicochemical solutions. Biodegradation-based soil remediation can be considered as an
ecotechnology, because the soil biota, this special community work according to ecological
rules and their remedial function is integral part of the global biogeochemical cycles.
This chapter focuses on the following:
– Main principles of microbial degradation (of natural petroleum hydrocarbons and

xenobiotics);
– Some key reactions of common aerobic and anaerobic biotransformation mechanisms;
– Major factors influencing the rate of biodegradation, among others bioavailability the
main barrier of biodegradation; and, finally,
– CDT technology, the innovation of the authors, is introduced from the laboratory
experiments to the field demonstration. CDT is the cyclodextrin-enhanced in situ biore-
mediation, a combination of bioventing and periodic flushing using cyclodextrin for
bioavailability enhancement. The CDT case used CDT in combination with groundwa-
ter extraction to keep water table low (increasing the aerobic zone depths) and prevent-
ing contaminated groundwater from escaping from the site.
1 INTRODUCTION
Bioremediation is a biotechnology based on the biological transformation, primarily the
breakdown or biodegradation of contaminating compounds in environmental matrices. Dur-
ing biodegradation, microbes utilize chemical contaminants in the soil as an energy source –
or cometabolize them with a food source – and, through oxidation-reduction reactions,
metabolize the target contaminant into useable energy for microbes.
Biodegradation can be defined as the biologically catalyzed reduction in complexity
of chemicals, usually by microorganisms. Complete degradation is often termed “min-
eralization.” Mineralization is a form of biodegradation that results in conversion of
an organic compound into its inorganic constituents (e.g. CO2, CH4, H2O, SO42−, and
PO43−) or mineral salts and new microbial cellular constituents (biomass). Ultimate bio-
degradation is a term sometimes used as a synonym for mineralization. Biotransforma-
tion, often used synonymously with bioconversion, usually refers to a single step in a
biochemical pathway, in which a molecule is catalytically converted into a different
molecule. The cometabolic degradation of organic pollutants has also the potential to
achieve required cleanup goals. Cometabolism, which is a non-growth-linked biological
process catalyzed by microorganisms, is the metabolic transformation of a substance
which is not utilized for growth or energy while a second substance serves as primary
energy or carbon source.
2 BIODEGRADATION-BASED REMEDIATION: MAIN

PRINCIPLES AND KEY REACTIONS
Microbial processes have long been known to be important in the environment for the deg-
radation of a large number of organic compounds. In spite of extensive research carried out
to study microbial activities and microorganism-mediated processes, the details of many
metabolic pathways are still not understood.
However, some basic factors and major determinants of biodegradation processes are
identified (Alvarez & Illman, 2006; Swartjes, 2011). The following factors must be taken
into account for successful bioremediation:
– The existence of microorganisms with the potential to degrade the target contaminant(s);
– The presence of a substrate that can be utilized as an energy and carbon source;
– The presence of optimal environmental conditions (e.g. water content, pH, temperature);
– The redox potential, the availability of an appropriate electron acceptor;
– The availability of target pollutants to the microorganisms;
– The presence of nutrients necessary to support the microbial cell growth and enzyme
production.
Biodegradation-based remediation 245
2.1 Microorganisms capable of degrading

organic pollutants
A great number of bacterial and fungal genera possess the capability of degrading organic
pollutants. Microorganisms that can degrade organic compounds in the environment
include species of Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria, as well as fungi. Biodegra-
dation is most commonly associated with bacteria. However, fungi are capable of degrad-
ing a wide range of environmental pollutants, including recalcitrant compounds such as
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, trinitrotoluene, and
pentachlorophenol.
The predominant aerobic bacteria in polluted soils belong to a spectrum of genera and
species such as Pseudomonas, Acinetobacter, Alcaligenes, Flavobacterium, Bacillus, Arthro-
bacter, Nocardia, Corynebacterium, Mycobacterium. Further important degraders of organic
pollutants can be found within the genera Comamonas, Burkholderia, and Xanthomonas.
Anaerobic biodegradation of organic compounds by Acetobacterium, Rhodobacter, Desulfo-
bacterium, Clostridium, Desulfococcus, Desulfovibrio, Syntrophus species was found in the
environment (Crawford, 2002; Schink, 2005). There are many species of fungi – primarily
white rot and mycorrhizal fungi – which are particularly efficient at degrading xenobiotics:
Phanerochaete chrysosporium, Agrocybe aegarita, Coriolopsis gallica, Lenzites betulina,
Nematoloma frowardii, Morchella conica, Agarius bisporus, Aspergillus sp., Penicillium sp.
etc. (Crawford, 2002).
After a microbial consortium has been exposed to a new chemical stress, there is a
characteristic lag time before it adapts and begins to degrade the compound and grow and
reproduce actively. This phenomenon is known as adaptation, and it refers to adaptive
changes that occur at the individual, bacterial population and microbial community levels
that increase the rate of biodegradation. The adaptation may involve inter- and intraspe-
cific genetic exchange. Catabolic genes can be exchanged among cells of the same genus
or different genera. The likelihood of genetic exchange and the compatibility of the trans-
ferred genes are often genetically predetermined. Many plasmid-containing genes coding
for catabolic enzymes are transmissible. Genetic rearrangements and mutations can also be
important adaption mechanisms that contribute to the evolution of novel catabolic pathways
(Alvarez & Illman, 2006).
Recombinant DNA techniques have been studied intensively to improve the degrada-
tion of hazardous wastes. Recombinant bacteria can be obtained by genetic engineering
techniques or by natural genetic exchange between bacteria. Applications for genetically
engineered microorganisms (GEM) in bioremediation have received great attention, but
have largely been confined to the laboratory.
The use of genetically engineered microorganisms has been applied to bioremedia-
tion process monitoring, strain monitoring, stress response, end point analysis, and toxicity
assessment. The range of tested contaminants includes chlorinated compounds, aromatic
hydrocarbons, heavy metals, and non-polar toxicants, etc. (Menn et al., 2008).
Biodegradation of organic contaminants in the environment is always the result of the
complex activity of a microbial consortium. There are very few examples for contaminants
whose degradation depends on one single bacterial strain. Cooperation between different
microbial species is necessary for efficient biodegradation of organic compounds. Major
examples of such beneficial microbial interaction are commensalism, syntrophism, and
interspecies hydrogen transfer (Alvarez & Illman, 2006).
Microorganisms have limits of tolerance for particular environmental conditions, and

the success rate of microbial biodegradation depends on nutrient availability, moisture con-
tent, pH, redox potential, and temperature of the habitat where the microorganisms live (soil,
sediment, water). Inorganic nutrients involved, but not limited to, are nitrogen, phospho-
rus, and meso- and micronutrients. Well-balanced nutrient supply is necessary for microbial
activity and cell growth, even in cases when the contaminant satisfies energy demand. All
soil microorganisms require moisture for cell growth and function. Availability of water
affects the transport of water and soluble nutrients into and out of microorganism cells.
However, excess moisture, such as in saturated soil, may be undesirable for aerobic microor-
ganisms limiting molecular oxygen for aerobic respiration, but may be beneficial for anoxic
or a must for anaerobic microorganisms. Soil pH is also important because most microbial
species can survive only within a certain pH range. Furthermore, soil pH can affect avail-
ability of nutrients. Temperature influences the rate of biodegradation by controlling the rate
of enzymatic reactions within microorganisms.
Commercially available microbiological cultures may be even more sensitive for envi-
ronmental conditions compared to native soil microbiota and have limited chance to opti-
mally cooperate with the native consortium. Thus for soils, where the native microbiota
cannot fulfill its role in the biogeochemical cycling, thoroughly selected and artificially grown
microorganisms may help with their density, constituents of special biodegradation potency,
or resistance. When using microbiological inoculants, their impact on the still existing benefi-
cial microbiota and the locally existing healthy diversity is necessary to learn and to be taken
into consideration during the planning of the proportion and composition of the inoculant,
otherwise their application may increase the imbalance in degraded, deteriorated soils.
Enzyme technologies use enzymes, the products of micro- or larger organisms can also
be applied to soil remediation. Enzymes, used as additives for the transformation of contami-
nants, similar to naturally occurring soil enzymes (inside and outside of microorganisms,
closely bonded to soil matrices) can act as specific degrading agents. Several enzyme prod-
ucts have been developed and are marketed as commercial bioremediation agents. Among
biological agents, enzymes have a great potential to effectively transform and detoxify soil
pollutants. The use of enzymes may represent a technological option/a soft technological
tool for overcoming most of the disadvantages caused by living microorganisms as addi-
tives. Enzymes can be applied under extreme conditions that limit microbial activity and are
also effective at low pollutant concentrations. Enzymatic methods generally have low energy
requirements, are easy to control, and have minimal environmental impact (Piotrowska-
Długosz, 2017).
2.2 Electron acceptors and redox transformations

Contaminant degradation by oxidation may result in complete mineralization, partial deg-
radation, and several types of chemical transformations. Mineralization and degradation by
oxidation assumes aerobic or anoxic respiration and the presence of sufficient quantity and
the appropriate quality of electron acceptor molecules.
Chemically, the degradation of organic contaminants mostly involves redox transfor-
mations. In soil, the oxidation-reduction (redox) potential (Eh) – measurable in Volt [V] –
represents the sum of numerous oxidation-reduction process pairs. The Eh values of these
pairs differ in magnitude: from the strongest reductant CO2/CH2O (–0.43V) to the strongest
oxidant O2/H2O (0.82V) (Paul & Clark, 1996). The redox potential is of great significance
in determining the soil chemical and biological phenomenon. In the microbial oxidation of
a substrate (e.g. a contaminant molecule) in an aerobic/oxic soil, O2 is the electron acceptor.
In anoxic soils, NO3−, Fe3+, Mn4+, SO42−, CO2, and organic intermediators can act as electron
acceptors (Paul & Clark, 1996). Degradation of organic matter in the absence of oxygen
can be coupled to the reduction of these alternative electron acceptors following a certain
sequence that appears to be determined by the respective redox potentials. The availability
of either high- or low-potential electron acceptors may also influence the biochemistry of
degradation processes.
In groundwater systems the biodegradation potential not only depends on the relative
energy yields of the different reactions, but also on the availability of organic substrates,
electron acceptors, and active microbial populations. The identification of different redox
zones is of fundamental importance to assess the overall potential for degradation of most
organic contaminants in groundwater (Swartjes, 2011). In fact, attenuation of specific
organic contaminants is strongly influenced by redox zonation. This concept is valid not only
for contaminants degrading preferentially (and/or most rapidly) in an oxidizing environment
(e.g. petroleum hydrocarbons (PH, BTEX) or PAHs), but also for contaminants (e.g. chlo-
rinated solvents) that are typically reduced under anaerobic conditions (Wiedemeier et al.,
1999). Consequently the presence and role of electron acceptors and electron donors is a key
point in biodegradation-based remediation (Middeldorp et al., 2002; Swartjes, 2011; Gruiz,
Chapter 3). As oxidation and reduction should go hand in hand, (i) oxidation and mineraliza-
tion of organic substances needs the parallel reduction of an electron acceptor (typically O2,
NO3, SO4, Fe(III), Mn(IV) or other organic substances when they are reduced to CH4), or
(ii) if the substance is degraded by reduction, the counterpart of the reaction should be the
oxidation of sulfide to sulfate, Mn(II) to Mn(IV), Fe(II) to Fe(III), N2 to NO3 or an organic
substance to CO2 and water (see Figure 5.1). Biodegradation rates and dominant degradation
Redox potential (Volt)

–0.5 –0.3 –0.2 0 +0.25 +0.5 +0.8
O2 H 2O
NO3 N2
Mn(IV) Mn(II)
R NO3 NO2 NH4+
E
D PCE TCE
U Fe(III) Fe(II)
C
OS red OS
T
I SO4 SH
O OS CH4
N
N2 NH+4
H2
O
X OS CO2
I
SH SO4
D
A Fe(II) Fe(III)
T
NH4 NO3
I
O Mn(II) Mn(IV)
N O2
Figure 5.1 Reduction and oxidation processes in soil as functions of the redox potential.
Figure 5.2 Biodegradation rates of typical organic contaminants as function of redox potential.
mechanisms for different classes of contaminants depend on redox conditions as is demon-

strated in Figure 5.2.
2.3 Redox manipulations in soil remediation

The environmental risk of contaminants in subsurface soils and sediments can be mitigated
by in situ manipulation of natural processes to reduce the mobility or the form of contami-
nants by an In situ Redox Manipulation (ISRM) technology. ISRM is targeted to remedi-
ate groundwater containing chemically reducible metallic and organic contaminants (DOE,
2000). The ISRM approach involves creating a permeable treatment zone downstream of
a contaminant plume or contaminant source by injecting a chemical-reducing agent and/
or microbial nutrients to alter the oxidation/reduction state of the groundwater and sedi-
ments (DOE, 2000; Fruchter et al., 1994, 2000; Vermeul et al., 2003, 2004; Faybishenko
et al., 2009). Appropriate manipulation of the redox potential can result in the destruction of
organic contaminants (King et al., 2012).
3 BIODEGRADABILITY, BIOAVAILABILITY
Biodegradation of a contaminant in soil depends on the contaminants characteristics, on the
density and composition of the microbiota and on environmental conditions.
Biodegradability and bioavailability concern the contaminating chemical substance.
Having access, having the capability to take up and degrade – these are meant for the micro-
biota. The two is connected by the contact and the interaction between the two: the contami-
nant and the microorganism, see Figure 5.3.
Figure 5.3 The scheme of contaminant availability and degradability related to microbial access and
degradation (modified from Hajdu and Gruiz, 2015).
3.1 Biodegradability
The chemical structure determines biodegradability; it has been widely studied and infor-
mation has been gathered in databases. Based on these data and the relationship between
structure and biodegradability, mathematical models have been created for several chemical
substance groups to predict biodegradability. The physical and chemical characteristics of a
contaminant suggested to predict biodegradability include molecular mass, shape, and size
of the molecule, water solubility, octanol–water partition coefficient (Kow), the occurrence of
branching, the presence of ester bonds, aromatic and heteroaromatic rings, substitution by
halogens etc. (Alexander, 1994; Calow, 1993; Crawford, 2002). The Quantitative Structure-
Activity Relationship (QSAR) models are increasingly used to estimate biodegradability of
chemicals (Pavan & Worth, 2006; Gruiz et al., 2015).
Biodegradability of the substance is an essential, but not the only parameter, that deter-
mines biodegradation in real soil. Biodegradability of the substance is the potency to become
degraded, but if the soil conditions and the microorganisms present can actually trigger bio-
degradation, may be questionable.
Actual biodegradation in real soil equally depends on the presence of a capable micro-
bial consortium and environmental conditions supportive to the degrading microorgan-
isms. If the community of the soil is not ready to degrade the freshly occurred contaminant
(the necessary enzymes are absent), the adaptive capacity (activation of the suitable genes
present) of the microbiota is responsible for biodegradation. The adaptive capacity posi-
tively correlates with species diversity, the metagenome size, and diversity.
Beneficial environmental conditions involve the optimal conditions for and maximal
supply of the microbial community with nutrients and bioactive microelements.
3.2 Bioavailability and its enhancement

Actual biodegradation of a biodegradable substance can be restricted or facilitated by its
accessibility and availability to degrading organisms. The organic contaminants, which are
in prolonged contact of the soil, are bound to the soil particles and display reduced acces-
sibility and availability towards biodegradation (Haritash & Kaushik, 2009). A clear defi-
nition is found in the publication of Hajdu and Gruiz (2015), differentiating the following:
– Biological accessibility of the contaminant: being at a place, in a form that allows access
for microorganisms (e.g. not strongly bound or built into the solid matrix).
– Biological availability of the contaminant: being in a form, which can interact with the
surface of the microorganism making uptake possible. Bioavailability determines the
potential of a chemical substance to be absorbed by an organism.
– Biodegradability of the contaminant: having a physicochemical structure that is com-
patible with the enzyme system of the microorganism.
– Access of the microorganism to the contaminants assume the presence of the microor-
ganisms in the right place at the right time and the interaction between the contaminant
and the microorganism.
– Uptake and transformation of the contaminant by the microorganism means that the
enzymes of the microorganism catalyze the actual reaction after having access to the
contaminant.
Interaction between a soil pollutant and the soil biota depends on the actual bioavailabil-
ity of the substance, which is associated with the Kp value (soil-solid–soil-water partition
coefficient = concentration in solid/concentration in water) in the soil, and with the inter-
action between the soil and the test organism (Hajdu et al., 2009). The prerequisite of any
interaction is that the living organisms should have access to the contaminant.
If a toxic organic pollutant in soil is sufficiently bioavailable for biodegradation, it can
also exert toxic effects to organisms. However, degrading bacteria may have protective bio-
chemical tools against toxicity, but the real solution is that they have specific mechanisms
to mobilize substances before taking them up (Valentín et al., 2013). But the biological
mobilization applies only to a small proportion of the contaminant, which is also taken
up and degraded after mobilization. This way the bioavailable proportion of the pollutant
results in relatively low effective concentrations and do not harm the microbiota as much as
the completely dissolved pollutants or drastically solubilized ones by additives. This is why
technologists are advised to apply a stepwise addition to mobilize contaminants. It is the
requirement of safety too: contaminants mobilized this way cannot escape from treatment
volumes during in situ remediation.
Recognizing the biodegradation-limiting effect of substance bioavailability, several
methods have been developed to overcome this disadvantage. Bioavailability of organic pol-
lutants is controlled by parameters such as the physical state of the pollutant, its solubility in
water, and its tendency to adsorb or bind to soil or sediment particles (Fetzner, 2009; Gruiz
et al., 2015).
Some typical additive groups are listed here which suitable to increase the bioavailabil-
ity of organic contaminants (Burmeier, 1995):
– Surfactants, preferentially anionic and/or non-ionic;

– Biosurfactants, optionally produced by the indigenous microflora;
– Long-chain alcohols;
– Substances capable of forming hydrophilic complexes with the non-polar contaminant;
– Inorganic compounds such as pyrophosphate.
Each of these options can have its own problems that need to be addressed during tech-
nology application. For example, most of these agents can act as a carbon source, thereby the
contaminant utilization rate may decrease while the added compound is being oxidized. On
the other hand, the new additive could also act as a co-substrate in cases where the micro-
biota cannot yield enough energy from the utilization of the contaminant. Another problem
is that the bioavailability-enhancing substance must be biodegradable itself but not too fast
compared to the “host-molecule” (Burmeier, 1995).
4 MOBILIZING AND SOLUBILIZING AGENTS TO INCREASE

CONTAMINANT BIOAVAILABILITY
The main bottleneck in soil remediation is typically the availability of pollutants for the
transformation process whether it is based on a physical, chemical, or biological process,
each of them reaches proper conversion rate when the contaminant is in solubilized form.
Solubilizing agents – solvents, surfactants, emulsifiers, complex-forming and micelle-form-
ing agents, cyclodextrins, dendrimers, and several other nanomaterials – being man-made
or biological and acting in various ways, thus all yield the same: an increase of the contami-
nants’ proportion in water compared to solid.
4.1 The use of surfactants in soil remediation

Surfactant molecules have a hydrophobic (lipophilic) and a hydrophilic part (amphiphilic),
so they have affinity both to water and oil like non-polar molecules. Surfactants or surface-
active agents can modify the water:solid partition by shifting the distribution rate of the
contaminant toward the mobile physical phase, to the soil water in our case. Hydrophobic
contaminants can be transferred into the aqueous phase by different mechanisms and in vari-
ous forms.
– Wetting effect of the surfactants leads to the disposal of sorbed hydrocarbons by water
and this way the partition of the contaminant is shifted toward the aqueous phase, result-
ing contaminant mobilization. The contaminant is in dissolved form in the aqueous
phase.
– Micelle formation occurs when using higher surfactant concentration (above the criti-
cal micelle concentration of the surfactant). The product of this type of solubilization
is a micelle: the hydrophobic contaminant in the middle, completely surrounded by the
surfactant molecules. The process is also called micellar solubilization and the contami-
nants are this way “solubilized” (not dissolved). The term tries to differentiate this state
of the molecules from real solutions and also refers to the uncertainty in considering the
solubilized hydrophobic molecules as dissolved, as a colloidal solution/dispersion or as
an emulsified separate phase or all these together.
– An emulsion is produced by large-molecule surfactants from two immiscible liquids:
many of the petroleum hydrocarbon type contaminants form emulsion in water on the
effect of surfactants. In this case, small droplets of the oil are surrounded by relatively
large surfactant molecules. The large size micelles in water show opalescence, so emul-
sions cannot be considered as real solutions.
“Solubilized” in the context of soil contaminants is used in the widest sense: for every
contaminant which becomes more mobile in water and more available for water-related
processes during soil remediation.
Efficient removal or in situ transformation of a soil contaminant relates to the aqueous
phase as follows: (i) only solubilized contaminants can be removed by water extraction,
(ii) chemical reactions are much faster in water, compared to solid, and (iii) solubilized
substances are much more bioavailable than the solid/sorbed or gaseous forms. Water can
transfer contaminants to the location of treatment, e.g. to a subsurface reactor, to a collector
system or just into an extraction well for surface treatment.
4.2 Synthetic surfactants

The most widely used types of synthetic surfactants are anionic surfactants, i.e. sulfate,
sulfonate, and phosphate esters (e.g. ammonium and sodium lauryl sulfate, alcohol eth-
oxysulfates, linear alkylbenzene sulfonates) and carboxylates (including the toxic perfluo-
rononanoate and perfluorooctanoate). Another high-volume surfactant type is the non-ionic
surfactant such as long-chain alcohols, alcohol ethoxylates, and polyethylene glycol alkyl
ethers. Cationic and zwitterionic surfactants (having both cationic and anionic centers in the
same molecule) are produced and used in lesser amount.
Synthetic surfactants are applied as detergents, wetting agents, emulsifiers, and disper-
sants. All these activities may play a role in soil remediation enhanced by the mobilization
mainly of organic, but also inorganic, contaminants.
The most popular applications of surfactants in soil remediation are the surfactant-
enhanced removal of contaminants, oil spill dispersion, surfactant-enhanced bioremedia-
tion, and surfactant-enhanced oxidation or reduction. The presence of surfactants in soil
results in weakening sorption of contaminants and improving water’s wetting and perme-
ability properties.
Some developments aim at contaminant-specific surfactant formulations for soil reme-
diation. Patented non-ionic surfactants are provided for example by Ivey International (Ivey,
2017) to selectively desorb and mobilize sorbed petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated sol-
vents, and certain toxic metals from soil. The introduced applications show improved mass
recovery.
Many of the synthetic surfactants, mainly the cationic ones, are toxic to the ecosystem,
so their environmental risk should be managed. Anionic and non-ionic surfactants are mildly
toxic or non-toxic, so their risk may be acceptable in those cases when highly toxic contami-
nants cannot be removed from soil otherwise and when the contaminant in the soil in direct
contact with the ecosystem and humans poses higher risk than the surfactant application.
The use of surfactants can also be confirmed by their ability to accelerate remediation and
shortened treatment duration and as a result reduce the risk of emissions from the technol-
ogy. Of course, surfactants with low or no hazard can be applied more widely without strict
restrictions.
4.3 Biosurfactants
Biosurfactants, the amphiphilic molecules of microbial origin pose a much smaller risk.
Biosurfactants are produced extracellularly or as part of the cell membrane by a combina-
tion of yeast, bacteria, and filamentous fungi. Several soil microorganisms produce biologi-
cally harmless surfactants, it is their main tool in supplying themselves with nutrients and
energy sources sorbed to the solid phase in soil. There are some demonstrative experimental
results proving that bioavailability (mobility) enhancement precedes biodegradation (Hajdu
and Gruiz, 2015). The concentration of an old, strongly bound contaminant significantly
increased in the beginning of the remediation parallel to the increase of cell concentration
and microbial activity, but it started to decrease only in a second step (Molnár et al., 2002).
Monitoring bioremediation at frequent time intervals indicates that this biologically con-
trolled initial increase and accumulation of a more mobile and available fraction of the pol-
lutant can always be observed when the pollutant is aged, partly degraded, consists of large
molecules, and is not readily biodegradable. The role of the naturally occurring biosurfac-
tants is extremely important in nature. Good surfactant-producing microorganisms are more
competitive as they can utilize molecules not available to others. Biosurfactants are widely
used in cosmetics and the food industry, and nowadays they are increasingly researched and
recommended as solubilizing, bioavailability-enhancing agents in soil remediation (Molnár
et al., 1998; Santanu, 2008; Pacwa-Płociniczak et al., 2011; Soberón-Chávez & Maier, 2011;
Mulligan et al., 2014; Eruke and Udoh, 2015; Karlapudi et al., 2018).
Biosurfactant molecules have affinity both to water and oil like non-polar molecules as
other surfactants. This character plays a role in microbial uptake of the lipophilic organic
substances (Fritsche & Hofrichter, 2008). Biosurfactants are characterized by proper biode-
gradability, low toxicity, high effectiveness in enhancing solubilization, and biodegradation
of low solubility compounds (Mulligan, 2005). Most of them are specific or narrow-spec-
trum biosurfactants, more efficient in solubilization, so the necessary amount is smaller,
compared to the synthetic ones. Biosurfactants tolerate a wide range of pH and temperature.
The most active biosurfactants can lower the surface tension of water from 72 to 30 mN/m
and interfacial tension between water and n-hexadecane from 40 to 1 mN/m.
Bioavailability- and biodegradation-enhancing biosurfactants were studied by Cameo-
tra and Singh (2009), and their electron microscopic study brought the evidence on the direct
uptake of biosurfactant-coated hydrocarbon droplets by the degrading microorganisms: liv-
ing cells “internalized” the surfactants layered oil droplets using the uptake mechanism of
pinocytosis.
The number of surfactant-producing microorganisms are extremely large, the types and
amount of synthesized surfactants also show a large variety. Microbial surfactants involve
various glycolipids (mainly rhamno-, trehalo-, and sophorolipids) or lipoproteins and are
produced by the microorganism extracellularly. The best know lipoprotein biosurfactants
are surfactin (a cyclic lipopeptide) from B. subtilis and lichenysin from Bacillus licheni-
formis. Many long-chain fatty acids, phospholipids, and neutral lipids of microorganisms
also have surface-active characteristics. Polymeric biosurfactants include emulsan, liposan,

alasan, lipomanan, and other polysaccharide-protein complexes consisting of three or four
repeating sugars with fatty acids attached to the sugars. Emulsan is a complex extracel-
lular acylated polysaccharide synthesized by Acinetobacter calcoaceticus with an average
molecular weight of about 1000 KD. Its industrial applications as emulsifier are widespread
(Gorkovenko et al., 1999; Mulligan, 2005; Rahman & Gakpe, 2008). Some microorgan-
isms produce extracellular vesicles to help hydrocarbon uptake by forming microemulsion.
Sometimes the whole bacterial cell itself can function as surfactant, having strong affinity
for hydrocarbon–water and air–water interfaces (Karanth et al., 1999).
Many of the biosurfactant-producing microorganisms are hydrocarbon degraders (Fran-
zetti et al., 2010; Vijayakumar & Saravanan, 2015; Cai et al., 2015). Yeasts and other fungi
are also active surfactants producers. Shete et al. screened the patents in 2006 and found 35
surfactant production patents with Acinetobacter, 30 with Bacillus, 29 with Pseudomonas,
80 with other bacteria, and 59 patents with fungal species.
Pacwa-Płociniczak et al. (2011) gave a good summary on biosurfactants and their appli-
cation for environmental remediation, and Mulligan et al. (2014) on biosurfactant research
trends and applications in general. Main applications of biosurfactants involve bioreme-
diation of toxic and persistent contaminants, dispersion of oil spills, enhanced contaminant
removal by physicochemical and biological methods (Zhang & Miller, 1992; Nayak et al.,
2009; Yin et al., 2009; Pacwa-Płociniczak et al., 2011).
Some environmental applications of biosurfactants are shown here as examples:
Enhancement of physicochemical removal/washing of organic contaminants:
– The studies presented by Franzetti et al. (2008, 2009) showed that the BS29
bioemulsans from Gordonia species are promising washing agents for remediation
of hydrocarbon-contaminated soils.
– Kildisas et al. (2003) and Baskys et al. (2004) applied surfactant-enhanced wash-
ing in a combined technology for extremely high concentration organic pollutants:
1000 m3 of contaminated soil was treated, with an initial oil concentration of 180–
270 g/kg. The washed soil with reduced contaminant concentration (34–59 g/kg)
was treated using common bioremediation and phytoremediation. The pollutant
concentrations dropped to 3.2–7.3 g oil per kg of soil after biodegradation.
– Marcos et al. (2015) published 70–90% removal of motor oil from contaminated
sand using biosurfactants, while only 55–80% by synthetic surfactants, both within
5–10 minutes.
Enhancement of physicochemical removal of inorganic contaminants:
– Herman et al. (1995) used a rhamnolipid biosurfactant (produced by Pseudomonas

species) for cadmium, lead and zinc removal from soil.
– Hong et al. (2002) studied saponin, a plant-derived biosurfactant for recovery of heavy
metals from contaminated soils using washing. Saponin was effective in removing the
exchangeable and carbonated fractions of heavy metals from soil. The limits of Japa-
nese leaching test were met for all of the soil residues after saponin treatment.
– Biologically produced surfactants like surfactin, rhamnolipids, and sophorolip-
ids were tested for removal of heavy metals such as Cu, Zn, Cd, and Ni from
contaminated sites (Wang & Mulligan, 2004a). Rhamnolipid was studied for its
metal removal capacity both in liquid and foam forms (Wang & Mulligan, 2004b;
Mulligan & Wang, 2006). Rhamnolipid type I and type II was found to be suitable
for heavy metal removal.
– Arsenic mobilization from mine tailings (Wang & Mulligan, 2009) increased
greatly (20x compared to water) after biosurfactant application. Mass ratio was
10 mg surfactant per g mine tailings at pH = 11.
Enhancement of biodegradation-based soil remediation both by bioavailability

enhancement and biodegradation intensification:
– Wang and Mulligan (2004b) evaluated the surfactant foam technology in remedia-
tion of contaminated soil and concluded that it can be used to remove contaminants
and act as augmentation for other technologies such as washing, leaching or biore-
mediation to improve contaminant removal efficiency and cost effectiveness.
– Rhamnolipid biosurfactants produced by Pseudomonas aeruginosa DS10–129
showed significant applications in the bioremediation of hydrocarbons in gasoline
contaminated soil and petroleum oily sludge. Rhamnolipid biosurfactant enhanced
the bioremediation process by releasing the weathered oil from the soil matrices
and enhanced the bioavailability of hydrocarbons for microbial degradation. Bio-
surfactants are also used in the bioremediation of sites contaminated with toxic
heavy metals like uranium, cadmium, and lead (Mulligan & Wang, 2006).
– Whang et al. (2008) applied rhamnolipid and surfactin for the enhanced biodegra-
dation of diesel-contaminated water and soil.
– For bioavailability enhancement trehalolipids were used by Franzetti (2010).
– Marcos et al. (2015) conducted degradation experiments in motor oil-contaminated
sand. The presence of the biosurfactants increased the degradation rate by 10–20%,
especially during the first 45 days, indicating that biosurfactants acted as efficient
enhancers for hydrocarbon biodegradation.
Enhancement of bioleaching and bioleaching-based soil remediation:
Bioleaching of metals from a low-grade mining ore and bioleaching of contaminating

metals from soil or rock may use the same technology, i.e. a microbiologically catalyzed
leaching process. (Bioleaching typically applies to sulfide ores: it is a two in one process
in which microorganism produce acids for metal dissolution, in parallel to metal oxida-
tion for getting energy.)
– Singh and Cameotra (2004) applied biosurfactants to the enhancement of metal-

contaminated soil bioremediation.
– Wang and Mulligan (2009) studied arsenic mobilization from mine tailings in the
presence of a biosurfactant.
Oil recovery from dredged material:
– Pesce (2002) patented a biotechnological method for the regeneration of hydrocar-

bons from dregs and oily muds, using a sophorolipid type biosurfactant.
– Baviere et al. (1994) patented a technology using sophoroside solution for washing
oil containing drill material. Sophorolipids are produced by Torulopsis yeast spe-
cies with high productivity.
In addition to the application of separately produced biosurfactants (from the market),

the inoculation by microorganisms producing surfactants is also a useful concept to over-
come availability-limited biodegradation in soil and groundwater remediation.
4.4 Nanoparticles in environmental remediation

The high surface area of nanoparticles makes them excellent sorbents for both organic and
inorganic contaminants. Once sorbed, a pollutant may be mobilized, immobilized, removed,
or destroyed depending on the pollutant, the nanoparticle, and the environmental matrices.
Nanoparticles may increase the bioavailability of pollutants (Lewinski, 2008). Solutions
with solid phase particles (nano- and microparticles) are extracting agents for the removal
of PAHs from soil (Lau et al., 2014). Nanoparticles as sorbents for scavenging contaminants
are SAMMSTM (nanoporous ceramics coated with a monolayer of functional groups), nano-
tubes, ferritin, dendrimers, metalloporphyrinogens, organically modified silica (SOMS), etc.
SAMMS are useful for the sorption of radionuclides, mercury, chromate, arsenate, and selenite
(Fryxell et al., 2007). Carbon nanotubes (CNTs) can be used to immobilize toxic metals (Pb2+,
Cu2+, Ni2+, and Zn2+) and thus increasing the soil adsorption capacity (Matos et al., 2017). Fer-
ritin, an iron storage protein is photocatalytic in reduction of water-soluble hexavalent chro-
mium to the less toxic water-insoluble trivalent chromium (US EPA, 2008). Dendrimers are
hyper-branched polymers with functional groups. Polyamidoamine (PAMAM) dendrimers are
effective chelators of copper (Diallo & Savage, 2005; Xu et al., 2005; Castillo et al., 2014).
Crosslinked organosilica particles (trade name: Ecotreat) swell and absorb small organic com-
pounds such as PCE, TCE, and PCBs (ABS Materials, 2017). The dechlorination reaction
takes place within these particles with the embedded zero-valent iron (ZVI) catalyst.
Nanobioremediation is the combination of an abiotic degradation using nanoparticles
such as nZVI for dechlorination of PCBs or Pd/Fe nanoparticles for dechlorination of diox-
ins and lindane, and subsequently applied bioremediation for further bacterial dechlorina-
tion (Le et al., 2015; Bokare et al., 2012; Singh et al., 2013). The abiotic step decreases the
concentration of the contaminant to a level non-toxic to the microbiota. Nanomaterials are
injected into the treatment zone through injection wells, piezometers or monitoring wells
using direct push, pressure pulse technology, liquid atomization injection, pneumatic frac-
turing, and hydraulic fracturing (US EPA, 2008).
5 CYCLODEXTRINS IN BIODEGRADATION-BASED
REMEDIATION
The non-toxic, biodegradable cyclodextrins (CDs) can solubilize poorly soluble organic
contaminants such as PAHs, PCBs, chlorinated solvents, etc. via molecular encapsulation,
as shown in Figure 5.4 (Fenyvesi et al., 2009). CDs can be used for bioavailability enhance-
ment either for aerobic, anaerobic or cometabolic biodegradation in soil or in other solid
matrices.
The biodegradation of PCBs, especially those with lower degree of chlorination can
be enhanced by improving the bioavailability using randomly methylated beta-cyclodextrin
Figure 5.4 Structure and symbol of beta-cyclodextrin (A), and its complexes with phenanthrene
(B) and DDT (C).
(RAMEB) (Fava et al., 2002; Hu et al., 2016). Similarly, the biodegradation of diesel oil,
transformer oil, and mazout was enhanced by RAMEB due to the enhanced bioavailability
(Gruiz et al., 2011; Molnár et al., 2009). In the case of contaminants with extremely high
affinity toward CD complexation, biodegradation can be hindered by the strong binding of
the contaminant to the CD as it was observed for dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT)
and 2-hydroxypropyl-beta-cyclodextrin (HPBCD) (Gao et al., 2015). Figure 5.4C shows
the CD-DDT complex. Most of the originally hydrophobic and biologically non-available
organic compounds become more bioavailable by getting a hydrophobic outer surface after
cyclodextrin complexation (Figure 5.4B), but there are exemptions, such as DDT, which
bind so strongly to HPBCD that they together form a much larger and less bioavailable com-
plex molecule at high HPBCD concentration. In such cases it is important to find the optimal
concentration of the complexing agent which improves bioavailability.
5.1 Microbial degradation under aerobic conditions

Application of cyclodextrins in soil remediation technologies was first reviewed in the end
of the 1990s (Wang et al., 1998). Later, several applications were published for water, soil,
and air treatment and for environmental analyses, mainly in Europe and in Japan (Fenyvesi
et al., 2009; Gruiz et al., 2011; Fenyvesi et al., 2011; Nagy et al., 2013). CDs improve bio-
degradation by enhancing the bioavailability of organic pollutants. Some successful applica-
tions are shortly introduced in the following:
– Phenanthrene aerobic biodegradation was accelerated by HPBCD (Wang et al., 1998).

– Fluorene biodegradation in a slurry soil that was augmented by fungi (such as Absidia
cylindrospora) was enhanced by maltosyl beta-cyclodextrin (Garon et al., 2004).
– Microbial decomposition of PAHs, phenols and biphenyl was intensified by the addition
of HPBCD (and nutrients) (Allan et al., 2007; Yoshii et al., 2001).
– Amendment with HPBCD at as low concentration as 14 mg/kg soil enhanced the bio-
degradation of hexadecane and phenanthrene (Stroud et al., 2009).
– The unsubstituted BCD, which usually forms complexes of low solubility, have benefi-
cial effect on biodegradation, as the availability of contaminants that are molecularly
encapsulated is higher compared to those adsorbed to soil. The rate of degradation of
aliphatic and aromatic compounds was significantly enhanced in the presence of BCD
(Bardi et al., 2000) and was increased with increasing BCD concentration (Steffan et
al., 2003). BCD was beneficial for biomass production, ensuring an additional carbon
source for the microbes. In addition to the type and concentration of the CD, the soil
properties were also found to have an influence on biodegradation: the rate followed the
order: clay < loamy soil < sand (Steffan et al., 2001).
– Alpha-CD was inefficient but gamma-CD improved slightly the biodegradation of hex-
adecane (Sivaraman et al., 2009) as well as of polychlorinated biphenyls (Fava et al.,
1998).
– In an in situ field experiment, a hydrocarbon-polluted soil (total petroleum hydrocarbon
(TPH) content 310–660 mg/kg) was treated with 1 g BCD/m2, N and P nutrients, and
augmented with an adapted culture of indigenous microbiota (Bardi et al., 2003). Three
months later, the hydrocarbons were fully degraded (TPH reduced to 5–23 mg/kg) and
practically disappeared.
– Randomly methylated beta-cyclodextrin (RAMEB) was used to enhance the biodeg-
radation of diesel and transformer oil as well as of mazout (black oil, the residue of
petroleum distillation) in spiked soils and also in real-site soils with aged pollution
(Gruiz et al., 1996; Molnár et al., 2002). RAMEB was selected because it has a higher
solubilizing potential than HPBCD (Fenyvesi et al., 1996; Balogh et al., 2007) and can
form inclusion complexes of higher stability with the typical hydrocarbons (Szaniszló
et al., 2005) compared to other cyclodextrins. RAMEB has a beneficial effect on the
soil pore structure, thus improving the habitat of the microbes (Jozefaciuk et al., 2003).
RAMEB is less biodegradable than HPBCD, and its 1.0–1.5 year half-life time makes it
a suitable additive to enhance bioremediation, without being degraded in the course of
technology application (Fenyvesi et al., 2005, Yuan & Jin, 2007).
– Adding RAMEB to the soil led to a clear increase in the bioavailability of the con-
taminants at the beginning of the treatment. In the presence of RAMEB, biodegradation
started earlier in soils contaminated with diesel or transformer oil, resulting in more
efficient removal of contaminants depending on the RAMEB concentration (Molnár et
al., 2002). In laboratory experiments, 0.7%, 0.5%, and 0.2% RAMEB solutions were
found to give optimum results in clay, sandy, and loamy soils contaminated with trans-
former oil, respectively. Even mazout, which is difficult to biodegrade, became partly
bioavailable in the presence of RAMEB: the number of specific degrading bacteria was
increased by one to two orders of magnitude, and 0.7% RAMEB yielded a 40% decrease
in mazout concentration compared with <10% achieved without using RAMEB.
– The optimum RAMEB concentration was 1–3% for PCB-contaminated soil, resulting
in an enhanced specific PCB-degrading biomass and improved biodegradation, first of
all in a slurry-phase treatment (Fava et al., 2003).
– A combined cyclodextrin technology (CDT, ventilation, CD flushing, nitrogen, and
phosphorus) was applied at a transformer station (see later subsection for more detail)
in Hungary. The soil was flushed with a RAMEB solution from time to time through the
injection well, and, after a few days’ pause, the groundwater was continuously pumped
out from the extractor wells on the other side of the transformer (Molnár et al., 2005).
The mass balance proved that most of the contaminants (>98%) were removed as a
consequence of the enhanced microbial activity (Gruiz et al., 2008).
– A similar combined technology was used at a former fuel tank station on an agricul-
tural site in Hungary contaminated with aged diesel and engine oil from leaking under-
ground tanks (Leitgib et al., 2008). In this case, however, the injection and extraction
were performed alternately in the same well, i.e. a combination of push-pull and drive-
through techniques was applied: half of the additives (RAMEB and nutrients) were
applied through the combined injection – extraction well, and the other half through
the five additional injection wells arranged in a circle around the combined well. The
combined technology included the following: (i) intensification of spontaneous biodeg-
radation by in situ bioventilation in the unsaturated soil zone by the addition of nutri-
ents and RAMEB as additives to enhance bioavailability; (ii) ex situ physicochemical
treatment of the pumped groundwater; and (iii) impulsive flushing of the unsaturated
zone by a RAMEB solution. After the addition of RAMEB, the hydrocarbon concentra-
tion in the groundwater increased 10–40-fold and the specific oil-degrading bacteria
2–10-fold. The contaminant concentrations decreased significantly from 30,000 mg/kg
to 3500 mg/kg and from >1000 mg/L to <200 mg/L in soil and water, respectively, at
the end of the treatment. The mass balance based on soil gas (volatiles, CO2, and O2),
groundwater (contaminant and cyclodextrin content) and soil (contaminant, microbi-
ology, and toxicity) monitoring data showed that over 98% of the contaminant was
removed by biodegradation, and only less than 2% by groundwater treatment. The spe-
cific feature of this combined technology is that it applies the same additive (RAMEB)
for the enhancement of both soil flushing and bioremediation. The depressed level of
groundwater and its ex situ treatment ensure that the contaminants with enhanced solu-
bility cannot spread into the surrounding environment.
5.2 Cyclodextrin-enhanced biodegradation

under Fe(III)-reducing conditions
The previous examples show the efficacy of cyclodextrins in enhancing aerobic biodegrada-
tion. The anaerobic processes also require enhancement of contaminant availability.
The Fe(III) ion is the most abundant electron acceptor in soils; it plays an important role
in natural attenuation of PAH contamination. HPBCD application under Fe(III)-reducing
conditions to improve the bioavailability of PAHs increased the initial phenanthrene mineral-
ization rate with increasing HPBCD concentration (Ramsay et al., 2005). At a high (5 g/L)
HPBCD concentration, however, the biodegradation ceased after 25 days. A possible
explanation is that too much CD protects the contaminants included in their cavity from
the microbes, in a similar way to the surfactants at concentrations above the critical micelle
concentration (CMC).
5.3 Cometabolites and cyclodextrins

Amending soil with biphenyl can enhance PCB degradation. Further minor enhancement
can be achieved by jointly applying biphenyl and cyclodextrins, e.g. HPBCD and GCD
(Fava et al., 1998), and RAMEB (Fava et al., 2003). Other studies showed that there is com-
petition between biphenyl and the PCBs for the cyclodextrin cavity resulting in decreased
depletion of PCBs compared with HPBCD alone, especially in the low-chlorinated region
(Luo et al., 2007).
Considerable synergism was observed when cometabolites of plant origin (naringin,
cumarin, limonene, isoprene, and carvone) were applied together with HPBCD: higher PCB
depletion was found in the presence of carvone and HPBCD in soil with a low organic car-
bon content (55–85%) compared to carvone alone (Luo et al., 2007). HPBCD improved the
availability (solubility) of these secondary plant metabolites by the formation of complexes.
It was also observed that HPBCD treatment changed the phospholipid fatty acid (PLFA)
composition: several lipids indicative of Gram-negative bacteria were found to be enriched,
and lipids suggesting the presence of Gram-positive bacteria were found to be depleted.
6 ASPECTS AND KEY REACTIONS OF AEROBIC AND

ANAEROBIC BIOTRANSFORMATION MECHANISMS
In this section the most common biodegradation pathways will be introduced, which play a
role in soil and groundwater remediation: aerobic, anaerobic, and cometabolic biotransfor-
mation/degradation of organic contaminants.
6.1 Aerobic biotransformation pathways

The most important classes of organic pollutants in the environment are constituents of min-
eral oils and petroleum products, industrial, and agricultural chemicals such as solvents and
pesticides or various halogenated petrochemicals. Deposition from the atmosphere as well
as solid waste and sewage sludge deposition also significantly contribute to soil contamina-
tion and deterioration. Although a wide array of organic contaminants can be metabolized by
microorganisms, some are more readily degraded than others. Evolutionary processes have
resulted in the development of enzymes and pathways for the metabolism of naturally occur-
ring compounds (petroleum hydrocarbons, for example). These pathways are found in diverse
species of microorganisms that are widespread and indigenous to most environments. The
biodegradation of the majority of hydrocarbons proceeds by aerobic pathway mechanisms.
The main principle of aerobic degradation of hydrocarbons is shown in Figure 5.5.
Compounds such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, halogenated aliphatic and aro-
matic hydrocarbons, nitroaromatic and azo compounds, s-triazines, organic sulfonic acids,
dioxins and some synthetic polymers – to which microorganisms have not been exposed
during evolution over geologic time scale (xenobiotics), often are supposed to be resistant to
bioremediation. But many examples have been reported, where xenobiotics such as haloaro-
matic compounds undergo biotransformations (Alexander, 1994; Alvarez & Illman, 2006;
Jördening & Winter, 2005; Schink, 2005; Das & Chandran, 2010).
Figure 5.5 Main principle of aerobic degradation of hydrocarbons by microorganisms.
Any of the aerobic oxidation, anaerobic oxidation, anaerobic reduction, fermentation,

and cometabolism can lead to the degradation of organic pollutants. Numerous mechanisms
and pathways have been described for the biodegradation of organic compounds. The main
reaction mechanisms are dehalogenation, deamination, desulfuration, metoxilation, hydrox-
ilation, oxidation by oxidases, hydrolysis, acetogenesis, and methanogenesis. The EWAG
Biocatalysis/Biodegradation Database (EAWAG, 2018) contains information on microbial
biocatalytic reactions and biodegradation pathways for chemical compounds, primarily for
xenobiotics with 219 pathways, 1503 reactions, 1396 compounds, and 993 enzymes. The
goal of the EWAG is to provide information on microbial enzyme-catalyzed reactions that
are important for biotechnology. All metabolic reactions are mediated by enzymes such as
oxidoreductases, hydrolases, transferases, isomerases, ligases etc.
The enzymes playing a role in biodegradation have also been isolated and studied and
extensive variability has been found in terms of their effect mechanism, the catalyzed reac-
tion type: oxidative, reductive, hydrolytic, and synthetic processes as well as the substrates
of the enzymes. Enzymes may accept not only natural molecules, but also compatible con-
taminants (with similar structure to natural substrates), and that makes soil decontamination
possible.
Petroleum hydrocarbons comprise diverse groups of compounds including alkanes,
alkenes, aromatic constituents, and heterocyclic compounds. Among petroleum hydrocarbons
n-alkanes are degraded faster than branched alkanes and aromatics compounds. Long-chain
n-alkanes (C10–C24) are degraded most rapidly. Short-chain alkanes (less than C9) are toxic to
many microorganisms, but they evaporate rapidly from petroleum-contaminated sites. Oxida-
tion of alkanes is classified as being terminal or diterminal, the monoterminal oxidation being
the main pathway. It proceeds via the formation of the corresponding alcohol, aldehyde, and
fatty acid (see Figure 5.6). Beta-oxidation of the fatty acids results in the formation of acetyl-
CoA (Fritsche & Hofrichter, 2008). Cyclic alkanes representing minor components of mineral
oil are relatively resistant to microbial attack. The absence of an exposed terminal methyl
group complicates the primary attack. A few species are able to use cyclohexane as sole car-
bon source; more common is its cometabolism (see later) with mixed cultures.
Aromatic hydrocarbons, e.g. benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX com-
pounds), and naphthalene belong to the large volume of petrochemicals widely used as fuels
Figure 5.6 Terminal and subterminal oxidation of n-alkanes: the main aerobic degradation pathways.
and industrial solvents. These aromatic organic compounds are classified by the presence
of two to six aromatic rings (e.g. fused benzene ring) with or without alkyl substituents
arranged in linear, cluster, or angular configurations. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAH) are of major concern to both public and environmental health due to their acute and
chronic toxicity, as well as their mutagenic and carcinogenic properties.
The aerobic degradation of aromatic hydrocarbons by bacteria and fungi is mainly
accomplished via three different pathways (see Figure 5.7).
The reaction is catalyzed by aromatic hydrocarbon ring hydroxylating enzymes
(ARHDs) and form cis-dihydrodiols by bacteria. The product, a diol, is then converted to
catechol by a dehydrogenase. These initial reactions, i.e. hydroxylation and dehydrogena-
tion, are common to pathways of bacterial degradation of aromatic hydrocarbons. Figure 5.7
Figure 5.7 Aromatic hydrocarbon breakdown pathways in bacteria and fungi.
shows the bacterial degradation pathways of the oxygenolytic ring cleavage to intermediates
of the central metabolism. At the branch point catechol either is oxidized by the intradiol
o-cleavage or the extradiol m-cleavage. Both ring cleavage reactions are catalyzed by spe-
cific dioxygenases (see Figure 5.8) (Fritsche & Hofrichter, 2008).
Two different metabolic pathways are involved during the fungal biodegradation of
PAH. Non-ligninolytic fungi deal with PAHs using the cytochrome P450 monooxygenase
pathway where PAHs are oxidized to arene oxides via the incorporation of a single oxygen
atom into the ring of the substrate. In contrast, white rot fungi (a ligninolytic fungus) miner-
alize PAHs using a soluble extracellular ligninolytic enzyme such as manganese peroxidase,
laccases, and lignin peroxidase (Koshlaf & Ball, 2017).
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are also widely distributed environmental
contaminants that have harmful biological effects including acute and chronic toxicity,
mutagenicity, and carcinogenicity. In the case of these contaminants the effect of chemical
structure on biodegradability in soil is also obvious. Anthracene, phenantrene, and acenaph-
thylene contain three rings and are biodegraded at reasonable rates when oxygen is present.
Other compounds with four rings in contrast are highly persistent (Alexander, 1994). For
example, anthracene biodegradation by Gram-negative, Gram-positive bacteria, and numer-
ous fungi has been reported. Bacteria initiate anthracene degradation by hydroxylation of the
aromatic ring to yield cis-1,2-dihydroanthracene-1,2-diol. This intermediate is converted to
anthracene-1,2-diol, which is cleaved at the meta position to yield 4-(2-hydroxynaph-3-yl)-
2-oxobut-3-enoate (see Figure 5.9). This compound may spontaneously rearrange to form
6,7-benzocoumarin or be converted to 3-hydroxy-2-naphthoate from which degradation pro-
ceeds through 2,3-dihydroxynaphthalene to phthalate. This pathway has been identified in
different bacteria such as Pseudomonas, Sphingomonas, Rhodococcus, Mycobacterium, and
Bacillus sp. (EAWAG, 2018).
Figure 5.8 Two alternative pathways of aerobic degradation of aromatic compounds (after Fritsche &
Hofrichter, 2008).
Figure 5.9 Anthracene graphical pathway map (after EAWAG, 2018).
6.2 Anaerobic biotransformation pathways

Anaerobic degradation pathways are utilized by microorganisms that can grow in the absence
of oxygen and employ some other electron acceptor in their respiration processes. Anaerobic
systems proved to be successful in bioremediation for such recalcitrant compounds as chlo-
rinated solvents, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (Alexander, 1994; Alvarez & Illman,
2006; Jördening & Winter, 2005; King et al., 1992; Schink, 2005).
Figure 5.10 Sequence of anaerobic/aerobic degradation of highly chlorinated PCB.
Mononuclear aromatic compounds can be degraded anaerobically rather efficiently if

they carry at least one carboxy, hydroxy, methoxy, amino, or methyl substituent, and four
major degradation pathways have been identified in the recent past which differ basically
from the well-known aerobic oxygenase-dependent pathways. The degradation kinetics dif-
fers considerably, depending on the sites of substitution. Halogenated aliphatics and aromat-
ics are reductively dehalogenated more efficiently and better than by aerobes, the higher the
degree of halogenation (Schink, 2005).
The sequence of anaerobic and aerobic bacterial activities for the mineralization of
chlorinated xenobiotics has also been observed. An example for sequential anaerobic/aero-
bic degradation of a compound is the mineralization of highly chlorinated PCBs (see Fig-
ure 5.10) or dioxins (Alvarez & Illman, 2006). Reductive dehalogenation, the first step in
PCBs degradation, requires anaerobic conditions and organic substrates acting as electron
donors. Anaerobic dechlorination is always incomplete; the products are di- and monochlo-
rinated biphenyls. These products can be further metabolized by aerobic microbes (Fritsche &
Hofrichter, 2008).
6.3 Cometabolic degradation of organic contaminants

Cometabolism of a chemical substance without nutritional benefit in the presence of a
growth substrate is a common phenomenon in microorganisms. Cometabolism is the meta-
bolic transformation of a substance which is not utilized for growth or energy while a second
substance serves as primary energy or carbon source.
Chlorinated solvents (e.g. TCE), chlorinated pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), and alkylbenzene sulfonates (ABS) are chemicals that are often transformed through
cometabolism (Alexander, 1994; Wackett, 1995; Schink, 2005; Alvarez & Illman, 2006; Arp
et al., 2001). Wide range of conversions, reaction types and products are associated with
cometabolism. Among cometabolic conversions that appear to involve single enzyme, the
reaction may be hydroxilations, oxidations, denitrations, deaminations, hydrolyses, acyla-
tions, or cleavages of ether linkages, but many of the conversions are complex and involve
several enzymes (Alexander, 1994; Fritsche & Hofrichter, 2008).
A special type of cometabolism involves the oxidation of chlorinated solvents by
oxygenases which is known as cooxidation (Alvarez-Cohen & Speitel, 2001). The phe-
nomenon of cometabolism is often called gratuitous or fortuitous metabolism (Craw-
ford, 2002).
The prerequisites for cometabolic transformations are the enzymes of the growing cells
and the synthesis of cofactors necessary for enzymatic reactions, e.g. of hydrogen donors
[reducing equivalents, NAD(P)H] for oxygenases. For example, methanotrophic bacteria
can use methane or other chlorine compounds as a sole source of carbon and energy. They
oxidize methane to carbon dioxide via methanol, formaldehyde, and formate. The assimila-
tion requires special pathways, and formaldehyde is the intermediate that is assimilated.
The first step in methane oxidation is catalyzed by methane monooxygenase, which attacks
the inert methane. Methane monooxygenase is unspecific and also oxidizes various other
compounds, e.g. alkanes, aromatic compounds, and trichloroethylene (TCE). Toluene as
growth substrate for cometabolic transformation of TCE can also be used (Suttinun et al.,
2013), the first step in this case being toluene oxidation catalyzed by toluene monooxygen-
ase (see Figure 5.11).
Consequently, methane or toluene might be injected in an effort to stimulate the come-
tabolism of trichloroethylene.
Cometabolic degradation can be limited by a low substrate utilization rate, deple-
tion of the growth substrate, enzyme inhibition or inactivation, and cytotoxicity of the
degradation products. Monitoring should cover these conditions to run the process at
optimum rate.
Figure 5.11 Aerobic cometabolic degradation of trichloroethylene (TCE) by the toluene monooxy-
genase system.
6.4 Harmful degradation products/hazardous

metabolites
The most important role of microorganisms in biodegradation-based bioremediation, i.e. the
transformation of organic contaminants to less harmful product. But the most undesirable
aspect of microbial transformations in the environment is the formation of products with
increased toxicity, enhanced mobility, enhanced lipophilicity leading to bioconcentration,
and bioaccumulation.
A large number of chemicals that are themselves harmless often are converted to products
that may be toxic and harmful to humans, animals, plants, or microorganisms. This process
of forming harmful products from innocuous precursors is known as activation (Alexander,
1994; Alvarez & Illman, 2006). Activation can occur in soil, groundwater, surface waters,
wastewater, and other environments where microorganisms are active. This process is one of
the main reasons to study the pathways and products of breakdown of organic contaminants
in the environment by integrated chemical-biological-ecotoxicological methods.
Many different pathways, mechanisms and enzymes are associated with environmental acti-
vation. Vinyl chloride, which is a potent carcinogen, is formed during the microbial metabolism
of perchloroethene (PCE) and trichloroethylene (TCE) (see Figure 5.12) under anaerobic condi-
tions. TCE has been widely used and now represents a major contaminant of many aquifers.
In the case of pesticides numerous cases have been documented of metabolites with
greater bioactivity (Krieger, 2001). The epoxidation of the pesticide aldrin to dieldrin
under aerobic conditions is also a transformation that increases the toxic nature of the com-
pound. Other examples of toxic metabolites include the formation of 1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis
(p-chlorophenyl)ethylene (DDE), which is apparently the form most responsible caus-
ing thin egg shells in birds that have accumulated [1,1,1-trichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)
ethane] DDT or DDE from their prey; and 1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethane
(DDD), which can persist for years in some soil and water systems: S-oxidation of aldi-
carb (and some other N-methylcarbamates) to the more water-soluble compound and in
some cases more persistent sulfoxide and sulfone forms.
Microorganisms can convert a number of secondary amines found in common house-
hold products and pesticides to the N-nitroso compounds. The activation is the N-nitrosation
of the secondary amine to give the highly toxic N-nitroso compound.
Some bacteria can O-methylate chloroguaiacols; the products of such a methylation are
toxic to fish (Alexander, 1994). A number of other types of hazardous metabolites can be
formed during bioremediation in environment theoretically and in model experiments, but
only a few were detected during remediation. Nevertheless, these known harmful products
Figure 5.12 Reductive dechlorination pathway of PCE degradation.

should be considered when assessing risks associated with natural attenuation and enhanced
biodegradation and they must be purposefully monitored. Direct toxicity testing of the reme-
diated soil can draw attention to residual soil toxicity, also in a case when chemical analysis
proves no presence of the original contaminant.
7 BIOREMEDIATION – A CASE STUDY

Bioremediation is a biotechnology using and supporting microorganisms to eliminate the
contaminant and thus clean the soil. Soil microbes utilize chemical contaminants as an
energy source, or cometabolize them together with a food source. For hydrocarbons, for
example, the most common technology applied currently are natural attenuation, bioaug-
mentation, and biostimulation (Koshlaf & Ball, 2017), for chlorinated hydrocarbons anoxic
or alternating aerobic-anoxic degradation is used (see more in Chapter 3).
Soil bioremediation based on natural biological processes is often viewed with mistrust
and a lack of understanding. In situ technologies are still something mysterious and suspi-
cious since the equipment and the machinery is not demonstratively large and noisy to make
them convincing.
Biodegradation-based natural attenuation is a process by which the indigenous micro-
organisms can eliminate or detoxify, e.g. hydrocarbon pollutants hazardous to human health
and/or the environment into less toxic forms. It might be the simplest bioremediation in
terms of technology, but the knowledge for selecting, planning, monitoring, and verifying
natural attenuation is actually more demanding than just an engineering method.
The bioremediation technology is based on the stimulation of microbial degradation of
organic pollutants in contaminated sites by optimizing various factors such as nutrient con-
centrations, water content, temperature, redox potential, pH, oxygen supply, and availabil-
ity of contaminants to microorganisms and temperature (biostimulation). Bioremediation
can involve not only the indigenous microbial population but exogenous organisms, using
them as an inoculant for soil, which is called bioaugmentation. Microbiological inoculants,
enzyme additives, and nutrient additives that significantly increase the rate of biodegrada-
tion are defined as bioremediation agents by the US EPA (Nichols, 2001).
7.1 Cyclodextrin-enhanced bioremediation

technology (CDT)
In situ cyclodextrin-enhanced bioremediation technology (CDT) has been developed to
increase the efficiency of a natural biodegradation-based soil remediation technology that is
environmentally friendly and ensures sustainable land and soil risk management.
Randomly methylated beta-cyclodextrin (RAMEB) was found to significantly enhance
the bioremediation and detoxification of transformer oil-contaminated soil by increasing the
bioavailability of the pollutants and the activity of indigenous microorganisms. The feasibil-
ity of the innovative cyclodextrin-enhanced bioremediation (CDT) was demonstrated in a
field application.
7.1.1 Site description

Transformer oil contamination is a frequent and serious problem all over the world, also in
Hungary, mainly at transformer stations. At present times most of the pollution at transformer
stations derives from PCB-free transformer oils. Successful bioremediation of transformer

oil-contaminated soils has been demonstrated by Molnár et al. (2005). It was found that the
process is adversely affected by the poor bioavailability of the transformer oil. The use of
CD may increase the bioavailability of oily pollutants and in turn accelerate soil microbiota
and intensify soil bioremediation.
The site selected for CDT implementation was a legacy contaminated site, experienc-
ing long-term pollution derived from leaking subsurface oil distribution pipelines and
a spare transformer at a transformer station in Budapest, Hungary. The site where the
technology was demonstrated was a relatively small separate part of the transformer sta-
tion with 30 m3 (50 t) contaminated soil for the demonstration of the innovative CDT
technology. The transformer oil (TO 40A) had already reached the groundwater with an
average depth of 2.6 m. The chemical analysis of the environmental samples showed a high
level of contamination in the soil: i.e. 20,000–30,000 mg/kg of GC-measured extractable
petroleum hydrocarbon (GC EPH) content and 20,000–44,000 mg/kg solvent-extractable
organic material (SEM) content in the upper 1–2 m, just under the transformer. The oil
content in the groundwater was 0.99 mg/L. The concentration of the volatile fraction in
the soil gas was under the detectable limit. Both saturated and unsaturated zones had to
be decontaminated. The biological characterization of the contaminated soil indicated that
the microflora has adapted and is capable of biodegrading the contaminants (see more
information in Chapter 11).
7.1.2 Technology development – from the laboratory to the field

The primary aim of this technology development was to prove that CDT is a potential option
for reducing the hazards posed to the environment by hydrocarbon-contaminated sites com-
pared to other less efficient biotechnologies.
The second objective was to compile and test a high-quality and generally applicable,
integrated methodology for site assessment, and for planning, development, and monitoring
of remediation.
A scale-up concept was applied for the technology development, which included four
steps from the laboratory to the field. The scientific background of CDT, using randomly
methylated ß-cyclodextrin (RAMEB), was established in small- and large-scale laboratory
experiments. Various organic contaminants of different biodegradability (such as diesel oil,
transformer oil, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, mazout) and cyclodextrins with different
modes of actions were tested in various combinations in small-scale laboratory biodegrada-
tion experiments. The influence of the soil characteristics, type and concentration of cyclo-
dextrins, addition of nutrients, aeration and soil moisture content was tested in technological
experiments. The effect of cyclodextrins at a concentration range of 0–1% by weight was
tested in soil microcosms. Open static soil microcosms and flow-through soil microcosms
were used to study the progress of biodegradation and the effects of technological param-
eters. Some parameters such as cyclodextrin type and concentration, necessary level of aera-
tion and nutrients (NPK supply) have been optimized for larger scale application at this phase
of scale-up. The influence of soil properties was also studied by using three different texture
types of pristine soils (sandy, clayey, humic-loamy) in laboratory technological experiments.
To assess the efficiency of cyclodextrin-enhanced remediation on long-term pilot-scale labo-
ratory experiments were carried out prior to field demonstration: 60-litre solid-phase soil
reactors were set up for a 10-month pilot-scale laboratory experiment. Brown forest soil was
spiked with 30,000 mg/kg of transformer oil. RAMEB was applied at concentrations of 0,
0.5, and 1.0% by weight.
Based on the results of the laboratory experiments, field demonstration was designed and
performed for the remediation of a site contaminated with transformer oil (see Figure 5.13).
A site-specific complex technology was implemented for the remediation of the con-
taminated soil based on the results of the site assessment and the previous laboratory-scale
technological experiments:
– In situ bioventing by air extraction and air inlet through passive wells.
– Biodegradation enhancement by using cyclodextrin (RAMEB) to mobilize/solubilize
the solid-bound contaminants and nutrients (N, P, and K) for better microbial growth
and activity.
– Temporary flushing the unsaturated and saturated zones by cyclodextrin solution and
recycled water.
– Ex situ treatment of the extracted groundwater by phase separation, filtration through a
sand filter and adsorption on activated carbon.
Figure 5.14 shows the scheme of the complex technology: the combined well for air and
water extraction, the infiltration trench for water and additives delivery. The passive wells
used for atmospheric air introduction and the groundwater treatment unit are not shown.
The photos in Figure 5.15 show the combined well and the trench, demonstrating that
the in situ cyclodextrin-enhanced bioventing does not cause significant disturbances on the
surface, and that inaccessible soil volumes such as the volume under the transformer can
also be reached by this treatment. The site where the technology was demonstrated – was a
relatively small separate part of the transformer station with 30 m3 (50 t) contaminated soil to
demonstrate the innovative CDT technology. After the successful demonstration the whole
site has been remediated.
In order to characterize the biodegradation processes in the contaminated soil and to
evaluate the effect of the treatment, an integrated monitoring was used in both the labora-
tory and field experiments. This technique combined physical and chemical analyses with
biological monitoring and direct toxicity testing. After the technology was demonstrated
on the contaminated site, an evaluation and verification of the CDT was performed (see in
Chapter 11).
Figure 5.13 Scaling-up of CDT.

Figure 5.14 The scheme of the in situ CDT technology at the transformer station.
Figure 5.15 The combined well for air and water extraction and the infiltration trench.
7.1.3 Monitoring tool box for CDT and the surrounding

environment
The technology was monitored by the Soil Testing Triad, including physico-chemical, bio-
logical, and ecotoxicological methods (Gruiz, 2005) (see Figure 5.16). The parallel chemical
analyses and direct toxicity assessment made possible the differentiation between mobilized
and still fixed forms of the contaminants. The results of the monitoring were evaluated in an
integrated way (Chapter 3).
Soil samples were analyzed and characterized for the quality and quantity of the con-
taminant and the microbiota as well as for the toxicity of the soil using the integrated meth-
odology. Physicochemical characterization of the soil and the groundwater included the
Figure 5.16 Monitoring plan for CDT.
following measurements: pH, redox conditions, grain-size distribution, humus content, and
nutrient supply.
Chemical analytical methods were used for characterization of the contaminants in the
soil and groundwater. The extractable organic material (EOM) content of the soil was deter-
mined after hexane-acetone (2:1) extraction using gravimetry. The gas-chromatographed
extractable petroleum hydrocarbon (GC-EPH) content of the soil was analyzed from the
same extract by employing gas chromatography (GC) using a flame-ionization detector. The
total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) content of the groundwater was determined by gas chro-
matography after extraction by n-pentane. Volatile hydrocarbons in soil gas were also mea-
sured by gas chromatography. As the hydrocarbon content was negligible in the samples, this
analysis was performed only at the start of the technology.
Soil biological parameters such as the aerobic heterotrophic bacterial cell concentra-
tion, the number of pollutant-degrading cells, and soil respiration were used to monitor
biodegradation. The aerobic heterotrophic bacterial cell concentration was determined by
colony counting after cultivation of microorganisms occurring in soil suspensions in water
on peptone-glucose-meat-extract (PGM) agar plates in petri dishes (CFU/g soil). The popu-
lation density of the hydrocarbon-degrading cells was measured after cultivation in tubes of
liquid nutrient medium. For growing the oil-degrading cells a dilution series of contaminated
soils were used containing transformer oil as the only carbon source.
The applied liquid medium was supplemented with an inorganic salt solution, trace
elements and an artificial electron acceptor 2-(p-iodophenyl)-3-(p-nitrophenyl)-5-phenyl
tetrazolium chloride (INT). The most probable number (MPN) was calculated by using
probability tables.
The production of carbon dioxide by soil microbes was measured to characterize soil
respiration. The CO2 production of the soil microorganisms at laboratory scale was measured
by a self-designed respirometer. CO2 was absorbed in NaOH and determined by HCl titra-
tion. In the field experiments CO2 and O2 content of the soil gas was measured by an Oldham
Mx21 Gas Analysator (Oldham Gas Detection Ltd. UK).
Direct contact soil ecotoxicity tests were applied using test organisms of three trophic
levels. Ecotoxicity testing serves the safety and gives information on bioavailability of the
contaminants. In the case of in situ remediation, ecotoxicity testing may play a role in the
monitoring of emissions from the technology. The applied ecotoxicity methods were self-
developed tests based on similar Hungarian, German, and European standard methods used
for wastewaters or hazardous waste materials. Aliivibrio fischeri bioluminescence test, Sina-
pis alba root and shoot elongation test together with Folsomia candida mortality test were
used to follow up the adverse effect of the soil during the laboratory and field experiments.
The end points used for the plant and animal tests were ED20 (LD20) or ED50 (LD50) values
where ED20 (LD20) and ED50 (LD50) mean soil doses that caused 20% and 50% inhibition
(lethality) in Aliivibrio fischeri bioluminescence test.
The results of the monitoring were evaluated in an integrated way as described in Chap-
ter 3, Section 4.3).
7.1.4 Bench-scale and pilot tests

A large number of treatability studies were performed in microcosms in order to find the
differences, trends, and optimum parameters with regard to the use of RAMEB for the
intensification of biodegradation-based remediation. The results of the laboratory experi-
ments proved the bioavailability-enhancing effect of RAMEB: increased biodegradation
rate, higher microbial activity, and decreased toxicity were observed as a consequence of an
enhanced bioavailability (Molnár et al., 2003, 2005; Molnár, 2006). The main results and
conclusions of the bench-scale and pilot-scale technological experiments are summarized in
Figures 5.17 and 5.18.
Figure 5.17 Effect of RAMEB on transformer oil degradation in different soils in microcosm experi-
ments (the soils were initially spiked with 30,000 mg/kg transformer oil) (Gruiz et al.,
2008) Error bars represent standard deviation (SD ± 10% or less).
Figure 5.18 Transformer oil removal and CO2 production rates throughout the CDT pilot experiment
(Gruiz et al., 2008) (values are the means of three replicates. Error bars represent standard
deviations).
The study carried out on three-phase sandy, clayey and humic-loamy soils proved
enhanced transformer oil degradation in all soils in the presence of RAMEB. The various
soil characteristics resulted in various extents of transformer oil biodegradation in the sandy,
humic-loamy and clayey soil (see Figure 5.17). The main outcome of these experiment series
is that the application of 0.1–0.3% RAMEB was sufficient for a significant intensification of
the biodegradation of transformer oil.
Addition of RAMEB was also effective both on microbial activity and contaminant
removal in long-term pilot-scale experiments carried out on humic-loamy soil. Because of
the enhanced microbial activity, a higher biodegradation rate (contaminant removal) and
higher CO2 production rate were observed using respirometry in CD-treated soils (see Fig-
ure 5.18). These results have obviously demonstrated how transformer oil biodegradation is
enhanced by the addition of RAMEB. Higher RAMEB concentration did not increase trans-
former oil removal: there was no significant difference between soils treated with 0.5% and
1% RAMEB. This is an important result from the point of view of cost efficiency.
7.2 Field demonstration – full-scale remediation

The final phase of technology development was the field demonstration of CDT. On the basis
of the bench-scale study results a field demonstration on the transformer oil-contaminated
site was designed and performed.
The 6-month ex situ pilot study was successful; 0.3%–0.8% RAMEB resulted in a short-
ened adaptation phase for microbial degradation and remarkable differences in the decrease
Figure 5.19 Changes in the EPH content in the groundwater (▲) and in the CO2 content in soil gas
(○) after treatment with CDT (RAMEB and nutrient additions are indicated with dashed
lines) (Gruiz et al., 2008).
of hydrocarbons compared to untreated. After the successful pilot test, the efficiency of
RAMEB was demonstrated by in situ field application to the two- and three-phase soil con-
taminated with transformer oil (Molnár et al., 2005).
Based on the detailed site assessment and preliminary studies, a site-specific combina-
tion of three technologies was planned and implemented for 47 weeks:
– Treatment of the unsaturated zone by bioventing and intensification of the biodegrada-

tion with nutrients (chemical fertilizers containing N, P and K) and RAMEB. Moisture
is supplied continuously by slow infiltration of the treated water;
– Temporary flushing of the unsaturated and the saturated zones with cyclodextrin solu-
tion and the extracted water;
– Continuous extraction of the groundwater (ensuring depression to prevent contaminant
transport from the site) and ex situ treatment of the extracted groundwater.
The complex technology applied at the field resulted in a decrease in groundwater con-
taminant concentration from 1 mg/L to 0.3 mg/L. Figure 5.19 shows the results for the
groundwater in the first 20 weeks: the contaminant content decreased from 1 mg/L to
0.4 mg/L in this period. The contaminant concentration in the soil decreased from the initial
25,000 mg/kg to 240 mg/kg by the 47th week: this is approximately a 99% removal. Both
water and soil meet quality criteria after the treatment.
Direct toxicity assessment confirmed the lack of adverse effects of the treated soil (see
Table 11.6 in Chapter 11).
Water contamination showed a constant low value after the 20th week, but a minimum
rate aeration and water extraction was continued for the winter period, and monitoring contin-
ued during spring time for greater certainty. The demonstration was terminated after 47 weeks.
Overall, the innovative cyclodextrin technology proved to be efficient for the transformer
oil-contaminated soil, and the combination of bioventing and bioflushing with the solubilizing
agent cyclodextrin could fulfill quality criteria within 47 weeks. The cyclodextrin-enhanced
biological technology was combined this time with the ex situ treatment of the extracted
groundwater, what was necessary in order to establish depression at the site, to prevent the
surrounding area from contaminant dispersion.
The detailed verification of the cyclodextrin technology is described in Chapter 11.
REFERENCES
ABS Materials (2017) EcoTreatTM in situ Injection Media. Available from: http://abswastewater.com/
wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Remediation-Solutions.pdf. [Accessed 26th July 2018].
Alexander, M. (1994) Biodegradation and Bioremediation. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, USA.
Allan, I.J., Semple, K.T., Hare, R. & Reid, B.J. (2007) Cyclodextrin enhanced biodegradation of poly-
cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and phenols in contaminated soil slurries. Environmental Science &
Technology, 4, 5498–5504.
Alvarez, P.J.J. & Illman, W.A. (2006) Bioremediation and Natural Attenuation. Wiley-Interscience,
Hoboken, NJ, USA.
Alvarez-Cohen, L. & Speitel, Jr. G.E. (2001) Kinetics of aerobic cometabolism of chlorinated solvents.
Biodegradation, 12, 105–126.
Arp, D.J., Yeager, C.M. & Hyman, M.R. (2001) Molecular and cellular fundamentals of aerobic
co-metabolism of trichloroethylene. Biodegradation, 12, 81–103.
Balogh, K., Szaniszló, N., Otta, K. & Fenyvesi, E. (2007) Can CDs really improve the selectivity of
extraction of BTEX compounds? Journal of Inclusion Phenomena and Macrocyclic Chemistry, 57,
457–462.
Bardi, L., Mattei, A., Steffan, S. & Marzona, M. (2000) Hydrocarbon degradation by a soil microbial
population with beta-cyclodextrin as surfactant to enhance bioavailability. Enzyme and Microbial
Technology, 27, 709–713.
Bardi, L., Ricci, R. & Marzona, M. (2003) In situ bioremediation of a hydrocarbon polluted site with
cyclodextrin as a coadjuvant to increase bioavailability. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution: Focus, 3,
15–23.
Baskys, E., Grigiskis, S., Levisauskas, D. & Kildisas, V. (2004) A new complex technology of clean-
up of soil contaminated by oil pollutants. Environmental Research, Engineering and Management,
30, 78–81.
Baviere, M., Degouy, D. & Lecourtier, J. (1994) Process for Washing Solid Particles Comprising a
Sophoroside Solution. U.S. Patent, 5,326,407.
Bokare, V., Murugesan, K., Kim, J.-H., Kim, E.-J. & Chang, Y.-S. (2012) Chang Integrated hybrid
treatment for the remediation of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. Science of the Total Environ-
ment, 435–436, 563–566.
Burmeier, H. (1995) Bioremediation of soil. In: Alef, K. & Nannipieri, P. (eds.) Methods in Applied
Soil Microbiology and Biochemistry. Academic Press, Cambridge, UK. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-
513840-6.X5014-9.
Cai, Q., Zhang, B., Chen, B., Song, X., Zhu, Z. & Cao, T. (2015) Environ Screening of biosurfactant-
producing bacteria from offshore oil and gas platforms in North Atlantic Canada. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment, 187, 284. doi:10.1007/s10661-015-4490-x.
Calow, P. (1993) Handbook of Ecotoxicology. Blackwell Science Ltd, Hoboken, NJ, USA.
Cameotra, S.S. & Singh, P. (2009) Synthesis of rhamnolipid biosurfactant and mode of hexadec-
ane uptake by Pseudomonas species. Microbial Cell Factories, 8, 1–7. doi:10.1186/1475-2859-
8-16.
Castillo, V.A., Barakat, M.A., Ramadan, M.H., Woodcock, H.L. & Kuhn, J.N. (2014) Metal ion
remediation by polyamidoamine dendrimers: A comparison of metal ion, oxidation state, and
titania immobilization. Environmental Science and Technology, 11, 1497–1502. doi:10.1007/

s13762-013-0346-5.
Crawford, R.L. (2002) Biotransformation and biodegradation. In: Hurst, C.J., Crawford, R.L., Knud-
sen, G.R., McInerney, M.J. & Stetzenbach, L.D. (eds.) Manual of Environmental Microbiology.
2nd ed. ASM Press, Washington, DC, USA.
Das, N. & Chandran, P. (2010) Microbial degradation of petroleum hydrocarbon contaminants: An
overview. Biotechnology Research International, 2011, 941810. doi:10.4061/2011/941810. Epub
2010 September 13.
Diallo, M.S. & Savage, N. (2005) Nanoparticles and water quality. Journal of Nanoparticle Research,
7(4–5), 325–330.
DOE (2000) In situ redox manipulation subsurface contaminants focus area. U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Office of Science and Technology. Innovative Tech-
nology Summary Reports.
EAWAG (2018) Microbial Biocatalytic Reactions and Biodegradation Pathways. Biocatalysis/
Biodegradation Database. Available from: http://eawag-bbd.ethz.ch/ [Accessed 26th July 2018].
Eruke, O.S. & Udoh, A.J. (2015) Potentials for Biosurfactant enhanced bioremediation of hydrocar-
bon contaminated soil and water – A review. Advances in Research, 4(1), 1–14. Available from:
www.journalrepository.org/media/journals/AIR_31/2014/Dec/Udoh412014AIR11933_1.pdf.
Fava, F., Di Gioia, D. & Marchetti, L. (1998) Cyclodextrin effects on the ex-situ bioremediation of a
chronically polychlorobiphenyl-contaminated soil. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 58, 345–355.
Fava, F., Di Gioia, D., Marchetti, L., Fenyvesi, E. & Szejtli, J. (2002) Randomly methylated
β-cyclodextrins (RAMEB) enhance the aerobic biodegradation of polychlorinated biphenyl in aged-
contaminated soils. Journal of Inclusion Phenomena and Macrocyclic Chemistry, 44, 417–421.
Fava, F., Di Gioia, D., Marchetti, L., Fenyvesi, E. & Szejtli, J. (2003) Randomly methylated beta-
cyclodextrins (RAMEB) enhance the aerobic biodegradation of polychlorinated biphenyl in soils.
Journal of Inclusion Phenomena and Macrocyclic Chemistry, 44(1–4), 417–421.
Faybishenko, B., Hazen, T.C., Long, P.E., Brodie, E.L., Conra, M.E., Hubbard, S.S., Christensen, J.N.,
Joyner, D., Borglin, S.E., Chakraborty, R.W., Kenneth, H., Peterson, J.E., Chen, J., Brown, S.T.,
Tokunaga, T.K., Wan, J., Firestone, M., Newcomer, D.R., Resch, C.T., Cantrell, K.J., Willett, A. &
Koenigsberg, S. (2009) In situ Long-Term Reductive Bioimmobilization of Cr(VI) in Groundwater
Using Hydrogen Release. California Digital Library. Available from: https://escholarship.org/uc/
item/1222c6sk. [Accessed 26th July 2018].
Fenyvesi, É., Balogh, K., Oláh, E., Bátai, B., Varga, E., Molnár, M. & Gruiz, K. (2011) Cyclodextrins
for remediation of soils contaminated with chlorinated organics. Journal of Inclusion Phenomena
and Macrocyclic Chemistry, 70(3–4), 291–297. doi:10.1007/s10847-010-9839-8.
Fenyvesi, E., Gruiz, K., Verstichel, S., De Wilde, B., Leitgib, L., Csabai, K. & Szaniszló, N. (2005)
Fenyvesi, E., Molnar, M., Leitgib, L. & Gruiz, K. (2009) Cyclodextrin-enhanced soil-remediation
technologies. Land Contamination & Reclamation, 17(3–4), 585–597.
Fenyvesi, E., Szeman, J. & Szejtli, J. (1996) Extraction of PAHs and pesticides from contaminated
soils with aqueous CD solutions. Journal of Inclusion Phenomena and Macrocyclic Chemistry, 25,
229–232.
Fetzner, S. (2009) Biodegradation of xenobiotics. In: Doelle, H.W., Rokem, J.S. & Marin Berovic, M. (eds.)
Biotechnology – Vol X – Biodegradation of Xenobiotics. EOLSS Publications Co. Ltd, Oxford, UK.
Franzetti, A., Bestetti, G., Caredda, P., Colla, La P. & Tamburini, E. (2008) Surface-active compounds
and their role in the access to hydrocarbons in Gordonia strains. FEMS Microbiology Ecology, 63,
238–248.
Franzetti, A., Caredda, P., Ruggeri, C., Colla, La P., Tamburini, E., Papacchini, M. & Bestetti, G.
(2009) Potential applications of surface active compounds by Gordonia sp. strain BS29 in soil
remediation technologies. Chemosphere, 75, 801–807.
Franzetti, A., Gandolfi, I., Bestetti, G., Smyth, T.J. & Banat, I.M. (2010) Production and applications
of trehalose lipid biosurfactants. European Journal of Lipid Science and Technology, 112, 617–627.
Fritsche, W. & Hofrichter, M. (2008) Aerobic Degradation by Microorganisms. In: Rehm, H.J. & Reed,
G. (eds.) Biotechnology: Environmental Processes II. Volume 11b. 2nd ed. Wiley-VCH Verlag
GmbH, Weinheim, Germany.
Fruchter, J.S., Cole, C.R., Williams, M.D., Vermeul, V.R., Amonette, J.E., Szecsody, J.E., Istok, J.D. &
Humphrey, M.D. (2000) Creation of a subsurface permeable treatment barrier using in situ redox
manipulation. Groundwater Monitoring and Remediation, 20(2), 66–77.
Fruchter, J.S., Spane, F.A., Fredrickson, J.K., Cole, C.R., Amonette, J.E., Templeton, J.C., Stevens,
T.O., Holford, D.J., Eary, L.E., Bjornstad, B.N., Black, G.D., Zachara, J.M. & Vermeul, V.R. (1994)
Manipulation of Natural Subsurface Processes: Field Research and Validation. PNL-10123. Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA, USA.
Fryxell, G., Mattigod, S., Yuehe, L., Hong, W., Fiskum, S., Parker, K., Feng, Z., Yantasee, W., Zema-
nian, T., Addleman, R., Jun, L., Kemner, K., Kelly, S. & Xiangdong, F. (2007) Design and synthesis
of self-assembled monolayers on mesoporous supports (SAMMS™): The importance of ligand
posture in functional nanomaterials. Journal of Materials Chemistry, 17, 2863–2874.
Gao, H., Gao, X., Cao, Y., Xu, L. & Jia, L. (2015) Influence of Hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin on the
extraction and biodegradation of p,p′-DDT, o,p′-DDT, p,p′-DDD, and p,p′-DDE in soils. Water, Air,
& Soil Pollution, 226(7), 208–220.
Garon, D., Sage, L., Wouessidjewe, D. & Seigle-Murandi, F. (2004) Enhanced degradation of fluorene
in soil slurry by Absidia cylindrospora and maltosyl-cyclodextrin. Chemosphere, 56, 159–166.
Gorkovenko, A., Zhang, J., Gross, R.A., Kaplan, D.L. & Allen, A.L. (1999) Control of unsaturated
fatty acid substitutes in emulsans. Carbohydrate Polymers, 39, 79–84.
Gruiz, K. (2005) Soil testing triad and interactive ecotoxicological tests for contaminated soil. In:
Fava, F. & Canepa, P. (eds.) Soil Remediation Series No. 6. INCA, Venice, Italy.
Gruiz, K., Fenyvesi, E., Kriston, E., Molnár, M. & Horváth, B. (1996) Potential use of cyclodex-
trins in soil bioremediation. Journal of Inclusion Phenomena and Macrocyclic Chemistry, 25,
233–236.
Gruiz, K., Molnár, M. & Fenyvesi, E. (2008) Evaluation and verification of soil remediation. In: Kur-
ladze, V.G. (ed) Environmental Microbiology Research Trends. Nova Sci Publ, Inc, New York, NY,
USA.
Gruiz, K., Molnár, M., Fenyvesi, É., Hajdu, C., Atkári, Á. & Barkács, K. (2011) Cyclodextrins in
innovative engineering tools for risk-based environmental management. Journal of Inclusion Phe-
nomena and Macrocyclic Chemistry, 70(3–4), 299–306. doi:10.1007/s10847-010-9909-y.
Gruiz, K., Molnár, M., Nagy, Z.M. & Hajdu, C. (2015) Fate and behavior of chemical substances in the
environment. In: Guiz, K., Meggyes, T. & Fenyvesi, E. (eds.) Engineering Tools for Environmental
Risk Management: 2. Environmental Toxicology. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA. pp. 72–124.
Hajdu, C. & Gruiz, K. (2015) Bioaccessibility and bioavailability in risk assessment. In: Gruiz, K.,
Meggyes, T. & Fenyvesi, É. (eds.) Engineering Tools for Environmental Risk Management: 2.
Environmental Toxicology. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA. pp. 337–400.
Hajdu, C., Gruiz, K. & Fenyvesi, É. (2009) Bioavailability- and bioaccessibility-dependent mutagenic-
ity of pentachlorophenol (PCP). Land Contamination & Reclamation, 17(3–4), 473–481.
Haritash, A.K. & Kaushik, C.P. (2009) Biodegradation aspects of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs): A review. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 169, 1–15. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.03.137.
Herman, D.C., Artiola, J.F. & Miller, R.M. (1995) Removal of cadmium, lead, and zinc from soil by a
rhamnolipid biosurfactant. Environmental Science & Technology, 29, 2280–2285.
Hong, K.J., Tokunaga, S. & Kajiuchi, T. (2002) Evaluation of remediation process with plant-derived
biosurfactant for recovery of heavy metals from contaminated soils. Chemosphere, 49(4), 379–387.
Hu, J., Wang, Y., Su, X., Yu, C., Qin, Z., Wang, H., Hashmic, M.Z., Shi, J. & Shen, C. (2016) Effects
of RAMEB and/or mechanical mixing on the bioavailability and biodegradation of PCBs in soil/
slurry. Chemosphere, 155, 479–487.
Ivey (2017) Ivey International. Available from: www.iveyinternational.com/products.php. [Accessed

26th July 2018].
Jördening, H.J. & Winter, J. (2005) Environmental Biotechnology: Concepts and Application. Wiley-
VCH Verlag GmbH, Weinheim, Germany.
Jozefaciuk, G., Murányi, A. & Fenyvesi, E. (2003) Effect of randomly methylated beta-cyclodextrin on
physical properties of soils. Environmental Science & Technology, 37, 3012–3017.
Karanth, N.G.K., Deo, P.G. & Veenanadig, N.K. (1999) Microbial production of biosurfactants and
their importance. Current Science, 77, 116–123.
Karlapudi, A.P., Venkateswarulu, T.C., Tammineedi, J., Kanumuri, L., Ravuru, B.L., Dirisala, V. &
Kodali, V.P. (2018) Role of biosurfactants in bioremediation of oil pollution: A review. Petroleum,
in press, available online: 10 March 2018. doi:10.1016/j.petlm.2018.03.007.
Kildisas, V., Levisauskas, D. & Grigiskis, S. (2003) Development of clean-up complex technology of
soil contaminated by oil pollutants based on cleaner production concepts. Environmental Research,
Engineering and Management, 25, 87–93.
King, A., Jensen, V., Fogg, G.E. & Harter, T. (2012) Groundwater Remediation and Management for
Nitrate. Technical Report 5 in: Addressing Nitrate in California’s Drinking Water with a Focus on
Tulare Lake Basin and Salinas Valley Groundwater. Report for the State Water Resources Control
Board Report to the Legislature. Center for Watershed Sciences, University of California, Davis,
CA, USA.
King, R.B., Long, G.M. & Sheldon, J.K. (1992) Practical Environmental Bioremediation. Lewis Pub-
lishers, Boca Raton, FL, USA.
King, A., Jensen, V., Fogg, G.E. & Harter, T. (2012) Groundwater Remediation and Management for
Nitrate. Technical Report 5 in: Addressing Nitrate in California’s Drinking Water with a Focus on
Tulare Lake Basin and Salinas Valley Groundwater. Report for the State Water Resources Control
Board Report to the Legislature. Center for Watershed Sciences, University of California, Davis,
CA, USA.
Koshlaf, E. & Ball, A.S. (2017) Soil bioremediation approaches for petroleum hydrocarbon polluted
environments. AIMS Microbiology, 3(1), 25–49. doi:10.3934/microbiol.2017.1.25.
Krieger, R. (2001) Handbook of Pesticide Toxicology. Principles. 2nd ed. Academic Press, San Diego,
CA, USA.
Lau, E.V., Gan, S., Ng, H.K. & Poh, P.E. (2014) Extraction agents for the removal of polycyclic aro-
matic hydrocarbons (PAHs) from soil in soil washing technologies. Environmental Pollution, 184,
640–649.
Le, T.T., Nguyen, K.-H., Jeon, J.-R., Francis, A.J. & Chang, Y.-S. (2015) Nano/bio treatment of poly-
chlorinated biphenyls with evaluation of comparative toxicity. Journal of Hazardous Materials,
287, 335–341.
Leitgib, L., Gruiz, K., Fenyvesi, E., Balogh, G. & Murányi, A. (2008) Development of an innovative
soil remediation: ‘Cyclodextrin-enhanced combined technology’. Science of the Total Environ-
ment, 392, 12–21.
Lewinski, N. (2008) Nanotechnology for Waste Minimization and Pollution Prevention. Available from:
http://wp.vcu.edu/nalewinski/wp-content/uploads/sites/4986/2014/08/Lewinski_NNEMS_2008.
pdf. [Accessed 26th July 2018].
Luo, W., D’Angelo, E.M. & Coyne, M.S. (2007) Plant secondary metabolites, biphenyl, and hydroxy-
propyl-beta-cyclodextrin effects on aerobic polychlorinated biphenyl removal and microbial com-
munity structure in soils. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 39, 735–743.
Marcos, J.C., Ferreira, I.N.S., Correa, P.F., Rufino, R.D., Luna, J.M., Silva, E.J. & Sarubbo, L.A.
(2015) Application of bacterial and yeast biosurfactants for enhanced removal and biodegradation
of motor oil from contaminated sand. Electronic Journal of Biotechnology, 18(6), 471–479.
Matos, M.P.S.R., Correia, A.A.S. & Rasteiro, M.G. (2017) Application of carbon nanotubes to
immobilize heavy metals in contaminated soils. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 19, 126–137.
doi:10.1007/s11051-017-3830-x R.
Menn, F.-M., Easter, J.P. & Sayler, G.S. (2008) Genetically engineered microorganisms and bioreme-
diation. In: Rehm, H.J. & Reed, G. (eds.) Biotechnology: Environmental Processes II. Volume 11b.
2nd ed. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH, Weinheim, Germany.
Middeldorp, P., Langenhoff, A. et al. (2002) In situ clean-up technologies. In: Agathos, S. & Reineke,
W. (eds.) Focus on Biotechnology. Biotechnology for the Environment: Soil Remediation. Series,
Volume 3a. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Molnár, M. (2006) Intensification of Soil Bioremediation by Cyclodextrin: From the Laboratory to the
Field. PhD Thesis, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Budapest, Hungary.
Molnár, M., Fenyvesi, E., Gruiz, K., Leitgib, L., Balogh, G., Murányi, A. & Szejtli, J. (2002) Effects
Molnár, M., Gruiz, K., Fenyvesi, É. & Szőnyi, M. (1998) Potential use of ß-cyclodextrin for bio-
remediation of contaminated soil. Contaminated Soil’98 (Preprints of the International Con-
ference on Contaminated Soil, Edinburgh, May 17–21, 1998). Thomas Telford, London, UK.
pp. 1207–1208.
Molnár, M., Leitgib, L., Fenyvesi, E. & Gruiz, K. (2009) Development of cyclodextrin-enhanced
soil remediation: From the laboratory to the field. Land Contamination & Reclamation, 17(3–4),
599–610.
Molnár, M., Leitgib, L., Gruiz, K., Fenyvesi, E., Szaniszló, N., Szejtli, J. & Fava, F. (2005) Enhanced
Mulligan, C.N. (2005) Environmental applications for biosurfactants. Environmental Pollution,
133(2), 183–198. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2004.06.009.
Mulligan, C.N., Sharma, S.K. & Mudhoo, A. (eds.) (2014) Biosurfactants: Research Trends and Applica-
tions. CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL, USA, London, UK & New York, NY, USA.
Mulligan, C.N. & Wang, S. (2006) Remediation of a heavy metal contaminated soil by a rhamnolipid
foam. Engineering Geology, 85(1–2), 75–81. doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2005.09.029.
Nagy, Zs., Gruiz, K., Molnár, M., Fekete-Kertész, I., Fenyvesi, É. & Perlné Molnár, I. (2013) Removal
of emerging micropollutants from water using Cyclodextrin. Proceedings Aquaconsoil 2013,
Theme C: Assessment and Monitoring, Paper 2323.
Nayak, A.S., Vijaykumar, M.H. & Karegoudar, T.B. (2009) Characterization of biosurfactant produced
by Pseudoxanthomonas sp. PNK-04 and its application in bioremediation. International Biodete-
rioration and Biodegradation, 63, 73–79.
Nichols, W.J. (2001) The U.S. Environmental Protect Agency: National oil and hazardous substances
pollution contingency plan, Subpart J Product Schedule (40 CFR 300.900). Proceedings of the
International Oil Spill Conference, March 2001. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC,
USA. pp. 1479–1483.
Pacwa-Płociniczak, M., Płaza, G.A., Piotrowska-Seget, Z. & Cameotra, S.S. (2011) Environmental
applications of biosurfactants: Recent advances. International Journal of Molecular Sciences,
12(1), 633–654. doi:10.3390/ijms12010633. Available from: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/
PMC3039971/ [Accessed 26th July 2018].
Paul, E.A. & Clark, F.E. (1996) Soil Microbiology and Biochemistry. 2nd ed. Academic Press, San
Diego, CA, USA.
Pavan, M. & Worth, A.P. (2006) Review of QSAR models for ready biodegradation. EUR 22355 EN
Report. European Commission Directorate, General Joint Research Centre, Institute for Health and
Consumer Protection, Ispra, Italy.
Pesce, L. (2002) A biotechnological method for the regeneration of hydrocarbons from dregs and
muds, on the base of biosurfactants. 02/062,495. World Patent.
Piotrowska-Długosz, A. (2017) The use of enzymes in bioremediation of soil xenobiotics. In: Hashmi,
M., Kumar, V. & Varma, A. (eds.) Xenobiotics in the Soil Environment. Soil Biology. Volume 49.
Springer, Cham, Switzerland.
Rahman, K.S.M. & Gakpe, E. (2008) Production, characterization and applications of biosurfactants-
Review. Biotechnology, 7(2), 360–370.
Ramsay, J.A., Robertson, K., van Loon, G., Acay, N. & Ramsay, B.A. (2005) Enhancement of PAH biomin-
eralization rates by cyclodextrins under Fe(iii)-reducing conditions. Chemosphere, 61, 733–740.
Santanu, P. (2008) Surfactant-enhanced remediation of organic contaminated soil and water. Advances
in Colloid and Interface Science, 138(1), 24–58. doi:10.1016/j.cis.2007.11.001.
Schink, B. (2005) Principles of anaerobic degradation of organic compounds. In: Jördening, H.J. &
Winter, J. (eds.) Environmental Biotechnology. Concepts and Application. Wiley-VCH Verlag
GmbH, Weinheim, Germany.
Shete, A.M., Wadhawa, G., Banat, I.M. & Chopade, B.A. (2006) Mapping of patents on bioemulsifier
and biosurfactant: A review – NOPR. Journal of Scientific & Industrial Research, 65, 91–115.
Singh, P. & Cameotra, S.S. (2004) Enhancement of metal bioremediation by use of microbial surfac-
tants. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, 319(2), 291–297.
Singh, R., Manickam, N., Mudiam, M.K.R., Murthy, R.C. & Misrab, V. (2013) An integrated (nano-
bio) technique for degradation of HCH contaminated soil. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 35,
258–259.
Sivaraman, C., Ganguly, A. & Mutnuri, S. (2009) Biodegradation of hydrocarbons in the presence of
cyclodextrins. World Journal of Microbiology & Biotechnology, 26, 227–232.
Soberón-Chávez, G. & Maier, R.M. (2011) Biosurfactants: A general overview. In: Soberón-Chávez,
G. (ed) Biosurfactants. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany. pp. 1–11.
Steffan, S., Bardi, L. & Marzona, M. (2001) Biodegradation of hydrocarbon in polluted soils using
beta-cyclodextrin as a coadjuvant. Biological Journal of Armenia, Special Issue: Cyclodextrins,
53, 218–225.
Steffan, S., Tantucci, P., Bardi, L. & Marzona, M. (2003) Effects of cyclodextrins on dodecane biodeg-
radation. Journal of Inclusion Phenomena and Macrocyclic Chemistry, 44, 407–411.
Stroud, J.L., Tzima, M., Paton, G.I. & Semple, K.T. (2009) Influence of hydroxypropyl-beta-cyclodextrin
on the biodegradation of C-14-phenanthrene and C-14-hexadecane in soil. Environmental Pollution,
157, 2678–2683.
Suttinun, O., Luepromchai, E. & Müller, R. (2013) Cometabolism of trichloroethylene: Concepts,
limitations and available strategies for sustained biodegradation. Reviews in Environmental Science
and Bio/Technology, 12, 99–114. doi:10.1007/s11157-012-9291-x.
Swartjes, F.A. (2011) Dealing With Contaminated Sites: From Theory Towards Practical Application.
Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Szaniszló, N., Fenyvesi, E. & Balla, J. (2005) Structure – Stability study of cyclodextrin complexes
with selected volatile hydrocarbon contaminants of soils. Journal of Inclusion Phenomena and
Macrocyclic Chemistry, 53, 241–248.
US EPA (2008) Nanotechnology for Site Remediation: Fact Sheet. Available from: https://nepis.epa.
gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P1001JIB.PDF?Dockey=P1001JIB.PDF. [Accessed 26th July 2018].
Valentín, L., Nousiainen, A. & Mikkonen, A. (2013) Introduction to organic contaminants in soil: Con-
cepts and risks. In: Vicent, T. et al. (eds.) Emerging Organic Contaminants in Sludges: Analysis,
Fate and Biological Treatment. The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry. Volume 24. Springer,
Berlin, Germany & Heidelberg, Germany. doi:10.1007/698_2012_208.
Vermeul, V.R., Rockhold, M.L., Bjornstad, B.N., Szecsody, J.E., Murray, C.J., Williams, M.D., New-
comer, D.R. & Xie, Y. (2004) In situ Redox Manipulation Permeable Reactive Barrier Emplace-
ment: Final Report, Frontier Hard Chrome Superfund Site, Vancouver, WA, Battelle. Pacific
Northwest Division, 99352, Report PNWD-3361, Richland, WA, USA. 93 p.
Vermeul, V.R., Williams, M.D., Szecsody, J.S., Fruchter, J.S. Cole, C.R. & Amonett, J.E. (2003) Cre-
ation of a subsurface permeable reactive barrier using in situ redox manipulation. Applications to
Radionuclides, Trace Metals, and Nutrients. In: Naftz, D.L. et al. (eds.) Handbook of Groundwa-
ter Remediation using Permeable Reactive Barriers. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, USA. doi:
10.1016/B978-012513563-4/50010-4
Vijayakumar, S. & Saravanan, V. (2015) Biosurfactants-Types, sources and applications. Research
Journal of Microbiology, 10, 181–192. doi:10.3923/jm.2015.181.192.
Wackett, L.P. (1995) Bacterial co-metabolism of halogenated organic compounds. In: Young, L.Y. &
Cerniglia, C. (eds.) Microbial Transformation and Degradation of Toxic Organic Chemicals. John
Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA.
Wang, J.M., Marlowe, E.M., Miller-Maier, R.M. & Brusseau, M.L. (1998) Cyclodextrin-enhanced
biodegradation of phenanthrene. Environmental Science & Technology, 32, 1907–1912.
Wang, S. & Mulligan, C. (2004a) Rhamnolipid foam enhanced remediation of cadmium and nickel
contaminated soil. Water Air and Soil Pollution, 157(1), 315–330.
Wang, S. & Mulligan, C. (2004b) An Evaluation of surfactant foam technology in remediation of con-
taminated soil. Chemosphere, 57(9), 1079–1089. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2004.08.019.
Wang, S. & Mulligan, C. (2009) Arsenic mobilization from mine tailings in the presence of a biosur-
factant. Applied Geochemistry, 24(5), 928–935.
Whang, L.M., Liu, P.W.G., Ma, C.C. & Cheng, S.S. (2008) Application of biosurfactant, rhamnolipid,
and surfactin, for enhanced biodegradation of diesel-contaminated water and soil. Journal of Haz-
ardous Materials, 151, 155–163.
Wiedemeier, T.H., Rifai, H.S., Newell, C. & Wilson, J.T. (1999) Natural Attenuation of Fuels and
Chlorinated Solvents in the Subsurface. Wiley, New York, NY, USA.
Xu, Y. & Zhao, D. (2005) Removal of copper from contaminated soil by use of poly(amidoamine)
dendrimers. Environmental Science and Technology, 39, 2369–2375.
Yin, H., Qiang, J., Jia, Y., Ye, J., Peng, H. et al. (2009) Characteristics of biosurfactant produced by
Pseudomonas aeruginosa S6 isolated from oil-containing wastewater. Process Biochemistry, 44,
302–308.
Yoshii, H., Furuta, T., Shimizu, J., Kugimoto, Y., Nakayasu, S., Arai, T. & Linko, P. (2001) Innovative
approach for removal and biodegradation of contaminated compounds in soil by cyclodextrins.
Biological Journal of Armenia, Special Issue: Cyclodextrins, 53, 226–236.
Yuan, C. & Jin, Z. (2007) Aerobic biodegradability of hydroxypropyl-beta-cyclodextrins in soil. Jour-
nal of Inclusion Phenomena and Macrocyclic Chemistry, 58, 345–351.
Zhang, Y. & Miller, R.M. (1992) Enhanced octadecane dispersion and biodegradation by a Pseu-
domonas rhamnolipid surfactant (biosurfactant). Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 58,
3276–3282.
Chapter 6
Traditional and innovative

methods for physical and chemical
remediation of soil contaminated
with organic contaminants
É. Fenyvesi 1, K. Gruiz 2 , E. Morillo 3 & J. Villaverde 3
1CycloLab Cyclodextrin R&D Lab. Ltd., Budapest, Hungary
2Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Budapest, Hungary
3Institute of Natural Resources and Agrobiology, Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), Seville, Spain
ABSTRACT
This chapter provides an overview of the remediation technologies based on physicochemi-
cal processes. In addition to emerging technologies, innovative developments of traditional
technologies are presented. There is a demonstration of the physicochemical methods useful
for the remediation of soils contaminated with pesticides. A case study on full-scale applica-
tion of in situ chemical oxidation on a site historically contaminated with chlorinated hydro-
carbons is reported. Hydrogen peroxide combined with alternating well pumping ensured
intensive mass transfer between the soil liquid phases (DNAPL lens and groundwater) and
achieved significant contaminant removal.
1 INTRODUCTION
É. Fenyvesi and K. Gruiz

The classification of the technologies used in this book is primarily based on the character-
istics of the contaminants and the contaminated phases of the soil to be treated (see Chap-
ter 1 in this volume). A further consideration in sorting the large number of technologies is
the dominant physical, chemical, biological, and ecological processes which play a role in
decontamination and remediation of the environment.
The most frequent organic contaminants in the soil include fuel hydrocarbons, poly-
nuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), chlorinated aromatic compounds, polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides, insecticides, germicides, detergents, etc. Some of these are
volatile and can be in the soil gas or vapor, whereas others are dissolved or emulsified in the
aqueous phase or sorbed to the solid phase of the soil. The water-immiscible liquids parti-
tion into the gaseous, liquid, and solid phases of the soil and form separate phases above
the groundwater (LNAPL) or below the aquifers (DNAPL). The solid contaminants can be
mixed with or sorbed to the soil particles or bound to the matrix by physical or chemical
bonds, e.g. built in the humus by covalent bonds (Gruiz, 2009). Partition of contaminants in
soil involves all three physical phases and also the living part, the biota. One or two phases
may dominate in contaminants-binding and others may play a negligibly small role.
This chapter introduces and evaluates the soil remediation technologies based on physi-
cochemical processes even if they are used typically in combination with biological or eco-
logical methods.
The ENFO database (2018), Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Refer-
ence database (FRTR, 2018a), Center for Public Environmental Oversight (CPEO, 2018),
and EPA CLU-IN database (2018) were used to review the technologies, in addition to the
generic literature search.
The physical and chemical remediation technologies for reducing the risk of organic
contaminants are based on either mobilization or immobilization of the pollutants (Gruiz,
2009) as well as mobilization or immobilization of the contaminated medium. Mobiliza-
tion means increasing the mobile (dissolved, gaseous, bioavailable) fraction of the con-
taminant and removing it together with the mobile physical phases. Immobilization, on
the contrary, decreases this contaminant fraction and prevents the transport of the con-
taminant or the contaminated medium from its – possibly separated – location. Technolo-
gies based on mobilization remove the contaminants from the contaminated soil phases
either physically (volatilization, extraction), chemically (destruction, transformation into
less hazardous compounds), or biologically (extraction, stabilization, transformation by
biological contribution, as well as partial or ultimate degradation). Biological technolo-
gies are summarized in Chapters 3–5 of this volume. In the case of technologies based on
immobilization, the environmental risk of the contaminant is reduced by decreasing – as
far as possible, irreversibly – the mobility, transport, and bioavailability of the contami-
nants without removing them from the contaminated medium. The classification of these
technologies is covered in Chapter 1 of this volume.
Remedial technologies can usually be applied both in situ (without excavation of the
soil) or ex situ by removing the soil and treating it on the surface on site, off site, at a dump
site, in heaps, or in reactors. Landfilling the excavated soil or sludge is generally permitted
only if a limited amount of free liquid is present and no or very little leaching of hazardous
contaminants is expected. Landfill management should ensure the collection and treatment
of the generated gas (landfill gas) and/or liquid (leachate).
The common physical and chemical methods can be used separately or combined with
each other and/or with thermal, electrochemical, and biological methods. The combined
technologies are usually unique, problem-specific solutions, and are thus often considered
innovative. The traditional technologies enhanced by new additives/reagents are also clas-
sified as innovative. The cutting-edge technologies combine various methods, e.g. physico-
chemical remediation with bio- and ecotechnologies.
The in situ remediation technologies are usually more efficient in homogeneous and
permeable soils compared to ex situ technologies. Fracturing, e.g. pneumatic or hydraulic
fracturing, is an option for enhancing the transport processes in low-permeability soils by
forming cracks and decreasing soil particle size. The transport of both the contaminants and
the chemical reactants is improved, which is why fracturing can be useful to increase the
efficiency of some kind of in situ treatments, e.g. extractions, augmentation, or application
of additives. In addition to low permeability, high heterogeneity also hampers in situ physi-
cochemical processes.
2 TECHNOLOGIES BASED ON MOBILIZATION

