Environment International 105 (2017) 43–55Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Environment International journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envint Review Evaluation methods for assessing effectiveness of in situ remediation of soil MARK and sediment contaminated with organic pollutants and heavy metals Biao Song, Guangming Zeng⁎, Jilai Gong⁎, Jie Liang, Piao Xu, Zhifeng Liu, Yi Zhang, Chen Zhang, Min Cheng, Yang Liu, Shujing Ye, Huan Yi, Xiaoya Ren College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Hunan University, Changsha 410082, PR China Key Laboratory of Environmental Biology and Pollution Control, Hunan University, Ministry of Education, Changsha 410082, PR China A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T Keywords: Soil and sediment contamination has become a critical issue worldwide due to its great harm to the ecological In situ remediation environment and public health. In recent years, many remediation technologies including physical, chemical, Soil biological, and combined methods have been proposed and adopted for the purpose of solving the problems of Sediment soil and sediment contamination. However, current research on evaluation methods for assessing these Evaluation method remediation technologies is scattered and lacks valid and integrated evaluation methods for assessing the Remediation effectiveness remediation effectiveness. This paper provides a comprehensive review with an environmental perspective on the evaluation methods for assessing the effectiveness of in situ remediation of soil and sediment contaminated with organic pollutants and heavy metals. The review systematically summarizes recent exploration and attempts of the remediation effectiveness assessment based on the content of pollutants, soil and sediment characteristics, and ecological risks. Moreover, limitations and future research needs of the practical assessment are discussed. These limitations are not conducive to the implementation of the abatement and control programs for soil and sediment contamination. Therefore, more attention should be paid to the evaluation methods for assessing the remediation effectiveness while developing new in situ remediation technologies in future research. 1. Introduction Benami et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2013b; Zeng et al., 2015; Cheng et al., 2016b). Nowadays, a growing public concern has been aroused over the Much effort has been made to solve the problem of soil and issue of soil and sediment contamination resulting from industrial and sediment contamination. Many strategies and methods have been municipal waste discharge, mining activities, improper use of chemical adopted for the pollution abatement and control (Gerhardt et al., fertilizer and pesticides, and wastewater irrigation (Zeng et al., 2013a; 2009; Peng et al., 2009; Xu et al., 2012; Zhang et al., 2013a; Cheng Awad et al., 2014; Teng et al., 2014; Tang et al., 2015). In USA, over et al., 2016a). Generally, the remediation technologies can be categor- 100,000 sites which suffered from soil pollution have been reported (He ized into two main strategies: in situ remediation and ex situ remedia- et al., 2015), while 3.33 million hectares of arable land in China are too tion. In situ remediation is the treatment of the pollutant in original contaminated to use according to the correspondence of Chen and Ye place. This strategy is aimed at the removal of pollutant from soil or (2014). Organic pollutants and heavy metals are two main types of sediment without moving the soil or sediment itself. Ex situ remediation contaminants found in soil and sediment (Zhang et al., 2014; Zeng is carried out by excavation and treating the contaminated soil or et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2016b; Liu et al., 2017; Song et al., 2017). sediment somewhere else away from the site. Comparing these two These contaminants are harmful, posing great threat to food safety, strategies, in situ remediation offers a number of potential technical, human health, and ecological environment. For example, exposure to economic, and environmental advantages (Bardos et al., 2000; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) was associated with the Kuppusamy et al., 2016). In some cases, in situ remediation is the only increase in breast cancer incidence (White et al., 2016). Consequently, means of pollutant removal when considering the scale of the con- the remediation of soil and sediment contaminated with organic taminated area and the cost effectiveness. For a large scale of pollutants and heavy metals is crucial (Tchounwou et al., 2012; contaminated soil or sediment, in situ remediation is appealing because ⁎ Corresponding authors at: College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Hunan University, Changsha 410082, PR China. E-mail addresses:
[email protected] (G. Zeng),
