Thermal desorption for remediation of contaminated soil

Introduction

Soil is one of the basic environmental elements that make up the ecosystem which forms the

basis of human survival on the planet (Yao et al., 2012). However, due to advancement in

industrialization, the environmental safety of soil has become compromised. (Zhao et al, 2019)

cited many industrial processes that cause soil contamination including irrational mining of

mineral resources through smelting and discharge, long-term sewage irrigation and sludge

application to soil, and application of fertilizers and pesticides. These processes and many others

have adulterated the soil in the environment, thereby making soil pollution a major

environmental concern globally, following atmospheric and water pollutions. This debilitating

effect of soil pollution has also raised concerns about how it affects human health. (Zhao et al,

2019).

It was estimated that in China alone, soil contamination has reached about 150 million mu,

covering 10% of the total cultivated area (Yao et al., 2012). Song et al. (2017) stated that about

3,330,000 agricultural hectares in China are contaminated while about 100,000 sites in the

United States are contaminated. Similarly, in Europe, researchers have identified more than

342,000 contaminated areas (Thomé et al., 2019). Not only that these contaminated sites are

pernicious to human health but also that it costs huge amount of money to decontaminate them.

Panagos et al. (2013) estimated that it will take about 6 billion Euros a year to decontaminate

already identified contaminated sites. As a result of this, various methods of controlling or

remediating soil contamination have been developed over the years.

remediation and eventually grouped the various solutions into four major methods: physical

remediation, chemical remediation, bioremediation and joint remediation. But Thomé et al.

(2019) asserted otherwise that the technological solutions for soil remediation can be grouped in

two main types: in-situ (onsite) technologies and ex-situ (off-site) technologies. However, the

researchers tend to meet at a juncture in a figure by Thomé et al. (2019) which shows the various

solutions and technologies for soil remediation.

Figure 1: Soil remediation processes and technologies (Thomé et al., 2019)

remediation techniques and the choice of technique. While all of the processes in the diagram

above have their advantages and disadvantages, this study intends to investigate the thermal

desorption process of soil remediation. Understanding the mechanisms behind thermal

desorption will help understand how to reduce or remediate soil pollution using one of the most

efficient processes. This will also ensure that safety of human lives is improved and

environmental degradation is mitigated.

Thermal desorption can be described as a physical separation system that physical separates

organic compounds referred to as contaminants from the soil without causing decomposition

(Dadrasnia, Shahsavari & Emenike, 2013). It can also be referred to as a process that operates on

heating process either directly or indirectly by heating the organic contaminants to high

temperature required to volatilize and separate the contaminants from a contaminated solid

medium (such as soil) (CRC National Remediation Framework, 2018). It can be seen that

thermal desorption employs the application of high temperature to remove contaminants from the

soil. By increasing the temperature, the vapour pressure of organic contaminants increases,

leading to volatilization. During the volatilization, the organic contaminants evaporate (Thomé et

al., 2019). There are two temperature modes adopted during thermal desorption process: (i) high

temperature (ii) low temperature. While low temperature thermal desorption operates between

95-315°C, high temperature occurs between 315-340°C (Dadrasnia, Shahsavari & Emenike,

2013). Similarly, Contract Report (1998) divided thermal desorption process into two based on

the temperature: low-temperature thermal desorption (LTTD) and high-temperature thermal

desorption (HTTD). While the former can be applied to contaminants with boiling points lower
than 600°F, the latter can be applied to contaminants with boiling points between 600°F and

1,200°F. Contract Report (1998) further added that although heat is applied in this process, the

physical properties of the material are usually retained. But in HTTD, there is tendency for a

little modification since the heat could get so high to cause some other reaction changes. This

ability to retain the physical properties of material is one of the key benefits of thermal

desorption, differentiating it from some other thermal processes such as incineration. In addition,

thermal desorption technologies are also capable of treating all sorts of chlorinated compounds

(Contract Report (1998) which are common contaminants in soil polluted sites.