Physicochemical mobilization covers many technologies which are based on shifting the
partition of the contaminants toward the more mobile soil phases, i.e. from liquid to gas
(evaporation), from solid to liquid or gas (desorption), from any of the physical phases into
the biological “phase” (biological uptake and/or accumulation). These treatments can be
Physical and chemical remediation of soil 287
intensified by the use of mobilizing additives (surfactants, micelle-forming agents, chemical

reagents, or enzymes resulting in smaller and more mobile degradants) or heat and electric-
ity. Another group of technologies aims to “mobilize” the mobilizable physical phases, e.g.
by groundwater flow modification, extraction of soil air, groundwater and leachates, as well
as soil moisture collection.
The most frequently applied physical contaminant removal technologies are based on
the extraction of contaminated soil gas, soil moisture, and soil water from the unsaturated
(three-phase soil) or the groundwater from the two-phase soil, and their surface treatment.
2.1 Separation technologies

This section discusses the separation of the mobile soil phases or the contaminant (insofar as
it represents a separate mobile physical phase), starting with the gases and vapors, followed
by the liquid phases such as the contaminated soil waters and the liquid phase contaminants.
2.1.1 Soil venting

Soil venting, soil vapor extraction, and soil vacuum extraction (called also as soil vapor
extraction or soil volatiles extraction, SVE) are used for the removal of contaminated soil
gas and vapor from the soil’s vadose zone. In addition to the removal of vapors, it promotes
further desorption and evaporation in the three-phase soil as well as chemical oxidation
and aerobic biodegradation. Soil venting involves the introduction of fresh air with high
oxygen content (passively or actively by injection) into the soil while contaminated air with
increased CO2 and volatile contaminant contents is extracted, i.e. an enhanced air exchange
is established in the soil, similar to any ventilation. The difference to normal ventilation is
that the air space is limited to the pore volume of the vadose zone (Figure 6.1).
Passive wells are simple, open-top wells, screened at the depth of contaminant
occurrence. They allow in fresh atmospheric air as close as possible to the contaminant.
Figure 6.1 Soil venting with passive atmospheric air inlet. The yellow arrows represent the air flow.
Active wells on the other hand inject air into the soil with pressure. Air extraction with
blowers can be connected to both. A more sophisticated system is the directed soil air
circulation system (SAC). Two screens – an upper and a lower one – are built into the
borehole and separated from each other. Both are connected to a surface blower. This
allows for soil gas extraction from either the upper or the lower segment of the well or
from both at the same time. By doing so, horizontal and vertical flow circulation cells
are generated in the soil surrounding the extraction well. The circulation direction is
reversible and can be adjusted according to the contaminant distribution in the soil (IEG
Technologie, 2018).
Optimal air flow depends on the pore volume and the volatility of the contaminant.
Soil venting by suction is generally more appropriate, as the contaminated air can be col-
lected and better controlled than in pressurized systems where the overpressurized soil gas
easily escapes. In contrast, the depression in the soil gas pressure moves the gas flux in the
desired direction. The collected contaminated soil gas is treated by the most appropriate
technology – using separators, sorbents, washers, catalytic oxidizers, combustors, or inciner-
ators, etc. – depending on the quantity and quality of the contaminants in the exhausted gas.
Thermal destruction (e.g. direct flame thermal oxidation, catalytic oxidizers), adsorption
(e.g. granular activated carbon, zeolites, polymers), biofiltration, photolytic/photocatalytic
destruction, non-thermal plasma destruction, membrane separation, gas absorption, and
vapor condensation are used. The most common methods are thermal oxidation and granular
activated carbon adsorption.
Some relevant concerns are these:
– Soil vapor extraction can be used both in situ and ex situ – the latter for soil heap
treatment.
– Increased aerobic biological activities are expected due to SVE, even if the technology
is planned and used as a single physical treatment. For biodegradable soil contaminants
soil venting is used especially for the activation of the biodegrading soil biota, which is
prepared to degrade the organic contaminants. This application is referred to as biovent-
ing (see Chapters 1 and 5 in this volume).
– Air permeability of the soil has an inverse relationship with soil moisture content.
– Increased soil gas/soil air flux promotes water evaporation and causes soil desiccation.
2.1.2 Air stripping/sparging

Air stripping, also called air sparging or volatilization, forces the contaminants to transfer
from waters, typically from groundwater into the sparged air bubbles (Loden, 1992). To
remove volatile and semivolatile organic contaminants (VOCs and SVOCs) characterized
by high Henry’s law constant (high volatility), contaminant-free air is injected into the water.
The extracted vapor can be treated by any known gas cleanup technology, e.g. gas separa-
tion, sorption, catalytic oxidation, incineration, or biofiltration.
The process can be implemented in situ in the groundwater or in groundwater extraction
wells, and in reactors placed on the soil surface. Such a reactor is shown in Figure 6.2. (The
packed towers or tray towers are operated with countercurrent flow of the extracted ground-
water and air to enhance the contact time between these two phases.)
For in situ air stripping, contaminant-free air is injected into the saturated soil zone (two-
phase soil) and contaminant-containing soil air/soil vapor is extracted from the unsaturated
Figure 6.2 Packed-column air stripper for ex situ treatment of volatiles-contaminated groundwater.
(three-phase) soil. The pressure gradient resulting from creating a vacuum in the extraction
wells pulls the vapors, that is, the contaminated soil air into the extraction wells.
The highly engineered version of air stripping is carried out in the well itself. A well
constructed for such purpose can be considered as a subsurface-placed, in situ operating
reactor or reactive well (Figure 6.3). The well is under depression (vacuum blower) and is
screened in two depths, one under the water table at the level of contaminant occurrence,
and the other one directly above the water table. The negative pressure in the well is adjusted
to lift the water from the deeper to the upper screen (without extraction to the surface),
from where the water is forced to leave, causing a circulation in the surrounding of the well
between the screens. The groundwater flow direction through the well can be upward or
downward depending on site-specific conditions. Pressurized ambient air is injected to the
bottom of the active well, where air bubbles meet the contaminated water and strip the vola-
tile contaminants. Contaminant-containing bubbles leave the water at the depths of the upper
screen, from where the vapors are extracted and transported to the vapor treatment facility by
the vacuum blower (SITE, 1993; FRTR, 2018a,b).
This technology can enhance the contact between the phases of the soil. A circulation
flow cell develops in the saturated soil surrounding the wells, with water entering at the base
of the well and leaving through the upper screened segment or vice versa depending on the
desired flow direction (Hirschberger, 1998).
Another implementation of the in situ air stripping is performed by horizontal wells
(Figure 6.4). The full-scale demonstration of horizontal wells at a military site contaminated
with trichloroethylene (TCE) and PCE reduced the initial 10–1031 μg/L and 3–124 μg/L
TCE and PCE concentration to 0.67–6.29 μg/L and 0.44–1.05 μg/L, respectively, in 139
days (US Department of Energy, 1995).
Figure 6.3 In situ in-well air stripping.
Figure 6.4 Scheme of in situ air stripping technology applying horizontal wells.
Pulsed mode soil gas extraction can improve contaminant removal. Pulsing air injection
often induces the collapse of the air channels, and the new channels in each cycle ensure
more efficient removal of the contaminants (Abdel-Moghny et al., 2012).
Another method of intensification is periodical injection of an ozone/air mixture in con-
junction with a pulsing pump (Kerfoottech, 2018). In addition to air stripping for extracting
dissolved volatile organic compounds (VOCs) out of contaminated groundwater, the ozone
reacts rapidly with the volatile compounds to decompose them into end products such as
carbon dioxide, dilute hydrochloric acid, and water (see also in Section 2.2.1 in this chapter).
By removing soil air, not only contaminant vapor but also gaseous metabolites such as
CO2 are replaced by the fresh air stimulating the microbiota. In the special combination of
in situ air stripping and in situ biodegradation the vapor from the groundwater is transported
into the soil pore spaces of the unsaturated soil where they can be biodegraded by the acti-
vated microbiota. When applied in combination with bioremediation, additives (nutrients,
etc.) to enhance biodegradation can be injected into the stripping well (see Chapter 5 in this
volume).
2.1.2.1 Heat-enhanced soil gas extraction

Soil volatile extraction (SVE) can easily be enhanced by hot air injection: 10–20°C increase
may duplicate the efficacy of desorption and volatiles removal, especially that of the heavier
(less volatile) fractions. Heat intensifies the processes of both desorption and volatilization
(Henry’s law constants increase significantly with increasing temperature). Microbiological
degradation can also be accelerated by increasing temperature to 30°C. Thermally enhanced
vapor extraction system (TEVES) uses preheated air or steam to be injected into the soil.
The three-phase soil can be heated up by other means suitable for energy transfer such as hot
air/steam injection, electrical resistance heating, electromagnetic heating, fiber optic/radio
frequency heating, and their combinations (TEVES, 2018).
Hot air or steam is generally injected below the contaminated soil zone to heat up
the contaminated volume, deliberate the volatiles and semivolatiles from the soil matrix
and transfer the vapors by the upward movement of the heated soil gas to the surface. The
contaminant-containing soil gas should be collected and treated. The collector system can
be placed into the soil (perforated tube or well system under negative pressure) or on the
surface (collector system on the surface with local exhaust ventilation (LEV) hood and gas
treatment).
The mobilization, evaporation, and removal of volatile and semivolatile contaminants
(VOC and SVOC) by using heat can be applied both in situ and ex situ.
Temperature increase in soil has a complex impact on soil physics and chemistry as well
as on microbial life and activity. In the vadose soil zone water also evaporates in addition to
contaminant mobilization. It may promote further evaporation of the volatile contaminants.
The vapor pressure and mobility (higher diffusivity, lower viscosity) of the volatile or semi-
volatile contaminants are increased. Soil moisture is heated up locally, which functions as a
steam source mobilizing and stripping the steam-volatile contaminants. Permeability of the
dry soil increases after evaporation of the soil moisture, and thus the vapor extraction can
be more efficient.
The activity of the microbiota increases with increasing temperature until a certain limit.
Higher temperature than the usual 8–15°C in the subsurface causes changes in the diversity
of the microbiota: heat-tolerant species gain advantage and the heat-sensitive will be pushed
back. When planning soil heating, it should be decided if the technology will be built upon
microbial degradation or not. If biological activity is to be kept, soil moisture supply, aera-
tion, and supplemental nutrients may be necessary and the temperature should not exceed a
certain level, e.g. 30°C (such a critical level may vary depending on climate, season, and the
spatial and temporal characteristics of the environment).
If soil vapor extraction is the basic process for contaminant removal and therefore not
a requirement to sustain biological activity, the temperature can go up to 105°C (in the
case of high moisture content) or even to 300°C and higher. These high-temperature soil
treatment technologies are characteristic of thermal desorption, as any increase in tempera-

ture enhances desorption. Even higher temperatures can be used for in situ or reactor-based
thermal destruction and/or stabilization of soil/sediment contaminants. In such technologies,
even if the main goal is destruction or stabilization, several mobilizable soil components and
contaminants will be volatilized and products of thermal destruction will also increase the
“must be treated” volatile fraction.
The efficiency of air sparging and the removal of the heavier fractions in particular can
be enhanced by increasing soil temperature: heat intensifies the processes of both desorp-
tion and volatilization. Higher temperature may be beneficial for biodegradation as well.
A thermally enhanced vapor extraction system (TEVES) uses preheated air or steam to
be injected into the soil. The temperature should be optimized for maximum efficiency of
contaminant removal, i.e. in reducing the risk of soil contamination and the minimum dete-
rioration of soil biota and soil structure. In the case of high-risk contaminants the survival
of the soil biota will be downgraded, but soil structure can still be rescued. For instance,
preheating the air to 45°C at the inlet resulted in an increase in recovery efficiency of
between 70% and 90% after 5 hours of in situ air stripping of benzene-contaminated soil
and groundwater (Shah et al., 1995).
Steam-enhanced remediation (SER) in combination with dual phase vacuum extraction
(DPVE) and air stripping was used to remove predominantly creosote contamination from
the soil of a former timber treatment facility in Burton on Trent (UK). The temperature was
increased to 60–90°C and the volatile components of the DNAPL were removed by DPVE
from contaminated soil and groundwater; 4500 kg of contaminants was removed from an
area of 1100 m2 over a period of 7 months (Churngold, 2009). In a recent application soil
and groundwater contaminated with diesel oil in Rotterdam Port were heated up to 105°C
using plant steam and vacuum to remove the free oil phase, vapors, and dissolved phase in
groundwater. As a final polishing step the temperature in the vadose soil zone was increased
to 120°C. The remediation was successfully completed in 6 months (Churngold, 2018).
In addition to hot air/steam injection, other technologies such as electrical resistance
heating, electromagnetic heating, fiber optic/radio frequency heating, and their combinations
can be used for increasing the temperature of the soil (TEVES, 2018). Electrical resistance
heating uses an electrical current generated by low-frequency electricity to heat up the soil.
It applies to low permeability soils, such as clays or clayey sediment and it works in high
moisture content soils, too, and is excellent for steam-volatile contaminants. The vapors
are extracted and treated. Electrodes are placed directly into the soil in such a way that the
contaminated volume is located between the electrodes so the current passes through the
contaminated soil and heats it up. The evaporation of the soil water is a kind of in situ steam
source inducing the evaporation of the contaminant together with the water vapor. Water
content of the soil continuously decreases, the heat causes desiccation and disintegration of
the soil structure, making it less cohesive and more permeable.
A special in situ solution called six-phase soil heating (SPSH) has been developed and
was demonstrated first in 1994 by Gauglitz et al. Low-frequency electricity was used to heat
the soil by six electrodes in a hexagonal array for better heat distribution. The vapor extrac-
tion well, which removes the contaminants, air, and steam from the subsurface, is located in
the center of the hexagon.
Radio frequency heating (RFH) uses electromagnetic energy to heat soil and enhance
evaporation of volatile and semivolatile soil contaminants to be extracted. Three rows of ver-
tical electrodes are placed into the soil: the soil volume to be heated is between the two outer
rows of ground electrodes. The third row of electrodes (between the two) receives electricity.
The three rows act as a buried triplate capacitor and can heat up soil to over 300°C. The soil
continuously heats and dries until the current stops flowing.
2.1.2.2 Effect of surfactants and complexing agents

Surfactant-enhanced air stripping (SEAS) coupled with soil vapor extraction (SVE) is useful
in the second phase of remediation when the removal rate with conventional air stripping
using SVE is slowed down. By reducing the surface tension surfactants help the migration
of NAPLs such as chlorobenzene from the small pores of the soil (Qin et al., 2013) and pro-
mote air flow (Kim et al., 2004). For instance, the presence of trace quantities of the surfac-
tant Triton X100 leads to uniform small diameter bubbles ensuring higher contact surfaces
between the phases and enhanced performance of the technology (Burns & Zhang, 2001).
Both surfactants and complexing agents decrease the Henry’s law constant and reduce
the volatility of VOCs, thus resulting in the decreased efficiency of air stripping (Anderson,
1992; Kashiyama & Boving, 2004).
2.1.3 Soil washing /chemical extraction for the removal of the

soluble contaminants
Ex situ treatment of soil washing aims to remove the contaminants from the solid phase of
the soil/sediment, which use either water (soil washing) or organic solvent (chemical extrac-
tion) (EPA CLU-IN, 2018; CL:AIRE, 2007) (see also Chapters 1 and 2 in this volume). The
process separates the fine soil particles containing most of the contaminants from bulk soil
(Figure 6.5).
The wash-water may contain a basic leaching agent, surfactant, or chelating/complexing
agent or additives to adjust pH to help remove organics and heavy metals. Soils and
Contaminated soil Screening Washing
Contaminated Contaminated
Washed sand
water silt/clay
Oversized debris
Water treatment Soil treatment
Clean water Dewatering
Treated silt/clay
Figure 6.5 Flowchart of soil washing.

wash-water are mixed in a tank or other treatment unit and water is passed through sieves,
mixing blades, or high-pressure water sprays on site using mobile, transportable units, or
at soil treatment centers. With sizing and classification separated fractions are obtained:
coarse gravel and debris, a coarse silt fraction, clay, and fine silt fraction. In many cases, the
coarse gravel fraction is relatively a contaminant-free and considered non-hazardous mate-
rial which can be recycled on the site or used on another site as fill or as valuable construc-
tion material (sand and gravel). If the contaminant content in this coarse fraction is above
the target requirement, it is crushed and reprocessed. The silt and clay containing the most
of the contaminants are treated separately, either by repeated soil washing or by bioreme-
diation, catalytic oxidation, etc. Depending on the Kow (octanol–water partition coefficient)
of the contaminant, a large volume of polluted wash-water is formed. This water can be
separated from the soil fractions using gravity settling, magnetic separators, or flotation and
then cleaned up by air stripping, adsorption, chemical oxidation, or biodegradation technolo-
gies usually used for high concentration wastewater. The clean water then can be reused or
discharged.
The technology may be inefficient because hydrocarbon retention after soil washing
may be influenced by a number of factors unrelated to particle size, such as soil humic acids,
metal oxide coatings, shape, and porosity of the soil particles, and clay type (Dove et al.,
1992).
When the soil washing is performed using an organic solvent instead of water or aque-
ous solution of solubilizing additives, the technology is called chemical extraction. It can
be implemented as a separate technology or as a component of the complex soil washing
plant. It is used ex situ, if possible, on site to avoid transporting the soil to a different place of
treatment. The sediments, sludge, and soil contaminated with organic pollutants are mixed
with the solvent in an extractor to desorb and dissolve the contaminants. The solvent is then
recovered from the extracted solution and recycled, while the contaminants drawn off are
reused or disposed of. Soils of high moisture content need to be dried before treatment to
achieve high removal rates. Multi-stage continuous extraction and countercurrent extraction
improve the efficiency of contaminant removal (Li et al., 2012).
Individual solvent or a solvent mixture (ethanol, propanol, acetone, ethyl acetate,
liquefied gases such as propane, dimethyl ether or carbon dioxide) is used as extracting
chemical. For instance, an ethyl acetate-acetone-water mixture was successfully applied
for the removal of petroleum hydrocarbons (Silva et al., 2005). Traces of solvent may
remain within the treated soil matrix, so the toxicity of the solvent is an important con-
sideration. Fire and explosion hazard should also be taken into account and preventive
measures implemented.
The potential of supercritical carbon dioxide as solvent for soil extraction has been
reviewed by Anitescu and Tavlarides (2006). This innovative green technology com-
bined with catalytic oxidation is useful for the quick remediation of heavily polluted
hotspots, for the removal of the less strongly bound, biodegradable fraction of PAHs,
petroleum hydrocarbons, creosote, etc. and to reduce the most severe risk. Solvent
extraction is inefficient in the removal of both high molecular weight organic and very
hydrophilic substances.
Soil washing can be made more efficient by using solubilizing agents such as surfac-
tants and complex-forming additives, similarly to in situ soil flushing (see Section 2.1.4).
For heavy oil recovery, for instance, water with an added surfactant is the most common
processing solvent.
2.1.4 In situ soil flushing

Soil flushing means in situ washing of the contaminated soil. Most often the soil between
two wells or through ditches is washed by injecting water/aqueous solution/solvent mix-
tures into the contaminated zone; this may be within the vadose zone, the saturated zone,
or both. The water table is raised in the vicinity of the injection well so that the solution
flows through the contaminated zone, and the hydraulic gradient between the enhanced
water level in the injection well and the depressed water level of the extracting well
helps the contaminants to be desorbed from the soil and leached into the groundwater,
which is extracted and treated on the surface. The dissolved organics are removed ex situ
either partitioning into vapor phase (stripping) and/or into solid phase (adsorption) or by
destroying them (oxidation, UV treatment) or by biodegradation-based decontamination.
Process sludge and residual solids such as spent carbon and spent ion exchange resin
deriving from the treatment of the recovered washing fluids must be appropriately treated
before disposal. Air emissions of volatile contaminants from recovered flushing fluids
should be collected and treated to meet applicable regulatory standards. The recovered
fluids are reused in the flushing process: reinjected back into the contaminated soil, circu-
lated, re-extracted, and re-purified. Low-permeability or heterogeneous soils are difficult
to treat (fracturing can help). Pollutants which sorb strongly to the soil surface require
many flushing cycles.
Usually vertical wells are used, but angled wells can also be applied below buildings or
other structures that do not allow access for vertical wells to the area. Usually the flushing
solution is injected in the source zone and extracted down-gradient using one or more wells
(line drive treatment). In another implementation the same well is used both for injection
and after a reaction phase, when the contaminants are solubilized by the flushing solution
for extraction (push-pull technique) (Boving et al., 2008). An effective collection system
is required to prevent migration of contaminants and potentially toxic extraction fluids to
uncontaminated areas. Recharge is typically controlled by maintaining the water level in
injection wells or drains or by pumping at specified rates.
A decrease in contaminant concentrations at wells may indicate success of the remedia-
tion, but it may also indicate dispersion or contaminant transport to down-gradient areas.
Increased or constant, but elevated, concentrations in a well may indicate the presence of
a continuing source of contamination from the unsaturated zone or from NAPL. If such
sources are not removed or treated, the technology will likely operate endlessly.
Soil flushing can be combined with bioremediation. In this case the applied water is
generally amended by nutrients to stimulate microbial degradation. The biological conver-
sion can be
– Aerobic: aeration is combined with periodic flooding in the three-phase soil; or

– Anoxic: groundwater aeration, ORC or alternative electron acceptors addition is used
to establish optimal redox potential for the active microbiota in the saturated soil/
groundwater.
Elevated temperature is favorable for desorption and dissolution of the contaminants due
to their enhanced solubility and for volatilization of liquid or sorbed contaminants. Steam
injection is used to combine soil flushing with steam distillation and stripping of volatile and
semivolatile contaminants (Davis, 1998). Hot water can also be utilized for a similar effect.
For instance, TCE removal was increased by a factor of two when hot water flushing was
used to increase the temperature from 5°C to 40°C prior to air sparging (Imhoff et al., 1997).
Pulsed hydraulic pressure can be used to enhance the recovery rate of LNAPL gen-
erating intense mixing so that liquids flow into and out of pore throats (Davidson, 2018).
Pressure pulse technology (PPT) is applied so that the liquids repeatedly flow into and out
of the wellbore and pore throats, ensuring accelerated fluid flow and pore-scale mixing, and
enhancing the contact area between the remedial fluid and porous media.
Solubilizing agents such as cosolvents, surfactants, biosurfactants, and complexing
agents can enhance efficacy. Recently, nano-sulfonated graphene was used as a washing
agent for the removal of PAHs from a coking plant soil: <80% of PAHs was removed in four
washing cycles, thus outperforming Tween 80 and RAMEB (Gan et al., 2017).
The first two groups – cosolvents and most of the industrial surfactants – may represent
an environmental hazard. Residual flushing additives in the soil may be a concern and should
be evaluated on a site-specific basis.
Cosolvent flushing involves injecting a solvent mixture (e.g., water plus a miscible
organic solvent such as alcohol) into either unsaturated or saturated soil zones, or both, to
extract organic contaminants. Cosolvent flushing can be applied to soils to dissolve both the
source and the contaminant plume originating from it. The cosolvent mixture is injected into
the injection wells, and the solvent with dissolved contaminants is extracted from the extrac-
tion wells and then treated ex situ. For example, ethanol (95%) in water was applied for the
removal of PCE at a former dry cleaner site in Florida (EPA CLU-IN, 1998). When selecting
the cosolvent its effect on microbiota should be considered.
2.1.4.1 Surfactant-enhanced soil flushing

Surfactants can mobilize the organic contaminants: their amphiphilic molecules form
micelles and the contaminants with large Kow are solubilized in the core of these micelles.
Numerous studies indicated that surfactants enhance the removal rate of NAPLs (Mulligan
et al., 2001). The surfactants applied should be biodegradable, non-toxic, and soluble in
water (the solubility can be enhanced by a cosolvent such as isopropanol). The anionic and
non-ionic surfactants are less likely adsorbed by the soil than the cationic surfactants, which
can adhere to soil and reduce effective soil porosity. They are also generally less toxic than
cationic surfactants.
The non-toxic, biodegradable biosurfactants such as rhamnolipids, trehalose lipids, and
sophorose lipids produced by bacteria and yeast were found to effectively enhance both
solubility and biodegradation of contaminants such as PAHs (Noordman et al., 1998; Lau
et al., 2014).
A synergy of surfactants and cosolvents (Tween 80 and ethanol) was observed in TCE
extraction in lab-scale experiments (Table 6.1). It should be noted that the surfactant solu-
tions showed foaming, thus causing technological problems in field applications. Foaming
was particularly strong when in-well pressure pulse technology was modeled by periodically
mixing the vessels to intensify the contact of the phases.
Although emulsification can enhance the mobility of the contaminants to a high extent,
such mobilization holds a threat of downward or horizontal movement of contaminants and
subsequent contamination of groundwater. This can be prevented by applying a hydraulic
barrier or permeable reactive barrier (PRB). The other difficulty of surfactant-enhanced soil
flushing lies in the high cost of the separation of surfactants from recovered flushing fluid.
Table 6.1 Solubilized TCE in groundwater amended by additives.
Solubilized TCE Without 4% Tween 80 20% ethanol 4% Tween 80 +

additives 20% ethanol
Intensive mixing (mg/L) 1000 55,000 1500 105,000

Without mixing (mg/L) 500 11,000 1000 20,000
Enhancement ratio (mixed) 1 55 1.5 105
Enhancement ratio (non-mixed) 1 22 2 40
2.1.4.2 Complex-forming agents for enhancement of soil flushing

Cyclodextrins (CDs) are typical complex-forming agents. These cyclic oligosaccharides con-
sisting of 6, 7, or 8 glucose units form complexes with most of the organic contaminants by
including them into their hydrophobic cavity. The complexed contaminants show enhanced
solubility especially if CD derivatives with high solubilizing effect are used. Hydroxypropyl
and randomly methylated beta-cyclodextrins (HPBCD and RAMEB) are such solubilizers
produced industrially. They reduce the Kow and the soil–water partition coefficient (KD) of
the contaminants (Fenyvesi et al., 2009; Ko & Yoo, 2003).
Compared to the often toxic surfactants, the cyclodextrins, e.g. HPBCD are non-
toxic. They can efficiently remove various organic contaminants (Berselli et al., 2004;
Zeng et al., 2006; Guo et al., 2010; Sánchez-Trujillo et al., 2013; Wan et al., 2010). In a
contaminant mixture, the components compete for access to the CD cavities, and there-
fore the extraction efficiency is lower than that for the single components (Badr et al.,
2004). The efficiency also depends on the organic-matter content of the soil: the higher
is the content, the slower the desorption rate. Humic acids can be complexed by CDs,
and they also compete for the cavity (Ishiwata & Kamiya, 1999). While surfactants are
also competitors (it makes no sense to combine surfactants with CDs), synergic effect of
methyl BCD, and 30% ethanol as cosolvent was observed in extracting hexachloroben-
zene from soil (Wan et al., 2009).
Soil flushing with HPBCD solution (“sugar flushing”) (Boving & Brusseau, 2000) is a
potential technology for the removal of crude oil containing normal alkanes (nC15–nC35) and
polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) from porous media (Gao et al., 2012). The beneficial
effect of CD extraction decreases with increasing n-alkane chain length. CD significantly
enhanced PAH extraction from sand, and the enhancement effect increased in the order of
parent compounds < C-1 substituted < C-2 substituted < C-3 substituted for most PAHs
tested (Gao et al., 2012).
Carboxymethyl BCD (CMBCD) was found to be effective for washing soils containing
mixed (organic and inorganic) contaminants (Brusseau et al., 1997; Chatain et al., 2004;
Skold et al., 2009). The mechanism includes salt formation with metals and inclusion com-
plex formation with organic pollutants. Especially good results were obtained when RAMEB
and EDTA were applied together to a soil contaminated with metals and PCBs. By repeating
the extraction three times, as much as 76% and almost 100% of the PCB and mobile metal
content (Cd, Cu, Mn, and Pb), respectively, could be removed (Ehsan et al., 2007). Good
removal efficiencies (>80%) for PAHs, toxic metals, and fluorine were obtained by applying
CMBCD and carboxymethyl chitosan (CMC) solution for washing a soil from an abandoned
metallurgic plant (Ye et al., 2014).
Figure 6.6 Scheme of the push-pull soil flushing technology using complex-forming cyclodextrin
(HPBCD) (modified after Boving et al., 2008).
The efficiency of the “sugar flushing” technology using aqueous HPBCD solution has
been demonstrated in various field experiments on a waste dump site (McCray & Brusseau,
1998, 1999) and on military sites (Tick et al., 2003; Blanford et al., 2000) contaminated
with PCE or TCE as DNAPLs. The push-pull flushing system (applying the same well peri-
odically for injection and extraction) proved to be more efficient than the line-drive system
(separate injection and extraction wells) (Figure 6.6) (Boving et al., 2008). The HPBCD
solution injected to the well was extracted after a reaction time and the contaminant was
separated by stripping, distillation, or sorption on activated carbon. The regenerated HPBCD
solution was pumped back for the next cycle of soil flushing.
Cost efficiency analysis showed that the total implementation costs for the CD-enhanced
and surfactant-enhanced soil flushing technologies (CDEF and SEF) are comparable. The time
needed to complete remediation can be reduced significantly by both CDEF and SEF tech-
nologies (Blanford et al., 2006). CDEF also offers the ecological benefit of only introducing a
non-toxic and degradable material into the subsurface. Regeneration of the CD solution makes
the technology more economical (Boving et al., 2007). Recent studies have revealed that the
HPBCD remained in the subsurface after cessation of the active remediation was utilized as co-
substrate in anaerobic degradation of the chlorinated hydrocarbons (Hinrichs, 2004; Blanford
et al., 2018). In this spontaneous process also nitrate and sulfate concentrations were reduced
due to their role as terminal electron acceptors in the anaerobic biodegradation, while no sig-
nificant change was observed in the concentration of dissolved oxygen and total iron at the site.
Soil flushing with CD solution can be combined with in situ bioremediation utilizing the
benefits of the enhanced bioavailability of the CD-solubilized contaminants (Gruiz et al., 2011;
Leitgib et al., 2007; Molnár et al., 2005) (for more details, see Chapter 5 in this volume).
The soil effluents deriving either from soil washing or soil flushing can be decontami-
nated in various ways, but the effects of the complex-forming agents or surfactants on the
selected technology should be considered:
– Stripping (the residence time in the stripper should be increased as the volatility of the
contaminants is usually decreased in the presence of both CDs and surfactants) (Kashiy-
ama & Boving, 2004);
– Sorption on activated carbon (the sorbent should be carefully selected to avoid the sorp-
tion of the additives without reducing the sorption of the organic pollutants) (Snie-
gowski et al., 2014);
– Advanced oxidation processes (AOPs) (see Section 2.2.1 in this chapter);
– Liquid/liquid extraction by using vegetable oil (colza oil) (Petitgirard et al., 2009);
– Electrochemical treatment (Gomez et al., 2010);
– Biological treatments (the most economical technologies for regeneration of the CD
solutions containing the soil contaminants using either the indigenous microflora or
activated sludge) (Berselli et al., 2004; Yoshii et al., 2001; Gruiz et al., 2008). CDs are
non-toxic to the microbes, they catalyze the decomposition processes and are eventually
biodegraded themselves (Fenyvesi et al., 2005; Molnár et al., 2005; Verstichel et al.,
2004).
In summary, the non-toxic, biodegradable cyclodextrins (CDs) can solubilize poorly

soluble organic contaminants such as PAHs, PCBs, chlorinated solvents, etc. (Fenyvesi et al.,
2009). The biodegradation of PCBs, especially those with a lower degree of chlorination,
can be enhanced by improving bioavailability using randomly methylated beta-cyclodextrin
(RAMEB) (Fava et al., 2002; Hu et al., 2016). Similarly, the biodegradation of diesel oil,
transformer oil, and mazout was enhanced by RAMEB due to enhanced bioavailability
(Gruiz et al., 2011; Molnár et al., 2009). In the case of contaminants with extremely high
affinity toward CD complexation, biodegradation can be hindered by the strong binding of
the contaminant to the CD as it was observed for dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT)
and HPBCD (Gao et al., 2015).
2.1.4.3 Electrokinetic extraction

The electrokinetic extraction process removes metals and polar organic contaminants
from low-permeability soil, mud, sludge, and marine dredging by applying electric cur-
rent. This in situ technology based on electrochemical and electrokinetic processes is
primarily a separation and removal technique for extracting contaminants from soils with
an electric charge.
Applying direct current to the soil increases its temperature, which helps to desorb
the organic contaminants and volatize the VOCs. Solubilizing agents (surfactants, CDs,
cosolvents) can enhance the electromigration of the contaminants and enhance the
removal efficiency (Huang et al., 2012; Ko et al., 2000; Yuan et al., 2006). Charged
cyclodextrins such as CMBCD help the removal of both inorganic and organic pollutants
(Jiradecha et al., 2006).
A more detailed evaluation of this technology is in Chapter 9 of this volume.
2.2 Destructive physicochemical technologies – chemical

degradation
During the degradation of the contaminants dissolved in water or sorbed to the solid phase
of the soil, hazardous compounds are converted to non-hazardous or less toxic ones using
reduction/oxidation (redox), acid-base reactions, hydrolysis, or other dissociation-based
(e.g. dehalogenation) reactions. The chemical reactions are carried out during the ex situ
treatment of the extracted air and groundwater or by contacting the solid phase (usually
suspended in slurry) with the reagents. The ex situ treatment can be carried out on site using
mobile, transportable units or at soil treatment centers by mixing the reagents into excavated
soil and pumped groundwater, then separated and recycled.
In situ chemical treatment of soil and groundwater has become widespread through the
development of solutions for reagent delivery and PRBs. For groundwater treatment the
reagents can be injected by direct push injectors or via wells as well as filled into perme-
able reactive barrier (PRB) placed in such a way that the contaminated groundwater flows
through. The solid phase can be treated either with gas-phase reagents such as ozone or
reagents dissolved in water which permanently or periodically floods and flushes the con-
taminated soil volume. Only the two-phase soil can be treated efficiently with in situ oxi-
dation and reduction technologies since water as reaction medium is required. Chemical
reactions-based destruction in the three-phase soil has the drawback of a relatively small
area of influence. The solutions of reagents are delivered to the contaminated zone through
wells and trenches or by injection either by gravity or by using vacuum wells. Pressurized
injection of liquids or gases, either through the screen of a well or the probe of a direct push
rig, force the reagent into the soil or aquifer. The direct push rig offers a cost-effective way
of delivering the reagent.
These technologies can be applied alone or in combination with other technologies,
e.g. in the technology chain of soil extraction and air stripping of the extracted groundwater
plus catalytic oxidation of VOCs in the effluent gases. Another example combines in situ
chemical oxidation (ISCO) or reduction (ISCR) with subsequent aerobic/anaerobic biodeg-
radation of the remaining contaminants. In the latter cases ISCO and ISCR aim to degrade
the contaminants of low biodegradability to compounds more easily degraded by the soil
microflora.
2.2.1 Technologies based on redox reactions

The most often used chemical reactions are redox reactions. The oxidizing agents most com-
monly applied are ozone, hydrogen peroxide, sodium persulfate, potassium permanganate,
hypochlorites, chlorine, chlorine dioxide, ferrate [Fe(VI)], while the reducing agents are
zero-valent metals, preferably iron (Fe0 or Fe2+), sodium bisulfite, sodium hydrosulfite, dithi-
onite, hydrogen, etc. The technologies can be used for an extensive variety of organic pollut-
ants, such as VOCs and SVOCs, fuel hydrocarbons, PAHs, micropollutants, and pesticides
both ex situ and in situ. Reaction rates can be accelerated by use of a catalyst and by adding
some form of energy (radiation, solar, heat, electrical, kinetic). The advanced oxidation
processes (AOPs) use the oxidizing agents in the presence of the catalyst and/or UV light.
When planning the technology, the soil oxidant demand (SOD) arising from the
consumption of oxidant due to organic carbon contained in soils should be considered
(Brown, 2003). When chemical oxidation is designed the oxidant necessary for the
remediation should be calculated based on the experimentally determined concentrations

(Haselow et al., 2003):
– Dissolved phase contaminant;

– Sorbed phase contaminant;
– Free phase contaminant;
– Dissolved phase reduced minerals;
– Solid phase (or sorbed phase) reduced minerals;
– Dissolved and sorbed phase natural organic matter (NOM).
Similar to SOD, the soil reductant demand (SRD) can also be determined but it is rarely
used for soils contaminated with organics (McGrath et al., 2007).
2.2.1.1 Technologies based on oxidation

Table 6.2 is a comparison of the most frequently used oxidants. These oxidants produce
radicals (hydroxyl OH•, superoxide O2•, perhydroxyl HO2•) which are responsible for oxida-
tion (Cheng et al., 2016). Highly reactive hydroxyl radicals can be generated in situ also by
sonication or hydraulic cavitation of water (Lehr, 2004). When a catalyst is used the technol-
ogy is considered an advanced oxidation process (AOP).
Sodium/potassium permanganate (NaMnO4 and KMnO4) is an easy-to-handle and
stable oxidant both in solid form and in solution. Figure 6.7 shows the scheme of in situ
technology implementation using permanganate aqueous solution.
In a field demonstration, PCE and TCE were degraded in situ using potassium per-
manganate solution (Schnarr et al., 1998). In another successful case, horizontal wells were
used for injection of sodium permanganate solution (Siegrist et al., 2001). Hrapovic et al.
(2005) observed that permanganates may be inhibitory to Dehalococcoides ethenogenes,
Table 6.2 Comparison of the most frequently used oxidants.
Sodium or Hydrogen Sodium Sodium percarbonate Ozone

potassium peroxide persulfate (Na2CO3+H2O2)
permanganate
Standard low medium high high highest

oxidation
potential
Soil oxidant high not high low not high low
demand (SOD)
pH wide range 3–5 wide range wide range wide range
Catalyst no ferrous iron ferrous iron ferrous iron no
Precipitate manganese ferric iron ferric iron ferric iron no
oxide
Effect on soil provisional decrease in activity enhanced enhanced activity
biota activity (oxygen-rich
environment)
Figure 6.7 Scheme of ISCO with permanganate.
the microbial species that completely dechlorinates PCE and TCE. Permanganate oxida-
tion induces a shift from a microbial consortium composed predominantly of aerobic and
anaerobic heterotrophs, nitrate- and sulfate-reducing bacteria and methanogens, to primarily
aerobic heterotrophs (Klens et al., 2001).
Hydrogen peroxide is typically applied combined with an iron catalyst and is one of the
most efficient oxidants (EPA, 1998). In many cases, however, there is sufficient iron or other
transition metals in the subsurface with no additional ferrous sulfate. The hydroxyl radi-
cals (OH·) formed can oxidize complex organic compounds. Residual hydrogen peroxide
decomposes to water and oxygen in the subsurface. The process requires acidic pH and can
be applied both in situ (Fekete-Kertész et al., 2013) and ex situ. A case study on ISCO with
hydrogen peroxide is described in Sections 5 and 6 of this chapter.
Light irradiation during oxidation by hydrogen peroxide can significantly increase
oxidation efficiency (Ruppert et al., 1993). Light is typically applied ex situ for extracted
groundwater.
Hydrogen peroxide can be continuously generated in the soil on a suitable cathode with
the addition of iron catalyst (Brillas et al., 2009; Nidheesh & Gandhimathi, 2012). The
enhanced rate of degradation is due to the continuous regeneration of Fe2+ on the cathode.
Hydrogen peroxide is toxic to microorganisms (it is a commonly used antiseptic agent
in medical practice). When applied to soil a concentration-dependent reduction of both
microbial numbers and diversity is observed (Waddell & Mayer, 2003).
Persulfate has to be activated (turned into sulfate radicals) by heat, ultraviolet light,
high pH, hydrogen peroxide, or transition metals. For instance, enhanced temperature (50–70°C)
and simultaneous application of nano zero-valent iron (nZVI) resulted in fast removal
of PAHs from sediment in ex situ treatment (Chen et al., 2014). At temperatures above
40°C, persulfate becomes especially reactive and can degrade most organics (Block et al.,
2004). Explosives and PCBs were successfully removed from the soil of a burning site by
persulfate oxidation (Waisner et al., 2008). Alkaline (NaOH)-activated persulfate oxidation

effectively reduced the phenanthrene and TPH concentrations in a few days’ time in an aged,
contaminated soil originated from a railway maintenance facility (Lominchar et al., 2018).
Persulfate oxidation eliminated a part of PAHs and transferred another part of them into
more bioavailable forms to be treated by bioremediation (Medina et al., 2018). As with other
oxidants, persulfate also has a negative effect on the soil microbiota, which can be restored
by amendments (Satapanajaru et al., 2017).
Sodium percarbonate is claimed to have a long-term effect (up to 30 days) and to oxi-
dize even chlorinated ethanes and PCBs which are degraded by other oxidants only in a low
efficiency (Regenesis, 2018).
Ozone can oxidize contaminants directly or through forming hydroxyl radicals. When
applied together with hydrogen peroxide, enhanced transformation to hydroxyl radicals of
high reactivity improves the efficiency of pollutant degradation compared to the efficiency
of ozone alone (Peroxone, 2018). The ozone sparging process employs nano- to micro-sized
bubbles of air and ozone mixtures pressured through soil and groundwater (Kerfoottech,
2018). Pulsing of air-ozone mixtures enhances the process scrubbing capacity and pushes
the bubbles through the soil capillary pores (Figure 6.8). The technology can be applied to
a wide variety of contaminants, such as petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, and
other chlorinated compounds, BTEX, PAHs, PCBs, and pesticides.
The application of any of these strong oxidants destroys the contaminants in a rela-
tively short period of time. However, rebound of dissolved contaminant concentrations can
occur if the source is not treated. Real remediation can usually only be achieved by multiple
chemical oxidant addition followed by enhanced or accelerated bioremediation. Chemical
oxidation can be combined with bioremediation only under specific circumstances, e.g. at
low contaminant concentration and if the microbiota is resistant to the oxidizing reagent.
To avoid the adverse effects of oxidants on intrinsic microbes, carefully designed tech-
nology should be applied, e.g. low oxidant concentrations are recommended by Sutton et al.
Figure 6.8 Scheme of ISCO with ozone.

(2011). Chen et al. (2015) found that hydrogen peroxide and permanganate were less harm-
ful to the biota than persulfate.
The combined technology is less costly than the chemical technology alone and takes
less time than bioremediation alone (Huang et al., 2017). For instance, Hu et al. (2018) com-
bined chemical oxidation using H2O2 + Fe2+ with fungal treatment (Phanerochaete chryso-
sporium) for the removal of bisphenol A from river sediment. Higher degradation efficiency
was achieved compared to either of these technologies applied separately. The organic acids
produced by the fungi were beneficial for the hydrogen peroxide oxidation ensuring acidic
pH. On the other hand, the ferrous iron stimulated the growth of fungi.
Chemical oxidation can be coupled with the simultaneous or subsequent stimulation of
bioremediation, e.g. by the addition of oxygen release compounds (ORC) to treat the low-
concentration or remaining contaminants in the saturated soil. ORC is an oxygen-providing
agent that enhances aerobic biodegradation in groundwater and in saturated soil. Usually it is
phosphate-intercalated magnesium peroxide or calcium oxy-hydroxide that, when hydrated,
provides a controlled release of molecular oxygen for periods of up to 12 months on a single
application (Regenesis, 2018).
The contaminants (VOCs) in air streams resulting from remedial operations, such as
SVE and air stripping, are degraded by catalytic oxidation. In the presence of a catalyst,
typically metal oxide, oxidation is accelerated by adsorbing both the oxygen and the con-
taminant on the catalyst surface where they react and form CO2, H2O, and HCl at much
lower temperatures than required by conventional thermal oxidation (see Chapter 1 in this
volume).
UV light can oxidize organic contaminants in air and water, which can be enhanced by
a catalyst such as TiO2 or ozone oxidation. This combination is more effective than UV or
ozone applied alone. Similarly, the efficiency of an H2O2/Fe2+ system can be enhanced by
UV irradiation. Both ozone and H2O2/Fe2+systems produce highly reactive hydroxyl radicals
(OH·). The main advantage of this system is that sunlight is appropriate (eliminates need for
expensive UV lamps). The disadvantage is that low pH is required to avoid the precipita-
tion of iron. In some experiments the use of only endogenous iron also resulted in effective
treatment: de S. e Silva et al. (2008) reported about approximately 76% removal of PAHs
in sandy soil.
The UV technology is not widely used because of the following:
– UV decomposition does not usually reach complete mineralization of the organic

contaminants.
– The technology is applicable for ex situ treatment of soil vapor and contaminated
groundwater extracted by either soil washing or flushing (Lee et al., 2016; Mishra and
Chun, 2015; Schneider et al., 2014), but it is not feasible for the contaminated soil, as
the UV light cannot penetrate deep into the soil (thin layers should be treated). The
technology is also not energy-efficient.
Figure 6.9 shows the scheme of a UV treatment of soil vapor containing VOCs (Hishi-
moto et al., 2005). The volatile organic compounds such as TCE can be removed from the
soil by heating (e.g. by mixing with calcium oxide) and simultaneous photocatalytic decom-
position using a sheet made of a specially impregnated paper containing both activated car-
bon and TiO2.
Figure 6.9 TCE is volatilized and removed from the soil by heating and subsequently undergoes UV
decomposition using a photocatalytic sheet that contains TiO2 catalyst (redrawn from Hishi-
moto et al., 2005).
2.2.1.2 Technologies based on chemical reduction

The aim of chemical reduction is to degrade toxic organic compounds in the soil and ground-
water to less toxic compounds. The most-often-used reducing agent is zero-valent iron (ZVI).
It is usually applied as filler in the permeable reactive barriers (PRBs) for in situ reduction
of halogenated organic compounds dissolved in groundwater (see Chapter 10 in this volume
for a detailed description of the technology) (Figure 6.10).
PRB affects only the water proportion flowing through, and thus source treatment
may be necessary in addition. ZVI is delivered into contaminant zones using pneumatic or
hydraulic injection, e.g. direct push rigs. The emulsified and micronized forms are inject-
able. In situ reduction enables not only the soluble, but also the sorbed-phase and free-phase
halogenated hydrocarbons to be reduced to target levels (US EPA, 2002).
Emulsified zero-valent iron (EZVI) is composed of surfactant, biodegradable vegeta-
ble oil, water, and ZVI particles (either nano- or micro-scale iron). EZVI forms emulsion
particles that contain the ZVI in water surrounded by an oil/liquid membrane. EZVI com-
bines directly with the target contaminants until the oil membrane is consumed by biologi-
cal activity. In addition to the abiotic degradation associated with the ZVI, EZVI injection
contributes to enhanced biodegradation of dissolved chlorinated hydrocarbons because the
vegetable oil and surfactant act as electron donors to promote anaerobic biodegradation pro-
cesses (ESTCP Project CU-0431, 2006).
Bimetallic nanoscale particle (BNP) technology consists of submicron particles of ZVI
with a trace coating of palladium that acts as a catalyst. Due to the extremely small size of
Figure 6.10 Treatment of contaminated groundwater with vertical PRB made of ZVI.
the particles (in the order of 10–100 nm) they can be transported by groundwater to establish
in situ treatment zones, thus addressing not only dissolved contaminant plumes but also
highly concentrated, dissolved contaminants within source areas. BNP can be used to treat
contaminant areas that generally are inaccessible to conventional technologies, e.g., beneath
buildings and in deep aquifers (US Navy, 2003). Both EZVI and BNP technologies can
be further improved by applying organically modified silica that swells and captures small
organic compounds in close proximity to the embedded ZVI (Clue in, 2018). Further details
are discussed in Chapter 10 in this volume.
Sodium dithionite (Na2S2O4) is used for chemical reduction of Fe(III) present in the soil
or sediment to Fe(II), providing reducing conditions. The lower redox potential favors both
abiotic and biotic reduction of contaminants such as explosives and chlorinated solvents, e.g.
TCE (Szecsody et al., 2004). For the treatment of soils not rich in iron, the combined injec-
tion of ferrous iron with sodium dithionate is beneficial.
Solvated electron treatment (SET) process is a special reduction technology which applies
alkaline earth metals (e.g. sodium, calcium, lithium, and potassium) dissolved in ammonia to
form metal ions and free electrons (SET, 2018). These free electrons produce a strong reduc-
ing agent that removes halogens (primarily chlorine) from organic molecules and reduces other
contaminants. The process is used ex situ: the soil is excavated, dried, and treated in anhydrous
ammonia slurry, then separated. The technology is not widely applied because of the high risk
associated with the reactants. The main application is the remediation of PCB-contaminated soils.
Catalytic reductive dehalogenation (CRD) uses dissolved hydrogen as a reducing
agent, in the presence of a palladium-on-alumina catalyst to chemically transform com-
pounds such as TCE and PCE into environmentally benign ethene without the accumulation
of intermediate transformation products such as vinyl chloride. Because of its rapid reaction
rates (removal efficiencies for most of the chlorinated hydrocarbons are greater than 99%
within minutes), a treatment unit system can be placed in a dual-screened well, allowing
contaminated groundwater to flow through (Berg, 2000). The extra cost of the palladium cat-
alyst is justified when groundwater has cocontaminants that are safer to leave in the ground,
such as radionuclides. The system was developed for in situ application, in which case TCE
was destroyed without pumping groundwater to the surface.
Hydrogen release compounds (HRC) can be used for the anaerobic degradation of resid-
ual low-concentration chlorinated compounds in groundwater. The injectable form can be
delivered directly to the saturated soil. It can also be used as filler in PRBs (US EPA, 2009).
It is a polylactate ester (typically with glycerol) which is decomposed by soil microbes
resulting in controlled release of hydrogen for periods of up to 6–24 months on a single
application. For more details, see Chapter 5 in this volume.
2.2.1.3 Enhancing redox technologies by surfactants

and complex-forming agents
Surfactants and complex-forming agents can enhance the efficiency of the technologies
based on redox reactions by ensuring increased concentrations (availability) of the poorly
soluble contaminants. In addition to enhancing the solubility of the contaminants, CDs can
solubilize also the catalyst [Fe(II)] and are non-toxic Fe-chelating agents compared to the
toxic EDTA. CDs can accelerate the oxidation reactions due to the simultaneous complex-
ation of both the contaminants (including them into the cavity) and the metal or metal oxide
catalyst (forming outer sphere complexes). In this way the reactants get into close proximity
to each other due to their interaction with CDs, resulting in two- to five-fold enhancement of
oxidation compared to the CD-free treatments of soil slurry or groundwater.
It should be taken into account, however, that not only the contaminants but also both
CDs and surfactants can be oxidized to a certain degree, and it is therefore necessary to
find an optimum concentration which suffices for solubilization but does not consume too
much of the oxidant (Chen et al., 2017b; Fenyvesi et al., 2011; Hanna et al., 2005, ABS
Materials, 2017).
Some examples for the beneficial applications of CDs or surfactants are listed in Table 6.3.
In the literature both positive, negative, and even neutral impact of non-ionic surfactants
such as Brij 35 and Tween 80 on TCE photodegradation was reported by Chu and Choy
(2010, 2001a,b). The technology should therefore be carefully planned, because the catalytic
effect is usually realized only at lower concentrations of both CDs and surfactants, but at
high concentrations these additives can inhibit degradation, as was shown for the photodeg-
radation of various contaminants such as phenanthrene, bisphenol Z, pentachlorophenol,
pyrene, or TCE (Zhang et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2007; Hanna et al., 2004; Petitgirard et al.,
2009; Fenyvesi et al., 2011). For instance, UV protection of TCE by surfactants results in
increased degradation half-life (Table 6.4). Only the cosolvent of ethanol had a catalytic
effect on TCE photodegradation.
The data in Table 6.4 shows that the solubilizing agents enhance the solubility of con-
taminants (washing solution containing both surfactant and cosolvent exhibited the highest
initial TCE concentration), and this determines the efficiency of the whole soil washing
and photodegradation technology: the higher the contaminant concentration in the washing
solution/soil effluent, the higher amount of contaminant is removed.
Concerning the technologies based on reduction, Ayoub et al. (2008) claimed that no
positive effect was achieved in the treatment of TCE by ZVI or by mobilizing agents such as
surfactants, starch, and BCD. Two factors can hinder the process:
1 CD binding to the iron can decrease the effective surface.

2 TCE complexed by CD can react with iron at a lower rate than the uncomplexed one
(protecting effect of complexation).
Table 6.3 Examples of the beneficiary application of cyclodextrins or surfactants on soil remediation
technologies based on redox reactions.
Technology Contaminant CD/surfactant Reference
Fe-catalyzed hydrogen pentachlorophenol HPBCDa Hanna et al., 2005

peroxide PAHs and PCBs CMBCDb Lindsey et al., 2003;
Zheng and Tarr, 2004
hexachlorobenzene BCDc Oonnittan et al., 2009
trinitrotoluene (TNT) CMBCD Wei and Tarr, 2003;
Matta et al., 2008
TCE RAMEBd Fenyvesi et al., 2011
bisphenol-A CMBCD and BCD Chen et al., 2017b
photo-, electrochemical TNT RAMEB Yardin and Chiron, 2006;
generation of H2O2+ Fe Murati et al., 2009
FE-activated persulfate TCE and PCE HPBCD Liang et al., 2007;
Liang and Lee, 2008
PAHs, PCBs and HPBCD Chen et al., 2017a
polybrominated
diphenyl ethers
Ozone and persulfate PAHs HPBCD Enchem, 2010;
and H2O2 Dettmer et al., 2017
TiO2-catalyzed Phenanthrene Triton X100 e Zhang et al., 2011
photodegradation
photodegradation TNT RAMEB Yardin and Chiron, 2006
Norflurazol RAMEB Villaverde et al., 2007
Chlorobenzene CD+fullerene Ali and Sandya, 2014
ahydroxypropyl-beta-CD, bcarboxymethyl beta-CD, cbeta-CD, drandom methylated beta-CD, enon-ionic surfactant,
polyethylene glycol p-(1,1,3,3-tetramethylbutyl)-phenyl ether
Table 6.4 Results of UV irradiation of dissolved/emulsified TCE in groundwater amended by additives

(Fenyvesi et al., 2011).
Without 4% 5% 20% 4% Tween 80 +

additive Tween 80 RAMEB ethanol 20% ethanol
Initial TCE (mg/L) 1300 50,000 3100 1000 100,000

t1/2 (min) 60 300 102 17 250
Removed TCE compared to the 28 17 21 55 9
initial in 15 min (%)
Removed TCE in 15 min (mg/L) 400 8200 700 450 9000
Enhanced contaminant solubility can counterbalance these negative effects by using a prop-
erly selected CD derivative such as carboxymethyl BCD. CMBCD has a high degree of
substitution with low iron binding affinity and a medium protecting effect, but still being
capable of solubilizing TCE (Shirin et al., 2004).
2.2.2 Chemical dehalogenation

Dehalogenation is the process of removing covalently bound halogen from the contami-
nants. The main targets of the technologies are PCBs, polychlorinated-dibenzo-p-dioxins
(PCDDs), polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCFs), polychlorinated terphenyls (PCTs), and
some halogenated pesticides. High organic content and water content in the soil decreases
the efficiency. Two ex situ technologies are used; both apply base catalysis and enhanced
temperature.
Base-catalyzed decomposition is a simple technology using sodium hydroxide or
sodium bicarbonate mixed with contaminated soil (FRTR, 2018a). The mixture is heated to
above 330°C in a reactor to partially decompose and volatilize the contaminants.
The base-catalyzed glycolite dehalogenation technology is used also only ex situ and
applies alkaline polyethylene glycol or tetraethylene glycol reagents to convert aromatic
halogenated contaminants to non-toxic glycol ethers by replacing chlorine atoms in a nucleo-
philic substitution reaction at 150°C (FRTR, 2018a).
Both treatments leave the soil alkaline. It should be neutralized and excess glycol
reagents washed out. Both the high temperature and the alkaline pH are detrimental for the
soil microbiota.
2.2.3 Mechanochemical remediation (ball milling)

Mechanochemistry is the chemical and physicochemical transformation of substances
during aggregation caused by mechanical energy. Mechanochemical remediation is a
reactor-based technology used for soils contaminated with both organic and inorganic
contaminants. Inorganic contaminants are simply immobilized (for details, see Chapter
8 in this volume), while in the case of organic contaminants the kinetic energy induced
by balls breaks the bonds of contaminants through exothermic reactions (mechano-
chemical destruction technology) (Figure 6.11). The dehalogenation by mechanochemi-
cal reaction (Birke et al., 2004) has several advantages over chemical dehalogenation
technologies:
– Works at ambient conditions;

– Short reaction times;
– Both soil and slurry can be treated;
– No pretreatment is needed;
– Concentration of the halogenated contaminant can range from ppb to pure contaminant;
– Low energy, equipment, personal, and reagent costs.
The general scheme of reductive dehalogenation is shown by the following equation:
R-Cl + Me + H → R-H + MeCl2
Alcohols, polyethers, amines, etc. can be used as hydrogen (H) donor. For PCBs mag-
nesium is required as metal (Me) (Birke, 2018).
Small mobile plants have been developed (Tribochem, 2018). Ball milling has
been successfully used for the degradation of hexachlorobenzene (Mulas et al., 1997),
Figure 6.11 Scheme of ball mill (Anwar, 2011).
hexabromobenzene (Zhang et al., 2002), PCBs (Birke et al., 2004), other organohalogenated
compounds (Monagheddu et al., 1999), and sulfonated compounds (Caschili et al., 2006).
The mechanochemical treatment of dry soil and metal oxide catalysts such as ferrihydrite
achieved dechlorination of both 4-chloroaniline and PCP to a greater extent than in the batch
experiment with soil slurry (Pizzigallo et al., 2004). Mechanochemical treatment (ball mill-
ing) of DDT using calcium oxide results in a graphitic product through a series of reactions
and various intermediates (Hall et al., 1996).
High water content decreases the efficiency; water content below 20% yields acceptable
destruction rates for organic contaminants such as naphthalene and diesel oil (Anwar, 2011).
Soils rich in organic material need extended milling time. The treatment is detrimental for
the soil microbiota because of the heat but it can be revitalized by inoculation. Also the soil
structure is destroyed by first decreasing and later increasing the particle size (aggregation),
thus changing also porosity and water retention. Mixing the treated soil with unmilled soil
makes it suitable for growing plants.
3 TECHNOLOGIES BASED ON IMMOBILIZATION

Irreversible immobilization aims to prevent or reduce the migration of contaminants in soil,
water, and the atmosphere. The risk from the contaminants can be diminished by reduc-
ing or completely preventing their transport on their own or together with air, water and
solid phases. Immobilization of the contaminant is generally associated with the immobile,
non-volatile, and non-soluble chemical form, typically a stable precipitate. Another concept
to reduce the transport of contaminants in soil is by strong bonding to a highly stable solid
phase. If the soil solid itself is dispersive or tends to erode, it is worth stabilizing the soil and
the contaminants together.
Various strategies can be applied:
– Disperse stabilization by physicochemical processes;

– Mass stabilization (solidification by block formation);
– Thermal stabilization.
The main physicochemical processes useful for immobilization of organic contaminants

in soil, as given in Chapter 1, are sorption, chemical condensation, polymerization, oxidation,
and thermal stabilization. Strong sorption may operate in the soil in a dispersed form keeping
the contaminant in place, or in a separate volume, when contaminated water is treated, e.g. by
a permeable barrier or a filter, in a filled column, or in a batch reactor. Compared to sorption
the organic contaminants can be transformed to more stable, non-soluble, immobile chemical
forms by condensation or polymerization reactions. The products are chemically immobi-
lized, stable molecules dispersed in the contaminated solid matrix or precipitated from liq-
uid media. Stabilization of contaminants may also be combined by partial or full chemical
destruction. The stabilization can be performed both in situ and ex situ and the stabilized
matrix can be compact (block of concrete or ceramic) or of granular nature dispersed in the
soil. The disperse stabilization may not be harmful for the microbiota of the soil, while the
solidification and block formation are usually performed under drastic conditions, e.g. on
high temperature and physicochemical conditions detrimental for the microorganisms.
The risk of the inappropriate texture of soils, e.g. too loose mechanical composition, conse-
quently too low resistance against erosion, landslide, soil desiccation, and nutrient leaching, can
also be improved by stabilization thus extending the technological palette from deep soil mixing
with heavy machinery to agricultural and ecological soil stabilizing technologies. Soil stabili-
zation technology is most widely used in geotechnical applications, i.e. rendering of backfill,
highway capping, slope stabilization and foundation improvement, and waste and contaminant
containment. These applications are typically connected to the remediation of polluted sites
and the treatment of contaminated soil and sludge when geotechnical and environmental goals
should be combined, e.g. brownfields rehabilitation and utilization of abandoned sites, when
large amounts of polluted material will remain in place in parallel to long-term risk reduction.
Mass stabilization (stabilization/solidification, S/S) is a method to improve soft or
contaminated soils by adding binders. Mass stabilization includes the stabilization of the
contaminants and solidification of the soft soil (clay, sludge, peat, silt, or sediments) allow-
ing it to be used on the area for construction works in wet areas and areas with soft soils
at reasonable costs without expensive piling or huge mass replacements. These processes
involve encapsulation of the contaminant by forming a solid phase material from the con-
taminated medium. Many of the solidifying additives such as cement, gypsum, bitumen,
or polymers simultaneously immobilize the contaminant. Contaminant migration from the
solid phase blocks is restricted both by the immobile form and the largely reduced surface
area potentially exposed to leaching.
S/S technologies neither remove nor destroy the contaminants present, but hinder their
migration and transport, thus prevent their contact with the biota and humans, so they cannot
exert their adverse effect.
Coating/encapsulation of the contaminated solid medium, e.g. soil, solid waste or

sludge with low-permeability materials (a clay layer or polymer-based liners) results in com-
plete isolation of the hazardous contaminant from the environment (see containment later).
The technology can be accomplished by mechanical processes (physical stabilization by
block formation) or by a chemical reaction between a contaminant and binding reagents such
as cement kiln dust (by-product of cement production), lime, or fly ash as well as polymers
in order to reduce the solubility and leachability of contaminants (chemical stabilization).
Environmental conditions such as pH and redox potential may have less influence on organic
contaminants compared to metals.
Table 6.5 gives an overview of the technological measures to achieve immobilization,
stabilization and solidification of contaminants and contaminated soil. The technological
intervention should be selected based on the nature and hazards of the contaminant, the
characteristics (the geochemical composition) of the soil, as well as the sensitivity of the
surrounding environment.
The remobilization risk of the immobilized contaminant upon changed conditions and
their transport to surface- and groundwater should always be considered, given that the haz-
ardous contaminant is still present in the environment, but showing no effects, and posing
low risk. However this situation represents a chemical time bomb (Stigliani, 1991; Gruiz,
2000), that needs continuous monitoring and safety management.
Here only “cold” stabilization is discussed, thermostabilization (e.g. vitrification) is
included in thermal remediation technologies in Chapter 1 of this volume.
Biological stabilization technologies are summarized in Chapter 5 of this volume.
3.1 Immobilization of the contaminants by sorption

Disperse stabilization of organic contaminants in soil can be achieved by strong sorbents
which cause a shift in the contaminants’ partition toward the solid phase resulting in low
concentrations in the aqueous and gaseous phases. Therefore sorption of the contaminants
can be used for their removal from soil air and soil water, and for decreasing biological avail-
ability. The risk in the mobile soil phases can be reduced by treatment in separate reactors
after soil gas or water extraction using subsurface reactive barriers (with passive or active
groundwater flow), or the addition of the sorbent to the soil where the sorption capacity of
the solid phase will be increased and the partition of contaminants shifted from the water to
the solid phase.
Activated carbon (AC) is usually used to adsorb VOCs from contaminated air (Rus-
sel et al., 1992). The effluent gases in air stripping can be cleaned in this way. AC and
synthetic resins are also utilized for the adsorption of dissolved organic contaminants from
the extracted groundwater, soil flushing solutions and waste water. The two most common
reactor configurations for carbon adsorption systems are the fixed bed and the pulsed or
moving bed reactors (Cheremisinoff & Davletshin, 2015). The fixed-bed configuration is the
most widely used type for adsorption from liquids. Depending on the type, concentration,
and volume, AC should be regenerated or properly treated and/or disposed of in the case
of explosives or metal contaminants. For remediating sediments, AC is applied either by
direct mixing, as a component of a geotextile mat, or by being incorporated into a cover that
forms a physical and adsorptive barrier between the sediment and water (Koehlert, 2018).
Nowadays biochar (produced by pyrolysis of biomass) has been increasingly used as a sor-
bent for soil remediation (Beesley et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2013). Compared to activated
Table 6.5 Summary table of technological measures to achieve immobilization, stabilization, and solidification of contaminants and contaminated soils.
Contaminant immobilization Soil stabilization Immobilization & stabilization of Mass stabilization, solidification/block
contaminant & soil together formation
Soft Addition of contaminant- Erosion prevention Sorbents + erosion prevention Not relevant
physicochemical specific sorbent or by mechanical staples,
treatment, even sorption enhancing agent stakes, nets, etc.
in combination Creation of more Enhancement of humus Contaminant incorporation into Not relevant
with biological inclusive contaminant and clay mineral the dispersedly formed humus
processes forms by agents formation by additives and clay minerals
modifying pH and redox to achieve more stable
potential, oxidizing, soil texture
reducing, forming large
molecules etc.
Chemical reagent Erosion prevention by Coincidental contaminant Large amount of solidifying
addition stabilizing additives (clay, immobilization and soil additives, e.g. cement in slurry
humus, cement, fly ash, microstructure stabilization form to produce solid blocks
etc.) from soil
Biofiltration and/or Soil erosion prevention Biologically facilitated Not relevant
accumulation by plant roots, and by immobilization combined with
special plants soil stabilization
Treatment with Oxidizing or reducing pH and redox potential Contaminant immobilizing and Stabilization of dispersive or
chemical reagents agents for precipitation, setting agents, which soil texture stabilizing agents contaminated soils by cement-like
condensation, let the contaminant together and polymer-based additives
polymerization immobilize in addition
to soil texture
modification
(Continued )
Contaminant immobilization Soil stabilization Immobilization & stabilization of Mass stabilization, solidification/block
contaminant & soil together formation
Thermal Enhanced condensation, Not relevant Condensation- and

treatment polymerization of organic polymerization-based
contaminants due to mild incorporation of organic
heating contaminants into humus
High temperature High temperature High temperature vitrification High temperature vitrification of
enhanced condensation vitrification of the soil of the contaminated soil to the mineral soil to form glass like
and polymerization to stabilize soil texture stabilize soil texture blocks
Application of Enhanced immobilization Not relevant? Heat enhanced incorporation Heat and reagent enhanced block
heat & reagents of the contaminant of of the modified contaminant formation
together larger size or less soluble into minerals or humus or the
chemical form organomineral matrix of the
soil
Isolation and Isolation of contaminant Not relevant In situ isolation of the In situ isolation by block
containment lens or buried, solid contaminated soil by geotextile, formation with solidifying agents
pollution within the soil impermeable walls or injected (injection or mixing in slurry
stabilizing additives (lime or form). The created block remains
cement) in the original place of the
contaminated soil volume
carbon, biochar has the advantage of high cation exchange capacity (CEC) due to residual
carboxylic acid functionalities ensuring improved sorption of toxic metals. The sorption
capacity, mechanical hardness, and bulk density of biochar are lower than those of AC, but
the improved water retention of the biochar-amended soils is accompanied with reduced
leaching of the nutrients which is an advantage in the technologies combined with phyto- or
bioremediation (García-Delgado et al., 2015; Koltowski et al., 2016). See some examples in
Section 4.3.2 of this chapter.
Various clay minerals can be used for the immobilization by sorption of both organic
and inorganic contaminants from contaminated groundwater. For example, modified
(organophilic, hydrophobic) clays show enhanced adsorption of the organic pollutants such
as 2,4-dichlorophenol (Pernyeszi et al., 2006). Bandosz et al. (1992) described the “molecu-
lar engineering” of clay for specific organic substances. Modification of clay minerals by
exchange, intercalation, calcination, and imbibition of organic groups, followed by their
polymerization and carbonization, changes the surface properties of clays significantly. Car-
bonization of organic material in the interlayer space of the clay minerals leads to a micro-
porous activated carbon that exhibits unique properties as a sorbent. Bowman studied the use
of modified zeolites as a filling in permeable reactive barriers (PRBs) to sorb tetrachloroeth-
ylene (PCE) and also as sorbent for the removal of petroleum hydrocarbons such as BTEX
from oilfield wastewater (Bowman, 2002).
Nanomaterials are being increasingly developed and applied for environmental remedi-
ation as sorbents or catalysts. Carbon nanotubes, dendritic polymers, functionalized ceram-
ics, tuneable biopolymers are all promising sorbents for water, mainly for surface water
purification and disinfection. Nanoparticles may be used as sorbents or as reactive agents
(photocatalysts or redox agents) for organic contaminants as well as for nanofiltration in
membranes. In spite of many open questions – such as the fate of nanoparticles in the envi-
ronment and the long-term hazard, e.g. human health effects and environmental toxicity –
the use of nanomaterials have started and more than 70 full-scale applications have been
described up to 2017 all over the world (Araújo et al., 2015; Clue In, 2018, Diallo, 2005,
Lofrano et al., 2017; Theron et al., 2008; Watlington, 2005).
Carbon nanotubes have been recognized for their ability to adsorb highly toxic organic
contaminants, such as dioxins, much greater than traditional activated carbon (Long & Yang,
2001). SAMMSTM materials consist of a nanoporous ceramic substrate coated with a mono-
layer of functional groups tailored to preferentially bind to the target contaminant. The func-
tional molecules bind covalently to the silica surface, and other functional groups serve as
adsorbents to scavenge specific contaminants from waste streams. It has good chemical and
thermal stability and can be readily reused or restored (Fryxell et al., 2007).
3.2 Chemical stabilization of contaminants

Chemical stabilization aims at transforming the contaminants into a less mobile form by
using chemical reactions such as changing pH (lime, CaCO3), oxidation (ozone, hydrogen
peroxide), hydrolysis, condensation, and polymerization. The irreversibly immobilized
chemical forms ensure low risk even if they are dispersed.
DCR (dispersion by chemical reaction) is a group of patented waste treatment tech-
nologies using CaO (quicklime/burnt lime) for the immobilization of heavily oiled sludge,
oil-contaminated soils, acid tars, and toxic metals in Ca(OH)2 and CaCO3 matrices (Marion
et al., 1997).
Lime treatment (alkaline hydrolysis) has achieved contaminant removal as high as

80–98% in soils contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons and on a burning site polluted
with explosives, PCBs, TCE, and heavy metals (Ko et al., 2010; Schifano & Thurston, 2007;
Waisner et al., 2008). Liming reduced the concentration of the explosive RDX by alkaline
hydrolysis at a military site (Miller & Foran, 2012). Liming can also increase soil pH, cation
exchange capacity (CEC) and be beneficial for the ecosystem. As an example, the diversity
and abundance of forest tree species was increased after 25 years of dolomite lime applica-
tion in a mining region in Canada (Nkongolo et al., 2016).
3.2.1 Simultaneous contaminant immobilization and soil

microstructure stabilization by using binders
Contaminant immobilization and the stabilization of the contaminated soil should go hand in
hand to efficiently hinder further contaminant spread. The contaminant should be kept in the
solid phase and pollution of atmosphere and surface waters should be prevented. The pre-
vention is more efficient when the contaminant itself is in an immobile form, i.e. not being
able to evaporate, dissolve, or otherwise become solubilized in water. Strong bonding of the
contaminant to the soil matrix or any of its components requires the contaminants to become
integral, and the soil texture and structure stable at the same time.
Before field application, bench-scale testing is necessary to evaluate how effectively
a potential binder system is at reducing the leachability of the contaminants. The nature of
contaminants may vary across a contaminated site, which means that more than one binder
formulation may be required during remediation of an area (Bone et al., 2005).
The binders can be thermoplastic polymers (asphalt bitumen, paraffin, polyethylene),
thermosetting polymers (polyvinyl esters, urea formaldehyde, epoxy polymers), and other
proprietary additives. The thermoplastic polymers operate at 120–180°C therefore they are
used for soils of low moisture content, while the thermosetting polymers work at ambient
temperature but are not as efficient in dry soils. The latter require the combination of several
liquid ingredients such as monomers, catalysts, initiators, etc.
Geopolymers based on aluminosilicate have a similar stabilizing effect as cement. They
can be prepared from waste products such as fly ash, using an alkaline activator. The alu-
minosilicate swells in the soil moisture and forms a gel which coats soil particles (Du et al.,
2016; Alhomair et al., 2017).
Biopolymers, most often polysaccharides such as cellulose, starch, chitosan, etc. are
also used. They form hydrogel when wetted and have a similar strengthening effect on soil
to that of cement (Chang et al., 2016).
3.3 Soil stabilization

Stability of the soil structure may show a wide range from non-stable through stable enough
to serve the (agro)ecosystem and the healthy microbial life ensuring element cycling to an
extremely stable, solidified state, which is not suitable for life but fulfills a zero or close to
zero emission. Soft solutions can stabilize degraded soils which are exposed to water and
wind erosion or have a texture unable to keep water and nutrients for plant life. Soil texture
of degraded soils, such as sandy acid soil with low humus content, can be improved by the
addition of synthetic or biopolymers, thus most of the agricultural by-products and wastes
(shells, stalks, stems, husks, cobs, waste wood, etc.). These are eco-friendly additives having
the ability to amend soil texture and structure and beneficially impact the biogeochemical
carbon cycle.
Soft solutions preventing soil loss and soil movement keep the habitat functions of the
soil and can provide ecosystem services. In disperse stabilization the textural and structural
changes take place in the microstructure of the soil and are homogeneously distributed. The
forming aggregates ensure a loose but still stable structure. Soil stabilization uses the whole
range from humus and clay mineral formation and loose aggregation to heat-enhanced melt-
ing and block formation from the clayey aggregates.
In situ stabilization of the soil in itself or together with the contaminant involves both
the disperse stabilization of the three-phase soil including natural surfaces and agricultural
soils (see also Chapter 8) and treatment of the upper layers to immobilize the contaminants
by chemicals such as sorbents, oxidizing agents, or block formation by the addition of bind-
ing agents (see mass stabilization later).
Fly ash and lime are used for disperse stabilization of soil to enhance strength properties
(compressive and shearing strength), to reduce soil moisture content, improve compaction,
and control shrink swell properties. They can be used separately or combined. Fly ash is also
a sorbent for toxic metals and organic contaminants.
Soil loss due to wind and water erosion is one of the most serious soil degradation
problems, and many traditional and creative new ideas have been established to prevent
soil migration. Most of the erosion prevention methods can be applied for stabilization of
contaminated soil, too.
There is a plethora of mechanical soil immobilization methods: retaining walls and
terraces, geotextile application, other cover by net from plant material (pl. coco or palm),
spikes, vetiver plant (plant with extremely long roots to keep firm the upper layer of the
soil), etc. Some products marketed for temporary and permanent soil erosion protection are
listed here:
– Aspen Excelsior Logs, biodegradable (Western Excelsior, 2018);

– Erosion control blankets (ECB) made of straw and/or coconut, biodegradable (ECBVer-
dyol, 2018);
– Turf reinforcement mats (TRMs), synthetic, non-biodegradable, stabilized against UV
degradation, provide long-term erosion resistance (Contech, 2018);
– High performance turf reinforcement mats (HPTRMs) for slope control (Propex,
2018a);
– ArmorMax: HPTRMs and engineered earth anchors (Propex, 2018b);
– Terra-Tubes fiber filtration tubes (FFTs) engineered composites of wood fibers, man-
made fibers and performance-enhancing polymers (Profiles, 2018a);
– Geocell cellular confinement system, an engineered, high-strength network of intercon-
nected cells for stabilizing soil against erosion (Presto, 2018);
– Gabion baskets, Reno mattresses, and Terramesh, hexagonal woven galvanized steel
wire mesh compacted baskets filled with stone or soil (Geo-Solutions, 2018a);
– Geotube® Dewatering Technology (Geo-Solutions, 2018b);
– HydroTurf™ (AOF, 2018a);
– Native Grass Sod (GeoSolutions, 2018c);
– Flexterra Flexible Growth Medium (FGM) (AOF, 2018b);
– ProMatrix™ Engineered Fiber Matrix (EFM) (Profiles, 2018b);
– Sod Staples for proper anchoring the erosion products (blankets, etc.).
3.3.1 Combination of contaminant sorption and stabilization/

solidification of the soil
The efficiency of stabilization treatment of organic contaminants can be improved by using
sorbents either incorporated as additives in the solidifying mix or used as a pretreatment
prior to conventional mass stabilization. Many of these additives are waste products from
industrial processes. Additives such as activated carbon, shredded tire particles, and organo-
clays can increase the chemical stabilization of the contaminants. Silica fume and fly ash
can improve the physical stabilization of organic compounds by reducing the porosity and
permeability of the soil.
Cement formulations containing activated carbon were used for stabilization of organic
contaminants – such as creosote, dioxins, and pentachlorophenol (PCP) – at the American
Creosote site in Jackson, TN (Bates et al., 2000). The results show reduced leaching of
organics. Organophilic clays can act as successful sorbents for organic contaminants and
enable them to be treated by cement-based stabilization (Sora et al., 2002). Organoclay is
usually a smectite clay (e.g. bentonite, hectorite) that has been modified to be hydrophobic
by exchanging the naturally occurring cations (e.g. Na+, K+) with organic cations (Reible,
2005). In a clean-up conducted at West Drayton, UK, soil contaminated with high levels
of hydrocarbons was treated successfully on a commercial scale using cement containing
organophilic clay additives (Al-Tabbaa & Perera, 2003).
Immobilization of organic compounds in a cement matrix, with or without sorbent, is
mainly a result of physical entrapment. Degradative stabilization combines the immobiliza-
tion and degradation of contaminants transforming them to less hazardous compounds and
decreasing their mobility simultaneously. Cement slurries containing Fe(II) have been tested
on PCE, effectively reducing the chlorinated compound to non-chlorinated by-products
(Hwang & Batchelor, 2000).
Clay or nanoclay with synthetic or natural polymers represents special combinations of
sorbents and stabilizers. The slowly biodegradable stabilizing nanocomposite has good sorp-
tion, water and nutrients retention capacity from the biopolymer and improved (compared to
the biopolymer in itself) mechanical properties originating from the clay component. These
nanocomposites fulfill carbon sequestration and other eco-requirements such as reducing
greenhouse gas emission and sustaining healthy geobiochemical cycles. The combined sorp-
tion and stabilization is active during the length of (bio)polymers life span.
Nanoclay can be combined with several organic materials such as rubber, natural fibers,
resins, wood-polymers, synthetic polymers, and nanocarbon products. Many of these com-
posites can be applied for environmental technologies including stabilization of degraded
and contaminated soil (Syakir et al., 2016).
3.3.2 Solidification/stabilization by producing blocks

For the purpose of block formation, the mixture of soil, water, and stabilizing agent is
repeatedly mixed in place. In situ stabilization is used for wet sites or contaminated and/
or degraded sediment disposal as well as for foundations. Specialized cementing agents
(Portland cement, lime, or lime-fly ash mixture), and clays (attapulgite, bentonite, modified
organophyllic clays), as well as contaminant-specific chemical reagents are used for soil
remediation. Mixing itself may have the goal of physicochemical stabilization but also the
enhancement of chemical reactions (typically for decontamination, e.g. by in situ chemical
oxidation) in slurries and soils.
Four types of geotechnical applications are used for in situ soil stabilization:
– Injection through push-pull tools: fluid materials (suspension or solution) are injected
into the subsurface soil or rock (grouting), to (i) decrease permeability, (ii) increase
shear strength, and (iii) decrease compressibility.
– Shallow soil mixing works with a crane-mounted mixing system, using a mixing head,
e.g. a bucket mixer or a rotary blender. The mixers are generally 1–4 m in diameter
and driven by a high torque turntable. The up and down moving mixing head can be
enclosed in an open-bottomed cylinder or used without a cylinder. After completion of
one mixing unit, the cylinder is removed and placed adjacent overlapping with the pre-
vious one. Shallow mixing is utilized to lose soils and sludges to depths up to 9–10 m.
It mechanically mixes soil with solidifying agents (lime, iron, clay minerals, compost,
etc.) in powder form or injected as a slurry (Raito, 2018; Jasperse, 2018). Also, large
diameter shallow soil mixing can be applied, e.g. by Geo-Solutions (2018a), for the
purpose of hazardous waste remediation.
– Deep soil mixing equipment is a crane-supported special auger, a set of leads which
guides a series of one to four hydraulically driven, overlapping mixing paddles and
auger flights (see Figure 8.3 in Chapter 8). The auger flights are 0.6–0.9 m in diam-
eter. After penetration, the slurry is injected into the soil through the tip of the hollow-
stemmed augers. The auger flights loosen the soil and lift it to the mixing paddles which
blend the slurry and soil. As much as 60–80% of the slurry is injected during down-
ward penetration and the remainder during the withdrawal so that the mixing process is
repeated on the way out (Jasperse, 2018). Nowadays large flighted rotary augers capable
of injecting slurry chemicals and water through the auger flights are used for in situ sta-
bilization. The auger bores and mixes a large-diameter “plug” of the contaminated soil
(USACE, 2003; Geo-Solutions, 2018a).
Application of deep mixing in addition to environmental remediation is typically
used for building a hydraulic barrier or retaining wall systems, support and strengthen
foundations of constructions, ensuring a support system for excavation as well as dam-
age mitigation for landslide, erosion, and seismic deterioration. These applications are
good examples of geotechnical and environmental technologies being inseparable and
mutually beneficial (Porbaha et al., 2005).
– Backhoe stabilization can be applied for surface soil treatment. In this case a backhoe-
operated rotary drum soil mixing tool is used for geotechnical soil improvement (Geo-
Solution, 2018b).
3.4 Mass stabilization

The mass stabilization method can be applied for contaminated dredged sediments, contami-
nated soils and waste sludges at places where river, channel, or port dredging is going on and
large amounts of contaminated sediments need to be treated to reduce toxicity and mobility.
Dredged sediment is normally stored in contained disposal facilities where the mass stabiliza-
tion technology can be applied and the treated solid material reused. In many cases the sedi-
ment, sludge, or contaminated soil is part of a large area to restore. There are three options
depending on spatial planning and the risk posed by the contaminants (Ringeling, 1998):
– The contaminated medium remains in place after stabilization/solidification and becomes

part of the subsurface environment/construction isolated from surface activities. This
solution is acceptable when the risk according to the future land use can be reduced to
an acceptable level.
– Stabilization off site after removal, transportation, and treatment in a soil treatment
plant (if available) and reuse it as construction material. Demand for reuse is a key fac-
tor to consider when planning for ex situ stabilization (Makusa, 2012; PIANC, 2009).
For instance, the dredged material is fractionated and the fine clay fraction is utilized for
ceramics production. The method is useful for incorporating toxic metals in a solid form
which are resistant to chemical degradation and leaching (Harrington & Smith, 2013).
– Stabilization off site and disposing at a disposal site.
The selection of the best possible solution for handling dredged material is primarily not
a technological, but rather a managerial issue, as the decision is based on the locally avail-
able environmental, economic and engineering options, their costs and benefits. It is worth
studying the experience of the large dredging projects such as the POSW II (1992–1996) or
the PIANC (2009) projects, which evaluate dredged sediment treatment and reuse options
and constraints:
– Geotechnical uses: construction materials, isolation, flood and coastal protection, land
improvement, placement on waterways banks (Liu et al., 2011).
– Environmental utilizations: habitat creation and enhancement, aquaculture, agriculture,
recreation, water quality improvement, sustainable relocation, filling of deep borrow
pits.
– Constraints: often higher costs of treatment and use compared with disposal; difficulty
of finding suitable locations to use dredged materials; lack of markets for products as
secondary raw materials; lacking standards for the products; dredged material is often
classified as hazardous waste; negative public perception, low acceptance.
Many opportunities exist for beneficial reuse of dredged material such as expanded clay
grains, isolation layers, and protection layers on landfills, brownfields and remediation sites,
road construction and sintering (Foged et al., 2018), bricks, and ceramics (Alvarez-Guerra
et al., 2008; Hamer & Karius, 2002; Hill & Haber, 2012; Rodriguez & Brebbia, 2015; Sly &
Hart, 1987; Tangprasert et al., 2015).
Although a variety of technologies have been developed for ex situ stabilization in addi-
tion to ceramic processing, cement-based processes are still frequently used both ex situ and
in situ, and many different additives (lime, fly ash, slag, clay, and gypsum) and proprietary
blends are applied to improve the performance and reduce cost (Paria & Yuet, 2006).
3.5 Containment
The aim of containment is to prevent or reduce the migration of contaminants in soil and
water (surface and subsurface waters) and the atmosphere. Passive containment does not
decrease toxicity or mobility of contaminants, it only mitigates their migration and trans-
port. This risk reduction option is selected for irremovable or very toxic contaminants when
no other remediation technologies can be applied at a reasonable cost. In situ containment
is of moderate cost because the soil is not removed, groundwater is not extracted, and no
soil phase treatment is performed. The cost of periodical monitoring for potential leaching
and for other emissions and discharges should be taken into account. However, engineered
containment may have significant costs covering transport, isolation by linings and barriers,
and monitoring the performance. Containment is often applied in combination with physical
and/or chemical stabilization.
The containment aims at the following:
– Physical separation (isolation) of the risky material possibly in all directions (covering,
isolating by vertical barriers and bottom linings);
– Exclusion of water and control of leaching;
– Gas extraction if necessary.
Landfill capping (isolation from the surface) is a common form of implementation

(FRTR, 2018a). Landfill caps can be a vegetated soil layer, asphalt, concrete, or multiple lay-
ers consisting of geotextile and soils. Geosynthetics/geomembranes are synthetic polymers
of low permeability, such as polyethylenes of various densities, polypropylenes, polyvinyl
chloride (PVC). High-permeability soil/rock/gravel or synthetic materials are used for a con-
structed drainage layer to conduct water away from the watertight surface and low perme-
ability soil (clay) layers or synthetic liners are used to hinder water infiltration.
The organic contaminants of low volatility and solubility such as PCBs, DDT (dichlo-
rodiphenyltrichloroethane) and large PAH molecules are immobile enough to be isolated
by landfill capping at low risk. Vertical walls are required to prevent the horizontal flow of
groundwater and also a bottom barrier layer is necessary if the groundwater level can reach
the contaminated solids. Base layer drainage needs thorough monitoring to control the integ-
rity of the liners. Gas migration is controlled by providing migration pathways and off-gas
treatment if necessary.
4 PHYSICOCHEMICAL TECHNOLOGIES FOR REMEDIATION

OF PESTICIDES IN SOIL
E. Morillo & J. Villaverde

Remediation of pesticide-contaminated soils can be a complicated process, as most of such
soils contain mixtures of different compounds rather than a single contaminant. The major-
ity of pesticides applied in agriculture are organic compounds, and their physicochemical
remediation will be introduced in this section. As for the rest of organic contaminants, tech-
nologies to treat pesticide-contaminated soils fall into two categories: containment immo-
bilization or treatment based on mobilization, and the latter technologies fall into two more
categories: separation and destruction. Some technologies accomplish two or more of these
functions depending on the type of both contamination (point source or diffuse) and contam-
inant. Remediation of organic pesticides can be done using any of the techniques developed
for other organic pollutants with similar characteristics; however, some specific techniques
are really used for pesticides remediation, and only these will be discussed in this chapter.
This subchapter, containing the remedial technologies of pesticide-contaminated soil
remediation repeats the preceding, more general methods for organically contaminated soil;
main differences being that pesticides are generally large, non-volatile, and not even semi-
volatile molecules, and, depending on the chemical family to which they belong, they have
limited tendency to be degraded. It is also specific that when the origin of contamination
comes from the application, pesticides are mostly sorbed onto solid soil particles in the
surface layer of the soils. Thus remediation suitable for pesticide-contaminated soil and
groundwater is a subset of the physicochemical methods and is typically applied in situ. In
these cases, the applicable remediation is dominated by biological and ecological or other
soft/green methods compatible with the soil ecosystem and agricultural production. In the
case of a point-source contamination of the soil by pesticides arising from their manufacture,
handling, and disposal, a more drastic remediation is needed. Depending on the method
selected, it will be carried out in situ or ex situ.
4.1 Separation technologies

The remediation of many pesticide-contaminated soils is often limited by their persistence
and resistance, decreasing their availability to be treated using different destruction methods.
In those cases a process that removes the contaminant from the host medium is needed.
4.1.1 Soil washing

Soil washing using different kinds of extractants to separate the pesticides from the soil
has been extensively used in Europe but only has limited use in the US. In general, soil
washing is most appropriate for soils that contain at least 50% sand and gravel. Pesticides
are extracted from soil material by application of different extractants such as organic com-
pounds, acids, surfactants, etc. Percolating liquid may be collected and treated for more
degradation or landfilled.
Ye et al. (2013) assess the potential applicability of organic solvent washing as a reme-
diation technique for organochlorine (OCP)-contaminated soils examining five organic sol-
vents (ethanol, 1-propanol, and three different petroleum ether fractions) and studied the
effect of certain factors such as solvent concentration, washing time and temperature, mix-
ing speed or solution to soil ratio at a laboratory scale. Among these factors the quality of
solvent (petroleum ether of 60–90°C boiling point gave the best results) and the solution to
soil ratio (at least 10:1) were the most significant parameters. The thermal desorption tech-
niques and solvent washing approaches using n-alcohols and surfactants were compared by
Gao et al. (2013) to remediate OCPs-contaminated soils. About 87% of OCPs was removed
from the soils using ethanol, and more than 90% of ethanol used could be recovered. The
ethanol extraction was more efficient than aqueous surfactant solutions but less efficient than
thermal desorption resulting in >99.9% removal of OCPs by treatment at 500°C for 30 min.
However, there are several factors that may limit the applicability of the extraction process
such as the extraction of organically bound metals together with pesticides, the low efficacy
of solvent extraction on very high molecular weight pesticides, or the toxicity of the solvent
to soil microbial population (Pavel & Gavrilescu, 2008).
4.1.1.1 Soil washing /chemical extraction enhanced by surfactants

and complex-forming agents
Advances in the development of surfactants capable of extracting a greater variety of
organic pesticides have made washing with water a feasible alternative for their remedia-
tion in soils. Industrially synthesized surfactants include, among others, chemically ethox-
ylated alcohols, sulfonates, Triton, Brij 35, and sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS). Although
the washing process using surfactants can be efficient, the contaminants are not destroyed
as in solvent extraction, so that further treatment is necessary to treat target compounds in
soil and wastewater.
Villa et al. (2010) chose the non-ionic surfactant TX-100 to remediate a soil con-
taminated by long-term exposure to DDT and DDE, and the wastewaters obtained from
washing experiments were submitted to photodegradation combined with hydrogen per-
oxide oxidation. Removal efficiencies of 66% (DDT) and 80% (DDE) were achieved
for three sequential washings and 99% and 95% of wastewater degradation efficiencies.
Bandala et al. (2013) also carried out the restoration of a soil contaminated with 2,4-D
using surfactant-enhanced soil washing followed by the application of advanced oxida-
tion processes (Fe-catalyzed hydrogen peroxide and UV treatment). Dos Santos et al.
(2015) also used the surfactant SDS for the removal of atrazine from soil, but the result-
ing washing waste was treated by electrolysis with a boron-doped diamond electrode.
Surfactants are also used to increase the bioavailability of pesticides to be degraded by
soil microorganisms. Torres et al. (2012) have studied the removal of methyl parathion
using anionic, non-ionic, cationic, and natural surfactants, and wastewater was biologi-
cally treated. However, surfactants may have disadvantages as they could be used as a
substrate for microorganisms or have toxic effects when present at high concentrations
(Laha et al., 2009). Betancurt-Corredor et al. (2015) observed a reduced DDT biodegra-
dation when using Tween 80 plus biostimulation compared to the experiment when only
biostimulation was used.
Due to the environmental risk posed by the chemosynthetic surfactants, an alternative
way is the use of biogenic compounds such as biosurfactants, more ecologically accept-
able, in bioremediation of pesticide-contaminated soils (Mulligan, 2009). A diverse range of
bacteria capable of producing biosurfactants has been proposed. In particular, the feasibility
of rhamnolipid biosurfactants, mainly produced by Pseudomonas aeruginosa, to remove
pesticides from soil has been studied. Wan et al. (2015) observed the simultaneous removal
of lindane, lead, and cadmium from soils by rhamnolipids combined with citric acid. The
effect of three different biosurfactants, rhamnolipid, sophorolipid, and trehalose-containing
lipid, on solubilization and biodegradation of four HCH isomers in a soil bound matrix was
studied by Manickam et al. (2012), indicating that sophorolipid offered the highest solubili-
zation and enhanced degradation. Odukkathil and Vasudevan (2015) evaluated the capability
of biosurfactant-producing bacterial strains in enhancing the bioavailability of endosulfan
and its metabolite.
In recent years CDs have gained much attention as pesticide complexation agents.
Many of these studies only determined the increasing solubility and complexation constants
between specific pesticides with a variety of CDs (Orgoványi et al., 2009; Yáñez et al.,
2012), but increasingly more studies can be found that indicate the capacity of CDs for soil
remediation based on their extractant ability and subsequent soil washing of a wide variety
of pesticides such as the herbicide norflurazon (Villaverde et al., 2005, 2006), hexachloro-
benzenes (Wan et al., 2009), organochlorine pesticides (Wong & Bidleman, 2010; Mao et
al., 2013; Ye et al., 2014a), 2,4-D, acetochlor, alachlor, dicamba, dimethenamid, metola-
chlor, and propanil (Flaherty et al., 2013). The enhanced extraction from soils facilitates the
subsequent remediation by phytoremediation (Ye et al., 2014b), oxidation (Villaverde et al.,
2007), or biodegradation (Villaverde et al., 2012, 2013, 2017, 2018; Gao et al., 2015; Zhao
et al., 2015; Rubio-Bellido et al., 2015, 2016).
4.1.2 Soil flushing

Soil flushing has seldom been used for pesticide remediation in the traditional mode. The
remediation of phosalone and atrazine was studied on an artificially contaminated synthetic
soil by flushing using an aqueous solution of ethanol (Di Palma, 2003; Di Palma et al.,
2003). The extraction solutions were submitted to hydrolysis treatment in the case of phosa-
lone and to oxidation by hydrogen peroxide in the case of atrazine. However, in recent years,
electrokinetic soil flushing (EKSF) is becoming one of the most promising technologies for
pesticide-contaminated soil remediation, especially when the pesticide consists of ionic spe-
cies. For detailed description of this technology, see Chapter 9 in this volume.
In relation to pesticides, the removal of the anionic herbicide 2,4-D has been widely
studied as a model ionic pollutant. Souza et al. (2016) observed 90% removal of the pesticide
2,4-D using electrokinetic soil flushing, and Risco et al. (2016) studied the influence of the
arrangement of electrodes in the soil to obtain increasing amounts of 2,4-D removed. Ribeiro
et al. (2011) observed that electrokinetic process was able to efficiently remove molinate and
bentazone from soils and it was related to the differential pH between both electrodes. In a
study with kaolinite spiked with diuron, results showed that in the presence of humic acids,
the removal efficiency of diuron decreased from 90% to 35% (Polcaro et al., 2007). These
results have important implications for application in real soils, since most pesticides tend to
strongly adsorb on the soil organic matter. In such cases, their extraction has to be carried out
using enhanced electrokinetic techniques (Karagunduz, 2009; Gomes et al., 2012). Bocos et
al. (2015) used electrokinetic oxidation with hydrogen peroxide to remediate a soil polluted
with the pesticide pyrimethanil and PAHs, also evaluating the effect of several complex-
ing agents. Surfactants have been used to bring DDT into soil solution (Karagunduz et al.,
2007). Vieira dos Santos et al. (2016) studied the application of electrokinetic soil flushing
to a soil spiked with four herbicides (2,4-D, oxyfluorfen, chlorsulfuron and atrazine) demon-
strating that efficiency depended on the chemical characteristics of the pesticide used. 2,4-D
was the pesticide most efficiently removed (95% of removal), while chlorsulfuron was more
resilient to the treatment. Volatilization was found to be a process of major significance in the
application of electrokinetic techniques to soil polluted with herbicides.
4.2 Destruction technologies
4.2.1 Application of chemical oxidation for pesticide-

contaminated soil
The Fe-catalyzed oxidation with hydrogen peroxide is the most common process in the
remediation of pesticides in soil. One of the main advantages of the process is the pos-
sibility of in situ remediation, eliminating the need for excavating contaminated soils and
thus allowing the rapid treatment of refractory contaminants. DDT, diuron, 2,4-dichlorophe-
nol (2,4-DCP), pentachlorophenol (PCP), and numbers of other pesticides in the soils can
be effectively degraded by applying hydrogen peroxide (Usman et al., 2014; Rosas et al.,
2014). However, there are collateral effects with the process. Villa et al. (2008) observed
that, despite the high percentages of DDT degradation in soil, there was also an increase
of dissolved organic carbon (from 80 to 880 mg/L) and 80% of the natural organic matter
was degraded; a significant increase in metal concentrations was also observed in the slurry
filtrate due to the acidic pH required by the technology. Direct application of Fe-catalyzed
oxidation by hydrogen peroxide is very aggressive to the soil and can also be a disaster to
the microbes (Brillas et al., 2009).
Different pesticides have been successfully decomposed in soils using photocatalytic
degradation with TiO2 catalyst under UV irradiation or solar light. Xu et al. (2011) observed
that only a small amount of catalyst (0.5%) was needed when glyphosate content in soil was
low. Similar results were observed for diuron (Higarashi & Jardim, 2002). Xu et al. (2011)
studied glyphosate and Sharma et al. (2015) found that with imidacloprid the photocatalytic
reaction mainly occurs in the surface soil layer and the degradation efficiency decreases as
the soil layer becomes thicker.
Ozonation is one of the most promising processes which can be applied in situ or on site.
The pesticide can be directly decomposed by O3 or can react indirectly with the OH· radi-
cal which has been generated by the O3 decomposition. O3 could decompose on soil active
surfaces (metal oxides, soil organic matter) to generate OH·. As ozonation is a relatively
new technique for pesticide remediation, the majority of the publications deal with aqueous
media. Ozonation of organic contaminants in soil is difficult due to strong limitations of the
diffusion process in this heterogenic matrix. Ozone penetration within the soil layer has been
determined to be only about 15–45 mm. Balawejder et al. (2014, 2016) developed an effec-
tive remediation method of DDT-contaminated soil. The preliminary results of investiga-
tions at a laboratory scale were exploited to scale up the technology to pilot scale. It is based
on the utilization of hydroxyl radicals that were generated from water aerosol and ozone in a
fluidized bed reactor. During the remediation procedure the level of soil contamination was
reduced by 80%. No degradation products were detected and the total organic carbon was
preserved.
In addition to the most frequently applied oxidizing agents, hydrogen peroxide and
persulfate, a new and least studied oxidant was also used for in situ chemical oxidation
(ISCO) of propachlor accelerated by metal ion activation (Cu2+ and Fe2+) (Liu et al., 2012).
Another two persulfate-based oxidants, peroxydisulfate (S2O82−, PDS) and peroxymonosul-
fate (HSO5−, PMS) were used by Waclawek et al. (2016) for remediation of HCHs activated
by electrochemical processes.
Surfactant application and the combined utilization with bioremediation or soil wash-
ing are also documented. 95% of DDT was removed by Fe-catalized oxidation with hydro-
gen peroxide after soil washing using a Triton X-100 solution (Villa et al., 2010). These
researchers have also investigated the combined application of photodegradation and oxida-
tion by hydrogen peroxide to degrade DDT and DDE in soil, which were decomposed after
a 6-hour treatment. Laboratory data showed that 99% degradation for chlorimuron-ethyl was
achieved in 10 minutes by using a combined technology, however, only 68% degradation
was observed after 30-min Fe-catalyzed oxidation by hydrogen peroxide without using light
(Gozzi et al., 2012). Souza et al. (2013) studied the degradation of glyphosate by the same
combined technology.
Research in advanced oxidation processes is still at an early stage. Most studies to date
have been conducted at the lab scale and many improvements are required before the tech-
nology can be scaled up to bench and pilot plant levels in terms of assessing the cost and
operational conditions. According to Rodrigo et al. (2014), most of the studies published
in the literature have focused on pesticide removal at concentrations that are significantly
higher than typical pollutant concentrations in a soil and which are only found in indus-
trial wastes. However, these studies are the only way of determining the efficiency of the
technology.
4.2.1.1 Application of chemical reduction

Some pesticides that are persistent in aerobic environments are more readily degraded under
reducing conditions. Thus generating a reducing environment in soils, sediments, and aqui-
fers has become a popular remediation strategy. One application of this technique uses zero-
valent iron (ZVI) as a chemical reductant (see more details in Chapter 10 in this volume).
ZVI can be used to remediate soils contaminated with pesticides (Shea et al., 2004). In these
studies, degradation was enhanced by adding Al2(SO4)3 to ZVI. Al2(SO4)3 increased acidity
and promoted the formation of green rust [mixed Fe(II)/Fe(III) double hydroxides], which
facilitated metolachlor dechlorination (Satapanajaru et al., 2003).
Degradation can be maximized by combining chemical treatment (e.g. ZVI) with bio-
logical degradation. Boparai et al. (2008) reduced the concentration of metolachlor in a
contaminated soil after chemical treatment with ZVI and aluminum sulfate but atrazine and
nitrate remained. Decreases in atrazine and nitrate concentrations were obtained after add-
ing sucrose, resulting in an enhanced microbial activity in the presence of readily available
carbon.
Nanoscale zero-valent iron (nZVI) has been conceived for cost-efficient degradation
of chlorinated pollutants in soil as an alternative to permeable reactive barriers or excava-
tion. Treatment with ZVI promotes rapid abiotic degradation of chlorinated contaminants
via reductive dechlorination (Cong et al., 2010; Han et al., 2016) (see more in Chapter 10).
4.3 Containment and immobilization technologies
4.3.1 Containment technologies

Pesticide contamination of soils may result not only from agricultural processes but also
from manufacturing, and improper storage, handling, and disposal of pesticides. With the
signing of the Stockholm Convention and the development of global monitoring programs,
many OCP-contaminated sites are left by hundreds of abandoned OCP production factories
close to cities. Currently, most of these contaminated sites face urgent land use conversion
and redevelopment for commerce (Li et al., 2008; Ye et al., 2013) and likely pose a threat to
residents and the environment. As POPs such as OCPs are only poorly soluble in water, they
tend to remain as a highly persistent contamination in the soil (Caliman et al., 2011). Owing
to specific properties of such pesticides, macroscale remediation efforts using containment
immobilization technologies both for removed contaminated soils and for in situ immobi-
lization. Containment immobilization technologies include capping to limit infiltration and
leaching and subgrade barriers to limit lateral plume migration. These processes are consid-
ered as a type of waste disposal because no real remediation of the polluted site is reached
comprising only a provisional solution. In spite of this, they have great application potential.
The pesticides lindane and DDT and their metabolites and isomers are some of the
compounds included as POPs in the Stockholm Convention. Technical hexachlorocyclo-
hexane (HCH) and the separated γ isomer (lindane) were among the most extensively used
organochlorine pesticides.
At most factories the production of such chlorinated organic wastes was gener-
ally dumped, usually in an uncontrolled manner, in landfills near the production facilities
(Gałuszka et al., 2011). This practice has resulted in numerous contaminated sites around
the world. A multilayered landfill cover system with solid household waste was deposited
on top of a HCH/lindane landfill in Hamburg in order to “immobilize” or rather cover the

hazardous wastes (Götz et al., 2013), but leaching from the landfill remains a challenge for
groundwater management. Sometimes a containment cement or concrete wall is constructed
around the contaminated area to prevent the dispersal of the pollutants (Weber & Varbelow,
2013). In many cases, despite the encapsulation of the sites, traces of the contaminants were
detected in the surrounding soil and in groundwater (Usman et al., 2014). These past experi-
ences with such disposal practices highlights their insustainability due to the risks of con-
tamination of ecosystems, the food chain, together with ground and drinking water supplies.
4.3.2 Sorption technologies

Adsorption is the first process that takes place when pesticides are in contact with soil and
it affects other processes such as chemical transport, leaching, bioavailability, or ecotoxico-
logical impacts on non-target organisms. Organic amendments can be used as an immobi-
lization technology increasing adsorption of pesticides to soil and, consequently, reducing
their availability.
According to Khorram et al. (2016), the use of organic amendments to reduce bioavail-
ability has less disruptive effects and can be used in pesticide-contaminated soil by:
1 Binding pesticides to reduce their potential mobility into water resources and living
organisms.
2 Providing nutrients to promote plant growth and stimulate ecological restoration.
As organic materials originate from biological matter, they require minimal pretreat-
ment before application to soil.
Carbonaceous materials (CM), often referred to as “black carbon,” represent a con-
tinuum of heterogeneous materials ranging from partly charred plant material to char and
charcoal to soot and graphite. It has been shown that biochar and other CM addition to soils
and sediments enhances sorption of hydrophobic organic compounds (HOC), thereby poten-
tially playing a crucial role in controlling transport, bioavailability, fate, and health risk of
organic contaminants (Kupryianchyk et al., 2016). The sorption strength and mechanism
controlling pollutant sequestration by CM is dependent upon molecular (carbonized and
non-carbonized fractions) and structural (surface, pore, and bulk properties) characteristics.
This in turn depends on the CM starting material (feedstock) and pyrolytic conditions.
Biochar has attracted attention for its powerful ability to reduce the bioavailability
of hydrophobic contaminants. The effect of biochar on the retention of pesticides applied
to agricultural soils has received little study, although research dealing with this issue has
increased in recent years. There are published studies on the impact of biochar on sorption
and dissipation of pesticides such as atrazine, terbuthylazine, pyrimethanil, or bentazone
(Cao et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2010; Yu et al., 2010; Cabrera et al., 2014). The adsorp-
tion capacity of biochar for pesticides depends on its physicochemical properties such as
organic carbon content, specific surface area, and porous structure (Khorram et al., 2016).
Several studies have demonstrated that biochar amendment can lead to irreversible adsorp-
tion of pesticides (Yu et al., 2010). It includes surface-specific adsorption, entrapment into
micropores and partitioning into condensed structures. Sopeña et al. (2012) reported that
the adsorption capacity for isoproturon on a soil amended with 2% (W/W) biochar from
Eucalyptus dunni was nearly five times higher for amended soil than for the unamended one.
Cabrera et al. (2011) observed a drastic increase in the adsorption of fluometuron and
MCPA (4-chloro-2-methylphenoxyacetic acid) in soil amended with 2% (w/w) of biochars
made from different feedstocks. Adsorption was specially increased using wood pellets
(about 30 times higher for fluometuron and up to 50 times higher for MCPA). However, they
observed an enhanced leaching of both herbicides after amendment with biochars contain-
ing soluble organic compounds, concluding that the amount and composition of the organic
carbon content, especially the soluble part, can play an important role in the immobilization
of these herbicides. Martin et al. (2012) also observed that soils freshly amended with bio-
chars showed a two- to five-fold increase in sorption of herbicides as compared with that in
the unamended soil, and desorption hysteresis was prominent in the soil amended with fresh
biochars. In contrast, the soil containing aged biochars over a period of 32 months exhibited
sorption – desorption properties similar to that of the control soil, indicating that aging of
biochars in the soil reduced their sorption capacity.
Organic green wastes and compost from various origins as soil amendment has been
increasingly used globally. This land management is accepted as an ecological method for
the disposal of such wastes while it simultaneously increases soil fertility and organic mat-
ter, preventing losses of pesticides from runoff or leaching due to an increase in pesticide
immobilization by sorption. Additionally, beneficial effects on soil biochemical properties
and microbiological parameters are reached, accelerating the dissipation of pesticides in soil
(García-Jaramillo et al., 2016). López-Piñeiro et al. (2013) studied the sorption and degrada-
tion of MCPA in soils amended with freshly composted and aged olive mill waste, observing
that the higher the amount and maturity of wastes applied, the higher the retention of MCPA.
However, they also observed that MCPA could be easily desorbed if the amendment was
not aged or composted. Also, different organic residues from olive oil production were used
by García-Jaramillo et al. (2014) to study their effect on the immobilization and leaching
of bentazone and tricyclazole. Tricyclazole was not detected in any of the leachates in the
amended soil. The authors concluded that the sorption of dissolved organic matter from the
amendments changed the physicochemical properties of the soil surface. Centofanti et al.
(2016) used aged dairy manure and biosolids compost amendment for in situ risk mitiga-
tion of aged DDT, DDE, and dieldrin residues in an old orchard soil. The addition to soil of
the waste material, spent mushroom substrate (SMS), have also been demonstrated to be a
promising strategy to optimize pesticide immobilization and control water pollution (Marín-
Benito et al., 2009, 2013; Álvarez-Martín et al., 2016).
5 ISCO COMBINED WITH INTER-WELL AGITATION FOR

CHLORINATED HYDROCARBONS – A CASE STUDY
É. Fenyvesi and K. Gruiz

In situ chemical oxidation was applied to chlorinated hydrocarbons at a historically con-
taminated industrial site in Mezőlak, Western Hungary. The risk management involved site
investigation and site-specific risk assessment as well as risk reduction by in situ chemi-
cal oxidation (ISCO) in combination with intensive inter-well agitation. ISCO was selected
based on previous experience and on small-scale treatability studies. As a large number of
extraction wells had already been established on the site, and the location of the contaminant
sources could not be precisely identified, alternating injection into and extraction from the
wells was applied to enhance interaction between the injected reagent and hidden lenses of
high-density chlorinated contaminants. The effectiveness of agitation was proved by labora-

tory treatability studies and by a field pilot study. The successful field trial between two wells
was followed by field application of the ISCO combined with inter-well agitation technology
specifically developed for the site. The innovative element of this in situ remediation was a
directed water transport between the extraction and injection wells by alternatingly operat-
ing the injection and extraction wells. By so doing the water was actively moved between
the wells and the interaction with the contaminant provided optimum performance of the
oxidizing agent. The technology utilized extensive pump and treat (by stripping) on the site,
which had been going on for several years but was completely ineffective due to constant
contaminant recharge from unidentified subsurface sources.
As a first step additional site assessment and pumping tests were performed, and an
attempt was made to localize the subsurface contaminants sources. Some of the sources were
identified in the neighboring lot but were inaccessible during the project. After selecting and
planning the operation, the monitoring plan was prepared in agreement with the verification
plan (see Chapter 11). The ISCO technology using hydrogen peroxide in combination with
intensive groundwater agitation was introduced and the original pump and treat technology
was modified. Alternating pumping of the wells ensured intensive mass transfer between soil
solid and groundwater as well as between groundwater and DNAPL lenses. The technology
was developed within the Hungarian MOKKA project (2004–2008) with participation from
the Weprot company (2018).
5.1 Site description, history

The site selected for pilot experiments and technology demonstration is located near the
village of Mezőlak. For a long time it has been an industrial site where trichloroethylene
(TCE) was applied for metal degreasing. The soil and groundwater had been contaminated
for decades.
TCE was identified as the main contaminant by the first site assessment. Some other
chlorinated ethylenes such as tetrachloroethylene (PCE) and dichloroethylene isomers
(DCE) and chlorinated ethanes were detected at lower concentrations. In some wells, vinyl
chloride (VC) was also found, suggesting microbiological decomposition.
The owner was obliged to take remedial action. The site-specific regulatory quality
criteria in the groundwater for each chlorinated hydrocarbon (CHC) have been set at 150 μg/L
(multifunctional quality criterion: 10 μg/L) and for total volatile hydrocarbons at 300 μg/L.
The site-specific quality criteria for TCE, the main contaminant found in the soil at
that time was established as 0.57 mg/kg (multifunctional quality criterion: 0.1 mg/kg).
The most contaminated soil was landfilled and a groundwater decontamination system
(extraction and monitoring wells, stripping tower) was established and started to operate
in 2004, the same year.
The technology was based on groundwater extraction by pumping, collecting in a con-
tainer, and treating it on site (pump and treat technology, see Section 2.1.2) and using air
stripping. The volatile chlorinated compounds were removed from the extracted groundwa-
ter before it was discharged.
This technology was run for 3 years, but it failed to permanently reduce the TCE content
below the limit in the wells. The reason was that the subsurface sources (two main and sev-
eral smaller sources were suspected) could not be identified and eliminated and they contam-
inated the groundwater constantly. It is very probable that in addition to the two identified
larger lenses several smaller ones remained unidentified close to the footwall in the liquid
sand. In addition, there might be TCE lenses under the buildings and the neighboring ground
providing a steady TCE supply in spite of the successful local clean-up.
5.2 Step-by-step risk management

The management concept is illustrated in Figure 6.12.
The first management step was the creation of the site conceptual risk model (CRM). CRM
specifies the pollution sources, transport routes, land uses, and receptors (see Section 5.1.2), as
well as the size of risk represented by the width of the arrows (see later in Figure 6.15).
Historical data and current groundwater sampling and analysis results were used to
delineate the contaminated area and divide it into two subsites: a highly contaminated sub-
site near to the supposed sources and a less contaminated subsite somewhat farther from the
source (see map in Figure 6.13). The flow direction of the groundwater is from southwest to
northeast, which means that contaminated groundwater flows continuously from the more
contaminated area to the less contaminated one.
The next step was the development of substitute technology to replace the ongoing inef-
ficient pump and treat. The remediation running on the site was evaluated, the reasons of
failure were identified, and conclusions drawn (see Section 5.2.1).
The technology options were analyzed and the most fitting ones studied in bench-scale
experiments. The conclusions of the treatability studies enabled the design of the field pilot
study and selection of the full-scale technology in the field. An integrated methodology
(including physicochemical measurement and analyses, biological tests, and direct soil and
water toxicity assessment) was designed for monitoring the implementations during the
stepwise scaling-up to satisfy the planned technology evaluation.
The selected technology was demonstrated in full scale at two subsites. Monitoring
had two main goals: to control technological parameters and observe environmental qual-
ity; changes in the soil and groundwater, emission from the in situ reagents applied and the
mobilized contaminants as well as the quality of the treated and released water.
The verification of the technology was carried out by using a four-staged verification
system, consisting of the assessment of (i) technological efficiency through the mass balance,
(ii) environmental efficiency through assessment of risk posed on the ecosystem and humans,
(iii) cost-benefit assessment, and (iv) a SWOT to investigate all the other impacts and non-
quantitative characteristics (Gruiz et al., 2014). Only mass balance is discussed here.
5.2.1 Site assessment and mapping

Sampling wells (26) were drilled for detailed site investigation and remediation in 2004. The
contaminated plume was delineated and its size was found to be 2000 m2 within the 12,000 m2
industrial area shown in the map in Figure 6.13. The soil profile based on geotechnical
assessment comprises 1–1.5 m mixed soil backfill followed by very diverse natural layers
(mainly sand and gravel and sandy loam and clayey layers) at 5.3–5.5 m. Beneath this layer
silt, sandy and clayey silt extend to 10.3 m depth and sand with silt to 10.3–11.5 m. This
layer is directly above the footwall and consists of quicksand lenses storing TCE in diffuse
distribution under the whole of the identified main plume. The groundwater level varies
between 2 and 2.5 m.
Transport pathways
Conceptual risk
Exposure pathways
model
Receptors
Historical data Delineaon of the

Field measurements polluon
Quantave risk Definion of the

assessment target value
Evaluaon of the
running technology
Literature survey
Compiling methods
Technology
for the integrated
selecon
monitoring
Bench-scale
experiments
Pilot experiments
Site specific planning

of the technology and Field demonstraon
monitoring
Mass balance
Environmental risk
Verificaon of benefit balance
the technology
Cost benefit
assessment
SWOT for ecological

and social footprint
Figure 6.12 Environmental risk management methodology used on the site.