[email protected] (J. Gong). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2017.05.001 Received 21 January 2017; Received in revised form 2 May 2017; Accepted 2 May 2017 Available online 11 May 2017 0160-4120/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1.. steam-based soil and sediment contaminated with organic pollutants and heavy heating. 2012. The structure of this review is illustrated in Fig. For volatile contaminants. and the cost is more cheaper than the ex situ treatment (Carberry and Wik. The heating methods mainly the methods employed by recent researchers for in situ remediation of include conductive heating. However. A mixture of water review with an environmental perspective on the evaluation methods and surfactant is often applied to improve the aqueous solubility of for assessing the effectiveness of in situ remediation of soil and contaminants during the flushing process (Begum et al. capping was more often used for controlling the sediment pollution and 2016). oxidation. During the past decades.. metals. follow-up observations and evaluation methods are needed technologies include physical. In situ remediation of contaminated soil and sediment simple. thermal This review systematically summarizes and discusses not only recent treatment is usually applied. In situ capping is the applied extensively (Carberry and Wik. 2005. 2016). 2001. volatilization. evaluation methods for assessment of in situ remediation of contami. Sometimes the heating assessing the remediation effectiveness based on the content of process is assisted with air sparging to accelerate the volatilization of pollutants. 2015.. and combined for assessment ensuring that the remediation goals are achieved and remediation methods (Fig. and reviews which mainly elucidated the some sites contaminated with hydrophobic organic pollutants (HOCs). Then. Remediation mechanisms include adsorption. Overview of the review structure.. 2015. Lee sediment contaminated with organic pollutants and heavy metals. and ecological risks. In recent studies. flushing can be a quick and effective method. stabilization of contaminated sites. placement of a covering of clean or suitable isolating material over the Kuppusamy et al. which can effectively reduce improving the quality of overlying water and aquatic habitat the pollutant concentration in soil and sediment. Tick et al.. thermal treatment.. chemical. environmental criteria are met. and radio-frequency heating (Triplett Kingston et al. electrical resistive heating.. 2).. 2014). limitations and future research needs of the practical assessment Chemical remediation is a kind of method that chemical reagent. Guiwei et al. The primary functions of this method ment of the in situ remediation need to be studied in greater detail. Primary attention is given to the evaluation methods for Peng et al. but also damage to the environment using physical technologies such as provides basis and guidance for the management and reuse of the soil capping.. Kuppusamy et al.. contaminants. 2012. and principles are used to remove contaminants. biological. To include physical isolation.B. 2009. Assessing the remediation effectiveness Physical remediation is the process of reversal or stopping of not only is a significant part of the whole remediation project. 2016). 2016). soil and sediment characteristics. catalysis. For assessment is scattered.. 44 . and destruc- the gaps that limit their field application. technology for the cleaning of contaminants by pumping flushing The main purpose of this paper is to provide a comprehensive agents into the bottom layer of soil or sediment. current research on the remediation effectiveness reduction of contaminant transport (Tomaszewski et al. Peng et al. Velimirovic et al. Environment International 105 (2017) 43–55 it causes less disturbance to the ecosystem. ion exchange. and our knowledge. many technologies for in situ remediation After the implementation of pollution abatement and control of contaminated soil and sediment have developed rapidly. Many in situ remediation methods. 2008. et al. 2014. In situ thermal treatment is to heat the exploration and attempts for in situ remediation assessment. The paper firstly introduces tion of contaminants in soil or sediment. in situ and sediment after remediation (Apitz et al. but also subsurface for enhancing the mobilization. reaction.. 2006). the operation is relatively 2. the evaluation methods for assess. 1. etc. flushing. are discussed.. 2015). These programs. 2001. In situ flushing is a nated soil and sediment have not been reported previously.. Samaksaman et al. contaminated soil or sediment. have been studied and (Samuelsson et al.. Song et al. Zhu et al. Fig. The content of pollutants is a particularly reliable aspect during the zation. 2016). caused by using any one technology alone. using biochar and activated by living organisms. with good public perception and is widely used for the removal of pollutants. and biodegradation. Ansari et al. Categorization of technologies for in situ remediation of soil and sediment contaminated with organic pollutants and heavy metals..B. and so on (Gong et al. reduction. multiple mechanisms including adsorption. efficiency. 