In thermal desorption, the volatilized compounds are transported either by mixture of air and

combustion gas or by an inert gas (CRC National Remediation Framework, 2018). It can be seen

that thermal desorption is a physical separation process that transports contaminants from one

phase (solid) to another (gas). Therefore, thermal desorption is not designed to provide high

organic destruction as an intended result (CRC National Remediation Framework, 2018). The

gases collected must be treated before they are discharged into the atmosphere (Thomé et al.,

2019).

Technological Description of Thermal Desorption

Contract Report (1998) gives an overall technological description of thermal desorption, stating

that the process comprises two main processes. During the first step, heat is applied to the

contaminated soil (any other material under consideration) which then vaporizes the

contaminants into gases. The second step involves collection of the vaporized gas which is done
according to regulatory requirements before being disposed of into the atmosphere (Contract

Report, 1998). Figure 2 below shows the skeletal description of how this technology works and

the processes involved.

Figure 2: Thermal Desorption Technological Description (Contract Report, 1998)

Thermal desorption is suitable for various forms of contaminants ranging from the most volatile

to the semi-volatile contaminants. Some of these contaminants include polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons (PAHs), total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),

dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), and mercury. Also, some of the advantages of thermal

desorption include short treatment period, high efficiency, safety, absence of secondary

pollution, and capability to treat various contaminants and soil recycling. In this regard, thermal
desorption has been widely used to remediate sites with high concentrations of contaminants,

small area, and urgent requirement for treatment (Zhao et al, 2019).

Several studies and experiments have been conducted on thermal desorption to help researchers

understand this process much better. In the same vein, there have also been several reviews of

literature to show the extent to which the understanding of thermal desorption has been attained

as well as the boundaries that still need to be pushed. This study intends to review how thermal

desorption process is being used for soil remediation. It also considers the mechanism of this

process, classification and cost of carrying it out. It further examines several factors that

influence thermal desorption, particularly the optimum operating temperature, treatment time,

the effect of soil particle size, and the possibility of reusing remediated site for agricultural

purpose.

Basic Information on Thermal Desorption Process of remediating Contaminated Soil

This section delineates the mechanisms responsible for thermal desorption process, the

classifications of thermal desorption and the cost of carrying out the process. It also discusses the

various factors that affect the thermal desorption process, and lastly, the technologies associated

with the process and its industrial applications.

Mechanism of Thermal Desorption

Theoretically, the main mechanism of Thermal Desorption is volatilization and desorption which

enables the removal of contaminants from contaminated soil (Baker and Kuhlman, 2002). As
earlier defined, in thermal desorption process, heat is applied to the contaminated soil at an

appropriate temperature, which causes the volatilization of volatile or semi-volatile contaminants

present in the soil (Zhao et al, 2019). The appropriate temperature required to conduct this

method depends on the type of contaminants in the soil. Once the heating process is complete,

the evolving gases are collected and treated before passing it into the atmosphere. However, in

actual application many more reaction mechanisms tend to occur as a result of the high

temperature and atmospheric oxygen content. Some of the reaction mechanisms include

pyrolysis, degradation and oxidation (Baker and Kuhlman, 2002). One key element that defines

thermal desorption and separates it from direct incineration is that combustion does not occur (or

expected to occur) during thermal desorption, thereby giving thermal desorption advantages over

incineration. The following are the advantages of thermal desorption according to (Percin, 1995):

 Thermal desorption works for various kinds of contaminants

 It has low degradation and oxidation rates and the process also allows valuable

contaminants to be recycled

 Thermal desorption is a stable process and the equipment for carrying it out is mobile

 It causes low damage to the soil

 The process lowers the production of highly toxic secondary pollutants

In other words, thermal desorption mechanisms provide suitable technical solution for dealing

with one of the most devastating environmental challenges (Zhao et al, 2019).

Classification of Thermal Desorption

According to Environmental Protection Agency (2017), thermal desorption can be categorized

into two based on the system: (i) stationary facilities and (ii) mobile units. For the stationary
facility system, the contaminated soils are excavated and transported to facilities where thermal

desorption is carried out while for the mobile units system, the process is done there on that site

where the contaminated soil is present. Thermal desorption can also be classified based on type

of application. CRC National Remediation Framework (2018) also classified thermal desorption

based on its application and further opined that the technique is classified based on whether is

operated in situ or ex situ and at high temperature treatment or low temperature treatment, adding

that the main determinant of this technique is the range of the target contaminants boiling points.