Figure 6.13 A) Trichloroethylene distribution in groundwater on the site. MK, MMF: groundwater mon-
itoring wells, MTE: extraction wells.The new well (M 3) is marked by an arrow.The areas of
the three experiments are marked (heavily contaminated area surrounded by black dashed
line and a less contaminated area surrounded by brown dashed line).
B) Location of the wells in the heavily contaminated area.
The sampling was repeated every three months for three years from September 2007
when the ISCO demonstration project started. The soil and water samples were analyzed and
tested using an integrated methodology, involving chemical, biological, and ecotoxicologi-
cal methods. The results showed that the contaminant concentration periodically increased in
certain wells near to the assumed subsurface sources (e.g. in the vicinity of the wells MTE-1
and MK-16) where particularly high concentrations of TCE were measured in the range of
1400 to 17,700 μg/L (the site-specific quality criteria is 150 μg/L). The concentration of per-
chloroethylene (PCE) (88–623 μg/L) was also above the regulatory limit (150 μg/L) while
low concentrations of cis- and trans-dichloroethylene (DCEc and DCEt, respectively) were
measured (1–30.3 μg/L and 1–13.9 μg/L). Vinyl chloride was detected only twice in this
period suggesting limited biodegradation.
In addition to CHCs the concentrations of characteristic ions (chloride, sulfate, nitrate,
ammonium, etc.) were also measured. Chloride ion content near to a suspected source (45 g/L
in well MTE-1, August 2007) suggested biological dechlorination. Increased ammonium ion
content (0.7 g/L in well MTE-1) compared to other wells (< 0.1 g/L) indicated that anaerobic
processes were also going on.
In the following March a new well (M-3) was bored for the pilot tests between the new
one and the most contaminated one. The TCE contents of the soil from the new drilling was
TCE conc. (mg/kg)

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
1
Depth of soil (m) 2

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Figure 6.14 TCE concentration of soil in the drilling M-3 as a function of depth (measured by head
space GC). The red line shows the regulatory limit 0.57 mg/kg.
analyzed by gas chromatography from the soil extracts. Figure 6.14 shows the TCE profile
as a function of depth.
The upper (three-phase soil) layer at 0.8–1.2 m was also contaminated suggesting that
the pollutant has been transported through the capillary fringe and the vadose zone to the
upper soil section, and from the pores into the atmosphere. The other two contaminated lay-
ers are located in the saturated soil at 4 and 5 m depths.
5.2.2 Site-specific risk characterization

Contaminants: CHCs with TCE as the main component;
Henry’s law constant of 985 Pa/m3/mol at 20°C;
Vapor pressure: 7.8 kPa at 20°C;
Water solubility of 1.1 g/L at 20°C;
log kow (octanol–water partition coefficient) 2.29;
kaw (= Henry/RT) (air–water partition coefficient) 0.4.
The partitioning tendency of trichloroethylene in the environment generally develops as fol-

lows: air: 97.7%; water: 0.3%; soil: 0.004%; sediment: 0.004%. Based on this TCE tends to
fully evaporate from soil to air and if a building is on the top of the contaminated soil and the
vapor finds its way to the inside space where TCE vapor can mainly accumulate in indoor air.
Human toxicity features of CHCs are: neurotoxic, immunotoxic, hepatic, developmental,
and carcinogenic effects (TOXNET, 2018).
Figure 6.15 shows a conceptual risk model (CRM). This is the risk map of the site,
showing sources, transport routes, the contaminated environmental compartments, and the
uses of these compartments (atmosphere, water, soil) by the various receptors, mainly work-
ers in this case. The first version of the CRM is quantified by archive and site investigation
data. In this way CRM highlights the unacceptable risks.
Figure 6.15 Conceptual risk model (CRM) of the site.
The CRM shown in Figure 6.15 was used for developing site risk management and
monitoring.
As the CRM suggests, the land use within the fence is industrial and outside of the fence
residential and agricultural. A small creek flows within 2 km. There is no residential area
downstream of the plume. The industrial site was used by workers (an assembly plant was in
operation at that time) and staff of the remediation activities. Ecological receptors have not
been considered within the fence.
The TCE content of the unidentified subsurface sources polluting the groundwater
represented the dominant risk. TCE can typically be detected in indoor air of buildings
on a contaminated area. Industrial buildings are the target of vapor intrusion and work-
ers working inside the buildings on the Mezőlak site. Thus, the main exposure route in
this case is inhalation of indoor air. TCE together with the other halogenated compounds
is especially harmful: it is carcinogenic, genotoxic and has several other organ-specific
toxic effects.
Risk evaluation in 2007
Sources
Main sources: unidentified underground TCE (contained in quicksand lenses), contaminated
groundwater, soil and soil air. Primary sources could not been identified in spite of attempt-
ing to determine the exact location of the DNAPL lenses. The suggestion of the profession-
als is that DNAPL is diffusely dispersed in quicksand above the footwall at about 10–11 m.
Transport routes
The main transport route leads from the TCE-containing lenses to the groundwater. The
natural transport with groundwater would follow the groundwater flow, but the groundwater
has been continuously extracted since 2004 and so established a hydraulic barrier. This is
why the contaminated water does not leave the industrial site.
From groundwater to soil air: TCE is volatile and most of TCE is in vapor form in the
environment. This tendency results in high TCE concentrations in soil air and transport by
diffusion into atmospheric air. The process leads to vapor intrusion into buildings on the top
of contaminated soil or above contaminated groundwater.
From contaminated subsoil to water and soil air: in addition to the deep lying lenses,
the soil sorbs significant amounts of TCE as detected by the depth-dependent analyses (Fig-
ure 6.14). The contaminated subsoil may also function as a secondary source and supple-
ment the water and soil air with contaminants.
Contaminated and potentially contaminated environmental

compartments
Soil of the industrial site is contaminated; the level of contamination is above the site-specific
quality criterion.
Groundwater of the industrial site: groundwater flow and contaminant transport with
groundwater is restricted by the hydraulic barrier. If the continuous groundwater extraction
is terminated, the contaminated plume can leave the site, reach the vicinity downstream or
even more remote areas and the creek.
The surface water (the creek at a distance of approximately 2 km from the site) and its
aquatic ecosystem were not endangered at that time because the calculated groundwater flux
from the site toward the creek was negligible and the measured contaminant concentration
away from the treated zone showed steep decrease. The small flux and TCE concentration
are due to the hydraulic barrier, i.e. the depression caused by continuous extraction of the
contaminated water to the air stripper. The Henry’s law constant value of 985 Pa/m3/mol at
20°C (ASTDR, 2018) suggests that TCE partitions rapidly to the soil gas from the ground-
water or to soil gas and the atmosphere from the unsaturated topsoil.
Indoor air: transport limitation of groundwater also leads to limitations for TCE vapors,
meaning that vapor intrusion may occur into industrial buildings on the site but not into
residential homes.
Ambient air: the transport of TCE into ambient air and its further access to ambient air
outside of the site cannot be limited just by the low contaminant concentrations in ground-
water and soil.
Land and water uses

An industrial facility is still active at the site. The facility is a closed one. Neighboring
land use is agricultural and residential and only agricultural land use occurs downstream
of the plume.
The water extracted from the site has not been used for drinking or irrigation purposes.
Outside of the industrial site the water wells do not serve as drinking water supply but water
from local wells is used in some cases for irrigation.
Users of the land

The site itself is used by the employees of the plant, working in the buildings and by the staff
or the company carrying out remedial work.
The residential area is used by average population including children, adults, and preg-
nant women. Some of the workers may live in the neighboring village (double exposure).
The workers in the buildings on the site may be chronically exposed to certain levels of
TCE. The risk characterization ratio for respiration (RCRresp) can be calculated by the fol-
lowing equation:
RCRresp = IC/RfC
where IC = inhaled concentration (calculated from water concentrations = 400–5000 μg/m3)

and RfC = reference concentration (40 μg/m3) (RfC, 2018), yielding RCRresp = 10–125.
The CHCs have not reached the aquatic ecosystem (as the groundwater does not escape
from the site) or terrestrial ecosystem, and the agroecosystem in the neighboring area was
also not impacted at the time of the assessment due to preventive measures (hydraulic bar-
rier). This is the reason why neither contaminated groundwater nor air pollutants were
detected in the surrounding residential and agricultural area.
It should be noted that the risks at that time were low due to the hydraulic barrier but
would significantly increase if the groundwater extraction ceased. If water extraction termi-
nated without proper groundwater remediation, the pollutant could leave the industrial site
and endanger residents, agroecosystem, and the nearby creek.
The site-specific quantitative risk is characterized by the risk characterization ratio
RCR, which is the ratio of the actual concentration in air, water, or soil to the concentration
which does not create adverse effects to the land users (Gruiz, 2016).
Various strategies were applied to determine the RCR by the following:
1 Comparing the measured concentration to site-specific regulatory quality criteria (e.g.

given by the local authority).
2 Comparing the measured or calculated figures to quality criteria reflecting the multi-
functional use of water and soil.
The acceptable RCR is RCR = 1 in case (i), in case (ii) the acceptable RCR will be
determined with respect to actual land uses, e.g. RCR < 2 for residential uses, and RCR
< 10 for industrial purposes. A different concept is used for managing air concentra-
tions: the RCR for indoor air is calculated from the international recommendation of
40 μg/m3 acceptable concentration (ATSDR, 2018) and the actual air concentration either
measured or calculated from the concentration of the water. When RCR >1–10 the risk is too
high, remedial actions are necessary. Air concentration in this case was calculated from the
concentration in the contaminated groundwater (partitioning) and from three-phase soil, both
providing high TCE concentration in the soil gas and indoor atmosphere threatening workers.
Risk calculation – before remediation

RCR of the groundwater for industrial and residential (multipurpose) land uses:
Industrial use
Low-level contamination: 1440 μg/L
Strongly contaminated plume: 17,700 μg/L
Authority requirement for industrial land use: 150 μg/L
RCRind min: 9.6 RCRind max: 118
The yellow colored area on the map (Figure 6.14) with the borderline of 150 μg/L rep-
resents the area where RCR > 1.
Residential use
Regulatory quality criteria for CHC for multiuse purposes: 40 μg/L
RCRres min: 36 RCRres max: 442
RCR of the topsoil for residential and industrial land uses:
Industrial use
RCRind topsoil = 0.8 mg/kg / 0.57 mg/kg = 1.4
It is slightly risky for industrial land uses as the measured concentration is somewhat larger
than the target values required by the authority.
Residential use
RCRres topsoil = 0.8 mg/kg / 0.1 mg/kg = 8
Topsoil proved to be risky for human receptors (including children, pregnant women), based
on the multipurpose quality criteria of 0.1 mg/kg for soil.
The map shows that two buildings are located above the TCE plume (PEC > 0.15 mg/L).
Working in these buildings, especially in the one near to the source poses a high risk to humans.
Volatile TCE from the topsoil can enter buildings and contaminate indoor air. A large pro-
portion of 0.8 mg/L TCE in the three-phase soil is in the pores, meaning that the diffusion of
soil air (depending on geometry and diffusion rate) is the main transport route within the soil.
TCE vapor intrusion was calculated from the TCE concentration in the three-phase soil
assuming geometrically proportional direct transport by diffusion from soil to indoor air.
The estimated indoor air contamination can be as high as 3000 μg/m3 (estimated aver-
age from topsoil under the building) in indoor air within a large building directly above the
contaminated plume, representing an RCR = 3000 μg/m3 / 40 μg/m3 = 75.
This figure may be lower assuming poor isolation of the windows. The industrial build-
ing is equipped with ventilation, so an intensified ventilation and frequent sampling and
measuring volatile CHCs was recommended.
Table 6.6 Toxicity of soil samples from different depth measured by Folsomia candida acute mortality
test (Fekete-Kertész et al., 2013).
Depth ED20 (g soil) ED50 (g soil) Toxicity RCR
1.5–2.5 m 10.9 18 slightly toxic RCR =2.5

2.0–3.5 m >20.0 >20.0 non-toxic RCR <1
3.5–5.0 m 12.9 >20.0 non-toxic RCR <1
5.0–6.0 m 5.5 11.3 toxic RCR =5
Ecosystem risk
The adverse effect of the soil itself was evaluated by direct toxicity assessment using soil-
living test organisms in the study. The Vibrio fischeri (bacterial) bioluminescence-inhibition
test, the plant root and shoot growth inhibition test (Gruiz & Molnár, 2015) and Folsomia
candida (collembola, an insect) acute mortality test (Gruiz et al., 2015) were used to study
soil toxicity.
The soil samples were found to be non-toxic to Vibrio fischeri and Sinapis alba (white
mustard). Folsomia candida (insect) was more sensitive to TCE exposure through inhala-
tion. Direct toxicity results are shown by Table 6.6.
Special, TCE-degrading microbes were found in high concentrations in samples from
the deeper layers suggesting anaerobic degradation.
5.2.3 Evaluation of the former pump and treat technology

Prior to the application of ISCO, the technology at the Mezőlak site was a pump and treat
with ex situ air stripping and was without any results after 3 years of application.
In 40 months of operation, 25 kg TCE was removed by extracting and stripping 23,173 m3
groundwater. In spite of this huge effort high concentrations of TCE (> 10 mg/L) were mea-
sured in the monitoring wells every now and then.
It was concluded that the existing pump and treat technology was inefficient, time con-
suming and expensive. A water-insoluble contaminant residing under the aquifers in separate
phases cannot be effectively removed by extracting the groundwater.
Mixing the strongly contaminated water with the water from less contaminated wells
was also not economic because an increased volume of water had to be treated and dis-
charged. Termination of this practice was advised.
A periodic increase of the CHCs content in the extracted water suggested that there were
unidentified plumes in the area.
The following management measures were decided:
– Approximation of the location of the source plumes.

– Assessing the microbial activity at the site to see whether microbial degradation of the
CHC compounds was going on and performing laboratory experiments to see if these
microbiological processes could be enhanced using additives (nutrients, electron accep-
tors or donors, cometabolites, etc.).
– A step-by-step selection of the technology was based on (i) literature survey, (ii) bench-
scale treatability studies, (iii) field pilot studies, and (iv) a full-scale demonstration.
5.2.4 Technology selection, comparative evaluation of the options

Four technologies were selected and compared based on published information and labora-
tory treatability studies (Fekete-Kertész et al., 2013): i) Pump and treat; (ii) intensified pump
and treat; (iii) in situ anaerobic biodegradation; and (iv) in situ chemical oxidation.
Pump and treat together with ex situ air stripping (the technology used on the site for a
long period of time without success) can be intensified by solubilizers (SEP&T). This may
accelerate the clean-up, however, decomposition/degradation of TCE would be more advan-
tageous from a waste production perspective given that SEP&T only transfers the contami-
nant from one phase to another resulting in contaminated carbon at the end which should be
incinerated. Ex situ UV degradation was not favored due to the high energy demand (low
energy efficiency). The two in situ technologies: anaerobic biodegradation and ISCO are
more beneficial concerning cost efficiency. ISCO using hydrogen peroxide was more effec-
tive than potassium permanganate and persulfate (Fekete-Kertész et al., 2013). Moreover,
low concentration of hydrogen peroxide is not harmful to the soil biota, even increased activ-
ity was observed, which can enhance the natural attenuation.
The comparative evaluation of the technologies based on the criteria set by Kukacka
et al. (2010) can be seen in Table 6.7.
There is no need for further investment at the site to implement any of the technologies,
the existing establishment can be used or modified as required. The lowest maintenance cost
is for biodegradation but it is of low efficiency and is limited to deeper soil layers. The cost
of the chemicals in SEP&T and ISCO is compensated by the reduced energy costs due to
a shorter duration. Taking into account that the owner of the site was forced to achieve the
remedial goals in a short time period, ISCO seemed to be the best available technology. The
bench-scale ISCO experiments with the site soil revealed that the addition of iron did not
improve the efficiency of the technology, showing that the intrinsic iron content in the soil is
sufficient for the catalysis of oxidation by hydrogen peroxide (Fenyvesi et al., 2011).
5.2.5 In-well treatability test

A new well (M-3) was drilled for the pilot study in the direction of the hydraulic gradi-
ent between the assumed source and the extraction well MTE-1, in a short distance from
well MTE-1 (see map in Figure 6.14). These two wells served for the in situ pilot study of
the combination of ISCO with inter-well agitation by alternating injection and extraction.
The agitation between the two wells due to pressure difference and intensive water flow
facilitated the contact between hydrogen peroxide and groundwater, and groundwater and
Table 6.7 Comparative evaluation of the technologies: summary table.
P&T SEP&T Biodegradation ISCO
Effectiveness low high low high

Duration of remediation long medium long short
Further investment costs at the site no no no no
Maintenance costs (including chemicals, medium low low medium
labor and energy)
Regulatory compliance low medium high high
Need of follow-up technologies high high low low
DNAPL-containing lenses and enhanced the in situ oxidation. In the pilot test, hydrogen
peroxide and sulfuric acid were added to the extracted groundwater and injected back alter-
nately into the two wells. The acidic pH was necessary for the iron-catalyzed reaction of
hydrogen peroxide (see Section 2.2.3). Extra iron was not added, the technology was based
on the intrinsic iron content of the soil (Fekete-Kertész et al., 2013).
The groundwater level measured from the surface was 2 m in both wells. The volume
of the wells MTE-1 and M-3 was 100 L and 60 L, respectively; 180 L groundwater was
extracted from MTE-1, 30% hydrogen peroxide solution added (1 L) and the pH adjusted to
3 (in a container). This was the lowest effective peroxide concentration in laboratory stud-
ies. The water containing peroxide was reinjected. Then 120 L water was extracted from the
M-3 well, 0.7 L hydrogen peroxide solution added and reinjected. This cycle of groundwa-
ter extraction, reinjection was repeated once more alternately in both wells, then in a third
cycle four times more peroxide was added to each well. Sampling was done one day before
the experiment (sample 0), directly before peroxide injection (sample 1) and between each
treatment steps. (For routine application extraction and injection wells can be equipped with
alternating pumps and peroxide dosing.)
The pH of the extracted groundwater remained unchanged (6.6–6.7) due to the buffer-
ing capacity of the soil. The electrical conductivity changed parallel with the sulfate concen-
tration increasing gradually due to the sulfuric acid additions.
TCE concentration started to decrease due to pumping in well MTE-1 (from sample 0
to sample 1) and it was practically non-existent after addition of the oxidant (Figure 6.16).
The concentration of PCE decreased stepwise after consecutive treatment steps. In the samples
MTE-1/4–7 and M-3/6–7 the TCE concentration was below the remediation goal (0.15 mg/L).
The in situ chemical oxidation with alternating inter-well treatment proved to be effi-
cient: the pollutants practically disappeared after one day. No TCE was detected in the water
extracted at the last sampling of well MTE-1, while before the experiment 4.8 mg/L TCE
was measured. 0.04 mg/L TCE was measured in the water extracted at the last sampling of
M-3 well, while 3.5 mg/L TCE was determined at the start of the experiment.
The TCE mineralized to inorganic chloride was calculated from the increased chloride
concentration: 24.1 and 24.8 mg/L from 15.1 and 19.5 mg/L at the start in wells MTE-1 and
M-3, respectively.
Figure 6.16 TCE concentration in MTE-1 and M-3 wells at sampling 0 to 7. The arrows show the addi-
tion of hydrogen peroxide (the thicker line shows the addition of four times higher amount
of oxidant) (Fekete-Kertész et al., 2013).
Since the pilot experiment was proved successful, the technology was designed for the
entire site. The sources could not be identified, the most probable suggestion is that TCE
occurs diffusely in the quicksand lenses. The distribution of these lenses depends on the
unevenness of the footwall and the depths of the quicksand layer.
6 FULL-SCALE DEMONSTRATION OF THE REMEDIATION

TECHNOLOGY
Two subsites were distinguished throughout the site (see Figure 6.13): the source zone con-
taminated with TCE lenses and the less-contaminated area, where the soil is contaminated by
the groundwater arriving from the source zone. Three experiments (one in the source zone
and two in the less contaminated area) were performed simultaneously in 2008.
In the most contaminated area, six wells were treated once a day with hydrogen peroxide
mixed into the extracted groundwater, the pH was adjusted with the more environmentally
friendly phosphoric acid instead of sulfuric acid and then injected back. One well was used
for the extraction of the groundwater which was then treated on the surface by air stripping.
The extraction was started in this well only after approximately 1 hour contact time after the
groundwater with mixed reagent was reinjected into the six treated wells.
The wells MK-16, MK-19, MK-22, MK-23, MK-24, and M-3 were treated for 4 days
(5 L 30% hydrogen peroxide and 0.4 L 85% phosphoric acid were added to the extracted
180 L water and injected back into each well). Sampling (extracting 180 L water from each
treatment well) was continued for another 3 days. The well MTE-1 was used for extracting
groundwater at a rate of 1.5 L/min for 7 days.
The treatments reduced the TCE concentration in each well (Figure 6.17). The most
remarkable effect was observed in well MK-19 where the starting concentration of 13 mg/L
TCE decreased to less than 1 mg/L after the first treatment. In well MK-22, the starting
TCE level dropped to one tenth after the first addition of hydrogen peroxide. A remarkable
decrease was achieved in the well (MK-16) with the highest TCE concentration (18 mg/L):
the TCE concentration was first enhanced (from 18 to 38 mg/L) due to pumping then gradu-
ally decreased to the half of this outstanding concentration after one week.
All wells were sampled and the contaminant concentration measured, the results are
shown in Figure 6.17. Some wells showed a proportional decrease with the number of treat-
ments, but others showed a spontaneous increase in days 5–7, when only extraction and no
treatment was applied. It shows the resupply from less available sources and indicates the
need of longer treatment.
In extraction well MTE-1, an extremely high TCE concentration (36 mg/L) was mea-
sured after starting the pumping which decreased to approximately one tenth (<3 mg/L)
due to the in situ oxidation in the other wells (Figure 6.18). Altogether 8.1 m3 water was
extracted from this well during the 1-week experiment. The amount of TCE removed by
water extraction was ~70 g. The TCE decomposed by chemical oxidation (calculated from
the chloride content of the extracted water) was ~84 g. Altogether 154 g TCE was degraded
and removed during 1 week.
Comparing this result with the conventional pump and treat, which removed 25 kg
(25,000 g) TCE from 23,000 m3 water by stripping (within 40 months), i.e. approximately
1 g/m3, the ISCO in combination with the intra-well agitation could remove 154 g/8 m3 = 19
times more than pump and treat. More than half of that amount was completely eliminated,
i.e. degraded, thus there was no need for further treatment. Considering the degraded amount
MK-16 15 MK-19 15 MK-24

40
TCE conc. (mg/L)
30
10 10
20
5 5
10
0 0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Days Days Days
MK-22 MK-23 M-3

1.5 3 4
TCE conc. (mg/L)
3
1.0 2
2
0.5 1 1
0.0 0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Days Days Days
Figure 6.17 TCE concentration in the more contaminated area in the wells MK-16, MK-19, MK-22,
MK-23, MK-24, and M-3 treated for the first 4 days with hydrogen peroxide.
MTE-1
40
TCE conc. (mg/L)
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Days
Figure 6.18 TCE concentration in the strongly contaminated area in the extraction well MTE-1 after
the treatment of wells MK-16, MK-19, MK-22, MK-23, MK-24, and M-3 for the first 4 days
with hydrogen peroxide.
only, the method was 10 times more efficient than pump and treat in removal and 100% more
efficient from the point of view of residual wastes treatment. Conventional pump and treat
achieved 25,000 g/1200 days = 20 g/day daily removal compared to 154 g/day, of the inno-
vative solution which is a 7.7 times higher efficiency. On day 8, the samples were analyzed
for other chlorinated aliphatics using the GCMS method. TCE mobilization by inter-well
agitation caused a consistently high dissolved concentration in the groundwater in the source
zone, meaning that the TCE could be mobilized from the lenses and become available for
the dosed oxidant. In the samples from the most contaminated wells 18.1 and 2.1 mg/L
(MK-16), 2.6 and 0.2 mg/L (MK-23), 6.0 and 0.3 mg/L (MK-24), and 1.8 and 0.2 mg/L
(M-3) TCE were measured. Dichloroethylene, trichloroethane concentrations were all below
the limit. Vinyl chloride and tetrachloroethane were not detected in any of the samples.
In the less-contaminated area two experiments for in situ treating and agitation were
carried out. The locations of the wells are shown in Figure 6.13. For the wells MTE-2 and
MTE-3 (two wells near each other), the alternating method was applied for the first 4 days
then both wells were treated every day. The treatment included mixing 5 L hydrogen perox-
ide and phosphoric acid to the extracted 180 L groundwater and injected back. The extraction
rate in the actual extraction well was 8 L/min. In the well MTE-2, the TCE concentra-
tion first increased then gradually decreased over the course of the alternating injection and
extraction. In the well MTE-3 the decrease of TCE concentration started immediately after
treatment began (Figure 6.19). The extracted groundwater (14.4 m3 in either well) removed
23.3 g TCE (13.4 g and 9.9 g TCE from wells MTE-2 and MTE-3).
In the less-contaminated area, wells MTE-4, MMF-3 and MMF-4 were treated and
MTE-5 and MTE-7 were used as extraction wells.
At the end of the experiment the TCE concentration in wells MTE-2, MTE-5, MMF-
3, and MMF-4 was below the official limit for the site (TCE: 0.15 mg/L, total chlorinated
MTE-2 MTE-3
1.4 4.0
1.2 3.5
TCE conc. (mg/L)
1.0 3.0
2.5
0.8
2.0
0.6
1.5
0.4 1.0
0.2 0.5
0.0 0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Days Days
Figure 6.19 TCE concentration in the wells MTE-2 and MTE-3 alternately treated (the arrows indicate
the hydrogen peroxide treatments).
60
50
Chloride conc. (mg/L)
40
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Days of the experiment
Figure 6.20 Typical chloride profiles in various wells from the source zone – MTE-1 (D), MK-23 (),
MK-24 (), M-3 (V) – and from the less contaminated area – MMF-3 (), MTE-5 (X) and
MTE-22 (+).
hydrocarbon: 0.3 mg/L). On the day eight the samples were analyzed for the other chlori-
nated aliphatics using the GCMS method. PCE, dichloroethylene, trichloroethane concen-
trations were all below the limit. Vinyl chloride and tetrachloroethane were not detected in
any of the samples. The less contaminated part of the site downstream the source zone was
cleaned up after 1 week of treatment, as the contaminant was resupplied in dissolved form.
The chloride concentration increased during the treatment in the strongly polluted area
(source zone) (wells MK16, MK-23, and M-3). In well MTE-1 the chloride content showed
an outstandingly high value on the second day similarly to the TCE concentration. Some
typical chloride profiles are shown in Figure 6.20.
In the less-contaminated area the TCE decomposed by chemical oxidation (calculated
from the enhancement of the chloride content in the extracted 86.4 m3 water) was ~131 g.
TCE removed by extraction and stripping was ~50 g. The highest and lowest chloride con-
centrations measured in the extraction wells were 25.4–18.9 mg/L, 34.5–20.9 mg/L, 35.3–
30.0 mg/L, and 29.4–24.9 mg/L for MTE-2, MTE-3, MTE-5, and MTE-7, respectively.
Based on this 1-week experiment, the technology proved the efficiency of the in situ chemi-
cal oxidation using hydrogen peroxide and phosphoric acid combined with intensive transfer
of groundwater between the wells. After this demonstration experiment the site remediation
was continued using this technology. As a result the contamination diminished in most of
the wells in the less contaminated area. After post-monitoring in every 6 months for 2 years,
this area was declared to be non-risky (the contamination decreased permanently below the
regulatory limit). The extraction and injection wells were filled with soil. The monitoring
wells have been continued to be sampled annually.
In summary, the ISCO combined with alternating pumping efficiently reduced the con-
taminant concentration:
– Intensified mixing of the soil phases is ensured and probably even the contaminant
plumes are removed;
– The reagents in the applied concentration are not harmful for the soil life;
– The end products of the reaction (CO2, chloride, and water) do not pollute the
environment;
– In comparison to a conventional pump and treat technology the contaminant removal is
19 times better, complete degradation is 10 times more efficient than TCE removal by
stripping;
– Time requirement is 7.7 times less than that of the pump and treat
REFERENCES
Abdel-Moghny, T., Mohamed, R.S.A., El-Sayed, E., Aly, S.M. & Snousy, M.G. (2012) Removing
of hydrocarbon contaminated soil via air flushing enhanced by surfactant. Applied Petrochemical
Research, 2(1), 51–59.
ABS Materials (2017) Remediation Solutions. Available from: http://abswastewater.com/wp-content/
uploads/2016/08/Remediation-Solutions.pdf. [Accessed 1st May 2017].
Alhomair, S.A., Gorakhki, M.H. & Bareither, C.A. (2017) Hydraulic conductivity of fly ash-
amended mine tailings. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 35(1), 243–261. doi:10.1007/
s10706-016-0101-z.
Ali, M.M. & Sandya, K.Y. (2014) Visible light responsive titanium dioxide-cyclodextrin-fullerene com-
posite with reduced charge recombination and enhanced photocatalytic activity. Carbon, 70, 249–257.
Al-Tabbaa, A. & Perera, A.S.R. (2003) Stabilisation/solidification binders and technologies: UK cur-
rent practice and research needs. Land Contamination & Reclamation, 11, 71–79.
Alvarez-Guerra, M., Alvarez-Guerra, E., Alonso-Santurde, R., Andrés, A., Coz, A., Soto, J., Gómez-
Arozamena, J. & Viguri, J.R. (2008) Sustainable management options and beneficial uses for con-
taminated sediments and dredged material. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 17, 1539–1553.
Álvarez-Martín, A., Rodríguez-Cruz, M.S., Andrades, M.S. & Sánchez-Martín, M.J. (2016) Applica-
tion of a biosorbent to soil: A potential method for controlling water pollution by pesticides. Envi-
ronmental Science and Pollution Research, 23, 9192–9203.
Anderson, M.A. (1992) Influence of surfactants on vapor-liquid partitioning. Environmental Science
& Technology, 26, 2186–2191.
Anitescu, G. & Tavlarides, L.L. (2006) Supercritical extraction of contaminants from soils and sedi-
ments. Journal of Supercritical Fluids, 38, 167–180.
Anwar, A. (2011) The Effect of Soil Type, Water and Organic Materials on the Mechanochemical
Destruction of Organic Compounds. Master thesis, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland,
New Zealand.
AOF (2018a) HydroTurf. Available from: www.acfenvironmental.com/products/erosion-control/hard-
armor/hydroturf/ [Accessed 16th February 2018].
AOF (2018b) Introduction to Flexterra Flexible Growth Medium. Available from: www.acfenviron
mental.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Hydraulic-Mulch-TMM.pdf. [Accessed 16th February 2018].
Araújo, R., Castro, A.C.M. & Fiúza, A. (2015) The use of nanoparticles in soil and water remediation
processes. Materials Today: Proceedings, 2(1), 315–320.
ATSDR (2018) Toxicological Profile for Trichloroethylene (TCE) Agency of Toxic Substances &
Desaese Registry. Toxic Substances Portal. Available from: www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/
tp.asp?id=173&tid=30. [Accessed 8th July 2018].
Ayoub, S.R.A., Uchiyama, H., Iwasaki, K., Doi, T. & Inaba, K. (2008) Effects of several surfactants
and high-molecular-weight organic compounds on decomposition of trichloroethylene with zero
valent iron powder. Environmental Technology, 29, 363–373.
Badr, T., Hanna, K. & de Brauer, C. (2004) Enhanced solubilization and removal of naphthalene and phen-
anthrene by cyclodextrins from two contaminated soils. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 112, 215–223.
Balawejder, M., Antos, P., Czyjt-Kuryło, S., Józefczyk, R. & Pieniazek, M. (2014) A novel method for
degradation of DDT in contaminated soil. Ozone: Science and Engineering, 36, 166–173.
Balawejder, M., Józefczyk, R., Antos, P. & Pieniążek, M. (2016) Pilot-scale installation for remedia-
tion of DDT-contaminated soil. Ozone: Science and Engineering, 38, in press.
Bandala, E.R., Cossio, H., Sánchez-Lopez, A.D., Córdova, F., Peralta-Herández, J.M. & Torres, L.G.
(2013) Scaling-up parameters for site restoration process using surfactant-enhanced soil washing
coupled with wastewater treatment by Fenton and Fenton-like processes. Environmental Technol-
ogy, 34, 363–371.
Bandosz, T.J. Jagiello, J., Amankwah, K.A.G. & Schwarz, J.A. (1992) Chemical and structural
properties of clay minerals modified by inorganic and organic material. Clay Minerals, 27,
435–444.
Bates, E.R., Sahle-Demessie, E. & Grosse, D.W. (2000) Solidification/stabilization for remediation of wood
preserving sites: Treatment for dioxins, PCP, creosote, and metals. Remediation Journal, 10, 51–65.
Beesley, L., Moreno-Jiménez, E., Gomez-Eyles, J.L., Harris, E., Robinson, B. & Sizmur, T. (2011) A
review of biochars’ potential role in the remediation, revegetation and restoration of contaminated
soils. Environmental Pollution, 159(12), 3269–3282.
Berg, L.L. (2000) Explanation of Significant Differences for the Trailer 5475 Groundwater Remedia-
tion. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore Site. Available from: www-erd.llnl.gov/
library/AR-136189.pdf. [Accessed 14th June 2016].
Berselli, S., Milone, G., Canepa, P., di Gioia, D. & Fava, F. (2004) Effects of cyclodextrins, humic
substances, and rhamnolipids on the washing of a historically contaminated soil and on the aerobic
bioremediation of the resulting effluents. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 88, 111–120.
Betancurt-Corredor, B., Pino, N.J., Cardona, S. & Peñuela, G.A. (2015) Evaluation of biostimulation
and Tween 80 addition for the bioremediation of long-term DDT-contaminated soil. Journal of
Environmental Sciences, 28, 101–109.
Birke, V. (2018) Economic and Ecologically Favorable Detoxification of Polyhalogenated Pollut-

ants Applying the DMCR Technology. Available from: http://tribochem.com/downloads/download/
feahi_eng.pdf. [Accessed 16th February 2018].
Birke, V., Mattik, J. & Runne, D. (2004) Mechanochemical reductive dehalogenation of hazardous
polyhalogenated contaminants. Journal of Materials Science, 39(16), 5111–5116.
Blanford, W.J., Barackman, M., Boving, T.B., Klingel, E. & Brusseau, M. (2000) Cyclodextrin-
enhanced vertical flushing of a trichloroethene contaminated aquifer. Ground Water Monitoring
and Remediation, 21, 58–66.
Blanford, W.J., Boving, T. & Wade, R. (2006) Aquifer monitoring shows complex-sugar flushing
increases potential for enhanced biodegradation. Technology News and Trends, EPA, 25, 3–4.
Blanford, W.J., Pecoraro, M.P., Heinrich, R. & Boving, T.B. (2018) Enhanced reductive de-chlorination
of a solvent contaminated aquifer through addition and apparent fermentation of cyclodextrin.
Block, P., Brown, R. & Robinson, D. (2004) Novel activation technologies for sodium persulfate in
situ chemical oxidation. 4th International Conference of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds,
Monterey, CA, 24–27 May 2004, Monterey, CA, USA. Available from: www.peroxychem.com/
media/22892/FMC_Peroxygen_Talk_2010-10_Persulfate_Oxidation_and_Reduction_Reactions.
pdf. [Accessed 14th May 2017].
Bocos, E., Fernandez-Costas, C., Pazos, M. & Sanroman, M.T. (2015) Removal of PAHs and pesticides
from polluted soils by enhanced electrokinetic-Fenton treatment. Chemosphere, 125, 168–174.
Bone, B.D., Barnard, L.H., Boardman, D.I., Carey, P.J., Hills, C.D., Jones, H.M., MacLeod, C.L. &
Tyrer, M. (2005) Review of Scientific Literature on the Use of Stabilisation/Solidification for the
Treatment of Contaminated Soil, Solid Waste, and Sludges. CL:AIRE. Guidance Bulletin, GB01,
2005, 8. Available from: www.claire.co.uk/information-centre/cl-aire-publications. [Accessed
14th May 2017].
Boparai, H.K., Comfort, S.D., Shea, P.J. & Szecsody, J.E. (2008) Remediating explosive-contaminated
groundwater by in situ redox manipulation (ISRM) of aquifer sediments. Chemosphere, 71,
933–994.
Boving, T.B., Barnett, S.M., Perez, G., Blanford, W.J. & McCray, J.E. (2007) Remediation with cyclo-
dextrin: Recovery of the remedial agent by membrane filtration. Remediation Journal, 17, 21–36.
doi:10.1002/rem.20131.
Boving, T.B., Blanford, W.J., McCray, J.E., Divine, C.E. & Brusseau, M.L. (2008) Comparison of line-
drive and push-pull flushing schemes. Groundwater Monitoring and Remediation, 28(1), 75–86.
Boving, T.B. & Brusseau, M.L. (2000) Solubilization and removal of residual trichloroethene from
porous media: Comparison of several solubilization agents. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology,
42, 51–67.
Bowman, R.S. (2002) Applications of surfactant-modified zeolites to environmental remediation.
Microporous and Mesoporous Materials, 61, 43–56.
Brillas, E., Sirés, I. & Oturan, M.A. (2009) Electro-Fenton process and related electrochemical tech-
nologies based on Fenton’s reaction chemistry. Chemical Reviews, 109(12), 6570–6631.
Brown, R. (2003) In situ chemical oxidation: Performance, practice, and pitfalls. 2003 AFCEE Tech-
nology Transfer Workshop, 25 February 2003, San Antonio, TX. Available from: https://clu-in.org/
download/techfocus/chemox/4_brown.pdf. [Accessed 16th May 2018].
Brusseau, M.L., Wang, X. & Wang, W.-Z. (1997) Simultaneous elution of heavy metals and organic
compounds from soil by cyclodextrin. Environmental Science & Technology, 31, 1087–1092.
Burns, S.E. & Zhang, M. (2001) Effects of system parameters on the physical characteristics of bub-
bles produce through air sparging. Environmental Science & Technology, 35, 204–208.
Cabrera, A., Cox, L., Spokas, K.A., Celis, R., Hermosín, M.C., Cornejo, J. & Koskinen, W.C.
(2011) Comparative sorption and leaching study of the herbicides fluometuron and 4-chloro-2-
methylphenoxyacetic acid (MCPA) in a soil amended with biochars and other sorbents. Journal of
Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 59, 12550–12560.
Cabrera, A., Cox, L., Spokas, K.A., Hermosín, M.C., Cornejo, J. & Koskinen, W.C. (2014) Influ-
ence of biochar amendments on the sorption – Desorption of aminocyclopyrachlor, bentazone
and pyraclostrobin pesticides to an agricultural soil. Science of the Total Environment, 470–471,
438–443.
Caliman, F.A., Robu, B.M., Smaranda, C., Pavel, C.L. & Gavrilescu, M. (2011) Soil and ground water
clean-up: Benefits and limits of emerging technologies. Clean Technologies and Environmental
Policy, 13, 241–268.
Cao, X., Ma, L., Gao, B. & Harris, W. (2009) Dairy-manure derived biochar effectively sorbs lead and
atrazine. Environmental Science and Technology, 43, 3285–3291.
Caschili, S., Delogu, F., Concas, A., Pisu, M. & Cao, G. (2006) Mechanically induced self propagating
reactions: Analysis of reactive substrates and degradation of aromatic sulfonic pollutants. Chemo-
sphere, 63, 987–995.
Centofanti, T., McConnell, L.L., Chaney, R.L., Beyer, N.W., Andrade, N.A., Hapeman, C.J., Torrents,
A., Nguyen, A., Anderson, M.O., Novak, J.M. & Jackson, D. (2016) Organic amendments for risk
mitigation of organochlorine pesticide residues in old orchard soils. Environmental Pollution, 210,
182–191.
Chang, I., Im, J. & Cho, G.C. (2016) Introduction of microbial biopolymers in soil treatment for future
environmentally-friendly and sustainable geotechnical engineering. Sustainability, 8, 251–274.
doi:10.3390/su8030251.
Chatain, V., Hanna, K., de Brauer, C., Bayard, R. & Germain, P. (2004) Enhanced solubilization of
arsenic and 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol from soils by a cyclodextrin derivative. Chemosphere, 57,
197–206.
Chen, C.F., Binh, N.T., Chen, C.W. & Dong, C.D. (2014) Removal of polycyclic aromatic hydrocar-
bons from sediments using sodium persulfate activated by temperature and nanoscale zero-valent
iron. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 65(4), 375–383. doi:10.1080/1096224
7.2014.996266.
Chen, F., Luo, Z., Liu, G., Yang, Y., Zhang, S. & Ma, J. (2017a) Remediation of electronic waste pol-
luted soil using a combination of persulfate oxidation and chemical washing. Journal of Environ-
mental Management, 204, 170–178.
Chen, K.F., Chang, Y.C. & Chiou, W.T. (2015) Remediation of diesel-contaminated soil using In Situ
Chemical Oxidation (ISCO) and the effects of common oxidants on the indigenous microbial com-
munity: A comparison study. Chemical technology and Biotechnology, 91, 1877–1888.
Chen, W., Zou, C., Liu, Y. & Li, X. (2017b) The experimental investigation of bisphenol a degrada-
tion by Fenton process with different types of cyclodextrins. Journal of Industrial and Engineering
Chemistry, 56, 428–434.
Cheng, M., Zeng, G., Huang, D., Lai, C., Xu, P., Zhang, C. & Liu, Y. (2016) Hydroxyl radicals based
Advanced Oxidation Processes (AOPs) for remediation of soils contaminated with organic com-
pounds: A review. Chemical Engineering Journal, 284, 582–598.
Cheremisinoff, N.P. & Davletshin, A. (2015) Hydraulic Fracturing Operations: Handbook of Environ-
mental Management Practices. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA.
Choy, W.K. & Chu, W. (2001a) The modelling of trichloroethene photodegradation in Brij 35 surfac-
tant by two-stage reaction. Chemosphere, 44(2), 211–215.
Choy, W.K. & Chu, W. (2001b) The rate improvement and modeling of trichloroethene photodegradation
by acetone sensitizer in surfactant solution. Chemosphere, 44(5), 943–947.
Chu, W. & Choy, W.K. (2000) The study of lag phase and rate improvement of TCE decay in UV/
surfactant systems. Chemosphere, 41(8), 1199–1204.
Churngold (2009) Steam Enhanced Remediation of Creosote at Former Timber Treatment Facility.
Available from: www.churngold.com/case-studies/remediation/steam-enhanced-remediation-of-
creosote-at-former-timber-treatment-facility.html. [Accessed 23th January 2018].
Churngold (2018) Steam Enhanced Remediation. Available from: www.churngold.com/remediation/
thermal-technologies/steam-enhanced-remediation.html. [Accessed 23th January 2018].
CL:AIRE (2007) Understanding Soil Washing. Technical Bulletin TB13, 2007. Available from: www.
claire.co.uk/information-centre/cl-aire-publications. [Accessed 6th May 2018].
Clue in (2018) Nanotechnology: Application for Environmental Remediation. Available from: https://clu-
in.org/techfocus/default.focus/sec/Nanotechnology:_Applications_for_Environmental_Remediation/
cat/Application/#10. [Accessed 16th February 2018].
Cong, X., Xue, N., Wang, S., Li, K. & Li, F. (2010) Reductive dechlorination of organochlorine pes-
ticides in soils from an abandoned manufacturing facility by zero-valent iron. Science of the Total
Environment, 408, 3418–3423.
Contech (2018) Available from: www.conteches.com/products/erosion-control/temporary-and-permanent/
turf-reinforcement-mats. [Accessed 6th March 2018].
CPEO (2018) Center for Public Environmental Oversight. Available from: www. cpeo.org. [Accessed
25th February 2018].
Davidson, B., Spanos, T. & Zschuppe, R. (2018) Pressure Pulse Technology: An Enhanced Fluid Flow
and Delivery Mechanism. Available from: www.onthewavefront.com/inc/pdfs/tech/primawave/
articles/davidson-chlorcon-paper.pdf. [Accessed 16th February 2018].
Davis, E.L. (1998) Steam Injection for Soil and Aqufer Remediation. EPA Ground Water Issue.
Available from: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/10002E1U.PDF?Dockey=10002E1U.PDF.
de S. e Silva, P.T., Locatelli, M.A.F., Jardim, W.F., Neto, B.B., da Motta, M., de Castro, G.R. & da Silva,
V.L. (2008) Endogenous iron as a photo-Fenton reaction catalyst for the degradation of Pah’s in
soils. Journal of the Brazilian Chemical Society, 19(2). Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/
S0103-50532008000200020. [Accessed 16th May 2018].
Dettmer, A., Carroll, K.C., Schaub, T., Khan, N., Appuhamilage, N.S., Cruz, S., Ball, R., Boving, T.B.
& Fernandez, C.A. (2017) Stabilization and prolonged reactivity of aqueous-phase ozone with
cyclodextrin. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 196, 1–9.
Diallo, M.S., Christie, S., Swaminathan, P., Johnson, J. Jr. & Goddard III, W. (2005) Dendrimer
enhance ultrafiltration. 1. Recovery Cu(II) from aqueous solutions using PAMAM dendrimers with
ethylene diamine core and terminal NH2 groups. Environmental Science and Technology, 39(5),
1366–1377.
Di Palma, L. (2003) Experimental assessment of a process for the remediation of organophosphorous
pesticides contaminated soils through in situ soil flushing and hydrolysis. Water, Air, & Soil Pollu-
tion, 143, 301–314.
Di Palma, L., Ferrantelli, P. & Petrucci, E. (2003) Experimental study of the remediation of atrazine
contaminated soils through soil extraction and subsequent peroxidation. Journal of Hazardous
Materials, 99, 265–276.
Dos Santos, E.V., Sáez, C., Martínez-Huitle, C.A., Cañizares, P. & Rodrigo, M.A. (2015) Combined
soil washing and CDEO for the removal of atrazine from soils. Journal of Hazardous Materials,
300, 129–134.
Dove, D., Bhandari, A. & Novak, J. (1992) Soil washing: Practical considerations and pitfalls. Reme-
diation Journal, 3, 55–67.
Du, Y.J., Yu, B.W., Liu, K., Jiang, N.J. & Liu, M.D. (2016) Physical, hydraulic, and mechanical proper-
ties of clayey soil stabilized by lightweight alkali-activated slag geopolymer. Journal of Materials
in Civil Engineering, 29(2). doi:10.1061/(asce)mt.1943-5533.0001743.
ECBVerdyol (2018) Erosion Control Blanket. Available from: www.erosioncontrolblanket.com/
Ehsan, S., Prasher, S.O. & Marshall, W.D. (2007) Simultaneous mobilization of heavy metals and
Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) compounds from soil with cyclodextrin and EDTA in admixture.
Chemosphere, 68, 150–158.
Enchem (2010) Advanced Mixed Oxidation and Inclusion Technology. EPA Research Grant EPD10024.
Enchem Engineering Inc. Available from: https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/
display.highlight/abstract/9085/report/F. [Accessed 14th May 2018].
ENFO Database (2018) Available from: www.körinfo.hu/drupal/en. [Accessed 14th March 2018].
EPA (1998) Field Applications of in situ Remediation Technologies: Chemical Oxidation. EPA 542-R-
98-008. Available from: http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/1000305N.PDF?Dockey=1000305N.
PDF. [Accessed 16th May 2017].
EPA CLU-IN (1998) Cosolvent Flushing Pilot Test Report Former Sages Dry Cleaner. Florida Depart-
ment of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL, USA. Available from: https://clu-in.org/download/
remed/sages.pdf. [Accessed 16th May 2018].
EPA CLU-IN (2018) A Citizen’s Guide to in situ Soil Flushing. Available from: https://clu-in.org/
download/remed/soilflsh.pdf. [Accessed 14th July 2018].
EPA CLU-IN Database (2018) Available from: www.clu-in.org/ [Accessed 14th March 2018].
ESTCP CU-0431 (2006) Final Laboratory Treatability Report For: Emulsified Zero Valent Iron Treat-
ment of Chlorinated Solvent DNAPL Source Areas. Available from: www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRD
oc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA451083. [Accessed 14th May 2018].
Fava, F., Di Gioia, D., Marchetti, L., Fenyvesi, E. & Szejtli, J. (2002) Randomly Methylated
β-Cyclodextrins (RAMEB) enhance the aerobic biodegradation of polychlorinated biphenyl
in aged-contaminated soils. Journal of Inclusion Phenomena and Macrocyclic Chemistry, 44,
417–421.
Fekete-Kertész, I., Molnár, M., Atkári, Á., Gruiz, K. & Fenyvesi, É. (2013) Hydrogen peroxide oxida-
tion for in situ remediation of trichloroethylene: From the laboratory to the field. Periodica Poly-
technica: Chemical Engineering, 57, 41–51.
Fenyvesi, E., Balogh, K., Olah, E., Batai, B., Varga, E., Molnár, M. & Gruiz, K. (2011) Cyclodextrins
for remediation of soils contaminated with chlorinated organics. Journal of Inclusion Phenomena
and Macrocyclic Chemistry, 70, 297–297.
Fenyvesi, E., Gruiz, K., Verstichel, S., De Wilde, B., Leitgib, L., Csabai, K. & Szaniszló, N. (2005)
Fenyvesi, E., Molnár, M., Leitgib, L. & Gruiz, K. (2009) Cyclodextrin-enhanced soil-remediation
technologies. Land Contamination & Reclamation, 17, 585–598.
Flaherty, R.J., Nshime, B., DeLaMarre, M., DeJong, S., Scott, P. & Lantz, A.W. (2013) Cyclodextrins
as complexation and extraction agents for pesticides from contaminated soil. Chemosphere, 91,
912–920.
Foged, S., Duerinckx, L. & Vandekeybus, J. (2018) An Innovative and Sustainable Solution for
Sediment Disposal Problems. Western Dredging Association. Available from: https://western
dredging.org/index.php/woda-conference-presentations/category/73-session-9a-sediment-dewatering-
treatment-and-disposal. [Accessed 15th March 2018].
FRTR (2018a) Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide. Federal Remediation
Technology Roundtable. Available from: nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=2000KG7K.
TXT. [Accessed 14th May 2018].
FRTR (2018b) In-Well Air Stripping. Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable. Available from:
https://frtr.gov/matrix2/section4/4-40.html. [Accessed 4th February 2018].
Fryxell, G.E., Mattigold, S.V., Lin, Y., Wu, H., Fiskum, S., Parker, K., Zheng, F., Yantasee, W., Zema-
nian, T.S., Addleman, R.S., Liu, J., Kemner, K., Kelly, S. & Feng, X. (2007) Design and synthesis of
self-assembled monolayers on mesoporous supports (SAMMS): The importance of ligand posture in
functional nanomaterials. Journal of Materials Chemistry, 17, 2863–2874. doi:10.1039/B702422C.
Gałuszka, A., Migaszewski, Z.M. & Manecki, P. (2011) Pesticide burial grounds in Poland: A review.
Environment International, 37, 1265–1272.
Gan, X., Teng, Y., Ren, W., Ma, J., Christie, P. & Luo, Y. (2017) Optimization of ex-situ washing
removal of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from a contaminated soil using nano-sulfonated gra-
phene. Pedosphere, 27(3), 527–536.
Gao, H., Gao, X., Cao, Y., Xu, L. & Jia, L. (2015) Influence of hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin on the
extraction and biodegradation of p,p′-DDT, o,p′-DDT, p,p′-DDD, and p,p′-DDE in soils. Water,
Air, & Soil Pollution, 226, 208–213.
Gao, H., Miles, M.S., Meyer, B.M., Wong, R.L. & Overton, E.B. (2012) Assessment of cyclodextrin-
enhanced extraction of crude oil from contaminated porous media. Journal of Environmental Moni-
toring, 14, 2164–2169.
Gao, Y.F., Yang, H., Zhan, X.H. & Zhou, L.X. (2013) Scavenging of BHCs and DDTs from soil by ther-
mal desorption and solvent washing. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 20, 1482–1492.
García-Delgado, C., Alfaro-Barta, I. & Eymar, E. (2015): Combination of biochar amendment and
mycoremediation for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons immobilization and biodegradation in cre-
osote – Contaminated soil. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 285, 259–266.
García-Jaramillo, M., Cox, L., Cornejo, J. & Hermosín, M.C. (2014) Effect of soil organic amend-
ments on the behavior of bentazone and tricyclazole. Science of the Total Environment, 466–467,
906–913.
García-Jaramillo, M., Cox, L., Hermosín, M.C., Cerli, C. & Kalbitz, K. (2016) Influence of green
waste compost on azimsulfuron dissipation and soil functions under oxic and anoxic conditions.
Science of the Total Environment, 550, 760–767.
Gauglitz, P.A., Roberts, J.S., Bergsman, T.M., Caley, S.M., Heath, W.O., Miller, M.C., Moss, R.W.,
Schalla, R., Jarosch, T.R., Dilek, E.C.A & Looney, B.B. (1994) Six-Phase Soil Heating accelerates
VOC extraction from clay soil. Proceedings of Spectrum’94, August 1994, Atlanta, GA, Georgia.
Geo-Solutions (2018a) In situ Stabilization: Soil Mixing for Environmental Remediation and Geotech-
nical Application. Available from: www.geo-solutions.com/soil-insitu-soil-stabilization-solidifica-
tion. [Accessed 20th January 2018].
Geo-Solutions (2018b) Backhoe Operated Soil Stabilization. Available from: www.youtube.com/
watch?v=UOgau92qfS4. [Accessed 20th January 2018].
Geo-Solutions (2018c) Native Grass Sod. Available from: www.geosolutionsinc.com/products/erosion-
control-native-grass-sod.html. [Accessed 20th January 2018].
Gomes, H.I., Dias-Ferreira, C. & Ribeiro, A.B. (2012) Electrokinetic remediation of organochlorines
in soil: Enhancement techniques and integration with other remediation technologies. Chemo-
sphere, 87, 1077–1090.
Gomez, J., Alcantara, M.T., Pazos, M. & Sanroman, M.A. (2010) Soil washing using cyclodextrins
and their recovery by application of electrochemical technology. Chemical Engineering Journal
(Amsterdam, Netherlands), 159, 53–57.
Götz, R., Sokollek, V. & Weber, R. (2013) The dioxin/POPs legacy of pesticide production in Ham-
burg: Part 2, Waste deposits and remediation of Georgswerder landfill. Environmental Science and
Pollution Research, 20, 1925–1936.
Gozzi, F., Machulek Jr, A., Ferreira, V.S., Osugi, M.E., Santos, A.P.F., Nogueira, J.A., Dantas, R.F.,
Esplugas, S. & de Oliveira, S.C. (2012) Investigation of chlorimuron-ethyl degradation by Fenton,
photo-Fenton and ozonation processes. Chemical Engineering Journal, 210, 444–450.
Gruiz, K. (2000) When the chemical time bomb explodes? – Chronic risk of toxic metals at a former
mining site. Proceedings of ConSoil 2000, Leipzig, Germany. pp. 662–670.
Gruiz, K. (2009) Contaminated site remediation: Role and classification. Land Contamination & Rec-
lamation, 17, 533–542.
Gruiz, K. (2016) Quantifying the risk of contaminated sites. Section 7 (Integrated and efficient char-
acterization of contaminated sites. Chapter 1). In: Gruiz, K., Meggyes, T. & Fenyvesi, E. (eds.)
Engineering Tools for Environmental Risk Management. Volume 3. Site Assessment and Monitoring
Tools. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA. pp. 74–90.
Gruiz, K. & Molnár, M. (2015) Aquatic toxicology. Chapter 4. In: Gruiz, K., Meggyes, T. & Fenyvesi,
E. (eds.) Engineering Tools for Environmental Risk Management. Volume 2. Environmental Toxi-
cology. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA. pp. 171–228.
Gruiz, K., Molnár, M., Feigl, V., Hajdu, C., Nagy, Z.M., Klebercz, O., Fekete-Kertész, I., Ujaczki, É. &
Tolner, M. (2015) Terrestrial toxicology. Chapter 5. In: Gruiz, K., Meggyes, T. & Fenyvesi, E.
(eds.) Engineering Tools for Environmental Risk Management. Volume 2. Environmental Toxicol-
ogy. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA. pp. 229–310.
Gruiz, K., Molnár, M. & Fenyvesi, E. (2008) Evaluation and verification of soil remediation. Kurladze,
V.G. (ed) Environmental Microbiology Research Trends. Nova Science Publishers, Inc., New York,
NY, USA. pp. 1–57.
Gruiz, K., Molnár, M., Fenyvesi, É., Hajdu, C., Atkári, Á. & Barkács, K. (2011) Cyclodextrins in
innovative engineering tools for risk-based environmental management. Journal of Inclusion Phe-
nomena and Macrocyclic Chemistry, 70, 299–306.
Gruiz, K., Vaszita, E. & Clement, O. (2014) Site-specific risk management of point and diffuse sources.
In: Gruiz, K., Meggyes, T. & Fenyvesi, E. (eds.) Engineering Tools for Environmental Risk Man-
agement. Volume 1. Environmental Deterioration and Contamination – Problems and Their Man-
agement. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA.
Guo, H., Zhang, J., Liu, Z., Yang, S. & Sun, C. (2010) Effect of Tween80 and β-cyclodextrin on the
distribution of herbicide mefenacet in soil – Water system. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 177,
1039–1045.
Hall, A.K., Harrowfield, J.M., Hart, R.J. & McCormick, P.G. (1996) Mechanochemical reaction of
DDT with calcium oxide. Environmental Science & Technology, 30(12), 3401–3407.
Hamer, K. & Karius, V. (2002) Brick production with dredged harbour sediments. An industrial-scale
experiment. Waste Management, 22, 521–530.
Han, Y., Shi, N., Wang, H., Pan, X., Fang, H. & Yu, Y. (2016) Nanoscale zerovalent iron-mediated
degradation of DDT in soil. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 23, 6253–6263.
Hanna, K., Chiron, S. & Oturan, M.A. (2005) Coupling enhanced water solubilization with cyclodex-
trin to indirect electrochemical treatment for pentachlorophenol contaminated soil remediation.
Water Research, 39, 2763–2773.
Hanna, K., de Brauer, Ch., Germain, P., Chovelon, J.M. & Ferronato, C. (2004) Degradation of penta-
chlorophenol in cyclodextrin extraction effluent using a photocatalytic process. Science of the Total
Harrington, G. & Smith, J. (2013) Guidance on the Beneficial Use of Dredge Material in Ireland.
Available from: www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/research/sss/Beneficial%20Use%20of%20Dredging%20
Material.pdf. [Accessed 16th July 2018].
Haselow, J.S., Siegrist, R.L., Crimi, M. & Jarosch, T. (2003) Estimating the total oxidant demand for
In situ chemical oxidation design. Remediation Journal, 13, 5–16.
Higarashi, M.M. & Jardim, W.F. (2002) Remediation of pesticide contaminated soil using TiO2 medi-
ated by solar light. Catalysis Today, 76, 201–207.
Hill, K. & Haber, R.A. (2012) Use of Mid-Delaware river dredged sediment as a raw material in
ceramic processing. In: Sundaram, ‎S.K., Spearing, D.R. &‎ Vienna, J.D. (eds.) Environmental Issues
and Waste Management Technologies in the Ceramic and Nuclear Industries VIII. John Wiley and
Sons, Hoboken, NJ, USA.
Hinrichs, R.M. (2004) Post Monitoring of a Cyclodextrin Remediated Chlorinated Solvent Con-
taminated Aquifer. Master’s Thesis, Luisana State University. Available from: http://digital
commons.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2452&context=gradschool_theses. [Accessed
16th July 2018].
Hirschberger, F. (1998) Remediation of a CHC Contamination in Viernheim, Germany. Available
from: http://aguas.igme.es/igme/publica/pdflib15/027.pdf. [Accessed 13th May 2018].
Hishimoto, K., Irie, H. & Fujishima, A. (2005) TiO2 photocatalysis: A historical overview and future
prospects. Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, 44, 8269–8285.
Hrapovic, L., Sleep, B.E., Major, D.J. & Hood, E.D. (2005) Laboratory study of treatment of trichloro-
ethene by chemical oxidation followed by bioremediation. Environmental Science & Technology,
39, 2888–2897.
Hu, C.J., Huang, D.L., Zeng, G.M., Cheng, M., Gong, X., Wang, R.Z., Xue, W.J., Hu, Z. & Liu, Y.
(2018) The combination of Fenton process and Phanerochaete chrysosporium for the removal of
bisphenol A in river sediments: Mechanism related to extracellular enzyme, organic acid and iron.
Chemical Engineering Journal, 338, 432–439.
Hu, J., Wang, Y., Su, X., Yu, C., Qin, Z., Wang, H., Hashmic, M.Z., Shi, J. & Shen, C. (2016) Effects
of RAMEB and/or mechanical mixing on the bioavailability and biodegradation of PCBs in soil/
slurry. Chemosphere, 155, 479–487.
Huang, D., Hu, C., Zeng, G., Cheng, M., Xu, P., Gong, X., Wang, R. & Xue, W. (2017) Combination
of Fenton processes and biotreatment for wastewater treatment and soil remediation. Science of the
Total Environment, 574, 1599–1610.
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. International Journal of
Electrochemical Science, 7, 4528–4544.
Hwang, I. & Batchelor, B. (2000) Reductive dechlorination of tetrachloroethylene by Fe(II) in cement
slurries. Environmental Science & Technology, 34, 5017–5022.
IEG Technologie (2018) Soil Air Circulation Systems. Available from: www.ieg-technology.com/en/
Soil-and-Groundwater-Remediation-Technologies/Vacuum-Vapour-Extraction/Soil-Air-Circulation-
Vacuum-Vapour-Extraction.html. [Accessed 16th January 2018].
Imhoff, P.T., Frizzell, A. & Miller, C.T. (1997) Evaluation of thermal effects on the dissolution of a
nonaqueous phase liquid in porous media. Environmental Science & Technology, 31(6), 1615–
1622. doi:10.1021/es960292x.
Ishiwata, S. & Kamiya, M. (1999) Effects of humic acids on the inclusion complexation of cyclodex-
trins with organophosphorus pesticides. Chemosphere, 38, 2219–2226.
Jasperse, B.H. (2018) In-situ Stabilization Using Shallow Soil Mixing and Deep Soil Mixing, Geo-con.
Available from: www.geocon.net/pdf/paper03.pdf. [Accessed 16th February 2018].
Jiradecha, C., Urgun-Demirtas, M. & Pagilla, K. (2006) Enhanced electrokinetic dissolution of naph-
thalene and 2,4-DNT from contaminated soils. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 136(1), 61–67.
Karagunduz, A. (2009) Electrokinetic transport of chlorinated organic pesticides. In: Reddy, K.R. &
Cameselle, C. (eds.) Electrochemical Remediation Technologies for Polluted Soils, Sediments and
Groundwater. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, USA. pp. 235–248.
Karagunduz, A., Gezer, A. & Karasuloglu, G. (2007) Surfactant enhanced electrokinetic remediation
of DDT from soils. Science of the Total Environment, 385, 1–11.
Kashiyama, N. & Boving, T.B. (2004) Hindered gas-phase partitioning of trichloroethylene from aque-
ous cyclodextrin systems: Implications for treatment and analysis. Environmental Science & Tech-
nology, 38, 4439–4444.
Kerfoottech (2018) C-SPARGER® “Genesis of Ozone Sparging”. Available from: www.kerfoottech.
com/environmental-technology-products-c-sparger.asp. [Accessed 16th February 2018].
Khorram, M.S., Zhang, Q., Lin, D., Zheng, Y., Fang, H. & Yu, Y. (2016) Biochar: A review of its
impact on pesticide behavior in soil environments and its potential applications. Journal of Envi-
ronmental Sciences, 44, 269–279.
Kim, H., Soh, H.E., Annable, M.D. & Kim, D.J. (2004) Surfactant-enhanced air sparging in saturated
sand. Environmental Science & Technolology, 38(4), 1170–1175.
Klens, J., Pohlmann, D., Scarborough, S. & Graves, D. (2001) The effects of permanganate oxidation
on subsurface microbial populations. In: Leeson, A., Kelley, M.E., Rifai, H.S. & Magar, V.S. (eds.)
Natural Attenuation of Environmental Contaminants 6(2). Andrea Battelle Press, Columbus, OH,
USA. pp. 253–259.
Ko, J.H., Musson, S. & Townsend, T. (2010) Destruction of trichloroethylene during hydration of
calcium oxide. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 174, 876–879.
Ko, S.-O., Schlautman, M.A. & Carraway, E. (2000) Cyclodextrin-enhanced electrokinetic removal of
phenanthrene from a model clay soil. Environmental Science & Technolology, 34(8), 1535–1541.
Ko, S.O. & Yoo, H.C. (2003) Enhanced desorption of phenanthrene from soils using hydroxypropyl-
beta-cyclodextrin: Experimental results and model predictions. Journal of Environmental Science
and Health Part B Pesticides, Food Contaminants, and Agricultural Wastes, B38, 829–841.
Koehlert, K. (2018) Activated carbon: Fundamentals and new applications. Chemical Engineering,
(7), 32–40. Available from: www.chemengonline.com/activated-carbon-fundamentals-new-
applications. [Accessed 16th March 2018].
Koltowski, M., Hilber, I., Bucheli, T.D. & Oleszczuk, P. (2016): Effect of steam activated biochar
application to industrially contaminated soils on bioavailability of polycyclic aromatic hydrocar-
bons and ecotoxicity of soils. Science of the Total Environment, 556–567, 1023–1031.
Kukacka, J., Vána, J. & Urban, O. (2010) Investigation and remediation of oil lagoons – Selected
technological approaches. In: Sarby, R. & Meggyes, T. (eds.) Construction for a Sustainable Envi-
ronment. CRC Press Francis & Taylor Group, London, UK. pp. 251–259.
Kupryianchyk, D., Hale, S., Zimmerman, A.R., Harvey, O., Rutherford, D., Abiven, S., Knicker,
H., Schmidt, H.P., Rumpel, C. & Cornelissen, G. (2016) Sorption of hydrophobic organic com-
pounds to a diverse suite of carbonaceous materials with emphasis on biochar. Chemosphere,
144, 879–887.
Laha, S., Tansel, B. & Ussawarujikulchai, A. (2009) Surfactant-soil interactions during surfactant-
amended remediation of contaminated soils by hydrophobic organic compounds: A review. Journal
of Environmental Management, 90, 95–100.
Lau, E.V., Gan, S., Ng, H.K. & Poh, P.E. (2014) Extraction agents for the removal of Polycyclic Aro-
matic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) from soil in soil washing technologies. Environmental Pollution, 184,
640–649.
Lee, K.M., Lai, C.W., Ngai, K.S. & Juan, J.C. (2016) Recent developments of zinc oxide based photo-
catalyst in water treatment technology: A review. Water Research, 88, 428–448.
Lehr, J.H. (2004) Wiley’s Remediation Technologies Handbook: Major Contaminant Chemicals and
Chemical Groups. Wiley Interscience, Hoboken, NJ, USA.
Leitgib, L., Gruiz, K., Fenyvesi, E., Balogh, G. & Murányi, A. (2007) Development of an innovative
soil remediation: ‘Cyclodextrin-enhanced combined technology’. Science of Total Environment,
392, 12–21.
Li, X., Du, Y., Wu, G., Li, Z., Li, H. & Sui, H. (2012) Solvent extraction for heavy crude oil removal
from contaminated soils. Chemosphere, 88(2), 245–249. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2012.03.021.
Li, X.H., Wang, W., Wang, J., Cao, X.L., Wang, X.F., Liu, J.C., Liu, X.F., Xu, X.B. & Jiang, X.N.
(2008) Contamination of soils with organochlorine pesticides in urban parks in Beijing, China.
Liang, C.J., Huang, C.F., Mohanty, N., Lu, C.J. & Kurakalva, R.M. (2007) Hydroxypropyl-beta-
cyclodextrin-mediated iron-activated persulfate oxidation of trichloroethylene and tetrachloro
ethylene. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 46, 6466–6479.
Liang, C.J. & Lee, I.L. (2008) In situ iron activated persulfate oxidative fluid sparging treatment of
TCE contamination – A proof of concept study. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 100, 91–100.
Lindsey, M.E., Xu, G., Lu, J. & Tarr, M.A. (2003) Enhanced Fenton degradation of hydrophobic
organics by simultaneous iron and pollutant complexation with cyclodextrins. Science of the Total
Liu, C.S., Shih, K., Sun, C.X. & Wang, F. (2012) Oxidative degradation of propachlor by ferrous and
copper ion activated persulfate. Science of the Total Environment, 416, 507–512.
Liu, Z., Jiao, S. & Guo, Y. (2011) The research of marine dredged sediment ceramic’s application in pave-
ment – The performance experiment of a low-carbon road construction material. International Confer-
ence on Electrical and Control Engineering (ICECE). doi:10.1109/ICECENG.2011.6058155. Available
from: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6058155/?reload=true. [Accessed 15th March 2018].
Loden, M.E. (1992) A Technology Assessment of Soil Vapor Extraction and Air Sparging. US
EPA/600/R-92/173, US EPA Office of Research and Development. Available from: https://nepis.
epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/30003W66.PDF?Dockey=30003W66.PDF. [Accessed 16th May 2017].
Lofrano, G., Libralato, G. & Brown, J. (2017) Nanotechnologies for Environmental Remediation:
Applications and Implications. Springer, New York, NY, USA.
Lominchar, M.A., Santos, A., de Miguel, E. & Romero, A. (2018) Remediation of aged diesel con-
taminated soil by alkaline activated persulfate. Science of the Total Environment, 622–623, 41–48.
doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.11.263.
Long, R.Q. & Yang, R.T. (2001) Carbon nanotubes as superior sorbent for dioxin removal. Journal of
the American Chemical Society, 123(9), 2058–2059.
López-Piñeiro, A., Peña, D., Albarrán, A., Sánchez-Llerena, J. & Becerra, D. (2013) Behavior of
MCPA in four intensive cropping soils amended with fresh, composted, and aged olive mill waste.
Makusa, G.P. (2012) Soil Stabilization Methods and Materials. State of the Art Review. Luleå Univer-
sity of Technology, Luleå, Sweden.
Manickam, N., Bajaj, A., Saini, H.S. & Shanker, R. (2012) Surfactant mediated enhanced biodegrada-
tion of hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) isomers by Sphingomonas sp. NM05. Biodegradation, 23,
673–682.
Mao, Y., Sun, M., Yang, X., Wei, H., Song, Y. & Xin, J. (2013) Remediation of Organochlorine Pesticides
(OCPs) contaminated soil by successive hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin and peanut oil enhanced soil
washing-nutrient addition: A laboratory evaluation. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 13, 403–412.
Marin-Benito, J.M., Brown, C.D., Herrero-Hernández, E., Arienzo, M., Sánchez-Martín, M.J. &
Rodríguez-Cruz, M.S. (2013) Use of raw or incubated organic wastes as amendments in reducing
pesticide leaching through soil columns. Science of the Total Environment, 463–464, 589–599.
Marín-Benito, J.M., Sanchez-Martinez, M.J., Andrade, M.S., Perez-Clavijo, M. & Rodriguez-Cruz,
M.S. (2009) Effect of spent mushroom substrate amendment of vineyard soils on the behavior of
fungicides. 1. Adsorption – Desorption of penconazole and metalaxyl by soils and subsoils. Journal
of Agriculture and Food Chemistry, 57, 9634–9642.
Marion, G.M., Payne, J.R. & Brar, G.S. (1997) Site Remediation via Dispersion by Chemical Reaction
(DCR). CRRL Special Report 97–18. Available from: http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/websites/
armymil/www.crrel.usace.army.mil/techpub/CRREL_Reports/reports/sr97_18.pdf. [Accessed 13th June
2018].
Martin, S.M., Kookana, R.S., Van Zwieten, L. & Krull, E. (2012) Marked changes in herbicide sorption –
Desorption upon ageing of biochars in soil. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 231–232, 70–78.
Matta, R., Hanna, K., Kone, T. & Chiron, S. (2008) Oxidation of 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene in the presence
of different iron-bearing minerals at neutral pH. Chemical Engineering Journal (Amsterdam, Neth-
erlands), 144, 453–458.
McCray, J.E. & Brusseau, M.L. (1998) Enhanced in situ flushing of multiple-component immiscible
organic liquid contamination at the field scale using cyclodextrin: Mass removal effectiveness.
Environmental Science & Technology, 32, 1285–1293.
McCray, J.E. & Brusseau, M.L. (1999) Cyclodextrin-enhanced in situ flushing of multiple-component
immiscible organic liquid contamination at the field scale: Analysis of dissolution behavior. Envi-
McGrath, A., Oberle, D., Schroder, D., McInne, J. & Maxwell, C. (2007) Bench scale evaluation of
ex-situ and in-situ Cr(VI) remedial methods. In: Guertin, J., Jacobs, J.A. & Avakian, C.P. (eds.)
Chromium(VI). Handbook Written by Independent Environmental Technical Evaluation Group
(IETEG). CRC PRESS, Boca Raton, FL, USA, London, UK, New York, NY, USA & Washing-
ton, DC, USA. pp. 333–346. Available from: www.engr.uconn.edu/~baholmen/docs/ENVE290W/
National%20Chromium%20Files%20From%20Luke/Cr(VI)%20Handbook/L1608_C09.pdf.
[Accessed 9th June 2018].
Medina, R., Gara, P.M.D., Fernandez-Gonzalez, A.J., Rosso, J.A. & Del Panno, M.T. (2018) Reme-
diation of soil chronically contaminated with hydrocarbon through persulfate oxidation and biore-
mediation. Science of the Total Environment, 618, 518–530. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.326.
Miller, J. & Foran, C. (2012) Development of cleanup technologies for the management of US military
installations. In: Rose, E.P.F. & Mather, J.D. (eds.) Military Aspects of Hydrogeology. Geolological
Society of London, London, UK.
Mishra, M. & Chun, D.M. (2015) α-Fe2O3 as a photocatalytic material: A review. Applied Catalysis A:
General, 498, 126–141.
MOKKA Project (2004–2008) Innovative Decision Support Tools for Risk-based Environmental Man-
agement. Available from: http://enfo.hu/mokka/index.php?lang=eng&body=mokka. [Accessed
24th July 2018].
Molnár, M., Leitgib, L., Fenyvesi, E. & Gruiz, K. (2009) Development of cyclodextrin-enhanced
soil remediation: From the laboratory to the field. Land Contamination & Reclamation, 17(3–4),
599–610.
Molnár, M., Leitgib, L., Gruiz, K., Fenyvesi, E., Szaniszló, N., Szejtli, J. & Fava, F. (2005) Enhanced
Monagheddu, M., Mulas, G., Doppiu, S., Cocco, G. & Raccanelli, S. (1999) Reduction of polychlori-
nated dibenzodioxins and dibenzofurans in contaminated muds by mechanically induced combus-
tion reactions. Environmental Science & Technology, 33, 2485–2488.
Mulas, G., Loiselle, S., Schiffini, L. & Cocco, G. (1997) The mechanochemical self-propagating reac-
tions between hexachlorobenzene and calcium hydride. Journal of Solid State Chemistry, 129,
263–270.
Mulligan, C.N. (2009) Recent advances in the environmental applications of biosurfactants. Journal of
Colloid and Interface Science, 14, 372–378.
Mulligan, C.N., Yong, R.N. & Gibbs, B.F. (2001) Surfactant enhanced remediation of contaminated
soil – A review. Engineering Geology, 60, 371–380.
Murati, M., Oturan, N., van Hullebusch, E.D. & Oturan, M.A. (2009) Electro-Fenton treatment of TNT
in aqueous media in presence of cyclodextrin. Application to ex-situ treatment of contaminated soil.
Journal of Advanced Oxidation Technologies, 12(1), 29–36.
Nidheesh, P.V. & Gandhimathi, R. (2012) Trends in electro-Fenton process for water and wastewater
treatment: An overview. Desalination, 299, 1–15.
Nkongolo, K.K., Michael, P., Theriault, G., Narendrula, R., Castilloux, P., Kalubi, K.N., Beckett, P. &
Spiers, G. (2016) Assessing biological impacts of land reclamation in a mining region in Canada:
Effects of dolomitic lime applications on forest ecosystems and microbial phospholipid fatty acid
signatures. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution, 227, 104. doi:10.1007/s11270-016-2803-5.
Noordman, W.H., Ji, W., Brusseau, M.L. & Janssen, D.B. (1998) Effects of rhamnolipid biosurfactants
on removal of phenanthrene from soil. Environmental Science & Technolology, 32(12), 1806–1812.
Odukkathil, G. & Vasudevan, N. (2015) Biodegradation of endosulfan isomers and its metabolite
endosulfate by two biosurfactant producing bacterial strains of Bordetella petrii. Journal of Envi-
ronmental Science and Health, Part B. Pesticides, Food Contaminants, and Agricultural. Wastes,
50, 81–89.
Oonnittan, A., Shrestha, R.A. & Sillanpaa, M. (2009) Removal of hexachlorobenzene from soil by
electrokinetically enhanced chemical oxidation. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 162, 989–993.
Orgoványi, J., Oláh, E., H-Otta, K. & Fenyvesi, É. (2009) Dissolution properties of cypermethrin/
cyclodextrin complexes. Journal of Inclusion Phenomena and Macrocyclic Chemistry, 63, 53–59.
Paria, S. & Yuet, P.K. (2006) Solidification/stabilization of organic and inorganic contaminants using
portland cement: A literature review. Environmental Reviews, 14, 217–255.
Pavel, L.V. & Gavrilescu, M. (2008) Overview of ex situ decontamination techniques for soil cleanup.
Journal of Environmental Engineering, 7, 815–834.
Pernyeszi, T., Kasteel, R., Witthuhn, B., Klahre, P., Vereecken, H. & Klumpp, E. (2006) Organoclays
for soil remediation: Adsorption of 2,4-dichlorophenol on organoclay/aquifer material mixtures
studied under static and flow conditions. Applied Clay Science, 32, 179–189.
Peroxone (2018) Available from: www.cpeo.org/techtree/ttdescript/peroxz.htm and www.frtr.gov/
matrix2/section4/4_4.html. [Accessed 14th February 2018].
Petitgirard, A., Djehiche, M., Persello, J., Fievet, P. & Fatin-Rouge, N. (2009) PAH contaminated soil
remediation by reusing an aqueous solution of cyclodextrins. Chemosphere, 75, 714–718.
PIANC (2009) Dredged Material as a Resource: Option and Constraints. Report No. 104–2009 Avail-
able from: www.cedaconferences.org/documents/dredgingconference/html_page/9/4-1-murray.
pdf. [Accessed 29th January 20188].
Pizzigallo, M.D., Napola, A., Spagnuolo, M. & Ruggiero, P. (2004) Mechanochemical removal of
organo-chlorinated compounds by inorganic components of soil. Chemosphere, 55(11), 1485–1492.
Polcaro, A.M., Vacca, A., Mascia, M. & Palmas, S. (2007) Electrokinetic removal of 2,6-dichlorophe-
nol and diuron from kaolinite and humic acid – Clay system. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 148,
505–512.
Porbaha, A., Weatherby, D., Macnab, A., Lambrechts, J., Burke, G., Yang, D. & Puppala, A.J. (2005)
Report: American practice of deep mixing technology. Proceeding of the International Conference
on Deep Mixing-Best Practice and Recent Advances, Stockholm.
POSW II (1997) Final Report Development Programme for Treatment Processes for Contaminated
Sediments (1992–1996). RIZA Report nr 97.051, ISBN 90.369 5097 X, PO Box 17, 8200 AA
Lelystad, The Netherlands Rogaar H. Available from: www.helpdeskwater.nl/secundaire-navigatie/
english/sediment/@176390/treatment-for/ [Accessed 9th March 2018].
Presto (2018) Geocells Cellular Confinement System. Available from: www.prs-med.com/category/
geocells/ [Accessed 6th March 2018].
Profiles (2018a) Terra-Tubes® Fiber Filtration Tubes. Available from: http://profilelibrary.info/Files/
A013-025334_Terra-Tubes%20Broch.pdf. [Accessed 6th March 2018].
Profiles (2018b) ProMatrix™ Engineered Fiber Matrix. (EFM). Available from: www.profileevs.com/
products/hydraulic-erosion-control/advanced-fiber-matrices/promatrix-efm. [Accessed 6th March
2018].
Propex (2018a) Available from: http://propexglobal.com/GeoSolutions/Product-Tour/PYRAMAT.
Propex (2018b) ARMORMAX® for Erosion Control & Slope Stabilization. Available from: http://propex
global.com/Geo-Solutions/Product-Tour/ArmorMax. [Accessed 6th March 2018].
Qin, C.Y., Zhao, Y.S., Su, Y. & Zheng, W. (2013) Remediation of nonaqueous phase liquid pol-
luted sites using surfactant-enhanced air sparging and soil vapor extraction. Water Environment
Research, 85(2), 133–140.
Raito (2018) Shallow Soil Mixing. SCM Method. Rotary Blender & Bucket Mixing. Available from:
www.raito.co.jp/english/construction/pdf/scm.pdf. [Accessed 24th February 2018].
Regenesis (2018) RegenOx® in-situ Chemical Oxidation (ISCO) and Oxygen Release Compound
(ORC®). Available from: www.regenesis.com. [Accessed 14th February 2018].
Reible, D.D. (2005) Organoclay Laboratory Study. Oregon, McCormick and Baxter Creosoting Com-
pany Portland. Available from: www.clu-in.org/download/contaminantfocus/sediments/Organoclay
LabStudy.pdf. [Accessed 14th May 2017].
RfC (2018) Indoor Air Reference Levels. Available from:www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/
publications/healthy-living/indoor-air-reference-levels.html. Measured workplace air was in the
lower range. [Accessed 8th May 2018].
Ribeiro, A.B., Mateus, E.P. & Rodríguez-Maroto, J.M. (2011) Removal of organic contaminants from
soils by an electrokinetic process: The case of molinate and bentazone. Experimental and modeling.
Separation and Purification Technology, 79, 193–203.
Ringeling, R.H.P. (1998) Handling of Contaminated Dredged Material. Delft University Press, Delft,
The Netherlands.
Risco, C., Rodrigo, S., López-Vizcaíno, R., Sáez, C., Cañizares, P., Navarro, V. & Rodrigo, M.A. (2016)
Electrokinetic flushing with surrounding electrode arrangements for the remediation of soils that are
polluted with 2,4-D: A case study in a pilot plant. Science of the Total Environment, 545, 256–265.
Rodrigo, M.A., Oturan, N. & Oturan, M.A. (2014) Electrochemically assisted remediation of pesti-
cides in soils and water: A review. Chemical Reviews, 114, 8720−8745.
Rodriguez, G.R. & Brebbia, C.A. (2015) Coastal Cities and Their Sustainable Future. WitPress, New
Forest National Park, UK.
Rosas, J.M., Vicente, F., Saguillo, E.G., Santos, A. & Romero, A. (2014) Remediation of soil polluted
with herbicides by Fenton-like reaction: Kinetic model of diuron degradation. Applied Catalysis B:
Environmental, 144, 252–260.
Rubio-Bellido, M., Madrid, F., Morillo, E. & Villaverde, J. (2015) Assisted attenuation of a soil con-
taminated by diuron using hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin and organic amendments. Science of the
Total Environment, 502, 699–705.
Rubio-Bellido, M., Morillo, E. & Villaverde, J. (2016) Effect of addition of HPBCD on diuron
adsorption – Desorption, transport and mineralization in soils with different properties. Geoderma,
265, 196–203. doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2015.11.022.
Ruppert, G., Bauer, R. & Heisler, G. (1993) The photo-Fenton reaction – An effective photochemi-
cal wastewater treatment process. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology A: Chemistry, 73,
75–78.
Russel, H.H., Matthews, J.E. & Sewell, G.W. (1992) TCE Removal From Contaminated Soil and
Ground Water. EPA Ground Water Issue EPA/540/S-92/002. Available from: www.epa.gov/sites/
production/files/2015-06/documents/tce.pdf. [Accessed 16th May 2018].
Sánchez-Trujillo, M.A., Morillo, E., Villaverde, J. & Lacorte, S. (2013) Comparative effects of several
cyclodextrins on the extraction of PAHs from an aged contaminated soil. Environmental Pollution,
178, 52–58.
Satapanajaru, T., Chokejaroenrat, C., Sakulthaew, C. & Yoo-iam, M. (2017) Remediation and res-
toration of petroleum hydrocarbon containing alcohol-contaminated soil by persulfate oxidation
activated with soil minerals. Water Air Soil Pollution, 228, 345. doi:10.1007/s11270-017-3527-x.
Satapanajaru, T., Shea, P.J., Comfort, S.D. & Roh, Y. (2003) Green rust and iron oxide formation
influences metolachlor dechlorination during zerovalent iron treatment. Environmental Science &
Technology, 37, 5219–5227.
Schifano, V. & Thurston, N. (2007) Remediation of a clay contaminated with petroleum hydrocar-
bons using soil reagent mixing. 22nd Annual International Conference on Contaminated Soils,
Sediments and Water, Association for Environmental Health and Sciences. pp. 264–277. Available
from: http://scholarworks.umass.edu/soilsproceedings/vol12/iss1/27/ [Accessed 16th May 2017].
Schnarr, M., Truax, C., Farquhar, G., Hood, E., Gonullu, T. & Stickney, B. (1998) Laboratory and
controlled field experiments using potassium permanganate to remediate trichloroethylene and per-
chloroethylene DNAPLs in porous media. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 29, 205–224.
Schneider, J., Matsuoka, M., Takeuchi, M., Zhang, J., Horiuchi, Y., Anpo, M. & Bahnemann, D.W.
(2014) Understanding TiO2 photocatalysis: Mechanisms and materials. Chemical Reviews,
114(19), 9919–9986.
SET (2018) Solvated Electron Treatment. Available from: www.cpeo.org/techtree/ttdescript/solvelectr.
htm. [Accessed 16th February 2018].
Shah, F.H., Hadim, H.A. & Korfiatis, G.P. (1995) Laboratory studies of air stripping of VOC-contaminated
soils. Journal of Soil Contamination, 4, 1–17.
Sharma, T., Toor, A.P. & Rajor, A. (2015) Photocatalytic degradation of imidacloprid in soil: Appli-
cation of response surface methodology for the optimization of parameters. RSC Advances, 5,
25059–25065.
Shea, P.J., Machacek, T.A. & Comfort, S.D. (2004) Accelerated remediation of pesticide-contaminated
soil with zerovalent iron. Environmental Pollution, 132, 183–188.
Shirin, S., Buncel, E. & vanLoon, G.W. (2004) Effect of cyclodextrins on iron-mediated dechlori-
nation of trichloroethylene – A proposed new mechanism. Canadian Journal of Chemistry, 82,
1674–1685.
Siegrist, R.L., Urynowitz, M.A., West, O.R., Crimi, M.L. & Lowe, K.S. (2001) Principles and Prac-
tices of in Situ Chemical Oxidation Using Permanganate. Battelle Press, Columbus, OH, USA.
Silva, A., Delerue-Matos, C. & Fiuza, A. (2005) Use of solvent extraction to remediate soils contami-
nated with hydrocarbons. Journal of Hazardous Materials, B124, 224–229.
SITE (1993) Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program (SITE). Technology Profiles. US
EPA. pp. 123–124.
Skold, M.E., Thyne, G.D., Drexler, J.W. & McCray, J.E. (2009) Solubility enhancement of seven metal
contaminants using carboxymethyl-beta-cyclodextrin (CMCD). Journal of Contaminant Hydrol-
ogy, 107, 108–113.
Sly, P.G. & Hart, B. (eds.) (1987) Sediment/Water Interactions: Proceedings of the Fourth Interna-
tional Symposium. Melbourne, Australia, February 16–20th, 1987. Springer, New York, NY, USA.
Available from: www.springer.com/la/book/9780792302599. [Accessed 15th March 2018].
Sniegowski, K., Vanhecke, M., D’Huys, P.-J. & Braeken, L. (2014) Potential of activated carbon to
recover randomly-methylated-β-cyclodextrin solution from washing water originating from in situ
soil flushing. Science of the Total Environment, 485–486, 764–768.
Sopeña, F., Semple, K., Sohi, S. & Bending, G. (2012) Assessing the chemical and biological acces-
sibility of the herbicide isoproturon in soil amended with biochar. Chemosphere, 88, 77–83.
Sora, I.N., Pelosato, R., Botta, D. & Dotelli, G. (2002) Chemistry and microstructure of cement pastes
admixed with organic liquids. Journal of the European Ceramic Society, 22(9–10), 1463–1473.
Souza, D.R.D., Trovó, A.G., Filho, N.R.A., Silva, M.A.A. & Machado, A.E.H. (2013) Degradation
of the commercial herbicide glyphosate by photo-fenton process: Evaluation of kinetic parameters
and toxicity. Journal of the Brazilian Chemical Society, 24, 1451–1460.
Souza, F.L., Saéz, C., Llanos, J., Lanza, M.R.V., Cañizares, P. & Rodrigo, M.A. (2016) Solar-powered
electrokinetic remediation for the treatment of soil polluted with the herbicide 2,4-D. Electrochi-
mica Acta, 190, 371–377.
Stigliani, W.M. (ed) (1991) Chemical Time Bombs: Definition, Concepts, and Examples. Laxenburg,
Austria, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. Available from: http://pure.iiasa.
ac.at/3510/1/ER-91-016.pdf. [Accessed 7th May 2017].
Sutton, N.B., Grotenhuis, T.C., Langenhoff, A.A.M. & Rijnaarts, H.H.M. (2011) Efforts to improve
coupled in situ chemical oxidation with bioremediation: A review of optimization strategies. Jour-
nal of Soils and Sediments, 11, 129–140.
Syakir, M.I., Nurin, N.A., Zafirah, N., Kassim, M.A. & Khalil, H.P.S.A. (2016) Nanoclay reinforced on
biodegradable polymer composites: Potential as a soil stabilizer. In: Jawaid, M., Qaiss, A.K. & Bouh-
fid, R. (eds.) Nanoclay Reinforced Polymer Composites: Nanocomposites and Bionanocomposite,
Engineering Materials. Springer, Berlin, Germany. pp. 329–356. doi:101007/978-981-10-1953-1.
Szecsody, J.E., Fruchter, J.S., Williams, M.D., Vermuel, V.R. & Sklarew, D. (2004) In situ chemical
reduction of aquifer sediment: Enhancement of reactive iron phases and TCE dechlorination. Envi-
Tangprasert, W., Jaikaew, S. & Supakata, N. (2015) Utilization of dredged sediments from Lumsai Canal
with rice husks to produce bricks. International Journal of Environmental Science and Development,
6(3), 217–220. Available from: www.ijesd.org/vol6/593-M0028.pdf. [Accessed 15th March 2018].
TEVES (2018) Thermal Enhanced Vapor Extraction System. Available from: www.cpeo.org/techtree/
ttdescript/thevapor.htm. [Accessed 25th February 2018].
Theron, J., Walker, J.A. & Cloete, T.E. (2008) Nanotechnology and water treatment: Applica-
tions and emerging opportunities. Critical Reviews in Microbiology, 34(1), 43–69. doi:10.1080/
10408410701710442.
Tick, G.R., Lourenso, F., Wood, A.L. & Brusseau, M.L. (2003) Pilot-scale demonstration of cyclodex-
trin as a solubility-enhancement agent for remediation of a tetrachloroethene-contaminated aquifer.
Environmental Science & Technology, 37, 5829–5834.
Torres, L.G., Ramos, F., Avila, M.A. & Ortiz, I. (2012) Removal of methyl parathion by surfactant-
assisted soil washing and subsequent wastewater biological treatment. Journal of Pest Science, 37,
240–246.
TOXNET (2018) Toxiclology Data on Trichloroethylene. Available from: https://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/
cgi-bin/sis/search/a?dbs+hsdb:@term+@DOCNO+133. [Accessed 8th July 2018].
Tribochem (2018) Mechanochemistry Comprising Mechanochemical Reductive Dehalogenation/
Destruction of PCBs, DDT, HCH, TCE, Dioxins Using Ball Mills (Vibratory Mills, Vibrating Mills).
Available from: www.tribochem.com/projects/index.html. [Accessed 16th February 2018].
USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) (2003) Safety and Health Aspects of HTRW Remediation
Technologies. EM 1110-1-4007, 4-1-4-12. Available from: www.publications.usace.army.mil/
Portals/76/Publications/EngineerManuals/EM_1110-1-4007.pdf. [Accessed 16th May 2018].
US Department of Energy (1995) In situ Air Stripping Using Horizontal Wells. Innovative Technol-
ogy Summary Report. Available from: www.dndkm.org/DOEKMDocuments/ITSR/SoilGround-
Water/In_Situ_Air_Stripping_Using_Horizontal_Wells.pdf. [Accessed 19th May 2018].
US EPA (2002) Field Sampling and Treatability Study for in-situ Remediation of PCB’s and Leachable
Lead With Iron Powder. EIMS Metadata Report R825511C019. Available from: https://cfpub.epa.
gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryID=57704. [Accessed 16th May 2018].
US EPA (2009) Hydrogen Release Compound (HRC®) Barrier Application at the North of Basin F
Site, Rocky Mountain Arsenal Innovative: Technology Evaluation Report. EPA 540/R-09–004.
Usman, M., Tascone, O., Faure, P. & Hanna, K. (2014) Chemical oxidation of hexachlorocyclohexanes
(HCHs) in contaminated soils. Science of the Total Environment, 476, 434–439.
US Navy (2003) Pilot Test Final Report: Bimetallic Nanoscale Particle Treatment of Groundwater
at Area I. Available from: http://costperformance.org/pdf/20040618_346.pdf. [Accessed 14th May
2018].
Verstichel, S., De Wilde, B., Fenyvesi, E. & Szejtli, J. (2004) Investigation of the aerobic biodegrad-
ability of several types of cyclodextrins in a laboratory-controlled composting test. Journal of Poly-
mers and the Environment, 12, 47–55.
Vieira dos Santos, E., Souza, F., Saez, C., Cañizares, P., Lanza, M.R.V., Martinez-Huitle, C.A. &
Rodrigo, M.A. (2016) Application of electrokinetic soil flushing to four herbicides: A comparison.
Villa, R.D., Trovó, A.G. & Nogueira, R.F.P. (2008) Environmental implications of soil remediation
using the Fenton process. Chemosphere, 71, 43–50.
Villa, R.D., Trovó, A.G. & Pupo Nogueira, R.F. (2010) Soil remediation using a coupled process: Soil
washing with surfactant followed by photo-Fenton oxidation. Journal of Hazardous Materials,
174, 770–775.
Villaverde, J., Maqueda, C. & Morillo, E. (2005) Improvement of the desorption of the herbicide
norflurazon from soils via complexation with β-cyclodextrin. Journal of Agricultural and Food
Chemistry, 53, 5366–5372.
Villaverde, J., Maqueda, C. & Morillo, E. (2006) Effect of the simultaneous addition of β-cyclodextrin
and the herbicide norflurazon on its adsorption and movement in soils. Journal of Agricultural and
Food Chemistry, 54, 4766–4772.
Villaverde, J., Maqueda, C., Undabeytia, T. & Morillo, E. (2007) Effect of various cyclodextrins on
photodegradation of a hydrophobic herbicide in aqueous suspensions of different soil colloidal
components. Chemosphere, 69, 575–584.
Villaverde, J., Posada-Baquero, R., Rubio-Bellido, M., Laiz, L., Saiz-Jimenez, C., Sanchez-Trujillo,
M.A. & Morillo, E. (2012) Enhanced mineralization of diuron using a cyclodextrin-based bioreme-
diation technology. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 60, 9941−9947.
Villaverde, J., Posada-Baquero, R., Rubio-Bellido, M. & Morillo, E. (2013) Effect of hydroxypropyl-
β-cyclodextrin on diuron desorption and mineralisation in soils. Journal of Soils and Sediments,
13, 1075–1083.
Villaverde, J., Rubio-Bellido, M., Lara-Moreno, A., Merchán, F. & Morillo, E. (2018) Combined use
of microbial consortia isolated from different agricultural soils and cyclodextrin as a bioreme-
diation technique for herbicide contaminated soils. Chemosphere, 193, 118–125. doi:10.1016/j.
chemosphere.2017.10.172.
Villaverde, J., Rubio-Bellido, M., Merchán, F. & Morillo, E. (2017) Bioremediation of diuron contami-
nated soils by a novel degrading microbial consortium. Journal of Environmental Management,
188, 379–386. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.12.020.
Waclawek, S., Antos, V., Hrabak, P., Cernik, M. & Elliot, D. (2016) Remediation of hexachlorocy-
clohexanes by electrochemically activated persulfates. Environmental Science and Pollution
Research, 23, 765–773.
Waddell, J.P. & Mayer, G.C. (2003) Effects of Fenton reagent and potassium permanganate applica-
tions on indigenous subsurface microbiota: A literature review. In: Hatcher, K.J. (ed) Proceedings
of the 2003 Georgia Water Resources Conference, 23–24 April 2003. University of Georgia, Ath-
ens, Georgia. Available from: www2.usgs.gov/water/southatlantic/ga/projects/airforce/Waddell-
GWRC2003.pdf. [Accessed 31st May 2018].
Waisner, S., Medina, V.F., Morrow, A.B. & Nestler, C.C. (2008) Evaluation of chemical treatments for
a mixed contaminant soil. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 134, 743–749.
Wan, C.L., Yang, X., Du, M.A., Xing, D.F., Yu, C.G. & Yang, Q.L. (2010) Desorption of oil in naturally
polluted soil promoted by beta-cyclodextrin. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 19, 1231–1237.
Wan, J., Meng, D., Long, T., Ying, R., Ye, M., Zhang, S., Li, Q., Zhou, Y. & Lin, Y. (2015) Simultane-
ous removal of Lindane, lead and cadmium from soils by rhamnolipids combined with citric acid.
Plos One, 10(6), e0129978. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0129978.
Wan, J., Yuan, S., Mak, K., Chen, J., Li, T., Lin, L. & Lu, X. (2009) Enhanced washing of HCB con-
taminated soils by methyl-beta- cyclodextrin combined with ethanol. Chemosphere, 75, 759–764.
Wang, G., Li, H., Yu, R. & Deng, N. (2007) Beta-cyclodextrin enhanced photodegradation of bisphe-
nol C under UV light. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 16, 690–696.
Wang, H., Lin, K., Hou, Z., Richardson, B. & Gan, J. (2010) Sorption of the herbicide terbuthylazine
in two New Zealand forest soils amended with biosolids and biochars. Journal of Soils and Sedi-
ments, 10, 283–289.
Watlington, K. (2005) Emerging Nanotechnologies for Site Remediation and Wastewater Treatment.
Available from: www.clu-in.org/download/studentpapers/K_Watlington_Nanotech.pdf. [Accessed
16th January 2018].
Weber, R. & Varbelow, G. (2013) Dioxin/POPs legacy of pesticide production in Hamburg: Part 1 –
Securing of the production area. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 20, 1918–1924.
Wei, B. & Tarr, M.A. (2003) Role of cyclodextrins in Fenton remediation of 2,4,6- trinitrotoluene.
Abstracts of ACS National Meeting American Chemical Society, Division of Environmental Chem-
istry, 43, 127–129.
Weprot Company (2018) Available from: www.weprot.hu. [Accessed 16th July 2018].
Western Excelsior (2018) Available from: www.westernexcelsior.com/products/erosion.html.
Wong, F. & Bidleman, T.F. (2010) Hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin as non-exhaustive extractant for
organochlorine pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls in muck soil. Environmental Pollution,
158, 1303–1310.
Xu, X., Ji, F., Fan, Z. & He, L. (2011) Degradation of glyphosate in soil photocatalyzed by Fe3O4/
SiO2/TiO2 under solar light. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,
8, 1258–1270.
Yáñez, C., Cañete-Rosales, P., Castillo, J.P., Catalán, N., Undabeytia, T. & Morillo, E. (2012) Cyclo-
dextrin inclusion complex to improve physicochemical properties of herbicide bentazon: Exploring
better formulations. PLoS ONE, 7(8), e0041072. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0041072.
Yardin, G. & Chiron, S. (2006) Photo-Fenton treatment of TNT contaminated soil extract solutions
obtained by soil flushing with cyclodextrin. Chemosphere, 62, 1395–1402.
Ye, M., Sun, M., Hu, F., Kengara, F.O., Jiang, X., Luo, Y. & Yang, X. (2014a) Remediation of organo-
chlorine pesticides (OCPs) contaminated site by successive methyl-β-cyclodextrin (MCD) and sun-
flower oil enhanced soil washing – Portulaca oleracea L. cultivation. Chemosphere, 105, 119–125.
Ye, M., Sun, M., Kengara, F.O., Wang, J., Ni, N., Wang, L., Song, Y., Yang, X., Li, H., Hu, F. & Jiang,
X. (2014) Evaluation of soil washing process with carboxymethyl-beta-cyclodextrin and carboxy-
methyl chitosan for recovery of PAHs/heavy metals/fluorine from metallurgic plant site. Journal of
Environmental Science, 26, 1661–1672.
Ye, M., Sun, M., Liu, Z., Ni, N., Chen, Y., Gu, C., Kengara, F.O., Li, H. & Jiang, X. (2014b) Evalu-
ation of enhanced soil washing process and phytoremediation with maize oil, carboxymethyl-β-
cyclodextrin, and vetiver grass for the recovery of organochlorine pesticides and heavy metals from
a pesticide factory site. Journal of Environmental Management, 141, 161–168.
Ye, M., Yang, X.L., Sun, M.M., Bian, Y.R., Wang, F., Gu, C.G., Wei, H.J., Song, Y., Wang, L., Jin, X. &
Jiang, X. (2013) Use of organic solvents to extract Organochlorine Pesticides (OCPs) from aged
contaminated soils. Pedosphere, 23, 10–19.
Yoshii, H., Furuta, T., Shimizu, J., Kugimoto, Y., Nakayasu, S., Arai, T. & Linko, P. (2001) Innovative
approach for removal and biodegradation of contaminated compounds in soil by cyclodextrins.
Biological Journal of Armenia, Special Issue: Cyclodextrins, 53, 226–236.
Yu, X.Y., Pan, L.G., Ying, G.G. & Kookana, R.S. (2010) Enhanced and irreversible sorption of pesti-
cide pyrimethanil by soil amended with biochars. Journal of Environmental Science, 22, 615–620.
Yuan, S., Tian, M. & Lu, X. (2006) Electrokinetic movement of hexachlorobenzene in clayed soils
enhanced by Tween 80 and beta-cyclodextrin. Journal of Hazardeous Materials, 137(2), 1218–1225.
Zeng, Q.R., Tang, H.X., Liao, B.H., Zhong, T.F. & Tang, C. (2006) Solubilization and desorption of
methyl-parathion from porous media: A comparison of hydroxypropyl-beta-cyclodextrin and two
nonionic surfactants. Water Research, 40, 1351–1358.
Zhang, Q., Matsumoto, H., Saito, F. & Baron, M. (2002) Debromination of hexabromobenzene by its
co-grinding with CaO. Chemosphere, 48, 787–793.
Zhang, X., Wang, H., He, L., Lu, K., Sarmah, A., Li, J., Bolan, N.S., Pei, J. & Huang, H. (2013) Using
biochar for remediation of soils contaminated with heavy metals and organic pollutants. Environ-
mental Science and Pollution Research, 20(12), 8472–8483.
Zhang, Y., Wong, J.W.C., Liu, P. & Yuan, M. (2011) Heterogeneous photocatalytic degradation of
phenanthrene in surfactant solution containing TiO2 particles. Journal of Hazardous Materials,
191, 136–143.
Zhao, J., Chi, Y., Liu, F., Jia, D. & Yao, K. (2015) Effects of two surfactants and beta-cyclodextrin on
beta-cypermethrin degradation by Bacillus licheniformis B-1. Journal of Agricultural and Food
Chemistry, 63, 10729–10735.
Zheng, W. & Tarr, M.A. (2004) Evidence for the existence of ternary complexes of iron, cyclodextrin,
and hydrophobic guests in aqueous solution. Journal of Physical Chemistry B, 108, 10§172–10§176.
Chapter 7
Leaching, bioleaching, and acid mine