2014.. Khan et al. 2015. nation of diverse technologies can not only overcome the problems complexation.. bioaugmentation for bioremediation of soil contaminated by heavy For assessment of in situ remediation effectiveness.. Fenton oxidation coupling with other strategies like electro- kinetic enhancement and magnetite catalysis has been studied widely 3. particularly heavy metals. bioventing.1. but also refers to less disturbance to the natural environ- diation... Sandu et al. and ecological risks.. Hu et al. it has also (2016) indicated that Fenton oxidation showed great potential in attracted much attention of researchers from all over the world treatment of recalcitrant organic contaminants.. that a bioaugmentation-assisted phytoremediation was more helpful in treating contaminated sites compared to bioaugmentation or phytor- 3.. These two technologies were found to be more 2011. Gong et al. ion exchange. Usman et al. Feng et al. Vigliotta mainly focus on three aspects: the content of pollutants. Bocos et al.1. Bioaugmentation is the practice of Conventional evaluations of remediation effectiveness are based on the adding selected microorganisms into soil or sediment to enhance the measurement of pollutant concentrations before and after remediation.. which include absorption. Latest research by Usman et al. 2013. Song et al. and degradation caused by animals. chemical. rhizodegradation. 2015). 2015). all and enhance the remediation efficiency.. 2015).. In Combined remediation involves two or more different types of a case of in situ stabilization of cadmium and lead in paddy soil using physical. 2016). Therefore. plants. phytofiltration. Assessment of in situ remediation effectiveness (Usman et al. Chen et al. 2015).. In order to improve the removal 2015. the method is effective only when Recent research investigated the effectiveness of phytoremediation and the remediation goals are achieved and environmental criteria are met.. biological activity of degradation and accelerate the removal of Several evaluation methods concerning the content of pollutants are pollutants (Fotidis et al. The combi- bentonite. phytostabilization.. biosparging. respectively.. 2014). In actual remediation projects. Wu et al. air or other gas is injected into the vadose zone and the while the residual fraction of pollutants is usually measured for saturated zone. or 3. Cai et al.. Lin et al. Recently.. 2009. Kueper et al. biosparging. ment. accompanied with biodegradation when they are used for treating which showed an effective reduction of both organic and inorganic organic pollutants (Chen et al. Mao effective when paired with each other (Gillespie and Philp. and micro- of the applied method on reducing the amount and toxicity of organisms. Many researchers have been focusing their efforts on Biodegradation plays a significant role in bioremediation. 2013. and phytodesalination (Ali remediation process when the hazardous substances are fully identified. 2016). to remove volatile pollutants or stimulate calculating removal rate with the following equation: 45 . 2013. phytodegradation. Chen et al. or biological remediation technologies. 2016. It is conceivable introduced as follows. 2016). recent studies metals and petroleum (Agnello et al. 2012. such as PAHs and (Huang et al. As for bioventing and A part of pollutants can be removed through remediation treatment. phytovolatili. Choi et al... The content of pollutants stabilize inorganic or organic contaminants and can be further divided into phytoextraction.. and precipitation were probably involved in the reme. 2016. 2012. 2016. 2013. Common bioremediation technologies include phytoreme- pollutants. Kang et al.. et al. Zhou et al... but also take advantages of diation process (Sun et al. pollutants in porewater (Gomez-Eyles et al. Measurement of residual pollutants emediation applied alone (Agnello et al. 2012. 2014. soil and et al. the “effective” not only means the remarkable effect transformation. 2016). evaluations. Other bioremediation technologies are often carbon for in situ remediation of contaminated sediment was adopted. degrade.. Environment International 105 (2017) 43–55 Fig. This technology uses green plants and their associated microbial communities to remove. biodegradation. bioaugmentation.. it requires scientific tests and the aid of biological processes and reactions. 2012. Whether a certain technology is effective for solving the problems of Bioremediation is applied to clean up environmental pollutants by soil and sediment contamination. 2010..1. polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Here.. 2015. et al. 2013).. Phytoremediation is recognized as a green technology sediment characteristics. 2. Biodegrada- developing chemical remediation methods for in situ remediation of tion is the process through which organic substances are broken down contaminated soil and sediment. 1. dichloromethane.. Zhang et al. and then affect the partitioning behavior of commonly used digesting agents. more suitable methods are developed. which is under the influence of organic matter. researchers have developed many methods (Zhang et al.. the removed and has little bioavailability. because the stabilized pollutants still remain in the soil Bannon. microwave-assisted digestion (Hu et al. as well as the removal efficiency of the remediation method. sediment contaminated with heavy metals is a promising technology... gas chromatograph (GC). sediment. a quantitative parameter. Ma characteristics when dealing with the pollutants (Table 1). The altera- et al... 2015. 