Sales da Silva et al. (2020), whose research was basically on one of the method of soil

remediation: bioremediation, also classifies the process as an in situ or ex situ. It can be seen that

even the authors who classify based on thermal desorption system still falls under the in situ-ex

situ category. Summarily, thermal desorption can largely be classified in two ways: (i) in situ and

(ii) ex situ. However, (Zhao et al, 2019) took the classification far deeper and came up with more

ways of classifying thermal desorption, which are:

1. Classification based on engineering applications

2. Classification by theoretical temperature

3. Classification according to equipment type

Cost of Thermal desorption

The cost of the techniques deployed is a critical factor to consider when carrying out soil

remediation process. While it seems some of the solutions to soil contamination are quite costly

to carry out, soil remediation processes are actually beneficial on the long run in the sense that

they mostly cause little soil damage or require a short period of time to execute, thereby reducing
the subsequent cost of remediation or increasing the reutilization of the soil. Due to its system of

operation, the cost of thermal desorption process is higher than some other techniques such as

bioremediation but comparing with techniques such as chemical extraction and stabilization

technologies, the cost of thermal desorption seems to be at par while it is even lesser than

incineration and vitrification techniques (Zhao et al, 2019).

However, the cost of thermal desorption is dependent on the methods of treatment. For instance,

when compared with the ex situ thermal desorption, in situ thermal desorption reduces the cost of

soil excavation and transportation, prevents the demolition and reconstruction of the buildings in

the site and also lowers the cost of soil pretreatment. Similarly, direct contact thermal desorption

(DCTD) gives higher efficiencies of heat and mass transfer than indirect contact thermal

desorption (ICTD) but it discharges more amount of off-gas thereby requiring more cost of

treating off-gas (Zhao et al, 2019). In the same vein, higher temperature thermal desorption

(HTTD) requires higher energy input thereby making it costlier than low temperature thermal

desorption (LTHD). But on the other hand, for contaminants with higher boiling points, LTHD

becomes ineffective. Therefore, due to its high effectiveness and short treatment period, the

overall economic performance of thermal desorption is deemed acceptable. Although it is

noteworthy to mention that due to variation in basic characteristics of the remediation site such

as initial concentration of contaminants, moisture content, and soil texture, the cost of operating

thermal desorption varies with the sites and as a result cannot be generalized (Zhao et al, 2019).
Factors Influencing Thermal Desorption

To carry out the thermal desorption process, several factors have to be put into consideration.

This includes the soil characteristics such as moisture content, plasticity, heat capacity, particle

size, and bulk density. For instance, higher moisture content in the soil means high energy

required for treatment (Geo Engineer, 2013). To ensure that the process is efficient, Thomé et al.

(2019) mentions certain factors that must also be considered. These are vapour pressure,

treatment time, contaminant concentration, soil density, soil humidity and particle distribution of

soil. Troxler et al. (1993) categorized these factors into three major category: (i) equipment

operating parameters, (ii) contaminant characteristics, and (iii) soil characteristics. The four

factors affecting thermal desorption under equipment operating parameters are: (i)

Soi1temperature (ii) treatment time (iii) exhaust gas type, and (iv) heating method. For soil

characteristics moisture content, heat capacity and particle size are the main factors. Smith

(1997) also added that the treatment time of soil also affects the extent of soi1 decontamination.

Zhao et al. (2019) stated heating time and rate, the carrier gas, soil particle size, moisture

content, initial contaminant concentration, and types of additives as some of the factors that

influence thermal desorption including These authors delved deeper into this aspect,

summarizing works of several authors and concluding that there are eight factors that influence

thermal desorption and these factors can be further grouped into three: (i) operating parameters,

(ii) physical and chemical properties of soil, and (iii) additives. The figure 3 below shows how

various factors influence the result of thermal desorption process as seen in works of several

authors.
 Figure 3: Literature table of factors influencing thermal desorption (Zhao et al., 2019)

Technologies and Applicability of Thermal Desorption

Thermal desorption can be applied to a wide range of soil contaminants from volatile and semi-

volatile hydrocarbons, including refined fuels, tars, creosote, to rubber wastes (Smith, 1997).