drainage case study
H.M. Siebert 1 , G. Florian 1 , W. Sand 1 , E. Vaszita 2 , K. Gruiz 2,
M. Csővári 3 , G. Földing 3, Zs. Berta 3 & J.T. Árgyelán 4
1Biofilm Centre, Aquatic Biotechnology, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany
2Department of Applied Biotechnology and Food Science, Budapest University of Technology and Economics,
Budapest, Hungary
3MECSEK-ÖKO Co., Pécs, Hungary
4Nitrokémia Zrt., Hungary
ABSTRACT
This chapter defines and discusses the leaching and bioleaching process in the context of
mining and soil remediation. It focuses on the prevention, mitigation, and technological
utilization of the leaching process and on the treatment of the acidic leachate.
The topic is discussed in three sections:
(i) The first section gives a general overview of the leaching process, on the history and
principles of acid mine drainage treatment, on the technical solution and applicability of active
and passive treatment systems such as oxic and anoxic ponds, channels, wetlands, and several
other engineered reactor-based technologies and permeable reactive barriers. (ii) The second
subchapter focuses on sulfidic ore bioleaching. The biochemistry of the process is presented
and the activities of iron- and sulfur-oxidizing microorganisms are clarified. The biotechno-
logical solutions in the monitoring, prevention, and treatment of the acidic leachate is in focus.
(iii) The third subchapter is also closely related to the topic of natural leaching and
its consequences. A case study is introduced where sulfide-ore mining produced AMD and
ARD. Ongoing mine closure, and complex site rehabilitation is aimed to overcome environ-
mental damage and prevent any future damage. The study presents the engineering solution
applied in the closure of the Gyöngyösoroszi metal mine in Hungary. It is currently under
restoration and provides an opportunity to study and manage all the impacts of leaching on
water, sediment, and soil. Leaching in the underground mine, leaching from various mine
wastes and waste rocks resulted in hundreds of relatively well-defined contaminated sites in
addition to the 15 km long watershed-scale diffuse pollution.
1 LEACHING AND LEACHATE TREATMENT
E. Vaszita and K. Gruiz
1.1 Introduction – leaching in general and bioleaching in

particular
Leaching in the widest context is a natural process by which soluble substances are washed
out of soil, rock, solid waste, or any other solid material. Leaching in the environment is the
effect of the interaction between precipitation, irrigation, runoff, or flood and a solid surface.
Water, rainwater, and mainly acid rain may leach away nutrients (e.g. calcium), fertilizers,
pesticides, or other toxic substances from the soil, rock, or hazardous wastes stockpiled/
deposited on the soil surface without proper insulation/lining. The leachate containing the
released chemicals may cause typical pollution of surface and subsurface waters.
Leaching is a physicochemical process which starts with the infiltration of the water
or of the diluted acidic leachant (rainwater), and involves dissolution and/or mobilization
of the originally bound chemicals (typically minerals) and the transport of the leached sub-
stances by soil water in the form of solute (leachate). It can be modeled as a special kind
of extraction process in a flow through packed column (the impacted solid volume) with a
water-based extractant (leachant).
Leaching in soil science is a natural rock weathering process resulting in the release
of minerals or organic matter into the surrounding environment. Although leaching occurs
naturally, it may also be applied as a preparatory step for metal recovery (Bayat & Sari,
2010). Chemical leaching technologies apply the principle of natural leaching when using
water or weak acids such as acetic acid to mobilize and leach minerals from the soil or other
solid matrices. The metals recovered by the process can possibly be recycled.
Leaching is widely used in extractive metallurgy to convert metals into soluble salts in
aqueous medium. Chemical leaching-based industrial processes may apply dump leaching
(from ore taken directly from the mine), heap leaching (from fine-grained crushed ore or tail-
ings), tank leaching (ore is filled into closed reactors and the leachant flows through) or in situ
leaching (in situ recovery or solution mining through boreholes drilled into metal ore deposits).
The leaching process may also be used in the remediation of metals-contaminated soil to
remove the metals from the soil by dissolution and washing with acids, alkali, or surfactants.
Natural leaching of sulfide minerals is a special case of leaching which may be enhanced
by microbes by up to a hundred thousand times (Singer & Stumm, 1970). Without the
microbes, natural leaching of sulfide minerals is a slow process. Bioleaching is a process
whereby the leachant (the acidic and/or surfactant-containing extractant) is generated by
microorganisms as a result of their catabolic (energy-producing oxidative procedure) and/
or biosurfactant-producing activities. Chemical and biological leaching generally occurs
together in nature. Complex leaching is widely utilized as the technological basis for metal
recovery and soil and sediment remediation.
The two most widespread technologies in the mining industry are bioleaching in heaps
and in stirred tanks. The piles for bioleaching are constructed from crushed rock on impervious
sloped pads which allow the percolated solute to flow by gravity into the collection system.
Oxygen can be added by using low-pressure blowers at the base of the heap. Bioleaching in aer-
ated and stirred tanks uses a mineral slurry. The large size of the reactors, stirring, and aeration
generate high costs compared to heap leaching, but higher oxidation efficiency can be reached.
In addition to the traditional biomining of copper, gold, and uranium, the recovery of
critical metals such as rare earth elements (REE) has become increasingly prominent in
recent years. In addition to low-grade ore processing, mine wastes and tailings, phospho-
gypsum deposits, and REE-containing electronic wastes are also in the focus of interest.
(For more on this topic read Chen et al., 2018; Barmetler et al., 2016; Zhuang et al., 2015;
Hennebel, 2015; Glombitza & Reichel, 2014; Brandl, 2008; Krebs, 1997.)
Besides the controlled utilization of the leaching process for metal recovery, the uninten-
tional occurrence of the process in the environment is very widespread and diverse, ranging
from acid rain leaching of the earth surface to the leaching of oxidizable wastes of mining or
industrial origin. The presence of atmospheric oxygen and moisture is enough to oxidize what is
oxidizable (typically reduced minerals such as pyrite), and the produced energy is immediately
utilized by microorganisms, which grow and metabolize the energy until source depletion.
Leaching, bioleaching, and acid mine drainage 365
1.2 History and principles of AMD treatment – a

general overview
Acid mine drainage (AMD) or acid rock drainage (ARD) is a strongly acidic wastewater
containing high concentrations of dissolved ferrous and non-ferrous metal sulfates, and salts
(Johnson & Hallberg, 2005; Macingova & Luptakova, 2012).
The process of AMD generation is extremely complex. It involves chemical, biologi-
cal, and electrochemical reactions which vary with environmental conditions (Johnson &
Hallberg, 2005; Simate & Ndlovu, 2014).
AMD is generated by the oxidation of sulfide minerals such as pyrite (FeS2) as a result
of exposure of these minerals to both oxygen and water (Skousen, 1995; Johnson, 2003;
Johnson & Hallberg, 2005) and microorganisms (Schippers et al., 1996; Younger et al.,
2002; Johnson & Hallberg, 2003; Dold, 2010).
The oxidation of pyrite can follow several pathways (Ali, 2011; Buzzi et al., 2013)
involving surface interactions with dissolved O2, Fe3+, and other mineral catalysts. The pri-
mary oxidant involved in pyrite oxidation in most situations is ferric iron rather than molecu-
lar oxygen (Evangelou, 1995). The formation of AMD can be considered to occur in three
major steps, as detailed by several studies (Kalin et al., 2006; Simate & Ndlovu, 2014) and
in Section 2:
1 Oxidation of iron sulfide and enhanced oxidation of sulfide minerals by ferric iron.
2 Oxidation of ferrous iron.
3 Hydrolysis and precipitation of ferric iron and other minerals.
The activities of moderately and extremely acidophilic iron-oxidizing bacteria have a

pivotal role in the genesis of acid mine drainage (Johnson & Hallberg, 2003; Sand et al.,
2007).
Thiobacillus ferroxidans (Waksman, 1922; Leathen et al., 1953; Singer & Stumm, 1970)
and several other microbial species widespread in the environment have been considered to
be involved in pyrite weathering. Thiobacillus ferroxidans has been shown to increase iron
conversion rate by a factor of hundreds to as much as a million (Singer & Stumm, 1970;
Blowes et al., 2003, 2014).
AMD is considered one of the main pollutants in both operating and abandoned poly-
metallic sulfide mining sites (Johnson & Hallberg, 2005; Sheoran & Sheoran, 2006) – in
tunnels, mine workings, open pits, waste rock piles, and tailings facilities (Blowes et al.,
2014; Johnson & Hallberg, 2005; Sheoran & Sheoran, 2006), but the causes of AMD are
not limited to only the mining industry. Any activity that disturbs mineralized materials
can lead to AMD (highway and tunnel construction and other deep excavations where
sulfide materials are exposed) (Skousen, 1995; Skousen, 2000; Skousen et al., 1998, 2000,
2002).
Untreated AMD can contaminate the soil, groundwater, and surface watercourses,
damaging the health of plants (Jiwan & Kalamdhad, 2011; Yadav, 2010), humans (Garland,
2011), wildlife, and aquatic species (Gerhardt et al., 2004, Hansen et al., 2002; Schmidt
et al., 2002; Soucek et al., 2000). The development of sustainable and cost-efficient reme-
diation options for the AMD problem has been the subject of extensive research (Coulton
et al., 2003; Gaikwad & Gupta, 2008; Johnson, 2000; Johnson & Hallberg, 2003; Klein-
mann et al., 1998; Luptakova et al., 2010; Nordstrom, 2011; Younger, 2000; Younger et al.,
2002, 2003). According to the US EPA’s policy (US EPA, 2014) to reduce the environmental
footprint of activities associated with the clean-up of contaminated sites, the focus is on
reducing energy usage, air pollution, and impacts on water resources, improving waste man-
agement, and protecting ecosystem services. Developments cover both source control and
migration control (Johnson & Hallberg, 2005). Source control techniques concentrate on
the control of AMD formation at the source (Egiebor & Oni, 2007; Luptakova et al., 2010)
based on the removal of oxygen and/or water from the system (Johnson & Hallberg, 2005;
Kuyucak, 2002; Skousen et al., 2000) since oxygen and water are two of the three princi-
pal reactants (Skousen et al., 2000). Migration control techniques aim to treat the resulting
drainage (Egiebor & Oni, 2007; Luptakova et al., 2010). These techniques can be classified
in two broad categories – active and passive treatments (Johnson & Hallberg, 2005; Skousen
et al., 2000; Akcil & Koldas, 2006).
Both active and passive treatment methods combine and adopt physical, biological, and
chemical approaches to treat AMD by raising pH, lowering dissolved metal concentrations,
and sulfate content (EPA, 2014; RoyChowdhury et al., 2015).
Active treatment generally involves the continuous application of alkaline materials to
neutralize acidic mine waters and precipitate metals (Johnson & Hallberg, 2005). Younger
et al. (2002) define “active” treatment as the improvement of water quality by methods
which require ongoing inputs of artificial energy and/or (bio)chemical reagents. According
to Younger et al. (2002), the most predominant “active” treatment method is “ODAS” –
oxidation, dosing with alkali, and sedimentation, which is similar to the process applied
in traditional wastewater treatment plants. Others traditional or “active” treatments com-
mon to wastewater treatment plants include: sulfidation, biosedimentation, sorption and ion
exchange, and membrane processes like filtration and reverse osmosis (Younger et al., 2002).
Passive treatment involves processes that do not require frequent human intervention,
operation or maintenance, and that typically employ natural construction materials (e.g. soils,
clays, broken rock), natural treatment media (e.g. plant residues such as straw, wood chips,
manure, compost), and promote growth of natural vegetation (US EPA, 2014). Studies of
these techniques more than 30 years ago (Wieder & Lang, 1982) and have continued to be
researched ever since (Hedin et al., 1994a; Hyman & Watzlaf, 1995; Skousen, 1996; Gusek,
1995, 1998; Younger et al., 2002, 2003). Further to the review of various scientific papers,
technical reports, reference guides authored by reputed US, Australian, and British scien-
tists and engineers cited herein, a short description is provided in the next sections of the
technical solution and applicability of some active and passive AMD treatment systems is
provided hereinafter.
1.3 Technical solution and applicability of active and

passive treatment systems for AMD
Active and passive treatment systems have been extensively used for AMD remediation
(Coulton et al., 2003; Gaikwad & Gupta, 2008; Johnson, 2000; Johnson & Hallberg, 2003;
Kleinmann et al., 1998; Nordstrom, 2011; Younger, 2000; Younger et al., 2002, 2003).
As detailed by Taylor et al., 2005, the key factors in the selection and design of active
and passive AMD treatment systems are: water chemistry (including pH, metals, sulfate
levels, and redox state) and influent AMD flow rate, and the objectives of AMD treatment
(e.g. protection of site infrastructure, downstream aquatic ecosystems, or water resources).
Other important factors include capital and operating costs, availability of suitable treatment
reagents/materials and sludge management.
According to a review by Johnson and Hallberg (2005), both the active and the passive
AMD treatment systems may be grouped in two categories:
1 Remediation technologies that rely on biological activities (biological remediation

strategies).
2 Those which rely on abiotic processes (abiotic remediation strategies).
1.3.1 Active AMD treatment systems

In general, the active remediation systems utilize the following key processes for treatment
of AMD (Taylor et al., 2005):
– pH control or precipitation;
– Electrochemical concentration;
– Biological mediation/redox control (sulfate reduction);
– Ion exchange/absorption or adsorption/flocculation and filtration;
– Crystallization.
Johnson and Hallberg (2005) divided the active AMD treatment systems into two
groups: active abiotic remediation systems (based on lime addition and aeration) and active
biological remediation systems (microbial bioreactors [offline sulfogenic bioreactors]).
1.3.1.1 Active abiotic remediation systems

The active treatment process requiring the addition of a chemical-neutralizing agent (Coulton
et al., 2003) is the most widespread method used to mitigate acidic effluents. According to
Taylor et al. (2005), active treatment systems should accommodate any acidity, flow rate, and
acidity load. Addition of an alkaline material to AMD will raise its pH, accelerate the rate
of chemical oxidation of ferrous iron (for which active aeration, or addition of a chemical-
oxidizing agent such as hydrogen peroxide is also necessary), and cause many of the metals
present in solution to precipitate as hydroxides and carbonates, resulting an iron-rich sludge
containing various other metals depending on the chemistry of the mine water treated.
A wide range of chemical agents such as limestone (CaCO3), hydrated lime (Ca(OH)2),
caustic soda (NaOH), soda ash (Na2CO3), calcium oxide (CaO), anhydrous ammonia (NH3),
magnesium oxide (MgO) and magnesium hydroxide [Mg(OH)2] are used during the active
treatment of AMD water worldwide (Johnson & Hallberg, 2005; RoyChowdhury et al.,
2015; Skousen et al., 2000).
Less common alkaline reagents include Lime Kiln Dust (LKD) and Cement Kiln Dust
(CKD), fly ash, fluidized bed combustion ash, calcium peroxide, potassium hydroxide, and
seawater-neutralized red mud (from bauxite processing) (Taylor et al., 2005). The efficiency
of each of the chemicals depends on the seasonal variation, daily AMD load, and metal
concentration.
The addition of various acid-neutralizing and metal-precipitating chemical agents to
AMD water is a common practice to meet the effluent discharge limits within a short time
span (Taylor et al., 2005).
The disadvantages of this active system are high operating costs and problems with
disposal of the bulky sludge that is produced (Johnson & Hallberg, 2005). To improve the
efficiency of the process and eliminate the problems associated with the large sludge amount
produced, several refinements have been made (Aube & Payant, 1997; Coulton et al., 2003;
Taylor et al., 2005).
As an example, the technical operation and applicability of some of the most common
active treatment plants for AMD neutralization and/or metal recovery (low density sludge plant
and high density sludge plant) is provided below based on a summary by Taylor et al., 2005).
Low Density Sludge (LDS) plants are the most common fixed plants for AMD neutral-
ization. Their operation includes pH control and precipitation in three main treatment stages
as summarized by Taylor et al. (2005).
1 Reagent mixing and dosing stage: a solid neutralization reagent is mixed with water in
a tank to produce a slurry. This slurry is then dosed into a reactor containing AMD.
2 Reaction stage: the solution is mixed with mechanical stirrers and aerated if necessary
to oxidize any reduced metals (e.g. convert Fe2+ to Fe3+). Mixing and/or aeration is
continued as the solution flows through one or more reactors. The volume of reactor(s)
needs to provide sufficient water retention capacity to allow complete oxidation and
neutralization.
3 Flocculation and clarification stage: neutralized water from the reaction stage is trans-
ferred to a clarifier/thickener tank. The flow velocity is significantly reduced in the clari-
fier, and a flocculant may be added during this stage to facilitate sludge settling. Sludge
from the clarifier base is removed and generally disposed of on site, while supernatant
water is discharged from the plant.
High DensitySludge (HDS) plants also involve the three main treatment stages (i) reagent
mixing and dosing stage, (ii) reaction stage, and (iii) flocculation and clarification stage.
According to Taylor et al. (2005), the key difference associated with HDS plants is that a
proportion of alkaline treatment sludge from the thickener underflow is recycled back through
the plant to complete the first phase of neutralization. As a result, sludge density increases
progressively – sometimes up to 40wt% solids – and the efficiency of reagent use improves.
Sludge handling and disposal costs can be significantly reduced by the HDS process, and
reagent costs can also be reduced as a result of the improved efficiency of reagent use.
The Alkaline barium calcium (ABC) desalination process is one of the best recent active
treatment options of AMD (Mulopo, 2015). This technology is able to reduce both metals and
sulfate concentrations below the toxic level and results in low levels of sludge to be disposed
of after useful chemicals or metals are recovered. In general, the ABC desalination process
has three major steps: neutralization for metal removal, sulfate removal, and sludge process-
ing. The ABC technology needs further research to provide drinking water quality.
1.3.1.2 Active biological remediation – microbial reactor systems

Microbial reactor systems implement active biological remediation by utilizing the biogenic
production of hydrogen sulfide to generate alkalinity and to remove metals as insoluble
sulfides (De Vegt et al., 1998). These systems consist of a sulfate-reducing bioreactor and
metal sulfide precipitators. In the sulfate-reducing bioreactor, bacterial activity (sulfate-
reducing bacteria [SRB]) reduces sulfate (SO42−) to soluble H2S (and HS−) and produces
HCO3−. In metal sulfide precipitators, HCO3− partially neutralizes the incoming water while
H2S and HS– react with dissolved metals in the AMD, resulting in precipitation of the metals
as sulfide minerals. The precipitation of sulfide minerals is an acid-consuming reaction. Par-

tially treated AMD from the metal sulfide precipitators is then fed into a limestone reactor
for further neutralization. Water flows from the limestone reactor at nearly neutral pH into
the sulfate-reducing bioreactor where it provides a source of sulfate for the bacterial activity.
Treated AMD is then discharged from the bioreactor while the H2S, HS–, and HCO3− pro-
duced in the bioreactor are circulated into the precipitator. These plants are best suited to
treating AMD with a pH of 3.0–5.5 and ambient oxygen conditions (De Vegt et al., 1998).
Commercial sulfidogenic plants for AMD treatment are rare since they rely on continued
growth of sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRB), which require temperatures between 5°C and
40°C, pre-treated pH levels above 5.5 and redox potential (ORP) levels below +150 mV.
1.3.2 Passive AMD treatment systems

Passive treatment systems for AMD use the chemical, biological, and physical removal pro-
cesses that occur naturally in the environment to modify the influent characteristics and ame-
liorate any associated environmental impacts. The major processes include the following:
– Chemical processes: oxidation, reduction, coagulation, adsorption, absorption, hydroly-

sis, precipitation.
– Physical processes: gravity, aeration, dilution.
– Biological processes: biosorption, biomineralization, bioreduction, alkalinity generation.
The design of passive systems must accommodate slow reaction rates; thus, passive
treatment systems are best suited to AMD with low acidity (<800 mg CaCO3/L), low flow
rates (<50 L/sec), and therefore low acidity loads (<100–150 kg CaCO3/day) (Taylor et al.,
2005). The life expectancy of a passive treatment system depends on the mass of limestone
and/or organic matter in the system. The available porosity within the limestone and organic
matter can also affect life expectancy, as porosity determines the capacity to store treatment
precipitates. Passive treatment system may become ineffective if the system gets blocked
with treatment precipitates due to insufficient porosity within the limestone/organic matter
layers (Ziemkiewicz et al., 1994; Hedin et al., 1994a,b).
Johnson and Hallberg (2005) divided the passive AMD treatment systems into two
groups: passive abiotic remediation systems (anoxic limestone drains) and passive biologi-
cal remediation systems (constructed wetland [aerobic and anaerobic], permeable reactive
barriers).
1.3.2.1 Passive abiotic remediation systems
Anoxic limestone drains

Anoxic limestone drains (ALDs) are passive, abiotic remediation systems. ALDs are gener-
ally constructed of a plastic bottom liner and a clay cover containing limestone into which
anoxic water is introduced (Figure 7.1). The dimensions of the drain vary from narrow
(0.6–1.0 m) to wide (10–20 m) in diameter, typically ca. 1.5 m deep and ca. 30 m in length.
The objective of these systems is to add alkali to AMD while maintaining the iron in its
reduced form to avoid the oxidation of ferrous iron and precipitation of ferric hydroxide on
the limestone. The limestone dissolves in AMD, and since CO2 cannot escape, a buildup of
Figure 7.1 Anoxic limestone drain.
bicarbonate occurs, thus adding alkalinity (Watzlaf & Hedin, 1993). The pH of the ALD
effluent is around 6.3, at which ferrous hydroxide will not precipitate, but ferric hydroxide
and aluminum hydroxide do. For this reason it is important that the ALDs treat AMD that
contains no O2, Fe3+, or Al3+ and the design should prevent oxygen from entering into, and
carbon dioxide escaping from, the drain. Metal hydroxide precipitation within an ALD will
retard water flow, leading to premature failure (US EPA, 2014). ALDs were first described
by Turner and McCoy (1990) and Brodie et al. (1990), who found them useful to pre-treat
acid water for wetland.
1.3.2.2 Passive biological remediation systems
Constructed wetlands
Constructed wetlands are built on the land surface using soil or crushed rock/media and
wetland plants. Constructed wetlands can be designed as aerobic wetlands, anaerobic hor-
izontal-flow wetlands, and vertical-flow ponds (vertical flow wetlands) (see also Chapter
4, Section 5). Constructed wetlands are designed to treat contaminants over a long period
and can be used as the sole technology, where appropriate, or as part of a larger treatment
approach. Contaminants can be removed by microbial transformation and/or plant uptake.
Organic and inorganic contaminants are mobilized for plant uptake. The soil- and water-
based microorganisms typically remove dissolved and suspended metals from AMD by (bio)
sorption and/or uptake. The indirect impact of the biota is achieved by changing environ-
mental conditions, thus the physicochemical characteristics of the contaminants, causing
metal immobilization/precipitation and sorption of metals. Both aerobic and anaerobic types
often use limestone as a base or as an additive. Key factors that need to be considered when
determining the type, size, and cost of an appropriate wetland system include influent acidity
loads, pH and redox state, water flow rates and retention times, and the area available for a
wetland (Taylor et al., 2005).
Aerobic or oxidizing wetlands are principally suited to near-neutral waters contami-
nated with Fe. The main remediative reaction that occurs within them is the oxidation of
ferrous iron and subsequent hydrolysis of the ferric iron produced. In order to maintain oxi-
dizing conditions, aerobic wetlands are relatively shallow systems (typically <30 cm) that
operate by surface flow. Macrophytes (Typha (cattail), Juncus (rush), and Scirpus sp. (e.g.
sedges)) are planted for aesthetic reasons to regulate water flow (e.g. to prevent channeling)
and to filter and stabilize the accumulating ferric precipitates.
Oxygen infiltration is encouraged and metals precipitate as oxyhydroxides, hydroxides,
and carbonates. Aerobic wetlands are designed to provide sufficient residence time to allow
metal oxidation and hydrolysis, thereby causing precipitation and physical retention of Fe,
Al, and Mn hydroxides. Brodie (1993) reported that wetlands receiving net alkaline AMD
(pH range of 4.5–6.3, Fe <70 mg/L, Mn <17 mg/L, Al <30 mg/L) were capable of removing
the metals effectively to discharge standards.
Anaerobic or reducing wetlands and compost bioreactors (Johnson & Hallberg, 2005)
are built with organic-rich substrates containing oil, peat moss, spent mushroom compost,
sawdust, straw/manure, hay bales, or other organic mixtures which provide reducing con-
ditions and also contain limestone for acid neutralization. Often anaerobic wetlands are
constructed underground and are devoid of vegetation since penetrating plant roots may
cause the ingress of oxygen into the anaerobic zones, which is detrimental to reductive
processes.
In this kind of a system, net acidity of AMD water is removed by the dissolution of
limestone (Brodie et al., 1990) and the metabolism of iron- and sulfate-reducing bacteria
(Tuttle et al., 1969; Gusek, 1998; Hedin & Nairn, 1990). In addition, metals are precipi-
tated as sulfides, hydroxides, and/or carbonates (Henrot & Wieder, 1990). Like aerobic
systems, anaerobic wetlands must have substantial residence time for the water; there-
fore, they require large areas to treat large volumes of strongly acidic AMD. In moun-
tainous areas, wetlands have been most successful when applied to small AMD flows
of moderate water quality (Wieder, 1993). Hedin et al. (1994b) suggest that anaerobic
wetlands can be.
Reducing and alkalinity producing systems (RAPS) are important engineering ver-
sions of the basic compost bioreactors (Johnson & Hallberg, 2005; Younger et al., 2003).
In the RAPS system, AMD first flows downwards through a layer of compost (to remove
dissolved oxygen and facilitate the reduction of iron and sulfate). Subsequently, the AMD
passes through a limestone and gravel bed (to add additional alkalinity, as in ALDs) (Fig-
ure 7.2). Usually, water draining from a RAPS flows into a sedimentation pond, and/or an
aerobic wetland, to precipitate and retain iron hydroxides.
The successive alkalinity producing systems (SAPS) may include RAPS and addi-
tional settling ponds (Figure 7.3), oxidation ponds, wetlands, or multiple RAPS (Kepler &
McCleary, 1994; Demchak et al., 2001; US EPA, 2014).
Permeable reactive barriers (PRBs) are passive systems to treat a wide range of pol-
luted groundwaters (Simon & Meggyes, 2000; Meggyes et al., 2001; Simon et al., 2001;
Simon et al., 2002; Smyth et al., 2003; Roehl et al., 2005; Meggyes et al., 2009 and Chapter 4,
Figure 7.2 Reducing and alkalinity producing system (RAPS).

Figure 7.3 Successive alkalinity producing systems (SAPS).
Section 2 of this volume). Some of them are biology-based and designed to remediate AMD
and operate on the same basic principles as anaerobic wetlands (Benner et al., 1997; Gilbert
et al., 2002; Younger et al., 2003; Johnson & Hallberg, 2005). Biology-based PRBs include
buried layers of reactive material (a mixture of organic matter and possibly limestone, zero
valent iron) to intercept groundwater plumes of AMD (Johnson & Hallberg, 2005; Taylor
et al., 2005). The organic material can encourage reductive microbiological processes, gen-
erating alkalinity which is further enhanced by dissolution of limestone and/or other basic
minerals resulting in precipitation of metals (As, Cd, Cu, Fe, Ni, Pb, and Zn) as well as
sulfides, hydroxides, and carbonates (Taylor et al., 2005). A series of drainage pipes placed
below the limestone layer carry the water to aerobic ponds where ferrous ions oxidize and
precipitate (Johnson & Hallberg, 2005; Younger et al., 2003).
According to Taylor et al. (2005), the key factors which may limit the lifetime of PRBs
are the mass of available reactive material and the available volume of pore spaces (and
permeability) of the barrier. Metal precipitation and substrate compaction can result in a
decrease in porosity and permeability of the barrier. PRBs are ideally suited to cold climates
as low soil temperatures (<5°C) inhibit bacterial activity.
1.4 Sustainability of the leachate treatment technologies

The sustainability of any remediation system is a factor that is becoming increasingly critical
in decision making.
AMD and ARD treatment from the environmental point of view is highly beneficial for
water, soil, and ecosystem at watershed level. Untreated sources and continuously formed
AMD and ARD can diffusely contaminate
– the surface water systems with acidic leachates containing toxic metals,
– sediments with eroded acid rock, and
– soils with sediments disposed by floods.
In addition to diffuse pollution, the background values increase, initiating undesirable

stress and genetic changes in the ecosystem. The impact of AMD and ARD can be reduced
to a minimum by the controlled collection and treatment of the acidic effluents containing
metals. The final solution is to remove, encapsulate or otherwise eliminate or inactivate the
source of leachate production.
No generally accepted good practice has been developed yet for the utilization of leach-
ate treatment residues. Similar to other water treatment technologies, the residue, i.e. the
metal precipitate, must further be treated and/or contained. An example is an iron oxide
sludge recovered from a drainage channel at an abandoned coal mine in Pennsylvania and
used to manufacture burnt sienna pigment in a commercially successful venture. Base metals
recovered by active biological treatment of AMD from metal mines provide some financial
return on the investment and running costs of sulfidogenic bioreactors (Hedin, 2003).
The choice of which option to use to remediate AMD is dictated by a number of eco-
nomic and environmental factors. Traditionally, large discharge volume mine waters have
been treated by active chemical processing, particularly when the waters are acidic.
The necessary land surface area and topographic problems may rule out passive bio-
logical systems in some situations. However, the mining industry is becoming increasingly
attracted to the latter as it seeks to avoid the high recurrent costs of lime addition and sludge
disposal. In theory the land areas required for passive systems can be dramatically reduced
by focusing on optimizing biological processes, for example, packed bed bioreactors for the
removal of iron from acidic mine waters, which are far more effective than aerobic wetlands.
It does need to be recognized that, in reality, none of the remediation systems described in
this review are maintenance free; passive systems also require a certain amount of manage-
ment and will eventually fill with accumulated ochre (aerobic wetlands) and sulfides (com-
post bioreactors).
The ecological and cost efficiency of AMD treatment can be upgraded by utilizing waste
materials to fill the reactors. Jones and Cetin (2017) studied two different types of waste mate-
rials to remediate acid mine drainage (AMD): recycled concrete aggregates (RCAs) and fly
ashes. Results of the column leach tests suggest that RCAs and the highly alkaline fly ash can
effectively raise pH of the AMD and reduce Cr, Cu, Fe, Mn, and Zn concentrations in AMD.
In addition, sulfate concentrations of AMD decreased significantly after being treated by RCAs
while sulfate concentrations of the AMD increased when remediated by fly ashes.
Implementation of AMD/ARD treatment can be expected to result in significant
improvement in human health and safety: pollution will be controlled, agricultural land,
and surface water system protected for human uses, aesthetic and use value of the landscape
increases, and the economic value of land increases in areas where natural acid rock or dis-
posed waste is under control.
Similar to other natural attenuation-based remediation, source removal is always the
preferred approach when the sources can be identified and delineated. Non-removed acid
rock and waste producing leachate may “provide” unlimited sources, and the leachate treat-
ment in such cases cannot be sustainable, as both the ecological and socioeconomic effi-
ciency of the treatment will be poor due to the extremely long duration.
The extremely long-time requirement is demonstrated well by the leaching study per-
formed by the authors. Acid rock containing Cd, Zn, and Pb was leached over the long term
to provide site-specific quantitative characteristics of pH changes, leached metal amounts,
and leaching efficiency under average annual rain and dry conditions (Gruiz et al., 2009a,b;
Vaszita et al., 2009).
The time requirement of leachate collection and treatment was estimated based on the
measured parameters. The pH was constant at pH = 1.5 for average rain conditions which
decreased even to below pH = 1 during the dry period. The pH started to rise after 1400 days
(almost 4 years) during the final depletion phase.
Under average rain conditions Cd supply for leaching lasts 8.5 years, 12 years for Zn,
and 3300 years the for Pb; under dry conditions, the same values are 24, 26, and 25,000
years. These estimates and the large-scale destruction, ecosystem, and human health damage
observable at abandoned mining sites clearly prohibit the disposal of any acid rock waste
without controlling oxidation (acidification), leaching, and transport with water. Operators
are well advised not to abandon AMD producing mines, rather undertake immediate and full
rehabilitation of mines and mining sites.
2 BIOLEACHING AND LEACHATE REMEDIATION
H.M. Siebert, B. Florian, and W. Sand
2.1 Bioleaching
Bioleaching is used in industrial processes such as heap or tank leaching to extract valuable
metals from low-grade ores. Bioleaching also occurs as an unwanted natural process called
acid rock drainage/acid mine drainage (ARD/AMD): metal sulfides pyrite (FeS2), chalco-
pyrite (CuFeS2), or arsenopyrite (AsFeS) are dissolved by oxidation processes. In nature
this may be accompanied by acidification of water bodies concomitantly with the release of
(large amounts) of heavy metals (Barnes & Romberger, 1968; Gray, 1996). In recent decades
a lot of work has been done to prevent ARD/AMD, reduce negative aspects of industrial
leaching processes and remediate contaminated areas (Evangelou & Zhang, 1995; Johnson &
Hallberg, 2005; Santomartino & Webb, 2007; Gibert et al., 2011).
2.1.1 Mechanism of bioleaching in sulfidic ores and wastes

Bioleaching is the conversion of insoluble metal sulfides into soluble ionic form using
chemical and mainly bacterial oxidation processes. Metal sulfides are oxidized to metal ions
and sulfate under aerobic conditions by acidophilic iron- and/or sulfur-oxidizing bacteria or
archaea (Temple & Colmer, 1951; Kelly & Wood, 2000; Rohwerder et al., 2003; Vera et al.,
2013). Molecular oxygen acts as a final electron acceptor for the overall biochemical path-
way of the metal sulfide bioleaching process. Ferric ions are the relevant oxidizing agents
in the chemical process where Fe(III) ions are reduced to Fe(II) ions. The sulfur moiety of a
metal sulfide is oxidized to sulfate and various intermediate sulfur compounds such as ele-
mental sulfur, polysulfide, thiosulfate, and polythionates (Schippers et al., 1996; Rohwerder
et al., 2003). Metal sulfides can be classified as acid-soluble (e.g. chalcopyrite) and acid-
insoluble (e.g. pyrite). Solubility is determined by electron configuration and is relevant for
the determination of the pathways of dissolution. Acid-soluble metal sulfides have valance
bands from the metal and sulfur atom orbitals and can be attacked by protons, whereas acid-
insoluble metal sulfides have valance bands that are derived from orbitals of the metal atoms
which make them non-reactive for protons (Tributsch & Bennett, 1981; Crundwell, 1988;
Schippers & Sand, 1999; Edelbro et al., 2003).
Two dissolution pathways – named after the first sulfur intermediate generated in the
process – are proposed (Figure 7.4). The polysulfide mechanism is concerned with the dis-
solution of acid-soluble metal sulfides and the thiosulfate mechanism with the dissolution
of acid-insoluble metal sulfides (Schippers & Sand, 1999; Sand et al., 2001; Rohwerder
et al., 2003).
Metal sulfides are generally dissolved into the oxidized ionic form of the metal and dif-
ferent ionic sulfur compounds. Fe(III) ions serve as main oxidants for metal sulfides. Elec-
trons are extracted by the oxidation process, whereby Fe(III) ions are reduced to Fe(II) ions.
MS = metal sulfide, M = metal cation, A.f. = Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans, L.f.= Leptospirillum ferrooxidans, A.t. =
Acidithiobacillus thiooxidans
Figure 7.4 Schematic illustration of thiosulfate (A) and polysulfide (B) leaching pathways for metal
sulfides with intermediates and final products.
The oxidation of a metal sulfide to elemental sulfur is described by the following equation
(Schippers & Sand, 1999; Sand et al., 2001):
Chemical oxidation: MS + 2 Fe3+ ↔ M2+ + 0.125 S8 + 2 Fe2+
Iron-oxidizing bacteria and archaea oxidize Fe(II) to Fe(III) ions to maintain their
metabolism and regenerate the oxidizing agent (Temple & Colmer, 1951; Kelly & Wood,
2000):
Microbial iron oxidation: 4 Fe2+ +O2 + 4 H+ ↔ 4 Fe3+ + 2 H2O
Sulfur compound-oxidizing bacteria or archaea generate energy by oxidizing sulfur/

sulfur compounds to sulfate and protons (sulfuric acid):
Microbial sulfur oxidation 2 S0 + 2 H2O + 3 O2 ↔ 4 H+ + 2 SO42−
However, Fe(III) ions are the attacking agents for dissolving acid-insoluble ores such as
pyrite. Therefore, Fe(II) ion-oxidizing microorganisms are required. Acid-soluble ores can
be dissolved by protons released by sulfur-compound oxidizing organisms (Schippers et al.,
1996; Sand et al., 2001).
2.1.2 Contact and non-contact bioleaching

Two mechanisms for microbial metal sulfide dissolution are proposed: the “contact” and
the “non-contact” mechanism (Figure 7.5). It has previously been confirmed that bacterial
leaching processes occur mainly in the region of contact between bacteria and the sulfide
surface. This requires that microorganisms attach to the mineral surface. The non-contact
mechanism assumes that microorganisms oxidize dissolved Fe(II) ions in the liquid phase
(Sand et al., 2001; Rawlings, 2002).
Attachment of leaching bacteria to a substrate such as pyrite requires the secretion of
specific extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) at the bacterial surface (Gehrke et al.,
1998; Harneit et al., 2006). The organisms are positively charged by complexing Fe(III)
ions in the EPS (Gehrke et al., 1998; Rohwerder et al., 2003), while, according to the ionic
strength and pH, metal sulfide has a net negative charge in an aqueous solution (Bebié &
Schoonen, 2000). Cell attachment is based on electrostatic interactions between a positively
charged cell and a negatively charged surface. The EPS complexed Fe(III) ions are involved
in the leaching process. Thus, the function of the complexed ions is similar to the role of free
Fe(III) ions in the non-contact mechanism. Sand and Gehrke (2006) suggest that the amount
of EPS-bound Fe(III) ions varies with the metabolic activity of the bacteria. Additionally,
quorum sensing molecules, like N-acylhomoserine lactone with acyl chains of 12–14 carbon
atoms, were described to enhance the biofilm formation of A. ferrooxidans on elementary
sulfur and metal sulfides (González et al., 2012).
2.1.3 Microbial bioleaching community

The composition of leaching communities depends on environmental conditions such as
temperature, humidity, heavy metal concentration and substrate conditions. Leaching com-
munities consist of diverse acidophilic bacterial and archaeal species. Chemolithotrophic
bacteria like Leptospirillum spp., Acidithiobacillus spp., and archaea such as Sulfolobus spp.
or Metallosphaera spp. have been isolated from sites of natural mineral oxidation (Temple &
A: Non-contact mechanism: planktonic cells oxidize Fe(II) ions to Fe(III) ions. These Fe(III) ions attack a metal sul-
fide; the attack is limited by the diffusion rate.
B: Contact mechanism: cells are embedded in EPS and attached to the metal sulfide surface (e.g. pyrite). The Fe(III)
ions complexed in the EPS facilitate the dissolution of the metal sulfide and can be directly reoxidized by the bac-
teria. OM = outer membrane, PS = periplasmic space, CM = cytoplasmic membrane (simplified from Rohwerder
et al., 2003).
Figure 7.5 Schematic overview of the non-contact (A) and the contact (B) mechanisms for bioleaching.
Colmer, 1951; Sand et al., 1992; Kelly & Wood, 2000; Schippers, 2007). Acid-tolerant che-
moorganotrophic bacteria such as Acidiphilum spp. are also present in bioleaching commu-
nities (Harrison, 1984; Nancucheo & Johnson, 2009). Microorganisms have been subdivided
into three groups according to preferred growth temperature ranges. Mesophilic organisms
are those with optimum temperatures between 25°C and 40°C, e.g. Acidithiobacillus fer-
rooxidans, Acidithiobacillus thiooxidans, or Leptospirillum ferrooxidans. They cannot grow
above 45°C (Rawlings, 1997). Moderate thermophilic microorganisms such as Leptospi-
rillum ferriphilum, Sulfobacillus thermosulfidooxidans, or Ferroplasma acidarmanus can
grow in mixed cultures with mesophiles or with thermophiles. The temperatures for moder-
ate thermophiles range between 40°C and 55°C (Norris, 1997). Thermophilic archaea such
as Acidianus brierleyi or Sulfolobus metallicus can grow at temperatures between 55°C and
80°C (Clark & Norris, 1996; Zhu et al., 2011).
2.1.4 Natural bioleaching process and its industrial application

Acid rock drainage/acid mine drainage (ARD/AMD) is the result of the oxidation of metal
sulfides (especially pyrite FeS2) containing rock, ore, tailings or any solid material in contact
with oxygen, water, and microorganisms further to their disturbance/displacement (mining,
excavation, construction, waste disposal).
Recovery of valuable metals such as copper, zinc, nickel, or uranium via industrial
bioleaching from sulfide ores employing microorganisms is an established biotechnology
(Bosecker, 1997; Rawlings, 1997; Rohwerder et al., 2002; Olsen et al., 2003; Rawlings et al.,
2003; Brierley & Brierley, 2013). It is an environmentally friendly process with minimal
process emissions or tailings. Process solutions are usually recycled. Associated possible
problems are long-term release of contaminated acid mine drainage (AMD) effluents and
accidental water pollution by dam failures, such as break of the technically undersized tail-
ings ponds and dams. A new approach for recovery of valuable metals is the coupling of
bioleaching and electrokinetics (Huang et al., 2015).
However, unwanted leaching processes such as acid rock/acid mine drainage (ARD/
AMD) are a great problem. They increasingly attract public attention because environmen-
tal awareness and legislation are forcing mining companies and state agencies to fight these
problems effectively.
2.2 Acidic leachates and their treatment

The sulfides (typically pyrite) in rocks and in mine waste may be chemically or biologi-
cally oxidized when exposed to air and water. The mining activity itself evokes sudden
access of air and water to the formerly isolated, underground rock formations. Subsurface
mining under the water table needs continuous pumping of the water from the mine, giving
atmospheric air exposure and time to oxidize subsurface sulfide rock. The combined in situ
chemical and biological oxidation generates AMD in the mine water fed by seeps, sinkholes,
or springs inside the mine.
Piled rock, coal, waste rock, and tailings without sealing are ab ovo exposed to air and
water so ARD generation is very likely in such cases. The released acid gets into contact with
sulfidic rock formations and mobilizes toxic elements such as arsenic, zinc, nickel, boron, cop-
per, and others. Without control and treatment it ends up in groundwater and surface waters,
thus endangering the aquatic ecosystems and the food chains which are based on them.
Surface and subsurface installations can be used for the treatment of the acidic leach-
ate. The passive and active ARD/AMD treatment technologies were introduced in Section
7.1.3 in general; the following applications show water treatment examples for acid coal pile
drainage. The origin of the acid in these leachates – similar to sulfide ores – is the elemental
sulfur in the coal, which oxidizes after contacting air and water. Several overviews were
prepared between 2000–2010 on this topic after the clarification of the possible chemical
and biological processes (Kirby et al., 1999; Dempsey et al., 2001) and the results of the
first full-scale applications were published (Watzlaf et al., 2002; Younger et al., 2002; Sim-
mons et al., 2002; Cravotta & Watzlaf, 2002; Garrett et al., 2002; Ziemkiewicz, 2003; and
the European project of PIRAMID, 2003).
2.2.1 Active and passive treatment of acidic coal pile drainage

Coal mine drainage is characterized by high amounts of acids, plus sulfate and metal ions,
typically iron or aluminum. This polluted water must undergo a remediation process for
further utilization or for discharge. The aim of acid mine drainage (AMD) treatment is to
increase the pH to near-neutral values and remove metals and sulfates. Passive and active
methods ranging from chemical to biological methods are useful for treating coal mine and
coal pile drainage, as reviewed by Johnson and Hallberg in 2005. Limestone and aerobic
conditions, for example, in open ponds, encourage the oxidation of ferrous ions and the
precipitation of the metals as oxides or hydroxides. However, a further step is necessary
to remove the iron or other metal precipitates. An innovative procedure for the removal of
the suspended lime precipitate from the treated water is the use of surfactants-enhanced
dissolved-air flotation technology. The adherence of air bubbles to suspended lime precipi-
tate makes it float to the water surface from where it can be skimmed. Both synthetic and
microbial surfactants can be used (Menezes et al., 2011).
Another option is constructed wetlands, which generally apply close to neutral (in a
preceding technology step already neutralized) leachates (see Chapter 4, Section 1.3). Design
and dimensioning can control certain processes such as oxidation and metal precipitation, and
complexation of metals with organic matter or anaerobic sulfide-generation from metal ions.
Anoxic limestone drains (ALD) for coal mine drainage and their long-term performance
was studied by Watzlaf et al. (2000, 2004) and found that proper isolation from air and addi-
tional alkalinity can exclude hydroxy precipitation of metals on the long term. The efficiency
of such a system is affected by the carbon dioxide partial pressure and calcite saturation
index. The compounds formed in situ may coat the limestone surface, which results in a
decreased limestone dissolution rate. In the case of low or medium Fe(III) and aluminum
concentration this problem does not occur even over the long term, otherwise this problem
can be eliminated by thorough design. Santomartino and Webb (2007) estimated the suffi-
cient time of safe limestone bed application as a function of the surface area of the limestone
(SLS), the proportion of Fe retained in the bed (f × Fe2+) and the flow rate of the leachate (Q)
as follows:
t = SLS × 4.4 / f × Fe2+ × Q,
where
t maximum time of safe use (year)
SLS the surface area of the limestone (m2)
f fraction retained in the bed system (–)

f × Fe2+ concentration in limestone bed (mg/L)
Q flow rate (L/h).
Authors recommend the use of this equation both to ALD, OLD, and also to open lime-
stone channels, which generally retain higher fractions of iron in the system. If the necessary
geometrics cannot be ensured, the limestone must be regenerated, i.e. the iron hydroxide
coating removed by agitation from time to time.
Relative diluted coal mine AMDs can be treated by oxic limestone drains (OLD) as
reported by Cravotta and Trahan (1999). The pH, alkalinity, and calcium concentration
increased in their study, while acidity and iron and aluminum contents decreased by around
95% due to limestone treatment. Toxic metal content also decreased due to sorption and
coprecipitation on metal oxides at values above pH = 5.
Pulsed limestone bed (PLB) reactor was tested both at laboratory and field scales to
overcome the problems of limestone treatment, e.g. slow dissolution rates and precipitation
of metals (Ziemkiewicz et al., 1994; Watten et al., 2005, 2007). This reactor used a carbon
dioxide pretreatment step for increased limestone dissolution and a pulsed liquid addition.
The method provided high alkalinity levels in the laboratory. In field trials on three AMD
sources the pH was raised from pH = 3.2–4.8 to values between pH = 6.2 and 6.9, allowing
ferric- and aluminum, but not ferrous or manganese, ions to precipitate.
Another possibility is the use of dispersed alkaline substrates (DAS). This was tested in
a laboratory-scale experiment in columns fed with natural AMD at different flow rates with a
pH of 2.3–3.5 (Rötting et al., 2008). In this study calcite sand was mixed with wooden chips.
They showed 1200 mg/L net acidity removal rates within 70 weeks, which is 3–4.5 times
greater compared to conventional passive treatment systems. Aluminum, iron, lead, and cop-
per ions were almost completely removed in this system. An alternative to lime or limestone
treatment was described by Petrik et al. (2005) and Vadapalli et al. (2008): they tested the
application of fly ash for AMD neutralization. The pH increased from 2.7 to 11.5 and alu-
minum and iron ions were eliminated depending on the AMD-to-fly ash ratio. This was
attributed to a precipitation and coprecipitation of metal hydroxides as well as an adsorption
to the fly ash surface. The authors’ opinion is that the material loop of coal mining can be
closed by utilizing the fly ash of coal-fired power plants: in addition to neutralizing AMD,
the solid residue of AMD treatment can be used for mine backfill (see Gyöngyösoroszi mine
closure case study in Section 3 of this chapter ). Macrocapsules with included phosphate
buffer used to improve the pH in AMD waters at a laboratory scale. The pH increased from
pH 2.5 to pH 6 over 8 days before a decrease occurred. In field trials an initial rise in pH to
6 was observed, followed by a decrease to pH 2.5 within 10 days (Aelion et al., 2009). In
another laboratory study in sand columns, microbial denitrification increased the pH by two
units to pH = 8 and potassium dihydrogen phosphate encapsulated in a pH-sensitive coating
maintained it for four weeks. This approach can be used inside permeable reactive barriers
where the phosphate ions move through the aquifer with the groundwater flow. The advan-
tage is that the phosphate can act as a buffer when it is precipitated in strongly acidic soils
(Rust et al., 2002).
RAPS and SAPS became widespread for coal mine AMD from the 2000s and several
applications have been published. A full-scale passive treatment is presented by Matthies
et al. (2010), composed of two parallel RAPS and one aerobic reed wetland. The system
reduced iron and aluminum ion content and acidity by 83–87% compared to a system
applied previously. The pH and alkalinity were increased constantly, and the removal
rates were constant over five years of operation regardless of seasonal variations. Other
authors, e.g. Bhattacharya et al. (2008) pointed out the disadvantages of such systems:
regular monitoring and maintenance due to toxic metal precipitation that changes the
substrate producing alkalinity. Koschorreck (2008) studied how sulfate reduction at pH
values below 5 is influenced by electron donor addition and by the supply with carbon
and energy sources as well as inhibitory factors, e.g. the metabolites H2S and organic
acids.
2.2.2 Mitigation of AMD production

An investigation of different waste piles in Germany showed an 85.0–99.98% reduction in
sulfate and toxic metals release (Willscher et al., 2010) due to revegetation. The revegetated
soil cover above the heap reduced pyrite oxidation rates due to the presence of oxygen-
consuming organic substances infiltrated from the top or transported by groundwater. The
cell counts of sulfate-reducing bacteria did significantly increase in this environment in com-
parison to an uncovered heap.
Inhibition of AMD production by treatment of the parent mine waste using surfactants
has been known for more than 20 years. The influence of detergents on planktonic leaching
microorganisms, e.g. Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans was investigated at laboratory scale.
The application inhibited or enhanced microbial pyrite oxidation depending on detergent
type and concentration used (Sand, 1985; Onysoko et al., 1984; Dugan, 1986). In other
laboratory experiments quaternary ammonium compounds or hydrocarbons for planktonic
microorganisms were used (Sikkema et al., 1995; Kourai et al., 2006; Sumitomo et al., 2006).
Sand et al., 2007 described the field-scale application of sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) and
the biocide isothiazolinone in large percolators with a volume of 65 m3 containing acidic
mining waste. The addition of 0.2 g SDS per kg waste material decreased the metabolic
activity and the number of leaching microorganisms, but the bacteria were not killed. The
SDS concentration ranged from 0 to 100 mg/L SDS in the effluent, which was explained
by the adsorption or consumption of the surfactant. Application of the biocide reduced
the release of toxic metals and sulfides to some extent, but a complete AMD inhibition
was not achieved. This may be explained by an inefficient biocide concentration or the
heterogeneous access of the additives. Another study where 0.3 or 3 g/L SDS was used on
river sediment showed similar low AMD inhibition (Seidel et al., 2000), and only 3.6%
of the added SDS was detected in the first 2 hours after application. Even higher surfac-
tant concentration showed an inhibition of bioleaching for a short time only. The authors’
explanation was the strong sorption on solid particles immediately after application, and
microbial degradation.
The lesson learned from the above studies is that it is important to adopt and combine
various AMD mitigation and treatment methods depending on site conditions, acidity of
the drainage as well as the amount of pollutant metal ions. The other generic rule for such
complex chemically and biologically determined cases is the necessity to find optimal tech-
nological parameters in the preceding laboratory and small-scale field experiments. The
results can serve as input for the thorough design of the type and amount of reagents and
additives, the residence times and the consequent size of the in situ or ex situ, active or
passive reactor.
2.3 Monitoring bioleaching, microbiological status,

and leaching activity
The microorganism monitoring methods can be divided into cultivation- and molecular-
biology-based techniques.
The classical approach is the cultivation-based technique to detect living microorgan-
isms, which can be achieved by the most-probable-number technique or by cultivation on
agar plates. It enables the cell counts of living microorganisms and their direct analysis in
liquid or solid samples. The disadvantage of this method may be an underestimation of the
microorganisms present due to nonculturable microorganisms or cells embedded in biofilms.
However, this method can distinguish microorganisms with the help of metabolism, e.g.
iron-oxidizing from sulfur-oxidizing, or aerobic from anaerobic microorganisms. Investiga-
tions on artificial coal spoils showed first heterotrophic and then autotrophic microorganisms
that were detected by cultivation-based techniques within 76 weeks of cultivation (Harrison,
1978). The disadvantage of this method is the preference of particular microorganisms due
to different nutrition requirements. However, monitoring bacterial biomass can reduce this
disadvantage by measuring e.g. the lipid phosphate content (Porsch et al., 2009). Microcalo-
rimetry is an independent cultivation approach which can determine metabolic activity in
solid or liquid samples to calculate the concentration of microorganisms (Schippers et al., 1995;
Schroeter & Sand, 1993). Total cell number can be determined from liquid or solid samples
using light and phase contrast and fluorescence microscopy. In this case direct cell count-
ing with the nucleic acid stains DAPI (4’,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole) or SYBR Green for
the detection of the microorganisms are performed. This method was used to count micro-
organisms in German mine tailings and in an active lignite mining area up to 109 cells per
gram sand, and 108 cells per gram sand, respectively (Kock et al., 2007; Kock & Schippers,
2006; Siebert et al., 2009). The disadvantage of this method is the problem of differentiation
between living and dead cells. To overcome this problem the Fluorescence In situ Hybrid-
ization technique (FISH) with specific fluorescence probes is used to detect, for example,
the 16S ribosomal RNA genes (e.g. Urbieta et al., 2012). This technique also allows the
differentiation between bacteria and archaea and between species. An improvement of this
technique is the Catalyzed Reporter Deposition Fluorescence In situ Hybridization Tech-
nique (CARD-FISH) described by Schippers et al. (2007).
Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction (qPCR) offers another option for monitor-
ing and quantifying microbial communities. The technique is based on the amplification
of bacterial or archaeal 16S ribosomal RNA genes. This method is used after the extrac-
tion of nucleic acids from solid or liquid samples as described earlier (e.g. Kock & Schip-
pers, 2008; Liu et al., 2006). A community study of different coal mine drainage treatment
systems using cultivation-based and molecular-based qPCR techniques has indicated the
predominance of heavy metal resistant fungal and bacterial strains. The fungi were identi-
fied using morphological characterization and the amplification of the 18S rRNA gene, 28S
rRNA gene, and ITS1–5.8S rRNA-ITS2 region (Santelli et al., 2010). Another study that
used Denaturing Gradient Gel Electrophoresis (DGGE) analysis of amplified 16S rRNA
genes and sequencing showed that the microbial diversity in the oxic sediment zone of a
constructed wetland is very low (Nicomrat et al., 2006). Iron- and sulfur-oxidizing acido-
philes A. ferrooxidans and A. thiooxidans as well as the bacteria Alcaligenes sp. and Borde-
tella sp. were identified. Another study on samples from three layers of surface sediments
from a mining lake showed high microbial diversity. Depending on the physicochemical
properties of the samples, cultivation- and molecule-based techniques identified acidophilic

iron-reducing or -oxidizing or neutrophilic iron-reducing bacteria (Porsch et al., 2009).
Factors beyond the microbial community, e.g. physicochemical properties, must be mea-
sured to be able to properly monitor the remediation process. Not only the pH is a significant
marker, but oxygen, carbon dioxide, sulfate, ferrous, and ferric ion contents or other metals
are also important. Temperature, conductivity, or redox potential measurements can also be
used for control. Various methods are available for mineralogical and chemical analysis of
samples affected by AMD. The morphology and the arsenic specimen from a mining waste
were analyzed by Environmental Scanning Electron Microscope (ESEM) (Recio-Vazquez
et al., 2010). This study qualitatively and quantitatively determined heavy metals by X-ray dif-
fraction (XRD) and X-ray fluorescence (XRF) spectrometry, and Inductively Coupled Plasma
Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES) with a detection limit of 10 g/L arsenic in the sam-
ples. The measurement of pH, alkalinity, and other factors allows the development of a model
for the prediction of the efficiency of different remediation treatments (Nixdorf et al., 2010).
2.4 Impacts of inhibiting agents on bioleaching

microorganisms
As described previously, the treatment of leaching microorganisms by surfactants can be
effective at different concentrations. This can be explained by the growth behavior of these
microorganisms. The increased effect of ethanol, H2O2 or SDS on planktonic cells of Can-
dida albicans was shown in comparison to biofilm-grown cells (Nett et al., 2008). A high
cell density system with 1010 planktonic A. thiooxidans cells was treated with 0.5–10 g/L
SDS, which resulted in the release of nucleic acids and a 25–75% decrease in cell numbers.
The incomplete disappearance of cells even when treated with high surfactant concentra-
tions suggests the existence of a lysis mechanism (Siebert et al., 2011). The cell lysis in
bacteria and the different ways of its induction have been known for more than 100 years
(Rice & Bayles, 2008). This may explain the differences between laboratory and field stud-
ies using biocides for the inhibition of microorganisms. Since the acidophilic bacteria, e.g.
A. ferrooxidans or Leptospirillum ferrooxidans, can grow planktonically and in a biofilm on
a mineral surface, the inhibition concentration might differ because an efficient detergent
concentration depends not only on surface adhesion and biodegradation but also on the type
of microorganism grown in a biofilm and perhaps on the substrate. While relatively low con-
centrations inhibited planktonic microorganisms because of different accessibility, microor-
ganisms grown in a biofilm were not vulnerable even at higher concentrations.
A novel approach to reduce pyrite dissolution was shown in 2008. In this study freshly
milled mine waste was pre-cultivated with the heterotrophic acidophiles Acidiphilium,
Acidocella, & Acidobacterium. Subsequently, cultures were incubated with the lithoauto-
trophic A. ferrooxidans for four weeks. This reduced the pyrite dissolution rate by 57–75%
(Johnson et al., 2008). However, co-incubation of the heterotrophs and autotrophs failed to
reduce pyrite dissolution in comparison to the controls.
2.5 Conclusions
Demand for valuable metals such as copper, gold, or nickel is increasing constantly all over
the world. This situation is aggravated by fast economic growth, e.g. in China, India, and
Brazil, resulting in shortages of such metals. Bioleaching is an efficient, competitive, and
environmentally friendly technology to extract metals also from low-grade ores. Research
is still needed to increase its efficiency and to reduce environmental impacts of industrial
leaching technology. In addition, technologies to minimize the impact of unwanted bioleach-
ing such as acid rock drainage and methods for the remediation of mining-impacted areas,
including forecast and monitoring techniques, also need to be considerably improved.
3 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THE GYÖNGYÖSOROSZI

MINING SITE, CONCEPT FOR THE REMEDIATION
OF THE FORMER ZINC-LEAD MINES
Zs. Berta, G. Földing, J.T. Árgyelán & M. Csővári
3.1 Introduction
This case study presents an engineering solution applied to a mine closure in Hungary. The
former Gyöngyösoroszi metal mine currently is under restoration. AMD originates from
the abandoned and flooded mine, and ARD is generated from hundreds of solid mine waste
dumps and waste rock heaps of various sizes and from flotation tailings ponds. Leach-
ing in the underground mine, mine wastes and waste rocks caused watershed-scale diffuse
pollution. The impacts of leaching on water, sediment, and soil can be observed at water-
shed level. Additionally, a series of industrial accidents took place at the site during ore
mining and processing which resulted in serious contamination of the nearby Toka Creek
and valley. This section gives a general overview of the environmental conditions and the
remediation concept of the site and the first results of the remediation. The main steps of
the remediation are remediation of the waste rock piles (WRP) and the flotation tailings
dam, clean-up of the Toka Creek and the water reservoirs, and backfilling the highly pyritic
Mátraszentimre mine.
A short overview is given of the geology of the site, the history of mining at this site, the
acid mine drainage (AMD) and its treatment, the waste rock piles, the ore processing plant,
and the tailings pond.
3.1.1 Mine and mining history

The first written information on metal mining at Gyöngyösoroszi, Eastern Hungary, dates
back to the second half of the 18th century. Mining continued in the19th century, especially
for lead and silver. Industrialized mining started in 1925, and the mining area became state
owned in 1948. At the time the official strategy in Hungary was the development of heavy
industry. In line with this, the Hungarian Government decided in 1951 to open a new zinc-
lead ore mine at the Gyöngyösoroszi site with a mining capacity of 500 t/day and to build
an ore processing plant of 200 t/day capacity. Some shafts built earlier (1926–1930) were
dewatered and newly exploited. New shafts were built (Károly shaft in 1955 and Bányabérc
shaft in 1964), one last one (Mátraszentimre shaft) being added in 1967. The total production
of the mine was 3.6 million metric tons of ore from which 260,000 t of concentrates (sphal-
erite, galena and pyrite) were obtained by 1986 when ore mining activity was abandoned and
the mine was placed on long-term stand-by (Soós, 1966; Vidacs, 1966a; Kun, 1966, 1980,
1998). Mine water treatment is being conducted by precipitating iron and toxic metals (zinc,
cadmium, cobalt, nickel, lead) from the water using a lime milk process.
Initially the ore extracted in Gyöngyösoroszi was processed in Bulgaria and Germany.
A processing plant was built on the site to reduce transportation costs. Technological water
demand (2000 m3/day) determined the location: the Toka Creek was capable of supplying the
processing plant with water, and thus it was decided to build the plant and the water reservoir
in the Toka Valley. The flotation process started in the plant in 1955.
A flotation tailings pond was constructed in the nearby valley (Száraz Valley). During
the operation a few dam failures occurred when a large amount of process water from the
pond and solid tailings entered the Toka Creek. The estimated total volume of tailings reach-
ing the Toka Creek was a few thousand tons. One of the most serious remediation tasks is the
clean-up of the Toka Creek valley of tailings.
The site and the related environmental risks have been studied by Fügedi et al. (2001),
Fügedi (2004, 2006) and Gruiz et al. (2007). Based on measured data between 1991–2005
(Gruiz et al., 2007) the metal concentration of the Toka Creek was, on average, As: 10 μg/L,
Cd: 2 μg/L, Pb: 30 μg/L, and Zn: 800 μg/L. Gruiz and Vodicska (1993) found that total As
and Pb concentrations in the soil decreased from 110 mg/kg to non-detectable, and from
462 mg/kg to 63 mg/kg, respectively, at a distance of 5–50 m from the Toka Creek. Similarly,
Cd and Zn concentrations decreased from 7.5 mg/kg to 0.6 mg/kg, and from 1685 mg/kg
to 208 mg/kg, respectively. The size of the Toka watershed affected by mining activity was
10 km2, according to the catchment scale GIS assessment performed by Gruiz et al. (2007).
Broad information on the Gyöngyösoroszi mining site was provided by MAFI (Hungarian
Central Geological Survey) (Kun, 1998).
3.1.2 Geology of the site and development of the ore

mineralization
The geology of the polymetallic ore deposit at Gyöngyösoroszi is presented in the publica-
tions of Vidacs (1966b); Kun et al. (1988); Fügedi (2006).
The area affected by ore mining at Gyöngyösoroszi is located in the western part of the
Mátra Mountains, consisting of mainly Tertiary eruptive rocks. There is no direct informa-
tion regarding the pre-Tertiary basement as the prospecting boreholes did not even reach
the Oligocene underlying beds. The deepest borehole (−700 m) ended in the lower andesite
formation (Hasznos andesite). The thickness of the Mátra Andesite Formation is 500–600 m,
but it exceeds even 1000 m near Mátraszentimre.
The mineralized territory around Gyöngyösoroszi in the Western Mátra Mts. covers
an area of about 30 km2 between Gyöngyösoroszi, Mátrakeresztes and Mátraszentimre.
Its structure is of the caldera type, i.e. late collapse structure, with connected hydrother-
mal veins. Hydrothermal alteration, silicification, and argillization of volcanic rocks can be
observed regionally in the territory.
The two main components of the ore targeted by mining are Zn and Pb. Considering
that it is a sulfidic ore, the main minerals are sphalerite and smaller amounts of wurtzite and
galena. Fe is also present primarily in pyrite and in smaller amounts in marcasite, chalcopy-
rite and arsenopyrite. The length of the veins in the Gyöngyösoroszi ore deposit area is gen-
erally 500–1000 m; their thickness is 0.3–2.0 m. A detailed description of the mineralization
can be found in publications by Vidacs (1966b); Kun et al. (1988). The characteristic metal
composition is summed up in Table 7.1.
Thirty-one veins were found in the mineralized territory in the course of ore mining, and
they were mined from 1955 to 1986. The lowest level of mining activity is the +100 m.a.s.l.
Table 7.1 Characteristic metal compositions of the Gyöngyösoroszi ore.
Characteristic parameters of Gyöngyösoroszi veins
Level Number of samples Pb Zn Cu Fe Au Ag

m.a.s.l. % % % % g/t g/t
Veins of the central deposit

+ 510 85 0.52 1.66 0.06 5.06 0.71 9.73
+ 460 590 1.32 3.42 0.20 4.31 1.21 19.39
+ 400 1657 1.39 3.70 0.08 4.27 1.22 14.41
+ 350 1297 1.55 4.31 0.16 4.77 0.59 15.32
+ 300 1138 1.65 4.93 0.21 4.96 0.55 17.44
+ 250 1188 1.62 4.34 0.22 5.46 0.18 18.73
+ 200 1052 1.59 4.31 0.25 7.52 0.22 21.85
+ 150 634 1.92 4.68 0.36 9.73 0.21 23.89
+ 100 396 1.85 3.55 0.38 9.57 0.04 26.30
Mátraszentimre vein 0.96 2.77 0.09 6.28 0.40 11.80
(meters above sea level) drift within the Károly vein. The highest point was the Mátraszen-
timre shaft at +656 m.a.s.l. height, which means that the Gyöngyösoroszi operations affected
the 556 m thick interval of the ore deposit.
The deposit comprises a polymetallic ore with medium to high zinc and lead content.
The ore also contains a large amount of pyrite and some traces of gold and silver. Most of
the ore was mined from the central mining areas.
3.1.3 Summary of the mining activity

The last mining period lasted from 1949 to 1986, and mining and ore processing were termi-
nated due to financial difficulties.
The mining area can be divided into three parts according to the groups of productive
veins that were found on the site:
– Central deep zone (+100 to +400 m, situated below the main transporting adit. (Károly
vein). The volume of the excavated rock is estimated to be 748,000 m3.
– Central zone and other veins above the main transporting adit (~+400 to +560 m, Bánya-
bérc vein); the volume of mined-out rock is estimated to be 42,000 m3.
– Northern mining area (Mátraszentimre vein) was only included in the operation in
1967. Approximately 193,000 m3 rock was mined out.
Metal content of the ROM (run of mine ore: the unprocessed form) is presented in Table 7.2.
Total ROM mass amounted to 3.634 million tons, which produced 2.944 million tons of
tailings (Ötvös et al., 2004).
The connection and location of the three mining areas are presented in the simplified
cross-section in Figure 7.6. The main transporting adit (Adit) is also shown together with the
two bulkheads (plugs) constructed in the Adit for enhancing the flooding of the Mátraszen-
timre mine (V-2 bulkhead) and regulation of the mine water volume for the water treatment
station (V-3 bulkhead). The details of the bulkheads are described by Bagdy and Sulyok
(2000). However, after several months of operation, the V-2 plug failed in compression of
water collected in the Mátraszentimre mining openings. The damage of the plug and its sur-
roundings led to the outburst of large amounts of highly contaminated mine water from the
Mátraszentimre openings. This water (100,000–300,000 m³) ran through the Toka Creek and
extensively contaminated the creek bed.
Plug V-3 was built in 1989 to control the flow rate of the mine water to the water treat-
ment plant. Both plugs have been removed recently as part of remediation.
The field still has ore reserves after the termination of mining. These reserves are pre-
sented in Table 7.3. It can be seen that the pyrite content in the Mátraszentimre vein is twice
as high as in the whole area. The quantity of the available ore is estimated to be almost twice
that of the already exploited amount, but the grade is lower.
Table 7.2 ROM quality.
Metals Zn Pb Cu Fe Cd Au Ag As
Content 2.85% 0.98% 0.147% 9.8% 150 g/t 0.74 g/t 47 g/t 350 g/t
Figure 7.6 Simplified cross-section of the mining area.
Table 7.3 Ore reserves left in the Mátraszentimre site.
Item Zn Pb FeS2 Au Ag Quantity of the ore
% % % g/t g/t million t
Total geological reserves 3.71 1.39 13.78 0.15 0.39 5.761

Reserves in the Mátraszentimre site 2.75 0.96 11.72 0.09 0.24 1.027
3.2 AMD in the Gyöngyösoroszi mine

The volume of the created underground cavities exceeded 1.7 million m3 (Table 7.4) in the
Gyöngyösoroszi mine during the industrial-scale mining activities.
Mine waters are part of the groundwater connected with the mine openings: 25–30% of all
mine waters in the former Gyöngyösoroszi ore mine originated from the Mátraszentimre mining
territory. The main vein mined contains a large amount of pyrite, the alteration of which in oxygen-
rich conditions causes intense acidification and dissolves toxic elements into the mine water. This
component of contaminated mine water has a significant effect on the overall mine water quality.
3.2.1 Quality of the mine water

Only limited reliable data is available about the quality of the discharged mine water from the
1970–1990 period. The most frequently measured parameters were electrical conductivity, pH
and Zn concentration because of the nature of the mine water treatment technology. Flooding
of the deep mining fields in 1988 had a significant effect: the pH increased and the Zn con-
centration decreased and stabilized at a high level (10–20 mg/L) (Figure 7.7). However, it was
Table 7.4 Main geometric parameters of the mine cavity.
Mine field Total mine openings (m3) Free face (m2)
Mátraszentimre 118,086 220,143

Bányabérc 30,060
Central 1,585,756 3,521,798
Total 1,733,902 3,741,941
Figure 7.7 pH and Zn concentration time series of the mine water sampled at the mouth of the adit.
Table 7.5 Results of chemical analyses of the mine water sampled at the mouth of the adit.
Component Unit of Water sample

measurement
Filtered Non-filtered
Al mg/L 2.48 22.18

Fe 49.38 68.83
Mn 4.67 4.84
As µg/L 120.6 1111.2
Cd 62.8 122
Co 30.2 35.7
Cr 17.9 15.4
Cu 207.9 158.1
Ni 19.2 17.2
Pb 60.9 131.9
Zn 17,892 22,738
Na + mg/L 6.7 75
K+ 1.5 40
Ca2+ 18.4 405
Mg2+ 12.5 238
Cl – 0.7 31
SO42 − 63 1,540
CO32 − <10 <10
HCO3 − 12 207
TDS 635 2,265
obvious at that time that the decreasing trend of Zn concentration would not result in water
quality changes, albeit in the distant future and mine water treatment had to be continued.
There were 125 sampling events at the mouth of the adit during 2004–2011. Table 7.5
shows the statistical summary of the representative parameters including main ions and toxic
elements. The analyses of toxic elements were carried out using ICP-OES and ICP-MS, and
classic laboratory methods were implemented to analyze the main anions both from filtered
and unfiltered water samples.
Fe, Zn, and the Cd concentrations have exhibited an increasing trend since the mine was
reopened in 2007 (accompanied by the complex remediation and rehabilitation of the site)
because of the aeration of the workings and the resulting AMD (Figure 7.7).
After reopening the Mátraszentimre mine field (2008), in parallel to an increasing sul-
fate trend, bicarbonate and the pH have shown a clear decrease as a result of acidification.
3.2.2 Quantity of AMD

The water was pumped from the deeper mining fields to the surface via the Károly shaft
during mining operations because of dewatering the mining level below the elevation of
400 m.a.s.l (Figure 7.6). Dam V-3 controlled the drained mine water in this period.
After 25 years of intensive mining, from 1986 (the date of abeyance) to late 2004, the
flow rate of the outflowing mine water ranged between 1800 and 3000 m3/day (Figure 7.8).
The flow rate of the resulting AMD depended on the precipitation/rainfall at the mine field:
the total average daily mine water rate was 3000 m3/day in 2007 and 2008, and more than
4000 m3/day in 2006, 2009, and 2010 (rather wet years), see Figure 7.9.
Dam V-3 controlled the mine water drainage flow before its failure at the end of 2007.
At present, such a control is not possible. Thus, it was necessary to reconstruct and mod-
ernize the mine water treatment facilities. In addition to the underground buffer space, two
surface buffering pools were built to control the hazardous situation. The mine water was
pumped via the Károly shaft to the underground buffer space.
Figure 7.8 The average quantity of mine water measured at the mouth of the adit between 1962 and 2009.
Figure 7.9 Daily quantity of total mine water measured at the mouth of the adit between 2005 and
2011. The black line shows the 30-day moving average.
3.2.3 AMD flow rate

The AMD flow rate was measured starting in 2009: 25–30% of the total mine water derived
from the Mátraszentimre mine field, 5% from the northern part of the adit, and 20–25% from
the Bányabérc and Béla cross headings, and the remaining 40–50% came from the central
mine field (Figure 7.10). The most problematic mine field is the Mátraszentimre field, which
supplies 25–30% of the total mine water but 50–85% of the toxic metals; 75% of the total
contamination typically originates from the Mátraszentimre field.
3.2.4 Mine water quality at different mine fields

Three main mine water groups can be distinguished by the chemistry of the major elements.
Group 1: These are descending water inflows of meteoric origin, filtering into the mine
workings via fissures and faults. However, the sulfate content indicates the influence of
the host rocks, pervaded through by ore-bearing veins. The variability in their quality and
Figure 7.10 Distribution of the mine water quantity between the different mining territories according
to the measurements on 10 June 2010.
quantity depends on the precipitation amount and detention time. The following additional
subgroups can be distinguished:
1A: low or low-to-moderate TDS,

1B: slightly oxidative character,
1C: rainwater like, and
1D: neutral pH.
Group 2 does not differ significantly from group 1. It has higher TDS concentration,
slightly lower pH values (4.6–7) compared to group 1, and an increasing sulfate anion con-
centration indicating a longer retention time in the fissures of the host rock traversed by ore-
bearing hydrothermal veins. These waters are typical of the central mine field.
Group 3 differs significantly from the others. Waters in this group have moderate to high
TDS content, they are Ca-(Mg)-SO4 water type, often exhibiting strongly acidic chemistry.
The prevailing anion is the sulfate which is present at high concentrations. These waters
occur in the flooded deep mine openings (“old man”), where the water reaches the ore-
bearing host rock, and in the airy mine openings where the oxidation is intensified (AMD).
These waters come from non-flooded, oxygen-saturated mine openings, where an intensive
alteration process takes place (see AMD), and are typical of the Mátraszentimre mine field.
Table 7.6 summarizes the characteristics of typical mine waters.
The highest Al, Fe, Mn, Zn, and Cd concentrations can be found in the mine waters
originated from the mine reopenings (Groups 2 and 3). Significantly high concentrations
(especially Fe and As) are typical of the mine waters from the non-flooded Mátraszentimre
mine field where the pyrite-rich Mátraszentimre vein is located (subgroup 3B).
In general, the toxic elements (As, B, Ba, Cd, Co, Cu, Cr, Ni, Pb) are present at low
concentration in the water feeders (<0.1 mg/L), typical of Group 1. These elements occur
at extremely high concentrations (0.1–10 mg/L) in the mine waters of Group 2, and Group 3
in particular. The most common toxic contaminant in these waters is the As. Further
Table 7.6 Statistical summary of the waters belonging to different mine water groups.
Parameter Water types within the mine
1A 1B 1C 1D 2 3A 3B
TDS (mg/L) 377 454 612 763 994 2140 2696

pH 7.2 6.9 7.0 7.0 6.4 5.2 3.1
EH (mV) 143 138 100 87 157 176 447
SO42− (mg/L) 148 262 275 344 550 1266 1768
Al (mg/L) 1.0 0.1 0.06 0.06 0.7 7 37
As (µg/L) 33 76 13 75 40 647 3142
B (µg/L) 21 17 86 49 49 71 29
Cd (µg/L) 14.4 5.6 3.6 2.6 14 76 481
Fe (mg/L) 7.7 4.1 1.2 1.8 4.3 67 271
Mn (mg/L) 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.8 2.1 5.1 7.3
Zn (mg/L) 2.3 1.4 0.9 0.5 4.3 25 70
characteristic toxic elements are Cd, Cu, and Co, and Pb in the mine waters originating from
Mátraszentimre. The distribution of these elements depends on the composition of the host
rock: As and Co with Fe indicate pyrite-containing rock, Cd and Pb in addition to Zn reflect
host rock containing sphalerite and galenite.
3.2.5 Summary of the AMD at the Gyöngyösoroszi mine

More than 1.7 million m3 underground cavities were excavated during the time of non-
ferrous metal mining in 1950–1986. In the period of 1960–2010 more than 64.5 million m3
water was discharged from the system through the adit.
At present, 25–30% of the total mine water derives from the Mátraszentimre mine field,
with approximately 5% from the northern part of the adit, 20–25% from the Bányabérc and
Béla cross headings, and 40–50% from the central mine field.
The most problematic part of the mine is the Mátraszentimre field, which provides
25–30% of the total mine water flow and 50–85% of the total toxic metals discharged (75%
in average).
The main vein located in the Mátraszentimre mine field contains predominantly pyrite,
whose weathering under oxygen-rich conditions results in intensive acidification and leach-
ing of toxic elements into the mine water, thus producing AMD. Mine operation has been
suspended since 1986. One of the main remediation actions was acid mine water treatment.
The highly pyritic part of the mine field had to be backfilled to avoid further damage and
higher risk due to AMD.
The aims of backfilling were as follows: (i) avoid the accumulation of mine water and
sludge, which may cause unpredictable pressure underground; (ii) backfill the entire mining
space to principally eliminate pyrite oxidization; (iii) keep out water inflows from the cavity
system and thus reduce mine water quantity; and (iv) prevent contamination, acidification
and solubilization of toxic elements.
The aims of the drainage system are these: (i) ensure long-term free leakage of the water
feeders which still exist after backfilling; (ii) ensure the proper treatment of mine water as
long as necessary; and (iii) Rule out any unsafe or uncontrollable situation.
3.3 AMD mitigation by backfilling

The environmental impact of the previous mining activity has been evaluated by many
experts and institutions. MECSEK-ÖKO Co. summarized all the relevant information
during preparation of the remediation concept of the site, taking into account two main
factors:
– Mátraszentimre mine is located upstream of Gyöngyösoroszi village (see Figure 7.10).

AMD flows through the 5-km long adit. If the adit is blocked, the strongly contaminated
mine water accumulates in the mine openings, posing high risk to the residents of the
village and the environment along the Toka Creek. Such an event already occurred in
1988 (when the V-2 plug failed), resulting in widespread contamination of the Toka
Creek and its flood plain.
– It is advisable to backfill the Mátraszentimre mine to avoid such risks. A proper backfill
could prevent both mine water accumulation and air inflow into the reactive pyritic zone
and suppress AMD formation.
Figure 7.11 In situ column experiment in Matraszentimre mine.
The risk assessment concluded that the Mátraszentimre mine should be backfilled
using suitable fly ash with significant pozzolanic activity available at a nearby power
station.
Several laboratory and in situ mine studies were conducted to assess the leaching behav-
ior of the mine water when it seeps through the ash bed. Column experiments performed
inside the mine simulated the exclusion of air. The photo in Figure 7.11 shows one of the
column experiments in Mátraszentimre. Mine water is seeping directly from the wall of the
drift and fly ash is used as filling in the column.
The more than 3-month long study concluded that three phases can be distinguished:
1 The ash behaves as a neutralizing agent (due to its CaO content) and some metals
precipitate.
2 Transitional leaching occurs.
3 Ash functions as neutral backfill material with minimal chemical interactions with mine
water but shows surface sorption effects.
Figure 7.12 shows the average heavy metal content of the mine water seeping from the
wall of the tunnel (influent) and passing through the column (effluent) filled with thick fly
ash slurry.
Figure 7.12 Relative concentration change of heavy metals during the mine water – fly ash interaction.
The duration of the experiment was 110 days, pH of the influent AMD was 3.4–3.7
(acidity: ~22,000 mg CaCO3/L), pH of the effluent: 3.7–4.2.
The relative change of metal concentrations in the effluent:
[ceffluent – cinfluent]/cinfluent
versus the loading rate was plotted in Figure 7.12. Chromium decreased to 50%, arsenic
to 30%, lead to 20% at the highest loading rate of 48L per kg of fly ash. The other metals
do not show significant changes at this load when seeping through the column filled with
fly ash.
Following the impact of loading, Cd, Co, Ni, and Zn did not show significant changes at
loads higher than 18–20 L mine water per kg of ash. Ni was the only metal showing a relative
increase at low loadings.
After repeated passes of the mine water through the fly ash backfill, the reactivity of the
fly ash towards the mine water ceased and behaved almost like an inert material.
The neutralizing capacity of the backfill material (ash + CaO) increased when the
admixture of ash and CaO (2%) was used. The interaction of the mine water and fly ash has
been studied by MECSEK-ÖKO Co. (Csővári, 2007). The study led to the conclusion that
the governing parameter was the pH of the AMD when considering the possible dissolution
of heavy metals. As the backfilling of the mine would substantially decrease the aeration rate
of the mine, sulfide oxidization to sulfate and the acidification process would also be reduced
significantly.
According to the original schedule the backfilling of the Mátraszentimre mine was sup-
posed to start in 2011 but is still pending.
3.4 AMD treatment

A large amount of water accumulated in the mine field during operation because of the geo-
logical conditions was pumped to the surface. The volume of mine water sometimes fluctu-
ated depending on the inrush of water from one of the veins (2000–6000 m3/day in running
period). The volume of mine water decreased slightly after mining was ended but increased
to 4500 m3/day in wet seasons.
Mine water had to be treated because of its iron and toxic metal content where the main
pollutants were zinc, cadmium, arsenic, iron, and manganese.
A simple water treatment process was used before 2006: mine water was neutral-
ized using lime milk passing through aerators where the precipitated sludge, mainly
Fe(OH)2, was oxidized. The treated water was fed into two open field basins for sedi-
mentation, the sludge from the basins was pumped into a sludge repository (lagoon),
and the cleaned water was discharged into the nearby Toka Creek. During more than
25 years of operation a large amount of sludge (solid content: 13%) was accumulated in
the Bence Valley pond. The deposited sludge was hauled into a hazardous waste reposi-
tory and the pond remediated. Figure 7.13 shows the partly remediated sedimentation
pond.
A new mine water treatment technology was introduced in 2006 which eliminates on-
site deposition of the sludge. The sludge is dewatered by a centrifuge resulting in 25–30%
solid content and is transported to the final repository for toxic wastes. It is expected that
mine water treatment has to be continued in the future. The composition of AMD is only
expected to change after completing the Mátraszentimre mine backfilling.
3.5 ARD from waste rock piles

The long-lasting mining activity in the region produced a number of WRPs with various
metal and pyrite contents. Records from the 1980s refer to 39 piles. The total amount of
the waste piles was 1.150 million tons, of which 1.1 million tons was produced in the
period 1949–1986. In 2004 only 23 piles were identified, plus the waste from the main
transporting adit which was reused as foundation for industrial buildings, in particular for
Figure 7.13 Bence Valley: emptying the sedimentation pond and the valley after remediation.
the water treatment station, for the dams of the sludge repository and the industrial water
reservoir along the Toka Creek. Therefore, only a small part of the original WRPs can cur-
rently be identified. At present most of the piles are hardly recognizable to the eye but are
identifiable through chemical analysis. A tiered site risk assessment of the site included a
multipoint XRF assessment (using a handheld mobile apparatus) and laboratory analy-
sis of pre-levated samples (Gruiz, 2005, 2014; Gruiz et al., 2000; Sarkadi, 2009). Some
characteristic data are presented in Table 7.7 (pile names are Hungarian). The main toxic
component is arsenic. In addition to the metals, all samples were analyzed for total inor-
ganic carbon (TIC) and total sulfur to calculate the net acid-generating potential (NAP).
Most of the wastes – even after 20–50 years – exhibited significant net acid generating
potential.
The WRPs were grouped into three categories according to a qualitative score-based
risk assessment (Gruiz, 2004), taking into account the quality and quantity of the waste rock,
the potential transport and exposition pathways and the receptors:
– No need for any remediation (small piles);

– Piles to be remediated in situ;
– Piles to be removed and relocated to the top of the flotation tailings pond and to be cov-
ered and recultivated together with the tailings pond. This includes 43,025 m3 of wastes.
Table 7.7 Toxic metal content of waste rock piles (Gruiz, 2005).
Waste rock pile, adit As Cd Cu Pb Zn
mg/kg
Ezüst Bányabérci – 1 70.4 0.16 36.7 28.1 60.7

Hidegkúti táró – 1 27.9 <0.049 11.4 39.0 53.8
Katalin táró 910 10.2 14.1 299 109
József 332 3.84 20.7 367 221
Kistölgyesbérc – 1 468 12.9 135 4563 1920
Kistölgyesbérc – 2 583 4.20 93.1 2921 503
Lajos – 1 41.7 <0.049 18.1 161 133
Péter-Pál – 1 171 0.91 6.92 529 14.8
Péter-Pál shaft – 1 142 2.27 45.3 2223 392
Száka – 1 343 1.36 19.8 9.9 67.4
Új Károlytáró – 1 239 1.29 39.8 118 230
Új Károlytáró – 2 167 0.86 18.6 195 130
Vereskő – 1 16.0 <0.049 7.47 9.22 16.6
Nagytölgyesbérc – 1 293 2.44 42.4 173 361
Kistölgyesbérc – 1 96.9 0.06 4.9 217 240
Kistölgyesbérc – 2 29.4 <0.049 31.5 1.8 103
Vizeslyuk – 1 529 1.11 19.3 177 303
Pelyhes – 1/1 1919 6.62 2.7 2052 141
Pelyhes – 2/1 145 0.40 16.9 69.7 117
Altáró – 1 169 14.6 163 1425 2760
Some WRPs are small and contain only a few hundred tons. The photo in Figure 7.14
shows Szákacsurgó WRP for which there are plans for on-site remediation. Katalin WRP
(Figure 7.15) and Új Károlytáró (Figure 7.16) are planned to be relocated to the flotation tail-
ings pond for containment. Figure 7.17 shows Bányabérc WRP before remediation (1964)
and the site after its removal (2011). The relocated mass will be remediated by in situ treat-
ment and revegetation on the top of the tailings pond.
Figure 7.14 Szákacsurgó WRP from 1967 (to be remediated in situ).
Figure 7.15 Katalin adit WRP from 1957 to 1958 (to be relocated to the flotation tailing dump).
Figure 7.16 Új Károlytáró waste pile from 1955 (to be relocated to the flotation tailing dump for
containment).
Figure 7.17 The Bányabérc WRP in 1964 and in 2011 after removal.
The risks of the questionable piles were assessed quantitatively as point sources and
their contribution to the diffuse contamination of the watershed was quantified (Gruiz, 2004).
3.6 Ore processing and flotation tailings

Ore processing recovered lead and zinc from the ore and parts of the pyrite in the form of
heavy concentrates. The concentrates also contained gold, silver, cadmium, and copper.
3.6.1 Ore processing

Figure 7.18 shows the principal technological process used by the company. Galena, sphal-
erite, and, for a short period, pyrite concentrate, was separated from the ROM by flotation
(Kun et al., 1988). Ore was crushed and classified by sieving. The 4- to 1-mm fraction was
upgraded into heavy suspension using ferrosilicon slurry (r = 2.63 kg/L). This fraction was
washed prior to upgrading. The slimes from this operation were pumped to the hydrocy-
clone’s underflow, which was fed into the collecting bins. The overflow was added to the
flotation tailings.
The washed fraction was upgraded in a heavy medium. Gangue minerals of lower den-
sity were separated and then handled as waste rock and used for road construction or as
backfilling material.
The upgraded ore was directed for milling. The milled ore (92% below 0.20 mm) under-
went flotation in three steps: galena was removed in the first step, sphalerite in the second,
and finally pyrite. Water consumption of the process was 4 m3/t, water having been taken
from the Toka Creek. The following reagents were used for flotation: 91 t NaCN and 1200 t
ferrosilicon. The end product of the flotation was the concentrate and total production by
1986 was this:
Galena: 56,900 t (grade: Pb = 53.8%);

Sphalerite: 150,700 t (grade: Zn = 51.3%);
Pyrite: 68,000 t (grade: FeS2 ≈ 90–95%).
Figure 7.18 Material flow sheet of ore processing.
Table 7.8 Metal content and net acid-generation potential of the flotation tailings.
Content Pb Zn Fe Mn As Cu Cd Ni S Total Net acid-

inorganic generation
carbon potential
% % % % mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg % % kg CaCO3/t
ROM 0.99 2.85 5.1 0.1 370 1,500 150 ~2 5.23 ~80
Tailings 0.11 0.26 4.2 0.1 309 426 17 2 4.25 1.04 45
3.6.2 Tailings pond

Flotation “produced” 2.95 million tons of flotation tailings. The tailings were placed into
tailings ponds of a total area of 22 ha.
Many authors have studied the composition of the tailings and suggested several alterna-
tives for the remediation of the tailings ponds (GEOPARD Ltd, 2002; Gruiz, 2005; Csővári,
2007). Table 7.8 shows the average data from six drilling core samples together with the
original ore composition (the study was carried out by MECSEKÉRC Co. within the TAIL-
SAFE EU project, 2002).
The average net acid generating potential of the flotation tailings was 45 kg/t at a high
sulfide content (4.25%). Arsenic content was practically the same as in the processed ore:
300 g/t on average.
At >80 mg/kg As content, Hg concentration was only a few mg/kg. A good correlation
has been found between As and Hg concentrations in the tailings.
The southern dam of the tailings pond – as shown in Figure 7.19 – was strengthened
with rocks during rehabilitation in 2005–2011. Figure 7.20 shows the construction of the
dam and the surface water collection system around the tailings pond.
The stability of the tailings pond and the dam was checked several times in the past
because its planned role as a central repository for relocated wastes of different origin such
as WRPs, dredged sediments, and sludges required a comprehensive geotechnical stability
study. Geotechnical stability proved to be lower than required, meaning that the pond in its
present condition cannot accept all the waste. Thus the first step of rehabilitation was the
strengthening of the southern and eastern part of the dam. Remediation started with dewater-
ing the pond using a deep drainage system.
Figure 7.19 Flotation tailings pond (Gyöngyösoroszi in 2010).
Figure 7.20 Strengthening the tailings dam and constructing the water management system.
The drilling cores provided a visual picture of the exposure of tailings: the oxidation
zone was at a depth of 1.2–1.4 m based on the color of the tailings core (see the brownish
zone in Figure 7.21).
Loading of the tailings pond with wastes from WRPs and reservoirs was carried out
under stringent control of the pore water pressure inside the pond.
After relocating the wastes and reinforcing the dam of the tailings pond, a multilayer
cover system was applied to stabilize the tailings over the long term. The cover system also
includes a 0.3-m thick clay component to minimize infiltration. The water content of the
tailings varies between 35 and 40 wt%, as shown in Figure 7.22.
Figure 7.21 Sampling the tailings pond dam.
Figure 7.22 Water content of the tailings (ZT-1, ZT-2, etc.: the drilling number).
3.7 Surface water reservoirs and creeks

There are three water reservoirs along the Toka Creek which are connected with the ore min-
ing area: (i) industrial water reservoir for the flotation facility, (ii) agricultural water reser-
voir, and (iii) Gyöngyösoroszi-Nagyréde reservoir. The remediation of the site also includes
the cleanup of these three reservoirs.
Industrial water reservoir for the flotation facility

The most contaminated sediments were found in the industrial water reservoir, which has
been fed partly with the discharge (treated water) from the mine water treatment station. It
was determined that it included approximately 80,000 m3 sludge, part of which was hazard-
ous waste due to its high As concentration (As >1000 mg/kg). In the course of the clean-up
the sludge will be treated with lime for stabilization and the hazardous waste and the con-
taminated (but not hazardous) waste will be separated subsequently. The hazardous waste
has to be conveyed into a hazardous waste repository. Its contaminated portion is planned to
be relocated onto the tailings pond. The remediated reservoir will be used in the future as an
overflow pond in the case of high water level.
Agricultural reservoir
This reservoir contains approximately 60,000 m3 of sediment contaminated with metals and
pathogenic contaminants from the nearby settlement. The contaminated sediment will be
mixed to biological waste for composting and treated with CaO for stabilization. The stabi-
lized compost will be used as growing medium for the vegetation on the tailings pond.
Gyöngyösoroszi-Nagyréde reservoir
This water reservoir accommodates approximately 54,000 m3 of contaminated sediment
with low solid content. Therefore it has to be removed by applying dry dredging and hydro-
mechanization methods. The removed sludge will be treated on site (aeration, biodegrada-
tion for BOD reduction, dewatering, stabilization) and the stabilized sludge will be hauled
to the tailings pond.
Toka Creek and Száraz Brook

The Toka Creek has been contaminated with untreated mine water and with minerals and
sludge of different origins (Fügedi et al., 2000; Gruiz et al., 2009c). Breakdowns in the opera-
tion of the tailings ponds and the flotation facility have led to occasional contamination of the
creek every 2–3 years, sometimes even of the shore and the nearby field, orchards etc. The
contaminated length of the creek is approximately 10 km with dense vegetation on the shore.
The Száraz Brook was also contaminated occasionally during tailings pond break-
downs. The cleanup of the creek and brook will focus on removing the contaminated soil
from orchards and shore as well as the legacies from earlier dredging. The soil contaminated
with heavy metals will be placed on the tailings pond. The removed contaminated material
will be replaced by sterile soil.
The remediation of the Toka Creek will restore the quality of the water and soil.
3.8 Summary of the Gyöngyösoroszi case study

1 The former metal mining site is under restoration. Cleanup of the creeks has started;
relocation of the WRPs is underway. The tailings dam has been strengthened, the water
management system is ready and in operation, and plans for the remediation have been
made and accepted by the competent authorities.
2 Treatment of AMD is being continued in a new water treatment station, the water treat-
ment sludge accumulated on the site for more than 25 years was disposed of to a haz-
ardous waste repository. The sludge produced has also been conveyed to the hazardous
waste repository.
3 In situ studies at the Mátraszentimre mine have concluded that fly ash can be used for
backfilling the mine. Preparatory work for backfilling has been finished. Backfilling will
be carried out step by step upon evaluation of the results of previous work.
REFERENCES
Aelion, M.C., Davis, H.T., Flora, J.R.V., Kirtland, B.C. & Amidon, M.B. (2009) Application of encap-
sulation (pH – Sensitive polymer and phosphate buffer macrocapsules), A novel approach to reme-
diation of acidic ground water. Environmental Pollution, 157, 186–193.
Akcil, A. & Koldas, S. (2006) Acid Mine Drainage (AMD): Causes, treatment and case studies. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 14, 1139–1145.
Ali, M.S. (2011) Remediation of acid mine waters. In: Rüde, T.R., Freund, A. & Wolkersdorfer, C.
(eds.) Mine Water – Managing the Challenges. 11th International Mine Water Association Con-
gress. IMWA, Aachen, Germany. pp. 253–258.
Aube, B.C. & Payant, S. (1997) The Geco process: A new high density sludge treatment for acid mine
drainage. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Acid Rock Drainage, May 30–
June 6, 1997, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Vol. I, pp. 165–180.
Bagdy, I. & Sulyok, P. (2000) Case Example on Acid-Resistant Bulkhead in Hungary. Lisboa 90. Mine
Water and the Environment. Available from: www.IMWA.info. [Accessed 3rd July 2018].
Barmettler, F., Castelberg, C., Fabbri, C. & Brandl, H. (2016) Microbial mobilization of rare earth
elements (REE) from mineral solids—A mini review. AIMS Microbiology, 190–204. doi: 10.3934/
microbiol.2016.2.190.
Barnes, H.L. & Romberger, S.B. (1968) The chemical aspect of acid mine drainage. Journal of Water
Pollution, 40, 371–384.
Bayat, B. & Sari, B. (2010) Comparative evaluation of microbial and chemical leaching processes for
heavymetal removal from dewatered metal plating sludge. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 174,
763–769.
Bebié, J. & Schoonen, M. (2000) Pyrite surface interaction with selected organic aqueous species
under anoxic conditions. Geochemical Transactions, 1, 47–53. doi:10.1039/b005581f.
Benner, S.G., Blowes, D.W. & Ptacek, C.J. (1997) A full-scale porous reactive wall for prevention of
acid mine drainage. Groundwater Monitoring and Remediation, 17(4), 99–107.
Bhattacharya, J., Ji, S.W., Lee, H.S., Cheong, Y.W., Yim, G.J., Min, J.S. & Choi, Y.S. (2008) Treatment
of acidic coal mine drainage, design and operational challenges of successive alkalinity producing
systems. Mine Water and the Environment, 27, 12–19.
Blowes, D.W., Ptacek, C.J., Jambor, J.L. & Weisener, C.J. (2003) The geochemistry of acid mine drain-
age. Treatise on Geochemistry, 9, 149–204.
Blowes, D.W., Ptacek, C.J., Jambor, J.L., Weisener, C.G., Paktunc, D., Gould, W.D. & Johnson,
D.B. (2014) The geochemistry of Acid Mine Drainage. In: Holland, H.D. & Turekian, K.K. (eds.)
Treatise on Geochemistry, 11. 2nd ed. Elsevier Science, Oxford, UK. pp. 131–190. doi:10.1016/
B978-0-08-095975-7.00905-0.
Bosecker, K. (1997) Bioleaching, metal solubilisation by microorganisms. FEMS Microbial Review,