McCreery & Linden (2013) also mentioned that thermal desorption can be applied to volatile

contaminants of between 300 – 1000 o F as well as fuels, organics, and pesticides. To carry out

this decontamination process, there are several thermal desorption technologies that can be

adopted. As far as back as the 20th century, Troxler et al. (1993) described four basic thermal

desorber technological configurations: (i) rotary kiln, (ii) asphalt aggregate dryer (iii)

conveyor fumace and (iv) thermal screw.

desorption technologies can only be described in two steps: (1) heating process whereby the

organic contaminants are heated until they volatilize and (2) treating process whereby the

exhaust gas is treated to avoid releasing the polluted gas into the atmosphere. The report further

divided thermal desorption systems into two broad categories: (i) continuous feed and (ii) batch-

feed types.

The technologies used by the continuous feed types are direct-contact thermal desorption (rotary

dryer) and indirect-contact thermal desorption (rotary dryer and thermal screw conveyor) while

the technologies used by the batch-feed are heated oven and hot-air vapor extraction (for ex-situ)

and thermal blanket, thermal well, “enhanced” soil vapor extraction (for in-situ) (Contract

Report, 1998).

Literature Review: Thermal Desorption for Remediation of Contaminated Soil

Soil pollution has become a serious problem in recent time, and one of these ways this problem

is being remedied is by decontaminating the soil so that it can be reused again, especially for

agricultural purposes. One of the techniques that is deemed viable for soil remediation is thermal

desorption. However, for this process itself to work effectively and efficiently, there are lots of

variables to consider, ranging from the operating temperature, treatment time, particle size, and

most importantly the optimized conditions necessary to achieve good results from thermal

desorption.
Regarding the factors, it appears that temperature and particle size are of significance in thermal

desorption process. Qi et al. (2014) conducted an investigation on the effect of temperature and

particle size on the thermal desorption of soil contaminated with semi-volatile polychlorinated

biphenyls (PCBs). With the concentration of contaminants in the soil up to 500 mg/kg, particle

sizes: coarse (420–841 μm) and (ii) fine particles (<250 μm), and at temperature range between

300 and 600oC, the results of their experiment indicated the amount of PCBs in this soil reduced

as the temperature increased. The removal efficiency (RE) of PCBs rose quickly between 300

and 400 °C but then steadily increased after 400 °C, but after 1 hour of thermal treatment at 600

°C, there was a removal efficiency (RE) of 98%. At 450 oC, there was 99.9% removal efficiency

but for only 30 min. However, most of the PCBs transformed into gaseous phase between 550 °C

at 600 °C, and also at this range, the destruction of the PCBs became more obvious.

The authors claimed that this showed a sequence of two distinct phases in the thermal removal.

In the first phase, there was rapid evaporation of contaminants from soil particle while the

second phase showed a reduction in. Also, the results indicated that there was higher removal

efficiency as well as destruction efficiency in fine soil particles which made the authors suggest

that the desorption from coarse particles was influenced by mass transfer. The authors concluded

that the higher removal efficiency in fine particle size could be attributed to factors such as

specific surface area, internal pore size, and physicochemical property of the soil.
Sang-An Ha (2010) investigated the optimal conditions for microwave and thermal desorption

process using soil samples from a military oil storage base with the average total petroleum

hydrocarbon (TPH) concentration of 34,457 mg/kg and 30% moisture content. The sample sizes

were drawn at different particle sizes but operating times was fixed at 15 mins while the

temperature range was between 300 to 500 oC. At 1cm thickness of contaminated soil layer and

at 6kW microwave power, the author found that the removal rate of TPH was found to be 80%.

But for both 2 and 3 cm soil layer thickness the removal rates were 70%. The author maintained

that this reduction could be attributed to the core effect. On the other hand, the lowest removal

rate of TPH was found with a particle diameter of 2.35 mm.

Furthermore, investigating the contaminated soil with 30% moisture content, the optimal

operational conditions were achieved at 6kW and thermal desorption temperature of 600oC.