20, 591–604.
Brandl, H., Lehmann, S., Faramarzi, M.A. & Martinelli, D. (2008) Biomobilization of silver, gold, and
platinum from solid waste materials by HCN-forming microorganisms. Hydrometallurgy, 94(1–4),
14–17.
Brierley, C.L. & Brierley, J.A. (2013) Progress in bioleaching, fundamentals and mechanisms of bacte-
rial metal sulfide oxidation – Part A. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 97(17), 7543–7552.
Brodie, G.A. (1993) Staged, aerobic constructed wetlands to treat acid drainage: Case history of Fabius
Impoundment 1 and overview of the TVA’s Program. In: Moshiri, G.A. (ed) Constructed Wetlands
for Water Quality Improvement. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, USA. pp. 157–166.
Brodie, G.A., Britt, C.R., Taylor, H.N., Tomaszewski, T.M. & Turner, D. (1990) Passive anoxic lime-
stone drains to increase effectiveness of wetlands acid drainage treatment systems. Proceedings
of the 12th Annual Conference of the National Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs,
Breckenridge, CO, USA.
Buzzi, D.C., Viegas, L.S., Rodrigues, S., Bernardes, A.M. & Tenório, J.A.S. (2013) Water recovery
from acid mine drainage by electrodialysis. Mining Engineering, 4, 82–89.
Chen, X., Guo, C., Ma, H., Li, J., Zhou, T., Cao, L. & Kang, D. (2018) Organic reductants based
leaching: A sustainable process for the recovery of valuable metals from spent lithium ion batteries.
Waste Management, 75, 459–468. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2018.01.021.
Clark, D.A. & Norris, P.R. (1996) Oxidation of mineral sulphides by thermophilic microorganisms.
Minerals Engineering, 9, 1119–1125.
Coulton, R., Bullen, C. & Hallet, C. (2003) The design and optimization of active mine water treatment
plants. Land Contamination & Reclamation, 11, 273–279.
Cravotta, C.A. & Trahan, M.K. (1999) Limestone drains to increase pH and remove dissolved metals
from acidic mine drainage. Applied Geochemistry, 14, 581–606.
Cravotta, C.A. & Watzlaf, G.R. (2002) Design and performance of limestone drains to increase pH
and remove metals from Acidic Mine Drainage. In: Handbook of Groundwater Remediation Using
Permeable Reactive Barriers. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, Netherlands, pp. 19–66.
Crundwell, F.K. (1988) The influence of the electronic structure of solids on the anodic dissolution and
leaching of semiconducting sulphide minerals. Hydrometallurgy, 21, 155–190.
Csővári, M. (2007) Environmental Consequences of Metal Mining and the Possibility of Their Mitiga-
tion (In Hungarian). ELGOSCAR-2000, Budapest, Hungary. pp. 1–96.
Demchak, J., Morrow, T. & Skousen, J. (2001) Treatment of acid mine drainage by four vertical flow
wetlands in Pennsylvania. Geochemistry: Exploration, Environment, Analysis, 1(1), 71–80.
Dempsey, B.A., Roscoe, H.C., Ames, R., Hedin, R. & Jeon, B.-H. (2001) Ferrous oxidation chemistry
in passive abiotic systems for treatment of mine drainage. Geochemistry: Exploration, Environment
and Analysis, 1(1), 81–88.
De Vegt, A.L., Exton, P.A., Bayer, H.G. & Buisman, C.J. (1998) Biological sulphate removal and metal
recovery from mine waters. Mining Engineering, 50(11), 67–70.
Dold, B. (2010) Basic concepts in environmental geochemistry of sulphide mine waste management.
In: Kumar, E.S. (ed) Waste Management. In Tech, Rijeka, Croatia. pp. 173–198.
Dugan, P.R. (1986) Prevention of formation of acid mine drainage from high-sulfur coal refuse by inhi-
bition of iron – And sulphur oxidizing microorganisms. I. Preliminary experiments in controlled
shake flasks. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 29, 41–48.
Edelbro, R., Sandström, Å. & Paul, J. (2003) Full potential calculations on the bandstructures of sphal-
erite, pyrite and chalcopyrite, Applied Surface Science, 206, 300–313.
Egiebor, N.O. & Oni, B. (2007) Acid rock drainage formation and treatment: A review. Asia-Pacific
Journal of Chemical Engineering, 2, 47–62. doi:10.1002/ apj.57.
Evangelou, V.P. (1995) Pyrite Oxidation and Its Control. CRC Press, New York, NY, USA. 275 p.
Evangelou, V.P. & Zhang, Y.L. (1995) A review, Pyrite oxidation mechanisms and acid mine drainage
prevention. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 25, 141–199.
Fügedi, U. (2004) Geochemical background contamination on the Gyöngyösoroszi site. (In Hungar-
ian). Földtani Közlöny, 134(2), 291–301.
Fügedi, U. (2006) Geochemical Study of the Pollution of the Environment in GYÖNGYÖSOROSZI.
(In Hungarian). Available from: www.mafi.hu/static/microsites/geokem/ubul/pdf/Ubul_phd.pdf.
[Accessed 3rd July 2018].
Fügedi, U., Horváth, I. & Ódor, L. (2000) Changes in the mineralogical composition of the Gyöngyösoroszi
mine waste spread out on the floodplain of the Toka Creek. Acta Mineralogica-Petrographica. XLI. (B)
Abstracts of the Symposia on Environmental Mineralogy, 18–19 May 2000, Budapest, Hungary. p. 29.
Fügedi, U., Horváth, I. & Ódor, L., (2001) Pollution of the Environment in Gyöngyösoroszi. (In Hun-
garian). Available from: www.mafi.hu/microsites/geokem/oroszi/SZINT1.htm. [Accessed 3rd July
2018].
Gaikwad, R.W. & Gupta, D.V. (2008) Review on removal of heavy metals from acid mine drainage.
Applied Ecology and Environmental Research, 6(3), 81–98.
Garland, R. (2011) Acid mine drainage – Can it affect human health? Quest, 7(4), 46–47.
Garrett, W.E., Bartolucci, A.A., Pitt, R.R. & Vermace, M.E. (2002) Recirculating – Reducing and
Alkalinity Producing System (RERAPS) for the Treatment of Acidic Coal Pile Runoff. Proceedings
of the 2002 National Meeting of the American Society of Mining and Reclamation, Lexington, KY,
USA. pp. 539–557.
Gehrke, T., Telegdi, J., Thierry, D. & Sand, W. (1998) Importance of extracellular polymeric sub-
stances from Thiobacillus ferrooxidans for Bioleaching. Applied Environmental Microbiology, 64,
2743–2747.
GEOPARD Ltd (2002): Landscaping of the Tailings Pile in Gyöngyösoroszi “Száraz Valley”. (Manu-
script in Hungarian). Pécs, December 19, 2002.
Gerhardt, A., de Bisthoven, L.J. & Soares, A.M.V.M. (2004) Macroinvertebrate response to acid mine
drainage: Community metrics and on-line behavioural toxicity bioassay. Environmental Pollution,
130(2), 263–274.
Gibert, O., Rötting, T., Cortina, J.L., de Pablo, J., Ayora, C., Carrera, J. & Bolzicco, J. (2011) In – Situ
remediation of acid mine drainage using a permeable reactive barrier in Aznalcóllar (Sw Spain).
Journal of Hazardous Materials, 191, 287–295.
Gilbert, O., de Pablo, J., Cortina, J.L. & Ayora, C. (2002) Treatment of acid mine drainage by sulphate –
Reducing bacteria using permeable reactive barriers. A review from laboratory to full – Scale
experiments. Reviews in Environmental Science and Biotechnology, 1, 327–333.
Glombitza, F. & Reichel, S. (2014) Metal-containing residues from industry and in the environment: Geo-
biotechnological urban mining. Advances in Biochemical Engineering/Biotechnology, 141, 49–107.
González, A., Bellenberg, S., Mamani, S., Ruiz, L., Echeverría, A., Soulère, L., Doutheau, A., Demer-
gasso, C., Sand, W., Queneau, Y., Vera, M. & Guiliani, N. (2012) AHL signaling molecules with
a large acyl chain enhance biofilm formation on sulfur and metal sulfides by the bioleaching bac-
terium Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 97, 3729–3737.
Gray, N.F. (1996) Environmental impact and remediation of acid mine drainage, a management prob-
lem. Environmental Geology, 30, 62–71.
Gruiz, K. (2004) Risk Assessment of the Contaminated Areas in Gyöngyösoroszi. Expert Report. (Man-
uscript in Hungarian). Available from: MECSEK-ÖKO Co. Archives.
Gruiz, K. (2005) Data on Pollution in Gyöngyösoroszi (1990–2004). Wastes, Waters, Sediments, Soils
and Vegetation. Summary of the Publications. (Manuscript in Hungarian). Available from: MEC-
SEK-ÖKO Co. Archives.
Gruiz, K. (2014) Abandoned and contaminated land. In: Gruiz, K., Meggyes, T. & Fenyvesi, É. (eds.)
Environmental Deterioration and Contamination – Problems and Their Management. CRC Press,
Boca Raton, FL, USA. pp. 81–83.
Gruiz, K., Horváth, B., Molnár, M. & Sipter, E. (2000) When the chemical bomb explodes – Chronic
risk of toxic metals at a former mining site. Proceedings of ConSoil 2000. Thomas Telford, Leipzig.
pp. 662–670.
Gruiz, K., Vaszita, E. & Siki, Z. (2009a) Environmental risk management of diffuse pollution of min-
ing origin. In: Sarsby, R.W. & Meggyes, T. (eds.) Construction for a Sustainable Environment.
CRC Press/Balkema, Leiden, The Netherlands. pp. 219–228.
Gruiz, K., Vaszita, E., Siki, Z. & Feigl, V. (2007) Environmental risk management of an abandoned
mining site in Hungary. Advanced Materials Research, 20–21. Trans Tech Publications, Switzer-
land. pp. 221–225.
Gruiz, K., Vaszita, E., Siki, Z. & Feigl, V. (2009b) Environmental risk management of an abandoned
mining site in Hungary. In: Schippers, A., Sand, W., Glombitza, F. & Willscher, S. (eds.) Biohydro-
metallurgy: From the Single Cell to the Environment (IBS2007), Frankfurt am Main, Germany, 2–5
September 2007. Transtech Publications, Stafa-Zurich, Switzerland. pp. 221–225.
Gruiz, K., Vaszita, E., Siki, Z., Feigl, V. & Fekete, F. (2009c) Complex environmental risk manage-
ment of a former mining site. Land Contamination Reclamation, 17(3–4), 357–372.
Gruiz, K. & Vodicska, M. (1993) Assessing heavy-metal contamination in soil applying a bacterial
biotest and x-ray fluorescent spectroscopy. In: Arendt, F., Annokkée, G.J., Bosman, R. & van den
Brink, W.J. (eds.) Contaminated Soil ’93. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Nether-
lands. pp. 931–932.
Gusek, J.J. (1995) Passive treatment of acid rock drainage: What is the bottom line? Mining Engineer-
ing, 47(3), 250–253.
Gusek, J.J. (1998) Three Case Histories of Passive Treatment of Metal Mine Drainage. South African
Mining Delegation Seminar. Denver, CO. August 24–September 4, 1998.
Hansen, J.A., Welsh, P.G., Lipton, J. & Cacela, D. (2002) Effects of copper exposure on growth
and survival of juvenile bull trout. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 131(4),
690–697.
Harneit, K., Göksel, A., Kock, D., Klock, J.-H., Gehrke, T. & Sand, W. (2006) Adhesion to metal
sulfide surfaces by cells of Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans, Acidithiobacillus thiooxidans and Lep-
tospirillum ferrooxidans. Hydrometallurgy, 83, 245–254.
Harrison, A.P. (1978) Microbial succession and mineral leaching in an artificial coal spoil. Applied
Harrison, A.P. (1984) The acidophilic thiobacilli and other acidophilic bacteria that share their habitat.
Annual Review of Microbiology, 38, 265–292.
Hedin, R.S. & Nairn, R.W. (1990) Sizing and performance of constructed wetlands: Case studies.
Proceedings of 1990 Mining and Reclamation Conference, Morgantown, WV, USA. pp. 385–392.
Hedin, R.S., Nairn, R.W. & Kleinmann, R.L.P. (1994a) Passive Treatment of Coal Mine Drainage.
USBM IC 9389, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 35 pp.
Hedin, R.S., Watzlaf, G.R. & Nairn, R.W. (1994b) Passive treatment of acid mine drainage with lime-
stone. Journal of Environmental Quality, 23, 1338–1345.
Hedin R.S. (2003) Recovery of marketable iron oxide from mine drainage in the USA. Land Contami-
nation and Reclamation, 11, 93–97.
Hennebel, T., Boon, B., Maes, S. & Lenz, M. (2015) Biotechnologies for critical raw material recovery
from primary and secondary sources: R&D priorities and future perspectives. New Biotechnology,
32, 121–127.
Henrot, J. & Wieder, R.K. (19909 Processes of iron and manganese retention in laboratory peat micro-
cosms subjected to acid mine drainage. Journal of Environmental Quality, 19, 312–320.
Huang, Q., Yu, Z., Pang, Y., Wang, Y. & Cai, Z. (2015) Coupling bioleaching and electrokinetics to
remediate heavy metal contaminated soils. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicol-
ogy, 94(4), 519–524. doi:10.1007/s00128-015-1500-1.
Hyman, D.M. & Watzlaf, G.R. (1995) Mine drainage characterization for the successful design and
evaluation of passive treatment systems. Proceedings of 17th Conference of National Association
of Abandoned Mine Lands, FrenchLick, IN, USA.
Jiwan, S. & Kalamdhad, A.S. (2011) Effects of heavy metals on soil, plants, human health and aquatic
life. International Journal of Research in Chemistry and Environment, 1(2), 15–21.
Johnson, D.B. (2000) Biological removal of sulfurous compounds from inorganic wastewaters. In:
Lens, P. & Hulshoff, P.L. (eds.) Environ Mental Technologies to Treat Sulfur Pollution: Principles
and Engineering. International Association on Water Quality, London, UK. pp. 175–206.
Johnson, D.B. (2003) Chemical and microbiological characteristics of mineral spoils and drain-
age waters at abandoned coal and metal mines. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution: Focus, 3, 47–66.
doi:10.1023/A:1023977617473.
Johnson, D.B. & Hallberg, K.B. (2003) The microbiology of acidic mine waters. Research in Micro-
biology, 154, 466–473.
Johnson, D.B. & Hallberg, K.B. (2005) Acid mine drainage remediation options, a review. Science of
the Total Environment, 338, 3–14.
Johnson, D.B., Yajie, L. & Okibe, N. (2008) ‘Bioshrouding’ – A novel approach for securing reactive
mineral tailings. Biotechnology Letters, 30, 445–449.
Jones, S.N. & Cetin, B. (2017) Evaluation of waste materials for acid mine drainage remediation. Fuel,
188, 294–309. doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2016.10.018.
Kalin, M., Fyson, A. & Wheeler, W.N. (2006) The chemistry of conventional and alternative treatment
systems for the neutralization of acid mine drainage. Science of the Total Environment, 366, 395–408.
Kelly, D. & Wood, A. (2000) Reclassification of some species of Thiobacillus to the newly designated
genera Acidithiobacillus gen. nov., Halothiobacillus gen. nov. and Thermithiobacillus gen. nov.
International Journal of Systematic & Evolutionary Microbiology, 50, 511–516.
Kepler, D.A. & McCleary, E.C. (1994) Successive alkalinity-producing systems (SAPS) for the treat-
ment of acidic mine drainage. International Land Reclamation and Mine Drainage Conference,
U.S. Bureau of Mines SP 06A-94, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. pp. 195–204.
Kirby, C.S., Thomas, H.M., Southman, G. & Donald, R. (1999) Relative contributions of abiotic and
biological factors in fe(II) oxidation in mine drainage. Applied Geochemistry, 14, 511–530.
Kleinmann, R.L.P., Hedin, R.S. & Nairn, R.W. (1998) Treatment of mine drainage by anoxic limestone
drains and constructed wetlands. In: Geller, W., Klapper, H. & Salomons, W. (eds.) Acidic Mining
Lakes: Acid Mine Drainage, Limnology and Reclamation. Springer, Berlin, Germany. pp. 303–319.
Kock, D., Graupner, T., Rammlmair, D. & Schippers, A. (2007) Quantification of microorganisms
involved in cemented layer formation in sulfidic mine waste tailings (Freiberg, Saxony, Germany).
Advanced Materials Research, 20–21, 481–484.
Kock, D. & Schippers, A. (2006) Geomicrobiological investigation of two different mine waste tail-
ings generating acid mine drainage. Hydrometallurgy, 83, 167–175.
Kock, D. & Schippers, A. (2008) Quantitative microbial community analysis of three different sul-
fidic mine tailings dumps generating acid mine drainage. Applied Environmental Microbiology,
74, 5211–5219.
Koschorreck, M. (2008) Microbial sulphate reduction at a low pH. FEMS Microbiology Ecology, 64,
329–342.
Kourai, H., Yabuhara, T., Shirai, A., Maeda, T. & Nagamune, H. (2006) Syntheses and antimicrobial
activities of a series of new bis – Quaternary ammonium compounds. European Journal of Medici-
nal Chemistry, 41, 437–444.
Krebs, W., Brombacher, C., Bosshard, P.P., Bachofen, R. & Brandl, H. (1997) Microbial recovery of
metals from solids. FEMS Microbiology Reviews, 20(3–4), 605–617.
Kun, B. (1966) 25 years activity of Company Országos Érc- és Ásványbányák. In: Pantó, E. (ed)
Mining of Multimetal Ore at Gyöngyösoroszi and Manganese Ore in Bakony. Országos Érc- és
Ásványbányák, Budapest, Hungary.
Kun, B. (1980) Gyöngyösoroszi and the Central Mátra Mountains. In: Kun, B. (ed) 25 Years of the
Activity of Company Országos Érc- és Ásványbányák. OMBKE, Budapest, Hungary.
Kun, B. (1998) Metal ore mining on Gyöngyösoroszi site and its vicinity (in Hungarian). Földtani
Kutatás, 35(4), 22–27.
Kun, B., Szigeti, K., Lovász, A. & Germus, B. (1988) Overview of Metal Ore Mining on Gyöngyösoro-
szi Site and Its Vicinity, 1–2–3. (Manuscript in Hungarian). MECSEK-ÖKO Co. Archive.
Kuyucak, N. (2002) Acid mine drainage prevention and control options. Canadian Institute of Mining,
Metallurgy Bulletin, 95(1060), 96–102.
Leathen, W.W., Braley, S.A. & McIntyre, L.D. (1953) The role of bacteria in the formation of acid from
certain sulfuritic constituents associated with bituminous coal, I. Thiobacillus Thiooxidans. Applied
Microbiology, 1, 61–64.
Liu, C.Q., Plumb, J. & Hendry, P. (2006) Rapid specific detection and quantification of bacteria and
archaea involved in mineral sulfide bioleaching using real – Time PCR. Biotechnology and Bioen-
gineering, 94, 330–336.
Luptakova, A., Balintova, M., Jencarova, J., Macingova, E. & Prascakova, M. (2010) Metals recovery
from acid mine drainage. Nova Biotechnologica et Chimica, 10(1), 23–32.
Macingova, E. & Luptakova, A. (2012) Recovery of metals from acid mine drainage. Chemical Engi-
neering Transactions, 28, 109–114.
Matthies, R., Aplin, A.C. & Jarvis, A.P. (2010) Performance of a passive treatment system for net –
Acidic coal mine drainage over five years of operation. Science of the Total Environment, 408,
4877–4885.
Meggyes, T., Csővári, M., Roehl, K.E. & Simon, F.-G. (2009) Enhancing the efficacy of permeable
reactive barriers. Land Contamination and Reclamation, 17(3–4), 635–650.
Meggyes, T., Simon, F.-G. & Debreczeni, E. (2001) New developments in reactive barrier technol-
ogy. In: Sarsby, R.W. & Meggyes, T. (eds.) The Exploitation of Natural Resources and the Conse-
quences. Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Geotechnics Related to the European
Environment, 21–23 June 2000. Thomas Telford, London. pp. 474–483.
Menezes, C.T.B., Barros, E.C., Rufino, R.D., Luna, J.M. & Sarubbo, L.A. (2011) Replacing synthetic
with microbial surfactants as collectors in the treatment of aqueous effluent produced by Acid
Mine Drainage, using the dissolved air flotation technique. Applied Biochemistry & Biotechnology,
163(4), 540–546.
Mulopo, J. (2015) Continuous pilot scale assessment of the alkaline barium calcium desalination pro-
cess for acid mine drainage treatment. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 3, 1295–
1302. doi:10.1016/j.jece.2014.12.001.
Nancucheo, I. & Johnson, B. (2009) Production of glycolic acid by chemolithotrophic iron – And
sulfur – Oxidizing bacteria and its role in delineating and sustaining acidophilic sulfide mineral –
Oxidizing consortia. Applied Environmental Microbiology, 76, 461–467.
Nett, J.E., Guite, K.M., Ringeisen, A., Holoyoda, K.A. & Andes, D.R. (2008) Reduced biocide
susceptibiliy in Candida albicans biofilms. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapie, 52,
3411–3413.
Nicomrat, D., Dick, W.A. & Tuovinen, O.H. (2006) Assessment of the microbial community in a con-
structed wetland that receives acid coal mine drainage. Microbial Ecology, 51, 83–89.
Nixdorf, B., Uhlmann, W. & Lessmann, D. (2010) Potential for remediation of acidic mining lakes
evaluated by hydrogeochemical modeling, case study Grünewalder Lauch (Plessa 117, Lusatia/
Germany). Limnologica, 40, 167–174.
Nordstrom, D.K. (2011) Mine waters: Acidic to circumneutral. Elements, 7, 393–398.
Norris, R. (1997) Thermophiles and Bioleaching. In: Rawlings, D.E. (ed) Biomining, Theory, Microbes
and Industrial Processes. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Germany.
Olsen, G.J., Brierley, J.A. & Brierley, C.L. (2003) Bioleaching review Part B, Progress in bioleaching,
applications of microbial processes by the minerals industries. Applied Microbiology and Biotech-
nology, 63, 249–257.
Onysoko, S.J., Kleinmann, R.L.P. & Erickson, P.M. (1984) Ferrous iron oxidation by Thiobacillus
ferrooxidans, inhibition with benzoic acid, sorbic acid and sodium lauryl sulphate. Applied Envi-
ronmental Microbiology, 48, 229–231.
Ötvös, K., Juhász, Z., Wittinger, K., Földessy, M., Földing, G., Fekete, F., Szulimán et al. (2004) Aban-
donment of the Gyöngyösoroszi Ore Mining Site. (Manuscript in Hungarian) Ötvös és Társa Kft.,
Pécs. p. 259 + supplements.
Petrik, L., White, R., Klink, M., Burgers, C., Somerset, V., Key, D., Iwuoha, E., Burgers, C. & Fey, M.V.
(2005) Utilization of Fly Ash for Acid Mine Drainage Remediation. WRC Report No.1242/1/05.
Water Research Commission, Pretoria.
PIRAMID (2003) Engineering Guidelines for the Passive Remediation of Acidic and/or Metallifer-
ous Mine Drainage and Similar Wastewaters. Report European Commission 5th Framework RTD
Project No. EVK1-CT-1999-000021. University of Newcastle Upon Tyne, Newcastle Upon Tyne,
UK. 166 pp.
Porsch, K., Meier, J., Kleinsteuber, S. & Wend-Potthoff, K. (2009) Importance of different physi-
ological groups of iron reducing microorganisms in an acidic mining lake remediation experiment.
Microbial Ecology, 57, 701–717.
Rawlings, D.E. (1997) Mesophilic, autotrophic bioleaching bacteria, description, physiology and role.
In: Rawlings, D.E. (ed) Biomining, Theory, Microbes and Industrial Processes. Springer Verlag,
Berlin, Germany.
Rawlings, D.E. (2002) Heavy metal mining using microbes. Annual Review of Microbiology, 56,
65–91.
Rawlings, D.E., Dew, D. & du Plessis, C. (2003) Biomineralization of metal – Containing ores and
concentrates. Trends in Biotechnology, 21, 38–44.
Recio-Vazquez, L., Garcia-Guinea, J., Carral, P., Alvarez, A.M. & Garrido, F. (2010) Arsenic mining
waste in the catchment area of the Madrid detrital aquifer (Spain). Water Air Soil Pollution, 214,
307–320.
Rice, K.C. & Bayles, W. (2008) Molecular control of bacterial death and lysis. Microbiology and
Molecular Biology Reviews, 72, 85–109.
Roehl, K.E., Meggyes, T., Simon, F.-G. & Stewart, D.I. (eds.) (2005) Long-term Performance of Per-
meable Reactive Barriers. Trace Metals and Other Contaminants in the Environment. Volume 7
(Series editor: Nriagu, J.O.). Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Boston, MA, USA, Heidel-
berg, Germany & London, UK. p. 326. ISBN: 0-444-52536-4.
Rohwerder, T., Gehrke, T., Kinzler, K. & Sand, W. (2003) Bioleaching review part A: Progress in bio-
leaching, fundamentals and mechanisms of bacterial metal sulfide oxidation. Applied Microbiology
and Biotechnology, 63, 239–248.
Rohwerder, T., Jozsa, P.-G., Gehrke, T. & Sand, W. (2002) Bioleaching. In: Bitton, G. (ed) Ency-
clopedia of Environmental Microbiology. Volume 2. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA.
pp. 632–641.
Rötting, T.S., Thomas, R.C., Ayora, C. & Carrera, J. (2008) Passive treatment of acid mine drainage
with high metal concentrations using dispersed alkaline substrate. Journal of Environmental Qual-
ity, 37, 1741–1751.
RoyChowdhury, A., Sarkar, D. & Datta, R. (2015) Remediation of acid mine drainage-impacted water.
Current Pollution Reports, Water Pollution, 1, 131–141. doi:10.1007/s40726-015-0011-3.
Rust, C.M., Aelion, C.M. & Flora, J.R.V. (2002) Laboratory sand column study of encapsulated buffer
release for potential in situ pH control. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 54, 81–98.
Sand, W. (1985) Influence of four detergents on the substrate oxidation by Thiobacillus ferrooxidans.
Environmental Technology Letters, 6, 439–444.
Sand, W. & Gehrke, T. (2006) Extracellular polymeric substances mediate bioleaching/biocorrosion
via interfacial processes involving iron(III) ions and acidophilic bacteria. Research in Microbiol-
ogy, 157, 49–56.
Sand, W., Gehrke, T., Jozsa, P. & Schippers, A. (2001) (Bio)chemistry of bacterial leaching – Direct vs.
indirect bioleaching. Hydrometallurgy, 59, 159–175.
Sand, W., Jozsa, P.G., Kovacs, Z.M., Sasaran, N. & Schippers, A. (2007) Long – Term evaluation of
acid rock drainage mitigation measures in large lysimeters. Journal of Geochemical Exploration,
92, 205–211.
Sand, W., Rohde, K., Sobotke, B. & Zenneck, K. (1992) Evaluation of Leptospirillum ferrooxidans for
leaching. Applied Environmental Microbiology, 58, 85–92.
Santelli, C.M., Pfister, D.H., Lazarus, D., Sun, L., Burgos, W.D. & Hansel, C.M. (2010) Promotion of
Mn(II) oxidation and remediation of coal mine drainage in passive treatment systems by diverse
fungal and bacterial communities. Applied Environmental Microbiology, 76, 4871–4875.
Santomartino, S. & Webb, J.A. (2007) Estimating the longevity of limestone drains in treating acid
mine drainage containing high concentrations of iron. Applied Geochemistry, 22, 2344–2361.
Sarkadi, A., Vaszita, E., Tolner, M. & Gruiz, K. (2009) In situ site assessment: Short overview and
description of the field portable XRF and its application. Land Contamination and Reclamation,
17(3–4), 431–442.
Schippers, A. (2007) Microorganisms involved in bioleaching and nucleic acid – Based molecular
methods for their identification and quantification. In: Donati, E.R. & Sand, W. (eds.) Microbial
Processing of Metal Sulfides. Springer Verlag, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Schippers, A., Hallmann, R., Wentzien, S. & Sand, W. (1995) Microbial diversity in uranium mine
waste heaps. Applied Environmental Microbiology, 61, 2930–2935.
Schippers, A., Jozsa, P.G. & Sand, W. (1996) Sulfur chemistry in bacterial leaching of pyrite. Applied
Schippers, A., Kock, D., Schwartz, M., Böttcher, M.E., Vogel, H. & Hagger, M. (2007) Geomicro-
biological and geochemical investigation of a pyrrhotite – Containing mine waste tailings dam
near Selebi – Phikwe in Botswana. J Geochem Explor Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 92,
151–158.
Schippers, A. & Sand, W. (1999) Bacterial leaching of metal sulfides proceeds by two indirect mecha-
nisms via thiosulfate or via polysulfides and sulfur. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 65,
319–321.
Schmidt, T.S., Soucek, D.J. & Cherry, D.S. (2002) Modification of an ecotoxicological rating to bioas-
sess small acid mine drainage-impacted watersheds exclusive of benthic macroinvertebrate analysis.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 21(5), 1091–1097.
Schroeter, A.W. & Sand, W. (1993) Estimations on the degradability of ores and bacterial leaching
activity using short – Time microcalorimetric tests. FEMS Microbiological Review, 11, 79–86.
Seidel, H., Ondruschka, J., Morgenstern, P., Wennrich, R. & Hoffmann, P. (2000) Bioleaching of heavy
metal – Contaminated sediments by indigenous Thiobacillus spp, metal solubilization and sulfur
oxidation in the presence of surfactants. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 54, 854–857.
Sheoran, A.S. & Sheoran, V. (2006) Heavy metal removal mechanism of acid mine drainage in wet-
lands: A critical review. Minerals Engineering, 19, 105–116. doi:10.1016/j.mineng.2005.08.006.
Siebert, H.M., Marmulla, R. & Stahmann, K.P. (2011) Effect of SDS on planctonic Acidithiobacillus
thiooxidans and bioleaching of sand samples. Minerals Engineering, 24(11), 1128–1131.
Siebert, H.M., Rohwerder, T., Sand, W., Strzodka, M. & Stahmann, K.P. (2009) Evidence for iron –
And sulfur – Oxidizing bacteria and archaea in a currently active lignite mining area of Lusatia
(Eastern Germany). Advanced Material Research, 71–73, 97–100.
Sikkema, J., de Bont, J.A.M. & Poolmann, B. (1995) Mechanisms of membrane toxicity of hydrocar-
bons. Microbiological Review, 59, 201–222.
Simate, G.S. & Ndlovu, S. (2014) Acid mine drainage: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Envi-
ronmental Chemical Engineering, 2, 1785–1803.
Simmons, J., Ziemkiewicz, P. & Black, D.C. (2002) Use of steel slag leach beds for the treatment of
acid mine drainage. Mine Water and the Environment, 21(2), 91–99.
Simon, F.-G. & Meggyes, T. (2000) Removal of organic and inorganic pollutants from groundwater
using permeable reactive barriers. Part 1. Treatment processes for pollutants. Land Contamination
& Reclamation, 8(2), 103–116.
Simon, F.-G., Meggyes, T. & McDonald, C. (eds.) (2002) Advanced Groundwater Remediation: Active
and Passive Technologies. Thomas Telford, London, UK. p. 356. Available from: www.ttbooks.
co.uk/advanced-groundwater-remediation. [Accessed 3rd July 2018].
Simon, F.-G., Meggyes, T., Tünnermeier, T., Czurda, K. & Roehl, K.E. (2001) Long-term behaviour of
permeable reactive barriers used for the remediation of contaminated groundwater. Proceedings 8th
International Conference on Radioactive Waste Management and Environmental Remediation, 30

September–4 October 2001. ASME, Tech. Inst. Royal Flemish Soc. of Engineers, Belgian Nuclear
Society, Bruges, Belgium.
Singer, P.C. & Stumm, W. (1970) Acidic mine drainage: The rate-determining step. Science, 167,
1121–1123. doi:10.1126/science.167.3921.1121.17829406.
Skousen, J. (1995) Acid mine drainage. Green Lands, 25(2), 52–55.
Skousen, J. (1996) Overview of passive systems for treating acid mine drainage. Green Lands, 27(4),
34–43. Available from: http://anr.ext.wvu.edu/resources/295/1256049359.pdf.
Skousen, J. (2000) Overview of passive systems for treating acid mine drainage. Reclamation of dras-
tically disturbed lands. Agronomy, 41, 1–214. Available from: www.wvu.edu/~agexten/landrec/
passtrt/passtrt.htm. [Accessed 13th July 2018].
Skousen, J.G., Rose, A., Geidel, G., Foreman, J., Evans, R. & Hellier, W. (1998) A Handbook of Tech-
nologies for Avoidance and Remediation of Acid Mine Drainage. Acid Drainage Technology Initiative,
National Mine Land Reclamation Ctr, WVU, Morgantown, WV, USA. 131 pp.
Skousen, J.G., Sexstone, A. & Ziemkiewicz, P.F. (2000) Acid mine drainage control and treatment.
Agronomy, 41, 131–168.
Skousen, J.G., Simmons, J., McDonald, L.M. & Ziemkiewicz, P. (2002) Acid-base accounting to
predict post-mining drainage quality on surface mines. Journal of Environmental Quality, 31(6),
2034–2044.
Smyth, D.J.A., Blowes, D.W., Ptacek, C.J. & Bain, J.G. (2003) Removal of dissolved metals from
groundwater using permeable reactive barriers: Applications. Paper presented at the 6th ICARD,
July 12–18, Cairns, Australia.
Soós, I. (1966) Ore mining in Mátra up to 1850 (In Hungarian). In: Pantó, E. (ed) Mining of Multi-
metal Ore at Gyöngyösoroszi and Manganese ore in Bakony. Országos Érc- és Ásványbányák,
Budapest, Hungary.
Sumitomo, T., Maeda, T., Nagamune, H. & Kourai, H. (2004) Bacterioclastic action of a bis-quaternary
ammonium compound against Escherichia coli. Biocontrol Science, 8, 145–149.
Soucek, D.J., Cherry, D.S., Currie, R.J., Latimer, H.A. & Trent, G.C. (2000) Laboratory and field vali-
dation in an integrative assessment of an acid mine drainage-impacted watershed. Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry, 19(4), 1036–1043.
TAILSAFE (2002) Sustainable Improvement in Safety of Tailings Facilities. TAILSAFE EVG1-
CT-2002-00066. Available from: www.tailsafe.com/ [Accessed 3rd July 2018].
Taylor, J., Pape, S. & Murphy, N. (2005) A Summary of Passive and Active Treatment Technologies for
Acid and Metalliferous Drainage (AMD). Australian Centre for Minerals Extension and Research
(ACMER), Fifth Australian Workshop on Acid Drainage, 29–31 August 2005, Fremantle, Australia.
Available from: www.earthsystems.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/AMD_Treatment_Technol-
ogies_06.pdf. [Accessed 16th July 2018].
Temple, K. & Colmer, A. (1951) The autotrophic oxidation of iron by a new bacterium, Thiobacillus
ferrooxidans. Journal of Bacteriology, 62, 605–611.
Tributsch, H. & Bennett, J.C. (1981) Semiconductor- Electrochemical aspect of bacterial leaching. I.
Oxidation of metal sulphides with large energy gaps. Journal of Chemical Technology, 31, 565–577.
Turner, D. & McCoy, D. (1990) Anoxic alkaline drain treatment system, a low cost Acid Mine Drainage
treatment alternative. In: Graves, D.H. & De Vore, R.W. (eds.) Proceedings of the 1990 National
Symposium on Mining, Lexington, KY, USA. pp. 73–75.
Tuttle, J.H., Dugan, P.R., MacMillan, C.B. & Randles, C.I. (1969) Microbial dissimilatory sulfur cycle
in acid minewater. Journal of Bacteriology, 97, 594–602.
Urbieta, M.S., González Toril, E., Aguilera, A., Giaveno, M.A. & Donati, E. (2012) First prokary-
otic biodiversity assessment using molecular techniques of an acidic river in Neuquén, Argentina.
Microbiological Ecology, 64, 91–104.
US EPA (2014) Reference Guide to Treatment Technologies for Mining-Influenced Water. U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation.
Available from: https://cluin.org/download/issues/mining/Reference_Guide_to_Treatment_Technologies_

for_MIW.pdf. [Accessed 16th July 2018].
Vadapalli, V.R.K., Klink, M.J., Etchebers, O., Petrik, L.F., Gitari, W., White, R.A., Key, D. & Iwuoha,
E. (2008) Neutralization of acid mine drainage using fly ash, and strength development on the
resulting solid residues. South African Journal of Science, 104, 317–322.
Vaszita, E., Siki, Z. & Gruiz, K. (2009) GIS-based Quantitative Hazard and Risk Assessment of an
abandoned mining site. Land Contamination & Reclamation, 17(3–4), 515–534.
Vera, M., Schippers, A. & Sand, W. (2013) Progress in bioleaching, fundamentals and mechanisms
of bacterial metal sulfide oxidation – Part A. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 97(17),
7529–7541.
Vidacs, A. (1966a) History of ore mining in Mátra in period 1850–1945. In: Pantó, E. (ed) Mining
of Multi-metal ore at Gyöngyösoroszi and Manganese ore in Bakony. Országos Érc- és Ásvány-
bányák, Budapest, Hungary.
Vidacs, A. (1966b) General geological knowledge on the formation of the ore deposits (In Hungarian).
In: Jantsky, B. (ed) Minerals’ Geology. Raw Material Deposits in Hungary. Műszaki Könyvkiadó,
Budapest, Hungary. pp. 179–206.
Waksman, S.A. (1922) Microorganisms concerned in the oxidation of sulfur in the soil: IV. A solid
medium for the isolation and cultivation of Thiobacillus thiooxidans. Journal of Bacteriology, 7,
605–660.
Watten, B.J., Lee, P.C., Sibrell, P.L. & Timmons, M.B. (2007) Effect of temperature, hydraulic resi-
dence time and elevated PCO2 on acid neutralization within a pulsed limestone bed reactor. Water
Research, 41, 1207–1214.
Watten, B.J., Sibrell, P.L. & Schwartz, M.F. (2005) Acid neutralization within limestone sand reactors
receiving coal mine drainage. Environmental Pollution, 137, 295–304.
Watzlaf, G.R. & Hedin, R. (1993) A Method for Predicting the Alkalinity Generated by Anoxic Lime-
stone Drains.Available from: www.researchgate.net/publication/255619191. [Accessed 3rd July
2018].
Watzlaf, G.R., Schroeder, K.T. & Kairie, C.L. (2000) Long-Term Performance of Anoxic Limestone
Drains. U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory. Available from:
www.imwa.info/bibliographie/19_2_098-110.pdf. [Accessed 3rd July 2018].
Watzlaf, G.R., Schroeder, K.T., Kleinmann, R.L.P., Kairies, C.L. & Nairn, R.W. (2002) The Passive
Treatment of Coal Mine Drainage. DOE/NETL-2004/1202.
Watzlaf, G.R., Schroeder, K.T., Kleinmann, R.L.P., Kairies, C.L. & Nairn, R.W. (2004) The Passive
Treatment of Coal Mine Drainage. DOE/NETL-2004/1202. Available from: www.netl.doe.gov/
File%20Library/Research/Coal/ewr/water/Passive-Treatment.pdf. [Accessed 3rd July 2018].
Wieder, R.K. (1993) Ion input/output budgets for wetlands constructed for acid coal mine drainage
treatment. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 71, 231–270.
Wieder, R.K. & Lang, G.E. (1982) Modification of Acid Mine Drainage in a Freshwater Wetland.
Proceedings of the Symposium on Wetlands of the Unglaciated Appalachian Region. West Virginia
University, Morgantown. pp. 43–53.
Willscher, S., Hertwig, T., Frenzel, M., Felix, M. & Starke, S. (2010) Results of remediation of hard
coal overburden and tailings dumps after a few decades, insights and conclusions. Hydrometal-
lurgy, 104, 506–517.
Yadav, S.K. (2010) Heavy metals toxicity in plants: An overview on the role of glutathione and phyto-
chelatins in heavy metal stress tolerance of plants. South African Journal of Botany, 76, 167–179.
doi:10.1016/j.sajb.2009.10.007.
Younger, P.L. (2000) The adoption and adaptation of passive treatment technologies for mine waters in
the United Kingdom. Mine Water and the Environment, 19, 84–97.
Younger, P.L., Banwart, S.A. & Hedin, R.S. (2002) Mine Water: Hydrology, Pollution, Remediation.
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. 442 pp.
Younger, P.L., Jayaweera, A., Elliot, A., Wood, R., Amos, P., Daugherty, A.J., Martin, A., Bowden, L.,
Aplin, A.C. & Johnson, D.B. (2003) Passive treatment of acidic mine waters in subsurface flow
systems: Exploring RAPS and permeable reactive barriers. Land Contamination & Reclamation,
11, 127–135.
Zhu, W., Xia, J., Yang, Y., Nie, Z., Zheng, L., Ma, C., Zhang, R., Peng, A., Tang, L. & Qiu, G. (2011)
Sulfur oxidation activities of pure and mixed thermophiles and sulfur speciation in bioleaching of
chalcopyrite. Bioresource Technology, 102, 3877–3882.
Zhuang, W-Q., Fitts, J.P., Ajo-Franklin, C.M., Maes, S., Alvarez-Cohen, L. & Hennebel, T. (2015)
Recovery of critical metals using biometallurgy. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 33, 327–335.
doi:10.1016/j.copbio.2015.03.019.
Ziemkiewicz, P.F., Skousen, J.G. & Lovett, R. (1994) Open limestone channels for treating acid mine
drainage: A new look at an old idea. Green Lands, 24(4), 36–41.
Ziemkiewicz, P.F., Skousen, J.G. & Simmons, J. (2003) Long-term performance of passive acid mine
drainage treatment systems. Mine Water and the Environment, 22, 118–129.
Chapter 8
Remediation technologies for

metal-contaminated soil and
sediment – an overview and a case
study of combined chemical and
phytostabilization
V. Feigl
ABSTRACT
Hundreds of abandoned mines and mine waste disposal sites all over the world are waiting for
restoration and soil remediation. The economic and social benefit of overexploited mining was
enjoyed over the last 60–70 years without investing in proper management of environmental
risks posed to the area during mining operations and its reduction afterwards. The footprints
of former metal ore mining activities are the worst: lack of vegetation, drastically altered
landscape, wastes piled up and left, damage to water and soil from acidic mine water and
waste leachates, diffuse contaminated environment and deteriorated, destroyed ecosystem.
Contaminants are derived originally from point sources which are dispersed during the years
of careless abandonment, resulting in countless diffuse secondary sources polluting entire
watersheds. This is a typical consequence of long-abandoned mine sites without restoration.
To reduce the environmental impact of mining, collaborative efforts are needed from a
variety of stakeholders. Environmental engineering plays a key role in risk reduction, both
before and after mining activities. Risk assessment and risk reduction of abandoned metal mines
involve similar tasks all over the world and the innovative solutions could be largely utilized.
The problem with abandoned mines and its management was discussed in the first vol-
ume of this book series (Vaszita, 2014), the acid mine drainage formation and treatment in
Chapter 7 of this volume, while risk reduction by remediation of soil contaminated from
point and diffuse sources of metal-containing waste is discussed here. After a general over-
view of the existing technological solutions, a case study is presented about the former Hun-
garian zinc, lead mine in Gyöngyösoroszi, abandoned over 30 years ago.
1 REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES FOR METAL-

CONTAMINATED SOIL AND SEDIMENT –
AN OVERVIEW
1.1 Introduction
A huge number of technologies have been developed for the remediation of metal-
contaminated soil and water. These technologies are generally classified as isolation, immo-
bilization/stabilization, toxicity reduction, physical separation, and extraction (Evanko &
Dzombak, 1997). More coherent classification is introduced in Chapter 1, where all
remediation technologies are classified as mobilization- and immobilization-based meth-

ods including physicochemical, biological, ecological, and combined methods. The most
frequently used technologies for metal-contaminated environments are (i) physicochemical
mobilization with extraction and (ii) physicochemical stabilization with stabilizing agents.
The same solutions work more efficiently with biological mediation (utilizing biological
products or biological processes such as the reduction or increase of the redox potential). Usu-
ally, a combination of several approaches and technologies increases the cost-effectiveness
of the remediation of contaminated sites. In this chapter, two main categories are introduced
in detail: technologies based on mobilization and immobilization with the focus on physical
and chemical processes.
Isolation/capping and containment are also mentioned in spite of the fact that the soil
itself will not be healed (remediated), but the endangered environment can be protected from
certain risks.
The remediation can be performed ex situ by removing the contaminated soil from its
original location and treatment on site or off site, or implemented in situ when the contami-
nated soil is not excavated but treated at its original location. The decision on the in-situ or
ex-situ solution depends on the amount, the surrounding environment, and spatial planning
considerations (see more in Lens et al., 2005).
1.2 Physical-chemical technologies

Traditional technologies for the treatment of contaminated soil include methods originating
from waste management and civil engineering. In the past, excavation of contaminated soil
and its safe deposition (dig and dump) was a common procedure. The excavated soil was
then replaced with uncontaminated soils. This methodology was costly and not sustainable.
It transferred the risk to another location and the excavated soil lost its value. The availabil-
ity of the uncontaminated soil is limited and the impact of its transportation may be high. In
addition, replacement can only be applied for point sources.
Excavation of the contaminated soil is acceptable if the risk can be significantly reduced
by the removal of the contaminated proportion and the treatment technology of the exca-
vated soil – possibly in the vicinity – can produce useful products. The more soil utilized
means less of the remaining contaminated material needs to be further treated or disposed.
Managerial arguments can also support contaminated soil removal, e.g. if the foundation of a
building is planned to be where contaminated soil is to be excavated, or if sufficient replace-
ment soil is available due to construction works nearby.
The counterpart of soil removal by excavation is the dredging of contaminated sediment
from rivers and lakes waters. The reason for dredging may be the need for removal of the
contaminated proportion, but, in most cases, its shipping or port functions that are served by
dredging, which may, and typically does, result sediment of inappropriate quality. As sedi-
ments are removed in slurry form, they are treated by any reactor-based technology designed
for slurries, such as washing, fractionation, extraction, degradation.
1.2.1 Isolation/containment
The aim of isolation is to prevent the transport of contaminants from fixed into mobile envi-
ronmental compartments (atmosphere, waters) and physical phases (runoff, soil moisture,
groundwater). In the case of metals it is mainly surface waters and groundwater that is
Remediation technologies 417
exposed. Isolation by applying a cover is usually applied to high volumes of contaminated

soil, waste rock, and other solid waste, typically of mining origin. In situ/on-site isolation/
containment creates waste disposal sites requiring long-term care. Isolation may also be
applied temporarily in order to limit transport during site assessment and site remediation.
1.2.1.1 Cover systems

Cover systems are used to provide an impermeable barrier to water infiltration into con-
taminated soil so preventing further release of contaminants into the surrounding surface
water or groundwater. Secondary objectives include controlling wind erosion, gas and odor
emissions, improving aesthetics, and providing a stable surface over a contaminated site
(Evanko & Dzombak, 1997). A variety of natural and synthetic materials can be used in cap-
ping systems. These may range from a single layer to multi layer cover systems. Covering
methods vary depending upon site conditions including contaminant chemistry, soil type,
climate, land use, site location, and budget.
1.2.1.2 Subsurface barriers

Subsurface barriers isolate contaminated soil and water by controlling the movement of
groundwater in a contaminated site. These barriers are designed to reduce groundwater
inflow and/or outflow from the site, i.e. the interaction of any water with the contaminated
solid phase (see more in Rumer & Ryan, 1995). Vertical and horizontal barriers, slurry walls,
grout curtains, and sheet piles are constructed, usually as barriers. Permeable barriers follow
another concept; they influence water flow at a minimal scale while selectively retaining and
eliminating the hazardous components potentially transported by the water flow.
1.2.1.3 Physical separation of the solid phase fractions

Physical separation may be based on particle size, density, surface characteristics, or mag-
netic properties of the soil constituents. It is generally an ex situ process that attempts to
separate the contaminated material from the rest of the soil matrix by exploiting the actual
characteristics of the soil and the contaminating metals as well as their interactions with
each other. Such interactions are typically the dominant binding of metals to the colloidal
size, inorganic soil fractions, or the influence of pH and redox potential on certain metal
species and their solubility. Several techniques are available including screening, classifica-
tion, gravity concentration, magnetic separation, and froth flotation. It is often used as pre-
treatment in order to reduce the amount of material requiring subsequent treatment. Most
parts of the separation process are carried out in slurry form, consequently this approach
is primarily used for the remediation of dredged sediment and for soils/wastes which need
washing (with water).
1.2.2 Mobilization of metals

Mobilization techniques aim at extracting the contaminant and the contaminated physical
phases or solid fractions from the rest of the soil/sediment. It can be achieved by contacting
the contaminated solid medium with a liquid phase solution containing extracting agents
(solvent, surfactant, pH, or redox-setting agent) in a soil washing or in situ soil flushing
technology. Thermal and electrokinetic processes can also be applied for metal mobilization
in soil. The contaminated fraction of soil and/or process water is separated from the remain-
ing soil and disposed of or further treated.
1.2.2.1 Soil washing

Soil washing is used to remove metals from the soil by chemical or physical treatment meth-
ods in aqueous suspension (see scheme on Figure 8.1 and Figure 1.8 in Chapter 1). The
process entails excavation of the contaminated soil, mechanical screening to remove various
oversize materials, separation processes to generate coarse- and fine-grained fractions, treat-
ment of those solid fractions in order to transfer metals from solid to the liquid/water phase
by washing, extraction by other solvents and additives, chemical modification, etc. The final
step of the multi-stage integrated technology covers the management of the treated residuals
(both of the remediated and the ready-to-reuse fractions) and of those which should be fur-
ther treated or contained. The contaminated solid phase can be drastically reduced; sustain-
ability depends mainly on the feasibility of the treatment and the amount of the wash-water.
Surficial contaminants are removed through abrasive scouring and scrubbing actions in
one step using wash-water that is sometimes doped with surfactants and other agent, such
as acids, alkali, or chelating agents. The soil is then separated from the spent wash fluid and
separated into two main fractions: a clean, coarse fraction and a contaminated fine fraction.
The fine fraction concentrates the contaminant so that is why most of the contaminant can be
removed by removing the fine solid (read more: US EPA, 1993).
The contaminated fractions need further treatment and the clean ones reused/recycled.
Water can be reused in the washing process. The coarse fraction can be utilized as building
material. For the treatment of the fine fraction, highly reduced in volume, more expensive
methods such as acid, alkali or other chemical extraction may be cost efficient, mainly if
the metal is valuable and/or the fine material can be recycled in ceramics production. The
main advantage of soil washing is that it produces smaller volumes but more concentrated
Figure 8.1 Schematic of aqueous soil washing.

contaminants. The other managerial advantage can be the establishment of a network for
soil/sediment washing plants similar to wastewater or solid waste treatment facilities. Soil
washing can be coupled to various wastewater and solid waste treatment technologies in
order to compile the best possible arrangement for the actual contaminated solid or slurry.
Where a large amount of contaminated solid is constantly produced – e.g. in harbors, or
continuously dredged surface waters such a washing plant can be installed on site. A third
version is the mobile-version of a soil washing plant, which can be placed in a temporary
excavated/dredged location (US EPA, 1993).
1.2.2.2 In situ soil flushing

In situ soil flushing involves flooding a contaminated soil zone with an appropriate solution
to facilitate the distribution/partitioning of the metals from as solid to liquid phase. After
metal transfer to the wash-water, the metal containing liquid phase is extracted/removed.
Repeated flooding and extraction may reduce metal content of the soil to the acceptable
environmental level. Water or a liquid solution is injected or left to infiltrate into the area of
contamination. The contaminants are mobilized by solubilization or by a chemical reaction
(producing more mobile metal species) with the flushing solution. After passing through the
contaminated soil zone, the contaminant-bearing fluid is collected and brought to the surface
for disposal, recirculation, or on-site treatment and reinjection. Flushing solutions may be
water, acidic aqueous solutions, alkaline solutions, chelating or complexing agents, reducing
or oxidizing agents, cosolvents, or surfactants (US EPA, 2006). The applicability of in situ
soil flushing technologies on contaminated sites will depend largely on site-specific proper-
ties, such as hydraulic conductivity that influence the ability of the extractant to make con-
tact with contaminants and to effectively recover the flushing solution using collection wells
(NRC, 1994). Intensively flushed/washed soils can release other, essential metals and ions,
e.g. plant nutrients and biologically active substances. A site-specific complex assessment
is needed to compare the benefits, the costs and the risks of applying such soil treatment
technologies. Figure 8.2 provides an illustration of one type of in situ soil flushing process.
1.2.2.3 Pyrometallurgical separation/thermal desorption

Pyrometallurgical technologies use high temperature furnaces (200–700°C) to volatilize
metals in contaminated solid matrices. Metals are then recovered (US EPA, 1996, 2018).
This method is mainly applicable for mercury (Mulligan et al., 2001).
1.2.2.4 Electrokinetic treatment

Electrokinetic remediation applies low density current to contaminated soil in order to mobi-
lize contaminants in the form of charged metal species. The current is applied by inserting
electrodes into the subsurface and relying on the natural conductivity of the soil (due to
water and salts) to influence movement of water, ions, and particulates through the soil
(Figure 9.1 in Chapter 9). The electric potential induces the transport of the contaminants
by the following mechanisms: electroosmosis, electromigration, electrophoresis, and diffu-
sion. Electromigration is the dominant process as positively charged metal ions migrate to
the cathode while metal anions migrate to the anode (Smith et al., 1995; Reddy et al., 1997;
Reddy & Cameselle, 2009; Reddy, 2013 and Chapter 9).
Figure 8.2 In situ soil flushing using vertical wells.
1.2.3 Immobilization
Immobilization technologies are designed to reduce the mobility of contaminants by chang-
ing the physicochemical form of the contaminant, the binding capacity of the soil and/or the
interaction between the contaminant and the solid matrix, e.g. leaching characteristics, and
partitioning the contaminants between solid and liquid by promoting strong binding and by
limiting transport into the liquid phases. Mobility is usually decreased by physically restrict-
ing contact between the contaminant and the surrounding groundwater, or by chemically
altering the contaminant to make it more stable with respect to dissolution in groundwater
(Evanko & Dzombak, 1997). These changes can be implemented by solidification/stabili-
zation (S/S) technologies. The metal content of the groundwater can be typically reduced
by physical processes such as sorption or by chemical reactions, which result in immobile,
strongly bound forms, e.g. precipitates. Physical and chemical immobilization/stabilization
can be performed ex situ or in situ, groundwater can be treated in permeable reactive barri-
ers, treatment walls or larger treatment volumes, in situ filled reactors. in situ immobilization
of toxic metals in soil need permanent monitoring to prove that the immobile physical or
chemical form is stabile in the long term.
1.2.3.1 Solidification
Solidified contaminants are physically bound or enclosed within a stabilized mass (FRTR,
2002). The product of solidification may be a monolithic block, a clay-based brick or ceramic-
like material, a granular particulate, or any other physical form commonly considered “solid.”
Figure 8.3 Typical solidification process: mixing of biding agents using augers.
The most common inorganic binders are Portland cement, pozzolans (siliceous or aluminous
materials that can react with calcium hydroxide to form compounds with cementitious prop-
erties), and cement/pozzolan mixtures. Three basic approaches are used for mixing the binder
with the matrix: vertical auger mixing, shallow in-place mixing, and injection grouting (US
EPA, 2006, 2012) (Figure 8.3).
1.2.3.2 Vitrification
Vitrification uses an electric current to melt siliceous soil components at elevated tempera-
tures. Contaminating metals get inserted into the glass/ceramic-like melted matrix. Upon
cooling, the vitrification product is a chemically stable, usually leach-resistant, crystalline
material similar to obsidian or basalt rock. The extremely high temperature (800–1200°C)
destroys or volatilizes organic materials, and volatile metals, while radionuclides and heavy
metals are retained within the vitrified product. It can be performed in situ or ex situ (US
EPA, 1992). If the leaching test does not confirm complete stabilization, the residual mobile
metal species could be washed out by acid extraction, before using the vitrified product.
Figure 8.4 shows the vitrified soil residue from the Savannah River demonstration site (Info-
house, 1999).
1.2.3.3 Chemical stabilization

Chemical stabilization induces chemical reactions between the stabilizing agent and the
contaminant to reduce its mobility (FRTR, 2002). The stabilization of contaminants can be
achieved by enhanced sorption, by complexation or precipitation reactions. The processes
Figure 8.4 Cross-section of a vitrified monolith (infohouse.p2ric.org).
are dependent on both the metal types and soil properties (pH, redox potential, type of soil
constituents, cation exchange capacity etc.) as well as on the used amendment or catalyzer
(Adriano et al., 2004). In situ stabilization techniques use rather inexpensive natural and/or
industrial by-products (Kumpiene et al., 2008; Chang et al., 2013):
– Alkaline compounds with pozzolan activity, e.g. cyclonic ash, coal fly ash (Adriano
et al., 2004; Vangronsveld et al., 1996, 1999; Feigl et al., 2008, 2009a,b,c, 2010a,b,c);
– Cement kiln dust (Rahman et al., 2011);
– Iron and manganese oxides, such as lime sludge from water softening (Baker et al.,
2005);
– Sugar factory lime (Wasner et al., 2005);
– Elemental iron, e.g. steel shot (Boisson et al., 1999) or steel slag (Zhuo et al., 2012);
– Red mud (Feigl et al., 2012; Ujaczki et al., 2016a,b);
– Phosphate compounds (Xenidis, 2010);
– Biosolids and composts (Christie et al., 2001; McBride et al., 2013) and charcoal origi-
nating from different agricultural wastes (Molnár et al., 2016);
– The technology is often combined with phytostabilization (Vangronsweld et al., 1996,
1999; Feigl et al., 2007, 2008, 2009b, c, 2010a,b,c).
1.2.3.4 Chemical treatments for mobility and toxicity reduction

Chemical treatment by reductive and oxidative agents may be used to decrease the mobility
and/or toxicity of metal contaminants. The three types of reactions that can be used for this
purpose are oxidation, reduction and neutralization reactions. Changing the oxidation state
of metals by oxidation or reduction can precipitate or solubilize the metals and this change
may result in reduced toxicity or complete detoxification. Chemical neutralization is used
to adjust the pH balance of extremely acidic or alkaline soils and/or groundwater (Evanko &
Dzombak, 1997). This procedure can be used to precipitate insoluble metal salts from con-
taminated water, groundwater or soil moisture in situ or ex situ.
1.2.4 Permeable reactive barriers

Permeable reactive barriers, treatment walls, or treatment zones all are flow-through filled
reactors placed in the way of the contaminated water. While the contaminated water flows
through the permeable reactor wall (subsurface trenches, walls, barriers) the filling removes
contaminants from groundwater by sorbing, precipitating, or transforming them. The reactor
is filled by reactive material and the water flow can be driven by gravity or by artificially
created pressure difference (see also Vidic & Pohland, 1996).
1.3 Bioremediation of metal-contaminated soil

Bioremediation is the reduction of risk of contaminated soil, groundwater and surface
water utilizing biological/biochemical processes (typically the biodegrading, bioaccumu-
lation, or stabilizing potential of living cells or organisms), or their products (for example
enzymes). The remedial technology ensures optimal conditions for the desired biological
processes and the beneficial organisms. The technological parameters of the remediation –
such as optimal temperature, pH, redox potential, nutrients, stimulants – can be set by
physical, chemical, or biological means, using heat, additives, amendments, etc. (enfo.
hu). Similarly to physicochemical methods, we can differentiate between biomobilization
and biostabilization methods. Bioremediation can take place upon the action of biologi-
cal entities (biotransformation, bioaccumulation, biodegradation) or under biologically
mediated physicochemical conditions (bioleaching, biologically reduced redox potential,
biosurfactants, etc.).
In this chapter bioremediation technologies that apply to microorganisms (or their prod-
ucts) and use them for the treatment of metal and metalloid contaminated soils are presented
(for reviews, see Gadd, 2000, 2004; Lovely & Coates, 1997; Stephen & Macnaughton, 1999;
Mulligan et al., 2001; Tabak et al., 2005) (see more at BioMineWiki, 2018). Usually bacteria
and archea are applied in bioremediation, but fungi and algae can also be used for water and
soil decontamination. Bioremediation can be performed with the application of single-cell
animals (protozoa), macro-animals (e.g. vermiremediation using earthworms), and phytore-
mediation by plants.
The microbiologically mediated mobilization and immobilization of metals is based on
several physical and chemical conditions of the soil/water and microbial surface as well as
biochemical reaction such as redox transformation, degradation, and synthesis or complex-
ation (Table 8.1).
1.3.1 Biological mobilization

Microorganisms can mobilize metals through autotrophic and heterotrophic leaching, chela-
tion by microbial metabolites, and siderophores. Such processes can lead to dissolution of
insoluble metal compounds and minerals, and desorption of metal species from exchange
sites on clay minerals or organic matter in the soil (Gadd, 2004). Methylation can result in
volatilization of Hg, Sn, Cd, Tl, and Sb.
Table 8.1 Summary of the microbially mediated transformation of metals (Me) in soil.
Mobilization
Volatilization of metals by methylation or dealkylation

Bioleaching: mobilization/solubilization by microorganisms and transport by water flows
Complexation with degraded organics and producing small Me-organic complexes
Immobilization
Biocoagulation is based on clustering microorganisms and metals together
Biosorption of metals on the large specific surface of the microorganisms
Bioprecipitation by inorganic or large organic microbial products
Bioaccumulation: uptake and storage of metals in the microbial cell
1.3.1.1 Bioleaching
Bioleaching can be accomplished by autotrophic or heterotrophic bacteria and fungi. They
increase metals’ mobility by changing their redox form, e.g. MeS → Me2+ by sulfur oxida-
tion and sulfuric acid production or by organic acids produced by the microbial cell. The
chemolitotrophic sulfur-oxidizing bacteria use reduced sulfur and iron containing substances
as energy source, and as a result they produce sulfuric acid and Fe(III) ions. Metals are mobi-
lized in the form of metal sulfates. The most common bacteria which can mobilize metals
are Acidithiobacillus species (e.g. Acidithiobacillus thiooxidans, Acidithiobacillus ferrooxi-
dans), which are also used for biomining at an industrial scale. Sulfate-reducing bacteria
can be applied to precipitate metals from the bioleaching solution (Gadd, 2000, 2004; Tabak
et al., 2005; Schippers & Sand, 1999). In heterotrophic bioleaching, microorganisms pro-
duce organic acids which function as proton donors and as complexing agents (Gadd, 2000).
For example, acids (citric acid, gluconic acid and oxalic acid) produced by Aspergillus niger
can form water-soluble complexes with metals, such as copper. The technology requires
cheap carbon sources (Mulligan et al., 2001). The mechanism of bioleaching of metal sul-
fides is discussed in Chapter 7 and shown in Figures 7.1 and 7.2).
1.3.1.2 Siderophores
Siderophores are highly specific low molecular weight Fe(III) ligands that can bind other
metals (Gadd, 2004). The method published by Diels et al. (1999) for the treatment of metal-
contaminated sandy soil relies on siderophore-mediated metal solubilization by Alcaligenes
eutrophus. Solubilized metals are adsorbed on the biomass and/or precipitated with biomass
separated from soil slurry by flocculation.
1.3.1.3 Biomethylation
Methylation of Hg, As, Se, Sn, Te, and Pb can be mediated by a range of bacteria and fungi
under aerobic and anaerobic conditions. Methyl groups are enzymatically transferred to the
metal and a given species may transform a number of different metal(-loid)s. Methylated
metal compounds formed by these processes differ in their solubility, volatility, and toxicity,
usually the methylated form is more mobile and volatile. From Se: (CH3)2Se or (CH3)2Se2,
from As: (CH3)2HAs or (CH3)3As are formed (Gadd, 2004).
1.3.1.4 Mobilization by redox transformation

Microorganisms can mobilize metals by redox transformations. Metal-reducing bacteria
reduce metals as terminal electron acceptors during their anaerobic respiration. For example,
by the reduction of Fe(III) and Mn(IV) their mobility increases. As Fe(III)- and Mn(IV)-
oxides strongly adsorb metals, their reduction results in metal desorption/release.
1.3.2 Immobilization
Immobilization reduces the amount of mobile metal species. Biosorption and biocoagulation
are biologically passive processes while in bioprecipitation and bioaccumulation play the
active living cell a role by producing specific metal binding/mobility reducing molecules.
1.3.2.1 Biosorption and biocoalugation

During biosorption metals are sorbed on the surface of the living or dead microbial biomass.
Biosorption is based on physicochemical binding and it is a metabolically passive process.
Biocoagulation is a passive process too; it is based on clustering microorganisms and metals
together due to their different zeta potentials.
1.3.2.2 Bioaccumulation
When metals are taken up by the cell and accumulated within the cell we speak about bioac-
cumulation. In the cell the metals can precipitate or attach to inner structures and organelles.
Bioaccumulation of metals is a widespread biological phenomenon, mainly due to the low
specificity of the transport processes used for microbial nutrient uptake. To utilize bioac-
cumulation for metal removal from water, both suspended or fixed bacteria, cyanobacteria,
algal or fungal biomass can be used. Biofilm fixed on inert carriers may be applied in perme-
able reactive barriers too (Gadd, 2004; Lovely & Coates, 1997).
1.3.2.3 Metal binding by specific and non-specific biomolecules

Microorganisms produce specific and non-specific metal binding molecules. These can be
simple organic acids, alcohols or macromolecules. They may be extracellular polymeric
substances that are able to sorb and trap metals and granular substances, e.g. metal sulfides
and oxides. Specific metal binding biomass can be produced (e.g. from E. coli) by express-
ing small molecular weight-specific metal binding proteins, called metallothioneins that are
produced by microbes, plants, and animals in response to toxic substances (Gadd, 2004).
1.3.2.4 Bioprecipitation
Metals are transformed into a less mobile, oxidized, or reduced form by bioprecipitation.
This kind of immobilization is mediated by biological products which reduce metals’ mobil-
ity: e.g. inorganic species, such as OH–, HS–, HCO3−, or H2PO4−, or large molecular organic
complexing agents, e.g. extracellular polymers, polysaccharides, or proteins. Several organ-
isms use metals as terminal electron acceptors during anaerobic respiration. Sulfate-reducing
bacteria, which use Fe3+ ions and elemental sulfur as electron acceptors, precipitate metals in
the form of metal sulfides. One of the most studied processes is the microbial reduction of
Cr6+ to Cr3+. Some iron-reducing bacteria are able to reduce U6+ to U4+. These bacteria can
utilize aromatic hydrocarbons as electron donors so they can be used for the remediation of
soil polluted by organics, metals, and radionuclides. Se6+ can be reduced to Se0 and microor-
ganisms can oxidize As3+ to the less toxic and less mobile As5+ form (Gadd, 2004; Lovely &
Coates, 1997).
2 COMBINED CHEMICAL AND PHYTOSTABILIZATION OF

METAL-CONTAMINATED MINE WASTE AND SOIL – A
DEMONSTRATION CASE
2.1 Introduction
In the Gyöngyösoroszi, Hungary, mining area (see Chapter 7) the remediation strategy con-
sists of the removal of the point sources, covering of the collected solid waste and combined
chemical and phytostabilization (CCP) of the diffuse and residual pollution. To find the
best stabilizer and stabilizer-plant combinations scaled-up experiments were performed with
agents and plants selected for this purpose in former experiments. The scale-up had three
steps: laboratory microcosms in pots, open-air lysimeter studies, and field experiments of
various sized field plots (Feigl et al., 2008, 2010a).
2.2 Demonstration site and technological conditions

In this section of the site, contaminants, stabilizing agents, and plants are introduced. The
agricultural area in Gyöngyösoroszi in the Toka Valley was chosen for the scaled-up experi-
ments and as a demonstration site for the innovative CCP technology. The technology is
introduced from the planning phase, through technology implementation and monitoring to
the evaluation of the results and verification of the technology demonstration.
2.2.1 Mine wastes and soils at the site

For the technological experiments, three typical subareas were chosen: (i) a highly weathered
mine waste from the Bányabérc pile, beyond the Toka Creek watershed; (ii) the Gyöngyö-
soroszi mining site in the Toka Valley: a relatively intact waste rock heap; and (iii) an agri-
cultural site exposed to regular floods downstream the mine and the village. The soil of the
village hobby gardens was heavily contaminated with metals due to highly contaminated
deposited sediment deriving from the abandoned mine area (Figure 8.5).
The catchment area of the Toka Creek and the neighboring other watersheds have mine
wastes of different ages, even from the 1800s. Most of the waste originates from the years
1950–1960. These uncovered waste deposits are exposed to intensive weathering, result-
ing in oxidation, acidification, and leaching. Two waste heaps were chosen for remediation
experiments, both were ranked as highly risky during the risk assessment of the waste heaps
in the Toka Valley (Vaszita & Gruiz, 2010).
1 A large mine waste heap near the Bányabérc shaft (BB) consists of heavily weathered
mine waste that has a pH of 4.6. The highly acidic, metal containing leachate water
from the BB area has affected the water quality of the nearby creek and the neighboring
Figure 8.5 Demonstration sites of the CCP technology – from north to south: (1) weathered mine
waste; (2) non-weathered waste rock; (3) regularly flooded agricultural soil.
watershed (Tamás, 2007). After the removal and containment of the bulk majority of the
highly risky BB heap, the residual soil (with lower level contamination) is to be treated
by combined chemical and phytostabilization.
2 The huge waste rock heap under the main entrance of the mine (ME), the disposal site
of the non-weathered waste rock resulting from excavation of the main mine adit. The
material has a pH of 7.2 and highly a variable metal content. As it is usual in mine estab-
lishment, mine buildings and the mine-water treatment plant were built on the top of the
heap of waste rock. Therefore its removal was not an option.
The waste materials contain As, Cd, Pb, and Zn at high concentration however, As
and Pb are dominantly in immobile forms. In the ME waste material 11.2% of the total
Cd (22.7 mg/kg) and 4.6% of the total Zn (4631 mg/kg) is acetate-extractable. The BB
waste has less metal content (4.9 mg/kg Cd and 1176 mg/kg Zn) than the ME, but both
metals occur in mobile forms: 21.8% of Cd is extractable by acetate and 6.9% by water,
and 16.8% Zn is extractable by acetate and 4.8% by water (Feigl et al., 2009a).
3 Regular flood events result in contaminated sediment disposal on the agricultural soil
near the creek. Therefore, the concentration of metals in these soils shows a gradient
perpendicular to the flow direction: the highest total metal concentration was mea-
sured close to the creek which decreases with increasing distance from the creek
(Horváth & Gruiz, 1996; Tolner et al., 2010) (Figure 8.6). A special characteristic of
the flooded area is that the mobile metal forms do not follow this pattern due to the
Figure 8.6 3D contour plot: concentration distribution of Zn in a hobby garden.
time-dependent mobilization from the disposed sediment. The risk assessment of the
hobby gardens of village people showed that some vegetables, especially sorrel and
rhubarb accumulate metals in large quantities, but most of the vegetables had higher
metal contents than acceptable. Therefore the cultivation of non-accumulating berry-
type plants was suggested to the owners of the gardens at flood risk (Horváth & Gruiz,
1996; Sipter et al., 2008).
The agricultural soil involved in the technological experiments was typical polluted
soil of the area with a pH of 5.4–7.6 and with a wide range metal content: total metal con-
centrations measured in aqua regia extracts were 57−330 mg/kg As, 4.1−11.1 mg/kg Cd,
227−1589 mg/kg Pb, and 871−1863 mg/kg Zn. However, it can be concluded from the ace-
tate and water-extractable metal contents that Zn and Cd are the most mobile contaminants
(acetate-extractable Cd and Zn are 11.3−34.4% and 8.9−24.7%, water-extractable Cd and Zn
are a maximum 15.5% and 10.8%, respectively), therefore their immobilization has prior-
ity in agricultural soils (Feigl et al., 2009a). Cadmium is characterized by high acute and
chronic toxicity, carcinogenicity, and developmental toxicity, while Zn is ecotoxic. Chemi-
cal stabilization combined with phytostabilization significantly reduces metal mobility from
soil and the risk of metal release into the aquatic habitat.
2.2.2 Fly ash as chemical stabilizer

The chemical stabilizers selected for the remediation of the Gyöngyösoroszi agricultural
soils and mine wastes were evaluated in the first step of the technological experiments in
laboratory microcosms (Feigl et al., 2007, 2008). The action mechanism of fly ash is com-
plex; alkalizing effect (provided that the fly ash has alkaline properties), and pozzolan activ-
ity are the most important ones, having an impact in the short term; clay mineral formation
and metal binding into the molecular lattice in the long term.
Several successful applications proved the efficiency of fly ash as amendment for soil
stabilization (reviews: Adriano et al., 1980; Haering & Daniels, 1991; Asokan et al., 2005).
Table 8.2 Characteristics of the fly ash applied in the studies.
Fly ash pH Total metal content (mg/kg) Water-extractable metal content (mg/kg)
OA 12.6 As: 18.8, Cd: 0.87, Pb: 18.3, Zn: 223 As: <DL, Cd: <DL, Pb: 0.09, Zn: 0.43
OB 9.7 As: 20.4, Cd: 1.13, Pb: 19.1, Zn: 102 As: 0.61, Cd: <DL, Pb: 0.04, Zn: <DL
T 6.8 As: 16.7, Cd: 0.48, Cu: 53.2, Pb: 9.39, As: <DL, Cd: <DL, Cu: <DL; Pb: <DL
Zn: 56.4
V 6.4 As: 33.6, Cd: 1.02, Cu: 32.7, Pb: 35.5, As: 0.107, Cd, Cu and Pb: <DL, Zn: 0.235
Zn: 303
One of the first and most successful results for long-term metal immobilization by fly
ash was obtained by Vangronsveld et al. (1995a,b) in the remediation of the metal-
polluted area of a former zinc smelter in Belgium by beringite. Beringite is a modified
aluminosilicate originating from fluidized bed combustion of coal refuse (low-qual-
ity coal mixed with rock). The soil near the abandoned zinc smelter contained up to
13,250 mg/kg Zn, making the soil barren. After treatment with beringite a healthy and
sustainable vegetation cover was established (Vangronsveld et al., 1999; Bouwman et
al., 2001). Twelve years after treatment, the Nematode fauna was still improving (Bou-
wman & Vangronsveld, 2004), metal availability remained low, and no increase in phy-
totoxicity was observed.
The two crucial factors determining the metal immobilizing potential of ash are the
origin and the composition (Vangronsveld et al., 1996). Besides sorption and crystal growth,
the alkalizing effect also reportedly contributes to the immobilizing effect of fly ash. In the
Gyöngyösoroszi experiments both composition and alkalinity of the tested alkaline and non-
alkaline fly ash were studied.
Two alkaline fly ash (OA and OB) originating from lignite combustion in the Oroszlány,
Hungary, power plant were applied for immobilizing metals in the Gyöngyösoroszi soils
and wastes. The studied non-alkaline fly ash (T and V) originate from the burning of the
Tatabánya lignite (T) and the other from burning the lignite of Visonta (V). Characteristics
of the fly ash are summarized in Table 8.2.
2.2.3 Plants for phytostabilization

The plant types applied in the technological experiments were chosen based on successful
preliminary experiments and pilot applications of the authors or based on published case
studies. A grass mixture, industrial plants (two Sorghum species), and an agricultural cul-
tivar (maize) were selected for phytostabilization coupled to chemical stabilization. Plants
beneficial for phytostabilization should be tolerant to site conditions (e.g. low pH, high metal
concentration, salinity), grow quickly and produce sufficient biomass to provide complete
coverage of the soil. Plants should have a relatively dense root system for stabilization and
should not accumulate metals in above-ground plant tissues that could be consumed by
humans or animals. Plant roots may provide some additional surface area for metal precipi-
tation or adsorption to occur (Berti et al., 1998); it plays a most important role in marshlands
and other aquatic habitats.
The grass mixture (pasture:meadow = 1:2, consisting of 20.0% Festuca arundina-

cea, 20.0% Lolium perenne, 18.3% Bromus inermis, 15.0% Dactylis glomerata, 13.3%
Festuca rubra, 5.0% Phalaris/Baldingera arundinacea, 3.3% Agropyron pectinatum,
3.3% Festuca pratensis, 1.6% Phleum pratensis) was previously used successfully for
covering red mud reservoirs in Hungary (Murányi, 2008). The mixture contained species
with various needs of light, temperature, and water, therefore there is a higher chance in
successful vegetation. Grasses create a closed vegetation cover, which hinders wind and
water erosion – a main goal of phytostabilization. Furthermore, they do not accumulate
metals in the parts above soil.
Broom corn (Sorghum vulgare Pers. var. Technikum) and sudan grass (Sorghum suda-
nense, strain: zöldözön) are fast growing plants, the latter with a possible applicability as an
energy crop (Liu & Lin, 2009). Their roots can thoroughly net the soil close to the surface,
they are drought tolerant and live together with arbuscular mycorrhiza fungi therefore they
are frequently used for phytoremediation.
Maize was chosen to investigate the risks of metal uptake from the stabilized soil with
a highly accumulative plant to predict maximal risk from measured data. Anton and Máthé-
Gáspár (2005) and Máthé-Gáspár and Anton (2005) rated maize a metal accumulating
and metal-tolerant plant therefore it was selected to represent a worse case situation in the
Gyöngyösoroszi agricultural area.
2.3 Scaled-up studies

To test and evaluate the effect of combined chemical stabilizers and plants in scaling-up, the
technology was carried out in three steps (Figure 8.7). In the microcosm study (step 1) the
effect of chemical stabilizers was tested. The efficiency of metal immobilization and reten-
tion was characterized by measuring the leachability of toxic metals. Open-air lysimeters
(step 2) were used to follow the fate of the water in the soil profile, to measure the effect
of stabilizing agents mixed to the soil or installed as a reactive barrier, and to observe the
Figure 8.7 Scaled-up technological experiments for combined chemical and phytostabilization.
vegetation planted or grown spontaneously on the soil surface. Field experiments (step 3)
were carried out on typical soils and wastes of the area: mine waste rock, highly weathered
mine waste, and agricultural soil polluted by contaminated sediment through floods.
2.3.1 Lab-scale microcosm studies

For the evaluation of chemical stabilizers, the simplest and cheapest methodology is the
application of laboratory microcosms (Gruiz et al., 2015). Before selecting the best stabi-
lizer for the Gyöngyösoroszi soils and mine wastes, several amendments were tested, such
as alkaline and non-alkaline fly ash from different origins, lime, various waste materials
such as (i) red mud; (ii) Fe-Mn-hydroxide from water treatment residuals; and (iii) raw
phosphate, alginate, lignite, and a mixture of some additives. The microcosms composed of
1−2 kg soil mixed with different stabilizers at 1−10% in weight and were incubated at 25°C
for 2−3 years. To monitor the microcosms, an integrated methodology was developed that
included physical-chemical, biological and ecotoxicological methods for the assessment of
metal mobility and availability in soil after treatment (Feigl et al., 2007, 2008, 2009a,b,c,
2012). Advantages of these small-scale microcosms are the almost non-limited number of
tests and the applicability of vegetation.
2.3.2 Field lysimeter studies

Lysimeters were used to examine the stabilization processes under natural conditions. Vari-
ous processes can be studied in lysimeters such as the formation of acid mine drainage (Sand
et al., 2007), phytoextraction (Wenzel et al., 2003), phytodegradation (Saison et al., 2004),
stabilization (Lidelöw et al., 2007), as well as combined chemical and phytostabilization
(Pathan et al., 2003; Mench et al., 2003; Ruttens et al., 2006a; Kumpiene et al., 2007).
Lysimeter studies compared to field experiments have several advantages: (i) the number of
parallels and combinations is not much restricted by space and costs; (ii) the construction
allows pore water collection and (iii) soil profile dependent studies; and (iv) while plant
growth and vegetation quality can also be tested. In the Gyöngyösoroszi case, ten 0.34-m3
lysimeters were constructed from concrete cylinders on the surface to study the stabilizing
effect of fly ash on mine wastes and agricultural soil (Figures 8.8 and 8.9). Fly ash was applied
Figure 8.8 Leachate collecting drainage: collector pipe and coarse material on its top. The waste/soil
profile was established above the coarse layer.
Figure 8.9 Field lysimeters in operation.
also as a separate layer in the lysimeter under the contaminated soil simulating a reactive
barrier (Feigl et al., 2008, 2010a). The experiments were followed for 3 years. The monitor-
ing focused on the changes of the metal content and transport, covering leachate quantity and
quality, soil quality, and plant growth and metal uptake.
2.3.3 Field demonstration

The suitability of combined chemical and phytostabilization was demonstrated in field exper-
iments on three different sites in the Gyöngyösoroszi mining area. The field demonstrations
were the last step of the scaled-up technological experiments before routine application.
From the heavily weathered mine waste of Bányabérc (BB) three field plots of 6×15 m
were constructed, each containing 54 m3 of waste material. The plots were isolated from the
underlying ground by a plastic foil, overlain by a 5-cm thick andesite gravel drainage layer
(Figure 8.10). The water leaking through the soil profile was drained by the gravel layer
and collected into subsurface vessels. This arrangement allowed the collection of an average
water sample leaking through the highly heterogeneous waste material and made possible the
assessment of risks connected to the transport of toxic metals by the infiltrated precipitation.
The BB waste was treated with the mixture of fly ash T and V (2.5% in weight each) and
lime (1%) (1st plot), with fly ash T alone (5%) (2nd plot), and the 3rd plot was left untreated
as a control. A mixture of Sorghum sudanense and Sorghum vulgare grass seed was sown
on the plots to contribute to the stabilization process by erosion and runoff control, water
infiltration reduction, and metals translocation (Feigl et al., 2009b, 2010b). To reduce the
Figure 8.10 Construction of the field plots from weathered mine waste. Left: construction of the
drainage system. Right: untreated control plot in front, plots treated with fly ash (darker)
in the background.
Figure 8.11 Chemical stabilizers applied to field plots. Left: fly ash. Right: steel shots.
elevated concentration of arsenic in the drainage water from the plots treated with fly ash
and lime, steel shots were added to the soil based on published cases (Bleeker et al., 2002;
Kumpiene et al., 2006; Ruttens et al., 2006b); 5 kg/m2 of steel shot was evenly spread on the
surface of the plots and mixed into the upper 20 cm of the plot material in the second year.
Figure 8.11 shows the soil amendments of fly ash and steel shot.
The ME waste under the mine entrance was excavated straight to the experiment and
1.5×3-m plots constructed from the rock-like waste material. One part of the plots was
treated with V fly ash and lime, the other with OA fly ash and lime.
Two other 3.3×3.3-m plots were established on top of the waste heap where the aim was
to stabilize the top layer of ME. The top layer showed advanced weathering and soil-like
appearance. Both of these plots were treated with T fly ash and lime. One plot was located in
a sunny place, the other one under trees in the shadow to observe plant growth under differ-
ent conditions. All ME plots were treated with steel shot in the second year. Grass mixture
was sown on all plots (Klebercz, 2009).
In the agricultural area a 20×60-m field plot was constructed in a regularly flooded hobby
garden. Half of the area was treated with 5% T fly ash, the other half was used as an untreated
control. Three plant species were sown: Zea mays, Sorghum vulgare, Sorghum sudanense, and
natural vegetation (invasive weed) was applied as plant control (Feigl et al., 2009c).
All the field demonstrations with BB and ME waste and agricultural soil were moni-
tored for 2 or 3 years. During this time period, the amount of precipitation, irrigation water
and drainage water (in the case of BB plots) were recorded on site on a daily basis during the
vegetation period. Samples from the drainage water, the solid waste material and the plants
were regularly taken and analyzed.
2.3.4 Monitoring using integrated methodology

For monitoring the stabilization experiments, an integrated methodology (see also Soil Test-
ing Triad in Gruiz, 2016) was developed and applied during all three steps of the scaled-
up experiments. The integrated methodology means the combination of physicochemical
analysis with biological and ecotoxicity tests (Figure 8.12). The integrated evaluation of the
Figure 8.12 Integrated methodology for the monitoring of chemical stabilization in soil microcosms.
monitoring results provides a realistic picture on the risk, and its nature (Gruiz, 2005; Gruiz
et al., 2009; Gruiz, 2016).
Monitoring by chemical analysis included the application of soil extractants with grow-
ing acidity: distilled water, water solution of ammonium-acetate (pH = 4.5), and aqua regia.
The metal content of the different extracts was determined by IPC-AES: Inductive Plasma
Coupled Atomic Emission Spectrometry. Their aim was to characterize the extractability
or the “chemical availability” of the metals (Feigl et al., 2009a). Besides the metal content
and mobility, other soil characteristics such as pH, EC, texture (according to Arany, 2010),
organic matter content, ammonium-acetate extractable P and K were also determined. Metal
content of the drainage water and plants was also measured by ICP-AES (Feigl et al., 2010b).
The actual risk of the soil contaminated with a dynamically changing mixture of vari-
ous metal species can be better characterized by direct toxicity assessment (DTA). DTA
methodology uses soil-living test organisms and observes their response both in time and
in comparison with non-contaminated soil (Gruiz, 2005, 2016). Generic soil activity was
characterized by soil-living microbial cell numbers (e.g. aerobic heterotrophic cells). The
soil and leachate toxicity was measured by test organisms at three trophic levels: bacteria
(Aliivibrio fischeri luminescence inhibition test), plant (Sinapis alba root and shoot growth
inhibition test) and animal (Tetrahymena pyriformis reproduction inhibition test). A rapid
(5-day) plant accumulation test using S. alba was developed by the author to obtain direct
information on the stabilizer from the point of view of the plants, used for the phytostabiliza-
tion process (Feigl et al., 2010b) to avoid additional loading of the food chain.
The results of chemical analysis and biological and toxicity assessment were evalu-
ated together and a score system which was developed to characterize the soil stabilization
options (Feigl et al., 2010b). Complex verification was applied for the combined chemical
and phytostabilization including (i) material balance; (ii) quantitative characterization of the
environmental risk before, during, and after the remediation; (iii) cost efficiency assessment;
and (iv) SWOT analysis (Gruiz et al., 2008).
2.4 Results of the combined chemical and

phytostabilization
The results of the microcosms and the lysimeters made it possible to select the best-fitting
additives (fly ash, lime, and steel shot) to the mine wastes and soils to remediate them. The
results of the field plots provide the foundation of the first field application of the com-
bined chemical and phytostabilization technology in the Toka Valley for those areas which
cannot be cleaned up by removing the dispersed waste or which remained after point
source removal. The technology verification based on the field applications demonstrated
and proved its future applicability, its technological, environmental, and socioeconomic
efficiency.
2.4.1 Results of the pre-experiments

The alkaline OA fly ash showed the best immobilizing effect in microcosms over the long
term (2 years). One single treatment with 5% OA fly ash reduced the acetate-extractable
metal content of the soil by 45–49% and the water-soluble part by more than 99%. It also
reduced soil toxicity for both bacteria and plants and decreased the bioavailable metal pro-
portion by 70%. The pH-neutral fly ash types were not able to shift the pH of the acidic waste
materials to the alkaline domain, therefore lime was mixed in. The addition of lime enhanced
the immobilization capacity of the neutral fly ash types and their mixture was as effective as
the alkaline fly ash (Feigl et al., 2009a).
In field lysimeters the stabilization processes were examined under natural conditions.
The short-term results (2 months) from drain water analysis showed that both the OA alkaline
fly ash and the non-alkaline V fly ash caused a 99% decrease in the concentration of Zn and Cd
compared to the untreated mine waste, and the toxicity also decreased due to treatment (Feigl
et al., 2010a). This efficiency remained the same over the 3 years (Feigl, unpublished results).
2.4.2 Results for highly acidic, sulfuric, weathered mine waste

The weathered acidic mine waste (BB) was treated with fly ash in three versions: (i) T fly ash
(FA); (ii) Mixture of T and V fly ash and lime (FAL); (iii) Steel shot (SS) in the second year.
The experiments were monitored for 3 years.
In the drain water from the untreated waste the concentration of Cd, Cu, Pb, and Zn
was much above the site specific Maximum Effect Based Quality Criteria (EBQCmax) set by
Gruiz et al. (2006) for local surface waters (Table 8.3). During the 3 years of monitoring,
the leachable quantity of metals decreased to the third of the untreated plot, but it was still
more than 100 times higher than the EBQCmax in the case of Cd and Zn. The FA treatment
decreased the mobile metal proportion in the waste material, but not sufficiently, and the
mobile Pb content has increased due to the effect of the treatment. However, additional lime
in FAL treatments reduced the metal contents sufficiently, below the EBQCmax by the second
year, except As. The concentration of As in the drain water increased with increasing pH.
Steel shots managed to compensate for this increase under pH 5, but not above 7. The As
concentration remained three times higher than EBQCmax (Feigl et al., 2010c), contrary to
the laboratory microcosm results, which showed that a 48–78% decrease in leachable As and
Pb was sufficient to meet the criteria. The probable reason for this difference and the lower
efficiency in the field may be that the steel shot granules have not been mixed as homoge-
neously into soil as in the microcosms (Bertalan, 2009).
Table 8.3 Metal content of the drain water from the BB mine waste field plots (Feigl et al., 2010c).
Treatment Year Metal content pH
As Cd Cu Pb Zn
µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L
Untreated 2007 <1.8 441 1510 17.0 89,079 2.91

Untreated 2008 <1.8 180 714 16.2 37,286 2.88
Untreated 2009 11.2 157 433 12.5 24,126 3.25
FA 2007 <1.8 138 88.7 131 30,380 4.12
FA+SS 2008 <1.8 124 77.4 192 26,009 4.13
FA+SS 2009 4.23 111 85.2 184 17,111 4.39
FAL 2007 20.7 2.30 14.1 1.96 226 7.23
FAL+SS 2008 20.9 0.42 11.7 <1.50 48.8 7.77
FAL+SS 2009 33.3 0.120 9.85 <1.50 29.3 7.85
EBQCmax 10.0 1.0 200 10.0 100
Values below the EBQCmax are marked in bold face font.
As expected from the drain water results, the water- and acetate-extractable metal con-
tent of the solid waste has significantly decreased. In the FA-treated plot the amount of
water-extractable Zn, Cd, and Pb decreased by 81–95%, in the FAL-treated plot by more
than 99% (Feigl et al., 2010c).
Toxicity results confirmed the effectiveness of the stabilizing treatments: drain water
samples changed from toxic to non-toxic as measured both by Aliivibrio fischeri bacterial
test and Sinapis alba plant growth test. The luminescence inhibition of A. fischeri decreased
to half in the first year and showed no inhibition by the third year. The roots of the S. alba
grown in treated waste were five times longer than in the untreated one. The inhibition of
the reproduction of T. pyriformis (a single-cell animal) decreased in the first two years of
treatment from 100% (inhibition of the untreated waste), to 40–15% (inhibition is quanti-
fied compared to a good quality natural soil without an inhibitory effect). The microbial cell
numbers and activities in the mine waste increased ten times in the FA-treated plot and 100
times in the FAL-treated plot compared to the non-treated one (Feigl et al., 2010c).
The untreated field plots remained bare, plants could not grow at all, justifying the
importance of the application of chemical stabilizers before planting (Figures 8.13 and 8.14).
Figure 8.13 Field plots in August 2007, in the first year of the field study. Left: untreated control plot
with plants unable to grow. Right: fly ash and lime treated plot with rich grass cover.
Figure 8.14 Sorghum sudanense and Sorghum vulgare grown on the fly ash and lime treated plot at the
end of August 2007. Naturally grown vegetation appears at the edge of the plot.
Three plant species – grass, maize, and sorghum – did not show significant differences
in the rate of accumulation, all of them fulfilled the criteria not to deliver metals into the
food chain. Plants grown in the FAL field plots all met the Hungarian Quality Criteria for
fodder, which is 2 mg/kg for As, 1 mg/kg for Cd, 100 mg/kg for Cu, 10 mg/kg for Pb, and
100 mg/kg for Zn (in dry weight). Plants from the FA-treated plot had some higher metal
contents compared to plants from the FAL plots, but still below the criteria (Feigl et al.,
2010c).
2.4.3 Results for non-weathered waste rock

The freshly excavated (subsurface) waste rock (ME) and the soil-like surface material
formed from the same waste rock (SME) were studied in small-size field plots. Stabilization
with a mixture of fly ash (V, T, and O) and lime as well as steel shots was achieved in the
second year.
Due to the treatments the acetate- and water-extractable Cd and Zn contents decreased
by 99%, except for the soil-like surface (SME), which had originally higher total and mobile
metal concentration: here the acetate-extractable metal proportion decreased “only” by
89–93% (Table 8.4). The Pb content of the acetate extract decreased by 99% and the distilled
water extract by 83–89%. The As concentration decreased in the alkaline extract by 60% in
the ME waste, but it increased by 20% in SME. The pH increased in both cases from 6.0 to
7.8–8.8. The steel shot addition did not show significant effects in this case.
The toxicity/inhibitory effect of the wastes decreased significantly: to 30% in the biolu-
minescence bioassay, to 30–15% based on S. alba root elongation, and to 50% according to
the shoot growth tests.
The metal content of the grasses planted on the small plots shows differences due to
the scale of weathering of the mine waste: as predicted, it was higher for SME than for ME.
Plants grown on treated ME waste accumulated Cd, Pb, and As at an acceptable rate,
the metal contents were below or close to the Hungarian Quality Criteria (HQC) for fodder,
except for As and Pb in one plot, which were higher in the first year, but decreased in the
Table 8.4 Metal contents of the stabilized ME mine waste in the second year – extracted by acetate
and water.
Non-treated Fly ash V + Fly ash O + Non-treated, Fly ash T +

ME waste lime treated lime treated weathered lime treated
ME waste ME waste SME weathered SME
mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
Total Cd1 7.81 7.81 7.81 27.6 27.6

Acetate-extractable Cd 1.21 0.158 0.097 5.71 63.0
Water-extractable Cd 0.237 <0.004 <0.004 0.311 <0.004
Total Zn1 1295 1295 1295 4814 4814
Acetate-extractable Zn 161 0.009 0.015 849 0.612
Water-extractable Zn 25.7 0.126 0.265 47.5 0.302
1Total metal content measured after aqua regia digestion.
second. The Zn concentration decreased from the original 100 times higher values to 2–3.5
times higher values than the HQC.
Plants grown on treated SME had three to five times higher Cd, Zn, and As concentra-
tions than the HQC, and the Pb content of plants was ten times the HQC in the first year.
However, by the second year all metal concentrations reached similar levels as in the plants
grown in ME except for Pb which remained two to four times higher than the HQC.
2.4.4 Results for the CCP-treated agricultural soil

The agricultural soil at the Gyöngyösoroszi village contaminated with river sediment con-
taining metals was treated with the non-alkaline T fly ash. One half of the area was left
untreated and used as a control for the field study.
The acetate-extractable Zn, Cd and Pb content of the soil decreased by 80–82% due to
the treatment, while the water-extractable metal content decreased by 92% near the creek
(0–5 m), an area exposed to frequent floods (Table 8.5) (Feigl et al., 2010a). At 5–10 m dis-
tance from the creek the metal content decreased by 50% in the soil treated by fly ash, due
to the lower initial metal content (Feigl et al., 2009c).
The biological activity of the soil shows that the soil microbiota is active despite the
high toxicant concentrations. In spite of the fact that microorganisms in flooded areas have
already been adapted to long-term toxic metal contamination, the fly ash treatment sig-
nificantly increased cell numbers and activities. Bioluminescence and plant toxicity tests
showed a 20–30% improvement, but many samples were still in the moderately toxic cat-
egory (the test organisms used are rather sensitive to metals, cf. field-grown plants). (Feigl
et al., 2010a).
Metal content of field-grown plants (maize and two sorghum species) has been
reduced by the fly ash treatment to below the Hungarian Quality Criteria both for food
and fodder (Table 8.6, Figures 8.15 and 8.16). In the two Sorghum species the Zn and
Cd concentration decreased by 70–90%; in the Zea mays roots and leaves, the reduction
reached only 35–80% compared to the plants grown in untreated soil. The results proved
that the non-alkaline T fly ash was also able to reduce metal mobility in a pH-neutral soil
(Feigl et al., 2009c).
Table 8.5 Decrease of metal content in acetate and water extracts of the stabilized agricultural soil.
Extraction method Non-treated Fly ash-treated Decrease1

mg/kg mg/kg %
Total Cd2 5.23

Acetate-extractable Cd 1.54 0.275 82
Water-extractable Cd 0.051 <0.004 92
Total Zn2 1102
Acetate-extractable Zn 237 47.7 80
Water-extractable Zn 4.11 0.315 92
1 Decrease by treatment compared to non-treated control.
2 Total metal content measured after aqua regia digestion.
Table 8.6 Accumulated metal quantities in plants grown in the agricultural study area.
Plant Treatment As Cd Pb Zn
Metal content of plant leaves (mg/kg)
Sorghum sudanense Non-treated 0.78 3.00 3.32 348
Fly ash-treated 0.45 0.90 2.20 104
Sorghum vulgare Non-treated 0.51 6.63 6.25 503
Fly ash-treated 0.53 0.72 1.86 108
Zea mays Non-treated 4.66 5.29 25.42 665
Fly ash-treated 1.00 1.59 5.62 301
HQC for animal fodder 2.0 1.0 10.0
HQC for fresh vegetable 2.0 0.5 3.0 100
Decrease compared to non-treated plants (%)
Sorghum sudanense 42 70 34 70
Sorghum vulgare −4 89 70 79
Zea mays 79 70 78 55
1HQC= Hungarian Quality Criteria for animal fodder and fresh vegetables, calculated to dry biomass based on the
FVM Decree 44/2003. (IV.26.) and the EüM Decree No. 17/1999. (VI. 16.).
Left: untreated plot, right: fly ash-treated plot shortly after emergence.
Figure 8.15 Sorghum sudanense grown on the agricultural field plots in 2007.
Figure 8.16 Difference at the border of the untreated and treated maize plots.
Table 8.7 Efficacy of treatments evaluated by a score system.
Treatment Total score of Percentage

210 points of actual
score/2.1
Untreated 58.5 28
FA 109.3 52
FAL 151.0 72
FA+SS 128.5 61
FAL+SS 160.5 76
50%: points for chemical-analytical tests divided by their maximum (105 points),
30%: points for biological tests divided by their maximum (80 points),
20%: points for ecotoxicological tests divided by their maximum (25 points).
Table 8.8 Comparison of technological alternatives based on risk score and costs.
No Dig & Dig & dump Soil Combined

treatment dump on site washing chemical and
phytostabilization
Risk score 1291 192 110 149 44

Specific cost 3.4 91.7 12.1 52.1 2.4
(euro/ton, 2006)
2.4.5 Integrated technology evaluation and verification

The efficiency of the chemical stabilizers applied in the combined chemical and phytosta-
bilization technology was evaluated based on a score system (Table 8.7). The score system
included all the measured and available chemical, biological, and toxicological results. As an
example, the results for the heavily weathered, acidic mine waste (BB) is shown here. FAL
treatment proved to be better, the single FA treatment and the addition of SS improved the
efficacy of both treatments by 5–10%. The best technology (FAL + SS) reached 75% of the
maximum score, which means a 49% improvement compared to the initial (untreated) acidic
mine waste (Feigl et al., 2010b).
The complex verification system applied to the combined chemical and phytostabiliza-
tion technology showed that CCP is the least risky option for the treatment of mine wastes
and metal-contaminated agricultural soils in the Gyöngyösoroszi region compared to other
alternatives. In terms of costs CCP is even better than the “no treatment” option, considering
the monitoring required by law (Gruiz et al., 2008) (Table 8.8).
2.5 Conclusions
The field demonstration of combined chemical and phytostabilization was implemented
in the abandoned Gyöngyösoroszi mining area to demonstrate and verify its applicability
for the toxic metal-polluted soil, sediment, and mine waste dispersed diffusely at the site.
The subsites for study purposes were selected to represent the most widespread types of
contaminated waste rocks, soils and sediment-loaded agricultural soils. The waste/soil con-
taminated with As, Cd, Cu, Pb, and Zn was stabilized by various fly ash types and lime, and
the stabilizing plants were maize, sorghum, and grass. The integrated monitoring included
physicochemical, biological, and toxicological methods and provided data for the integrated
evaluation of the results of both technology application and residual risk. The results con-
firmed that fly ash as a chemical stabilizer can reduce metal mobility and toxicity of the
wastes and contaminated soils. As a consequence, a healthy vegetation can develop without
posing any risk to humans and the ecosystem or the food chains.
In summary, the demonstration of the innovative CCP technology justified the results
of the small-scale preliminary tests and proved to be technologically efficient. In addition
to the strict technological aspects, the complex verification, including environmental and
socioeconomic criteria, proved the efficiency and applicability of combined chemical and
phytostabilization for soils contaminated with toxic metals and waste rocks of mining origin.
REFERENCES
Adriano, D.C., Page, A.L., Elseewi, A.A., Chang, A.C. & Straughan, I. (1980) Utilization and disposal
of fly ash and other coal residues in terrestrial ecosystems: A review. Journal of Environmental
Quality, 9, 333–344.
Adriano, D.C., Wenzel, W.W., Vangronsveld, J. & Bolan, N.S. (2004) Role of assisted natural remedia-
tion in environmental cleanup. Geoderma, 122, 121–142.
Anton, A. & Máthé-Gáspár, G. (2005) Factors affecting heavy metal uptake in plant selection for phy-
toremediation. Zeitschrift für Naturforschung, C 60, 244–246.
Arany (2010) Recommended Methods for Soil Investigation. Hungarian Ministry of Environmnet
and Water. Available from: www.kvvm.hu/szakmai/karmentes/kiadvanyok/karmkezikk2/2-09.htm.
Asokan, P., Saxena, M. & Asolekar, S.R. (2005) Coal combustion residues – Environmental implica-
tions and recycling potentials. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 43, 239–262.
Baker, R.J., Van Leeuwen, J.H. & White, D.J. (2005) Applications for Reuse of Lime Sludge From
Water Softening. Final Report for TR-535. Iowa Department of Transportation Highway Division
and the Iowa Highway Research Board.
Bertalan, Z. (2009) Stabilisation of Toxic Metal Contaminated Mine Waste With Fly Ash and Lime.
Master Thesis at BME ABET, Budapest, Hungary.
Berti, W.R., Cunningham, S.C. & Cooper, E.M. (1998) Case studies in the field – In-place inactiva-
tion and phytorestoration of Pb-containated sites. In: Vangronsveld, J. & Cunningham, S.C. (eds.)
Metal Contaminated Soils: In Situ Inactivation and Phytorestoration. Springer, Berlin, Germany &
Heidelberg, Germany. pp. 235–248.
BioMineWiki (2018) Biohydrometallurgy Knowledge Base. Available from: http://wiki.biomine.
skelleftea.se. [Accessed 16th July 2018].
Bleeker, P.M., Assunçao, A.G.L., Teiga, P.M., de Koe, T. & Verkleij, J.A.C. (2002) Revegetation of the
acidic, As contaminated Jales mine spoil tips using a combination of spoil amendments and tolerant
grasses. Science of the Total Environment, 300, 1–13.
Boisson, J., Ruttens, A., Mench, A.M. & Vangronsveld, J. (1999) Evaluation of hydroxyapatite as a
metal immobilizing soil additive for the remediation of polluted soils. Part 1. Influence of hydroxy-
apatite on metal exchangeability in soil, plant growth and plant metal accumulation. Environmental
Pollution, 104, 225–233.
Bouwman, L., Bloem, J., Römkens, P., Boon, G. & Vangronsveld, J. (2001) Beneficial effects of the
growth of metal tolerant grass on biological and chemical parameters in copper and zinc contami-
nated sandy soils. Minerva Biotecnologica, 13, 19–26.
Bouwman, L. & Vangronsveld, J. (2004) Rehabilitation of the nematode fauna in phytostabilised heav-
ily zinc-contaminated, sandy soil. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 4, 17–23.
Chang, Y.T., Hsi, H.C., Hseu, Z.Y. & Jheng, S.-L. (2013) Chemical stabilization of cadmium in acidic
soil using alkaline agronomic and industrial by-products. Journal of Environmental Science and
Health. Part A, Toxic/Hazardous Substances & Environmental Engineering, 48(13), 1748–1756.
doi:10.1080/10934529.2013.815571.
Christie, P., Easson, D.L., Picton, J.R. & Love, S.C.P. (2001) Agronomic value of alkaline-stabilized
sewage biosolids for spring barley. Journal of Agronomy, 93, 144–151.
Diels, L., De Smet, M., Hooyberghs, L. & Corbisier, P. (1999) Heavy metals bioremediation of soil.
Molecular Biotechnology, 12, 149–158.
Evanko, C.R. & Dzombak, D.A. (1997) Remediation of metals-contaminated soils and groundwater.
Technology Evaluation Report, TE-97-01. Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Cen-
ter, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Feigl, V., Anton, A., Fekete, F. & Gruiz, K. (2008) Combined chemical and phytostabilisation of metal
polluted soil: From microcosms to field experiments. Conference Proceedings CD of Consoil 2008,
3–6 July 2008. Theme E, Milan, Italy. pp. 823–830.
Feigl, V., Anton, A. & Gruiz, K. (2009b) Combined chemical and phytostabilisation: Field application.
Land Contamination & Reclamation, 17(3–4), 577–584.
Feigl, V., Anton, A. & Gruiz, K. (2010a) An innovative technology for metal polluted soil – Combined
chemical and phytostabilisation. In: Sarsby, R.W. & Meggyes, T. (eds.) Construction for a Sustain-
able Environment Proceedings of the International Conference of Construction for a Sustainable
Environment, Vilnius, Lithuania, 1–4 July, 2008. Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK. pp. 187–195.
Feigl, V., Anton, A., Uzinger, N. & Gruiz, K. (2012) Red mud as a chemical stabilizer for soil contami-
nated with toxic metals. Water, Air & Soil Pollution, 223(3), 1237–1247.
Feigl, V., Atkári, Á., Anton, A. & Gruiz, K. (2007) Chemical stabilisation combined with phytostabili-
sation applied to mine waste contaminated soils in Hungary. Advanced Materials Research, 20–21,
315–318.
Feigl, V., Gruiz, K. & Anton, A. (2010b) Remediation of metal ore mine waste using combined chemi-
cal- and phytostabilisation. Periodica Polytechnica Chemical Engineering, 54(2), 71–80.
Feigl, V., Gruiz, K. & Anton, A. (2010c) Combined chemical and phytostabilisation of an acidic mine
waste: Long-term field experiment. Conference Proceedings CD of Consoil 2010, 22–24 Septem-
ber 2010. Consoil 2010 Posters A3–24, Salzburg, Austria.
Feigl, V., Uzinger, N. & Gruiz, K. (2009a) Chemical stabilisation of toxic metals in soil microcosms.
Land Contamination & Reclamation, 17(3–4), 483–494.
Feigl, V., Uzinger, N., Gruiz, K. & Anton, A. (2009c) Reduction of abiotic stress in a metal polluted
agricultural area by combined chemical and phytostabilisation. Cereal Research Communications,
37(Suppl), 465–468.
FRTR (2002) Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide. Version 4.0. USA.
Available from: www.frtr.gov/matrix2. [Accessed 18th July 2018].
Gadd, G.M. (2000) Bioremedial potential of microbial mechanisms of metal mobilization and immo-
bilization. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 11, 271–279.
Gadd, G.M. (2004) Microbial influence on metal mobility and application for bioremediation. Geo-
derma, 122, 109–119.
Gruiz, K. (2005) Biological tools for soil ecotoxicity evaluation: Soil testing triad and the interactive
ecotoxicity tests for contaminated soil. In: Fava, F. & Canepa, P. (eds.) Soil Remediation Series
No 6., INCA, Venice, Italy. pp. 45–70.
Gruiz, K. (2016) Integrated and efficient characterization of contaminated sites. In: Gruiz, K., Meg-
gyes, T. & Fenyvesi, É. (eds.) Engineering Tools for Environmental Risk Management. Volume 3.
Site Assessment and Monitoring Tools. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA. pp. 1–98.
Gruiz, K., Molnár, M. & Feigl, V. (2009) Measuring adverse effects of contaminated soil using interac-
tive and dynamic test methods. Land Contamination & Reclamation, 17(3–4), 445–462.
Gruiz, K., Molnár, M., Feigl, V., Vaszita, E. & Klebercz, O. (2015) Microcosm models and technologi-
cal experiments. In: Gruiz, K., Meggyes, T. & Fenyvesi, É. (eds.) Engineering Tools for Environ-
mental Risk Management. Volume 2. Environmental Toxicology. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA.
pp. 401–444.
ladze, G.V. (ed) Environmental Microbiology Research Trends. Nova Science Publishers, Inc., New
York, NY, USA. pp. 1–57.
Gruiz, K., Vaszita, E. & Siki, Z. (2006) Quantitative Risk Assessment as part of the GIS based Envi-
ronmental Risk Management of diffuse pollution of mining origin. Conference Proceedings of
Difpolmine Conference, 12–14 December 2006, Montpellier, France.
Haering, K.C. & Daniels, W.L. (1991) Fly ash: Characteristics and use in mine land reclamation – A
literature review. Virginia Coal. Energy Journal, 3, 33–46.
Horváth, B. & Gruiz, K. (1996) Impact of metalliferous ore mining activity on the environment in
Gyöngyösoroszi, Hungary. Science of the Total Environment, 184, 215–227.
Infohouse (1999) New Angles of in situ Vitrification. Initiatives online 6. Available from: http://
infohouse.p2ric.org/ref/14/0_initiatives/init/fall99/newangl.htm. [Accessed 18th July 2018].
Klebercz, O. (2009) Stabilisation of Toxic Metal Contaminated Soils. Master Thesis at BME ABET,
Budapest, Hungary.
Kumpiene, J., Lagerkvist, A. & Maurice, C. (2007) Stabilization of Pb- and Cu-contaminated soil
using coal fly ash and peat. Environmental Pollution, 145, 365–373.
Kumpiene, J., Lagerkvist, A. & Maurice, C. (2008) Stabilization of As, Cr, Cu, Pb, and Zn in soil using
amendments – A review. Waste Management, 28, 215–225.
Kumpiene, J., Ore, S., Renella, G., Mench, M., Lagerkvist, A. & Maurice, C. (2006) Assessment of
zerovalent iron for stabilization of chromium, copper, and arsenic in soil. Environmental Pollution,
144, 62–69.
Lens, P., Grotenhuis, T., Malina, G. & Tabak, H. (2005) Soil and Sediment Remediation. Mechanisms,
Technologies and Applications. IWA Publishing, London, UK & Seattle, WA, USA.
Lidelöw, S., Ragnvaldsson, D., Leffler, P., Tesfalidet, S. & Maurice, C. (2007) Field trials to assess the
use of iron-bearing industrial by-products for stabilisation of chromate copper arsenate-contami-
nated soil. Science of the Total Environment, 387, 68–78.
Liu, S.Y. & Lin, C.Y. (2009) Development and perspective of promising energy plants for bioethanol
production in Taiwan. Renewable Energy, 34(8), 1902–1907. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2008.12.018.
Lovely, D.R. & Coates, J.D. (1997) Bioremediation of metal contamination. Current Opinion in Bio-
technology, 8, 285–589.
Máthé-Gáspár, G. & Anton, A. (2005) Phytoremediation study: Factors influencing heavy metal uptake
of plants. Acta Biologica Szeged, 49, 69–70.
McBride, M.B., Simon, T., Tam, G. & Wharton, S. (2013) Lead and arsenic uptake by leafy vegetables
grown on contaminated soils: Effects of mineral and organic amendments. Water, Air, & Soil Pollu-
tion, 2224(1), 1378. doi:10.1007/s11270-012-1378-z.
Mench, M., Bussiere, S., Boisson, J., Castaing, E., Vangronsveld, J., Ruttens, A., De Koe, T., Bleeker,
P., Assuncao, A. & Manceau, A. (2003) Progress in remediation and revegetation of the barren Jales
gold mine spoil after in situ treatments. Plant and Soil, 249, 187−202.
Molnár, M., Vaszita, E., Farkas, É., Ujaczki, É., Fekete-Kertész, I., Tolner, M., Klebercz, O.,
Kirchkeszner, C., Gruiz, K., Uzinger, N. & Feigl, V. (2016) Acidic sandy soil improvement with
biochar – A microcosm study. The Science of the Total Environment, 563–564, 855–865. doi:10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2016.01.091.
Mulligan, C.R., Yong, R.N. & Gibbs, B.F. (2001) Remediation technologies for metal contaminated
soils and groundwater: An evaluation. Engineering Geology, 60, 193−207.
Murányi, A. (2008) Innovative decision tools for risk based environmental management. MOKKA
Project report on the 3rd work phase by RISSAC, Budapest, Hungary.
NRC (1994) Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.
Pathan, S.M., Aylmore, L.A.G. & Colmer, T.D. (2003) Soil properties and turf growth on a sandy soil
amended with fly ash. Plant and Soil, 256, 103–114.
Rahman, M.K., Rehman, S. & Al-Amoudi, O.S.B. (2011) Literature review on cement kiln dust
usage in soil and waste stabilization and experimental investigation. International Journal of
Recent Research and Applied Studies (IJRRAS), 7(1). Available from: www.arpapress.com/Volumes/
Vol7Issue1/IJRRAS_7_1_12.pdf. [Accessed 18th July 2018].
Reddy, K.R. (2013) Electrokinetic remediation of soils at complex contaminated sites: Technology
status, challenges, and opportunities. In: Manassero et al. (eds.) Coupled Phenomena in Environ-
mental Geotechnics. Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK.
Reddy, K.R. & Cameselle, C. (2009) (eds.) Electrochemical Remediation Technologies for Polluted
Soils, Sediments and Groundwater. Available from: www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-
s2.0-84889389978&partnerID=40&md5=44064164eb24877831fec0ba842c3202. [Accessed 18th
July 2018].
Reddy, K.R., Parupudi, U.S., Devulapalli, S.N. & Xu, C.Y. (1997) Effects of soil composition on
the removal of chromium by electrokinetics. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 55(1–3), 135–158.
doi:10.1016/S0304-3894(97)00020-4.
Rumer, R.R. & Ryan, M.E. (1995) Barrier Containment Technologies for Environmental Remediation
Applications. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA.
Ruttens, A., Boisson, J., Jonca, G. & Pottecher, G. (2006b) Rehabilitation of the La Combe du Saut site –
Phytostabilisation: field experiments. Proceedings of Difpolmine Conference, 12–14 December 2006,
Montpellier, France. Available from: www.ademe.fr/difpolmine/Difpolmine_RapportFinal/
communication/14_posters/Difpolmine_Poster06_Field.pdf. [Accessed 18th July 2018].
Ruttens, A., Mench, M., Colpaert, J., Boisson, J., Carleer, R. & Vangronsveld, J. (2006a) Phytostabi-
lization of a metal contaminated sandy soil. I: Influence of compost and/or inorganic metal immo-
bilizing soil additives on phytotoxicity and plant availability of metals. Environmental Pollution,
144(2), 533–541.
Saison, C., Perrin-Ganier, C., Schiavon, M. & Morel, J.L. (2004) Efect of cropping and tillage on the
dissipation of PAH contamination in soil. Environmental Pollution, 130, 275–285.
Sand, W., Józsa, P.G., Kovács, Z.M., Sasaran, N. & Schippers, A. (2007) Long-term evaluation of
acid rock drainage mitigation measures in large lysimeters. Journal of Geochemical Exploration,
92(2–3), 205–211.
Schippers, A. & Sand, W. (1999) Bacterial leaching of metal sulfides proceeds by two indirect mech-
anisms via thiosulfate or via polysulfides and sulfur. Applied Environmental Microbiology, 65,
319–321.
Sipter, E., Rózsa, E., Gruiz, K., Tátrai, E. & Morvai, V. (2008) Site-specific risk assessment in contami-
nated vegetable gardens. Chemosphere, 71, 1301–1307.
Smith, L.A., Means, J.L., Chen, A., Alleman, B., Chapman, C.C., Tixier, J.S. Jr., Brauning, S.E.,
Gavaskar, A.R. & Royer, M.D. (1995) Remedial Options for Metals-Contaminated Sites. Lewis
Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, USA.
Stephen, J.R. & Macnaughton, S.J. (1999) Developments in terrestrial bacterial remediation of metals.
Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 10, 230–233.
Tabak, H.H., Lens, P., van Hullebusch, E.D. & Dejonghe, W. (2005) Developments in bioremedia-
tion of soils and sediments polluted with metals and radionuclides – 1. Microbial processes and
mechanisms affecting bioremediation of metal contamination and influencing metal toxicity and
transport. Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology, 4, 115–156.
Tamás, P. (2007) Summary on the research work done in the BÁNYAREM Project, session: Field
experiments, evaluation of results. BÁNYAREM Project Study by Mecsek-Öko, Pécs.
Tolner, M., Nagy, G., Vaszita, E. & Gruiz, K. (2010) in situ delineation of point sources and high
resolution mapping of polluted sites by X-ray Fluorescence measuring device. In: Sarsby, R.W. &
Meggyes, T. (eds.) Construction for a Sustainable Environment. CRC Press/Balkema, Leiden, The
Netherlands. pp. 237–244.
Ujaczki, É., Feigl, V., Farkas, É., Vaszita, E., Gruiz, K. & Molnár, M. (2016a) Red mud as acidic sandy
soil ameliorant: A microcosm incubation study. Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnol-
ogy, 91(6), 1596–1606. doi:10.1002/jctb.4898.
Ujaczki, É., Feigl, V., Molnár, M., Vaszita, E., Uzinger, N., Erdélyi, A. & Gruiz, K. (2016b) The
potential application of red mud and soil mixture as additive to the surface layer of a landfill cover
system. Journal of Environmental Sciences, 44, 189–196. doi:10.1016/j.jes.2015.12.014.
US EPA (1992) Handbook: Vitrification technologies for treatment of hazardous and radioactive waste.
EPA 625/R-92-002.
US EPA (1993) Innovative site remediation Technology: Soil washing/soil flushing. American Acad-
emy of Environmental Engineers.
US EPA (1996) A citizen’s guide to thermal desorption. Technology Fact Sheet.
US EPA (2006) In situ treatment technologies for metal contaminated soils. Engineering forum issue
paper.
US EPA (2012) A citizen’s guide to solidification and stabilization.
US EPA (2018) Thermal Treatment: In situ – Overview. Available from: www.clu-in.org/techfocus/
default.focus/sec/Thermal_Treatment%3A_In_Situ/cat/Overview/ [Accessed 18th July 2018].
Vangronsveld, J., Colpaert, J.V. & Tichelen, K.K. (1996) Reclamation of a bare industrial area con-
taminated by non-ferrous metals: Physico-chemical and biological evaluation of the durability of
soil treatment and revegetation. Environmental Pollution, 94, 131–140.
Vangronsveld, J., Ruttens, A. & Clijsters, H. (1999) The use of cyclonic ashes of fluidized bed burning
of coal mine refuse for long-term immobilization of metals in soils. In: Sajwan, K.S., Alva, A.K. &
Keefer, R.F. (eds.) Biogeochemistry of Trace Elements in Coal and Coal Combustion Byproducts.
Springer, Boston, MA, USA. pp. 223–233.
Vangronsveld, J., Sterckx, J., Van Assche, F. & Clijsters, H. (1995b) Rehabilitation studies on an old
non-ferrous waste dumping ground: Effects of revegetation and metal immobilization by beringite.
Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 52, 221–229.
Vangronsveld, J., Van Assche, F. & Clijsters, H. (1995a) Reclamation of a bare industrial area con-
taminated by non-ferrous metals: In situ metal immobilization and revegetation. Environmental
Pollution, 87, 51–59.
Vaszita, E. & Gruiz, K. (2010) Scoring based Risk Assessment in an abandoned base metal sulphide
mining area. Conference Proceedings CD of Consoil 2010, 22–24 September 2010. Consoil 2010
Posters C3–23, Salzburg, Austria.
Vaszita, E. (2014) Environmental risk of mining. In: Gruiz, K., Meggyes, T. & Fenyvesi, É. (eds.)
Engineering Tools for Environmental Risk Management. Volume 1. Environmental Detereioration
and Contamination. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA. pp. 113–134.
Vidic, R.D. & Pohland, F.G. (1996) Treatment walls. Technology evaluation. Report TE-96-01.
Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Wasner, J., Liebhard, P. & Eigner, H. (2001) Application of carbonation lime on high pH soils in the
Pannonian region of Austria. Zuckerindustrie, 126(3), 194–201.
Wenzel, W.W., Unterbrunner, R., Sommer, P. & Sacco, P. (2003) Chelate-assisted phytoextraction
using canola (Brassica napus L.) in outdoors pot and lysimeter experiments. Plant and Soil, 249,
83–96.
Xenidis, A., Stouraiti, C. & Papassiopi, N. (2010) Stabilization of Pb and As in soils by applying com-
bined treatment with phosphates and ferrous iron. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 177, 929–937.
Zhuo, L., Li, H., Cheng, F., Shi, Y., Zhang, Q. & Shi, W. (2012) Co-remediation of cadmium-polluted soil
using stainless steel slag and ammonium humate. Environmental Science and Pollution Research,
19(7), 2842–2848. doi:10.1007/s11356-012-0790-7.
Chapter 9
Electrochemical remediation for

contaminated soils, sediments and
groundwater
C . Cameselle 1 & K.R. Reddy 2
1Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Vigo, University Campus, Building Fundicion, Vigo, Spain
2Department of Civil and Materials Engineering, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA
ABSTRACT
Electrokinetic remediation is an environmental technology specially designed for the removal
or degradation of contaminants in soils, sediments, sludges, and even solid wastes. This
technology relies upon the application of a low intensity electric field directly to the porous
material to be treated. Under the effect of an electric field, the contaminants are mobilized
and transported towards the electrodes anode and cathode. The two main transport mecha-
nisms are electromigration and electroosmosis. Electromigration is the transport of ions in
solution in the interstitial fluid towards the electrode of opposite charge. Electroosmosis is
the net flux of water induced by the electric field that, under natural conditions, flows from
anode to cathode transporting the contaminants in solution out of the solid material. Elec-
trokinetic remediation has shown several successes in the removal of inorganic and organic
contaminants from soil. Furthermore, this technology is able to remediate fine grained and
low permeability soils where other technologies have failed. In electrokinetics, the removal
of contaminants requires their mobilization and solubilization in the interstitial fluid. The
solubilization of contaminants can be enhanced with the addition of facilitating agents (acids
or bases, complexing agents, surfactants etc.) and the pH adjustment in the solid material.
The facilitating agents can be transported into the solid material by electromigration or elec-
troosmosis, and the pH in the solid material can be controlled by the electrochemical split of
water combined with the addition of an acid or base. Field applications of electrokinetics on
contaminated sites have proved that this technology can be used on a large scale.
1 INTRODUCTION
Contamination of soils, sediments and groundwater raises increasing public awareness due
to the serious impact of contaminants on the environment and public health. The treatment
and remediation of contaminated sites is a priority in the agendas of politicians, but reme-
diation efficacy depends on innovative technologies developed by scientists, engineers, and
technicians. Improper waste disposal practices and accidental spills have been the prime
sources of contamination. Contaminants include a wide range of toxic pollutants such as
heavy metals, radionuclides, and recalcitrant organic compounds. Contaminants often are in
different mixtures which makes the remediation process more difficult.
Several technologies based on physicochemical, thermal, and biological processes have been
developed during the last 20 years to remediate soils, sediments, and groundwater (Sharma &
Reddy, 2004). However, they are often costly, energy intensive, ineffective, and may themselves
create adverse environmental impacts when dealing with difficult subsurface and contaminant
conditions. Remediation has been inefficient at numerous polluted sites due to low permeability
and heterogeneity of the soil and/or contaminant mixtures (multiple contaminants or combina-
tions of different contaminant types such as co-existing heavy metals and organic pollutants).
Electrochemical and electrokinetic remediation technologies have been studied and tested
for the remediation of contaminated soils, sludge and sediments. Laboratory and field results have
confirmed the capability of this technology to address difficult contaminated site conditions (low
permeability soils, mixed contaminants, soil heterogeneities, etc.) where other technologies failed.
The objective of this chapter is to describe the basics and technology status of electroki-
netic remediation for the restoration of polluted sites and outline future perspectives of this
technology.
2 ELECTROCHEMICAL TECHNOLOGIES FOR

REMEDIATION OF POLLUTED SOILS
Electrokinetic remediation is a powerful technology that can be used for the remediation of
contaminated soils, sludge, sediments, wastes and other porous matrices. It is also called
electrokinetics, electroremediation, or electroreclamation in literature. Electrokinetic tech-
nology is based on a low intensity electric field applied to the contaminated soil (Acar,
1993). The electric field mobilizes the contaminant chemical species that migrate under the
effect of the electric field towards one of the electrodes. The key transport processes are
electromigration (the movement of ions towards the opposite electrode), electroosmosis
(the net flux of water in the interstitial fluid induced by the electric field), and electropho-
resis (the movement of charged particles towards the opposite electrode). Diffusion (the
movement of chemical species due to a concentration gradient) is usually insignificant
compared to other transport mechanisms.
The electrokinetic process is designed as in situ soil decontamination, although it can also
be applied ex situ in specific equipment. In field applications wells are first drilled in the con-
taminated site, then a series of electrodes (anodes and cathodes) are implemented. Figure 9.1
Figure 9.1 In situ application of electrokinetic treatment.

Electrochemical remediation 449
shows the arrangement especially designed for the circulation of the processing fluid. The
contaminant species is dissolved in the processing fluid, migrates due to the effect of the
electric field and is collected in the electrode wells. The processing fluid is pumped out to
a treatment system engineered for each specific application. The electrokinetic technology
is complex due to transfer and transformation processes, the buffer capacity, mineralogy,
organic matter content, geochemistry, soil-contaminant interactions, and heterogeneity of
soil. All these factors affect the efficacy of the process and the success of the remediation
process (Reddy & Cameselle, 2009).
3 ELECTROCHEMICAL TRANSPORT
3.1 Electromigration
Electromigration is the movement of the dissolved ionic species that are present in the pore fluid
toward the opposite electrode. Anions move toward the anode and cations migrate toward the
cathode. Electromigration depends on the mobility of ionic species and the strength of the elec-
tric field. The electromigration flow of an ionic species can be expressed by Equations 1 and 2:
J i = ui*ci ∇(−E ) (1)

D τ nzi F ,
ui* = ui τ n = i (2)
RT
where
– Ji = electromigration flow (mol/m2s)
– ui = the ionic mobility (m/Vs)
– ui* = the effective ionic mobility, which includes the effect of
– τ = tortuosity (dimensionless) and
– n = porosity of the soil (dimensionless)
– ci = the concentration (mol/m3)
– E = the electric field strength (V/m)
– Di = the molecular diffusion coefficient (m2/s)
– zi = the ionic valence, the charge of the chemical species (dimensionless)
– F = Faraday’s constant (96487 C/mol)
– R = the universal gas constant (8.314 J/K•mol)
– T = the absolute temperature (K).
The extent of electromigration of a given ion depends on the conductivity and porosity
of the soil, pH gradient, applied electric potential, initial concentration of the specific ion,
and the presence of competitive ions. Electromigration is the major transport process for
ionic metals, polar organic molecules, ionic micelles, and colloidal electrolytes.
3.2 Electroosmosis
Electroosmosis is the net flux of pore fluid in the soil induced by the electric field. Electroos-
mosis is able to remove all dissolved ionic and non-ionic species in the pore fluid. Generally,
soil particle surfaces are charged, and counter-ions (positive ions or cations) concentrate
within a diffuse double layer region adjacent to the particle surface (Figure 9.2). The electric
field compels ions in local excess migrate in along a plane parallel to the particle surface
towards the electrode charged oppositely. As they migrate, they transfer momentum to the
surrounding fluid molecules via viscous forces producing an electroosmotic flow (Figure 9.3).
Since soil particle surfaces are generally negatively charged, the counter-ions that neutral-
ize the surface charge are cations. Under the effect of the electric field, those cations move
toward the cathode, inducing an electroosmotic flow toward the cathode.
Figure 9.2 Double electric layer developed on a charged particle surface. Definition of the zeta potential.
Figure 9.3 Development of the electroosmotic flow under the effect of an electric field.
The Helmholtz-Smoluchowski equation describes the electroosmotic flow (qeo):

Dζ
qeo = nA Ez (3)
η
where
– qeo = electroosmotic flow (m3/s)
– n = porosity
– A = cross-sectional area of the soil (m²)
– D = dielectric constant of the fluid (C2/Nm2)
– Ez = applied voltage gradient (V/m)
– ζ = zeta potential (V)
– η = fluid dynamic viscosity (kg/ms).
The electroosmotic flow depends on the dielectric constant and viscosity of the pore
fluid as well as the surface charge of the solid matrix represented by the zeta potential
(the electric potential at the interface between the fixed and mobile parts in the double
layer). The zeta potential is a function of parameters including the type of clay miner-
als and ionic species that are present as well as the pH, ionic strength, and temperature.
If cations and anions are evenly distributed, equal and opposite flow occurs, causing a
zero net flow. However, when the momentum transferred to the fluid in one direction
exceeds the momentum of the fluid traveling in the other direction, an electroosmotic
flow results.
The pH changes induced in the soil by electrolysis reactions affect the zeta potential
of soil particles, thereby affecting the electroosmotic flow. The low pH near the anode
may be less than the PZC (point of zero charge) of the soil and the soil surfaces are
positively charged, while high pH near the cathode may be higher than PZC of the soil,
making the soil more negative. Electroosmotic flow may be reduced and even stopped
as the soil is acidified near the anode. If a large part of the soil is acidified, the elec-
troosmotic flow direction may even be reversed, from typical “anode-to-cathode,” to
“cathode-to-anode.” This phenomenon is known as electro-endosmosis. Understanding
of such electroosmotic flow variations is critical when remediating soils polluted by
organic substances.
Electroosmosis is considered the dominant transport process for both organic and inor-
ganic contaminants that are in dissolved, suspended, emulsified, or similar forms. Besides,
electroosmotic flow through low-permeability regions can be significantly greater than a
flow generated by an ordinary hydraulic gradient, thus electroosmotic flow is much more
efficient than hydraulic gradient.
3.3 Electrophoresis
Electrophoresis (also known as cataphoresis) is the transport of charged particles of colloi-
dal size and bound contaminants due to a low direct current or voltage gradient relative to
the stationary pore fluid. Compared to ionic migration and electroosmosis, mass transport
by electrophoresis is negligible in low permeability soil systems. However, it may become
significant in soil suspension systems and it is the key mechanism for the transportation of
biocolloids (e.g. those of bacterial origin) and micelles.
3.4 Diffusion
Diffusion is the motion of ionic and molecular contaminants from areas of higher to areas of
lower concentration due to the concentration gradient or chemical kinetic activity. Estimates
of ionic mobilities from the diffusion coefficients using the Nernst-Einstein-Townsend rela-
tion indicate that ionic mobility of a charged species is much higher (about 40 times) than
the diffusion coefficient. Therefore, diffusive transport is often neglected.
4 ELECTROCHEMICAL REACTION AND

TRANSFORMATION PROCESSES
The application of an electric field to a contaminated soil induces the movement of ions and
water (the pore fluid) towards the electrodes. An electric field also triggers electrochemical
reactions at the electrodes and in the soil.
The main electrochemical/electrokinetic reaction is the decomposition of water at the
electrodes. Oxidation at the anode generates oxygen gas and hydrogen ions (H+) and reduc-
tion at the cathode produces hydrogen gas and hydroxyl (OH−) ions as shown by Equations 4
and 5.
Oxidation at the anode:
2H2O → O2(gas) + 4H+(aq) + 4e− E0 = −1.229 V (4)
Reduction at the cathode:
4H2O + 4e− → 2H2 (gas) + 4OH−(aq) E0 = −0.828 V (5)
Essentially, an acid is produced at the anode and base (alkali) at the cathode, therefore,
pH decreases at the anode and increases at the cathode. The migration of H+ from the anode
and OH− from the cathode in the soil leads to dynamic changes in soil pH. H+ is about twice
as mobile as OH−, so protons dominate the system and an acid front moves across the soil
until it meets the hydroxyl front in a zone near the cathode where the ions may recombine
to generate water. Thus, the soil is divided in two zones with a sharp pH jump in between: a
high-pH zone close to the cathode, and a low-pH zone near the anode (Ricart et al., 1999).
The actual soil pH values will depend on the extent of transport of H+ and OH− ions and the
geochemical characteristics of the soil. The buffering capacity of the soil will exert a deci-
sive influence on the transport of H+ and OH− and the pH in the soil.
The implications of these electrolysis reactions are enormous in the electrokinetic treat-
ment since they affect the contaminant migration, the development of electroosmotic flow and
the transformation and degradation of contaminants in the soil (Cameselle & Reddy, 2012).
The most important geochemical reactions that must be considered include the following:
– Sorption – desorption reactions.

– Precipitation – dissolution reactions.
– Oxidation – reduction reactions.
Contaminants are often present in the soil sorbed to solid particle surfaces and/or attached
to the organic matter in the soil. The transportation and removal of contaminants from the soil
by electroosmosis and electromigration imply the desorption and solubilization of the con-
taminant in the pore fluid. The equilibrium between the solid phase and the liquid phase is
dependent on the chemical nature of the contaminant and the composition of the soil and the
pore fluid. The pH value has a major impact on sorption equilibrium. For instance, metals can
be removed at low pH because metal ions can be exchanged form the solid surface when the
H+ concentration is increased. The pH-dependent sorption-desorption behavior is generally
determined by performing batch experiments on the soil and contaminant of interest.
Precipitation and dissolution of the contaminant species during the electrokinetic pro-
cess can significantly influence the removal efficiency of the process. The solubilization of
precipitates is affected by the hydrogen ions generated at the anode migrating across the
contaminated soil, which encourages the acidification of soil and the dissolution of metal
hydroxides and carbonates. However, in some types of soils, the migration of hydrogen ions
is hindered by the relatively high buffering capacity of the soil. In a high-pH environment,
heavy metals will precipitate, and the movement of the contaminants will be impeded. Dur-
ing the electrokinetic treatment, metal ions migrate towards the cathode until they reach
the high-pH zone where they accumulate and eventually precipitate, clogging soil pores
and hindering the remediation process. It is essential to prevent precipitation and have the
contaminants in dissolved form during the electrokinetic process to achieve efficient con-
taminant removal (Ricart et al., 2004).
Oxidation and reduction reactions are important when dealing with contaminants that
can be transformed under the conditions developed at the electrodes or in the soil during
electrokinetic treatment. Thus, organic contaminants can be degraded in the soil or at the
electrodes by oxidation or reductive degradation. The degradation of organic contaminants
results in simpler organic compounds, sometimes less toxic than the former contaminants,
improving the effectiveness of the electrokinetic treatment.
Metallic contaminants such as chromium and arsenic are also affected by redox reac-
tions. Chromium most commonly exists in two valence states: trivalent chromium [Cr(III)]
and hexavalent chromium [Cr(VI)]. Cr(III) occurs in the form of cationic hydroxides such as
Cr(OH)2− and it will migrate towards the cathode during electrokinetic remediation. However,
Cr(VI) exists in the form of oxyanions such as chromate (CrO42−) or dichromate (Cr2O72−), which
migrate towards the anode. The valence state depends on the soil composition, especially the
presence of reducing agents such as organic matter and Fe(II) and/or oxidizing agents such
as Mn(IV). The chemical speciation of the contaminants and their movement across the soil
depends on the valence state of metals and their possible redox chemistry (Reddy et al., 1997).
Arsenic is difficult to remove from the soil due to its complex chemistry. It forms a variety
of anionic and cationic compounds that migrate toward the cathode and anode, respectively. The
electric field and pH value induce redox reactions on arsenic compounds, changing the direction
of migration making them difficult to be fully removed from the soil (Baek et al., 2009).
5 REMOVAL OF METALS AND INORGANIC

CONTAMINANTS
5.1 Toxic metals

The electrokinetic treatment was initially used for the removal of heavy metals from contam-
inated soils. In the early 1990s, several papers were published dealing with the use of electric
fields for the removal of heavy metals in model soils and real soils sampled in landfills, and
industrial and mining areas. Kaolinite was commonly used to represent low-permeability
soils, and electrokinetic treatment was carried out at the bench scale on kaolinite spiked
with a cationic metal (e.g. Pb or Cd) in a specified concentration. Electric potential was
applied to the soil sample in an electrokinetic setup. The cationic metals were dissolved in
the pore fluid, which enabled their electrokinetic transportation. Furthermore, the acid front
electrogenerated at the cathode decreases the pH in the soil, encouraging the desorption of
the cationic metals and their transportation towards the cathode. However, the alkaline front
electrogenerated at the cathode provokes the premature precipitation of the metal in the soil.
The overall metal removal is then very limited due to the formation of the alkaline environ-
ment at the cathode (Ricart et al., 1999).
Enhanced electrokinetic methods were developed to improve heavy metal removal in
model soils. Mineral acids applied at the cathode can suppress the alkaline front by depolar-
ization. Under these conditions, the acid front can acidify the soil and improve the desorp-
tion of cationic heavy metals that can electromigrate and accumulate in the cathode solution.
The metals can then be recovered in their native form due to the reduction at the cathode sur-
face. When selecting the mineral acid, it is important to consider its potential reactions with
the contaminant metal and other compounds in the soil. The acid must not form insoluble
salts with the contaminant metals to avoid precipitation. Organic acids are also often used to
depolarize water. Advantages of the organic acids are that they are environmentally benign
and can act as complexing agents for the contaminant metals, which enhances their solubil-
ity and stability in solution (Ottosen et al., 2009).
Enhancing the metal removal by acidification of the soil is possible in model soils con-
sisting of kaolinite due to their low buffering capacity. However, acidification is not possible
in alkaline soils with high buffering capacity. In this case, metals can be desorbed using
complexing agents.
The formation of metal complexes with organic acids and other organic compounds also
improve the results of the electrochemical treatment of soils polluted with metals. Complex-
ing agents encourage the extraction and solubility of metals in the pore fluid and they are
stable in a wide range of pH, so they are not affected by the alkaline front. Complexes are
often negative, so they can be recovered at the anode. The use of complexing agents can sig-
nificantly enhance metal recovery in soils with high buffering capacity. In this kind of soil,
it is not possible to extract the metals by acidification with the acid front generated at the
anode; however, the metals can be mobilized using complexing agents, even at high pH. The
best results can be achieved by combining the use of complexing agents with pH control at
the cathode or anode depending on the chemistry of the contaminant metal (Cameselle &
Pena, 2016; Figueroa et al., 2016).
Oxidation and reduction are of particular importance for metallic chromium. The trivalent
chromium Cr(III) exists in form of a cationic hydroxide, e.g. Cr(OH)3, and migrates toward
the anode. The hexavalent chromium Cr(VI) is present in oxyanions, e.g. CrO42−, and migrates
toward the anode. The valence state of chromium depends on soil properties, reductants, and/
or oxidants, and determines the outcome of electrokinetic remediation (Reddy et al., 1997).
5.2 Inorganic anionic pollutants

Inorganic compounds such as fluoride, chloride, nitrate, sulfate, phosphate, and other inor-
ganic anions can be found in soil and may exert a negative effect on its properties and uses.
The origin of anionic inorganic substances in soil is associated with the weathering of rocks
and minerals and other natural processes. However, human activities have a major contri-
bution to the accumulation of this kind of contaminants in soils. Land cultivation and the
intensive use of chemical fertilizers may lead to nitrate contamination in soils and ground-
water. The use of manure and other organic amendments on agricultural fields and green-
houses may result in increasing concentrations of salts (sulfate, chloride, phosphate etc.).
The salinity of soils is a major problem mainly in paddy soils and greenhouses (Cho et al.,
2010). Fluoride contamination in soil is usually associated with mineral processing and poor
management of wastes such as red mud and spent pot linen from aluminum synthesis (Zhu
et al., 2017). Although the toxicity of the inorganic anions is not as critical as that of cationic
metals, it may create serious problems in groundwater and land use (Baek & Yang, 2009).
Electrokinetic remediation has been tested for the removal of inorganic anions such as
nitrate, sulfate, fluorine, and others from contaminated soil. The two main transportation
mechanisms in electrokinetics are electromigration and electroosmosis. Anionic compounds
are removed from the soil mainly by electromigration towards the anode, in the opposite
direction of the cationic metals. Under natural conditions, the pore water in soil flows by
electroosmosis from anode to cathode, retarding the electromigration of anions towards the
anode. Therefore, the electroosmotic flow should be limited in the design of an electrokinetic
application for the removal of anions. Soil pH is another key parameter to be considered.
Under natural conditions, soil particle surfaces show a negative charge. Inorganic anions are
less attracted to negatively charged surfaces. Thus, anionic contaminants will be more eas-
ily desorbed in alkaline conditions than in acidic environments, unlike the cationic metals.
Electrokinetic remediation has also been tested for the removal of various inorganic
anions. Literature results demonstrate that electrokinetics is very effective in the restora-
tion of saline soil from a greenhouse (Cho et al., 2009). The electrokinetic treatment used
a constant voltage gradient (1 V/cm) and lasted for only 6–48 hours. In these conditions,
a significant amount of ions was removed from the soil as confirmed by a reduction in the
electric conductivity after the test. The removal of nitrate was over 80% in just 2 days. The
removal of cations by an EK process was negligible; in fact, the exchangeable concentration
of potassium after EK treatment actually increased, compared to the initial value. Chlorine,
sulfate, and phosphate can be removed from saline soil with efficiencies over 90% in 2–3
days (Cho et al., 2010). Changes in the soil pH near the electrodes after the electrokinetic
treatment are the disadvantages of the electrokinetic restoration of saline soil. This problem
can be fixed by neutralization, by inverting polarity. Fluorine can be removed by electromi-
gration from soils and wastes such as red mud and spent pot linen. Zhu et al. (2017) reported
that over 60% of F– in the red mud was removed in 7 days by electromigration towards the
anode. The alkaline conditioning of anolyte favors the desorption and removal of fluorine,
but, at the same time, it enhances the electroosmotic flow from anode to cathode, counteract-
ing the electromigration of F–. The overall removal efficiency proved that the transportation
of F– by electromigration is faster and more effective than the electroosmotic transportation.
6 REMOVAL OF ORGANIC POLLUTANTS

The electrokinetic removal of soluble organic compounds from soils is very efficient. The
organic compound will be removed by electromigration or electroosmosis depending on
the compound’s chemical nature. pH conditions at the anode or cathode can be adjusted to
induce desorption, solubilization, and ionization of the organic compounds. Flushing solu-
tion at the cathode or anode can be used in order to improve the desorption of soluble organic
compounds from the soil particle surface. In fact, soluble organics can be naturally removed
from the soil, so they are not a common environmental problem although they can contami-
nate groundwater (Ricart et al., 2008).
Hydrophobic organic compounds pose a high risk to the soil because they are persistent,
usually very toxic, and difficult to degrade (Kessler et al., 2009; Lu & Yuan, 2009; Yang &
Lee, 2009). Electrokinetic remediation of soil contaminated with organic contaminants has
proved efficient for the following contaminants:
– Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs): while non-ionic surfactants (Tergitol

15-S-12, APG and Igepal CA-720), n-butylamine, HPCD (2-hydroxypropyl-beta-
cyclodextrin), pH adjustment, and periodic voltage application have been found to have
enhancing effects.
– Chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, chlorophenols, and chlorobenzenes: removal effi-
ciency stems from electromigration and electroosmosis, while desorption efficiency
may be increased by surfactants, cosolvents, and cyclodextrins.
– Chlorinated pesticides are strongly bound to the soil, therefore surfactants and cosolvents
are needed for solubilization and desorption to achieve high efficiency; herbicides exhib-
ited the following removals: atrazine: 30–50 %, molinate: 90%, and betazone: 92%.
– Nitroaromatic and other energetic compounds: cyclodextrins can significantly enhance
removal, whereas nanotechnology and bioremediation may yield further improvements.
7 REMOVAL OF ORGANIC/INORGANIC
CONTAMINANT MIXTURES
The problem of soils contaminated with mixed heavy metals and organic compounds is even
more complex than cases of single contaminants because of the different chemistry of heavy
metals and organic compounds (Elektorowicz, 2009). Some studies have shown synergis-
tic effects that retard contaminant transport and removal, but a few other studies show the
behavior of metals and organic compounds similar to those observed with either metals or
organic compounds alone.
Metals can be removed predominantly by the electromigration process, while organic
contaminants can be removed by electroosmosis. The presence of metals causes the zeta
potential of the soil to be less negative and even results in a positive value, affecting electro-
osmotic flow and sorption of the contaminants.
As it was explained before, metals are affected by various geochemical processes due
to changes in the soil pH. The removal of cationic metals is hindered by their sorption and
precipitation near the cathode; therefore, soil pH near the cathode must be lowered using
weak organic acids. This can be done by forming soluble complexes at high pH using
chelating agents or preventing high pH generation by the use of electrode membranes.
In the case of anionic metals, pH near the anode should be increased using alkaline solu-
tions such as NaOH to reduce sorption of these metals to the soil. When the metals exist
in soluble form, they are transported and removed predominantly by the electromigration
process.
For the simultaneous removal of heavy metals and organic contaminants, the organic
compounds are solubilized using different solubilizing agents such as surfactants, cosol-
vents, or cyclodextrins. Once they are in solution, they can be transported and removed
mainly by electroosmosis. Heavy metals can be solubilized as it was explained before,

lowering soil pH or with the use of complexing agents. The transportation and removal
of heavy metals is mainly by electromigration although electroosmosis may also help
in the removal of heavy metals. It is important to keep all contaminants in soluble form
and maintain electroosmotic flow for the removal of both heavy metals and organic
compounds.
Sequential approaches are developed where (i) anionic metals are removed first and then
cationic metals when mixed metal contaminants are present; and (ii) organic compounds are
removed first followed by the removal of metals when co-existing organic contaminants and
metals and are treated.
Efficient removal of multiple metals or co-existing metals and organic compounds (e.g.
PAHs) is demonstrated in spiked soil conditions, but the performance was found inadequate
in field soils from real contaminated sites.
Key factors of the feasibility of electrochemical remediation of soil contaminated with
mixtures of metals and organics are: treatment duration, handling of secondary liquid waste
and costs. These should be considered in decision making and planning.
8 ELECTROKINETIC /ELECTROCHEMICAL BARRIERS

FOR POLLUTANT CONTAINMENT
The purpose of electrokinetic barriers is to prevent migration of contaminants from their cur-
rent location. These barriers are similar to traditional passive containment barriers (such as
vertical slurry walls) for soil and groundwater pollution containment and active containment
barriers (such as pumping systems and drainage systems) for groundwater pollution contain-
ment (Sharma & Reddy, 2004). Such barriers are often used as an interim measure prior to
implementing a permanent treatment system.
Electrokinetic barriers consist of a row of electrodes bordering a high-concentra-
tion area or polluted groundwater plume. The row of electrodes is set perpendicularly
to the groundwater flow direction, while the depth of electrodes coincides with the low-
est point where pollutants can be found. Electric current is induced into the ground by
alternating anodes and cathodes. Anodes and cathodes are connected to separate closed
loop pump systems and are used to circulate electrolytes. Depending on the contami-
nant, pH can be controlled by conditioning the electrolytes. Periodically, contaminants
from the electrolytes are removed using different techniques such as sorption and ion
exchange.
9 COUPLED TECHNOLOGIES
Conventional electrochemical remediation refers to the removal of contaminants from the
contaminated media (soil, sediment, and groundwater), also known as electrokinetic extrac-
tion or electrokinetically enhanced flushing. Removal of contaminants (including contami-
nant mixtures) from spiked soils is possible using adaptive enhancement strategies. Despite
efficient removal, practical implementation of such removal strategy is limited due to the
following: (i) regulatory constraints on injecting the selected enhancement solutions into the
subsurface, (ii) high cost, and (iii) long treatment times. Recently, electrochemical remedia-
tion is combined with other remediation technologies in order to overcome these issues as
well as known deficiencies of conventional remediation methods. Such integrated or cou-

pled technologies investigated include the following:
9.1 Electrochemical oxidation/reduction

and electrokinetics
It is possible to remove a wide range of organic contaminants from soils using solubilizing
agents such as surfactants, biosurfactants, cosolvents, and cyclodextrins. However, there may
be regulatory objections for injecting these solubilizing agents into the subsurface. In addi-
tion, post-treatment of the extracted solutions at the electrodes makes this treatment costly.
An alternative approach is to degrade the organic contaminants within the soil by injecting
oxidants (e.g. hydrogen peroxide, permanganate, or persulfate) or reductants (zero-valent iron
in the form of nanoscale iron particles). Chemical oxidation and reduction processes have
been used for wastewater treatment for decades. However, it is challenging to introduce the
oxidants/reductants into low-permeability clay soils. Combining electrokinetics with chemi-
cal oxidation/reduction facilitates delivery of the oxidants and reductants and increases con-
taminant availability in low-permeability soils. Oxidants such as Fenton’s reagents (H2O2
and Fe2+) produce hydroxyl radicals which break C–H bonds of organics into environmen-
tally benign end products. Electrokinetics will also allow control of the soil pH and potential
increase in temperature to create optimal conditions to achieve maximum oxidation.
It should be noted that the electrochemical-chemical reduction principles are the same
as electrochemical-PRB using iron filing as reactive media, but one has to wait for the con-
taminated water to pass through the PRB for the remediation to occur. However, in elec-
trochemical-chemical reduction approach, nanoscale iron particles are introduced into the
contaminant source zone itself, thereby reducing the treatment time.
Generally, oxidants are stable only for a short period of time; therefore, electro-synthe-
sis methods have been developed to produce oxidants on site. Ultrasonic methods involving
high-intensity ultrasound are used to induce sonolysis of water to produce hydrogen perox-
ide and hydroxyl radicals. It should be noted that a simple combination of electrokinetics and
ultrasonic waves has also been investigated by some researchers, but the purpose has been
to enhance contaminant removal, not degradation (Yang, 2009).
Another technology known as electrochemical geo-oxidation (ECGO) has been pro-
posed which involves application of low voltage and amperage to induce reduction-oxidation
reactions at the micro-scale. This technology is based on the premise that soil particles act as
micro-capacitors that charge and discharge in a cyclic fashion. Even though low voltage and
amperage are used, the energy burst on discharge at the micro-scale is intense, resulting in
destruction of organic contaminants, theoretically to carbon dioxide and water. ECGO itself
generates the reductants (H as ion or radical) and oxygen (O elemental, OH and its radicals,
HO2 and its radicals) and, when combining the generation of H2O2 with the corrosion prod-
ucts of steel anodes, Fenton’s reagent is produced. This technology is particularly attractive
because no external oxidants need to be added.
9.2 PRB – electrokinetics

Permeable reactive barriers (PRBs) have been extensively used for the remediation of inor-
ganic and organic pollutants in groundwater. PRBs are built by digging a trench in the path
of flowing groundwater and then filling it with a selected permeable reactive material. As the
contaminated groundwater passes through the PRB, organic contaminants may be degraded
or sequestered, inorganic contaminants are sequestered, and clean groundwater exits the
PRB. Reactive materials commonly considered include iron filings, limestone, hydroxyapa-
tite, activated carbon, and zeolite. Monitoring data from several field PRB projects showed
that high-concentration dissolved inorganic species flowing through the PRB tend to precipi-
tate and clog the reactive material. In addition, the reactivity of the material used in the PRB
may decrease. Coupling electrokinetics with PRBs has been found to eliminate clogging of
the PRB system caused by mineral precipitation and improve the long-term performance of
PRBs. More research is needed towards developing combined electrokinetic-PRB systems
to induce favorable geochemical conditions within the PRB as needed during the course of
the remediation process (Weng, 2009).
9.3 Bioremediation – electrokinetics

Bioremediation, which involves the degradation of organic compounds using microbes, has
received great attention because it is environmentally friendly and inexpensive and requires
low energy. However, it is a slow remediation processes and its effectiveness depends on
the availability of nutrients, bioavailability of contaminants and physical conditions such
as temperature, redox potential, and moisture. Coupling electrokinetics with bioremedia-
tion (also known as electro-bioremediation or electro-bioreclamation) can include injection
of nutrients, electron acceptors, or microbes (if needed) and increase the bioavailability of
contaminants, especially in low-permeability soils where hydraulic delivery techniques are
ineffective. Interestingly, electrolysis reactions at the electrodes may be used to provide elec-
tron acceptors and donors. Hydrogen produced at the cathode may be used as electron donor
for reductive degradation processes, while oxygen produced at the anode may be used for
oxidative biodegradation. Although biodegradation has often been applied to organic pollut-
ants, few studies have reported on biological immobilization of heavy metals enhanced by
electrokinetics. Advances are being made through additional research to optimize electro-
kinetic effects on the microbial activity to achieve efficient contaminant degradation (Gill
et al., 2014).
9.4 Phytoremediation – electrokinetics

Phytoremediation involves the use of living plants and their associated root-microorganisms
to remove, degrade, or sequester inorganic and organic pollutants from soil, sediment and
groundwater. The main advantages of this method are low cost and ecologically friendliness.
However, this method is limited to shallow depths (limited by the root depth). Moreover,
slow plant growth and the solubility and bioavailability of the pollutants limits the remedia-
tion rate and capacity. Coupling electrokinetics with phytoremediation is aimed to increase
the availability of the contaminants and also facilitate their transport towards the root zone.
The effects of the electric field on soil pH, availability of nutrients, etc. may also help plant
growth. Electrodes are placed strategically and a low direct current or electric gradient is
applied and the contaminants are transported by electromigration and/or electroosmosis pro-
cesses toward the plant root zone. Electrode solutions of low toxicity towards plants can be
used to enhance solubilization of the contaminants. Small-scale experiments showed that
plants grow faster when exposed to electric fields, enhancing overall contaminant removal
efficiency. More research is needed to address organic contaminants and contaminant mix-
tures and possible effects on soil quality and biology of the coupled technology electro-
phytoremediation (Cameselle et al., 2013; Chirakkara et al., 2014).
9.5 Thermal desorption and electrokinetics

Thermal effects during electrochemical remediation have been studied. In situ thermal meth-
ods such as electrical resistance heating (ERH) have been used for site remediation, but elec-
tromotive forces that may occur during ERH have not been investigated. Heating resulting
from electrochemical treatment involves the resistance to the passage of electrical current
through the soil moisture. It is this resistance to electrical flow that increases temperature.
Heat transport from this joule heating takes place mainly through conduction and convection.
The increase in temperature decreases viscosity of pore fluid, decreases sorption of contami-
nants (increasing bioavailability), and increases the volatilization of organic contaminants.
Heating reduces the oxidation reduction potential in water, thereby affecting redox reactions.
Elevated temperatures within the tolerable limits of microorganisms are also conducive to
higher metabolic activity and enhanced biodegradation of contaminants. Proper control of
increased temperature during electrochemical remediation may be exploited to enhance the
overall remedial efficiency (Smith, 2009).
10 ECONOMIC ASPECTS
The cost of electrokinetic remediation of inorganic contaminants is estimated to be in the
range of 115–400 US$/m3 (90–275 US$/m3 for organic contaminants) with an average of
200 US$/m3, i.e. 90 US$/ton, which is less than excavation and disposal as hazardous waste.
Due to the limited number of full-scale electroremediation projects performed, cost esti-
mates are usually based on pilot tests. As the technology matures, confidence is expected to
rise and costs should drop (Cameselle, 2014).
11 FIELD APPLICATIONS
Several field applications of electrokinetics have been reported in the US, Europe, Korea,
and Japan (Oonnittan et al., 2009). The first field-scale electrokinetic application was car-
ried out by Geokinetics in 1987 (Lageman, 1993) in a soil contaminated with heavy metals
form a former paint factory. The subsoil was contaminated with Cu (> 5000 mg/kg) and
lead (500–1000 mg/kg). The treated area was 70 m long, 3 m wide, and 1 m deep. They
used a horizontal cathode installed close to the surface and a series of vertical anodes 2 m
apart. After 43 days of operation the Cu content was reduced by 80% and the Pb content by
70%. Another remediation project carried out by Geokinetics was a big leap into the practi-
cal field-scale implementation of electrokinetics. In the US (USEPA, 1995), electrokinetic
remediation was applied to various superfund sites for the removal of heavy metals. Some
examples include Naval Air Weapons Station in Point Mugu (Cr and Cd); Honolulu, Hawaii
(Pb); and Albuquerque, New Mexico (Cr). Monsanto and GE Corporate (Ho et al., 1997)
developed the so-called lasagna process, a novel technology based on directing contami-
nants by the electrokinetic process into certain soil layers for treatment/decontamination.
The lasagna process would cut the costs compared to digging, storing, and/or burning con-
taminated soil. The first application was successfully completed in May 1995 at a DOE site
in Paducah, Kentucky, in a clayey soil contaminated with trichloroethylene. In Korea, Kim
et al. (2010) have developed an electrokinetic application for the removal of radionuclides
(137Cs and 60Co) reaching efficiencies higher than 90% with the appropriate conditioning of
the electrode solution using nitric and/or acetic acid.
Overall, field applications demonstrate that the electrokinetic treatment is an adequate tool
for the remediation of sites polluted with toxic metals. However, the effectiveness of the pro-
cess largely depends on the geochemical characteristics of and the interaction of the pollutants
with the soil. Therefore, a detailed study of each case is necessary to specify the most adequate
operating conditions, which include current intensity or voltage drop, electrode disposition,
and chemical conditioning of electrode solutions. Laboratory studies can be carried out before
the field operation in order to determine the effect of those operating conditions that influence
solubilization and removal of heavy metals, but it must be considered that the results at field
scale may differ from those obtained in the laboratory experiments due to the change in scale.
12 FUTURE PERSPECTIVES
This chapter has demonstrated significant advances towards establishing electrochemical reme-
diation as a practical technology. However, field application lags far behind laboratory tests and
other research studies. The following issues should be addressed in order to develop this tech-
nology towards commercial field applications for soil, sediment and groundwater remediation:
– Restrict small-scale laboratory experiments and encourage large-scale pilot tests in the
laboratory or in the field.
– Reduce the single contaminant experiments in model soils spiked at laboratory and
promote tests on actual soils contaminated with aged and multiple contaminants.
– Encourage the development of combined technologies.
– Extend the electrochemical technology to other contaminated porous matrixes such as
industrial wastes in order to achieve their valorization.
– Promote the analysis of experimental results based on the physicochemical properties of
contaminants, geochemistry of soil, reaction kinetics, equilibrium constants, and trans-
port parameters, rather than a phenomenological analysis of the contaminant removal.
– Advance fundamental research and developing predictive modeling tools. In particular,
geochemical reactions in various soil and contaminant conditions should be properly
characterized.
– Establish quality control and quality assurance protocols for laboratory and field studies.
– Assess impacts of electrochemical remediation on soil quality and ecology.
– Investigate short-term and long-term effects on electrochemical processes.
– Develop new, innovative, and low-cost approaches to electrochemical remediation for
practical use.
– Develop electrochemical remediation systems that are ecologically safe based on sus-
tainability considerations.
– Perform and disseminate results of well-monitored pilot-scale field demonstrations.
– Establish communication among researchers and identifying areas that require future
research.
– Develop guidance documents for the design, installation, and operation of typical elec-
trochemical remediation systems.
In summary, the importance of full-scale field demonstration projects cannot be overem-

phasized. The lessons learned from these projects are invaluable for identifying the advantages
and limitations of this technology and develop effective and economical adaptive field systems
based on site-specific conditions.
REFERENCES
Acar, Y. (1993) Principles of electrokinetic remediation. Environment Science Technology, 27(13),
2638–2647.
Baek, K., Kim, D.-H., Park, S.-W., Ryu, B.-G., Bajargal, T. & Yang, J.-S. (2009) Electrolyte
conditioning-enhanced electrokinetic remediation of arsenic-contaminated mine tailing. Journal
of Hazardous Materials, 161(1), 457–462. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.03.127.
Baek, K. & Yang, J.-S. (2009) Electrokinetic removal of Nitrate and Fluoride. In: Reddy, K.R. & Came-
selle, C. (eds.) Electrochemical Remediation Technologies for Polluted Soils, Sediments and Ground-
water. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, USA. pp. 141–148. doi:10.1002/9780470523650.ch6.
Cameselle, C. (2014) Electrokinetic remediation, cost estimation. In: Kreysa, G., Ota, K. & Savinell,
R.F. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Applied Electrochemistry. Springer, New York, NY, USA. pp. 723–725.
Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-1-4419-6996-5_91.
Cameselle, C., Chirakkara, R.A. & Reddy, K.R. (2013) Electrokinetic-enhanced phytoremediation of soils:
Status and opportunities. Chemosphere, 93(4), 626–636. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.06.029.
Cameselle, C. & Pena, A. (2016) Enhanced electromigration and electro-osmosis for the remediation
of an agricultural soil contaminated with multiple heavy metals. Process Safety and Environmental
Protection, 104, 209–217. doi:10.1016/j.psep.2016.09.002.
Cameselle, C. & Reddy, K.R. (2012) Development and enhancement of electro-osmotic flow for the
removal of contaminants from soils. Electrochimica Acta, 86, 10–22.
Chirakkara, R.A., Reddy, K.R. & Cameselle, C. (2015) Electrokinetic amendment in phytoremediation of
mixed contaminated soil. Electrochimica Acta 181, 179–191. doi:10.1016/j.electacta.2015.01.025.
Cho, J.M., Kim, K.J., Chung, K.Y., Hyun, S. & Baek, K. (2009) Restoration of saline soil in cultivated
land using electrokinetic process. Separation Science and Technology, 44, 2371–2384.
Cho, J.-M., Park, S.-Y. & Baek, K. (2010) Electrokinetic restoration of saline agricultural lands. Jour-
nal of Applied Electrochemistry, 40(6), 1085–1093.
Elektorowicz, M. (2009) Electrokinetic remediation of mixed metals and organic contaminants. In:
Reddy, K.R. & Cameselle, C. (eds.) Electrochemical Remediation Technologies for Polluted
Soils, Sediments and Groundwater. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, USA. pp. 315–331.
doi:10.1002/9780470523650.ch15.
Figueroa, A., Cameselle, C., Gouveia, S. & Hansen, H.K. (2016) Electrokinetic treatment of an agri-
cultural soil contaminated with heavy metals. Journal of Environmental Science and Health – Part
A Toxic/Hazardous Substances and Environmental Engineering, 51(9), 691–700. doi:10.1080/109
34529.2016.1170425.
Gill, R.T., Harbottle, M.J., Smith, J.W.N. & Thornton, S.F. (2014) Electrokinetic-enhanced bioreme-
diation of organic contaminants: A review of processes and environmental applications. Chemo-
sphere, 107, 31–42. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.03.019.
Ho, S.V., Athmer, C.J., Sheridan, P.W. & Shapiro, A.P. (1997) Scale-up aspects of the lasagna® process
for in situ soil decontamination. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 55(1–3), 39–60. doi:10.1016/
S0304-3894(97)00016-2.
Kessler, D.A., Marsh, C.P. & Morefield, S. (2009) Electrokinetic removal of energetic compounds.
In: Reddy, K.R. & Cameselle, C. (eds.) Electrochemical Remediation Technologies for Polluted
Soils, Sediments and Groundwater. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, USA. pp. 265–284.
doi:10.1002/9780470523650.ch13.
Kim, G., Lee, S., Shon, D., Lee, K. & Chung, U. (2010) Development of pilot-scale electrokinetic
remediation technology to remove 60Co and 137Cs from soil. Journal of Industrial and Engineer-
ing Chemistry, 16(6), 986–991. doi:10.1016/j.jiec.2010.05.014.
Lageman, R. (1993) Electroreclamation: Applications in the Netherlands. Environmental Science and
Technology, 27(13), 2648–2650. doi:10.1021/es00049a003.
Lu, X. & Yuan, S. (2009) Electrokinetic removal of chlorinated organic compounds. Electrochemical
Remediation Technologies for Polluted Soils, Sediments and Groundwater, Generic. pp. 219–234.
Oonnittan, A., Sillanpaa, M., Cameselle, C. & Reddy, K.R. (2009) Field applications of electrokinetic
remediation of soils contaminated with heavy metals. In: Electrochemical Remediation Technolo-
gies for Polluted Soils, Sediments and Groundwater. pp. 607–624. Retrieved from www.scopus.
com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-79955995060&partnerID=40&md5=bd1a1842175b88caf894d
a55d7951918.
Ottosen, L.M., Hansen, H.K. & Jensen, P.E. (2009) Electrokinetic removal of heavy metals. In: Elec-
trochemical Remediation Technologies for Polluted Soils, Sediments and Groundwater. Wiley
Online Library, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. pp. 95–126. doi:10.1002/9780470523650.ch4.
Reddy, K.R. & Cameselle, C. (eds.) (2009) Electrochemical Remediation Technologies for Polluted
Soils, Sediments and Groundwater. Retrieved from www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.
0-84889389978&partnerID=40&md5=44064164eb24877831fec0ba842c3202.
Reddy, K.R., Parupudi, U.S., Devulapalli, S.N. & Xu, C.Y. (1997) Effects of soil composition on
the removal of chromium by electrokinetics. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 55(1–3), 135–158.
doi:10.1016/S0304-3894(97)00020-4.
Ricart, M.T., Cameselle, C., Lucas, T. & Lema, J.M. (1999) Manganese removal from spiked kaolin-
itic soil and sludge by electromigration. Separation Science and Technology, 34(16), 3227–3241.
doi:10.1081/SS-100100832.
Ricart, M.T., Hansen, H.K., Cameselle, C. & Lema, J.M. (2004) Electrochemical treatment of a pol-
luted sludge: Different methods and conditions for manganese removal. Separation Science and
Technology, 39(15), 3679–3689. doi:10.1081/SS-200040079.
Ricart, M.T., Pazos, M., Gouveia, S., Cameselle, C. & Sanromán, M.A. (2008) Removal of organic
pollutants and heavy metals in soils by electrokinetic remediation. Journal of Environmental Sci-
ence and Health – Part A Toxic/Hazardous Substances and Environmental Engineering, 43(8),
871–875. doi:10.1080/10934520801974376.
Sharma, H.D. & Reddy, K.R. (2004) Geoenvironmental engineering: Site remediation, waste con-
tainment, and emerging waste management technologies. Geoenvironmental Engineering: Site
Remediation, Waste Containment, and Emerging Waste Management Technologies. Retrieved from
www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/20053079233.
Smith, G.J. (2009) Coupled electrokinetic – Thermal desorption. In: Reddy, K.R. & Camesell, C. (eds.)
Electrochemical Remediation Technologies for Polluted Soils, Sediments and Groundwater. John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, USA. pp. 505–535. doi:10.1002/9780470523650.ch24.
USEPA (1995) In situ remediation technology: Electrokinetics. Report number: EPA542-K-94-007.
Weng, C.-H. (2009) Coupled electrokinetic – Permeable reactive barriers. In: Reddy, K.R. & Cameselle,
C. (eds.) Electrochemical Remediation Technologies for Polluted Soils, Sediments and Groundwa-
ter. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, USA. pp. 483–503. doi:10.1002/9780470523650.ch23.
Yang, G.C.C. (2009) Electrokinetic – Chemical Oxidation/Reduction. In: Reddy, K.R. & Cameselle,
C. (eds.) Electrochemical Remediation Technologies for Polluted Soils, Sediments and Groundwa-
ter. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, USA. pp. 439–471. doi:10.1002/9780470523650.ch21.
Yang, J.-W. & Lee, Y.-J. (2009) Electrokinetic Removal of PAHs. In: Reddy, K.R. & Cameselle, C.
(eds.) Electrochemical Remediation Technologies for Polluted Soils, Sediments and Groundwater.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, USA. pp. 195–217. doi:10.1002/9780470523650.ch9.
Zhu, S., Zhu, D. & Wang, X. (2017) Removal of fluorine from red mud (bauxite residue) by electroki-
netics. Electrochimica Acta, 242, 300–306.
Chapter 10
Elemental iron and other

nanotechnologies for
soil remediation
C . Cameselle 1 & K. R. Reddy 2
1Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Vigo, Vigo, Spain
2Department of Civil and Materials Engineering, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL., USA
ABSTRACT
Nanotechnology is an emerging engineering field with multiple applications in industry,
medicine and in environmental engineering. The use of nanomaterials may help in the reme-
diation of contaminated sites, soil and groundwater, alone or in combination with other reme-
diation technologies. Nanomaterials may stabilize metals or inorganic anions and eliminate
hydrophobic and recalcitrant organics that are difficult to remove with the available technol-
ogies. At the nanoscale, materials show new and unexpected properties, different than those
at the macroscale. Thus, for instance, iron nanoparticles show a great reactivity and reduc-
tion capacity that can be used in the dehalogenation of recalcitrant organic contaminants. In
this chapter, the properties of nanoparticles and the possibilities of nanotechnology in the
remediation of contaminated sites are reviewed and discussed. Special attention is paid to
nanoscale iron particles due to their wide range of application in environmental engineering,
but the applications of other types of nanoparticles is also discussed. Finally, the application
of nanotechnology in remediation at the field scale is reviewed, analyzing the cost and the
possible risks associated with the release of nanoparticles to the environment.
1 NANOSCALE PARTICLES
The term “nanoparticle” refers to materials with a size in the range of 10–100 nm in any
dimension. To have an idea of the size of a nanoparticle, the size of the glucose molecule is
below 1 nm, the DNA is around 10 nm, a typical virus size is 102 nm, and the size of a eukary-
otic cell is about 104–105 nm (Figure 10.1). Many materials can form nanoparticles such as
carbon, graphite, silicon, metals, metal oxides, and others. Some of the different types of engi-
neered nanoparticles include (i) carbon-based materials (e.g. carbon nanotubes), (ii) metal-
based materials (quantum dot, nanoiron, nanogold, nanosilver, titanium dioxide nanoparticles
and other nanoscale metal oxides), (iii) dendrimers (polymer branched units), and (iv) com-
posites (nanoparticles made as a combination of different materials) (US EPA, 2007).
Although nanoparticles seem to be the result of the latest science and engineering
research, materials at nanoscale can be found and produced unintentionally. Examples are
airborne combustion by-products, exhaust particles in diesel engines, volcanic ash, viruses,
etc. A curious case of unnoticed production of nanoparticles is the Damascus steel. In the
Middle Ages, the city of Damascus (in the present Syria) was famous for the manufacturing
of blades made of a special quality of steel that was very hard but, at the same time, super-
plastic; and the edge of the blade could be extraordinary sharpened. Recent studies reported
that such properties for the Damascus steel are related to the presence of nanoparticles, steel
Figure 10.1 Comparative size scale of nanoparticles
wires, and carbon nanotubes (Reibold et al., 2006), that were unnoticeable and formed dur-
ing the special forge procedure, not known at present.
Recently, nanoparticle synthesis and application have received a lot of attention due
to their special properties that largely differ from the original materials they are made of.
This is mainly due to the large specific surface area compared with the original material.
Any material at a macroscopic scale shows constant properties independent of its size, but
at nanoscale, the number of atoms on the surface of the particle is very significant com-
pared to the total number of atoms in the particle. It provokes the appearance of interest-
ing and sometimes unexpected properties in the nanoparticles. These special properties are
enhanced reactivity, specific catalyst activity, optical properties, superparamagnetism, high
diffusion, and other unexpected properties as the possibility of forming suspensions despite
the high difference in density between the nanoparticles and the solvent. Such special and
specific properties have resulted in the use of nanoparticles in many scientific fields and
technical applications. Thus, nanoparticles are used or are being tested for their application
in medicine, chemical industry, electronics, fiber production, clothes, batteries, and also in
environmental engineering. In fact, environmental applications of nanoparticles show very
interesting perspectives, specially dealing with the remediation of soil and groundwater.
This emerging application requires more research, especially at field scale in order to dem-
onstrate the benefits of the application of this technology and evaluate the possible negative
effects of releasing large amounts of nanoparticles to the environment.
2 ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATION OF NANOPARTICLES

There are many sites around the globe contaminated with persistent pollutants such as PAHs,
BTEX, PCBs, other organochlorides, pesticides, and nitroaromatic compounds, many of
them listed as priority pollutants by the US EPA. Despite the efforts in the development of
innovative technologies, the satisfactory treatment of contaminated soils and groundwater
is still unresolved, mainly due to the difficulty to deal with persistent contaminants in het-
erogeneous soil matrixes and low permeability soils. The efficiency of remediation can be
increased using aggressive technologies operating in harsh conditions. Unfortunately, the
damage to the soil is so extensive that the resulting material cannot recover the former prop-
erties and characteristics of the original soil.
Permeable reactive barriers (PRB) is a technology that permits the treatment of con-
taminated groundwater avoiding the spread of the contamination far from its source zone.
Elemental iron and other nanotechnologies 467
Basically, PRB is a trench in the soil installed through the flow of groundwater and filled
with a specific reactive material to adsorb, precipitate or degrade the contaminants in the
groundwater. The effective use of a PRB depends on its location, dimensions, and the filled
material. The hydrodynamic groundwater flow in the subsurface has to be studied to select
the right location of the PRB. Its dimensions have to assure that the whole flow of ground-
water passes through the PRB avoiding any bypass, and what it is more important, the width
of the PRB and the permeability of the filled-in material needs to be designed for sufficient
residence time of the groundwater in the PRB to assure complete transformation of the con-
taminants. The selection of the filled-in material is critical for the success of this technology.
In general, specific reactive materials for the target contaminants have to be selected, but at
the same time, the possible impact in the environment need to be considered. Elemental iron
or zero-valent iron has been used due to its good reactivity and very low impact on the soil
ecosystem.
Zero-valent iron has been proved to be an effective reductant in the treatment of halo-
genated organic compounds. The standard reductive potential of zero-valent iron is 447 mV.
Elemental iron is converted to ferrous ions (Fe2+) in the presence of an oxidizing agent and
therefore releases electrons and becomes available to reduce other compounds. The possible
reaction mechanisms for halogenated organic compounds (RX) are shown in Table 10.1.
The predominant reactions in the degradation of the dissolved halogenated compounds RX
take place on the surface of the metal rather than with hydrogen and ferrous iron in solu-
tion, although the corrosion reactions (aerobic or anaerobic) are the major source of reduc-
ing species for subsequent reduction of the halogenated compounds. The possible reaction
mechanisms for the treatment of organic compounds are dehalogenation, β-elimination,
dehydrogenation, hydrolysis, transformation, and hydrogenation depending on the type of
contaminant.
Zero-valent iron fillings in PRB have proven its remedial capacity for several contami-
nants, e.g. chlorinated solvent plumes in groundwater (Muchitsch et al., 2011). However,
the zero-valent iron is liable to form an oxide surface film that, consequently reduce the
reactivity. In fact, even in proper storage conditions, the reactivity of iron toward the target
contaminant is reduced along the time. Reactivity of zero-valent iron also varies depending
on the origin or manufacturer. These factors limit the applicability of zero-valent iron fillings
in PRB for long-term in-situ treatment.
Table 10.1 Reactions of zero-valent iron (Fe0) with a halogenated organic compound (RX) in water.
Reaction Mechanism
Anaerobic corrosion of iron Fe + 2H2O → Fe2+ + H2 + 2OH−

Aerobic corrosion of iron 2Fe + O2 + 2H2O → 2Fe2 + + 4OH−
Possible reductive reactions of iron with RX
Reaction of RX with ferrous iron in the aqueous phase RX + 2Fe2+ + H + → 2Fe3 + + RH + X−
Reaction of RX at the surface of the metal (electron RX + Fe + H + → RH + Fe2+ + X−
transfer reaction)
Adsorption of RX to the metal surface and the Fe → Fe2+ + 2e−
subsequent surface reaction of the organic radical R* RX + e− → R* + X−
R* + H + + e− → RH
The development of nanotechnology opens the possibility of using nanoparticles with

specific properties for the removal of selected contaminants. Based on the success of per-
meable reactive barriers with ZVI with macroscale or micro-scale materials, nanoscale
zero-valent iron particles (NIP) have been used for in situ contaminant reduction with a
significant success (Bigg & Judd, 2000; Taghavy et al., 2010). NIP can be used as filling
in PRBs instead of micro-scale iron. So far, the studies with NIP as a remediating agent in
soil proved to be more effective than micro-scale iron in PRBs. The active surface of NIP is
1100 times greater than micro-scale zero-valent iron; it results in faster and more effective
dechlorination of TCE in soil with NIP (95%) compared to micro-scale iron (86%) (Cao
et al., 2005a,b). NIP are superior both in terms of initial rate of reduction and the amount of
moles of contaminant reduced by mole of iron.
NIP can be injected directly in the contaminated source zone for a rapid and effec-
tive in-situ decontamination of soil. The effectiveness of direct injection of NIP in soil
clearly depends on the uniform delivery and distribution to the entire contaminated zone.
Unfortunately, the tendency of NIP to aggregate and settling, limits its transportation in the
subsurface soil. Several investigators have developed surface-modified NIP to overcome
the tendency to the aggregation of NIP, quantifying the decreasing in reactivity with target
contaminants.
Nanoscale iron particles (NIP) are considered best suited for environmental remediation
of contaminated sites due to their environmentally benign characteristics, favorable chem-
istry, relatively low cost, and easy use. Moreover, the reactivity of NIP with target contami-
nants is shown to be relatively fast, resulting less toxic or non-toxic transformation products.
3 NANOSCALE IRON PARTICLES (NIP): SYNTHESIS,

PROPERTIES, AND REACTIVITY
Zero-valent iron has a reductive capacity that can be used in the degradation of several
chlorinated organics, and in the reduction of heavy metals and nitrate. Nanoscale iron par-
ticles show the same reductive capacity than macroscale iron, but due to the large specific
surface area of iron nanoparticles, their reactivity is much higher and, therefore, the reac-
tion rate. NIPs have been tested in environmental applications. Thus, NIPs are reported to
be able to reductively dechlorinate chlorinated hydrocarbons, replacing chloride atoms in
the molecule by hydrogen atoms. The toxicity of the organic compound largely decreases
and so its impact in the environment. The application of NIPs in situ also results in reaction
with water releasing hydrogen gas. It is well known that molecular hydrogen is consumed
by anaerobic microorganisms during the biotic reductive dechlorination. In very reducing
environments, NIPs may contribute to the formation of ferrous iron from ferric iron pres-
ent in the soil in minerals. It was also demonstrated that ferrous iron participates in the
abiotic degradation of some chlorinated compounds such as chloroethane and chloroethene.
Therefore, the environmental applications of NIPs are not limited to the reductive capacity
of the iron but also the synergic combination of chemical and biochemical processes. NIPs
can also remove heavy metals from groundwater: hexavalent chromium, mercury, lead, and
arsenic can by removed by reduction, adsorption on nanoparticle surface and precipitation.
Inorganic anions as chlorate and nitrate can be reduced to chloride ions and nitrogen gas by
NIPs respectively (Table 10.2).
The environmental applications of NIPs imply the introduction of the nanoparticles in
the contaminated area and the uniform distribution to achieve an effective remediation in
Table 10.2 Contaminants that can be treated by nanoscale iron particles (NIPs).
Chlorinated hydrocarbons Carbon tetrachloride

Chloroform
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Dichloroethene
Chlorinated benzenes Hexachlorobenzene,
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Pesticides DDT, DDD, DDE, lindane
Polychlorinated organics PCBs, dioxins,
Inorganic anions ClO4−, NO3−, As
Heavy metals Cr, Hg, Pb, Se, Ni
Nitroaromatic compounds TNT, RDX
the whole site. Obviously, NIP remediation will be affected by the type and concentration
of contaminants but the specific conditions of the contaminated site will also affect the per-
formance of the remediation process. These factors include geologic conditions: soil perme-
ability, heterogeneity, and stratification of the soil; geochemical conditions: composition of
the soil matrix, composition, and ionic strength of the groundwater, pH, dissolved oxygen
(DO), ORP (redox potential), and the presence and concentration of some chemical species
that can react with NIPs as nitrate, nitrite, etc. These factors affect both the reactivity of the
NIP and the introduction, transportation, and distribution of the nanoparticles into the soil
and groundwater.
The transportation and distribution of nanoparticles in contaminated site is greatly
affected by the sedimentation and the agglomeration of the particles. The density of the
nanoparticles is much higher that the solvent (typically water) and it makes the nanopar-
ticles tend to settle in the bottom of the flask or in the well during the injection. Further-
more, the surface characteristics of NIP made the nanoparticles to attract to each other
or to attach to the soil particles’ surface. The agglomeration of the particles favors the
sedimentation and impedes the distribution in the soil and groundwater. Agglomeration
also increases the effective radius of the nanoparticles decreasing the surface/volume
ratio, i.e. it decreases the exposed active surface. It will decrease the reactivity and the
efficiency of the treatment. Agglomeration of NIP is affected by the pH of the subsur-
face environment and groundwater. The presence of some cationic species and the ionic
strength of groundwater exerts a decisive impact on agglomeration and mobility of the
particles.
In order to improve the mobility and stability of nanoparticles in the subsurface environ-
ment, many studies used coated NIP. Polyelectrolytes and polymers were used to modify the
surface characteristics of the nanoparticles. Emulsions of nanoparticles with vegetable oils
were also tested. NIPs were encased in very small drops of oil. It prevents the contact with
the aqueous phase and the adsorption to the soil particles, and enhances the contact with
hydrophobic contaminants. However, the modification of the surface characteristics of NIP
may improve mobility and stability, and prevent the aggregation, but it is usually associated
to loss in reactivity.
The high specific surface of the nanoparticles and its high reactivity make them sus-
ceptible of reaction in open air, creating a surface of iron oxide around the nanoparticle. It
clearly decreases the chemical reactivity of iron nanoparticles and its utility for the effective
remediation of the environment. This loss of activity is called passivation or deactivation.
The original properties of the nanoparticles must be preserved during transportation, utiliza-
tion, and injection in the contaminated site. Nanoparticles are usually commercialized as
suspensions in water alone or with chemical additives to preserve stability and reactivity. As
a general rule, during the manipulation and injection of the nanoparticles in the subsurface,
NIPs must be prevented from having contact with air. In some cases, deoxygenated water
can be used for the injection. Thus, passivation of the nanoparticles can be avoided until they
reach the contaminated area in the subsurface. Once the nanoparticles have been injected
in the contaminated site, their distribution and reactivity must be monitored to evaluate the
efficiency of the remediation process. Iron concentration is easy to measure and the profile
of iron concentration may help to know the distribution and transportation of NIP. However,
iron concentration does not inform about the reduction activity of NIP. ORP may help to
define the area where the iron is acting as a reducing agent. Finally, sampling and analyzing
the soil and groundwater for contaminant concentration will establish the efficiency of the
treatment.
3.1 Synthesis of NIP

NIP can be synthesized by different physical and chemical methods (Li et al., 2006). The
physical methods consist of inert gas condensation, severe plastic deformation, high-energy
ball milling, and ultrasound shot peening. The chemical methods include the reverse micelle
method (microemulsion), controlled chemical coprecipitation, chemical vapor condensation,
pulse electrodeposition, liquid flame spray, liquid-phase reduction, and gas-phase reduction.
Liquid-phase reduction and gas-phase reduction methods are the most widely used methods
for synthesis of NIP that are used for site remediation purposes.
Wang and Zhang (1997) used the liquid-phase reduction method to produce NIP in size
between 1 nm and 100 nm and a BET surface area of the particles of 33.5 m2/g. The synthesis
consists of ferrous iron reduction by sodium borohydride (NaBH4), a strong reductant, to
produce NIP as shown in Equation 1.
Fe(H2O)33+ + 3BH4− + 3H2O → Fe0 + 3B(OH)3 + 10.5H2 (10.1)
Toda America Inc. (Battle Creek, MI, US) uses the gas-phase reduction method to syn-
thesize NIP from FeSO4 solution (Okinaka et al., 2005a). The synthesis process starts with
the precipitation of acicular goethite [FeO(OH)] from the oxygenated ferrous sulfate solu-
tion. Then, the acicular goethite is reduced to alpha-Fe grains in a heated hydrogen gas atmo-
sphere at a high temperature (350–600°C). Finally, the α-Fe grains are wet-milled to convert
the surface to magnetite as indicated in Equations 2 and 3.
2 FeO(OH) + H2 → 2 Fe0 + 2 H2O (10.2)

3 Fe0 + 4 H2O → Fe3O4 + 4 H2 (10.3)
The NIP produced by this method shows a characteristic structure as shown in Fig-
ure 10.2A. It is formed by an elemental Fe core (alpha-Fe) and a magnetite shell (Fe3O4).
Figure 10.2 Structure (A) and SEM image (B) of NIP synthesized by TODA
Table 10.3 Properties of NIP synthesized by TODA.
Properties Value
Coercive force (Hc) 408 Oe

Mass magnetization (σs) 149.6 emu/g
σρ / σs (ratio of ferromagnetism to antiferromagnetism) 0.152
pH 10.7
Surface area (BET) 37.1 m2 /g
Electrical conductivity 2.29×102 µS/cm
Particle size 50–300 nm
Aqueous suspension 20–30 wt%
Density of aqueous slurry 1.2–1.3 g/mL
The average particle size determined by a scanning electron microscope (SEM) is 70 nm

(Figure 10.2B). Typical properties of NIP are summarized in Table 10.3. It is interesting to
note that the particles possess electromagnetic properties.
3.2 Properties of NIP

Nanoparticles can be characterized using several methods and techniques to obtain their
chemical composition, structure, size, shape and specific surface. These techniques involve
X-ray diffractometry (XRD), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), transmission electron
microscopy (TEM), and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR).
Liu et al. (2005a) compared Fe particles synthesized from sodium borohydride reduc-
tion of ferrous iron (Fe/B) with NIP produced by Toda America (RNIP). The results of this
study are reported in Table 10.4. As can be seen, the borohydride reduction method results
in smaller particles with a significantly greater specific surface. Similarly, Wang and Zhang
Table 10.4 Properties of iron nanoparticles produced by different methods.
Properties Nanoiron
Fe/B RNIP
Average primary size (nm) 30–40 40–60

Shape Spherical Spherical
Boron (wt%) 5 <10 – 4
Specific surface area (m2 /g) 36.5 23
Initial Fe 0 content (wt%) 97±8 26.9±0.3
(1997) used TEM to analyze the morphology of the particles and found that the BET surface
area of NIP and micro-scale iron particles was 33.5 m2/g and 0.9 m2/g, respectively. NANO
IRON, s.r.o. company, located in the Czech Republic, produces and markets iron nanopar-
ticles with an average size of 50 nm, an average surface area of 20–25 m2/g, a narrow particle
size distribution of 20–100 nm and a high content of iron in the range of 80–90%.
Schrick et al. (2002) used X-ray diffraction and transmission electron microscope to
characterize NIP particles. The results showed values in the range of previous studies. NIP
sizes vary from 3 to 30 nm in diameter and they appear like chains of beads. The BET sur-
face area of NIP was 18 m2/g. Nurmi et al. (2005) compare the properties of NIP particles
produced by different methods using TEM, XRD and XPS. The NIP particles from Toda
America Inc. consisted of elemental iron (alpha-Fe0) and Fe2O4. The α-Fe0 is about 30 nm
and the oxide is ~60 nm in size. The surface consists mainly of Fe, O and small amounts of S,
Na, and Ca. The presence of S is due to the use of FeSO4 and that the sulfur (S) seems to play
a role in its reactivity. The ratio of Fe/O ranges from 0.72 to 1.15. The size of borohydride
reduced NIP is <1.5 nm and the particle aggregate diameter is between 20 and 100 nm. They
contain less iron and sulfur, but more boron and the Fe/O ratio varies from 0.4 to 0.55. It has
a thin oxide layer and an outer layer of mainly sodium borate.
3.3 Reactivity of NIP

The reactivity of nanoscale iron nanoparticles upon organic contaminants in soils and
groundwater is affected by the concentration of NIP, reaction time and the concentration and
chemical nature of the organic contaminant. Variables that affect the reaction rate are pH,
ORP, temperature, oxygen concentration: i.e. aerobic or anaerobic conditions (Tratnyek &
Johnson, 2006) and ionic strength, although its effect is only important at low concentration
of NIP (Okinaka et al., 2005b). When NIP is injected into a contaminated soil, the follow-
ing steps are considered to occur in the degradation of halogenated organic contaminants:
(i) the organic halogenated compound migrates towards the surface of NIP; (ii) where it is
absorbed; (iii) a dehalogenation reaction takes place upon the nanoparticle surface; (iv) the
reaction products are desorbed, and finally (v) the reaction products migrate to the bulk solu-
tion (Shih et al., 2009).
Liu et al. (2005a) investigated the reaction mechanisms of NIP produced by Toda Amer-
ica Inc. (RNIP) and nanoparticles produced by borohydride reduction using TCE as a con-
taminant. About 92% of the iron was available for the reaction using borohydride reduction
NIP, whereas only 55% of the iron was available when RNIP was used. Despite the differ-
ence, the amount of TCE reduced by unit mass of nanoparticles was essentially the same.
However, the resulting reaction products were very different: RNIP transformed TCE in
unsaturated hydrocarbons, mainly acetylene and ethane, whereas the borohydride reduction
NIP produced ethane (80%) and C3–C6 coupling products (20%). Liu et al. (2005b) inves-
tigated the effect of the structure (crystalline or amorphous) on reactivity and the possible
addition of external H2 to improve the reduction of TCE. The crystalline nanoparticles did
not produce hydrogen nor could use external hydrogen and most of the reaction products
were unsaturated hydrocarbons. However, the nano-crystalline nanoparticles were able to
produce H2 and to use external H2, which help in the total hydrodechlorination of TCE. This
fact was related to the weaker atomic interactions in the non-crystalline nanoparticles. On
the other hand, the non-crystalline nanoparticles were easier to be oxidized compared to the
crystalline particles.
The properties of NIP change with time, a process known as aging. In general, contact
with oxygen produces the oxidation of the nanoparticles forming a layer of oxide, chang-
ing the surface properties and therefore its reactivity towards the target contaminant. Any-
way, even under proper storage conditions, without the exposition to atmospheric oxygen,
the reactivity of iron nanoparticles decrease along time. For instance, the company NANO
IRON, s.r.o. (Czech Republic) reported a significant loss of activity as a function of time of
NIP’s being in contact with water. The amount of iron in the NIP suspension was stable for
20 days but it started to decrease rapidly at room temperature (20–22ºC) reaching a 75% of
loss in 70 days, whereas in a cooled sample (2–4ºC) the loss of iron was minor, less than
10%. The loss of iron is associated with the dissolved oxygen in water, but also with the
reaction with water. Temperature is critical to maintain activity for long time. Due to the
importance of aging of NIP, as it affects the properties of the particle, Liu and Lowry (2006)
investigated the effect of particle age of RNIP on reactivity of TCE. The study showed that
the initial iron content tends to decrease with time over a period of two years despite having
been stored in anaerobic conditions.
Tratnyek and Johnson (2006) reported that NIP possesses high reactivity due to its
high surface area, greater density of reactive sites and higher intrinsic reactivity on reac-
tive sites. They tested the treatment of three isomers of chlorophenol (2-CP, 3-CP, 4-CP).
The reaction rate was higher with 2-CP confirming that the Cl position in the aromatic
ring affects reactivity, probably due to a major electronic acceptance in the 2 position than
in the other two positions tested. Also temperature affected the rate of removal and reac-
tion pathway as dechlorination was predominant at higher temperature (300ºC) whereas
adsorption was the leading process at low temperature of 100ºC (Cheng et al., 2007;
Cheng et al., 2008).
Choe et al. (2001) used NIP for the degradation of several halogenated compounds in
anaerobic conditions: trichloroethylene, chloroform, nitrotoluene, nitrobenzene, dinitroben-
zene, and dinitrotoluene. They predicted degradation of organic contaminants by the follow-
ing reaction pathways (Equations 4–8):
Fe0 → Fe2+ + 2e (10.4)

R-CL + H+ + 2e− → R-H + Cl− (10.5)
ArNO2 + 6H+ + 6e− → ArNH2 + 2H2O (10.6)
2H2O + 2e− → 2OH− + H2 (10.7)
O2 (g) + 2H2O + 4e− → 4OH− (10.8)
The study showed very interesting results for the degradation of such contaminants.
Chloroform was completely dehalogenated within 5 minutes and 80% of the products was
methane. Nitro compounds were also transformed in 5 minutes and the reaction products
were different than the amine group: 90% of TCE was transformed in 30 minutes and 70% of
the reaction products was ethane. After 30 minutes of reaction, 100% aniline was produced
from nitrobenzene, 85% of toluidine from nitrotoluene, 80% of benzenediamine from dini-
trobenzene, and 70% of diaminotoluene was produced from dinitrotoluene. NIP completely
removed nitroaromatic compounds within 30 minutes of reaction. The reaction kinetics was
pseudo-first order and showed an average rate of 0.216 L/min (Welch & Riefler, 2008; Choe
et al., 2001). Shih et al. (2009) were able to dechlorinate 60% of hexachlorobenzene (HCB)
with NIP after 24 hours reaction. High energy is required for the degradation of multiple-
bond compounds and more functional group compounds result in lower reaction rate with
the nanoscale iron particles (Choe et al., 2001).
4 MODIFIED NANOSCALE IRON PARTICLES (NIP)

NIPs are very reactive due to the intrinsic properties of the zero valent iron combined with the
high specific surface of the particles at nanoscale. However, reactivity and transformation yield
also depend on the target contaminants. In order to enhance the reactivity of specific contami-
nants, several studies have modified the structure or composition of NIP particles. On the other
hand, NIPs are not stable due to agglomeration and sedimentation; therefore, modifications are
proposed to achieve stable NIP that can be available for reaction with the target contaminants.
4.1 Modification to increase reactivity

Several studies have reported methods to increase the reactivity of NIP. One approach is to
combine NIP with a noble metal to form composite nanoparticles. The particles are called bime-
tallic nanoparticles and examples are Ag/Fe, Ni/Fe, Pd/Fe, and Cu/Fe. The noble metal acts
as a catalyst and does not allow NIP to be easily oxidized by protecting the iron core from
rapid oxidation (Li et al., 2006). Bimetallic particles have the potential to degrade most organic
contaminants in aqueous solutions. Thus, for instance, nano palladized-iron (Pd/Fe) nanopar-
ticles have been used in the degradation of TCE, reaching a complete transformation about
seven times faster than NIP (Wang & Zhang, 1997). Nano-bimetallic particles have been used
to degrade different contaminants such as dichloromethane, chloroform, carbon tetrachloride,
TCE, VOCs, trichlorobenzene; and they were also used in the treatment of metal and non-metal
contaminants like Pb(II), Cr(VI), and arsenate. The combination of iron with other metals (usu-
ally noble metals) promotes catalytic properties and therefore exhibits rapid initial rate of reac-
tion (Wang et al., 2009; Schrick et al., 2002). Unfortunately, the initial fast reaction rate cannot
be sustained and the cost of treatment using such bimetallic nanoparticles increases, making
them less attractive for use. Another downside of the bimetallic nanoparticles is the toxicity of
the metals which may create new metal contamination problem to deal with.
4.2 Modification to increase stability

Stability of NIP is another major concern. NIP exhibit certain properties that result in
aggregation and premature precipitation, therefore, uniform delivery and distribution into
the subsurface soil is very difficult to achieve. Those properties are magnetic attraction,
electrostatic or van der Waals attraction, and high density compared to the fluid (usually
water). Researchers have been trying to modify the surface of the NIP to make them more
stable in suspension and ensure adequate reactivity as well as mobility when delivering
them into the contaminated subsurface zones. To achieve this, several different modifiers
have been investigated, including polyacrylic acid (PAA), guar gum, potato starch, triblock-
polymer-modified, and commercially available polymer-modified nanoiron (Saleh et al.,
2007; Schrick et al., 2004; Yang et al., 2007; Tiraferri et al., 2008).
Modifiers can change the properties of NIP both positively and negatively. Modified
NIP are more dispersed and homogeneous, stable, and exhibit a lower sedimentation and
aggregation rate (Yang et al., 2007; Kanel et al., 2008; Schrick et al., 2004; Saleh et al.,
2007). However, the hydrodynamic diameter of the modified particles tends to change. For
example, the addition of guar gum to 231 mg/L RNIP reduces the hydrodynamic radius but
there was no effect when added to 1 g/L RNIP. Increase in ionic strength (NaCl) of bare
RNIP tends to increase the hydrodynamic radius but it has no effect on RNIP modified with
guar gum. However, addition of CaCl2 increased the hydrodynamic radius of both bare and
guar modified RNIP (Tiraferri et al., 2008). The surface charge of NIP changes when they are
modified depending on the modifier. Reactivity reduces by about a factor of 2–10 depending
on the type of modifier (Saleh et al., 2007). The charge on the particle became negative when
modified with anionic polymer (Kanel et al., 2008). Since the particles are surface mediated,
a thin film is formed on the surface which can influence the reactivity negatively.
5 APPLICATIONS OF NIP FOR SOIL AND

GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION
Many studies were conducted to investigate the reactivity of NIP with various target con-
taminants under different conditions (aerobic/anaerobic, pH, ORP, temperature, etc.). Those
studies are very valuable to evaluate the possibilities of NIP in real contaminated sites.
However, limited studies are available that deal with contaminants in subsurface soils and
groundwater. Not only does the effectiveness of NIP at the field scale depend on the intrinsic
reactivity of NIP but also on the proper delivery and uniform distribution in the subsurface.
5.1 Reactivity of NIP and modified NIP in soils

The small size of NIP particles make them suitable for direct injection into subsurface soil
and groundwater to achieve degradation of contaminants in situ. It is very important to main-
tain high reactivity towards the target contaminants in order to achieve fast degradation and
high contaminant transformation. Unfortunately, NIP reactivity in soils can be lower than
in aqueous solutions due to rate-limited desorption or solubilization/dissolution of contami-
nants. For example, 38% of PCB was only degraded in soils compared to 90% in aqueous
solutions and the difference in reaction rate is due to the PCB’s difficulty in diffusing from
the surface of the soil particles to the NIP surface for effective reaction (Varanasi et al.,
2007; Wang & Zhang, 1997). The loss in reactivity can be compensated with an increase of
NIP concentration and reaction time (Chang et al., 2005; Varanasi et al., 2007; Chang et al.,
2007). Anyway, NIP effectiveness is always higher than micro-scale iron, which is also
affected by a loss of reactivity in soils compared to aqueous solutions. Chang et al. (2007)
reported that 60% of pyrene was removed by NIP from soils in Taiwan, while micro-scale
iron was only able to achieve 11% removal from soil.
The loss of NIP reactivity in soils can be compensated with modified NIP particles.
Thus, Elliott and Zhang (2001) compared the reactivity of NIP and modified nanoscale par-
ticles (bimetallic Fe/Pd) with TCE at the lab scale using groundwater and sediments from
an actual contaminated site. The results showed that TCE was fully eliminated by 0.25 g Fe/Pd
in 12 hours, whereas 0.1 g Fe/Pd took 2 days to completely remove TCE. The improve-
ment in reactivity by the bimetallic nanoparticles may justify the use of more expensive
nanoparticles.
The tendency of NIP to aggregate and settle can be avoided by the use of dispersants.
Thus, for instance, Reddy and Karri (2008) and Darko-Kagya (2010) investigated the reac-
tivity of NIP and lactate-modified NIP (LM-NIP) with pentachlorophenol and 2,4-dinitrotol-
uene in kaolin and field sand as representative low- and high-permeability soils, respectively.
Lactate was used as a dispersant to improve the transportation and uniform distribution into
the soil (Cameselle et al., 2008, 2013). The use of higher NIP and LM-NIP improve the
degradation of both contaminants in the two types of soil. However, the use of lactate as
modifier of the NIP particles resulted in a loss of reactivity in all the cases tested. The deg-
radation of both contaminants was significantly higher during initial stages, but tended to be
similar in longer treatment times. The loss of reactivity was compensated with increasing
treatment time.
5.2 Transport of NIP and modified NIP in soils

The successful use of NIP particles to remediate soils and groundwater depends on the intrin-
sic reactivity of the nanoparticles, but mainly on the injection and uniform distribution into
the subsurface soil. In PRB the iron fillings act over the contaminants transported through
the barrier by the groundwater, but the nanoparticles can be injected into the soil through
wells or using other technologies such as soil fracturing. Thus, the remediation can be per-
formed simultaneously in the whole contaminated area. This is possible due to the small size
of the nanoparticles, which are smaller than the soil pores that permit the distribution of the
nanoparticles to the entire soil in both the saturated and unsaturated zones.
Transportation of NIP can be affected or even impeded by the hydrodynamic charac-
teristics of the soil, and the physicochemical interactions between the soil particles and NIP.
Thus, the heterogeneity of the subsurface soil may lead to different NIP distributions in
the soil, impeding the penetration of NIP in the low-permeability layers and reaching high
NIP concentrations in high-permeability soil layers. Hydrophobic and hydrophilic interac-
tions also lead to uneven NIP distributions. The aggregation of NIP particles and settling
may result in clogging of soil pores impeding the transport of the nanoparticles, remaining
concentrated around the injection point. The charge of the particle is important during trans-
port and therefore zeta potential meter was used to investigate the charge of NIP. The zeta
potential of the NIP has been found to decrease with increase in pH (Yang & Lee, 2005).
The dispersants used to avoid NIP aggregation also change the zeta potential (Cameselle
et al., 2013).
The transport of bare NIP is very limited due to the agglomeration. Bare NIP was only
transported for 2 cm in a sand-packed column, but there was no transport when higher ionic
strength of 1 mM NaHCO3 solution was used. Particle – particle interactions were more
prominent during transport than particle – sand interactions (Saleh et al., 2007). Two types
of aggregation can occur during agglomeration: (i) iron particles can gather to form secluded
aggregates of microsized particles and this tends to occur under 30 minutes in solution, and
(ii) the aggregates link to each other to form chains and this starts after 30 minutes. Particles
tend to settle when they form aggregates since they become heavy. In loamy soil packed in
a vertical column (Yang et al., 2007) the estimated travel for bare NIP was even less than in
sand, about 0.25 cm. The transport can be improved by increasing the flow rate when soil
flushing is used in the delivery of the nanoparticles. Thus, NIPs are transported by advection
and dispersion in the subsoil.
5.3 Enhanced transport of NIP and modified NIP in soils

NIP particles require modification to avoid premature aggregation and settling because these
phenomena are mainly responsible for the impossible transportation of bare NIP into the
subsurface soil. Modification of the NIP particles can be used to increase reactivity, but
in this section, the modification to enhance transportation will be discussed. Anyway, any
modification of NIPs aimed to improve transport has also to consider altering reactivity
with respect to the target contaminants under subsurface conditions. This has been a major
concern in the development of environmental processes using nanoparticles. Soil flushing,
hydraulic delivery, and pressurized or pulsed pressurized systems were used to improve
transport of NIP into the soil. Electrokinetic delivery of nanoparticles was also proposed and
tested for bare and modified NIP to overcome the inefficacy of the mentioned techniques in
low-permeability soils.
5.3.1 Enhanced transport of modified NIP

Various investigations used surfactants and polyelectrolytes to enhance transportation of NIP
in soil while maintaining appropriate reactivity towards the target contaminants. Saleh et al.
(2007) studied ways to enhance the NIP for effective transport using three different modi-
fiers (triblock polymer modified, surfactant modifier and a commercially available polymer-
modified nanoiron). Transport of bare RNIP through a sand column of low ionic strength
showed that very low amount of iron eluted out about 1.4±3%. Bare RNIP got trapped within
the first 1–2 cm of the column. When RNIP was modified, more particles were eluted (98%
of the commercial modified RNIP and 95% of triblock polymer). The study showed that
transport depends on particle concentration (180 mg/L RNIP eluted about 50% iron) and
ionic strength. Increase in ionic strength decreases the transport abilities of both the bare
RNIP and modified RNIP. In the case of bare RNIP, there was no transport when the ionic
strength was increased more than 1 mM NaHCO3. In the case of surface-modified RNIP there
was no pore plugging and sticking which is a very interesting result for real soil applications.
However, the concentration of additives or modifiers has to be optimized for each applica-
tion. Polyacrylic acid was used as a modifier of NIP and better transportation was observed
up to 6 g/L, but further increase hindered the NIP transport (Hydutsky et al., 2007). Increase
in flow rate also enhances delivery of NIP (Kanel & Choi, 2007).
Cameselle et al. (2013) investigated eight different dispersants at different concentra-
tions to determine their ability to modify the surface characteristics and increase the stability
of the NIP suspension, thereby minimizing agglomeration and sedimentation of the NIPs. The
studied dispersants and their tested concentration ranges [as % of NIP suspension, weight-
to-weight ratio (w/w)] were as follows: aluminum lactate (Al lactate; 2–15%), sodium lac-
tate (Na lactate; 6–12%), ethyl lactate (EL; 6–12%), aspartic acid (ASP; 2–8%), polyacrylic
acid (PAA; 2–8%), 2-hydroxypropyl-beta-cyclodextrin (1–4%), beta-cyclodextrin (BCD;
1–4%), and methyl-beta-cyclodextrin (MeBCD; 1–4%). Zeta potential measurements and

column experiments were performed on NIP-dispersant suspensions. Results showed that
the zeta potential of bare NIPs was 41.7±2.3 mV. The influence of the dispersants was found
to vary significantly depending on the chemical nature of the dispersant and the electrical
charge of the ions in solution. Aluminum lactate released Al3+ into the solution, resulting in a
reduction of the NIP zeta potential from 37.7±1.8 mV at 2% concentration to 9.5±0.7 mV at
15% concentration. After their characterization, the relative effectiveness of each dispersant
on the transport of NIP was investigated in column experiments. The porous media used was
a clean natural fine to coarse sand. The study showed that 10% aluminum lactate exhibited
the highest (93%) elution of the modified iron from the soil media (Figure 10.3). Aluminum
lactate was selected as suitable dispersant for NIP to enhance transport in soils, based on the
column experiments and zeta potential measurement results. Lactate is considered as a green
(environmentally friendly) and cheap compound. Moreover, it also enhances bioremediation
of contaminants in soils, making it a best choice if long-term residual treatment is relied
on biodegradation. As previously explained, lactate modification also assures stability and
adequate reactivity of NIP.
Reddy et al. (2008) investigated the transport and reactivity of bare and lactate-modified
NIP by conducting horizontal column experiments using field sand contaminated with PCP.
Bare NIP and modified NIP with 10% aluminum lactate were investigated at two different
slurry concentrations of 1 g/L and 4 g/L. Lactate was found to prevent or slow agglomera-
tion and settlement of NIP. Transport of NIP in experiments with bare NIP was not uniform
and most of the PCP degradation occurred near the inlet where NIP could be transported
during the initial stages of testing. Lactate enhanced the transport of NIP, but the reactivity
100
80
Eluted iron (%)
60
40
20
0
BARE 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 15%
Al lactate (%)
Figure 10.3 Elution of aluminum lactate modified NIP concentration.