However, the author observed that after treatment at 6kW, the temperature of the hot air did not

further influence the removal efficiency as a result, and therefore asserted that looking at it from

the economic perspective, especially when considering fuel consumption, the most economic

conditions were at 4kW of microwave power and a thermal desorption temperature of 300 oC.

Therefore, the author concluded that the optimal conditions for the most efficient removal were

6kW during pre-treatment and 300oC for the thermal desorption, and that better removal

efficiency was attained with a thicker soil layer.

Weng, Lin and Lee (2020) investigated the effect of heat treatment remediation on the

mechanical behavior of soil contaminated with oil. In their research study, the authors
investigated percentage removal of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHs) and the changes in the

physical and chemical properties of the contaminated soil after the heat treatment process. The

authors used a laboratory high-temperature furnace to heat the soil samples and then simulated

heat treatment process (thermal desorption and high-temperature incineration). The authors then

made comparison between several properties of the soil samples: physical properties (particle

size, distribution and Atterberg index), the permeability and the mechanical properties before the

heat treatment process and after it. A fixed particle size distribution (4.76 mm) was used to avoid

size variation influence on the experiment and the hydrocarbons were mainly petrol and diesel

from refinery plants with contaminant concentration of 0 (uncontaminated soil specimen), 5000,

or 10,000 ppm. The author simulated working temperatures of 320 (low-temperature thermal

desorption), 560 (high-temperature thermal desorption), and 900 °C (incineration) and the heat

treatment times were 10, 30, and 60 mins.

The result of their experiment showed that contaminated soil with 5000 ppm contaminants must

be treated at over 600oC for 30 minis to reach 80% removal percentage while contaminated soil

with 10000 ppm must be treated at 900oC to reach 90% removal percentage. The authors asserted

that the removal percentage tended to increase as temperature or time increased. From the direct

shear test, the authors maintained that friction angle increased with the removal rate of TPH.

Similarly, from the hydraulic test conducted, the permeability coefficient of the soil was seen to

have increased as the removal rate increased. Considering soil particle size, the result from the

experiment showed that high-temperature treatment breaks down soil particles, therefore leading

to the conclusion that heat treatment caused soil particles to be finer. The authors finally

concluded that at various experimental conditions, a treatment temperature of about 600oC could
reduce the contaminant present in contaminated soul with 5000 ppm to an acceptable regulatory

standards.

Sorengård, Lindh, and Ahrens (2020) conducted an investigation to ascertain the possibility of

using thermal desorption as a remediation technique for treating soil contaminated with per- and

polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs). In addition, the study was conducted to identify certain

critical variables (optimal temperature, soil texture, treatment times) necessary for an efficient

thermal desorption process. The authors used two Swedish soils—loamy and clay soil known as

fortified soils (as they were penetrated with a with a mixture of PFASs at 600 μg kg-1 per each

PFAS) and were sampled at 0.35–0.45 m depth and one sample of clay soil alredy contaminated

with PFAS on the field and was sampled at 0.10–0.30 m depth, treating each soil sample at

temperatures 150˚C and 550oC and temperature time between 15 and 75 min. The results of the

experiment showed that at 350oC, the concentration of contaminants (PFAS) was significantly

reduced: 43% in the fortified sample and 79% in the field contaminated soil. But at 450oC, over

99% of the contaminants had left the fortified soil but in the field contaminated soil, the removal

percentage of between 71 and 99% was only achieved at 550oC. However, by comparing thermal

desorption performance at different treatment times and temperature, the authors asserted that the

optimal temperature and treatment time for thermal desorption of PFASs is between 350˚C and

450˚C, and between 15 and 45 min. The authors also maintained although that the removal

efficiency of PFASs increased as thermal temperature increased, but that efficiency was

dependent on the soil type, soil initial concentration and the characteristics of PFASs.
More so, the authors observed that the removal efficiency for the field contaminated soil was

lower compared to the fortified soils. This was attributed to the lower concentration of PFASs

when compared to the concentration of PFASs in the field contaminated soil. Overall. The

authors concluded that thermal desorption is a good remediation technique for soil contaminated

with PFASs.