50
Residual PCP concentration (mg/kg)
45
40
35
30
1 g/L NIP
1 g/L Lactate-Modified NIP
25
4 g/L NIP
4 g/L Lactate-Modified NIP
20
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Normalized distance from inlet

Figure 10.4 PCP distribution in the soil at the end of testing (Reddy et al., 2008).
of NIP with PCP decreased as compared to the bare NIP experiments (Figure 10.4). The
distribution of NIP was uniform in the 4 g/L modified NIP experiment compared to all other
experiments. Hydraulic conductivity of the soil was measured during the course of each
experiment and it remained approximately the same in all experiments except that it reduced
in the experiment with bare NIP at 4 g/L concentration.
Darko-Kagya (2010) investigated the transport and reactivity of bare NIP and lactate-
modified NIP (LM-NIP) in field sand spiked with 740 mg/kg 2,4-dinitrotoluene (DNT), a
representative nitroaromatic organic compound found at munitions waste sites. Column
tests were conducted using NIP and lactate-modified NIP (LM-NIP) at two different con-
centrations (1 and 4 g/L) and two different flow velocities (0.75 and 1.2 cm/min). Changes
in the magnetic susceptibility values across the soil column were measured during testing,
and the effluent was collected and its volume was measured at different times. After the
end of test, the soil was extruded and sectioned, and Fe and DNT concentrations were
measured in each soil section and effluent sample. Measured iron concentrations in the
soil and corresponding magnetic susceptibility were found to have a linear correlation.
Therefore, the MS measurements made during the tests were used to assess the extent of
the transport of NIP and LM-NIP at different times during the testing. The results showed
that 4 g/L LM-NIP was transported more successfully than the 4 g/L bare NIP, but there
was no significant difference in the transport of NIP and LM-NIP at the low concentration
of 1 g/L. As a result of the enhanced transport, 4 g/L LM-NIP caused greater degradation
of the DNT. The higher flow rate increased the transport of NIP and LM-NIP, thus increas-
ing DNT degradation.
5.3.2 Pressurized/pulsed hydraulic delivery

Bare NIP cannot be transported in soils, not even in high-permeability sands. In order to
overcome that limitation, the modification of NIP with polymers is a proposed solution even
at commercial stage. Thus, Toda America Inc. developed three types of polymer-coated
NIPs. Reddy et al. (2014) assessed the transport of the bare and the three modified NIPs in a
sandy soil by performing a series of column experiments. The NIP suspension was added at
the top of a 20-cm high sand column, and then simulated groundwater was used to flush the
column. The eluting effluent was recovered at the bottom of the column and analyzed. The
results showed that only one type of the modified NIP was effectively transported through
subsurface soils under pressurized conditions. Darko-Kagya (2010) also demonstrated
through two-dimensional bench-scale experiments that pressurized system is effective for
the transport of lactate-modified NIP through different types of sand.
5.3.3 Electrokinetic delivery of NIP in soils

Electrokinetics is a technique for the transportation and removal of contaminants in soils.
The transportation is carried out by electromigration and electroosmosis (Reddy & Cam-
eselle, 2009) and these two transport mechanisms are very appropriate for the transporta-
tion of contaminants in low-permeability soils where the hydraulic gradients or pressurized
flushing is completely ineffective. Similarly, the transportation of NIP in low permeability
subsurface soil can be carried out by electrokinetics. Bare NIP marketed by Toda America
Inc. shows a zeta potential of about 40 mV (Cameselle et al., 2013), therefore NIP shows
a positive electrical charge. The transportation of NIP into the soil matrix can be done by
electromigration, or by electroosmosis if NIP is kept in suspension in the interstitial fluid.
Reddy et al. (2007) investigated the potential electrokinetic delivery of NIP in low-
permeability soils contaminated with PCP and DNT. Kaolin soil was used as a model low-
permeability soil and it was artificially spiked with PCP (1000 mg/kg of dry soil). During
the experiment, substantial electroosmotic flow was observed and it was not hindered by the
presence of NIP. The total iron in the soil increased from the anode to the cathode, indicating
that NIP may have been transported towards the cathode. PCP was mainly degraded in the
cathode by reductive dechlorination. Limited transport of PCP was observed due to its low
solubility. It appears that NIP may not have contributed to PCP degradation.
Darko-Kagya (2010) investigated the transport and reactivity of NIP and lactate modified
NIP (LM-NIP) in low permeability clayey soils contaminated with 1000 mg/L dinitrotoluene
(DNT) under applied electric potential. NIP or lactate-modified NIP (LM-NIP) at a concentra-
tion of 4 g/L was injected at a distance of 3 cm from the anode to avoid the degradation of NIP
due to the oxidizing conditions in the anode. The highest DNT degradation was achieved using
LM-NIP. The total degradation of DNT was attributed to both NIP and electrochemical pro-
cess. Overall it was found that the electrokinetic system can enhance the delivery of LM-NIP
in low-permeability soils for the degradation of energetic organic contaminants such as DNT.
Yang et al. (2007) reported that electric field can enhance the transportation of NIP in
loamy sand. Without the electric field the estimated travel of NIP was 0.25 m, whereas electric
field increased the advance of NIP to 2.5 m, i.e. 10 times higher. The sticking coefficient of NIP
to the loamy sand was reduced from 0.0061 to 0.0034 due to the application of the electric field.
Pamukcu et al. (2008) investigated the transport of modified NIP using electrokinetics.
The NIP was coated with polyvinyl alcohol-co-vinyl acetate-co-itaconic acid. The particles
were positively charged and moved from the anode to the cathode under an electric potential.
A thin bed of clay (60% moisture content) was used as soil matrix. It was shown that electric
field assisted the transport of surface-charged NIP from the anode to the cathode. However, dif-
fusion did not help the migration of NIP as it was still stacked in the grove. Corrosion occurs at
low pH and high ORP, whereas passivity occurs at the cathode end of the clay with high ORP.
Gomes et al. (2013) reported that limited transport, especially in low-permeability
soils, is the biggest problem for the use of NIP in subsurface soil. These authors studied
the enhanced transport of polymer-coated NIP at constant voltage application (5 DCV) in
glass beads and kaolin clay. Experimental results indicate that the use of direct current can
enhance the transport of the polymer-modified nanoparticles when compared with natural
diffusion in low-permeability or surface-neutral porous medium. The applied electric field
appeared to enhance the oxidation – reduction potential, creating a synergistic effect of NIP
usage with electrokinetics. Aggregation of the nanoparticles, observed near the injection
point, remained unsolved.
6 BIMETALLIC NANOPARTICLES
Bimetallic nanoparticles are a new emerging class of nanomaterials made of two different
metals. Unlike zero valent iron nanoparticles (NIPs), bimetallic nanoparticles exhibit new
functions because of the synergistic rather than merely additive effects of the metals.
Compared to NIPs, bimetallic nanoparticles show markedly enhanced physical and
chemical properties, including magnetism and reducing ability. The most commonly cited
and used bimetallic nanoparticles are made of iron and other metals such as Pd, Ru, Ni, La,
Ti, Au, Pt, Cu, Ag, Co, and Sn.
The synthesis methods involve the preparation of a mixture of two salts that contain
the two metals. Some bimetallic nanoparticles made of Fe with Pd, Pt or Ni can be pre-
pared from a mixture of monometallic nanoparticles (Abdelsayed et al., 2008). The typical
and most commonly used synthesis procedures are physical or chemical process. For the
physical process, mechanical alloying and radiolysis by microwave, ultrasonic, and pulsed
laser are the most widely used methods. For the chemical process, thermal decomposition
of metal complexes, chemical reduction, and electrochemical deposition are three of the
most important methods. Depending on the synthesis procedure and the metals involved, the
bimetallic nanoparticles show different structures: segregated core-shells, heterostructures,
or alloyed structures (Figure 10.5).
Figure 10.5 Structures of bimetallic nanoparticles: (A) core-shell segregated structure, (B) hetero-
structure, (C) alloyed structure.
Bimetallic nanoparticles have been widely tested to eliminate heavy metals as pollutants
using their high redox activity. The removal mechanism implies redox reactions between
metal contaminants and iron. The efficiency depends on the standard redox potentials of the
metal contaminants and Fe. Considering that Fe has a low redox potential (Eº = – 0.44 V),
it usually acts as a reductant. A typical example of heavy metal reduction with bimetallic
nanoparticles is the case of Cr(IV): in the presence of zero valent iron, Cr(IV) is reduced
to Cr(III) that is then easily precipitated with the appropriate anion forming an insoluble
salt, or just increasing the pH, forming the corresponding hydroxide (Ponder et al., 2000).
Other metals or non-metals, such as As, Ni, Pb, Hg, Cd, and U can also be reduced to
their zero valent form in the presence of iron nanoparticles, being finally immobilized in
situ (Yan et al., 2010a; Crane et al., 2011). These metals can also be incorporated into the
Fe nanoparticles to form in situ bimetallic nanoparticles in the reduction process with Fe0,
enhancing the removal efficiency. For example, Lien et al. (2007) have demonstrated that
the co-existence of some metal ions [Pb2+, Cu2+, and Cr(VI)] in wastewater can significantly
improve the dechlorination of carbon tetrachloride by NIP due to the in situ formed Fe-Pb,
Fe-Cu, and Fe-Cr bimetallic nanoparticles in the reduction process.
Oxyanions nitrate, nitrite, bromate, chlorate, and perchlorate are also a concern as
contaminants in soils and groundwater. They can be removed by reduction with bimetallic
nanoparticles (Fe-Metal). Iron acts as an electron donor to produce hydrogen gas from H2O,
whereas the other metal activates the hydrogen gas and facilitates the formation of H2O from
the hydrodeoxygenation of oxyanions (Hurley & Shapley, 2007). The proposed pathway for
the reduction of nitrate is described in Equations 9–13:
Electron transfer:
Fe → Fe2+ + 2 e (10.9)
2 H2O + 2 e− → H2 + 2 OH− (10.10)
Activate process:
2 Cu + H2 → 2 Cu-H· (10.11)
Hydrogenation:
2 Cu-H·+ NO3− → NO2− + H2O + 2 Cu (10.12)

4 Cu-H·+ NO2− → NH4+ + 2 H2O + 4 Cu (10.13)
As can be seen, the final product of nitrate reduction is ammonium, which is considered
a contaminant in water. The assimilation of ammonium is much faster than that of nitrate
by soil microorganisms, so the combination of bimetallic nanoparticles with enhanced bio-
remediation is a possible solution for nitrate contamination. The final product of the nitrite
and nitrate reduction by bimetallic nanoparticles has been reported to be nitrogen gas or
ammonium (Su & Puls, 2004). The selectivity of the treatment depends on the pH, ionic
strength, initial nitrate concentration, and the chemical nature of the bimetallic nanopar-
ticles. Selectivity towards ammonium production is favored by increasing the pH (Prüsse
& Vorlop, 2001). The presence of HCO3− also favors the selectivity of ammonium (Pintar
et al., 1998). The main effect for the formation of ammonium or N2 is due to the intrinsic
catalytic activity of the nanoparticles. Liou et al. (2009) confirmed that the Fe deposited Pd
and Cu can promote the formation of N2 in nitrate reduction because the adsorbed atomic
hydrogen on the Cu and Pd surface can enhance the abstraction of oxygen from NOx and
the formation of N2. Chaplin et al. (2012) demonstrated that the presence of Cu or Pd in the
bimetallic catalyst favors the formation of nitrogen whereas the presence of Ni favors the
formation of ammonia.
For the reduction of halogen oxyanions (BrO−3 , ClO3−, ClO4−) with bimetallic nanopar-
ticles, the final products are often halogen anions such as chloride or bromide due to the high
reactivity of the intermediate products hypochlorite or chlorine (Srinivasan & Sorial, 2009;
Ye et al., 2012).
Similar to zero valent iron nanoparticles (NIPs), bimetallic nanoparticles can be used
in the remediation of recalcitrant organic contaminants in soils and groundwater. Typical
target organic contaminants are halogenated hydrocarbons, phenol and its derivatives, poly-
chlorinated biphenyls, and other polyhalogenated aromatics (Kim et al., 2008; Parshetti &
Doong, 2012). As it was reported before, iron in the nanoparticles induces hydrodehaloge-
nation reactions, but the use of bimetallic nanoparticles has many advantages compared to
iron nanoparticles alone. First, the second metal in bimetallic nanoparticles, which has a
lower hydrogen over-potential (e.g. Ni, Cu, and Pd), can also act as a catalyst that effec-
tively enhances hydrodehalogenation reactions. Second, the metal can also act as an electron
transfer medium that can overcome the self-inhibition of electron transfer in the reduction
reaction. Third and last, bimetallic nanoparticles usually have a higher density of reductive
surface sites (Liu et al., 2014). Many factors affect the hydrodehalogenation reaction of
bimetallic nanoparticles, among which pH is the most important. The system pH can affect
the performance of Fe accelerating the corrosion of Fe at low pH, and passivating it by
the formation of Fe hydroxides at high pH. Both processes clearly affect the reactivity of
iron because hydrodehalogenation reactions occur on the surface of bimetallic nanoparticles.
Apart from pH, other factors such as composition of bimetallic nanoparticles can also influ-
ence the hydrodehalogenation of organic contaminants. The molar ratio of two metals in the
bimetallic nanoparticles plays an important role in determining the catalytic performance of
bimetallic NPs because the addition of another metal with a different content can change the
property of iron. Furthermore, the composition is closely related to the structure and surface
chemistry, and changing the molar ratio of the two metals usually leads to a change in their
structures, especially the atomic distribution of the two metals on the surface. In addition, the
composition can also affect the morphology (crystal facet) and size of bimetallic nanopar-
ticles, which is also important for their catalytic performance (Figure 10.5).
Nitroaromatic and azo compounds are two groups of important organic contaminants
widely detected in the environment. Reduction through hydrogenation is a commonly used
method to eliminate these pollutants. The first step is hydrogenation of the N–O bond to
form nitroso compounds, which are further hydrogenated to hydroxylamine compounds,
and final transformation into amine compounds. For azo compounds, the first step is hydro-
genation of the N≡N group to generate HN–NH, and then the N–N bond breaks to form
amines. The amines can be further reduced to ammonium or nitrogen gas. Koutsospyros
et al. (2012) used Fe–Cu and Fe–Ni bimetallic nanoparticles to degrade nitro compounds
from munitions. Results indicate that bimetal NPs are highly effective for degrading these
nitro compounds. pH and the dosage of nanoparticles are the main variables that affect the
rate and yield of the reaction.
In recent years, significant progress has been made to apply bimetallic nanoparticles
in environmental technologies. However, there are still some problems that hinder their
application at a field scale. Some of these problems are common to the NIP particles
because iron is the main component of the bimetallic nanoparticles. One of the most chal-
lenging problems is the inhibition and fouling of bimetallic NPs in the catalytic process
by natural water constituents, such as humic acid, sulfur compounds and other inorganic
solutes. It seems that one of the possible solutions is the design of fouling resistant nanopar-
ticle structures. Considering that up to date most of the synthesis procedures of bimetallic
nanoparticles are empiric or semiempiric, it will be very important basic research in the
synthesis procedures to understand what are the key variables that govern the structure for-
mation and their influence in the final nanoparticle reactivity. Another challenging problem
is the leaching of metal species from bimetallic nanoparticles during remediation, which
may generate secondary pollution in the remediated site. The cost of bimetallic nanopar-
ticles and the associated synthesis procedures are still high, especially compared to NIP.
Cost is a very limiting factor for the application of bimetallic nanoparticles at large scale
in remediation projects.
7 OTHER NANOTECHNOLOGIES WITH

ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATIONS
7.1 Titanium dioxide

Titanium dioxide (TiO2) has been used for the degradation of organic contaminants in water.
Basically, TiO2 is a solid catalyst of oxidation reactions activated by UV radiation. Titanium
oxide can be used as a fine solid particle suspension in the water to be remediated or special
catalysts with an inert support and TiO2 as an active compound can be prepared and used.
For instance, TiO2 can be dispersed over porous silica with satisfactory results (Luo et al.,
2009). Recently, it has been found that titanium dioxide, when spiked with nitrogen ions or
doped with metal or metal oxides also shows photocatalytic activity under visible light (Fan
et al., 2013).
Nanoparticles made of TiO2 increase the specific area of the catalyst exposed to the
medium, therefore, increasing both activity and reactivity towards the organic contaminants
(Seitz et al., 2012). Several types of nanoparticles have been synthesized and tested, includ-
ing TiO2 nanotubes. Bench-scale research has shown TiO2 nanotubes are particularly effec-
tive at high temperatures and are capable of reducing a wide variety of organic contaminants
(Huang et al., 2010). The modification with nitrogen, metals or metal oxides also increases
the catalytic activity of TiO2 nanoparticles, and the transformation of the contaminants can
be performed with visible light (Yang et al., 2013). Anyway, the requirement of visible or
UV light in the degradation of organic contaminants makes the use of TiO2 nanoparticles an
ex-situ technology because a good in situ illumination is not possible in the remediation site.
Effective illumination usually implies the treatment to occur in a reactor that is designed for
this purpose (Tratnyek & Johnson, 2006).
7.2 Self-assembled monolayers on mesoporous supports

Some materials can be specifically produced with surface functional groups to serve as adsor-
bents to scavenge specific contaminants from waste streams. Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory (Richland, WA, US) has developed the SAMMSTM technology (self-assembled
monolayers on mesoporous supports). SAMMS materials consist of a nanoporous ceramic
substrate coated with a monolayer of functional groups tailored to specifically or preferen-

tially bind to the target contaminant. The functional molecules are covalently bonded to the
silica surface, leaving the other end of the functional group available to bind to a variety
of contaminants. Although SAMMS materials are larger than the nanoscale range, they are
considered a nanotechnology because of their nanoscale pores.
Contaminants successfully retained or sorbed to SAMMS materials include radionu-
clides, mercury, chromate, arsenate, and selenite (Tratnyek & Johnson, 2006). According to
the information available from the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, SAMMS materi-
als have produced positive results in pilot-scale tests for remediation of mercury in water,
using thiol-SAMMS that was specifically developed for the removal of mercury from (both
aqueous and non-aqueous) liquid media. Since SAMMS materials adsorb the contaminants,
these materials are used primarily as an ex situ treatment technology (Tratnyek & Johnson,
2006).
7.3 Dendrimers
Dendrimers are hyper-branched polymer molecules. The structure of dendrimers can be
divided in three parts: core, branches, and end groups. In the outer surface of dendrimers,
several functional groups can interact with the medium. Those functional groups can be
designed or modified to show a specific chemical activity. Barakat et al. (2013) report on
the effective immobilization of polyamidoamine dendrimers onto titania (TiO2), and this
composite was used for the effective remediation of Cu(II), Ni(II), and Cr(III), commonly
found in industrial electroplating wastewater. Fe0/FeS nanocomposites, synthesized using
dendrimers as templates, could be used to construct permeable reactive barriers for reme-
diation of contaminated groundwater. Dendrimers can be used in situ or ex situ (Xu & Zhao,
2006).
7.4 Swellable organic modified silica

Osorb is the commercial name for swellable, organically modified silica (SOMS) or glass
capable of absorbing volatile organic compounds and other contaminants from water. The
material has been nano-engineered to capture contaminants such as oil, pesticides, and phar-
maceutical products. SOMS may be able to capture important amounts of organic contami-
nants present as vapors, liquids, or dissolved in water. Moreover, SOMS is hydrophobic and
do not absorb water.
Some modification of SOMS may improve or widen its application field. For instance,
the combination of SOMS with iron nanoparticles (NIPs) results in a material capable of
dechlorinate captured organics. Furthermore, the silica matrix concentrates the organics to
be degraded or dehalogenated by the embedded NIPs, avoiding any contact of NIPs with
dissolved cations. Thus, the deactivation commonly observed in NIPs is avoided. Due to the
stability of the NIPs embedded in SOMS, the material can be reused after the treatment, with
a simple thermal desorption of the residual contaminants in the composite. The composite
of palladium and SOMS is a similar metal nanoparticles–glass hybrid material used in ex
situ treatment systems for remediation of chlorinated volatile organic compounds. Palladium
nanoparticles are responsible for the degradation of halogenated compounds. The system
requires the addition of H2 to complete the reductive dehalogenation on Pd nanoparticles
(Edmiston & Underwood, 2009).
8 FIELD APPLICATIONS
The application of nanotechnologies to the remediation of contaminated sites has to con-
sider several factors: geology of the contaminated site (physicochemical properties and
hydrodynamic behavior) and type and distribution of contaminants. Thus, the application
of nanotechnologies is considered site specific. Once the site has been characterized, the
design of the treatment has to identify the injection points, the dose, and the monitoring of
the remediation.
Injection of nanoscale iron is typically done via direct injection through gravity feed or
under pressure. Direct injection can be carried out through permanent or temporary wells,
or by direct injection into the subsoil. Recirculation is another option that involves injecting
nanoscale materials and extracting groundwater and reinjecting it into the treatment zone,
possibly adding more nanoscale particles. This procedure assures a better distribution of
nanoparticles in the subsoil while the spread of nanoparticles out of the contaminated area
is significantly reduced. This method of in situ application keeps the groundwater in the
aquifer in contact with the nanoparticles and also prevents larger agglomerated nanoparticles
from premature settling, promoting continuous contact with the contaminant.
Additional methods for the delivery of nanoparticles in the subsoil for in situ treatment
include pressure pulse technology, liquid atomization injection, pneumatic fracturing, and
hydraulic fracturing. Pressure pulse technology uses large-amplitude pulses of pressure to
insert the nanoparticle slurry into the subsoil below the water table to assure the transporta-
tion of nanoparticles by the groundwater. Liquid atomization injection is based on the direct
injection of nanoparticle slurry in the subsurface using a carrier gas. The atomization of the
liquid provoked by the gas assures a good distribution of nanoparticles in the subsoil. Pneu-
matic fracturing and hydraulic fracturing consist of the injection of liquid (water) or gas (air)
to fracture the rock in the subsurface, creating a network of channels that favor the quick
transportation of nanoparticles in soil layers of low permeability.
8.1 Field demonstrations and case studies

Nanotechnology is being considered as a promising technology for the remediation of
contaminated sites, soil and groundwater, with heavy metals and other inorganics, hydro-
carbons, organic solvents, chlorinated organics, and other hydrophobic and persistent
organic contaminants. The main benefits of nanotechnology compared to other classical
technologies (e.g. thermal desorption, soil flushing, chemical oxidation, etc.) is the prom-
ising results at lab and field scales and the relatively low cost. The most common nanopar-
ticles used at a field scale are NIP, although other kind of particles were also tested: carbon
nanotubes and fibers, bimetallic nanoparticles, nanoscale zeolites, and metal oxides (Patil
et al., 2016). Nanoscale ZVI is relatively easy to produce at a low cost. Thus, NIP is
relatively cheap and readily available. Furthermore, their high surface area and reactiv-
ity make NIP an excellent reagent for soil and groundwater remediation at field scale.
Other interesting properties that favor the selection of NIP are (Tosco et al., 2014) the low
standard reduction potential, favorable quantum size properties, and the possible transpor-
tation in the subsurface soil. NIP was satisfactorily tested at field scale in the transforma-
tion or degradation of arsenic, nitrate, heavy metals (e.g. Cr), organochlorides (solvents,
PCBs, pesticides), and hydrocarbons, in both soil and groundwater (Karn et al., 2009;
Ghasemzadeh et al., 2014). Bimetallic nanoparticles made of Ni, Ag, or Cu with Fe were tested
in the immobilization or degradation of heavy metals and organochlorides, and energetic

compounds (Nie et al., 2013; Yan et al., 2010b). Carbon nanotubes have been tested in
the removal of organic contaminants from water due to the unique adsorption capacity of
the nanotubes (Liang et al., 2004; Savage & Diallo, 2005). Yu et al. (2014) reported the
capacity of nanotubes in the adsorption of dyes, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, and other
organics in water. Moreover, carbon nanotubes can be used in the absorption of arsenic
and heavy metals.
Elliot and Zhang (2001) have reported an early study for in situ degradation of chlo-
rinated organics in groundwater using nanoparticles of iron. These authors reported the
tendency of the NIP to aggregate and settle in the injection well. Those nanoparticles that
remained in suspension travel through the subsurface soil up to few feet. These results made
that many studies focused on the stabilization of nanoparticle suspension to enhance the
transportation in the subsurface soil and the remediation results.
Varadhi et al. (2005) applied modified NIP to remediate contaminated groundwater
in Hamilton Township, NJ in situ. The site area was contaminated with 1,1-dichloroeth-
ane, 1,1-dichloroethene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, 1,2-dichloroethane and 1,1,2-trichloroeth-
ane (TCE). Nanoiron concentration of 30 g/L was injected on a 20-foot grid pattern. The
NanoFe PlusTM used was nanoiron particles modified to include a catalyst and support addi-
tive. Treatment was done in two phases and 3000 pounds and 1500 pounds were injected,
respectively. Geologically the site consisted of 6 feet fill, underlain by 20 feet interbedded
silt, clay, and lenses. The water table was at 21 feet below ground surface with perched water
also at 2–8 feet below ground surface. The perched water zone contains high concentrations
of dissolved hydrocarbons and metals, while the water table contains lower concentrations.
The pH was less than 4, and this was solubilizing heavy metals present in the groundwater.
The addition of nanoiron increased the pH to between 6 and 7, which helped to reduce the
heavy metal concentrations. GeoProbeTM and truck-mounted drilling equipment was used
for the injection and on-site mixing. Injection was performed at a pressure of 20psi, and nine
monitoring wells were used for monitoring. Injection in the central portion of the site was
easy due to the presence of mainly sandy soil as compared to the western and eastern por-
tions where some difficulties were experienced due to the presence of silt and clay. The study
reported 90% degradation of the dissolved contaminants, in particular in the central part,
after two weeks of injection and this was confirmed by an increase in methane and ethane
concentrations. The pH increased and ORP reduced.
Quinn et al. (2005) performed field application of the dehalogenation of TCE using
emulsified nanoscale zero valent iron (EZVI) in situ. EZVI was injected into the saturated
zone over five days. The team chose emulsified ZVI for the modification since it forms a
membrane of oil-liquid droplets around the particles’ biodegradable part, which helps deg-
radation over the long term by donating electrons. The hydrophobic droplets prevent the
reaction with unwanted targets. The RNIP was modified on site by the emulsifier. The lithol-
ogy was characterized and slug tests were performed before injection. Soil and groundwater
samples were analyzed before and after injection for TCE concentration. The study showed
that more than 80% of TCE was degraded from the soil and about 68% was removed from
the groundwater. Degradation was confirmed by observing the increase in concentration of
cis-dichloroethene, vinylchloride, and ethane. However, the by-product of laboratory analy-
ses was ethane. The difference was attributed to the fact that the degradation of TCE was
not only due to dehalogenation but also biodegradation. The hydraulic conductivity before
and after were 43 ft/day and 38.2 ft/day, respectively. The pressure pulse technology used
for injection did not help the delivery of EZVI and therefore the pneumatic and direct push
method was recommended.
Logan and Pastor (2007) performed a field pilot study experiment for the decontami-
nation of VOCs using nanoscale zero valent iron particles. The site was a Nease chemical
superfund site in Ohio. The facility operated between 1961 and 1973 whereby they produced
household cleaning products, fire retardants, and pesticides. Mirex was the common chemi-
cal used. The soils had a mirex concentration of 2080 mg/kg and the VOCs concentration in
the groundwater was 100 mg/L and consisted mainly of chlorinated ethane and ethene plus
other chemicals such as benzene and toluene. The site geology consisted of fractured sedi-
mentary bedrock that is overlain by glacial till. The area is hydraulically connected and the
groundwater is about 1–9 feet below the ground surface. The NIP containing 20% organic
dispersant and 1% palladium was injected in batches. A total of 100 kg NIP was injected at a
rate of 0.15–1.54 gpm (0.5–5L/min) within 22 days. The volume of injection was about 2665
gallons (10 m3). Pressure injection systems were used and mixing was performed onsite.
Water levels and geochemical parameters such as conductivity, pH, ORP, DO, temperature,
and potentiometric head were monitored in four wells close by the injection area. The study
included a bench-scale test prior to the field pilot tests. The bench-scale test was aimed to
provide engineers the concentration to use and also to inform them about the by-products
of dechlorination. After two weeks of the bench-scale test, almost all the contaminants were
degraded with the exception of benzene. The pilot study showed 33–88% PCE degrada-
tion and 30–70% TCE degradation after 4 weeks of injection. Methane, ethane, and ethene
were the major products but cis-DCE was also produced as a partial dechlorination of the
compound. After 8–12 weeks of monitoring, the concentration was about the same or it had
increased. The increase in concentration was attributed to the fact that the higher gradient
was not treated and was polluting the low-gradient area. Monitoring is on-going as benzene
still has not been degraded.
He et al. (2010) tested Fe-Pt nanoparticles stabilized with carboxymethyl cellulose in a
contaminated aquifer in Alabama. These authors injected the nanoparticles in the aquifer and
three monitoring wells permitted the monitoring of the remediation (one well was upstream
and the other two downstream) of the groundwater contaminated with PCBs, TCE, and PCE.
The suspension of Fe-Pt nanoparticles was prepared in situ to preserve the maximum activity
of the nanoparticles. Two injections of nanoparticles were done in a period of 1 month. Then,
the monitoring of groundwater revealed that Fe-Pt nanoparticles facilitated the rapid abiotic
degradation of TCE in the first 2 weeks, and, most importantly, the nanoparticles favored the
biotic dechlorination and degradation for the long term (about 2 years). The metal corrosion
process act as a hydrogen source whereas the carboxymethyl cellulose served as a carbon
source for the aerobic microorganisms. Overall, 88% of TCE was eliminated from the aqui-
fer. Similar to this study, Bennett et al. (2010) found that NIP stabilized with carboxymethyl
cellulose was able to rapidly (in about 2 hours) dechlorinate chlorinated ethane, proving the
rapid abiotic degradation.
Velimirovic et al. (2014) stabilized NIP with guar gum to be used in the remediation of
a Belgian contaminated site with chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons. The NIP was directly
injected in the site through a well at depth between 8.5 and 10.5 m. The effect of the NIP
in the chlorinated hydrocarbons was only detected around the injection well due to the lim-
ited diffusion/transportation of nanoparticles far from the injection well. The delivery of the
nanoparticles in the subsurface can be improved by hydraulic fracturing and the complex
electrical conductivity imaging can be used to monitor the transportation of the nanoparticles
in the subsurface (Flores-Orozco et al., 2015). Luna et al. (2015) was able to reach a better
transportation of the NIP stabilized with guar gum because of the higher hydraulic perme-
ability of the soil in the contaminated site. Thus, the NIP were transported about 1 m far
from the injection point, and in this area almost complete removal of chlorinated solvents
was observed in just 1 day after nanoparticle injection, due to the dechlorination reaction
with the elemental iron.
Overall, the remediation studies at a field scale proved the promising capability of
nanoparticles in the remediation of contaminated sites, resulting in rapid removal/stabili-
zation of contaminants due to the direct reaction of the contaminants on the nanoparticle
surface, then enhancing the biotic degradation at long term with the nanoparticles act as an
electron acceptor/donor in the biotic respiration reactions. Variables such as temperature,
organic matter in soil, pH ionic strength, type and nature of contaminants, and the possible
effect of other additives (Henderson & Demond, 2007; Zhao et al., 2016) are the main vari-
ables to control for a successful operation in the remediation of contaminated sites.
8.2 Cost
The cost of nanotechnology in environmental application depends on several factors. The
first factor is the cost of the nanoparticles themselves. The most commonly used nanopar-
ticles are made of zero valent iron, which is cheap and readily available. However, the cost
of nanoparticles also depends on the synthesis procedure. The cost of NIP has decreased due
to a better understanding of the synthesis procedures and the larger number of manufacturers
and vendors. Thus, the NIP cost was nearly US$ 500/kg in 2001 and decreased to about US$
50 to US$ 100/kg by 2006. Moreover, the quality of NIP increased. Decreasing NIP costs
and improved quality control procedures that provide better homogeneity make this technol-
ogy more viable in today’s remediation market. In addition to the costs associated with the
nanoscale material, other factors contribute to the cost of site remediation such as site type,
contaminant type, contaminant concentration, extent of the contaminant plume, and any
challenges that may occur during remediation.
9 ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS AND RISKS OF NIP

(AND OTHER NANOPARTICLES)
Limited knowledge is available about the fate and transport of nanoscale materials in the
environment. Nanoscale materials made of iron are the most widely used nanoscale materi-
als in site remediation but there is a limited knowledge of the final fate of NIP after remedia-
tion. Moreover, limited research is available regarding the potential toxicological effects of
nanoscale materials.
During and after remediation, nanoparticles may be transported by the aquifers and
are expected to be oxidized forming precipitates or remaining soluble in the groundwater.
Under standard environmental conditions, i.e. aerated water and pH = 5–9, Fe2+ will readily
and spontaneously oxidize to Fe3+ and precipitate out of the groundwater as insoluble iron
oxides and oxyhydroxides. However, NIPs have been modified to increase their reactivity
and stability. They reduce agglomeration of nanoscale materials and maximize subsurface
mobility, so the exposure of living microorganism to NIP is increased. Furthermore, sub-
stances considered non-toxic at the macroscale may have negative impacts on human health
when nanoscale particles are inhaled, absorbed through the skin, or ingested. Because of the
small size of nanoscale materials, the particles have the potential to migrate to, or accumu-
late in, places that larger particles cannot, such as the alveoli in the lungs thereby potentially
increasing toxicity.
Moore (2006) points out the evidence for the harmful effects of nanoscale
combustion-derived particulates (ultrafines), which when inhaled can cause a number of pul-
monary pathologies in mammals and humans. However, release of manufactured nanopar-
ticles into the aquatic environment is largely unknown. Moore (2006) suggests the possible
nanoparticle association with naturally occurring colloids and particles and how this could
affect their bioavailability and uptake into cells and organisms. Klaine et al. (2008) suggest
the possible negative effects of nanoparticles in the environment, but the evaluation of the
risk requires more research and standardized testing protocols.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Research and Development
(ORD) published a Nanomaterial Research Strategy (NRS) in June 2009 to act as a guide for
nanotechnology research within ORD. The NRS centers around progressing EPA’s under-
standing of nanomaterials for decision support and focuses on four research themes (US
EPA, 2009):
– Identifying sources, fate, transport, and exposure.

– Understanding human health and ecological research to inform risk assessment and test
methods.
– Developing risk assessment approaches.
– Preventing and mitigating risks.
Hjorth et al. (2015) have studied the ecotoxicological effects of various nanoparticles
in organisms and ecosystems. These authors reported the technical limitation of ecotoxicity
testing of nanoparticles in the environment and even questioned if the environmental risk
assessment needed for engineered nanoparticles is feasible. Those limitations are mainly
related with aggregation, agglomeration, sedimentation, and other physicochemical effects
that the nanoparticles undergo in the environment and that may affect the measurement in
the toxicity tests. Overall, Hjorth et al. (2015) found that nanoparticles made of iron oxides,
iron zeolites, and iron-carbon composite showed low toxicity, below the regulatory limits
of the UE. The milled iron nanoparticles showed significant ecotoxicity, detected in bac-
teria, earthworms, and plants. It can be concluded that the ecotoxicity of the nanoparticles
in related to their compositions and the mode of fabrication. Furthermore, the nanoparticle
stability and dispersion in the environment will be decisive for the assessment of their toxic
effect at the mid- and long term.
REFERENCES
Abdelsayed, V., Glaspell, G., Nguyen, M., Howe, J.M. & Samy El-Shall, M. (2008) Laser synthesis of
bimetallic nanoalloys in the vapor and liquid phases and the magnetic properties of PdM and PtM
nanoparticles (M = Fe, Co and Ni). Faraday Discussions, 138, 163–180.
Barakat, M.A., Ramadan, M.H., Alghamdi, M.A., Algarny, S.S., Woodcock, H.L. & Kuhn, J.N. (2013)
Remediation of Cu(II), Nni(II), and Ccr(III) ions from simulated wastewater by dendrimer/titania
composites. Journal of Environmental Management, 117, 50–57.
Bennett, P., He, F., Zhao, D.Y., Aiken, B. & Feldman, L. (2010) In situ testing of metallic iron nanopar-
ticle mobility and reactivity in a shallow granular aquifer. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology,
116(1–4), 35–46.
Bigg, T. & Judd, S.J. (2000) Zero-valent iron for water treatment. Environmental Technology, 21(6),
661–670.
Cameselle, C., Darko-Kagya, K., Khodadoust, A. & Reddy, K.R. (2008) Influence of type and concen-
tration of dispersants on the zeta potential of reactive nanoiron particles. Proceedings of Interna-
tional Environmental Nanotechnology Conference. USEPA, Chicago, IL, USA.
Cameselle, C., Reddy, K.R., Darko-Kagya, K. & Khodadoust, A. (2013) Effect of dispersant on trans-
port of nanoscale iron particles in soils: Zeta potential measurements and column experiments.
Journal of Environmental Engineering, 139(1), 23–33.
Cao, J., Clasen, P. & Zhang, W. (2005a) Nanoporous zero-valent iron. Journal of Materials Research,
20(12), 3238–3243.
Cao, J., Elliott, D. & Zhang, W. (2005b) Perchlorate reduction by nanoscale iron particles. Journal of
Nanoparticle Research, 7, 499–506.
Chang, M., Shu, H., Hsieh, W. & Wang, M. (2005) Using nanoscale zero-valent iron for the remedia-
tion of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons contaminated soil. Journal of the Air and Waste Manage-
ment Association, 55(8), 1200–1207.
Chang, M., Shu, H., Hsieh, W. & Wang, M. (2007) Remediation of soil contaminated with pyrene
using ground nanoscale zero-valent iron. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association,
57(2), 221–227.
Chaplin, B.P., Reinhard, M., Schneider, W.F., Schüth, C., Shapley, J.R., Strathmann, T.J. & Werth, C.J.
(2012) Critical review of Pd-based catalytic treatment of priority contaminants in water. Environ-
mental Science and Technology, 46(7), 3655–3670.
Cheng, R., Wang, J. & Zhang, W. (2007) Comparison of reductive dechlorination of p-chlorophenol
using Fe0 and nanosized Fe0. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 144(1–2), 334–339.
Cheng, R., Wang, J. & Zhang, W. (2008) Degradation of chlorinated phenols by nanoscale zero-valent
iron. Frontiers of Environmental Science and Engineering in China, 2(1), 103–108.
Choe, S., Lee, S., Chang, Y., Hwang, K. & Khim, J. (2001) Rapid reductive destruction of hazardous
organic compounds by nanoscale Fe0. Chemosphere, 42, 367–372.
Crane, R.A., Dickinson, M., Popescu, I.C. & Scott, T.B. (2011) Magnetite and zero-valent iron
nanoparticles for the remediation of uranium contaminated environmental water. Water Research,
45, 2931–2942.
Darko-Kagya, K. (2010) Stability, Transport and Reactivity of Nanoscale Iron Particles for in-situ Reme-
diation of Organic Pollutants in Subsurface. PhD Thesis, University of Illinois at Chicago, IL, USA.
Edmiston, P.L. & Underwood, L.A. (2009) Remediation of dissolved organic pollutants in water using
organosilica-based materials that rapidly and reversibly swell. Materials Research Society Sympo-
sium Proceedings, 1169, 35–41.
Elliott, D.W. & Zhang, W.X. (2001) Field assessment of nanoscale bimetallic particles for groundwater
treatment. Environmental Science and Technology, 35(24), 4922–4926.
Fan, W., Bai, H., Zhang, G., Yan, Y., Liu, C. & Shi, W. (2013) Titanium dioxide macroporous materials
doped with iron: Synthesis and photo-catalytic properties. CrystEngComm, 16(1), 116–122.
Flores-Orozco, A., Velimirovic, M., Tosco, T., Kemna, A., Sapion, H., Klaas, N., Sethi, R. & Bastiaens,
L. (2015) Monitoring the injection of microscale zerovalent iron particles for groundwater remedia-
tion by means of complex electrical conductivity imaging. Environmental Science and Technology,
49(9), 5593–5600.
Ghasemzadeh, G., Momenpour, M., Omidi, F., Hosseini, M.R., Ahani, M. & Barzegari, A. (2014)
Applications of nanomaterials in water treatment and environmental remediation. Frontiers of
Environmental Science & Engineering, 8(4), 471–482.
Gomes, H.I., Dias-Ferreira, C., Ribeiro, A.B. & Pamukcu, S. (2013) Enhanced transport and transfor-
mation of zerovalent nanoiron in clay using direct electric current. Water, Air and Soil Pollution,
224(12), 1–12.
He, F., Zhao, D. & Paul, C. (2010) Field assessment of carboxymethyl cellulose stabilized iron nanoparti-
cles for in situ destruction of chlorinated solvents in source zones. Water Research, 44(7), 2360–2370.
Henderson, A.D. & Demond, A.H. (2007) Long-term performance of zero-valent iron permeable reac-
tive barriers: A critical review. Environmental Engineering Science, 24(4), 401–423.
Hjorth, R., Coutris, C., Nguyen, N., Sevcu, A., Baun, A. & Joner, E. (2015) Ecotoxicity testing of
nanoparticles for remediation of contaminated soil and groundwater. 13th International UFZ-
Deltares Conference on Sustainable Use and Management of Soil, Sediment and Water Resources,
Copenhagen, Denmark.
Huang, H., Zhou, J., Liu, H., Zhou, Y. & Feng, Y. (2010) Selective photoreduction of nitrobenzene to
aniline on TiO2 nanoparticles modified with amino acid. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 178(1–3),
994–998.
Hurley, K.D. & Shapley, J.R. (2007) Efficient heterogeneous catalytic reduction of perchlorate in
water, Environmental Science and Technology, 41, 2044–2049.
Hydutsky, B.W., Mack, E.J., Beckerman, B.B., Skluzacek, J.M. & Mallouk, T.E. (2007) Optimization
of nano and microiron transport through sand columns using polyelectrolyte mixtures. Environ-
mental Science and Technology, 41, 6418–6424.
Kanel, S.R. & Choi, H. (2007) Transport characteristics of surface-modified nanoscale zero-valent Iron
in porous media. Water Science & Technology, 55(1), 157–162.
Kanel, S.R., Goswami, R.R., Clement, T.P., Barnett, M.O. & Zhao, D. (2008) Two dimensional trans-
port characteristics of surface stabilized zero-valent iron nanoparticles in porous media. Environ-
mental Science and Technology, 42, 896–900.
Karn, B., Kuiken, T. & Otto, M. (2009) Nanotechnology and in situ remediation: A review of the ben-
efits and potential risks. Environmental Health Perspectives, 117, 1823–1831.
Kim, J.-H., Tratnyek, P.G. & Chang, Y.-S. (2008) Rapid dechlorination of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-
dioxins by bimetallic and nanosized zerovalent iron. Environmental Science and Technology, 42,
4106–4112.
Klaine, S.J., Alvarez, P.J.J., Batley, G.E., Fernandes, T.F., Handy, R.D., Lyon, D.Y., Mahendra, S.,
McLaughlin, M.J. & Lead, J.R. (2008) Nanomaterials in the environment: Behavior, fate, bioavail-
ability, and effects. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 27, 1825–1851.
Koutsospyros, A., Pavlov, J., Fawcett, J., Strickland, D., Smolinski, B. & Braida, W. (2012) Degrada-
tion of high energetic and insensitive munitions compounds by Fe/Cu bimetal reduction. Journal of
Hazardous Materials, 219–220, 75–81.
Li, L., Fan, M., Brown, R.C. & Leeuwen, J.V. (2006) Synthesis, properties, and environmental applications
of nanoscale iron-based materials: A review. Environmental Science and Technology, 36, 405–431.
Liang, P., Liu, Y., Guo, L., Zeng, J. & Pei, H.L. (2004) Multiwalled carbon nanotubes as solid-phase
extraction adsorbent for the pre concentration of trace metal ions and their determination by induc-
tively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometry. Journal of Analytical Atomic Spectrometry,
19, 489–1492.
Lien, H., Jhuo, Y. & Chen, L. (2007) Effect of heavy metals on dechlorination of carbon tetrachloride
by iron nanoparticles. Environmental Engineering Science, 24(1), 21–30.
Liou, Y.H., Lin, C.J., Weng, S.C., Ou, H.H. & Lo, S.L. (2009) Selective decomposition of aqueous
nitrate into nitrogen using iron deposited bimetals. Environmental Science and Technology, 43(7),
2482–2488.
Liu,Y., Choi, H., Dionysiou, D. & Lowry, G.V. (2005a) Trichloroethene hydrodechlorination in water
by highly disordered monometallic nanoiron. Chemistry of Materials, 17, 5315–5322.
Liu, Y. & Lowry, G.V. (2006) Effect of particle age (Fe0 content) and solution pH on nZVI reactivity:
H2 evolution and TCE dechlorination. Environmental Science and Technology, 40(19), 6085–6090.
Liu, Y., Majetich, S.A., Tilton, R.D., Sholl, D.S. & Lowry, G.V. (2005b) TCE dechlorination rates,
pathways, and efficiency of nanoscale iron particles with different properties. Environmental Sci-
ence and Technology, 39, 1338–1345.
Liu, W., Qian, T. & Jiang, H. (2014) Bimetallic Fe nanoparticles: Recent advances in synthesis and
application in catalytic elimination of environmental pollutants. Chemical Engineering Journal,
236, 448–463.
Logan, M. & Pastor, S. (2007) Technology Update #2: Nanotechnology. Environmental protection
agency document. Nease Chemical Site. Columbiana County, OH, USA.
Luna, M., Gastone, F., Tosco, T., Sethi, R., Velimirovic, M., Gemoets, J., Muyshond, R., Sapion, H.,
Klaas, N. & Bastiaens, L. (2015) Pressure-controlled injection of guar gum stabilized microscale
zerovalent iron for groundwater remediation. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 181, 46–58.
Luo, M., Bowden, D. & Brimblecombe, P. (2009) Removal of dyes from water using a TiO2 photocata-
lyst supported on black sand. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 198(1–4), 233–241.
Moore, M.N. (2006) Environmental risk management – The state of the art. Environment Interna-
tional, 32(8), 967–976.
Muchitsch, N., Van Nooten, T., Bastiaens, L. & Kjeldsen, P. (2011) Integrated evaluation of the perfor-
mance of a more than seven year old permeable reactive barrier at a site contaminated with chlo-
rinated aliphatic hydrocarbons (CAHs). Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 126(3–4), 258–270.
Nie, X., Liu, J., Zeng, X. & Yue, D. (2013) Rapid degradation of hexachlorobenzene by micron Ag/Fe
bimetal particles. Journal of Environmental Science, 25, 473–478.
Nurmi, J.T., Trantnyek, P.G., Sarathy, V., Baer, D.R., Amonette, J.E., Pecher, K., Wandg, C., Line-
han, J.C., Matson, D.W., Leepenn, R. & Driessen, M.D. (2005) Characterization and properties of
metallic iron nanoparticles: Spectroscopy, electrochemistry, and kinetics. Environmental Science &
Technology, 39, 1221–1230.
Okinaka, K., Jazdanian, A.D., Dahmani, A.M., Nakano, J., Okita, T. & Kakuya, K. (2005b). Degra-
dation of trichloroethene with reactive nanoscale iron particles in simulated ground water. Paper
Presented at the ACS, Division of Environmental Chemistry – Preprints of Extended Abstracts,
45(2), 662–666.
Okinaka, K., Jazdanian, A.D., Nakano, J., Kakuya, K., Uegami, M. & Okita, T. (2005a) Removal of
arsenic, chromium and lead from simulated groundwater with reactive nanoscale iron particles. In:
Proceedings of Environmental. Nanotechnology. Symposia Papers Presented Before the Division of
Environmental Chemistry. American Chemical Society Washington, DC, USA. 6 pp.
Pamukcu, S., Hannum, L. & Wittle, J.K. (2008) Delivery and activation of nano-iron by DC electric
field. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, 43, 934–944.
Parshetti, G.K. & Doong, R.A. (2012) Dechlorination of chlorinated hydrocarbons by bimetallic Ni/Fe
immobilized on polyethylene glycol-grafted microfiltration membranes under anoxic conditions.
Patil, S.S., Shedbalkar, U.U., Truskewycz, A., Chopade, B.A. & Ball, A.S. (2016) Nanoparticles for
environmental clean-up: A review of potential risks and emerging solutions. Environmental Tech-
nology & Innovation, 5, 10–21.
Pintar, A., Vetinc, M. & Levec, J. (1998) Hardness and salt effects on catalytic hydrogenation of aque-
ous nitrate solutions. Journal of Catalysis, 174, 72–87.
Ponder, S.M., Darab, J.G. & Mallouk, T.E. (2000) Remediation of Cr(VI) and Pb(II) aqueous solutions
using supported, nanoscale zero-valent iron. Environmental Science and Technology, 34, 2564–2569.
Prüsse, U. & Vorlop, K.D. (2001) Supported bimetallic palladium catalysts for water phase nitrate
reduction. Journal of Molecular Catalysis A, 173, 313–328.
Quinn, J., Geiger, C., Clausen, C., Brooks, K., Coon, C., O’hara, S., Krug, T., Major, D., Yoon, W.,
Gavaskar, A. & Holdsworth, T. (2005) Field demonstration of DNAPL dehalogenation using emul-
sified zero-valent iron. Environmental Science and Technology, 39, 1309–1318.
Reddy, K.R. & Cameselle, C. (2009) Electrochemical Remediation Technologies for Polluted Soils,
Sediments and Groundwater. Wiley, New York, NY, USA.
Reddy, K.R. & Karri, M.R. (2008) Removal and degradation of pentachlorophenol in clayey soil using
nanoscale iron particles. Proceedings of Geotechnics of Waste Management and Remediation, Res-
ton, Virginia, ASCE Press, Geotechnical Special Publication, 177, 463–469.
Reddy, K.R., Khodadoust, A.P. & Darko-Kagya, K. (2008) Transport and reactivity of lactate-modified
nanoscale iron particles in PCP-Contaminated field sand. Proceeding of the. International Environ-
mental Nanotechnology Conference. USEPA, Chicago, IL, USA. pp. 261–267.
Reddy, K.R., Khodadoust, A.P. & Darko-Kagya, K. (2014) Transport and reactivity of lactate-modified
nanoscale iron particles for remediation of DNT in subsurface soils. Journal of Environmental
Engineering (United States), 140(12). doi:10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0000870.
Reddy, K.R., Khodadoust, A.P. & Karri, M.R. (2007) Electrokinetic delivery of nanoscale iron par-
ticles for remediation of pentachlorophenol in clay soil. Proceedings of the 6th Symposium on
Electrokinetic Remediation. Vigo, Spain. pp. 7–8.
Reibold, M., Paufler, P., Levin, A.A., Kochmann, W., Pätzke, N. & Meyer, D.C. (2006) Materials:
Carbon nanotubes in an ancient Damascus sabre. Nature, 444(7117), 286.
Saleh, N., Sirk, K., Liu, Y., Phenrat, T., Dufour, B., Matyjaszewski, K., Tilton, R.D. & Lowry, G.V.
(2007) Surface modifications enhance nanoiron transport and NAPL targeting in saturated porous
media. Environmental Engineering Science, 24(1), 45–57.
Savage, N. & Diallo, M.S. (2005) Nanomaterials and water purification: Opportunities and challenges.
Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 7, 331–342.
Schrick, B., Blough, J.L., Jones, A.D. & Mallouk, T.E. (2002) Hydrodechlorination of trichloroeth-
ylene to hydrocarbons using bimetallic nickel-iron nanoparticles. Chemistry of Materials, 14,
5140–5147.
Schrick, B., Hydutsky, B.W., Blough, J.L. & Mallouk, T.E. (2004) Delivery vehicles for zerovalent
metal nanoparticles in soil and groundwater. Chemistry of Materials, 16, 2187–2193.
Seitz, F., Bundschuh, M., Dabrunz, A., Bandow, N., Schaumann, G.E. & Schulz, R. (2012) Titanium
dioxide nanoparticles detoxify pirimicarb under UV irradiation at ambient intensities. Environmen-
tal Toxicology and Chemistry, 31(3), 518–523.
Shih, Y., Chen, Y., Chen, M., Tai, Y. & Tso, C. (2009) Dechlorination of hexachlorobenzene by using
nanoscale fe and nanoscale Pd/Fe bimetallic particles. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical
Engineering Aspects, 332, 84–98.
Srinivasan, R. & Sorial, G.A. (2009) Treatment of perchlorate in drinking water: A critical review.
Separation and Purification Technology, 69, 7–21.
Su, C. & Puls, R.W. (2004) Nitrate reduction by zerovalent iron: Effects of formate, oxalate, citrate,
chloride, sulfate, borate, and phosphate. Environmental Science and Technology, 38, 2715–2720.
Taghavy, A., Costanza, J., Pennell, K.D. & Abriola, L.M. (2010) Effectiveness of nanoscale zero-valent iron
for treatment of a PCE-DNAPL source zone. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 118(3–4), 128–142.
Tiraferri, A., Chen, K.L., Sethi, R. & Elimelech, M. (2008) Reduced aggregation and sedimentation
of zero-valent iron nanoparticles in the presence of guar gum. Journal of Colloid and Interface
Science, 324, 71–79.
Tosco, T., Papini, M.P., Viggi, C.C. & Sethi, R. (2014) Nanoscale zero valent iron particles for ground-
water remediation: A review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 77, 10–21.
Tratnyek, P.G. & Johnson, R.L. (2006) Nanotechnology for environmental cleanup. Nanotoday, 1, 2.
US EPA (2007) Nanotechnology White Paper. Report no. EPA 100/B-07/001. Available from:
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/tiff2png.cgi/60000EHU.PNG?-r+75+-g+7+D%3A%5CZYFILES%
5CINDEX%20DATA%5C06THRU10%5CTIFF%5C00000064%5C60000EHU.TIF. [Accessed
20th September 2017].
US EPA (2009) Nanomaterial Research Strategy. Report no. EPA 620/K-09/011. Available from:
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/tiff2png.cgi/P10051V1.PNG?-r+75+-g+7+D%3A%5CZYFILES%
5CINDEX%20DATA%5C06THRU10%5CTIFF%5C00000518%5CP10051V1.TIF. [Accessed
20th September 2017].
Varadhi, S.N., Gill, H., Liao, K., Blackman, R.A. & Wittman, W.K. (2005) Full-scale nanoiron injec-
tion for treatment of groundwater contaminated with chlorinated hydrocarbons. Proceedings of
Natural Gas Technologies, Orlando, FL. 10 pp.
Varanasi, P., Fullana, A. & Sidhu, S. (2007) Remediation of PCB contaminated soils using iron nano-
particles. Chemosphere, 66, 1031–1038.
Velimirovic, M., Tosco, T., Uytteboek, M., Luna, M., Gastone, F., De Boer, C., Klaas, N., Spaion, H.,
Eisenmann, H., Lasson, P.O., Braun, J., Sethi, R. & Bastiaens, L. (2014) Field assessment of guar
gum stabilized microscale zerovalent iron particles for in situ remediation of 1,1,1-trichloroethane.
Wang, C. & Zhang, W. (1997) Synthesizing nanoscale iron particles for rapid and complete dechlorina-
tion of TCE and PCBs. Environmental Science and Technology, 31(7), 2154–2156.
Wang, X., Chen, C., Chang, Y. & Liu, H. (2009) Dechlorination of chlorinated methanes by Pd/Fe
bimetallic nanoparticles. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 161, 815–823.
Welch, R. & Riefler, R.G. (2008) Estimating treatment capacity of nanoscale zero-valent iron reducing
2,4,6-trinitrotoluene. Environmental Engineering Science, 25(9), 1255–1262.
Xu, Y. & Zhao, D. (2006) Removal of lead from contaminated soils using poly (amidoamine) den-
drimers. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research, 45(5), 1758–1765.
Yan, W., Herzing, A.A., Kiely, C.J. & Zhang, W.X. (2010a) Nanoscale zero-valent iron (nZVI): Aspects
of the core – Shell structure and reactions with inorganic species in water. Journal of Contaminant
Hydrology, 118, 96–104.
Yan, W., Herzing, A.A., Li, X.Q., Kiely, C.J. & Zhang, W.X. (2010b) Structural evolution of Pd-doped
nanoscale zero-valent iron (nZVI) in aqueous media and implications for particle ageing and reac-
tivity. Environmental Science and Technology, 44, 4288–4294.
Yang, G.C.C. & Lee, H. (2005) Chemical reduction of nitrate by nanosized iron: Kinetics and path-
ways. Water Research, 39(5), 884–894. doi:10.1016/j.watres.2004.11.030.
Yang, G.C.C., Tu, H. & Hung, C. (2007) Stability of nanoiron slurries and their transport in the subsur-
face environment. Separation and Purification Technology, 58(1), 166–172.
Yang, X.H., Fu, H.T., Wong, K., Jiang, X.C. & Yu, A B. (2013) Hybrid Ag@TiO2 core-shell nanostruc-
tures with highly enhanced photocatalytic performance. Nanotechnology, 24(41), 415601.
Ye, L., You, H., Yao, J. & Su, H. (2012) Water treatment technologies for perchlorate: A review. Desali-
nation, 298, 1–12.
Yu, J.G., Zhao, X.H., Yang, H., Chen, X.H., Yang, Q., Yu, L.Y., Jiang, J.H. & Chen, X.Q. (2014) Aque-
ous adsorption and removal of organic contaminants by carbon nanotubes. Science of the Total
Environment, 482–483, 241–251.
Zhao, X., Liu, W., Cai, Z., Han, B., Qian, T. & Zhao, D. (2016) An overview of preparation and appli-
cations of stabilized zero-valent iron nanoparticles for soil and groundwater remediation. Water
Research, 100, 245–266. doi:10.1016/j.watres.2016.05.019.
Chapter 11
Planning, monitoring, verification,

and sustainability of soil remediation
K. Gruiz 1, M. Molnár 1 & É. Fenyvesi 2
1Department of Applied Biotechnology and Food Science,
Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Budapest, Hungary
2CycloLab Cyclodextrin Research & Development Laboratory Ltd, Budapest, Hungary
ABSTRACT
Sustainability as a decision-making criterion is increasingly gaining significance in contami-
nated site management. The state of the art of the development is reflected by regulations,
management systems, standards, and protocols. The uniform assessment of environmen-
tal technology performance is the main component of sustainability analysis. A holistic
approach is applied that evaluates the efficiencies not only from a strict technological and
cost analysis perspective but also from socioeconomic and wider environmental/ecological
aspects characterized by the sustainability footprint.
This chapter deals with sustainability from the perspective of environmental remedia-
tion, it gives definitions and describes the state of the art of sustainability management, the
regulatory environmental technology verification (ETV) and sustainability assessment used in
project implementation. The initiatives developed by experts in technology, economy, environ-
ment/ecology, and society are introduced. It shows that irrespective of the starting point many
existing evaluation methods can be upgraded by sustainability indicators. “Green remedia-
tion” is very close to sustainable remediation, thus socioeconomic sustainability indicators can
easily be added, similar to soil quality and function evaluation. Fully quantitative assessment
methods such as cost–benefit assessment or mass balance-based evaluations can also include
sustainability aspects if they are based on their cost and benefits or mass balance. Multi-criteria
Analysis (MCA) can aggregate quantitative and qualitative information of various metrics.
In situ remediation attracts the greatest attention because the technology is in intimate
contact with soil and groundwater which blurs the border between the negative impact of
operation, emissions and disruptions to the local environment and the overall beneficial
impact of the intervention on the wider environment. Another reason why in situ remediation
at the center of interest is that its action is almost invisible (nothing happens on the surface),
it is almost unknown and little trusted. Consequently it is not included in the operators’ rep-
ertoire regardless of its capability of saving energy and cost and at the same time, fulfilling
a number of sustainability requirements.
1 INTRODUCTION
Sustainable remediation and inexpensive, environmentally friendly, “green” technologies are
in great demand both for the remediation of the still growing number of contaminated sites and
for long-term quality management of soil and water. With the increasing number of innovative
remediation technologies, information is needed for decision makers, owners, and other stake-
holders regarding the characteristics and applicability of the best available technology. This
complex information, which can properly control the decision-making process must be uniform,
easily interpreted, and capable of supporting the entire management and decision-making pro-
cess including decisions in the initial phases, corrective actions during technology application,
and verification of the technology at the end of remediation and in long-term aftercare.
The main fields to be evaluated in support of the site management are technology, the
local and wider environment – ecosystems and humans – and socioeconomic conditions
together with the consequences. This framework of technology evaluation involves the con-
cept, scope, and tools of the all-round assessment. The more complex the evaluation, the
more versatile sets of assessment tools are required. The main parts of the evaluation tool are
those which evaluate the performance of the technology in terms of its ability to accomplish
remediation goals and at what cost. The “cost” is not only interpreted in economic sense but
also including the burden and loss in ecosystem services and any other negative impacts on
social and human health issues. The same can be said about the evaluation of the benefits
and the comparison of all costs and benefits due to ecological, social, and economic changes.
Sustainability means that the project within which the technology is applied can harmonize
seemingly contradictory requirements and fulfill the goals of human development while eco-
logical sustainability (ecosystem quality and services) is maintained during implementing
remediation. Verification of the whole management process justifies all decisions and opera-
tions that have served the holistic improvement in order to minimize negative impacts caused
by technology application and maximize benefits from the remediation. The scope of evalua-
tion involves not only the three areas of environment, society, and economy, but covers spatial
and temporal dimensions and extents and several interactions between the compartments.
The holistic approach in sustainability assessment should encourage soft technologies,
“green” innovations, in situ and other knowledge- and experience-based solutions. In situ
technologies based on natural biological processes are especially mistrusted and suffer from
lack of confidence due to missing information, objective evaluation, and transparent veri-
fication, although they are the most promising tools in future environmental management.
2 SUSTAINABILITY, SUSTAINABLE REMEDIATION

Verified innovative site assessment and remediation techniques can achieve higher environmen-
tal quality at the same or lower costs compared to conventional solutions (Gruiz et al., 2008). A
practical and uniform evaluation tool can shorten the time between development and application
and increase confidence and promote the commercialization of new remediation technologies.
Verification should not only include the demonstration of a good technological perfor-
mance and check if it is “green,” but also approve sustainability in the widest sense including
socioeconomic and cultural elements (see also Gruiz, 2014). The definition of sustainability
derived from the Brundtland Report (1987) says:
1 “Sustainable development meets the need of the present without compromising the need
of future generations, while minimizing overall burdens to society.”
2 “Sustainable development is the organizing principle for meeting human development
goals while at the same time satisfying the ability of natural systems to provide the natu-
ral resources and ecosystem services upon which the economy and society depend.”
Sustainability means much more today, not just the usual economy-based approach of
sustainable (economic) development, but rather the aspects to protect human health and the
Sustainability of soil remediation 499
environment as well as to serve socioeconomic and cultural developments and ethics – as

the definition in the UK Sustainable Remediation Forum (SuRF UK) states: to demonstrate
in terms of environmental, economic and social indicators that the benefit of undertaking
remediation is greater than its impact (Smith et al., 2010; Bardos et al., 2011).
Sustainability and sustainable remediation need holistic thinking involving positive and
negative social, economic and environmental impacts of a remediation project. The study of
these disciplines improves project quality as the sustainable remediation white paper (Ellis &
Hadley, 2009) summarizes: “It makes it possible to identify opportunities to improve the net
benefit of the project and highlight specific negative project impacts that can be mitigated to
limit their adverse socioeconomic and environmental impacts.”
Green and sustainable remediation can easily be combined as the requirement of
being green is the practice of considering all environmental effects of remedy imple-
mentation and incorporating options to maximize net environmental benefit of cleanup
actions. Green remediation reduces the demand placed on the environment (footprint)
during cleanup actions and avoids the potential for collateral environmental damage
(US EPA, 2008).
The focus of green remediation is on reducing impacts on air pollution, water cycles,
soil deterioration, ecological diversity and densities, and emission of greenhouse gases.
Sustainability adds to the green side of the balance, socioeconomic elements to the other
side and tries to find the optimum between these, often competing elements by considering
the social and economic limitations. Environmental protection does not preclude economic
development, and economic development is ecologically viable today and in the long run
(US EPA, 2008, 2009). This means that economic development does not use more resources
than can be replenished and does not produce more wastes that can be reabsorbed by the
environment.
The optimum in a remediation project can be achieved using best management practices
(BMPs) which are to be applied throughout the project from the first step of decision mak-
ing and design, during construction, operation, monitoring, and the site-specific adaptations
including evaluation. The dynamic character of BMP enables management to adapt to site-
specific characteristics and challenges. BMP strives to achieve maximum environmental and
social benefit at minimum socioeconomic costs involving current and long-term sustainable
land uses. BMP helps decision makers, communities and other stakeholders to be aware
and find the points where technological, environmental, social, and cost efficiencies can
be improved. Innovative techniques or new strategies in terms of sustainability can also be
involved.
2.1 State of the art

The technology verification programs all over the world try to establish a framework and
databases for verified technologies. Most of them include environmental monitoring meth-
ods, water treatment technologies, and material and waste treatment technologies.
The EPA’s Environmental Technology Verification (EPA ETV, 2018) program was
established in 1994 and concluded in 2014. Twelve technology areas were covered by the
program such as advanced monitoring systems for air, water, and soil. From 2014, EPA ETV
changed and the Environmental and Sustainable Technology Evaluation (ESTE, 2018) pro-
gram started with the aim of providing credible performance information on technologies
that addressed high-risk environmental problems. Some soil remediation technologies have
already been included in ESTE, e.g. ISCO (Dindal, 2016).
CLUE-IN Remediation (2018) has close cooperation with the ETV program concern-
ing superfund sites and other properties where industrial or commercial activities have left
a legacy of hazardous contaminants that limit future development. CLUE-IN is linked to
Green Remediation (2018) through its website especially in terms of the basic principles and
objectives of green remediation and best practices for reducing the environmental footprint of
cleanup projects. Green remediation (2008) guides professionals how to incorporate sustain-
able environmental practices into the remediation of contaminated sites (see Section 3.3).
In a memorandum (GR Memo, 2016), the US EPA summarized the need to mitigate
potential environmental impacts when implementing clean-up actions under the Compre-
hensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA, 1980). This
document also emphasizes that greener cleanup activities are required throughout all phases
of clean-up processes, including the following:
– Site characterization;
– Prospective evaluation of the technology (technological performance and costs);
– Feasibility study;
– Remedy selection;
– Technology implementation (design and construction of both technology and
monitoring);
– Operation and maintenance.
A standard guide (ASTM E2893–16e1, 2016) provides the process for identifying, pri-
oritizing, selecting, implementing, documenting, and reporting activities to reduce the envi-
ronmental footprint of a clean-up activity by minimizing
– air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions;

– water use and impacts to water resources;
– materials and waste;
– total energy use
while maximizing
– renewable energy;
– protecting land and ecosystems.
The guide also deals with the uncertainties in “greener cleanups.”

Many other countries all over the world have started their own environmental tech-
nology verification and sustainability assessment programs such as ETV Canada (2018);
ETV Japan (2018); the Korean NETV (2018) or ETV Philippines (2018). In Australia CRC
CARE established a program in 2009 to develop a sustainable remediation framework appli-
cable to their existing policies. SuRF-Australia has close links to the SuRF UK framework
(CL:AIRE, 2018).
In Europe in addition to the intention of the European Union, Denmark, and the UK
devoted significant efforts to develop uniform indicators and methods to properly assess
remedy efficiency and sustainability (State of green, 2018).
The Danish Center for Verification of Climate and Environmental Technologies

verification body (DANETV, 2018) accredited under the EU ETV Pilot Programme is
responsible for testing, verifying, and documenting the performance of an environmental
technology and offers independent testing of environmental and climate impacts within
the areas of:
– Materials, waste, and resources;

– Environmental technologies for water treatment and monitoring;
– Energy efficiency and production;
– Environmental technologies for air cleaning and monitoring;
– Environmental technologies for soil and groundwater remediation and monitoring;
– Environmental technologies for agriculture;
– Cleaner production and processes.
The SuRF UK (2018) framework (Bardos, 2014, 2016a,b, 2018; CL:AIRE, 2010a,b)
include the application of sustainable development principles for contaminated land man-
agement both in general terms and risk-based site remediation (Defra, 2004). The first com-
prehensive publications about SuRF UK (CL:AIRE, 2009, 2010a, 2011; 2014a,b; Bardos,
2010; Bardos et al., 2011) emphasized that a remedy improves the quality of a site which
results in a less risky situation and better protects ecological and human receptors. However,
this does not suffice to classify an environmental technology as sustainable, even if it sup-
ports sustainability to a certain scale. “Sustainable remediation” should by definition cover
all required fields of sustainability such as the ecosystem and the socioeconomic and cultural
items. But the process itself and methodologies identifying the optimum management strat-
egy that maximizes the benefits while limiting the impacts of a remedy should be developed.
SuRF UK, which is similar to the US EPA “green remediation” concept, identifies land con-
tamination management criteria and strategies to find and implement the best alternative for
a specific site (CL:AIRE, 2010a).
At the European level several initiatives and developments preceded the existing ETV
(Environmental Technology Verification) and the Eco-innovation Action Plan (ECOAP,
2018) such as EURODEMO (2004–2008) and EURODEMO+ focusing on innovative
remediation and the evaluation of the technology demonstrations. TESTNET was a proj-
ect “Towards a European verification system for Environmentally sound Technology” with
the aim of designing, developing and testing an ETV system for Europe. NICOLE (2018),
the “Network of Industrially Co-ordinated Sustainable Land Management in Europe” (for-
merly Network for Industrially Contaminated Land), shifted its objective toward enabling
European industry to identify, assess and manage industrially contaminated land efficiently,
cost-effectively, and within a framework of sustainability. In order to achieve this objective,
NICOLE provides a European forum for the dissemination and exchange of good practice,
practical and scientific knowledge, and ideas to manage contaminated land in a sustainable
way. NICOLE focuses on the issue of how to measure sustainability during a remediation
project, how to use socioeconomic indicators for decision making, and sharing experience
and information in the form of case studies. Another European platform is the Common
Forum (2018), a network of contaminated land policy makers, regulators and technical advi-
sors. Its mission is to exchange knowledge and experience, initiating international projects
and function as a discussion platform on policy, research, technical, and managerial concepts
of contaminated land.
ETAP (2018), Environmental Technologies Action Plan has established a mechanism

to objectively validate the performance of environmental technologies and to increase pur-
chasers’ confidence in new ones. The European Commission has set up the pilot program of
Environmental Technologies Verification (EU-ETV, 2018) in order to improve the competi-
tiveness of European technologies on the Global market. It aims to develop pre-normative
protocols for credible environmental technology verification that will be based on a perfor-
mance verification concept.
The EU ETV Pilot Programme operates under the Eco-Innovation Action Plan of the
European Commission (ECOAP, 2018) and works at a European level tool promoting eco-
innovation. The program is targeted at environmental technologies whose value cannot be
proved through existing standards or certification schemes and whose claims could benefit
from a credible verification procedure as a guarantee to investors (What is ETV, 2018).
The International Working Group on ETV (IWG-ETV, 2018) is an international level
cooperation on environmental technology verification. IWG ETV includes the Canadian,
Korean, Philippine, European, and US ETV programs. The goal is to develop an interna-
tional approach to verification that will allow mutual recognition: “Verify once, accept
everywhere.” The ISO ETV working group initiated an international standard on ETV and
ISO, the International Standardization Organization (ISO) drafted a new standard on Envi-
ronmental Technology Verification (ETV) and Performance Evaluation in 2013. The new
standard was edited by the ISO Technical Committee 207 (Environmental Management) in
2016 (ISO 14034, 2016).
2.2 Technology verification and management

sustainability
Decreasing adverse impacts/risks and improving environmental quality/benefits can charac-
terize and prove performance quality of an environmental technology. Risk reduction and
quality improvement may refer to the contaminated site itself, its surroundings, humans
and ecosystems within the site or the wider environment. All ecosystem services related to
adverse impacts over the short and long term must be involved in this analysis. In addition
to direct environmental impacts, socioeconomic and cultural consequences should also be
assessed. The performance of an environmental technology can be best characterized by the
following three scenarios:
1 Assessing the contaminated site before remediation in its actual state: potential short- and
long-term impacts and risks to environmental (ecosystem) and human health (both work-
ers and residents) and the socioeconomic status (economic and social costs and benefits).
2 Impacts during remediation due to the operations: additional temporal costs, emissions
and the relevant adverse impacts, typically energy, water and material use, emissions,
and impacts on workers.
3 Assessing the site after remediation when the planned new land use has been estab-
lished: long-term risks/costs and benefits in environmental and socioeconomic terms.
The generic evaluation of a technology – without knowing the actual site of application –
cannot consider the site-specific characteristics, risks and benefits, only items closely related
to the operations and machinery, i.e. the (energy and material consumption, labor demand,
etc.) costs of and emissions from the technology (transport, machines operations, etc.). The
disturbances to the surface and subsurface and degradation of the ecosystem caused by the
technology can be characterized “in general,” defined as:
(i) An average of former applications (if such data exists); or

(ii) As an application to a generic environment.
The latter one results in a relative outcome useful for comparison, for prospective evalu-
ation and decision making.
A remedial technology can be
– sustainable (in general) based only on generic characteristics;

– having low energy and material consumption;
– no or low hazardous substance emission and other sustainability indicators.
An assessment method, e.g. life cycle assessment (LCA), can provide proper tools
for such kind of generic evaluation, but it is not suitable for good decision making at
the case level as the site-specific characteristics and quantitative values can modify the
generic view. For example, natural attenuation (see Chapter 3) or other soft remediation
can be the best option for a biodegradable toxicant from a sustainability point of view,
but the site-specific environmental or social situation may require an urgent solution
even at higher financial and environmental costs (temporarily increased risk). Green/soft
remediations – generally classified as “sustainable” – may be accompanied by significant
uncertainties due to the long-time requirement and unpredictable changes in the environ-
mental conditions.
Sustainability assessment and technology verification are an integral part of environ-
mental and quality management. It is useful to have an overview of the existing solutions,
but it is even more important to see the details of the problem and the site from environmen-
tal and socioeconomic perspectives and to be able to predict the consequences of the tech-
nology and the project, including future land uses. This is why most guidelines recommend
a multi-stakeholder approach; the involvement of different professionals, various interests
and attitudes may enlarge the scope of sustainability and the valid representation of socio-
economic and ecological expectations.
2.3 Management process steps in terms of

sustainability assessment
Sustainability management of an environmental technology should involve the following:
– A preliminary prospective evaluation of the available options to make the best decision
on the best available remediation;
– Design of the selected technology;
– Monitoring planning to achieve information on operation and emissions and to compile
the best, if possible, quantitative data acquisition methods;
– Continuous evaluation of monitoring data during operation, their comparison and adap-
tation to an optimum;
– Retrospective evaluation of the technological, environmental, and socioeconomic per-
formance and efficiencies, i.e. case-specific verification of the technology and the proj-
ect. Retrospective verification can validate the initial predictions and prove the good
performance of the technology and good quality of the site in terms of sustainability
(technological and environmental performance, socioeconomic impact, etc.). Predicted
and achieved results are linked by monitoring.
The prospective evaluation for decision making is often based on generic experience
and on evaluation of former similar technology applications and typically uses database
information. Even if the technology is not innovative and the application is “routine,” every
single case differs from the next. Thus, the prospective generic sustainability assessment
can be based on the technology’s intrinsic hazards and generic energy, water and material
consumption, manpower need and potential environmental impacts (emissions, effect on
ecosystem services, etc.). These results can be used for the evaluation and comparison of
technological options, but they may be accompanied by large uncertainties for an actual
case, especially for those that differ greatly from the average.
Continuous monitoring represents an iterative relationship between the measured param-
eters and the results derived from them and the predicted outcome (Figure 11.1). The difference
is the driving force making changes in technological and monitoring parameters. The initial
monitoring plan – with the selected parameters to be measured – reflects the knowledge and
expectation of the professionals on the technology’s effects and performance. This is based on
generic information such as on a validated theoretical concept (e.g. volatile contaminants can be
mobilized by heat), database information (e.g. LCA, or other generic databases), or on the results
of other applications at sites and problems different from the actual one. Thus, the expected
variability and uncertainties of the monitoring parameters should be checked in advance, and
concentrate on those which may be responsible for the site-specific differences between planned
and realized results. A dynamic monitoring plan integrating iterative loops makes modifications
and changes during monitoring and can result in the best possible procurement of information.
This is essential in view of the outcome of technology verification as it is strongly affected by
the type and proportion of site-specifically measured and default/generic/read across data.
Verification using retrospective evaluation can strongly support the market entry
of an innovative technology and enhance trust in less-popular, unknown technologies.
Planning based on Replanning based on

site assessment operaon data
Operaon Monitoring of Operaon

operaon
Planning based on Replanning based on

site assessment impact data
Monitoring of Impact
Operaon environmental
impacts
Figure 11.1 Adaptation of remediation to optimum operation and minimum environmental impact.
Figure 11.2 The three main components of sustainability.
Environmental technology verification systems all over the world pursue the collection and
publication of controlled information on technology applications and innovative technol-
ogy demonstrations. In relation to this goal, standardized assessment tools, accreditation or
authorization systems, trademarks, and databases have been created in the last few years for
environmental technologies.
The three main components of sustainability are the environment, society, and economy
(Figure 11.2). A perfect balance is represented by the center where the three overlap. In
this area the aggregated socioeconomic and ecological risks and costs are balanced by their
aggregated benefits. If the benefit exceeds costs, an improved quality evolves and this should
be kept in balance. The improved quality of the environment results in a better social/qual-
ity life. As the interaction between humanity and the environment/ecosystem is increasingly
intensive, the two can only develop together with greater and greater overlap (Figure 11.2).
Increasing knowledge and holistic care is needed to manage this development and keep the
improved balance.
2.4 History of sustainability assessment

and verification tools
The evaluation of a technology, especially of an innovative one, went through significant
development toward a more holistic approach in the last 20 years. The basic requirement of
1 Technological performance – to fulfill the target quantity or quality – has constantly

been expanded and integrated with the next point.
2 Economically based characteristics such as cost effectiveness, and later on cost–benefit
assessment and the BATNEEC (Best Available Technology Not Entailing Excessive
Costs) concept.
3 From the 1990s the risk-based concept came in addition to the technological performance
and considers the impact on the environment in the form of risk and sets site-specific
remediation goals. This approach made environmental impacts more manageable, even
in a quantitative manner, but its shortcoming was that it has not included external social
and economic impacts beyond identified environmental impacts. Nevertheless it may
provide a strong basis for the shift toward sustainability.
4 From the 2000s the sustainable remediation concept has included the requirement of
being beneficial for the society (health, education, employment, life quality, etc.), in
addition to technological performance and economic and environmental efficiencies.
The versatility and universality of the holistic sustainability approach is nicely dem-
onstrated by the fact that any of the former evaluation types can be put together under its
umbrella, and what is even more convincing is that any of the concepts can be expanded to
include all three domains. The economic approach can involve, and even can monetize, envi-
ronmental values and services and social and health items and manage all the three together
using cost–benefit thinking and tools. The risk-based concept can also involve wider eco-
logical, and socioeconomic risks and manage all three risks together with risk management
tools. The “green” concept puts the ecosystem in first place and links it to the socioeconomic
domain. Finally, the engineering tools based on balances (mass balance, energy balance,
material flows, and balances) can also be utilized for the holistic approach and extended
toward cost–benefit, social, and ecological balances.
The inclusion of multiple-scale environmental and socioeconomic aspects – not just the
site and its surroundings but the watershed and global footprints plus short and long terms –
raised a large number of questions and debates. The main questions arise in scoping (tem-
poral and spatial scales and evaluation scoping), and in selecting proper indicators (fitting
to the case) which correctly characterize the technological, economic, environmental, and
social efficiencies. The example in Figure 11.3 demonstrates that the integral of both positive
and negative environmental and socioeconomic impacts can compensate each other and may
differ over the short and the long terms.
Figure 11.3 Environmental and socioeconomic impacts of two remedy options. The integrals of the +
and – impacts (the area bounded by the graph under and above the “0” axis) give the bal-
ance of the (i) environmental impacts of the two options (green and red-brown lines) and
(ii) the socioeconomic impacts of the same options (dotted lines). Future land uses and
the time interval largely influence the integral impact value.
The requirement of sustainable remediation initiated intensive research and resulted in

many application case studies. Several recommendations have been made on sustainability
assessment methodology such as these:
– The inclusion of routine methodologies from other fields such as economy, sociology,
life cycle assessment, quality management;
– The selection of indicators, to gather information for sustainability and verification;
– To define what kind of information would be appropriate for each indicator: default/
generic information, read-across or measured data;
– Tools to evaluate the collected information such as comparative evaluation of the
options, qualitative and quantitative assessments, scoring, weighting, and aggregation
of the information.
Developments in sustainability assessment from the 2000s endeavor to consider the three
fields – economy, environment, and society – together as shown by Figure 11.2. There is a con-
sensus in the involvement of these three elements, but there are different views and solutions,
recommendations, and methods about the execution in terms of protocols, guidelines, software,
and so on. Many of the developed tools still have not defined their scope in the complex project
management process, i.e. it has not been specified whether they apply to the initial phase of deci-
sion making, to planning, to monitoring or to the retrospective evaluation of the technology or to
the entire project. The spatial and temporal scale also influences the selection of the proper evalu-
ation tool. Seemingly beneficial processes such as a reduction in contaminant concentration may
cause accumulation over the long term, or a local economic benefit may cause adverse impacts
many times higher over a wider range. Information on the scope and validity of the evaluation
tools together with a realistic conceptual model of the project can ensure the proper and efficient
compilation and application of the evaluation/verification tool box. Some typical scopes and
goals of sustainability assessments related to contaminated site management are the following:
– Sustainability of the site before remediation. Assessment involves the fate and transport
of the contaminant, the impacts at various scales from local to global and the impacted
ecological and human receptors from an ecological and socioeconomic point of view.
– Sustainability of the remediation project can be evaluated throughout the management
tasks, including decision, planning, implementation, and monitoring of the technology
and its environmental and socioeconomic consequences.
– Optimizing feedback: how to reach minimized negative impacts/temporary imbalances and
maximized benefits by the modification and control of the process or system by its own
results or effects. A comprehensive and dynamic monitoring is needed to use this tool.
– Final retrospective evaluation, i.e. the verification of the outcome compared to the planned
performance and comparing the site’s sustainability before and after remediation.
– Long-term sustainability of the site considering the new and future land uses. The pre-
dictions should be validated from time to time to demonstrate continuous development
in sustainability.
Several indicators were collected to measure sustainability in general and on special fields –
e.g. forestry or water extraction – several hundred initiatives were created and published. A few
publications introduced new approaches and methods or metrics (e.g. WBCSD, 2011; Hopton
et al., 2010) or tried to collect sustainability initiatives and indicator types (Singh et al., 2009;
IISD, 2018a,b). Tables 11.1 and 11.2 show well-known and often-used sustainability indicators.
Table 11.1 Some typical indicators used for sustainability assessment.
Reduced environmental impact indicators Increased societal value indicators
– Energy intensity – Human health and safety

– Water intensity – Poverty alleviation
– Material intensity, waste reduction – Human dignity
– Greenhouse gas emission – Resource conservation
– Toxic emissions with persistent toxicants in focus – Asset recovery
– Ecological impacts, ecosystem services – Biodiversity and ecological resilience
– Land uses – Prosperity and economic resilience
Table 11.2 Indicators of sustainable development used by the United Nations and the World Bank
(UN, 2007).
Social indicators: Environmental indicators:
Poverty: Atmospheric impacts:

– Poverty index, population below poverty line – Greenhouse gas emissions
– Unemployment rate – Sulfur and nitrogen oxides emissions
– Demographics (population stability, density) – Ozone depleting emissions
Human health: Generation of hazardous waste:
– Average life expectancy – Municipal waste
– Access to safe drinking water – Hazardous and radioactive waste
– Access to basic sanitation – Land occupied by waste
– Infant mortality rate – Transportation
Living conditions and accessibility: Consumption of ecosystem products:
– Urban population growth rate – Forest area change
– Floor area per capita – Annual energy consumption
– Housing cost – Mineral and fossil fuel reserves
– Telephone lines per capita – Groundwater reserves
– Information access – Material intensity
Economic indicators: Ecosystem indicators:
– Economic growth – Ecosystem stability
– GNP – Threatened species
– National debt/GNP – Annual rainfall
– Average income – Coastal protection (algae index)
– Capital imports and foreign investment – Agriculture (pesticide/fertilizer/irrigation)
The overviews in the next few sections demonstrate how the different approaches and
methodologies try to involve sustainability indicators and how the attitude of these existing
methodologies converge. This is a promising process and development of the disciplines of
life cycle assessment (LCA), cost efficiency and cost–benefit assessment (CBA), risk-benefit
assessment (RBA), green remediation (GSR), and the mass-balance type engineering tools
will help to find the best possible type of evaluation for each management phase and for
individual contaminated sites.
3 INTEGRATION OF SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT INTO

EXISTING REMEDIATION EVALUATION METHODS
Some practical solutions are introduced in this section that were developed from existing
technology evaluation for decision making and verification of remedies at generic and
site-specific levels. Experts of the relevant areas have integrated technology performance,
economic feasibility, and environmental (or eco-) and social effectiveness of site clean-
up technologies and the entire projects. The ecology focused on “green remediation” has
included more generic ecological and socioeconomic indicators, the economy-based cost–
benefit assessment has been expanded to socioeconomic costs and benefits by monetiz-
ing if possible environmental and social “costs” and “benefits.” Life cycle assessment
originally focused on products has been extended to involve more risk-related and locally
occurring items such as human health risk. Material balance being the tool of engineering
meets both main approaches: it is both quantitative and balanced. And MCA has also been
involved to solve the problem of aggregation of quantitative and qualitative information
of various metrics. Going deeper in each relevant specialization, more and more aspects
of sustainability came up and are waiting for the proper solution such as scoping, scaling,
and quantifying the indicators. The overview in the followings introduces the promising
development in the field of sustainability evaluation of remediation and management of
remedial projects.
3.1 LCA for the evaluation of remediation options

When looking for the best practice in environmental remediation evaluation, some
approaches tend to use LCA tools in spite of the differences in aims and scopes, just because
LCA has developed quantitative metrics for measuring environmental impacts at a generic
level (ISO 14040, 2006 and ISO 14044, 2006). LCA provides a simplified tool which helps
– to compile the inventory of energy and material inputs and environmental releases;
– to evaluate the potential impacts of the material used, energy and also of releases/
emissions;
– to make a proper decision between the available options.
LCA has also been developed and refined during the years and current LCA ver-
sions include human toxicity data and consider not only the amount but also the type
of energy (renewable or not) or the Eco-LCA which includes the assessment of direct
and indirect impacts of human activities on ecological resources and surrounding
ecosystems.
The life cycle management (LCM) approach became popular for the characterization
of remediation options using LCA and supports the decision by selecting the one with the
minimum impact on the ecosystem and human health.
LCA provides a generic and comparative estimate on the impact of remediation but without
evaluating the technology performance and socioeconomic consequences, thus it is not suitable
for decision making. LCA is neither capable of evaluating future land uses, or the consequences
of reintroducing the remediated site. Stakeholder involvement into the decision-making process
is not possible when using only LCA. Another shortcoming of LCA is the difference between
LCA databases: even a comparative evaluation can only be performed if the same database is
used for the evaluation of the technologies to be compared. Unpredictable differences between
the characteristics of generic and case-specific databases cause further uncertainty.
LCA – similar to any other assessment tools – cannot answer all questions about the site
and the remedial technology, but it is most beneficial for site “fingerprinting” and can protect
natural resources during remedial technology application and site development. The result
of LCA is best integrated into a complex assessment tool system and use for the selection of
the best technology option from a LCA point of view.
The first applications of LCA to the evaluation of remediation options was a combina-
tion with site-specific risk assessment in 1997–1998 (Beinat et al., 1997; Bender et al., 1998;
Volkwein et al., 1999). The REC (risk reduction, environmental merit, and costs) decision
support tool and the software tool have been developed by joining a streamlined life cycle
assessment (LCA) and risk assessment of the contaminated site.
Cappuyns and Kessen (2012) collected case studies which used REC and ReCiPe, two
LCA-based evaluation methods in the management of contaminated site remediation and
decision making. Both REC and ReCiPe yielded a single score for the environmental impact
of the soil remediation process and allowed the same conclusion to be drawn (when parallel
applied) on the soil remediation alternatives assessed. The ReCiPe method takes into account
more impact categories but is also more complex and needs more data input. The author’s
opinion is that within the preliminary evaluation phase of soil remediation alternatives, the
use of the REC method will be sufficient in most cases compared to the much more labor-
intensive ReCiPe (Cappuyns, 2013). If we use various tools for technology or site evaluation,
the result may become better, but only easy-to-use tools are feasible in such cases.
Sparrevik et al. (2011) demonstrated the importance of the assessment scope. The
authors applied LCA to investigate the environmental footprint of different active and pas-
sive thin-layer covers compared to natural recovery for the Grenland fjord, Norway, con-
taminated with polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and -furans (PCDD/F). Covers turned out
to be better than natural recovery when the assessment included site contamination alone.
However, considering cover construction, its impacts and resource and energy use during
implementation increased the environmental footprint by an order of magnitude. The evalu-
ation of several technological options helped identify the version having a footprint as low
as that of natural recovery.
Lemming et al. (2010) carried out a survey on the use of LCA for remediation and they
found that only very few LCA assessments were used for in situ remediation where the impact
on groundwater is in focus. They identified the lack of impact category covering human toxic-
ity via groundwater, the associated characterization models and normalization procedures.
Suèr et al. (2010) discussed the problem of the scale of impacts, e.g. cases where reme-
diation provides a better quality remediated site but had negative environmental impacts on
the local, regional, and global scales. The authors reviewed nine case studies and concluded
that the limitation of the LCA methodologies for space, time, and secondary processes are
different, and this strongly influenced the results. The choice of impact categories and land
uses strongly affected the results. In general, the negative impact of site remediation was
due to energy consumption. For excavation combined with ex situ treatment, the transport
of contaminated soil to the treatment facility or landfill required the most energy. Pumping
consumed the most energy for in situ treatment of soil and groundwater. Bioremediation was
the best from an energy consumption perspective.
If one would like to use LCA for the prospective evaluation of environmental remedia-
tion, the most important things are to identify and harmonize the scope, the temporal and
spatial scales, the impact categories, and other key characteristics both of the remedial proj-
ect and the LCA methodology.
3.2 Green remediation

In a survey, the US EPA found huge energy and water consumption for environmental
remediation using pump & treat, thermal desorption, multiphase extraction, in situ thermal
treatment, air sparging, and/or soil vapor extraction technologies at Superfund sites. The
estimated yearly value of energy consumption is 631,000 MWh and the carbon footprint
based on used fuel was 435,357 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.
Ecologically efficient remediation (called green) is an important step toward sustain-
ability but is not sufficient in itself, given that no socioeconomic and direct human health
requirement and indicators are included into the evaluation. Another useful concept in green
remediation is the requirement of eco-efficiency. The US EPA (2008) emphasized that eco-
efficiency should dominate the entire project from site investigation through the design of
remediation and technology monitoring, construction work up to maintenance and post-
monitoring. The green remediation concept can easily be supplemented with the cost effi-
ciency requirement and extended to site reuse planning and to overall project management.
“Green remediation” in US EPA terminology means taking into account the “costs and
benefits” of the environment (in addition to economic costs and benefits) and lowering envi-
ronmental impact and consumption of natural resources such as water and energy to reduce
the pressure on the environment and ecosystems. Remediation in itself reduces environmental
risk and improves the quality of the environment, but as it covers various technology appli-
cations with highly diverse negative impacts on the environment, this should also be taken
into consideration. Discrepancy between the targeted quality improvement and reduced risk
as a primary aim of remediation, and the environmental impacts due to the energy and water
consumption plus emissions into air, water, and soil, still causes confusion. This problem may
be solved by displaying the clear concept of the project and its management and the fitting
evaluation tools for each step. This confusion is even more critical for in situ soft remediation,
e.g. natural attenuation, where the same process can be risky and costly or beneficial.
Green remediation by definition is “the practice of considering all environmental effects
of remedy implementation and incorporating options to minimize the environmental foot-
prints of cleanup” (US EPA, 2011b). Green remediation concentrates on soft technologies
which can conserve the ecological value of soil and water and can significantly reduce the
impact of the technology to the site and its surroundings by the following:
– Reducing the total energy use (energy-efficient equipment and optimized use) and increas-
ing the percentage of energy from renewable resources and passive energy technologies;
– Reducing air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions by excluding heavy equipment
with high fuel consumption – especially diesel – and reducing release of toxicants (O3,
CO, NO, SO2, toxic metals), PM10 and contaminated dust;
– Reducing water use and negative impacts on water resources by minimizing fresh water
consumption and maximizing water reuse during operations, reusing technological waters,
using vegetation not needing irrigation, preventing nutrient loading of water bodies;
– Protecting ecosystem services during clean-up by minimizing impacts on land and eco-
system through minimally invasive in situ technologies, passive energy technologies
such as bioremediation and phytoremediation, minimizing soil and habitat disturbance
and preventing ecosystem from contaminants through contaminant source and plume
controls and reducing noise and lighting disturbance;
– Improving materials and waste management by minimal waste generation, materials
reuse, recycling, minimizing natural resource extraction and disposal, and by using pas-
sive sampling devices.
3.3 Green and sustainable remediation

Green remediation is based on eco-efficiency and is an essential part of sustainability. Best
management practices (BMPs) of green remediation help balance key elements of sustain-
ability such as resource conservation and material and energy efficiency. Thus green reme-
diation objectives fulfill a significant proportion of sustainability in remediation (US EPA,
2008) in as much they do the following:
– Achieve remedial action goals;

– Support use and reuse of remediated sites;
– Increase operational efficiencies;
– Reduce total pollutant and waste burdens on the environment;
– Minimize degradation or enhance ecology of the site and other affected areas;
– Reduce air emissions and greenhouse gas production;
– Minimize impacts to water quality and water cycles;
– Conserve natural resources;
– Achieve greater long-term financial return from investments;
– Increase sustainability of site clean-ups.
Green and sustainable remediation (GSR) is the site-specific employment of products,

processes, technologies, and procedures that mitigate contaminant risk to receptors while
making decisions that are cognizant of balancing community goals, economic impacts and
environmental effects (US EPA, 2011a)
GSR is an approach integrating environmental, social, and economic considerations
into site management decisions addressing environmental, social, and economic impacts
to be improved in the project, while still meeting regulatory objectives. In addition to the
original “green” requirements (conservation of ecological values and reduction of the impact
of the technology), GSR added the requirement of “long-term stewardship actions” to better
fulfill the socioeconomic requirements of sustainability:
– Reduce emissions contributing to climate change;

– Integrate an adaptive management approach into long-term controls for a site;
– Install renewable energy systems to power long-term clean-up and future activities on
redeveloped land;
– Use passive sampling devices for long-term monitoring where feasible;
– Solicit community involvement to increase public acceptance and awareness of long-
term activities and restrictions.
GSR utilizes some well-known US EPA developed management tools to serve

sustainability:
– The TRIAD approach in site investigation (see Gruiz, 2016), which reduces field mobi-
lizations, results in fewer samples being shipped for laboratory analysis and minimizes
resampling (ITRC, 2003).
– Direct-push wells both in site investigation and in remediation implementation result
in cost saving due the speed and ease of installation. Faster installation also means
decreased contaminant exposure and waste production (ITRC, 2006b).
– Remediation process optimization for identifying opportunities for enhanced and more
efficient site remediation (ITRC, 2004).
– Performance-based environmental management is a strategic, goal-oriented uncertainty
management methodology that is implemented through effective planning (ITRC, 2007).
– Project risk management for site remediation cuts across the entire project addressing and
interrelating cost, schedule, and performance/operational risks. Performance risk is a con-
sideration in the planning, design, and execution of remediation activities (ITRC, 2011b).
– Life cycle cost analysis to compare the net present value of different remediation alter-
natives, evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a remediation system, and perform a cost–
benefit analysis of remediation alternatives (ITRC, 2006a).
3.3.1 Planning the GSR process

The GSR planning process comprises four general steps that are meant to provide a concep-
tual structure for guiding the integration of GSR into each phase of the clean-up project. It is
intended to be flexible and scalable to site circumstances (ITRC, 2011a).
Such a flowchart (e.g. in Figure 11.4) can be created for each phase of remedy implemen-
tation, the site assessment phase, planning, implementation/monitoring of the technology
Conceptual site model Stakeholders involvement Sustainability goals Indicators selecon
•Creaon /Evaluaon •Recruing relevant •Establishing •Selecng indicators

•Including sustainability stakeholders concrete goals •Sustainability metrics
related informaon •Communicaon •Monitoring •Monitoring
•Connuous updang •Integrang their •Controling fulfilment •Evaluaon
sustainability •Feedback •Feedback
requirements
Best management practice
Figure 11.4 Flowchart for planning green and sustainable remediation.

application, and the whole management process with scoping, evaluation, stakeholder
involvement, future land use planning, etc.
3.3.2 Phases and aspects of the GSR process

GSR should be applied during all phases of a remediation project:
– Investigation;
– Remedy evaluation and selection;
– Remedy design;
– Remedy construction;
– Operations, maintenance, and monitoring;
– Remedy optimization;
– Closeout.
The GSR aspects should be collected and listed in each of the four phases shown in
Figure 11.4:
1 Evaluation/updating the conceptual site model of ecological significance.
This step means several mainly managerial supplements can be used to add sustainabil-
ity information to the site’s original conceptual model, for example:
– Available material and energy sources, renewable energy sources;

– Feasible water treatment and reuse options, e.g. water reuse for irrigation;
– Waste treatment, e.g. nearby soil washing or recycling plant;
– Soil requirement for geotechnical purposes or other maximum benefit reuses;
– On-site establishments for renewable energy production and waste treatment.
2 Establishment of GSR goals.
GSR goals are the general sustainability targets such as low energy, water, and material
consumption; reduced manpower; minimum duration and low emission and waste; and max-
imal ecological and socioeconomic benefits. These goals are formulated in the initial phase
of the project where all stakeholders’ interests should be reviewed, listed and prioritized, in
addition to the primary “technology performance” goals of the remediation to improve site
quality and satisfy future land uses. In addition, specific qualitative goals should be formu-
lated in terms of energy consumption, duration, etc.
3 Sustainability evaluation of the technologies and the project.
This task covers the sustainability evaluation of
– Site assessment;
– Remediation options in the initial phase;
– Implementation of the technology;
– The remediation;
– The technological and environmental monitoring during remediation.
Based on the figures of monitored indicators, sustainability evaluation enables changes

and adaptations in technology application to optimize the remediation for most priority
requirements.
Some typical issues where sustainability is the key point in management and in select-
ing the option which can best reduce the project’s sustainability footprint are:
– Off-site, on-site, and in situ solutions for assessment and remediation;

– Waste produced by site investigation and remediation;
– Emissions and transport from site investigation and remediation;
– Portable in situ assessment and monitoring tools;
– Minimum disturbance and negative impacts on the ecosystem;
– Ecosystem habitat considerations;
– Reducing travel and using field portable tools result in lower costs and economic
benefits;
– Communication and stakeholder involvement.
4 Metrics, levels, boundaries.
GSR metrics may be quantitative or qualitative, they can be part of a mass balance or
monetized costs. All GSR goals are characterized by sustainability indicators. These indica-
tors should be defined by their use, boundaries, and units of measurement:
– Quantitative indicators: unit of measurement;

– Qualitative indicators: definition should be given for their classification and scoring;
– Identification of the relevant step of the management process or the level of evaluation
where the indicator is used;
– Boundaries where the indicator is valid: temporal and spatial scope.
5 All GSR steps should be documented and demonstrated how GSR goals have been sat-
isfied in the course of the whole project.
In summary, the green and sustainable remediation concept was created by incor-
porating socioeconomic sustainability goals into the existing green remediation goals.
The goals are translated into indicators which can be measured or otherwise observed/
monitored to control the process and finally verify project sustainability. The holistic
approach to remediation that considers ancillary environmental impacts and aims to
optimize net effects to the environment is concisely and thoughtfully characterized by
Reddy and Adams (2015). It addresses a broad range of environmental, social, and eco-
nomic impacts during all remediation phases, and achieves remedial goals through more
efficient, sustainable strategies that conserve resources and protect air, water, and soil
quality through reduced emissions and other waste burdens. GSR also simultaneously
encourages the reuse of remediated land and enhanced long-term financial returns for
investments.
The same authors also mention that though the potential benefits are enormous,
many environmental professionals and project stakeholders do not utilize green and
sustainable technologies because they are unaware of methods for selection and
implementation.
3.4 System-based indicators

The US EPA has developed an integrated approach in the last years relying on system-based
indicators, which provide a more holistic and flexible system for sustainability evaluation
of environmental technologies and management processes (Fiksel et al., 2012). The goal of
this framework is to support the application of sustainability indicators in decision making
and program evaluation by the US EPA, but the same approach can also be useful for con-
taminated site management. To fulfill this goal, the indicators are selected, organized, and
interpreted from different points of view which have been specified by US EPA as follows:
– Get real information on the current state of the environment and the observed trends
(in the US);
– Incorporate sustainability considerations into all (EPA level) decisions;
– Involve sustainability indicators into research planning;
– Evaluate programs and projects and measure and analyze their productivity and
effectiveness.
System-based indicators capture not only the characteristic features of ecological, soci-
etal, and industrial/economic systems but can manage dynamic interactions among these
domains (Fiksel, 2009). The dynamic interactions are symbolized by the overlapping parts
of the three sustainability compartments (Figure 11.2). Four major categories of indicators
are recommended by Fiksel et al. (2012) that are applicable to evaluation of any project:
– Adverse outcome: indicates destruction of values due to impacts on individuals, com-

munities, business enterprises, or the natural environment.
– Resource flow: indicates pressures associated with the rate of resource consumption
including materials, energy, water, land, or biota.
– System condition: indicates the state of the relevant systems, i.e., individuals, communi-
ties, business enterprises, or the natural environment.
– Value creation: indicates creation of value (both economic and well-being) through
enrichment of individuals, communities, business enterprises, or the natural environment.
Table 11.3 shows some system-based indicators within the four major categories.
3.5 Multi-criteria analysis for sustainability assessment

by scoring and weighting
Whatever method we use for sustainability assessment, there are typically too many data
to handle and aggregate. The holistic approach addresses a broad range of environmen-
tal, social, and economic impacts (both negative and positive ones) during all remediation
phases from the first step of site assessment and decision making to the final evaluation.
The MCA tool enables aggregation of qualitative, semi-qualitative, and quantitative data by
using a scoring and weighting system as objective as possible.
3.5.1 SNOWMAN – multi-criteria analysis (MCA)

SNOWMAN-MCA has been developed for the evaluation of remediation alternatives to access
their overall impacts and cost–benefit ratio with a focus on soil function (ecosystem services
and goods) and sustainability (SNOWMAN-MCA Project, 2009–2013; Rosèn et al., 2015).
Table 11.3 System-based indicators (according to Fiksel et al., 2012).
Major category Indicator Example
Adverse outcome Exposure Health impact of air pollution

Impact Public safety
Risk Footprint of energy use
Incidence Footprint of transport
Loss Species extinction
Impairment health Ecosystem/human health damage
Resource flow Volume Greenhouse gas emission
Intensity Material flow volume
Recovery Resource depletion rate
Impact Water treatment efficacy
Quality Recycling rate, land use
System condition Health Air quality
Wealth Water quality
Satisfaction Employment
Growth Household income
Dignity Housing density
Capacity Infrastructure durability
Quality of life rate Community educational equity
Value creation Profitability Cost (reduction)
Economic output Fuel efficiency (gain)
Income Energy efficiency (gain)
Capital investment Vehicle use (miles per capita)
Human development Education level, health conditions
SNOWMAN-MCA approaches ecological effects by using the concept of soil function

(SF), e.g. the soil’s ability to provide services and goods. Specific goals of the project were
these:
– Incorporate effects on soil system functions to evaluate ecological sustainability, and

– Prepare a prototype for MCA to identify sustainable remediation alternatives.
Key results of the SNOWMAN-MCA project include the following (Volchko et al.,
2014):
– A suggested hierarchy between soil functions, soil processes, soil services, and ecosys-
tem services, resulting in a set of soil function-related ecological, socio-cultural, and
economic criteria and sub-criteria;
– A suggested minimum data set (MDS) of soil quality indicators for soil function evalu-
ation and a software tool (SF Box) for calculating changes in soil quality based on the
proposed MDS;
– A suggested structured and transparent approach for incorporating soil function and soil
use aspects into sustainability appraisal of remediation alternatives.
An MCA software tool has also been developed, it is the SCORE model: Sustainable
Choice Of REmediation method (Rosèn et al., 2013 and 2015). It is based on a MCA proto-
type by Rosèn et al. (2009).
The effects of remediation alternatives on soil functions is evaluated in this system

using quality indicators (SQIs), i.e. the measurable physical, chemical and biological prop-
erties of soil. SQIs are used to evaluate the degree to which the soil quality matches the soil
functions determined by the intended end use of the soil.
There is no universally accepted definition of soil quality, none of the soil quality indi-
cators are uniformly selected for the evaluation of soil and the impact of soil remediation. On
the other hand soil quality has been the subject of soil science and investigated extensively
and exhaustively for a long time.
Physical, chemical, and biological SQIs are usually suggested to describe the capacity
of soil to function within managed or natural boundaries. The minimum dataset of soil qual-
ity indicators (SQI) has been suggested by SNOWMAN-MCA as follows:
– Soil texture;
– Content of coarse material;
– Available water capacity;
– Organic matter content;
– Potentially mineralizable nitrogen;
– pH;
– Available phosphorus.
Soil classification based on soil quality indicators (SQIs) forms the basis for evaluating
the effects of remediation alternatives on ecological soil functions (read more in Volchko
et al., 2014).
Another possibility to evaluate the effects of remediation options is based on soil service
indicators (SSIs), i.e. value measurements that indicate to what degree a management action
contributes to human well-being by preserving, restoring, and/or enhancing a soil ecosystem
service. These value-related metrics can be expressed in terms of the following (SAB, 2009;
Volchko et al., 2014):
1 Community-based values (attitudes, preferences, and intentions associated with a soil

ecosystem service).
2 Economic values revealed by market data (if any) about a soil service (price of ground-
water, agricultural land, building site, agricultural products, etc.), or the willingness to
pay (WTP) for the service provided by the end use of the soil.
3.6 Sustainability in combination with

cost–benefit assessment
A guidance document outlining the use of cost-benefit assessment (CBA) together with sus-
tainability assessment (SA) in selecting remedial options was issued by the Australian CRC
CARE in 2015 (Barnes et al., 2015). The aim was to consider sustainability aspects and
incorporate them into the selection of remediation options and evaluation of soil remedia-
tion projects (CBA and SA). The objectives laid down in the guideline were intended to do
the following:
– Develop the principles and the process of CBA and SA within the context of contami-
nated site remediation;
– Establish requirements for the economic and sustainability evaluation of contaminated

site remediation options;
– Encourage consideration of every reasonable option in the evaluation process as early
as possible;
– Provide guidance on identifying and assessing the full range of costs and benefits asso-
ciated with these contaminated site remediation options;
– Assist in identifying and choosing the preferred site remediation option.
The guideline supports the user step by step through the process of CBA and SA, from
the creation of indicators and evaluating land uses through valuing/monetizing and com-
paring the economic, social, and environmental benefits and costs to the final decisions on
implementing a project or to undertake a particular investment. CBA is a quantitative ana-
lytical tool to aid decision makers in the efficient allocation of resources. Sustainability
indicators cannot be fully quantified or monetized, thus CBA should be conducted on the
indicators that can be monetized, and an MCA should be conducted on the indicators that
can be quantified or qualified. At the end, CBA is integrated into the MCA. MCA enables a
structured and robust approach to assessing the likely economic, environmental, and social
impacts of projects and is therefore well suited to CBA and SA.
The more accurate the picture is about the sustainability of remediation, and remedia-
tion projects, the more questions and uncertainties arise about sustainability management.
Some of these are listed here:
– The time frame of the assessment: 1, 5, 50, or 100 years?

– The spatial extent of the assessment: only the remediated site, within 1 km, 5 km, 20 km
vicinity, in the watershed concerned, for the country or globally?
– What are the best indicators to characterize sustainability?
– How to weight indicators?
– How to gather good quality data, information on environmental and socioeconomic impacts?
– What to measure, and what to accept from other resources?
– How to score qualitative and quantitative data?
– How to manage uncertainties?
There are no uniform answers to these questions, the different evaluation methods have
to find their own solution case by case.
3.7 SuRF UK – a framework for evaluating

sustainable remediation options
The SuRF framework provides a systematic, process-based, holistic approach for the consid-
eration, application, and documentation of sustainability parameters during the remediation
process in a way that complements and builds on existing sustainable remediation guidance
documents (Bardos, 2014; CL:AIRE, 2014a,b). The goals of the SuRF framework are to
accomplish the following:
– Be accessible and helpful to all stakeholders involved in remediation projects;

– Be applicable to different phases of a remediation project;
– Be applicable to different regulatory programs in the United States.
By using the framework, site-specific parameters, stakeholder concerns, and preferred

end and future use(s) can be evaluated throughout the remediation life cycle and balanced
with sustainability parameters. Fifteen categories of indicators spread over five environmen-
tal, five social, and five economic factors that can be used for sustainability assessment in
support of remediation decision making is presented by Bardos et al. (2011). A new paper
about SuRF UK (Bardos et al., 2018; CL:AIRE, 2018) gives an overview on the indicators
used and the rationale behind their structure, how the indicator categories might be further
refined in the future and on the use of the SuRF UK framework in the practice in the UK.
It is widely recognized as the most appropriate mechanism to support sustainability-based
decision making in contaminated land management.
The SuRF Framework describes an approach for the following:
– Performing a tiered sustainability evaluation;

– Updating the conceptual site model (CSM) based on the results of the sustainability
evaluation;
– Identifying and implementing sustainability impact measures;
– Balancing sustainability and other considerations during the remediation decision-
making process.
The SuRF UK Framework highlights the importance of considering remediation sus-

tainability issues from the outset of a project and identifies opportunities for considering
sustainability at a number of key points in a site’s (re)development or risk management process.
4 VERIFICATION OF IN SITU BIOREMEDIATION
4.1 Introduction
Environmental remediation in the last 40 years became a must and accordingly hundreds of
innovations, technology transfers, and application cases have been publicized. Scientists,
researchers, and engineers developed technologies for a more sustainable future. With the
increasing number of environmental remedies, decision makers, owners, and other stake-
holders became less well advised due to the lack of uniform technology assessment and
evaluation tools. It is still a problem today, in spite of the well-established environmental
technology verification (ETV) systems in the United States, Canada, Japan (see Volume 1:
Gruiz et al., 2014, and some other countries and the sustainability assessment tools (this
chapter). Several protocols and guidelines and decision support tools are available, but pro-
spective and retrospective technology assessment remained a highly case-specific practice
requiring case-specific indicator sets for their evaluation. The proper indicator set can be
selected from a uniform list but, at the end of the day, only professionals who know the
contaminated site, its history and future, its hydrogeochemical features, land uses, and land
users can select the relevant ones for the site in question.
As the remediation technology assessment methodology has not yet been clarified, the
different approaches and practical solutions can be important information for decision mak-
ers and developers. A combined chemical and a biological remediation from the authors’
experience is introduced in detail – the cyclodextrin-enhanced in situ bioremediation
(Schwartz & Bar, 1995; Gruiz et al., 1996; Molnár et al., 2003 and 2005; Molnár, 2007).
The evaluation of CDT is used to demonstrate the prospective and retrospective evaluation
of an innovative technology for a certain site. The assessment and verification tool evaluates
Verification
of the CDT technology
Technological Environmental Socioeconomic Multicriteria

efficiency efficiency efficiency analysis
Mass balance Site risk and Social Aggregating

Ecological Cost–benefit
and surrounding Risk–benefit all assessment
footprint assessment
site quality park risk assessment results
Figure 11.5 The tool box used for the verification of the cyclodextrin enhanced in situ bioremediation.
the technological and environmental performance of the technology focusing on the site, and
its ecological and socioeconomic impact in a wider context.
The holistic approach was used for the verification system developed for soil bioremedi-
ation and especially for in situ soil and groundwater treatment. Some elements of the system
were used for prospective evaluation in support of the decision made on the selection of the
best technology option. For this innovation very little information was available, evaluation
had to rely on technological experiments and pilot studies combined with read-across from
comparable technologies. The “control matrix” of verification is the conceptual model of
the projects and the risk model of the site, which is used in the same way as in the course of
the site management from site investigation and decision making, through the case-specific
design of the remediation and its monitoring to the end of the clean-up that is followed by
verification. The monitoring is designed based on the site conceptual model and is aimed at
satisfying the data requirement of verification. The conceptual model of the case introduced
in this chapter is shown in Figure 11.7 as an example.
4.1.1 Assessment of the efficiency of in situ bioremediation

The verification tool box introduced here (see Figure 11.5) includes the assessment of the
following:
1 Technological efficiency characterized by material balance: the mass flow balance of

the soil phases and the pollutant amount. Mass balance results are compared to the tar-
geted ones, typically represented by environmental quality criteria. This part of the tool
is fully quantitative and is limited to the area under treatment.
2 Environmental efficiency consists of two elements: (i) the quantitative characteriza-
tion of the site risk before and after remediation and comparing residual risk to the
acceptable risk level related to future land uses. This part of the results characterizes the
treated site and its neighborhood which is directly impacted by emissions or transport.
(ii) The environmental footprint of the remedy includes energy, water, and material
uses and atmospheric emissions (typically greenhouse gases and ozone depleting sub-
stances). Evaluation of the footprint involves biodiversity and ecosystem services, and
covers wider contexts, even at global scales.
3 Cost efficiency and cost–benefit assessment are priority tools in many cases. Cost effi-
ciency assessment enables the comparative evaluation of technological and manage-
ment options and is prospective, while cost–benefit assessment can be prospective or
retrospective and quantitative to a certain extent.
4 Social risk and benefit evaluation is based mainly on qualitative indicators and their
aggregation just by a SWOT or by MCA. Various indicators can be selected for evalua-
tion depending on stakeholder participation.
The preliminary evaluation in support of decision making involves large uncertainties

and several qualitative indicators. That is why the iterative approach has to be used in the
management process (in technology planning and application as is usual), so allowing deci-
sion makers and other stakeholders to modify the management scheme and schedule. The
retrospective evaluation is mostly quantitative and is mainly based on monitoring data.
The constituents on the technology evaluation system can be characterized by indicators.
The selection of the best fitting indicator set is typically an iterative procedure, similar to proj-
ect monitoring and control. The initial indicator set can be selected from recommendations and
sustainability indicator lists in knowledge of remediation and management goals, technology
type, and the wider context (e.g. legal background) but it would need modification and special-
ization for the assessed case. In the view of the requirement to establish, as far as possible, a
quantitative indicator set, one has to strive to maximize quantitative sustainability indicators.
The technology evaluation process steps are as follows (Figure 11.6):
– Learning the case, the site, stakeholders and the context;

– Overview of existing and available technologies, which can be an option for the case;
– Selection of the characteristic indicators for technological performance, eco-efficiency,
socioeconomic efficiency;
– Planning technology- and footprint-monitoring: data need of indicator creation and the
method for acquiring these data (database, measurement and testing);
– Evaluation of monitoring data and derive information from them; balancing the indica-
tors of the three sustainability constituents (environment, economy, society);
– Determine the unit of measurement and the qualitative or quantitative character of the
indicator and providing them with scores and weights;
– Dividing the indicators into positive and negative impacts groups;
– Aggregating positive and negative indicator values;
– Calculating the balance of the two;
– Apply the integrated evaluation just to soil remediation or to the entire project and its
management: stakeholders involvement, communication, link to spatial planning, long-
term sustainability.
Most of these steps involve an iterative loop that makes the tool box dynamic and
ensures the enhancement of the tool box reliability and quality during the project in parallel
with the increasing amount of information being derived from monitoring.
Gathering informaon
Case Site Stakeholders Context
Additonal
Informaon
Available technology opons
Generic and case specific evaluaon
Selecon of efficiency-indicators
Technology Environmental Social
performance Ecological footprint Economic
Modifying
indicators
Monitoring planning: what and how to measure

Contaminant Emissions, impacts Costs
mass balance Energy, material use Benefits
Monitoring
refinement
Evaluaon of monitoring data
Quantave data Qualitave data Posive
Scoring, weighng Scoring, weighng Negave
Data aggregaon
Site specific Sustainability Balance
performance Eco + socioeconomic +/−
Figure 11.6 Technology evaluation process step-by-step.
The verification system developed and applied for the characterization and evaluation of
innovative in situ soil remediation technologies is introduced on the cyclodextrin technology
(CDT) which is an innovative in situ bioremediation developed and used for soil contami-
nated with hydrocarbons of low bioavailability.
The randomly methylated beta-cyclodextrin (RAMEB) was found to significantly
enhance the bioremediation and detoxification of the (non-PCB) transformer oil-contaminated
soil, increasing the bioavailability of the pollutants and the activity of indigenous microor-
ganisms. The field demonstration was the basis of the complex verification of the CDT. An
integrated technology monitoring was established to get as much data as possible for tech-
nology verification. The application of the verification method proved both the suitability of
the verification tool box and the efficiency and the competitiveness of the CDT in terms of
technological, economic, ecological, and social efficiencies.
The usability and feasibility of the newly developed remediation technology verifica-
tion tool was demonstrated on several conventional and innovative in situ remediation sites
including those introduced here. One site was polluted with mixed organics of petroleum
origin, other sites with transformer oil, creosote oil, and mazout, and one mining site with
Source of the Point

contaminant source
Transport model
Environmental
Groundwater Soil Air compartments
Exposion model
Ecosystem Ecosystem
Workers Park users of the of the Receptors
site park
Figure 11.7 Conceptual model of the transformer oil-contaminated site in Budapest.
mine waste containing toxic metals (see also Chapter 8). The tool box was also applied for
the innovative reclamation developed for degraded (sandy acid) agricultural soil by using
coal char and bioaugmentation. Several specific sustainability indicators were involved to
check benefits for ecosystem and agroecosystem services characteristic for agricultural soils.
The verification tool was confirmed as flexible, controllable, and modifiable based on the
conceptual site model (Figure 11.7) and in this way was generally applicable as an efficient
decision support and quality management tool.
It can be considered also as an educational or knowledge transfer tool as the whole man-
agement process is better understood. Mainly the starting and closing points are highlighted
and the awareness is raised in general. As a beneficial consequence it supports increase in
trust in remediation; mainly in situ bioremediation based on enhanced natural soil processes.
One of the cases, the transformer-oil contaminated site remediation, is introduced here.
The term “environmental technology verification” (ETV) is more often used for the
process of generic characterization of a technology using a uniform standardized methodol-
ogy to support decision makers and raise trust in owners and managers. These verification
systems all over the world (US, Canada, Japan, and nowadays in Europe) (see also Chapter
1) are based on typical (successful) applications and on generic footprinting and sustainabil-
ity assessment (see US EPA ETV, 2018; EU ECOAP, 2018; PROMOTE, 2018; TESTNET,
2018; ETV Canada, 2018; ETV Japan, 2018). Generic database information such as average
energy and material use of certain operations, generic emission values from activities, global
carbon footprint values, environmental services and their values, etc. are found in databases;
much of this data being held by LCA databases.
4.1.2 Evaluation tools for in situ bioremediation

The evaluation of the performance and efficiencies of the planned, ongoing, or closed
remediations is covered by the term “sustainability assessment” which follows the holis-
tic approach of the harmonic balance between environment, economy, and society. The
compartments of the MOKKA technology evaluation tool box are the following (MOKKA,
2004–2008):
1 Technological performance tool: traditional chemical-engineering tool, material bal-

ance, is used for the quantitative characterization of the efficiency of the remediation
process and fulfillment of clean-up goals. It relies dominantly on the transport model
included by the conceptual risk model of the site. To draw a true picture of contaminant
transport, transformation, degradation, removal, etc. and additives usage and fate in the
environment, physicochemical measurement data are acquired by technology monitor-
ing and used for calculation material balance. In addition to technological performance,
this measured data may serve for environmental efficiency (introducing hazardous sub-
stances into the soil and removing them by the technology) and cost–benefit assessment.
2 Environmental efficiency tool includes three further sub-tools:
– Risk characterization tools: the quantitative assessment of the environmental risk of
the site before and after remediation: the scale of reduction of the risk is a quantita-
tive measure: the difference of risk characterization ratio valid for the initial and the
final quality of the site. As the risk characterization ratio (RCR) shows the ratio of
the actual risk to the acceptable risk, the RCR can truly characterize the site in itself
and can be based on the measured values of physicochemical, biological, ecologi-
cal or toxicological indicators.
– The assessment of the site-specific environmental impact of the technology itself
due to its emission and direct disturbances in the near environment during and after
the technology application is a partly quantitative tool.
– Footprinting the technology: the assessment of the more generic environmental
impact due to energy and water consumption, greenhouse effect, ozone depletion,
acid rain, the use of non-renewable and renewable resources, etc. is a partly quan-
titative tool.
3 Cost efficiency and cost–benefit assessment tools: cost efficiency is mainly used as a
decision support tool to help the selection of the technology that best fulfills cost effi-
ciency requirements. The initially calculated costs is validated within the technology
verification. Cost-benefit analysis can be used in both phases to support decisions and
to verify the project. Cost efficiency assessment is a quantitative tool, with absolute or
relative monetary results. Cost-benefit analysis is a fully quantitative tool with monetary
values in spite of the difficulty in monetizing all socio-environmental costs and benefits.
4 Social risks and benefits are based mainly on qualitative indicators such as stake-
holder involvement, risk communication, community impacts (including job opportu-
nity, healthy environment, better life quality, access to the area), environmental justice,
future land-use potential, and cultural resources. These indicators can be characterized
even by a simple SWOT or by MCA after scoring and weighting.
The prospective and retrospective evaluation set can be flexibly compiled from the pre-
vious four assessment types of the MOKKA evaluation system.
The MOKKA verification tool is applicable for any remediation technology. It is part
of the management concept and can fit the management process of the project and can be
applied to the site assessment and technology selection. It also harmonizes with the design of
the monitoring tool and technological interventions, modifications, and overall. It may have
special importance in the case of in situ remediation when material uses, emissions, and cur-
rent and future land uses are closely linked or combined with the technology implementation
and natural process cannot be distinguished from those controlled by the technology. The
reactor approach (see Chapter 2) may clarify the cooperation of natural and technological
processes, but still there are several inputs which are beneficial for the technology making it
more efficient and faster but pose a negative impact on the environment. In such cases it is
necessary to investigate the size, life span and the spatial scope of these impacts and execute
the assessment for different temporal and spatial scales. The verification of the remediation
also contains site-specific elements. The same technology can reach a very good rating at
one site but may show poor results on another. This means, in practice, that the selection of
the suitable technology for the site is the first step of the verification. Technology-related
information used for technology selection and decision making should be gathered during
site assessment/monitoring (Gruiz et al., 2008). Site assessment, site risk assessment, and
technology-related assessment at contaminated sites should be applied in an integrated way.
Technology monitoring should ensure not only the follow up of the technology applica-
tion by measuring the technological parameters but also the evaluation of all the environ-
mental and social (emissions, load on renewable resources, load on the society, etc.) as well
as the economic impacts (used energy and material, manpower, and the related costs and
benefits) both the positive and negative ones. Monitoring data are crucial for technology
verification and sustainable project management. The overall monitoring has the following
main goals:
1 Monitoring of the technological parameters such as temperature, pH, redox potential,

aeration, water flow, and flow of additives and products to control the efficient function-
ing of the technology. It can be evaluated in comparison with the planned values and the
expected final outcomes. Based on the differences, the state of the art can be evaluated
and the necessary modifications implemented.
2 Controlling possible emissions from the technology to minimize local and regional
environmental risks and global footprints. The two main goals are to identify deviation
from the planned (acceptable/allowable) emission values, and to observe extreme emis-
sions due to operational failures.
3 Measuring energy, water, and material consumption to characterize eco-efficiency of
the technology.
4 Observing ecological consequences.
5 Accounting costs or calculating from measured values.
6 Assessing social aspects.
7 Gathering positive and negative indicators separately in each category.
8 Aggregating the impact categories.
9 Characterizing the technology and the project from the point of view of pollution, the
site and its uses, the wider environment, watershed scale or global footprinting, the
social environment and social consequences, the economic aspects and all of these in an
integrated way by aggregating all acquired information.
The demonstration of the use of the verification tool is introduced using the combined
biological and chemical soil treatment technology, the cyclodextrin-enhanced bioremedia-
tion (CDT): the soil and groundwater polluted with transformer oil were remediated by using
the combination of in situ bioventing, temporary in situ soil flushing accelerated with the
solubilizing agent cyclodextrin and ex situ physicochemical groundwater treatment (Molnár

et al., 2003; Fenyvesi et al., 2003; Molnár et al., 2005; Molnár, 2007).
4.1.3 Monitoring of in situ soil remediation

Technology verification and some of the sustainability assessment are based on the moni-
toring data from the CDT demonstration project. The quality of the evaluation depends on
the quality of the monitoring data. Applying an in situ remediation, one is faced with two
basic problems when sampling and analyzing whole soil. Core samples from boreholes give
a false picture of the site due to the heterogeneity of both the soil and the contaminant.
These heterogeneities may exceed the scale of changes in time, therefore to get an “average”
sample or to take samples in different times from the same place is not possible. In situ mea-
surements and sensors may help to a certain extent. In the case of sensitive hydrogeology or
a treatment applying water and soil gas circulation or directed flow, a borehole may cause
disturbance and increase the risk of pollutant transport. To avoid these problems during the
monitoring of in situ remediation it is recommended that the mobile soil phases, i.e. soil gas
and groundwater, are sampled and analyzed. It is advantageous also because these phases
represent the quasi-average of the total treated volume. As they are circulated for technologi-
cal reasons, sampling does not disturb the inner soil. From the data measured on soil gas and
soil water it is possible to extrapolate to the whole soil, knowing the partition of the contami-
nant between soil phases, effects of soil pH and redox potential on the chemical form and
effects of the contaminant, mechanism of biodegradation, etc. Averaging the sample from
different depths can jeopardize the clear picture but can be compensated by innovative water
sampling for depth-specific sample taking.
To follow bioremediation, the rate of the microbial conversion has to be quantified. The
biological processes in the soil, like biodegradation, bioleaching, biological stabilization,
bioaccumulation, can be described by the following general equation, where S is the sub-
strate and P is the product of the microbial metabolic activity:
S+ additive soil
microbiota
→ P + side-product
The contaminant serves as a substrate for the soil microbes, going through the microbial
metabolic pathway producing harmless end products (P) and side products. Any variables
of this equation can be used for monitoring to follow and control the biological process: the
decrease of the substrate or the additive, the increase of the product and the side products, the
quantitative and qualitative characteristics of the soil and the soil microbiota, like nutrient
supply, pH, redox potential of the soil and cell numbers, cell activities, enzyme activities,
indicator species, etc. These variables can be measured in a direct or in an indirect way: e.g.
instead of the concentration of the sorbed contaminant, the dissolved value can be measured
and the sorbed value calculated by the partition coefficient (Kp). Another option is measuring
the pH instead of the product concentration if the product is an acid or measuring the CO2 as
a product of aerobic biodegradation instead of measuring the substrate decrease.
Monitoring parameters can be grouped as relevant to soil, soil microbiota, substrate,
and to the product. The relatively homogeneous mobile soil phases, i.e. soil gas and the
groundwater enjoy priority for in situ technology monitoring and verification. Neverthe-
less the same matrix and measurement data can be used for the control and regulation of
bioremediation to ensure an optimal environment for the desired soil microbial activity. The
best technology indicators are the volatile and water-soluble small molecules, which move
from the biofilm smoothly into the easy-to-sample mobile soil phases by simple partition.
Substrates or products bound or strongly sorbed into the solid phase can be analyzed only
from the solid phase, which causes heterogeneity problems and high standard deviation in
analytical results.
Besides technology monitoring, environmental monitoring of in situ remediation plays
an important role in controlling emission and other risky processes to prevent nature and
humans from adverse impacts. The environmental monitoring data are used in the complex
technology verification, project sustainability assessment both on local and regional levels
as well as on the generic level considering footprinting. Environmental monitoring plays
an extremely important role in the verification of in situ soil and groundwater remediation
due to the formerly detailed characteristic of the direct contact and interaction between the
technological volume and content and the natural or constructed environment (Gruiz et al.,
2015; Gruiz, 2016).
Integrated technology monitoring means that the bioremediation process is characterized
by a suitable tool box of selected methods to measure both the physicochemical characteris-
tics of the soil and the biological state of the soil microbiota. For good-quality environmental
monitoring, an integrated methodology is required: the physicochemical analyses should be
combined with environmental toxicity testing, and ecological and biological assessments.
This is extremely important when the polluted site is an old, inherited one with an incom-
pletely identified mixture of contaminants. In such cases the assessment program is not able
to investigate all possible contaminants and intermediates, also the interactions between
contaminants, contaminant and soil matrix, and contaminant and soil microflora may result
in endless risky effects, so the integration of toxicity and other effect-measuring methods is
essential (Gruiz, 2005). The physicochemical analyses serve the characterization of the con-
taminant, the soil and groundwater, the biological activity by measuring respiration rate and
metabolites. Ecotoxicity testing serves safety and gives information on bioavailability of the
contaminants. In the case of in situ remediation, ecotoxicity testing plays a role in the moni-
toring of emissions from the technology and the risk characterization of the end product.
Aftercare of treated contaminated sites is an important issue because one can never be
sure that the pollutant has been removed completely. More sensitive new land uses increase
the risk and require higher precaution. The aftercare of in situ treatments assumes monitor-
ing not only of the treated soil, but of the whole site.
4.2 Evaluation of the cyclodextrin technology (CDT)

by the MOKKA verification tool
CDT is an innovative bioremediation method which applies cyclodextrin (CD) to further
intensify a combined bioventing and bioflushing type remediation technology based on aero-
bic biodegradation. It eliminates the bottleneck caused by low mobility and availability of
the contaminants in soil. Low bioavailability of hydrophobic pollutants may limit their bio-
degradation by the “cell factory” in soils. Cyclodextrins can solubilize and mobilize high Kow
(octanol–water partition coefficient: the partition between soil water and solid phase is pro-
portional to Kow) contaminants and make them more available to the degrading soil micro-
biota. The use of CD may increase the bioavailability of poorly degradable pollutants and in
turn intensify soil bioremediation (Gruiz et al., 1996; Fava et al., 1998; Wang et al., 1998;
Bardi et al., 2003). It has been demonstrated that randomly methylated beta-cyclodextrin
(RAMEB) can decrease the toxic effects of contaminants on soil microbes, plants, and ani-
mals (Gruiz et al., 1996). RAMEB was used successfully as a bioavailability-enhancing
additive in soil bioremediation for diesel oil in unsaturated soil by Molnár et al. (2003),
for transformer oil both in saturated and unsaturated soil zones by Leitgib et al. (2003) and
Molnár et al. (2005). It was found that RAMEB, with 1 year half-life time, is slowly biode-
gradable in the three-phase soil (Fenyvesi et al., 2005). The calculated time requirement of
the CDT from the results is considerably less, only 0.5–1.5 years compared to the 2.5 years
needed by the next best technology alternative.
4.2.1 Short description of the site

The selected site for technology demonstration was an inherited contaminated site with
long-term pollution derived from a leaking spare transformer of the Népliget (City Park)
Transformer Station in Budapest, Hungary. The contaminated site for CDT demonstration
was relatively small, 30 m3 (50 t) of contaminated soil was treated which was only a small
part of a much larger transformer station contaminated from subsurface transformer oil pipe-
lines and awaiting clean-up.
The contaminant – a non-PCB transformer oil (TO 40A) – had reached the ground-
water. The chemical analyses of environmental samples showed high contaminant con-
centration (20,000–30,000 mg/kg extractable petroleum hydrocarbon (EPH) content and
20,000–44,000 mg/kg extractable organic material (EOM) content in the soil at the upper
1–2 m only under the spare transformer. The oil content of the groundwater was 1 mg/L. The
concentration of the volatile fraction was under the detectable limit. Both the saturated and
the unsaturated zones had to be decontaminated.
The selected subsite that the innovative CDT technology was going to be applied to was
physically unreachable from the surface. It was an ideal subsite to prove that both bioventing
and in situ flushing can be applied for such barely accessible soil volumes.
The specialty of this transformer station is that it is a closed area within the largest city
park, a popular recreational area in Budapest. It was not just a simple transformer station but
it belonged to the transformer producing industry and the oil for the transformers produced
was stored here and transported by a subsurface pipeline system to the production sites.
4.2.2 Management and decision making

In the course of the preparatory phase of the contaminated site remediation several conven-
tional remedies were selected as realistic options. In between, CDT has been developed and
offered as an innovative technology option for the site management team and included as
an additional option to the list and involved in the prospective comparative evaluation. The
evaluated options and some characteristics are presented in the following:
A “Zero” option: no remediation, let natural processes proceed by themselves with a

15-year long monitoring (Monitored Natural Attenuation, MNA). More information is
needed about the natural attenuation process and the spread of the contaminants. The
risk is that after spending money for the long-term monitoring, the contaminant will still
be present and spread outside the fence.
B “Dig & dump”: excavation and transport to the disposal site or a soil treatment plant
and soil replacement on the site. After soil removal groundwater is treated for 1.5 years
by “pump & treat” using activated carbon absorption. The excavation and transport are
calculated for 0.2 year. In Table 11.4 the two activities’ time requirement is given as
0.2/1.5.
C Ex situ, on-site biological soil treatment of the excavated soil and backfilling with the
treated soil on the site. As long as the ex situ soil bioremediation (in prisms) is going on,
the groundwater (accumulating in the pit) will be treated (aeration and recirculation) in
a free surface pond.
D “Pump & treat”: in situ soil washing combined with ex situ water treatment. The soil
is continuously washed by infiltrating the treated and recycled water between the well
screening and the trenches established for water inlet. Depending on the partition of the
contaminant between solid phase and groundwater, it needs several decades (see mass
balance of CDT: while 1000 kg is biodegraded only about 1.6 kg of transformer oil was
removed by the water within about one year). The main disadvantage of this technol-
ogy, i.e. very low water solubility and slow removal of the contaminant, can be avoided
by the addition of mobilizing agents (surfactants or cyclodextrin), which can lower the
time requirement by a half.
E In situ bioventing of the unsaturated zone combined with the ex situ physicochemical
treatment of the groundwater and the temporary flushing of the unsaturated soil (without
additives).
F CDT – in situ complex bioremediation using cyclodextrin: In situ bioventing of the
unsaturated zone combined with the ex situ physicochemical treatment of the ground-
water and the temporary flushing of the unsaturated soil and the capillary fringe with the
recycled water containing cyclodextrin.
In Table 11.4, the sustainability indicators chosen for the evaluation of the technology
options are shown as negative scores. Scores were created from both the qualitative and
quantitative indicators enabling their aggregation. The main items in the table are these:
– Emissions: including emission of volatile compounds; transport of water-soluble com-

pounds via groundwater and leachate; transport of sorbed contaminants via erosion;
dust emission; noise emission and emissions from transportation.
– Regional/global items: including CO2 production (kg/ton) (by biodegradation, due to
excavation, transport and activated carbon regeneration/burning); water consumption
(liter/ton), energy consumption (pumps, ventilators, machines, transport, waste (soil,
activated carbon).
– Material consumption: new soil, nutrients, like N, P, K and additives, like CD.
– Risks; mainly health risk to workers and community (toxicants, transport, accidents).
– Ecological indicators: impact on the ecosystem and ecosystem services.
– Socioeconomic indicators involving land uses before, during and after remediation
works, in the property value and use value perspective, access of the community to the
space, future land use potential, cultural losses.
Dig and dump represents the highest risk in spite of the short time period of transporta-
tion activities, emission score is close to C and D, but the total risk score is twice as much as
in the case of C and D due to energy and material consumption. The risk score of the ex situ
on-site treatment (C) and “pump and treat” (D) is half of dig and dump, but four times that
of the scores of the in situ technologies E and F. The “0” option (A) has a value of 265 in our
Table 11.4 Comparative sustainability assessment of selected technology options.
Score “0” Dig & dump Dig & on-site Pump & In situ CDT
MNA GW: ex situ treatment treat bioventing GW: ex situ
GW: pond GW: ex situ GW: ex situ
A B C D E F
Treatment duration (years) 15 0.2/1.5* 2.5 10/5** 2.5 1.5

Emission x years 37 50 35 40/20 10 6
– Air pollution, dust, waste,
noise, contaminant migration
Total CO2 +W+E score x year 70 247 122 102/61 30 28
– CO2 score 20 42 42 80 22 22
– Water consumption score 0 50 25 0 0 0
– Energy consumption score 50 155 55 22 8 5.6
(non-renewing)
Total material score x year 4 100 4 2/4 2 4
– Non-reuse of materials, use of
additives
Total risks score 4 100 60 4 3 3
– Workers risks (health, accidents)
– Community risk (transport,
accidents)
Ecosystem – total impact score 45 90 60 40/20 12 7
– Ecosystem damage
– Habitat disturbances
Total land value/use loss score 100 15 40 55/35 16 12
– Lack of land reuse score x years 45 5 30 30/15 8 5
– No access to the space score 15 3 3 10/5 3 2
– Property value loss score 15 2 2 10 3 3
– Future land-use potential loss 25 5 5 5 2 2
score (residual pollution)
Cultural resources loss score 5 5 5 2 2 2
Total impact score 265 607 326 245/146 75 62
* 0.2/1.5: 0.2 year of soil excavation, and 1.5-year water treatment **10/5: 10 years without surfactant, 5: with
transformer-oil pollution case. The lowest impact scores (75 and 62) were calculated for
in situ bioventing and cyclodextrin-enhanced in situ bioventing. The difference between the
two is explained with the lower time requirement of the CDT technology.
4.2.3 Cost efficiency of the CDT

Cost efficiency assessment was used for the comparison of technological options ensuring the
same target value and identical land uses. Specific cost indicators were created such as cost
per volume unit. These indicators were then used for ranking the alternatives (see Table 11.4).
The transformer station is an isolated site in the Budapest City Park. The access to eco-
system and humans is limited, but not completely restricted, as the ecosystem “uses” the site
and is in connection with the neighboring park through plant and animals. The land use of
the site in the near future will be unchanged, so no benefit from this element can be calcu-
lated (it is expected that it becomes part of the park in the long run, but the date is uncertain).
The model site is a little, separate volume, ideal for demonstration but too small for cost esti-
mation. The application of the same technology is more realistic for the whole transformer
station; therefore the cost calculation was done for 50, 1000, and 5000 tons. The costs out
of the mass range are not proportional to the quantity. The results are given in Table 11.5.
The operational cost is proportional to the time and includes monitoring and administrative
costs. Investment is generally a one-off expenditure but it can be given on yearly basis, consider-
ing the turnover of the capital. Costs estimation was prepared on the basis of bids or on the basis
of references. Future costs (aftercare, monitoring, etc.) were also included. About one-third of
the costs are spent in site assessment, planning, and aftercare, which are necessary expenditures
even if remediation is not implemented (Gruiz et al., 2008). According to the cost efficiency
analysis the costs, mainly the specific costs (cost/ton), are strongly dependent on the treated soil
amount. Specific cost is 3–10 times more in the 50 tons case than in the 5000 tons case. Time
requirement is also a dominant factor; its reduction may decrease the costs significantly.
The zero, “0” option (A) has relatively high costs (long-term monitoring and site super-
vision), similar to any of high-cost options and the site cannot be utilized or can be used
only with restrictions for minimum 15 years. The selection of the “0” version is acceptable if
15 years waiting is scheduled by spatial planning and land use management, and the risk is
Table 11.5 Costs of the remediation alternatives for the transformer station.
Total and specific costs for “0” Dig & dump Dig & treat Pump & In situ CDT
50 t, 1000 t and 5000 t MNA GW: ex situ on site treat* bioventing GW: ex situ
treated soil GW: pond in situ soil GW: ex situ
washing
GW: ex situ
A B C D* E F
Treatment duration 15 0.2 for soil 2.5 10/5 2.5 1.5

(years) 1.5 for water
Total costs for 50 t 10,900 13,400 9750 27,700 / 11,300 11,000
(EUR) 19,200
Specific costs 50 t case 218 268 195 554 / 384 226 220
(EURO/t)
Total cost for 1000 ton 74,400 135,500 76,900 228,000 / 78,000 82,800
(EURO) 144,000
Specific cost: 1000 t case 74.4 135.5 76.9 228 / 144 78.0 82.8
(EURO/t)
Total cost for 5000 ton 110,000 485,000 257,000 770,000 / 200,000 234,000
(EURO) 401,000
Specific cost: 5000 t case 22.0 97.0 51.4 154 / 80.2 40.0 46.8
(EURO/t)
* Without/with surfactant
restricted to the contaminated area. An additional requirement to this case is the biodegrad-
ability of the contaminant and the definite existence of a risk-reducing natural attenuation
process. Otherwise the “0” version has no right to come into existence because after spend-
ing the money for 15 years monitoring, one will still own contaminated land.
The dig and dump option (B) means only 1.2–2.5 times higher expenditure than the
more environmentally efficient in situ or ex situ biodegradation-based technologies (not
accounting for environmental and social “costs” and sustainability). Excavation and trans-
portation of 50 tons of contaminated soil can be a realistic version if the pollution has high
risk and the land use brings high benefit. (Compared to European prices, the cost of new soil
and the disposal of the polluted soil is lower in Hungary.) Nevertheless, from the point of
view of environmental and eco-efficiency, this solution should not have a priority, even if
the costs would allow this. Decision makers tend to choose this option if they lack holistic
thinking, especially if small sites hinder larger investments.
The ex situ biological treatment in prisms (option C) combined with water treatment in
the pit, is a financially acceptable solution, but the surface area of the site cannot be used
and it restricts land use and lowers benefits from land use during the treatment. The other
shortcoming is the risk posed by the open pond containing contaminated water.
In situ soil washing and groundwater treatment by a pump and treat type technology
(D) shows extremely high costs due to the time requirement of the inefficient removal of the
insoluble contaminant by water. If time requirement can be lowered, e.g. by surfactant appli-
cation, the cost is reduced to a value which is only twice the in situ bioventing (E and F).
The application of RAMEB in addition to bioventing and ex situ water treatment can
be advantageous in those cases when the saved time compensates for higher costs. The
enhancement with cyclodextrin can be economically beneficial if some arguments and ben-
efits originate from saving time, for example, the company can save the rental costs of build-
ings or storage costs, or the change in land-use ensures a high benefit.
The duration of remediation has significant influence on the costs. The CDT was cal-
culated with a 1.5-year duration, compared to the 2.5 years of the similar, non-enhanced in
situ technology. In the demonstration case, 24 weeks were enough for remediation, but the
continuation for another 23 weeks ensured safety: 0.5 years instead of 2.5 is crucial, the time
saving may lower the costs of CDT for the level of 3 and 5. The cost estimates are shown
by Table 11.5.
When selecting and implementing CDT or any of the alternatives after decision mak-
ing by the environmental managers, an integrated evaluation is necessary, considering cost
evaluation, technological and environmental efficiency, and SWOT analysis.
Based on the conclusion of the comparative prospective sustainability and cost assess-
ment, decision makers tended to choose the CDT technology, but given that it is an innova-
tive technology, a subsite-scale demonstration was necessary to verify the technology and
the CDT will be implemented at full scale after a successful demonstration.
4.2.4 Short description of CDT and its application

The CDT was tested and demonstrated in several laboratory tests, microcosms and pilots,
and – as the top of the increasing size of the experiments – on an inherited contaminated
site with long-term pollution derived from a leaking spare transformer in a transformer sta-
tion in Budapest. A complex methodology was applied for the remediation of the soil and
groundwater. The in situ bioventing of the unsaturated zone was combined with the ex situ
physicochemical treatment of the groundwater and the temporary flushing of the unsaturated
soil. Randomly methylated beta-cyclodextrin (RAMEB) was applied to improve desorption,

solubilization and biological availability of hydrophobic contaminants. The field experiment
has confirmed the laboratory findings. The calculated time requirement of the CDT from the
results is considerably less, only 0.5–1.5 years compared to the 2.5 years needed by the next
best technology alternative.
The scale-up from the laboratory to the field included four steps during the develop-
ment of the innovative CDT technology. Contaminants of different biodegradability and
cyclodextrins of different mode of actions were tested in various combinations in small-scale
biodegradation experiments. The influence of the soil type, cyclodextrin type, cyclodextrin
concentration, aeration, pH, and moisture content on the biodegradation, the influence of
other additives, nutrients and microbes on the technology was tested in soil microcosms
simulating real situations. Some parameters, like cyclodextrin type and concentration, nec-
essary level of aeration and nutrients have been optimized for larger size application. To be
able to follow the remediation in the long term, a larger amount of soil is needed. This was
the main reason for the next scale-up step: pilot-scale laboratory experiments (see Figure 5.2
and Chapter 5). The methodology for the integrated technology monitoring was also worked
out during these experiments.
The results and experience gained from laboratory experiments with gradually
increasing size and a detailed contaminated site assessment were used to design the field
experiment.
Biological characterization of the contaminated soil originated from the transformer sta-
tion showed that the microbiota has been adapted and able to biodegrade the contaminant,
so the technology could be based upon the activity of the indigenous microbiota. On a site
which has been contaminated for a long time (3–4 years), a biotechnology able to utilize
the activity of the cell factory is the most promising. The technological parameters found
to be optimal in the laboratory experiments were assumed to provide optimal conditions for
the transformer oil-degrading microbes. Based on the results of the site-assessment and the
previous lab-scale technological experiments, a site-specific combination of three technolo-
gies was selected and implemented:
– Treatment of the unsaturated zone by bioventing and intensification of the biodegrada-

tion with additives such as nutrients and cyclodextrin (RAMEB);
– Ex situ treatment of the groundwater after pumping it to the surface;
– Continuous moisture supply by slow infiltration of the treated water;
– Temporary flushing the unsaturated and the saturated zones with part of the water treated
on the surface.
Figure 11.8 shows the complex technology scheme with the passive wells used for
atmospheric air introduction and the active wells for water pumping and air exhaust (one
well for the air and one combined well for air and water exhaust) and with the equipment on
the surface for the water treatment and injection of the necessary additives.
Oxygen was supplied by bioventing for the biodegradation of hydrocarbons. Maximal
air demand was calculated on the basis of the McCarty’s equation (1988) of biodegradation
of an average petroleum-hydrocarbon:
C7H12 + 5O2 + NH3 = C5H7O2N + 2CO2 + 4H2O(1)

Molecular weights: 96 160 17 113 (biomass) 88 72
Figure 11.8 In situ CDT technology scheme.
A slow airflow was produced by a Siemens ELMO 2BH7–3G ventilator of low perfor-
mance through aeration wells equipped with perforated casing. An air flow of 20–30 m3/h
was ensured.
A Grundfos SP5 type plunger pump placed into the combined well was used for ground-
water extraction. The treatment of the water occurred in three steps: phase separation in a
sand filter followed by adsorption on activated carbon. The treated water was reserved in a
closed tank and used in the technology for (i) moistening of the treated soil volume by slow
infiltration of a part of the treated groundwater (15–16 m3/day) through small ditches on
the surface, (ii) injection of nutrients, and (iii) temporary flushing of the contaminated soil
volume by the RAMEB solution.
Nutrients (40 kg chemical garden-fertilizer, containing 15% P2O5, 15% N, and 15% K2O)
were added three times, i.e. in the 9th, 13th, and 21st week, during the 47-week experiment.
Randomly methylated beta-cyclodextrin (RAMEB) was applied to improve desorption
of the contaminants strongly adsorbed on the surface of the soil particles and increase the
contaminant concentration in the aqueous biofilms where the microbes work: 10 kg aqueous
RAMEB solution containing 50% RAMEB (Cawasol W7 MTL, Wacker Chemie, Munich)
was added three times together or separately with the nutrients dissolved in 1 or 2 m3 water.
Nutrients and additives have been supplied through the perforated casing of both the active
and passive wells.
The additives were injected after reaching the steady-state of the soil system, beside
permanent water pumping and air exhaust, a constant O2 and CO2 value was measured in
the exhaust gas and more-or-less constant oil content in the groundwater. The changes in the
soil gas and groundwater on the effect of nutrient supply and CD addition were measured
and evaluated.
4.2.5 Mass balance of the CDT technology

The material balances indicate the efficiency of the technology; it tells us what the mass
flux is in the different soil phases during remediation. With full knowledge of the numerical
information about the mass (or element) fluxes, the technologists design, perform, monitor,
and intervene in the applied technology to ensure optimal operation.
Our technology monitoring was mainly based on the analyses of the carbon content
in the mobile soil phases: carbon dioxide in soil gas and total petroleum hydrocarbons in
groundwater. On the basis of the results of soil gas and groundwater analyses, the majority
of the contaminating hydrocarbon has been biodegraded by microbes.
Calculation of the substrate’s mass (S)

Treated soil mass: 50 t; volume of contaminated water: 1200 m3
Initial oil content of the soil: average concentration in the soil at start is 25,000 mg/kg;
50 tons of soil contain 1250 kg of hydrocarbons.
Initial transformer oil in water: ~1 mg/L → 1000 g (1 kg) of hydrocarbon in the
groundwater.
Total amount of hydrocarbons to be removed is 1251 kg.
Calculation of products’ mass (P)
Contaminant removed by water:
Water extracted and treated: 0.7 m3/h, 250 days of treatment, 4200 m3 of water treated
Final concentration of hydrocarbons in the groundwater: ~0.3 g hydrocarbon/m3
The amount of hydrocarbons removed by water treatment: 2240 g
Biodegraded transformer oil mass calculated on the basis of the CO2 production
Volume of the surplus CO2 produced (compared to uncontaminated soil) was 534 m3,
which is equivalent to 1049 kg CO2; 1049 kg CO2 has been produced from 1144 kg of hydro-
carbon according to Equation 1. It suggests that from the initial 1251 kg of transformer oil
(in soil and water) ~1145 kg of hydrocarbon was removed by the complex CDT during
47 weeks of treatment. At the end of remediation the residual hydrocarbon content measured
was about 12 kg (the average of the EPH content: 240 mg/kg in the treated soil). The mass
balance accounts for 93% of the contaminants removed.
Conclusion: contaminant removal with degradation and flushing resulted in the elimi-
nation of 93% of the contaminant of which 99.8% was biodegraded and 0.2% extracted and
treated in situ. This ratio shows the overall difference in efficiency of biodegradation and
pump and treat technology for biodegradable contaminants.
4.2.6 Environmental and eco-efficiencies: site risks and footprints

Soil compartments – soil gas, groundwater, and solid soil – exert various impacts on the
environment, the users of the site itself and the vicinity.
The soil gas does not represent a direct risk for users (as it has no volatiles content)
but may increase the carbon footprint of the contaminated site. The author tends to consider
this increased CO2 emission from biodegradation not as the result of remediation because
this value remains the same even on an abandoned site or when the soil is exposed to natu-
ral attenuation or another biodegradation process. It is “natural” that a biodegradable con-
taminant (hydrocarbon) is recycled into the global biogeochemical cycles in the form of
CO2. The extra load on the footprint was created by hydrocarbon mining. On this site, this
contaminant does not contain volatile components: gas chromatography of the soil extract
showed that the contaminant is in the carbon number range of C15–C36, and the analysis of
the soil gas has confirmed that no volatiles were present. Thus it was not necessary to treat
the soil gas in the field application.
The groundwater contains a high concentration of petroleum hydrocarbons with addi-
tional supply from the soil. The technology applied (continuous water extraction) ensures
stringent control and helps to avoid the risk of spreading the contaminant through the natural
movements of groundwater. So the site was under depression except the few cases where
the vadose zone was temporarily flooded by the cyclodextrin-containing wash-water used
for flushing. The CD-supplemented wash-water did not leave the site with the groundwater,
as the monitoring wells in the outskirts justified. The extracted wash-water was reused until
its CD content was measurable. Otherwise the extracted water went through ex situ treat-
ment and was subsequently recycled into the soil. Pollutant concentration was controlled;
the treatment facility constantly produced permitted concentrations in the released water.
The soil itself was investigated on the core samples prepared before and after the imple-
mentation of the CDT technology. Contaminant content was determined by chemical analyses
and the potential toxic impact of the soil on soil organisms was measured using direct toxicity
assessment (DTA) (see Volumes 2 and 3 of this series). The measurements have provided
essential information for the biodegradation-based technology. DTA measures the toxicity of
the sample in its actual state for biological activities and in direct contact with the test organ-
ism for toxicity. Direct contact simulates the real conditions and interactions with the real
environment. The results of ecotoxicity tests performed on test organisms of three trophic
levels (microbes, plants, animals) show the toxic impacts. The results enable the risk to be
determined directly from the toxicity of the actual sample and its dilution series. The latter
one can identify the no-effect dilution, from which the risk characterization ratio (effect/no
effect concentrations) can easily be determined.
4.2.6.1 Initial and final risk of the contaminated soil and groundwater:

measured data and calculated risks
The risk-based approach is utilized in the verification tool box to quantify the potential
impacts in the beginning and at the end of the project. The initial and residual risk is cal-
culated by the comparison of the Predicted Environmental Concentration (PEC) of the site
at the beginning and at the end of remediation to the Predicted No Effect Concentration
(PNEC). This ratio is called the risk characterization ratio (RCR), which can be the ratio
of two concentrations (the measured to the allowable) or two effect values: the measured
to the no effect. The term “predicted” refers to the uncertainties, that must be taken into
consideration. PEC is calculated from the values measured at the transformer station and
the same concentration is thought to be outside the station fence of the City Park’s territory.
The applied PNEC value is a site-specific target value – representing a “no risk” situation for
groundwater, soil, or other compartments also considering land uses. The risk-based quality
criteria for groundwater (w) is this: RBQCiw = 0.5 mg/L in the territory of the transformer
station (an industrial site [i] with restricted access), but only RBQCrw = 0.2 mg/L in the area
of the surrounding City Park, a recreational (r) area.
“No risk” value for industrial soil uses i.e. for the transformer station soil is RBQCis =
300 mg/kg, the target value for multifunctional soil use is RBQCrs = 100 mg/kg. This may
not be a realistic scenario currently because the transformer station is completely isolated
from the surrounding City Park but can be expected to be included in the park through a
future land use change.
Local risk posed by the groundwater within the transformer station:
RCRiw initial = 1.0 mg/L / 0.5 mg/L = 2.0 > 1 medium risk;
RCRiw final = 0.3 mg/L / 0.5 mg/L = 0.6 < 1 acceptable risk.
Local risk of groundwater out of the transformer station within the City Park: based on
conservative estimates, not considering dilution, sorption and biodegradation during trans-
port by flow from the transformer station toward City Park:
RCRrw initial = 1.0 mg/L / 0.2 mg/L = 5.0 > high risk – pessimistic estimate;
RCRrw final = 0.3 mg/L / 0.2 mg/L = 1.5 >1 small risk – pessimistic.
Local risk of groundwater out of the transformer station within the City Park: based on
a model considering dilution, sorption and biodegradation:
RCRrw initial = 1.0 mg/L / 0.2 mg/L = 5.0 > high risk – realistic estimate;
RCRrw final = 0.1 mg/L / 0.2 mg/L = 0.5 <1 acceptable risk – realistic estimate.
Local risk of the transformer station soil:
RCRis initial = 25,000 mg/kg / 300 mg/kg = 83 > very high risk;
RCRis final = 240 mg/kg / 300 mg/kg = 0.8 < 1 acceptable risk.
To conclude the results of site risk it is clear that the CDT technology efficiently low-
ered the risk to an acceptable value. If the transformer station is to be terminated and land
use changed in the future, the remediated area is ready to join the park as it has reached the
quality that allows it to become part of the recreational area. Of course the surface should be
covered by vegetation which can further reduce environmental risk.
Further decrease in soils’ contaminant content can be prognosed as the degrading micro-
biota is healthy and active, and the degrading capacity is untouched.
The soil was tested by environmental toxicity tests to control the real effect (in situ,
real time) of the treated soil on soil-living organisms: bacteria, plant and animal. The soil
samples proved to be very toxic at the beginning of the treatment and became non-toxic at
the end (Table 11.6; Molnár et al.,2005). After 47 weeks of treatment, all soil samples were
non-toxic in all of the applied tests.
Soil toxicity assessment at the end was part of safety management: the non-toxic
qualification of soil proves the efficiency of the remediation and justifies the technology
selection.
Table 11.6 Environmental toxicity of the contaminated soil before, during, and after CDT application.
Depth of contaminated soil
Test organisms and 10–30 cm 80–90 cm

end points of the DTA
Date of testing
Start week 24 week 47 Start week 24 week 47
Vibrio fischeri luminescence toxic slightly toxic non-toxic very toxic non-toxic non-toxic
Sinapis alba root/shoot toxic non-toxic non-toxic toxic non-toxic non-toxic
elongation
Folsomia candida mortality toxic non-toxic non-toxic toxic non-toxic non-toxic
Aerobic biodegradation ++ + + ++ + +
activity scale
Figure 11.9 Transformer station after remediation.
The CDT technology can reduce the risk of the soil to an acceptable level, it is proven
both by the calculated RCR value and the “non-toxic” soil qualification by DTA. The RCR
of the groundwater decreased to 0.6 from 2.0 (it is 1.5 when compared to multifunctionality
quality criteria). The results are influenced by the untreated surroundings 50 times larger and
with the same initial pollution at the treated subsite.
After the CDT treatment of the subsite, the whole area has been remedied, and although
the transformer station function has remained, it fits now better into the park’s ecosystem as
a clean, organized, grassed area (Figure 11.9).
4.2.6.2 Environmental and socioeconomic impacts of in situ

CDT – some sustainability indicators
CDT is an innovative technology: the combination of bioventing with the application of the
available increasing solubilizing agent, cyclodextrin. The rating of some sustainability indi-
cators and the relevant comments are summarized in Table 11.7.
Treatment duration could be decreased by CD application, thus the biodegradation-
based remediation could be terminated within 23 weeks, somewhat more than a half year
(about one-third of the predicted duration). As many of the impacts are proportional to time,
this acceleration can be beneficial both from cost and socioeconomic efficiency perspectives.
Air pollution by contaminants has not appeared, minimal dust, waste, and noise emis-
sion impacted the narrow surrounding site for the period of technology installation (1 week).
The surrounding park is not inhabited, people use it just for recreational purposes. The emit-
ted CO2 was equivalent to the biodegraded contaminant.
The contaminants have been mobilized as part of the technology, resulting in higher
transformer oil concentration in the groundwater than formerly when the dominant fraction
of the contaminants was strongly bound to soil solid. This increased water contamination is
temporary and only lasts for a few days or weeks because the mobilized hydrocarbons are
intensively degraded by soil microorganisms.
An important characteristic of the technology is that the site is kept under depression,
functioning as a hydraulic barrier. The continuous groundwater extraction is a technological
component of the CDT and of other implementations on the site. Thanks to that, contaminant
migration is restricted to the treated area, inside the fence. Another consequence is the lower
water table increasing the depth of the three-phase soil to support aerobic microorganisms.
The measures ensured and the monitoring proved that no volatile components and no con-
taminated water were emitted from the demonstration site. Water was completely recycled;
the only waste is the activated carbon filling the absorber used for water treatment. For the
treatment of the small-scale demonstration site, less than 10% of the capacity of the absorber
was used.
Water consumption of CDT tends to zero, and the treated water is recycled after treat-
ment for supplying soil moisture, injecting nutrients and flooding the vadose zone and cap-
illary fringe to flush it with CD solution. The total extracted water from the site is reused.
Material requirement consists of the nutrients and the cyclodextrin (CD). Nutrients
stimulate bacterial growth: these are consumed shortly after injection by soil microorgan-
isms, so the transport of nutrients out of the treated site has no possibility, and as no drinking
water exists in the park, this kind of impact of nutrient injection is negligible. After flood-
ing the soil, the CD solution is extracted, collected and reinjected from time-to-time. The
randomly methylated beta-CD (RAMEB) used is a natural molecule, a starch-like organic
substance, which is not toxic and has no other adverse effects. RAMEB injection into the soil
could theoretically have some risk, but in reality the transport of RAMEB within the soil is
highly limited and the hydraulic barrier also hinders its transport. RAMEB is biodegradable,
its half-life is about 1 year, an ideal life-time for application in soil remediation.
Risk to workers can be kept to a minimum, the additives are non-hazardous, and the
contaminated water goes to the treatment plant in a closed system. Community risk can be
excluded, as the site is closed.
The closed industrial site is not a proper habitat for the ecosystem. The concrete pave-
ment allows only a small surface free of vegetation. But the transformer station is surrounded
Table 11.7 Evaluation of selected sustainability indicators of CDT.
Indicator Evaluation Comment

(+) impact
(–) impact
Time requirement +++ CDT is less time consuming than other options, time requirement can
be lowered to 30–70%. Shortened treatment duration results in earlier
utilization of the site and benefits from future land use. Most of the
biodegradation-based technologies can be accelerated by various CDs
Development, ++ CDT is an innovative technology, increasing the selection of technology
innovation options. The use of CD in ecotechnologies is recommended especially
when time available for treatment is limited. Its spread is hindered by
too few references and low awareness. The price of CD is high, but
shorter time requirement can compensate for the excess
Water +++ No additional water is used
consumption
Energy – Conventional energy use: periodic soil venting and water extraction
consumption
Material use, ++ Additives (RAMEB and nutrients) can be controlled throughout the
additives process. They are natural compounds, non-toxic and beneficial for the soil.
RAMEB is moderately biodegradable, its biodegradation half-
life is 0.5–1.5 years, which is comparable to the duration of the
technology. After fulfilling its role, it disappears from the soil. CD
increases the bioavailability and is able to accelerate biodegradation
of poorly bioavailable, high Kow contaminants
Reuse of +++ Extracted CD is reinjected into the soil
materials,
additives
Workers risks + The technology works in a closed system
(health, accidents)
Community + Soil or contaminants are not transported, treatment is in situ. The
risk (transport, site is closed to transportation and construction works at the
accidents) beginning and end of the project
Ecosystem +++ CDT utilizes natural microbiological activity in soil. It has no impact
damage on surrounding ecosystems in this case applied to an industrial site
Habitat ++ CDT is an environmentally friendly technology, soil quality is
disturbances positively influenced. Does not disturb surrounding habitats,
deteriorated soil can be reclaimed to become healthy again
Land reuse ++ The site can be used as a “green industrial site” after remediation or
as part of the surrounding park, when industrial use is terminated
Public access to ++ After remediation unlimited public access is possible
the space
Property value ++ Increase in property value due to remediation
Future land-use +++ Residual pollution is under quality criteria, fulfills multifunction use
potential criteria
(residual pollution)
Cultural ++ The City Park damage can be remediated. Knowledge on soil
resources microbiology and biodegradation is increased by CDT application. The
popular City Park improves stakeholders’ (e.g. the people) involvement.
by natural vegetation of the 130-ha park. It means that the park animals may be in contact
with the soil and rare vegetation of the site. The CD technology may have a positive impact
on the site as habitat and for the development of a healthy ecosystem, and at the same time
a recreational area. The site was in industrial use for 75 years, but after remediation it can
become a valuable part of the park or used for other recreational or cultural purposes.
4.2.7 Summary and conclusion on the CDT technology

and the verification tool
A short summary of the key findings of the four-stage evaluation of CDT is in this section.
The prospective comparative evaluation has drawn attention to the cyclodextrin-enhanced
bioventing showing lowest time requirements and good results in all time-dependent indica-
tors. As it is a “green” technology, not using toxic substances and not emitting toxicants or
other harmful gases, it performed well in the comparison. Its estimated price was 10% higher
than the second best option, but the time requirement was largely overestimated, in reality
half of the time was enough to reach the target, meaning that the price was also comparable
to the other best techniques.
CDT could reduce the risk significantly at the site and resulted in acceptable groundwa-
ter and soil quality for any land uses, e.g. for recreational use.
The risk due to contaminant- and additive-emission is low: there was no measurable
emission at all. Emission of dust is not relevant because the surface is vegetated and isolated
by plants or paved by concrete. Noise emission is not considerable, the pump and the blower
are low performance machines and there is no residential area close to the station. Back-
ground noise is stronger during the day. Installation and dismantling of the technology only
took a few days and did not emit dust or noise.
The complex verification tool could be efficiently applied for the CDT technology, and
the other (not introduced here) in situ technologies. The results of the prospective assess-
ment can be utilized for decision making in environmental management.
– The MOKKA verification system is applicable for an in situ bioremediation based on

biodegradation.
– Mass balance can be calculated from the technology monitoring data.
– The risk of the site before and after remediation can be calculated from the initial and
final contaminant concentrations and toxicity assessment data.
– The risk due to emissions from the source and the technology can be easily moni-
tored and reduced during the technology. In the case of in situ technology applica-
tion, better control of contaminant transport can be reached than in the case of ex situ
technologies.
– The sustainability indicators and the ecological footprint components are partly quan-
titative (CO2 production, water and energy consumption), partly qualitative (i.e. based
on subjective judgment), and can be evaluated in comparison with other technology
options.
– The majority of the cost elements can be quantified, cost efficiency is a good tool for the
comparison of remediation options for technology selection. Cost–benefit assessment
upgraded with eco-efficiency requirements can be a good concept, but ecosystem costs
and benefits can only be partly monetized, so the evaluation remains subjective and
qualitative.
The CDT has proven its applicability and has been verified by the new verification tool.
CDT can be characterized as suitable for transformer oil and other moderately bioavailable
contaminants, environment- and cost-effective and sustainable technology.
The introduced technology verification methodology supports decision making and the
selection of the best possible technology or in the case of verified innovative technologies, a
better technology than the former best ones. This procedure can be applied generally and its
uniform application is also possible to make progress in the acceptance of innovative in situ
technologies to increase trust towards them and to support their market entry.
REFERENCES
ASTM E2893–16e1 (2016) Standard Guide for Greener Cleanups. ASTM International. Available
from: www.astm.org; www.astm.org/Standards/E2893.htm; www.astm.org/cgi-bin/resolver.
cgi?E2893-16e1. [Accessed 22th July 2018].
Bardi, L., Ricci, R. & Marzona, M. (2003) In situ bioremediation of a hydrocarbon-polluted site with
cyclodextrin as a coadjuvant to increase bioavailability. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution Focus, 3(3),
15–23.
Bardos, P.R. (2014) Progress in sustainable remediation. Remediation Journal, 25, 23–32. doi:10.1002/
rem.21412.
Bardos, P.R., Bone, B., Boyle, R., Ellis, D., Evans, F., Harries, N.D. & Smith, J.W.N. (2011) Applying
sustainable development principles to contaminated land management using the SuRF-UK Frame-
work. Remediation, 21(2), 77–100. doi:10.1002/rem.20283.
Bardos, P.R., Thomas, H.F., Smith, J.W.N., Harries, N.D., Evans, F., Boyle, R., Howard, T., Lewis, R.,
Thomas, A.O. & Haslam, A. (2018) The development and use of sustainability criteria in SuRF-
UK’s sustainable remediation framework. Sustainability, 10(6), 1781. doi:10.3390/su10061781.
Bardos, R.P. (2010) SuRF-UK framework for evaluating sustainable remediation options. Archive of
July 12, 2010 Seminar US and EU Perspectives on Green and Sustainable Remediation. Available
from: www.cluin.org/consoil. [Accessed 22th July 2018].
Bardos, R.P., Bone, B.D., Boyl, R., Evans, F., Harries, N.D., Howard, T. & Smith, J.W.N. (2016b)
The rationale for simple approaches for sustainability assessment and management in con-
taminated land practice. Science of the Total Environment, 563–564(1), 755–768. doi:10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2015.12.001.
Bardos, R.P., Cundy, A.B., Smith, J.W.N. & Harries, N. (2016a) Sustainable remediation. Journal
of Environmental Management, 184, 1–3. Available from: www.sciencedirect.com/science/jour-
nal/03014797/184/part/P1. [Accessed 22th July 2018].
Barnes, S., Somek, D., Pitzler, D. et al. (2015) Guideline for Performing Cost-Benefit and Sustainabil-
ity Analysis of Remedial Alternatives. CRC for Contamination Assessment and Remediation
of the Environment (CRC CARE). Available from: www.crccare.com/files/dmfile/482847_Cost-
BenefitandSustainabilityAnalysis_FinalDraftGuideline_Rev2.pdf. [Accessed 22th July 2018].
Beinat, E., Drunen, van M.A., Janssen, R., Njiboer, M.H., Kohlenbrander, J.G.M. & Okx, J.P. (1997)
The REC Decision Support System for Comparing Soil Remediation Options. A Methodology Based
on Risk Reduction, Environmental Merit and Costs. CUR/NOBIS, Gouda, The Netherlands.
Bender, A., Volkwein, S., Battermann, G., Klöpffer, W., Hurtig, H.W. & Kohler, W. (1998) Life
cycle assessment for remedial action techniques: Methodology and application. In: ConSoil ’98,
Sixth International FZK/TNO Conference on Contaminated soil. Thomas Telford, London, UK.
pp. 367–376.
Brundtland Report (1987) Our Common Future. Report of the World Commission on Environment
and Development. Available from: www.un-documents.net/wced-ocf.htm. [Accessed 22th July
2018].
Cappuyns, V. (2013) LCA based evaluation of site remediation – Opportunities and limitations. Chimica
Oggi – Chemistry Today, 31(2), 18–21. Available from: www.teknoscienze.com/tks_article/lca-based-
evaluation-of-site-remediation-opportunities-and-limitations/. [Accessed 22th July 2018].
Cappuyns, V. & Kessen, B. (2012) Evaluation of the environmental impact of brownfield remediation
options: Comparison of two life cycle assessment-based evaluation tools. Environmental Technol-
ogy, 33(19–21), 2447–2459. doi:10.1080/09593330.2012.671854.
CERCLA (1980) Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980,
as amended.
CL:AIRE (2009) A Review of Published Sustainability Indicator Sets: How Applicable Are They to
Contaminated Land Remediation Indicator-set Development? CL:AIRE, London, UK. ISBN: 978-
1-905046-18-8. Available from: www.claire.co.uk/surfuk. [Accessed 22th July 2018].
CL:AIRE (2010a) A Framework for Assessing the Sustainability of Soil and Groundwater Remedia-
tion. Available from: www.claire.co.uk/projects-and-initiatives/surf-uk/20-framework-and-guid-
ance. [Accessed 22th July 2018].
CL:AIRE (2010b) A Framework for Assessing the Sustainability of Soil and Groundwater Remedia-
tion. Public Consultation, March 2010, CL:AIRE, London, UK. ISBN 978-1-905046-19-5. Avail-
able from: www.claire.co.uk/surfuk. [Accessed 22th July 2018].
CL:AIRE (2011) The SuRF-UK Indicator Set for Sustainable Remediation Assessment. Available
from: www.claire.co.uk/component/phocadownload/category/8-initiatives?download=262:annex-
1-the-surf-uk-indicator-set-for-sustainable-remediation-assessment. [Accessed 22th July 2018].
CL:AIRE (2014a) Sustainable Management Practices for Management of Land Contamination. Avail-
able from: www.claire.co.uk/projects-and-initiatives/surf-uk/21-executing-sustainable-remediation.
CL:AIRE (2014b) SuRF UK SMP Supporting Spreadsheet. Available from: www.claire.co.uk/compo-
nent/phocadownload/file/403-surf-uk-smps. [Accessed 22th July 2018].
CL:AIRE (2018) Sustainable-Remediation. Available from: www.claire.co.uk/projects-and-initiatives/
surf-uk/77-sustainable-remediation. [Accessed 22th July 2018].
Clue-in Remediation (2018) Contaminated Site Clean-up Information. Available from: https://clu-in.
org/remediation/. [Accessed 22th July 2018].
Common Forum (2018) Common Forum on Contaminated Land in Europe. Available from: www.
commonforum.eu/. [Accessed 22th July 2018].
DANETV (2018) Danish Center for Verification of Climate and Environmental Technologies. Avail-
able from: www.etv-denmark.com. [Accessed 22th July 2018].
DEFRA (2004) Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination. Contaminated Land
Report 11. DEFRA and Environmental Agency, Bristol, Rio House, UK.
Dindal, A. (2016) Environmental Technology Verification Program Materials Management and Reme-
diation Center Generic Protocol for Verification of in situ Chemical Oxidation. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-14/415. Available from: https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/
si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryId=311439. [Accessed 22th July 2018].
ECOAP (2018) Eco-Innovation Action Plan: Europe. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecoap/etv/
documents/165_en. [Accessed 22th July 2018].
Ellis, D.E. & Hadley, P.W. (2009) Sustainable Remediation White Paper: Integrating Sustainable Prin-
ciples, Practices, and Metrics into Remediation Projects. U.S. Sustainable Remediation Forum.
Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/rem.20210. [Accessed 22th July 2018].
EPA ETV (2018) Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program. Available from: https://
archive.epa.gov/nrmrl/archive-etv/web/html/este.html. [Accessed 22th July 2018].
ESTE (2018) Environmental and Sustainable Technology Evaluations. Available from: https://archive.
epa.gov/nrmrl/archive-etv/web/html/este.html. [Accessed 22th July 2018].
ETAP (2018) Environmental Technologies Action Plan: Europe (see ECOAP, 2018). Available
from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/ecoinnovation2007/2nd_forum/pdf/etv_booklet.pdf.
ETV Canada (2018) Environmental Technology Verification: Canada. Available from: http://etvcan-
ada.ca. [Accessed 22th July 2018].
ETV Japan (2018) Environmental Technology Verification: Japan. Available from: www.env.go.jp/
policy/etv. [Accessed 22th July 2018].
ETV Philippines (2018) Environmental Technology Verification: Philippines. Available from: http://
cptech.dost.gov.ph/ETV.php. [Accessed 22th July 2018].
EU ECOAP (2018) Eco-Innovation Action Plan: Europe (former Environmental Technologies Action
Plan). Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecoap/etv_en and http://ec.europa.eu/envi-
ronment/archives/etv/. [Accessed 22th July 2018].
EU-ETV (2018) European Environmental Technology Verification. Available from: http://ec.europa.
eu/environment/archives/etv/. [Accessed 22th July 2018].
EURODEMO (2004–2008) European Platform for Demonstration of Efficient Soil and Groundwater
Remediation. Available from: www.eurodemo.info/. [Accessed 22th July 2018].
Fava, F., Di Gioia, D. & Marchetti, L. (1998) Cyclodextrin effects on the ex-situ bioremediation of
a chronically polychlorobiphenyl-contaminated soil. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 58,
345–355.
Fenyvesi, É., Csabai, K., Molnár, M., Gruiz, K., Murányi, A. & Szejtli, J. (2003) Quantitative and
qualitative analysis of RAMEB in Soil. Journal of Inclusion Phenomena and Macrocyclic Chem-
istry, 44, 413–416.
Fenyvesi, É., Gruiz, K., Verstichel, S., De Wilde, B., Leitgib, L., Csabai, K. & Szaniszló, N. (2005)
Fiksel, J. (2009) Design for the Environment. A Guide to Sustainable Product Development. 2nd ed.
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, USA. ISBN: 978-0-07-160556-4.
Fiksel, J., Eason, T. & Frederickson, H. (2012) A framework for sustainability indicators at EPA. Avail-
able from: National Risk Management Research Laboratory. EPA/600/R/12/687.
Green Remediation (2008): Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of
Contaminated Sites. Available from: https://clu-in.org/greenremediation/docs/Green-Remediation-
Primer.pdf.
Green Remediation (2018) Green Remediation Focus. Available from: https://clu-in.org/greenreme-
diation/. [Accessed 22th July 2018].
GR Memo (2016) Green Remediation Memorandum. US EPA. Available from: https://semspub.epa.gov/
work/HQ/100000160.pdf.
Gruiz, K. (2005) Biological tools for the soil ecotoxicity evaluation: Soil testing triad and the interac-
tive ecotoxicity tests for contaminated soil. In: Fava, F. & Canepa, P. (eds.) Innovative Approaches
to the Bioremediation of Contaminated Sites. Soil Remediation Series NO 6, INCA, Venice, Italy.
pp. 45–70.
Gruiz, K. (2014) Environmental problems – An overview. In: Gruiz, K., Meggyes, T. & Fenyvesi, É.
(eds.) Environmental Contamination and Deterioration. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA. pp. 1–40.
Gruiz, K. (2016) Integrated and efficient characterization of contaminated sites. In: Gruiz, K., Meg-
USA. pp. 1–98.Gruiz, K., Fenyvesi, É., Kriston, É., Molnár, M. & Horváth, B. (1996) Potential use
of cyclodextrins in soil bioremediation. Journal of Inclusion Phenomena and Macrocyclic Chem-
istry, 25, 233–236.
Gruiz, K., Meggyes, T. & Fenyvesi, É. (eds.) (2015) Environmental Toxicology. CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL, USA.
Gruiz, K., Molnár, M. & Fenyvesi, É. (2008) Evaluation and Verification of Soil Remediation. In:
Kurladze, G.V. (ed) Environmental Microbiology Research Trends. NOVA Science Publishers, Inc.,
New York, NY, USA. pp. 1–57.
Gruiz, K., Sára, B. & Vaszita, E. (2014) Risk management of contaminated land – from planning to
verification. In: In: Gruiz, K., Meggyes, T. & Fenyvesi, É. (eds.) Environmental Contamination and
Deterioration. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA. pp. 227–312.
Hopton, M.E., Cabezas, H., Campbell, D.E., Eason, T., Garmestani, A.S., Heberling, M.T., Karu-
nanithi, A.T., Templeton, J.J., White, D. & Zanowick, M. (2010) Development of a multidisciplinary
approach to assess regional sustainability. International Journal of Sustainable Development &
World Ecology, 17(1), 48–56. doi:10.1080/13504500903488297.
IISD (2018a) SDG Indicator Portal. The International Institute for Sustainable Development. Avail-
able from: www.iisd.org; https://sustainable-development-goals.iisd.org/country-data. [Accessed
22th July 2018].
IISD (2018b) International Institute for Sustainable Development. Available from: www.iisd.org/
ISO 14034 (2016) Environmental Management/ Environmental Technology Verification (ETV). Avail-
able from: www.iso.org/standard/43256.html. [Accessed 22th July 2018].
ISO 14040 (2006) Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Principles and Framework.
International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO), Geneve. Available from: www.iso.org/stan-
dard/37456.html. [Accessed 22th July 2018].
ISO 14044 (2006) Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Requirements and Guide-
lines. International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO), Geneve. Available from: www.iso.org/
standard/38498.html. [Accessed 22th July 2018].
ITRC (2003) Technical and Regulatory Guidance for the Triad Approach: A New Paradigm for Envi-
ronmental Project Management. SCM-1. Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council. Available
from: www.itrcweb.org. [Accessed 22th July 2018].
ITRC (2004) Remediation Process Optimization: Identifying Opportunities for Enhanced and More
Efficient Site Remediation. RPO-1. Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council. Available from:
www.itrcweb.org. [Accessed 22th July 2018].
ITRC (2006a) Life Cycle Cost Analysis. RPO-2. Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council. Avail-
able from: www.itrcweb.org. [Accessed 22th July 2018].
ITRC (2006b) The Use of Direct Push Well Technology for Long-Term Environmental Monitoring in
Groundwater. SCM-2. Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council. Available from: www.itrcweb.
org. [Accessed 22th July 2018].
ITRC (2007) Improving Environmental Site Remediation through Performance-based Environmental
Management. RPO-7. Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council. Available from: www.itrcweb.
org. [Accessed 22th July 2018].
ITRC (2011a) Green and Sustainable Remediation: State of the Science and Practice. GSR2009–1.
Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council, Green and Sustainable Remediation Team, Washing-
ton, DC, USA. Available from: www.itrcweb.org. [Accessed 22th July 2018].
ITRC (2011b) Project Risk Management for Site Remediation. RRM-1. Interstate Technology & Regu-
latory Council. Available from: www.itrcweb.org. [Accessed 22th July 2018].
IWG-ETV (2018) International Working Group on ETV. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/environ-
ment/ecoap/etv/international-activities_en. [Accessed 22th July 2018].
Korean NETV (2018) New Excellent Technology and Verification. Available from: www.koetv.or.kr/
eng/. [Accessed 22th July 2018].
Leitgib, L., Gruiz, K., Molnár, M. & Fenyvesi, É. (2003) Bioremediation of Transformer Oil Contami-
nated Soil. In: Annokkée, G.J., Arendt, F. & Uhlmann, O. (eds.) Wissenschaftliche Berichte. FZKA
Publisher, Karlsruhe, Germany. pp. 2762–2771.
Lemming, G., Hauschild, M.Z. & Bjerg, P.J. (2010) Life cycle assessment of soil and groundwater
remediation technologies: Literature review. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 15,
115–127. doi:10.1007/s11367-009-0129-x.
McCarty, P.L. (1988) Bioengineering issues related to in situ remediation of contaminated soils and
groundwater. Basic Life Sciences, 45, 143–162.
MOKKA (2004–2008) Innovative Decision Support Tools for Risk-based Environmental Management
in Hungary. Hungarian Research and Development Grant NKFP-3-0020/2005. Available from:
www.mokkka.hu. [Accessed 22th July 2018].
Molnár, M. (2007) Intensified Bioremediation of Contaminated Soils with Cyclodextrin: From the
Laboratory to the Field. PhD Thesis, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Hungary.
NICOLE (2018) Network of Industrially Co-ordinated Sustainable Land Management in Europe.
Available from: www.nicole.org/pagina/2/Organisation.html. [Accessed 22th July 2018].
PROMOTE (2018) Environmental Technology Verification. Available from: www.promote-etv.org/.
Reddy, K. & Adams, J. (2015) Sustainable Remediation of Contaminated Sites. Momentum Press,
New York, NY, USA.
Rosèn, L., Back, P.-E., Söderqvist, T., Norrman, J., Brinkhoff, P., Norberg, T., Volchko, Y., Norin, M.,
Bergknut, M. & Döberl, G. (2015) SCORE: Multi-criteria decision analysis for assessing the sus-
tainability of remediation at contaminated sites. Science of the Total Environment, 511, 621–638.
Rosèn, L., Back, P.-E., Norrman, J., Söderqvist, T., Norberg, T., Volchko, Y., Brinkhoff, P., Norin, M.,
Bergknut, M. & Döberl, G. (2013) SCORE: Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) for sustainability appraisal
of remedial alternatives. Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Bioremediation and
Sustainable Environmental Technologies, 10–13 June 2013. Batelle, Jacksonville, FL, USA.
Rosèn, L., Söderqvist, T., Back, P.E., Soutukorva, Å., Brodd, P. & Grahn, L. (2009) Multi-criteria anal-
ysis (MCA) for sustainable remediation at contaminated sites. Method development and examples.
Report 5891. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Stockholm, Sweden.
SAB (2009) Valuing the Protection of Ecological Systems and Services: A report of the EPA Science
Advisory Board. Washington, USA. EPA-SAB-09-012.
Schwartz, A. & Bar, R. (1995) Cyclodextrin-enhanced degradation of toluene and p-toluic acid by
Pseudomonas putida. Applied Environmental Microbiology, 61, 2727–2731.
Singh, R., Murty, H., Gupta, S. & Dikshit, A. (2009) An overview of sustainability assessment meth-
odologies. Ecological Indicators, 9(2), 189–212.
Smith, J., Bardos, P., Bone, B., Boyle, R., Ellis, D., Evans, F. & Harries, N. (2010) SuRF-UK: A
Framework for Evaluating Sustainable Remediation Options, and Its Use in a European
Regulatory Context. Available from: www.researchgate.net/publication/228481485_SuRF-
UK_A_framework_for_evaluating_sustainable_remediation_options_and_its_use_in_a_Euro-
pean_regulatory_context. [Accessed 22th July 2018].
SNOWMAN-MCA Project (2009–2013) SNOWMAN-MCA Multi-criteria analysis (MCA) of reme-
diation alternatives to access their overall impact and cost/benefit, with focus on soil function (eco-
system services and goods) and sustainability. EUGRIS Database. Available from: www.eugris.
info/DisplayProject.asp?p=4713. [Accessed 22th July 2018].
Sparrevik, M., Saloranta, T., Cornelissen, G., Eek, E., Magerholm Fet, A., Breedveld, G.D. & Linkov,
I. (2011) Use of life cycle assessments to evaluate the environmental footprint of contaminated
sediment remediation. Environmental Science and Technology, 45(10), 4235–4241. doi:10.1021/
es103925u.
State of Green (2018) Environmental Technology Verification, Denmark. Available from: https://
stateofgreen.com/en/partners/danetv/solutions/environmental-technology-verification. [Accessed
22th July 2018].
Suèr, P., Nilsson-Påledal, S. & Norrman, J. (2010) LCA for site remediation: A literature review. Jour-
nal Soil and Sediment Contamination: An International Journal, 13(4), 415–425. doi:10.1080/
10588330490471304.
SuRF UK (2018) Sustainable Remediation Forum: UK LinkedIn Page. Available from: www.claire.
co.uk/home/news/56-surf-uk-linkedin-page. [Accessed 22th July 2018].
TESTNET (2018) Towards a European Verification System for Environmentally Sound Technology.
Available from: www.est-testnet.net. [Accessed 22th July 2018].
UN (2007) Indicators of Sustainable Development: Guidelines and Methodologies. Third edition.
Methodology Sheets. The World Bank. Available from: www.un.org/esa/sustdev/natlinfo/indica-
tors/methodology_sheets.pdf. [Accessed 22th July 2018].
US EPA (2008) Green Remediation: Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into
Remediation of Contaminated Sites. EPA 542-R-08-002. Available from: www.cluin.org/
greenremediation. [Accessed 22th July 2018].
US EPA (2009) Principles for Greener Cleanups. Available from: www.epa.gov/oswer/green
cleanups/principles.html. [Accessed 22th July 2018].
US EPA (2011a) Green and Sustainable Remediation: A Practical Framework. Technical/Regulatory
Guidance. ITRC. Available from: www.itrcweb.org/guidancedocuments/gsr-2.pdf. [Accessed
22th July 2018].
US EPA (2011b) Green Remediation Focus: Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation.
Available from: www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/calculators/Warm_home.html. www.
clu-in.org/greenremediation. [Accessed 22th July 2018].
US EPA ETV (2018) Environmental Technology Verification Program. Available from: https://archive.
epa.gov/nrmrl/archive-etv/web/html/. [Accessed 22th July 2018].
Volchko, Y., Rosѐn, L., Norrman, J., Bergknut, M., Döberl, G., Anderson, R., Tysklind, M. & Müller-
Grabherr, D. (2014) Multi-Criteria Analysis of Remediation Alternatives to Access their Overall
Impact and Cost/Benefit, with Focus on Soil Function (Ecosystem Services and Goods) and Sus-
tainability. Report 2014:6. Final Report of the SNOWMAN-MCA project carried out as part of
the SNOWMAN Network coordinated call II. CHALMERS University of Technology, Göteborg.
Available from: http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/204158/local_204158.pdf.
Volkwein, S., Hurtig, H.W. & Klöpffer, W. (1999) Life cycle assessment of contaminated sites reme-
diation. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 4, 263. doi:10.1007/BF02979178.
Wang, J.-M., Marlowe, E.M., Miller-Maier, R.M. & Brusseau, M.L. (1998) Cyclodextrin-enhanced
biodegradation of phenanthrene. Environmental Science and Technology, 32, 1907–1912.
WBCSD (2011) Guide to Corporate Ecosystem Valuation: A Framework for Improving Corporate
Decision-making. Available from: http://wbcsdpublications.org/project/guide-to-corporate-ecosys-
tem-valuation/. [Accessed 22th July 2018].
What is ETV (2018) About ETV. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecoap/etv/about-
etv_en. [Accessed 22th July 2018].
Subject index
accelerated site assessment procedure (ASAP) 85 alkaline barium calcium (ABC) desalination
accumulation 9, 19, 70, 105, 110–111, 120, 130, process 368
152, 171, 172, 219, 253, 286, 306, 313, 392, alternative electron acceptors/donors 48, 58, 60,
435, 438, 455, 507 61, 73, 107, 119, 137, 247, 295
Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans 375–377, anaerobic oxidation/reduction 261
380–382, 424 anoxic limestone drains (ALDs) 19, 49, 369–370,
acid mine drainage (AMD) 49–50, 106, 171, 378
361, 365–373, 374, 377, 378, 383–403, aquaponics 215
415; active AMD treatment 367–369; case aquatic plant systems 210–219
study (Gyöngyösoroszi) 383–403; coal aromatic compounds/hydrocarbons 245, 249,
mine drainage 378–380; mitigation of AMD 258, 262–267, 270, 426, 473
380, 392; passive AMD treatment 366–367, artificial ecosystems/wetlands 18, 95, 97, 98,
369–372 121, 203–242
acid rock drainage (ARD) 106, 170–171, 365, artificial root system 225, 233
373, 374, 377, 383
activated carbon 52, 271, 288, 298, 299, 304, backhoe stabilization 319
312–315, 318, 459, 530, 535, 540 ball milling 309–310, 470
activated sludge 25, 213, 223–225, 234 base-catalyzed: decomposition 309; glycolite
adsorption 24, 25, 1556, 255, 271, 288, 294, dehalogenation (BCGD) 309
295, 312, 315, 327–328 batch reactors 28, 71, 224, 311
advanced oxidation processes (AOPs) 299–304, bimetallic nanoparticles 305, 474, 476,
323, 325 481–484, 486
aeration 8, 9, 21, 22, 27, 29, 43, 44, 51, 58, 61, bimetallic nanoscale particle (BNP) 305, 474,
72, 73, 76, 80, 83, 137, 140, 141, 159, 161, 476, 471–484, 486
162–172, 176, 203, 216, 223, 225, 232, 270, bioaccumulation 105, 131–132, 135, 268,
276, 291, 295, 364, 367–369, 388, 394, 402, 423–425, 527
526, 530, 534, 535 bioaugmentation 107, 138, 141–143, 162–163,
aerobic/anaerobic: (bio)degradation 11, 20, 168–170, 269, 524
21, 25–27, 53, 58, 61–63, 72, 73, 76, 129, bioavailability 9, 55, 57, 61, 63, 78, 79, 97, 123,
139, 140, 149–158, 159, 162, 168, 214, 245, 129–132, 139, 1410, 141, 151, 162, 165, 167,
256, 257–259, 260–266, 269, 287, 298, 168, 170, 172, 243, 244, 248–260, 269–277,
300, 304, 307, 338, 339, 527, 528, 539; 286, 298, 299, 303, 323, 327, 435, 459, 460,
biotransformation pathways 243, 260–264, 490, 523, 528, 529, 541, 543
265–267; corrosion 467; reactors 238; biochar 59, 61, 312, 315, 327–328
wetlands 50, 369–373, 379 biochemical/biological processes in the soil and
air stripping/sparging 11, 19, 21–24, 44, 51, 52, groundwater 23, 96, 104–107, 117, 120, 1798,
68, 166, 154, 288–293, 294, 295, 296, 298, 299, 423, 468
300, 304, 312, 329, 338, 339, 341, 344, 511 biochemical markers 88
550 Subject index
biocoalugation 425 300–308, 318, 324, 325, 329–344, 367, 375,

biodegradability 9, 248–260, 263, 270, 300, 458, 486; time bomb 102, 110, 117, 121, 123,
533, 534 131–132, 170, 171, 312
biofilm 13, 25, 63, 76, 78, 79, 139, 208, 209, chlorinated/halogenated aromatic compounds
214, 218, 222–226, 376, 381, 382, 425, 528, 138, 309, 469, 483
535; reactor 25, 224 chlorobenzenes 153, 293, 456; dichlorobenzene
biofiltration 13, 215, 288, 313 152; hexachlorobenzene 56, 297, 308, 310,
bioflushing 277, 528 323, 469, 474; pentachlorobenzene 469;
bioleaching 12, 33, 73, 130, 171, 182, 255, trichlorobenzene 474
363–382; contact and noncontact bioleaching chromium 58, 157, 256, 394, 453, 454, 468
376; industrial application 377; mechanism classification of environmental technologies
374; microbial bioleaching community 376; 1–38, 44
monitoring 381–382 clay minerals 56, 59, 104, 110, 313, 315, 317,
biological methods for soil/groundwater 319, 423, 428, 451
remediation 12, 20, 25, 254, 286, 354, 378 coating 294, 305, 312, 379
biological phosphorus removal 209, 222 cometabolic degradation 27, 60, 137, 143, 244,
biomagnification 105, 119, 120, 130, 131, 132 256, 260, 266–267
biomethylation 424 cometabolism 26, 105, 244, 261, 266–267, 269
biomimicry 204 cometabolites 107, 130, 141, 260, 338
biomining 364, 424 complexing agent 31, 61, 79, 141, 257, 293, 296,
bioprecipitation 424, 425 324, 376, 419, 424, 425, 447, 454, 457
biosedimentation 366 compost 161, 203, 205, 319, 328, 366, 371, 373,
biosorption 10, 51, 110, 111, 369, 424, 425 402, 422
biostimulation 107, 269, 323 compound-specific isotope analysis (CSIA) 112
biosurfactants 12, 16, 31, 53, 60, 67, 68, 79, 130, conceptual model: of the risk (CRM) 114, 117,
141, 143, 162, 168, 251, 253–256, 296, 323, 135, 136, 330, 331, 333, 334, 521, 525; of the
364, 423, 458 site (CSM) 111, 513, 514, 520, 521, 524, 525
biotransformation 16, 17, 33, 60, 130, 144, 243, constructed floating islands 215–220
244, 260–268, 423 constructed wetlands 210–214; aerobic or
bioventing 10, 61–63, 141, 160, 161, 163, 166, oxidizing wetlands 50, 370–373; anaerobic or
244, 271–277, 526–534, 540, 542 reducing wetlands 50, 370–373
bitumen 59, 60, 311, 316 containment 7, 13, 33, 69, 311, 312, 314,
block formation 13, 59, 60, 69, 104, 311–318, 420 320–321, 326–327, 397, 416–417, 427, 457
boundaries of the reactor 64–68 cosolvents 69, 102, 141, 296, 297, 299, 307,
419, 456, 458
capping 326, 416, 417; landfill capping 321, cost-benefit analysis/assessment 89, 330, 497,
381–382 505, 506, 509, 516, 518, 521, 522, 525, 542
carbonaceous materials (CM) 327 cost efficiency 4, 55, 64, 122, 275, 298, 339, 373,
carbon nanotubes 256, 315, 465, 466, 484, 486–487 435, 499, 509, 511, 522, 525, 531–532, 542
carboxymethyl: beta-cyclodextrin (CMBCD) creosote 151, 168–170, 292, 294, 318, 523
297, 308, 309; cellulose 59, 488; chitosan 297 cyclodextrin 60, 69, 150, 164–165, 167, 168,
catalytic: combustion 11; effect of nanoparticles 244, 251, 256–260, 269–277, 297–298, 299,
474, 482–484; oxidation 288, 294, 300, 304; 308, 456, 458, 477–478, 520–541
reductive dehalogenation (CRD) 306 cyclodextrin-enhanced: chemical oxidation
cell factory 96, 115, 528, 534 307–309; soil-flushing technology (CDEF)
cement 58, 60, 69, 156, 163, 311–316, 318, 320, 296, 297–299, 323
327, 367, 421–422 cyclodextrin-enhanced in situ bioremediation
chelating agent 141, 293, 307, 418, 419, 456 (CDT): cost efficiency 531–533;
chemical: dehalogenation 300, 306, 309, 465, environmental and socio-economic impacts
472, 474, 483, 485, 487; oxidation 13, 540–541; field demonstration 275–280;
24–25, 32, 54, 58, 61, 87, 154, 285, 287, 294, management and decision making 529; mass
Subject index 551
balance 536; monitoring 527; risk assessment 299; field applications 460–461; oxidation/
536–539; sustainability indicators 524, 530–532, reduction 324, 452, 458–461; removal of
540–542; technology selection 529–532; anionic inorganic pollutants 454–455; removal
verification 528–529 of organic/inorganic contaminant mixtures
456–457; removal of organic pollutants
DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) 257, 455–456; removal of toxic metals 453–454;
268, 298, 310, 321, 323–328, 469 soil flushing 324, 457
dechlorination 11, 16, 49, 152–154, 158, 256, electrokinetic remediation 11, 12, 17, 21,
266, 268, 302, 310, 326, 332, 468, 473, 474, 33, 299, 324, 419, 447–461; coupled with
480, 482, 485, 488, 489 bioleaching 377; coupled with bioremediation
deep soil mixing 311, 319 459; coupled with phytoremediation 459;
dehalogenation 49, 72, 261, 266, 300, coupled with PRB 458–459; coupled with
306, 309, 465, 467, 472, 483, 485, 487; thermal desorption 460
catalytic reductive dehalogenation 306; electrolysis 323, 451, 452, 459
hydrodehalogenation 483 electromigration 299, 419, 447, 448, 449,
DEMON process 209 453–459, 480
denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis 381 electron: acceptors 48, 58, 60, 61, 71, 73, 105,
dendrimers 60, 251, 256, 465, 485 107, 119, 129, 130, 137, 139, 140, 141, 156,
denitrification 105, 209, 215, 222, 233, 379 182, 244, 246–248, 259, 265, 273, 295, 298,
dioxins 55, 156, 256, 260, 266, 309, 315, 318, 338, 374, 425, 459, 489; donors 73, 154,
469, 510 156, 266, 305, 338, 380, 426, 482, 487, 489;
direct push method/technology 54, 85, 111, 112, transport 17, 61, 467, 482, 483
163, 256, 300, 305, 488, 513 electroosmosis 419, 446, 448, 449, 450–459, 480
dispersion by chemical reaction (DCR) 315 electrophoresis 419, 448, 451
DNA techniques 112, 119–120, 141, 245 electro-synthesis 458
drainage system 45, 75, 392, 400, 433, 457 elemental: iron 422, 465–490; sulfur 374, 375,
dredged sediment 29, 69, 255, 319, 320–400, 417 378, 425
dual phase vacuum extraction (DPVE) 292 emission: control/monitoring 2, 23, 63, 64, 81,
88, 89, 90, 253, 274, 295, 316, 320, 330, 377,
eco-efficiency/economic efficiency 4, 50, 59, 90, 497, 499, 500, 502, 503, 508, 509, 511, 512,
128, 206, 511, 512, 522, 526, 533, 542 514, 515, 517, 522–528, 530, 531, 537, 540,
ecoengineering 89, 97, 99, 101, 179, 203–235 542; transport 67–68
ecological engineering 203, 206–210, 220, 234 emulsification 12, 16, 25, 61, 68, 74, 79, 83,
ecological methods for soil remediation 33–34, 251, 252, 254, 285, 296, 308, 451
119–120, 285 emulsified zero-valent iron (EZVI) 305, 487
ecological resilience 207, 508 engineered: artificial ecosystems 97, 203–235;
ecomachine 205, 211, 212, 220–234 containment 320–321; nanoparticles 465, 485,
ecotechnology 203–235 490; natural attenuation (ENA) 95, 97, 99,
ecotoxicity 11, 115, 117, 121–124, 148, 274, 100, 101, 129, 135–138, 140–144, 148, 149,
434, 490, 528, 537 158, 159–170; reactive soil zones 46–47, 61;
electrical resistance heating 32, 55, 56, 291, underground reactors 45–50, 97, 203, 363
292, 460 engineering resilience 207
electro-bioreclamation 459 enhanced biological phosphorus removal
electro-bioremediation 459 (EBPR) 209, 222
electrochemical: barriers 457; geo-oxidation environmental efficiency 2, 64, 90, 135, 330,
458; oxidation / reduction 458; remediation 521, 525, 533
15, 286, 299, 308, 325, 365, 447–461; environmental monitoring 4, 40, 84, 85, 88–90,
transformations 452 111–128, 144, 272–274, 381–382, 434, 499,
electro-endosmosis 451 514, 528
electrokinetic / electrochemical: barriers 457; environmental technology verification (ETV)
delivery of NIP 477, 480–481; extraction see verification
552 Subject index
enzyme technologies 17, 246 hetrogeneity (of soil) 14, 39, 41, 52, 54, 55,
epoxidation 268 64–65, 69–71, 74, 79, 80–83, 86, 88, 90, 120,
evolution of the soil 77, 78, 84, 104, 260 128, 138, 147, 162, 163, 176, 183, 286, 295,
exposure model 111, 113, 115, 116 325, 447, 448, 449, 466, 469, 476, 527, 528
ex situ open reactors 65, 80–84 high density sludge (HDS) plant 368
extraction 10–12, 16, 19–23, 29, 31, 33, 42–45, horizontal wells 289, 290, 301
48, 50–56, 62–64, 68–69, 74–76, 90, 118, humic: acids 294, 297, 324, 484; soil 168, 270, 275
140–141, 159–160, 164, 166–167, 244, 252, hydraulic: barrier 30, 31, 48, 51, 66, 68, 74, 89,
259, 271–273, 276, 286–300, 312, 321–324, 90, 296, 319, 335, 336, 339, 540; cavitation
328–329, 332, 335, 336, 339–344, 364, 381, 301; delivery 459, 477, 480; detention 213,
415, 416, 418, 419, 421, 439, 454, 457, 507, 220; fracturing 256, 486, 488
511, 512, 535, 537, 540, 541 hydrodechlorination 473
hydrodehalogenation 483
fate: of contaminants 9, 71, 96, 101–115, 121, hydrodeoxygenation 482
125, 179, 180, 327, 507, 525; models 112, hydrogen peroxide 25, 26, 58, 72, 285, 300–304,
113, 116, 128, 129; of nanoparticles 315, 489, 307, 315, 323–325, 329, 339, 340, 341–344, 458
490; processes 96, 108, 113, 159, 170, 171 hydrogeochemical cycles 95, 205
Fenton reagent 25, 458 hydrogeological: assessment 126; barriers 108,
field demonstration of: combined chemical and 110; conditions/environment/parameters 10,
phytostabilization 432–442; cyclodextrin 51, 54, 71, 82, 117, 520; heterogeneity 70
technology 244, 270, 271, 275–277, 523; hydrogeology 24, 40, 54, 70, 80, 96, 116, 118,
electrokinetic technologies 460–461; oxidation 148, 171, 527
with potassium permanganate 301; technology hydroponic: ecomachine/reactor 28, 227, 229;
using nanoscale iron particles 486–489 floating-bed systems 215, 219
filtering effect/capacity 33, 45, 74, 76, 77, 79, hydroxypropyl beta-cyclodextrins (HPBCD) 257,
109, 231 258, 259, 260, 297, 298, 299, 308, 456, 477
fixed-bed biofilm 225, 226
floating islands 215–220, 227 immobilization 7, 9–10, 13, 15, 16, 18, 28, 46,
floating plants 210, 214–215, 231, 232 72, 78, 87, 102, 104, 107, 110–113, 132, 133,
flow-through reactors 41, 53, 58, 71 144, 150, 158, 170, 151, 157, 170, 171, 256,
flushing 51, 52, 55, 60, 73, 141, 164, 166, 244, 286, 309, 310–321, 326–328, 370, 415, 416,
259, 271, 276, 277, 294, 295–300, 304, 312, 420–442, 459, 482, 485, 487
324, 417, 419–420, 455, 457, 477, 480, 486, incineration 12, 20, 32–33, 151, 288
526, 528, 529, 533–543 in situ chemical oxidation (ISCO) 54, 300–303,
fly ash 58, 69, 157, 312, 313, 316–317, 318, 320, 325, 328–341, 500
367, 373, 393–394, 403, 422, 428–429, 431–442 in situ chemical reduction (ISCR) 300
fracturing 256, 286, 295, 476, 486, 488 In situ quasi-reactors 26, 31, 39, 40, 41, 43–44,
free water surface wetlands 210 46, 48, 63–66, 70–74, 88, 90, 95, 144
in situ reactive soil zones 11, 40–48, 64, 80, 137
gas-phase reduction 470 in situ redox manipulation (ISRM) 46, 49, 248
genetically engineered microorganisms 245 in situ soil flushing 51, 52, 55, 60, 73, 141, 164,
genetic markers 88 166, 244, 259, 271, 276, 277, 294, 295–300,
geomembrane 321 304, 312, 324, 417, 419–420, 455, 457, 477,
green and sustainable remediation (GSR) 499, 480, 486, 526, 528, 529, 533–543
509, 512–519; phases 514; planning 513; integral pumping test (IPT) 112, 329
system-based indicators 516 integrated: constructed wetland 207,
gypsum 57, 151, 156, 311, 320; phosphogypsum 364 211–213, 218, 227, 230; evaluation of the
technology 516–526, 533; monitoring/testing
hazardous metabolites 268–269 methodology 86, 88–89, 111–115, 116–128,
Henry’s law constant 9, 18, 288, 291, 293, 150, 268, 270, 271, 272–274, 330, 331, 332,
333, 335 431, 434–435, 442, 510, 523, 526, 528, 534;
Subject index 553
remediation technology 211, 418, 458, 509; 224, 244, 425; (bio)reactors 367, 368–369;
risk model 115–116 consortium/community/population 57, 78, 88,
iron-oxidizing bacteria 365, 375, 381 104, 138, 140, 245, 247, 249, 250, 269, 322,
isolation 59, 65, 66, 99, 107, 110, 137, 140, 157, 365, 381, 382; degradation 119, 120, 156,
167, 171, 172, 175, 179, 312, 314, 320–321, 159, 220, 243, 244–251, 255–260, 260–277,
337, 378, 415–416, 417; natural isolation 175 380, 527; denitrification 379; diversity 381;
enzymes 77, 107, 261; fuel cell 228; growth
kiln dust: cement kiln dust 312, 367, 422; lime 61, 213, 244, 271; inoculants 8, 63, 143; iron
kiln dust 367 oxidation 375; metal sulfide dissolution 376;
Kow (octanol–water partition coefficient) 9, 18, mineralization 213; oxidation 247; reactor
68, 96, 249, 294, 296, 297, 333, 528 systems 50; reduction 426; sulfur oxidation
375, 380; surfactants 253–256, 378; (bio)
lactate 49, 154; -modified nanosized zero-valent transformation 243, 244, 246, 250, 251,
iron particles 476–480; polylactate ester 307 260–269, 286, 370, 423, 424, 425, 426
leachate treatment 12, 217, 363–369, 372–374 Microbiological: chlorine respiration 73;
leaching 17, 29, 70, 104, 106, 109, 110, 130, cultures 77, 138, 142, 246, 258, 261, 377, 382
132, 137, 140, 172, 254, 255, 286, 293, 311, microorganisms: in biodegradation 32, 33, 48,
315, 318, 320, 321, 326–328, 363–403, 420, 49, 61, 63, 71, 88, 94–183, 215, 231, 233,
421, 426, 484; bioleaching 12, 33, 73, 171, 244–246, 249, 250, 253–256, 260–268, 269,
182, 255–256, 363, 374–377, 423–424, 527; 273, 323, 540; in (bio)leaching 363–382,
natural (bio)leaching 140, 171, 363–364, 377 423–425; in biosorption/bioprecipitation
Leptospirillum ferrooxidans 375, 377, 382 425–426; in natural soil processes 94–183,
life cycle assessment (LCA) 6, 503, 507, 509, 510 138–140; in the reactor 53, 76–79
lime/limestone 13, 49, 57, 58, 60, 69, 110, 312, mine drainage 48, 49–50, 170, 171, 213, 363,
314, 315–320, 367, 369–373, 378–379, 383, 365, 373–378, 381, 383–403, 415, 431
395, 402, 422, 431–442, 459; lime kiln dust mineralization 18, 28, 105, 149, 151, 154, 160,
367; quick lime 315; reactor 369 213, 226, 228, 231, 242, 244, 246, 247, 259,
line drive treatment 295–296 263, 266, 304, 340, 365, 369, 384–385
liquid-phase reduction 470 mixed-type tank reactors 69
living machine 18, 25, 98, 208, 213, 220–235 MNA sustainability 180–183
low density sludge (LDS) plants 368 mobility: of contaminant 8–13, 15, 16, 31, 44,
60, 67–69, 78–79, 124, 130, 132, 137, 138,
macrophytes 213, 371 141, 144, 167, 168, 177, 248, 253, 268, 286,
mass balance 1, 20 291, 296, 318, 319, 320, 327, 420–425, 428,
material output from the soil 75 431, 435, 439, 442, 449, 528; ionic mobility
mechanochemical remediation 309–310 449, 452; of nanoparticles 469, 475, 489
membrane: bioreactors (MBRs) 224; of mobilization 7, 9–15, 20, 25, 29–34, 50, 52,
electrodes 456; separation 288, 315, 366 54, 56–57, 53, 75, 78, 87, 88, 89, 102, 104,
mesocosm 98, 204, 218 106, 107–110, 113, 123, 130, 132, 137, 143,
metalloporphyrinogens 256 144, 150, 163–165, 168, 171, 172, 178, 183,
methallothioneins 425 250–252, 255, 286–310, 342, 364, 417–420,
methanogenesis 73, 105, 144, 152, 153, 158, 261 423–425, 428, 447, 513
methanogens 302 moisture content of the soil 62, 73–74, 80, 83,
methanotrophic bacteria 267 96, 137, 246, 270, 288, 291, 292, 294, 316,
micellar solubilization 252 317, 481, 534
micelle formation 10, 25, 60, 79, 251, 252, 287, monitored natural attenuation (MNA) 8, 40,
296, 449, 451 95, 97–100, 114, 117, 121–125, 128, 133,
microbial: activity 9, 26, 32, 48, 56–58, 79, 135–138, 145–148, 149–158, 159, 162,
87, 120, 129, 143, 244, 246, 253, 259, 274, 178–183, 529–532
275, 291, 326, 328, 435, 437, 459, 527; multi-criteria analysis (MCA) 497; for
adhesion 53, 225; bioleaching 376; biomass sustainability assessment 516
554 Subject index
multi-stage: extraction 294; integrated technology openness of the reactor 8, 41, 47, 64, 65–66, 81
418; reactors 42, 47, 48, 72, 82, 141; water organochlorides/organochlorine pesticides
treatment 27, 82 (OCP) 322, 323, 326, 466, 486, 487
mycorrhizal fungi 275, 430 organophyllic clays 318
oxic limestone drains (OLD) 379
nanobioremediation 256 oxidant 26, 57, 58, 246, 300–303, 325, 340, 342,
nanofiltration 315 365, 374, 454, 458
nanomaterials/nanoparticles 60, 74, 170, 251, oxygen release compound (ORC) 26, 27, 49, 58,
256, 315, 465–490; bimetallic nanoparticles 85, 140, 158, 304
305–306, 481, 474, 476, 481–484, 486; ozone depletion 508, 522, 525
carbon nanotube 256, 315, 466, 487; ceramics ozone/ozonation 25, 26, 58, 72, 79, 290, 300,
(nanoporous) 256, 315, 484–485; dendrimers 301, 303, 304, 308, 315, 325
60, 256, 315, 465, 485; environmental benefits ozone sparging process 303
and risks 489–490; Fe-Pt nanoparticles 488;
field applications 486–489; graphene 296; passive: artificial ecosystems 15, 203–235;
metal oxide 486; nanoclay 318; nanocomposite containment 320–321, 457; energy
318, 485; nanofiber 225–226; palladized-iron technologies 511–512; sampling 512, 513;
(Pd/Fe) nanoparticles 256, 474; silica 485; systems/processes 23, 40, 42, 45, 47–48,
titanium dioxide 484; zeolites 486 97, 110, 154, 159, 203–235, 297, 312, 425;
nano-scale zero-valent iron particles (NIP) treatment for AMD 49, 363, 366, 367,
59, 256, 302, 305, 326, 458, 465, 468; 369–373, 378–380
electrokinetic delivery 480; field demonstration permanganate 25, 54, 58, 300, 301–302, 304,
486–489; modification of surface characteristics 339, 458
474; pressurized/pulsed delivery 480; reactivity permeable reactive barrier (PRB) 21, 22, 46–47,
468, 472–474, 475, 476, 484; synthesis 468, 64, 66, 80–84, 90, 137, 296, 300, 305, 306,
470–471; transport in soil 476–477, 478–479, 307, 315, 371, 458–459, 466–468, 476
488; see also zero valent iron pesticides 77, 116, 138, 155, 260, 265, 266, 268,
nanotechnology 4556, 465–490 285, 300, 303, 309, 321–327, 363, 456, 466,
natural attenuation 8, 40, 50, 77, 95–180; case 469, 485, 486, 487, 488, 508
studies 146, 148, 149; engineered natural photocatalytic degradation 11, 288, 304–305,
attenuation (ENA) 137, 140–143, 148; 325, 484
field application 148–178; history 144; physicochemical: methods for soil remediation
management 135–138; of metals 170–178; 15, 29–31, 97, 285–344, 416–423; processes
monitored natural attenuation (MNA) in the soil 25, 32, 102–104, 179, 285, 286, 311
137, 148; monitoring 111–135; of organic phytodegradation 11, 155, 431
substances 159–170; risk model/profiles 115, phytoextraction 11
128–135; sustainability 178–181 phytoremediation/phytotechnology 33, 61, 95,
natural bioleaching 377 98, 203, 213, 254, 315, 323, 423, 459, 512
natural humidification 8 phytostabilization 11, 13, 144, 155, 422, 426–442
natural isolation 66 phytovolatilization 11
nitrate 73, 105, 119, 127, 138, 140, 144, 151, pilot-scale experiments 270, 274, 275, 460, 461,
152, 160, 219, 231, 234, 298, 302, 326, 332, 485, 534
454, 455, 468, 469, 482, 483, 486 polychlorinated: biphenyls (PCBs) 55, 56, 88,
nitrate-reducing microbes 73, 302 155, 156, 162, 165, 256, 258, 259, 260, 265,
nitrification/denitrification 105, 209, 214, 215, 266, 270, 285, 297, 299, 302, 303, 308, 309,
222, 233, 379 310, 316, 321, 466, 469, 475, 483, 486, 488,
no-risk: product (NRP) 87; situation 127, 537, 538 523, 529; dibenzofurans 309, 510; dibenzo-
nutritional: benefit 266; community 77 p-dioxins 309, 469, 510; terphenyls 309
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) 9, 55,
off-gas treatment 32, 33, 42, 321 88, 138, 146, 150, 151, 158, 168, 170, 245,
oil recovery from dredged material 255–256, 294 247, 256, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 285,
Subject index 555
294, 296, 297, 299, 300, 302, 303, 304, 308, reducing and alkalinity producing systems
321, 324, 456, 457, 466 (RAPS) 50, 371
pond treatment 21, 25, 27, 28, 65, 69, 151, 154, reductive: agents 422; biodegradation 155, 261,
167, 210–235, 363, 370–372, 378, 395, 530, 372; capacity 468; conditions 56, 59, 109;
531, 533 dechlorination/dehalogenation 11, 49, 153,
post-remediation: care/activities 88–89, 113; 154, 158, 266, 268, 306, 309, 326, 468, 480,
environmental risk 2 485; processes/degradation processes 371,
pressure pulse technology (PPT) 256, 296, 477, 372, 453, 459; reactions 467; surface sites 483
486, 487 remediation reactor 41–63, 81–84
pressurized/pulsed hydraulic delivery of NIP 480 remobilization risk 312
problem- and site-specific assessment 85 respiration 26, 49, 72, 73, 80, 83, 105, 120, 121,
product generation 87–88 140, 246, 265, 273, 336, 425, 489
pulsed: electrodeposition 470; hydraulic delivery respirometry 274, 275, 528
480; limestone bed (PLB) reactor 379; mode restorer systems 227, 232
soil gas extraction 290; reactor 3112 revitalization 17, 32, 33, 34, 55, 79, 84, 310
pumping test (IPT) 112, 329 rhamnolipids 253–255, 296, 323
pump & treat technology (P&T) 11, 12, 152, rhizofiltration 13, 27, 28, 48
530, 531, 532 rhizosphere: -based clean-up processes 214;
push-(and)-pull technique 85, 141, 259, 295, community/microorganisms 17, 18, 33;
298, 319 wastewater treatment 25, 215
pyrolysis 12, 33, 59, 312 risk: assessment 5, 69, 89, 104, 107, 113,
pyrometallurgical separation 419 117, 122, 124, 128, 136, 176, 328, 330,
331, 393, 396, 414, 426, 428, 432, 490,
Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship 510, 526; -based approach/concept 4, 505,
(QSAR) models 249 506, 537; -based land use 101; -based site
quasi-filled groundwater treatment reactors 71 remediation 501; -based soil quality criteria
quasi-reactors 26, 31, 39, 40, 41, 43–44, 46, 48, 19, 538; -benefit assessment/balance 180,
63–66, 70–74, 88, 90, 95, 144 182, 331, 489, 502, 509, 521, 522, 525;
characterization/estimation/evaluation 53,
radioactive: decay 158; waste 508 113, 115, 127, 132, 135, 177, 333–338,
radio frequency heating (RFH) 56, 291, 292 435, 490, 521, 525, 528, 537, 538, 542;
radiolysis 481 characterization ratio (RCR) 113, 124, 132,
radionuclides 56, 138, 145, 157, 158, 256, 306, 176, 336, 525, 537; communication 122,
421, 426, 447, 460, 485 525; -increasing/enhancing process 106,
randomly methylated beta-cyclodextrin 111, 123, 129–133, 165, 172, 173, 180, 527;
(RAMEB) 163–164, 166–168, 256–258, indicator 124; management 2, 99, 115, 135,
269–277, 296, 297, 299, 308, 523, 528–529, 145, 146, 148, 252, 269, 328, 330–340, 506,
533, 534, 535, 540, 541 512, 520; map 113, 333; model 113–116,
reactive soil zones 11, 40–48, 64, 80, 137 131–136, 330, 331, 333, 521, 525; profile
reactor approach 7, 9, 34–90, 140, 144, 526 113, 115, 128–135, 160–161, 165, 168–170,
recombinant DNA techniques 245 173–174; reduction/reducing processes 2, 3,
redox: adjuster/adjustment/control 27, 47, 50, 17, 48, 96–97, 100–102, 110, 111, 121, 124,
58, 60, 63, 83, 137, 140, 295, 367; agent 315, 128–134, 136, 143, 144, 146, 160, 168, 170,
417; conditions 13, 25, 71, 76, 87, 88, 110, 172, 177, 248, 253, 286, 292, 311, 320, 328,
138, 179, 204, 248; gradient 71, 103, 105; 414, 423, 490, 502, 510, 511, 533, 539, 542;
indicators 87, 88, 119, 127; manipulations of remobilization 312; score 441, 530–531;
46, 49, 248; potential-dependent processes sources 171
102–103, 105; potential setting 72–73;
reactions/technologies 300–309, 453, 460, self-assembled monolayers (SAMMS) 256, 315,
482; transformations 246–248, 423, 425; 484–485
zones 13, 247 siderophores 423, 424
556 Subject index
simultaneous nitrification/denitrification sophorose lipids 296

(SND) 209 (ad/ab)sorption 10, 13, 16, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25,
six-phase soil heating (SPSH) 292 32, 33, 45, 47, 50, 51, 53, 59, 63, 67, 74, 101,
socio-cultural criteria 517 102, 104, 108–112, 130, 135, 156–157, 171,
socioeconomic: assessment 4; conditions 498; cost 212, 215, 252, 256, 271, 288, 294, 295, 298,
and benefit assessment 206, 499, 502, 509, 514; 299, 311, 312–315, 318, 327–328, 366, 367,
criteria 442; efficiency 85, 89, 90, 135, 136, 373, 369, 370, 379, 380, 393, 420, 421, 424, 425,
435, 503, 521, 522, 540–542; factors/elements/ 429, 452, 453, 456, 457, 560, 467–469, 473,
items 4, 115, 496, 498, 501; impact 499, 502, 487, 530, 535, 538
504, 506, 519, 521, 540–542; indicators 501, stabilization of contaminants: chemical
509, 530; risk 505, 506; sustainability indicators/ stabilization 10, 12, 13, 15, 31, 33, 59, 61, 69,
goals 497, 512, 515, 523 72, 73, 78, 102, 104, 110, 111, 130, 132, 144,
socio-environmental costs and benefits 525 169, 170, 296, 292, 311–316, 318–319, 321,
sodium: bicarbonate 309; bisulfite/hydrosulfite 402, 415, 487, 489; combined chemical and
300; borohydride 470, 471; carbonate 58; phytostabilization 415–442; lagoons/ponds
dithionite 59, 300, 306; dodecyl sulfate 220; phytostabilization 11, 13, 144, 155, 422,
322, 380; lactate 477; lauryl sulfate 252; 426–442; thermal stabilization 10, 311, 312
percarbonate 26, 301, 303; permanganate 25, stabilization of soil/mass stabilization 311–313,
58, 301; persulfate 58, 300, 301; silicate 59 316–320
soil: aeration 8, 9, 21, 22, 27, 29, 43, 44, 51, stable isotope technique (DNA/RNA-SIP) 112
58, 61, 72–73, 76, 77, 80, 83–84, 137, 140, standard oxidation potential 301
141, 159, 161, 162, 164–170, 176, 203, 270, steam enhanced remediation (SER) 292
276, 291, 295, 364, 367–369, 388, 394, 395, stripping 11, 19, 31, 22–24, 44, 55, 68, 166,
402, 489, 526, 530, 534, 535; flushing 51, 288–293, 294, 295, 298, 299, 300, 304, 312,
52, 55, 60, 73, 141, 164, 166, 244, 259, 271, 329, 338, 339, 341, 344; in-well stripping
276, 277, 294, 295–300, 304, 312, 324, 417, 22–24, 51, 52
419–420, 455, 457, 477, 480, 486, 526, 528, subsurface: barriers 66, 312, 417, 423; filters
529, 533–543; gas/vapor extraction (SVE) 137; (flow) wetland 137, 210–211; heating 21,
11, 12, 20, 44, 51, 52, 55, 56, 63, 287, 288, 291; reactive soil zones 137; reactors 40, 41,
291–293, 511; heating 7, 9, 10, 21, 24, 31, 32, 46–49, 51, 58, 61, 64, 252
44, 54–57, 61, 63, 68, 71, 79, 100, 167, 221, ‘sugar flushing’ technology 297
234, 291, 292, 304, 305, 314, 460; oxidant sulfate: -reducing bacteria 49, 73, 109, 302,
demand (SOD) 300, 301; respiration 273, 369, 371, 380, 424, 425; -reducing bioreactor
528; vacuum extraction (SVE) 287, 292; (bio) 368–369; reduction 50, 105, 106, 148, 150,
venting 58, 61, 62, 67, 71, 140, 149, 150, 157, 158, 367, 380
159–161, 163, 166, 244, 271, 276, 277, 287– sulfidation 366
288, 526, 528–534, 540, 541, 542; washing sulfur-oxidizing microorganisms 374, 381, 424
7, 9, 11, 23, 29–33, 43, 45, 50, 55, 60, 63, 66, supercritical carbon dioxide 294
69, 179, 227, 254, 255, 256, 293–299, 304, surfactant 27, 53, 63, 69, 74, 79, 107, 141,
307, 322–323, 325, 364, 416, 417, 418–419, 143, 156, 251, 260, 287, 296, 299, 305, 364,
441, 514, 530, 532, 533; -water partition 380, 417, 447, 456, 458; against bioleaching
coefficient (KD) 31, 250, 297, 527 255, 380, 382; biosurfactants 12, 16, 31, 53,
solidification: by block formation 311, 313–314; / 60, 67, 79, 130, 141, 143, 162, 168, 251,
stabilization (S/S) 311–314, 316, 318–320, 253–256, 296, 364, 423, 458; -enhanced
420–421 air-stripping 293; -enhanced biodegradation
solidifying agent 60, 74, 311, 319 61, 251–256, 530–532; -enhanced dissolved-
solubilizing agents 25, 60, 61, 74, 79, 144, air flotation technology 378; -enhanced
251–256, 294, 296, 299, 307, 456, 458 extraction 322–323; -enhanced oil-recovery
solvated electron treatment (SET) 306 256; -enhanced pump & treat technology
solvent extraction 31, 43, 294, 322–323 530–532; -enhanced redox technologies
sonolysis 458 306–309; -enhanced soil-flushing technology
Subject index 557
(SEF) 296–297, 298, 324, 419; -enhanced soil transport model 67, 70, 111, 115, 124, 125, 144,
remediation 251–256; -enhanced soil washing 524, 525
254, 293, 322–323, 325, 418; -enhanced treatment: of individual soil phases 18–33; of
transport of NIP 477–479; synthetic soil gas and vapor 8, 10, 11, 16, 17, 19–21,
surfactants 60, 252–253 29, 40, 42, 44, 48, 55, 67, 68, 75, 79, 90,
SuRF Framework 519–520 159, 164, 166, 167, 287, 288, 290, 291, 312;
sustainability 97, 135, 147, 148, 204, 205, of soil water and groundwater 7, 8, 10–19,
216, 243, 327, 496, 498–509, 512, 533; 21–28, 29, 33, 38, 40–44, 45–54, 56, 58,
assessment/analysis/measuring 1–4, 167, 60–88, 96, 101, 104–107, 108, 112, 116, 130,
180, 497, 498, 500, 503–518, 520, 524, 132, 134, 137–140, 144–154, 159–170, 207,
527, 528, 531; combined with cost-benefit 212, 243–244, 256, 259, 260, 271, 276, 287,
assessment 518; footprint 497, 515; history 288, 295, 300–312, 315, 320, 322, 327, 329,
of sustainability assessment 505–509; 339–344, 372, 377, 416–420, 423, 447–461,
indicators 4, 497, 503, 507–509, 515, 466–468, 472, 475, 483, 485–489, 497, 501,
516, 519, 522, 524, 530, 540–542; of the 511, 521, 526–543; of the solid phase soil
leachate treatment technologies 372–374; 28–33, 39–89, 95–180, 243–275, 285–344,
management 497, 502–505, 519; of NA and 415–441, 447–461, 465–490
MNA 147, 178–183 trehalose lipid 296, 323
sustainable environmental remediation 2–34 “triple value” (3V) framework 181
swellable organic modified silica 485 tube reactor 24, 42, 43, 51, 71
technological efficiency 9, 90, 135, 330, 521 UV treatment 295, 300, 304, 323, 484
technologies based on: biological processes
16–18, 61–63, 447, 498; immobilization of verification: cost-benefit assessment (see cost-
contaminants 9–16, 310–316, 416; living benefit assessment); cost efficiency (see cost
systems 204; mobilization of contaminants efficiency); of cyclodextrin technology
9–16, 286–300, 416; natural processes 8, 100, (CDT) 540–542; environmental efficiency
179, 498; physical, chemical processes 16–18, (see environmental efficiency); MOKKA
284–310, 447 verification tools 528–529; social risk
technology design 80–85, 90, 416 and benefit evaluation 522; technological
technology monitoring 26, 85–88, 90, 115, 511, efficiency 9, 90, 135, 330, 521; technology
523, 525; of in situ soil remediation 164, 166 verification 5, 49, 89, 128–135, 243, 435, 441,
technology verification see verification 497–543; verification of in situ bioremediation
tensides 31, 74, 79 520–542
thermally enhanced: solubilization and vitrification 8, 12, 13, 17, 33, 44, 55, 56, 312,
degradation 11; vapor extraction system 314, 421
(TEVES) 291–292
thermal methods for soil remediation 6, 7, wetland see constructed wetlands
10–13, 16–17, 20–21, 31–33, 43, 44, 55–57, wetting agents 74, 252
69, 73, 79, 141, 179, 286, 288, 291, 292, 304, white rot fungi 263
311, 312, 314, 315, 322, 418–419, 447, 460,
481, 485, 486, 511 zeolites 288, 315, 459, 486, 490
Thiobacillus ferroxidans 365 zero-valent iron (ZVI) 53, 59, 256, 302, 305,
titanium dioxide 465, 484 458, 467; emulsified ZVI 305; nanoscale ZVI
tomography 112 326, 468–481; in PRB 467
Risk Management
Editors: Katalin Gruiz, Tamás Meggyes & Éva Fenyvesi
Engineering Tools for Environmental Risk Management: 1

Environmental Deterioration and Contamination – Problems and their Management
©2014
ISBN: 9781138001541 (Hardback)
e-book ISBN: 9781315778785
Cat# K22815

Environmental Toxicology
©2015
e-book ISBN: 9781315778778
Cat# K22816

Site Assessment and Monitoring Tools
e-book ISBN: 9781315778761
Cat# K22817

Risk Reduction Technologies and Case Studies
e-book ISBN: 9781315778754
Cat# K22818

4 5796417592721672078 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4 5796417592721672078 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

4 5796417592721672078 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Engineering Tools for Environmental

Risk Reduction Technologies

1 Contaminated site remediation : role and classification

2 In situ soil remediation: the reactor approach 39

2.3 Physical processes used for in situ soil remediation 44

3 Natural attenuation in contaminated soil remediation 95

6.3.1 Engineered natural attenuation of soil and groundwater

4 Ecoengineering tools: passive artificial ecosystems 203

5 Biodegradation-based remediation – over view and

4.3 Biosurfactants 253

6 Traditional and innovative methods for physical

3.4 Mass stabilization 319

7 Leaching, bioleaching and acid mine drainage case study 363

3 General overview of the Gyöngyösoroszi mining site, concept for

8 Remediation technologies for metal-contaminated

2.3.3 Field demonstration 432

9 Electrochemical remediation for contaminated soils,

10 Elemental iron and other nanotechnologies for

4 Modified nanoscale iron particles (NIP) 474

11 Planning, monitoring, verification and sustainability

4.1.2 Evaluation tools for in situ bioremediation 524

Subject index 549

2,4D 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid

CPEO Center for Public Environmental Oversight

GC EPH GC-measured extractable petroleum hydrocarbon

NOM natural organic matter

SAC soil air circulation systems

Katalin Gruiz is Associate Professor at Budapest University of

Tamás Meggyes is Research Coordinator in Berlin, Germany.

Éva Fenyvesi is senior scientist and founding member of Cyc-

Contaminated site remediation :

2 SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION

2.1 Measuring sustainability

– Another way to categorize indicators is as follows (Fiksel et al., 2012):

◦ Air, climate and energy;

◦ Adverse outcome indicates destruction of value due to adverse impacts on indi-

– An independent proof of verified performance parameters;

2.2 Remediation technologies – classification,

– The phase of the soil to which the technology is applied;

– Natural attenuation (NA);

3 CLASSIFYING REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

3.1 Technology classification defined by the contaminants

3.2 Technologies based on contaminant mobilization

may cover volatilization, hydrolysis, complex formation, solubilization/micelle formation,

Table 1.1 Remediation based on the mobilization of soil contaminants.

Physicochemical Contaminated/treated medium

Table 1.2 Remediation based on the immobilization of contaminants.

Figure 1.3 Mobilization and removal or degradation of soil contaminants.

Figure 1.5 Stabilization of non-mobilizable, non-degradable soil contaminants.

3.3 Soil treatment technologies based on physical,

– Enhancement of mobility (volatilization, solubilization by enhanced dissolution, emul-

The applicable chemical reactions are photolysis, photodegradation, hydrolysis, oxida-

– Chemically oxidizing the contaminants;

These processes can serve as a basis of remediation.

4 TREATMENT OF INDIVIDUAL SOIL PHASES

4.1 Soil gas and vapor

Figure 1.7 Ex situ and in-well soil air treatment.

4.2 Soil water and groundwater

Figure 1.11 Treatment of volatiles-contaminated groundwater by ex situ or in-well stripping.