In another study conducted by Obrien et al. (2016), the effect of thermal desorption as a

remediation technique was carried out on naïve, non-contaminated topsoil (TS) and subsoil (SS)

taken from an agricultural site adjacent to an active remediation. The experiment aimed to

evaluate the capacity of an agricultural soil for vegetation after the surrounding farmland has

undergone thermal desorption. The authors used soil samples from near an active remediation

site which had been contaminated with crude oil leaks. The TS and SS were separately treated at

350oC for 15 mins giving off treated topsoil (TS-TD) and subsoil (SS-TD). The authors

conducted particle size and mineralogy analysis and estimated their specific surface area,

aggregate stability and size distribution.

The results from the experiment revealed there was 25% reduction in the soil organic carbon of

both the TS-TD and SS-TD while there was a 20% reduction in the total aggregation of the

topsoil but the subsoil, on the other hand, remained unaffected. The authors claimed that this

alteration could explain the increase saturated hydraulic conductivity, water retention, and
permanent wilting point. However, the results showed that particle size distribution was not

significantly affected by thermal desorption process but then the authors observed a little

increase in the particle sizes of the sand while there was a little decrease in the clay-sized particle

which attested to the effect of thermal desorption on mineralogy in both the TS-TD and SS-TD.

In other words, there was no deterioration of clay after thermal desorption and therefore the

texture of the soil was not significantly compromised. But nevertheless, when compared to

untreated soil, there was a little reduction in the capacity of the soil, and as a result, the authors

suggested that after treating contaminated soil with thermal desorption, soil amendments such as

manure or compost should be carried out.

Analysis of Review

While the reviews of literature have shown certainly that thermal desorption provides an efficient

method of remediating contaminated soil, the efficiency of this process seems to vary depending

on several factors. It is seen that the operating temperature is a critical factor in this process.

However, this review has provided a range for carrying out this process. It seems the optimal

operating temperature for thermal desorption process can be achieved at between 350oC and

450oC. In corroboration, Qi et al. (2014) observed 99.9% removal efficiency at 450 oC while

Sorengård, Lindh, and Ahrens (2020) observed optimal temperature to be between 350˚C and

450˚C. Obrien et al. (2016) successfully conducted the experiment at 350oC. Sang-An Ha (2010)

was lower a bit at 300oC while Weng, Lin and Lee (2020) claimed that 600oC is required to meet

regulatory standard. But it appears that these outliers could be attributed to the difference in

contaminant concentrations.
For the treatment time, study by Qi et al. (2014) shows that maximum removal efficiency was

obtained at treatment time of 30 min while Sorengård, Lindh, and Ahrens (2020) demonstrates it

to be between 15 and 45 min. Similarly, Weng, Lin and Lee (2020) optimum temperature could

be reached in 30 minis. While Sang-An Ha (2010) and Obrien et al. (2016) successfully

conducted thermal desorption in 15 mins.

Conclusion

This review demonstrates that thermal desorption is a profound technique for remediating

contaminated soil. The mechanisms behind the process was discussed, the cost, classification,

and technologies used were also seen. Owing to the analysis of this literature review, it can be

seen that the optimal operating temperature for thermal desorption process can be achieved at

between 350oC and 450oC. In the same vein, the optimum treatment time is viable somewhere

between 15 and 45 minutes. As for the particle size, it can be seen that soil particle sizes play a

significant role in thermal desorption process with some research showing that fine soil particles

lead to higher removal efficiency. While it is not without its own disadvantages, thermal

desorption offers immense opportunity for contaminated soil to be rescued and this review also

shows that the soil from contaminated sites can be still used for agricultural purposes though the

use of manure and fertilizer are strongly encouraged. Finally, it should the noted that the type of

contaminant present in contaminated soil strongly influences the efficiency of thermal desorption
technique in remediating the soil and that could be the first factor to consider when carrying out

thermal desorption process.

References

Baker, R.S., Kuhlman, M., 2002. A description of the mechanisms of in-situ thermal

destruction (ISTD) reactions. In: Al-Ekabi, H. (Ed.), Current Practices in Oxidation and

Reduction Technologies for Soil and Groundwater: Proceedings of the 2nd International

Conference on Oxidation and Reduction Technologies for Soil and Groundwater; Nov

17—21. Canada, Toronto.

Contract Report, 1998. Overview of thermal desorption technology Naval Facilities Engineering

Service Center Port Hueneme, California 93043-4370

CRC National Remediation Framework, 2018. Technology guide: Thermal desorption. CRC for

Contamination Assessment and Remediation of the Environment

Dadrasnia, A., Shahsavari, N. and Emenike, C. U., 2013. Remediation of contaminated sites.

Licensee InTech.

Environmental Protection agency, 2017. How to evaluate alternative cleanup technologies

for underground storage tank sites: A guide for corrective action plan reviewers. Land and
 Emergency Management

Geo Engineer (2013). Thermal Desorption [online]. Available at:

https://www.geoengineer.org/education/web-class-projects/cee-549-geoenvironmental-

engineering-winter-2013/assignments/thermal-

desorption#:~:text=In%20order%20to%20use%20thermal,density%20of%20the%20influ

ent%20soil (Accessed: 22 April 2021)

McCreery, I. and Linden, L.V., 2013. Web-based class project on geoenvironmental remediation

thermal desorption. University of Michigan

O’Brien, P.L., DeSutter, T.M., Casey, F.X.M., Derby, N.E. and Wick, A.F., 2016. Implications

of using thermal desorption to remediate contaminated agricultural soil: physical

characteristics and hydraulic processes J. Environ. Qual. 45, 1430–1436

Panagos, P., Van Liedekerke, M., Yigini, Y., Montanarella, L., 2013. Contaminated sites in

Europe: review of the current situation based on data collected through a European

network. J Environ Public Health. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/158764

Percin, P.R.D., 1995. Application of thermal desorption technologies to hazardous

waste sites. J. Hazard Mater. 40 (2), 203-209.

Qi, Z., Chen, T., Bai, S., Yan, M., Lu, S., Buekens, A., Yan, J., Bulmău, C. & Li, X., 2014.

Effect of temperature and particle size on the thermal desorption of PCBs from

contaminated soil. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 21:4697–4704

Converti, A. and Sarubbo, L.A., 2020. Soil bioremediation: Overview of technologies

and trends. Energies 2020, 13(4664), 1-25

Sang-An Ha, K.C., 2010. A study of a combined microwave and thermal desorption process for

contaminated soil. Environ. Eng. Res. 15(4), 225-230

Smith, M. T., 1997. Treatment of contaminated soils by batch thermal desorbtion (Unpublished

master's thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. doi:10.11575/PRISM/12996

Song B, Zeng G, Gong J, Liang J, Xu P, Liu Z, Zhang Y, Zhang C, Cheng M, Liu Y, Ye S,

Yi H, Ren X., 2017. Evaluation methods for assessing effectiveness of in situ remediation

of soil and sediment contaminated with organic pollutants and heavy metals. Environ Int.

105, 43–55

Sorengård, M, Lindh, A.S. and Ahrens, L., 2020. Thermal desorption as a high removal

remediation technique for soils contaminated with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances

(PFASs). Plos One 15(6), 1-10

Thomé, A., Reginatto, C., Vanzetto, G., and Braun, A.B., 2019. Remediation technologies

applied in polluted soils: New perspectives in this field. Springer Nature Singapore Pte

Ltd. pp. 186–203 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2221-1_11

Troxler, W.L., Cudahy, J.J., Zink, R.P., Yezzi, J.J., Rosenthal, S.I., 1993. Treatment of
 nonhazardous petroleum-contaminated soils by thermal desorption technologies. J Air

Waste Manage 43(11), 1512–25.

Weng, M., Lin, C. and Lee, C., 2020. Effect of heat-treatment remediation on the mechanical

behavior of oil-contaminated soil. Appl. Sci. 10(3174)

Yao, Z., Li, J., Xie, H., Yu, C., 2012. Review on remediation technologies of soil contaminated

by heavy metals. Procedia Environmental Sciences 16, 722 – 729

Zhao, C., Dong, Y., Feng, Y., Li, Y. and Dong, Y., 2019. Thermal desorption for remediation of

contaminated soil: A review. Chemosphere 221, 841-855