2013). organic matter bounded. parts. Thus. cation In some circumstances. distribution change refers to the alteration of plant material after harvests (Willscher et al. Pore water is the water existing in the pores between the Acid-base property of soil or sediment is expressed as pH value. liquid chromatography- nontoxic is an effective way for the assessment. 2014). 2012). 2013).. Zhang et al. In sequential extraction mass spectrometry (LC-MS). HCl. pollutants in sediment are likely to diffuse from sediment into overlying water through the sediment-water interface.B.3. the distribution characteristics of pollutants will change The accumulated heavy metals can be recycled by combustion of the after remediation. metal fractions (Islam et al. while residual fraction is most stable During the processes of some remediation treatments. one study showed that the ultrasonic-assisted digestion (Matong et al. sediment characteristics also affects the reusing modes and directions Some researchers used polyethylene passive samplers (Choi et al. 2014.. After the process of digestion. Uchimiya and the evaluation. determining Gautam. measure directly. 2016c). H2SO4. 2015). Analysis of collected pollutants environmentally available part. 2014).1. 2016) are also used for remediation treatments have the potential to change characteristics of heavy metal digestion. 2013). carbonate tograph-mass spectrometer (GC–MS) are often used to detect the bounded. After remediation. Xu et al. organic carbon and electrical conductivity. can be ability of the chosen oxidants. The pore water contains dissolved pollutants. tions of soil and sediment characteristics. In general... the increase of residual pollutants will be collected for the purpose of recycling or preventing fraction or/and the decrease of exchangeable fraction indicate a good secondary pollution.. Thus. 2013b. soil or sediment particles. 2013).. emission spectrometry (ICP-AES). the concentration of pollutant is difficult to exchange capacity (CEC). Collecting the vapor can prevent air remediation effectiveness. the have significant impacts on the migration behavior of pollutants digestion and extraction methods mentioned above are not suitable for (Sassman and Lee. According to the conservation of mass. bioavailability. After treatment. exchangeable fraction is considered as the most active and 3... It cannot be simply divided into a stabilized part and an effectiveness will be influenced. the measurement of intermediate products sediment. Vapors are collected The remediation treatments can change the soil and sediment under vacuum created by extraction blowers (Kempa et al. The results indicated different remediation Additionally. The pH value is indicator of the remediation effectiveness in some ways.. B is the determining the pollutant concentration in overlying water can be a total amount of pollutants before remediation. 2014). Scholes et al. pollution caused by pollutant volatilization. Besides conventional acid digestion (Weng to calculate the content of pollutants in soil and sediment (Gomez-Eyles et al. In addition. Tang et al. 2016) with n-hexane. or acetone. 2013. 2011.. 2014. the effectiveness of in situ remediation 2007. However. the more remediation effectiveness of the adopted method (Jeon et al.. the metal uptake ratio.. Alterations of soil and sediment characteristics change of pollutants in the vapor. the degradation mechanism. Generally... the collected fraction of pollutants can be used as an during the degradation process can not only be useful for understanding indirect evaluation parameter. Therefore. where A is the residual fraction of pollutants after remediation. 2015) or Rhizon soil moisture samplers (Park et al. or inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS). 2008. structure. studying the change of Thermal treatment of volatile pollutants in soil and sediment pollutant distribution would provide a possible way to evaluate the requires to collect the vapor. in a case of in situ stabilization. HF. they need to be 3. feasible method to evaluation the potential risk and the remediation For accurate measurement of the residual pollutants in soil and effectiveness (Zeng et al. 2013. 2015). the subsequent remediation or sediment. Song et al.. Additionally. 2013). Generally. the remediation activities calculated as the content of heavy metals in the whole plant to that in sometimes cause secondary pollution through altering the distribution the corresponding growth soil or sediment (Hassan et al. Therefore. and gas chroma- methods. samples need to be digested before detecting overlying water and then using equilibrium partitioning relationships the content of heavy metals. different oxidation methods caused diverse the ability of the plant to accumulate heavy metals from soil and distribution of PAHs in removing parts. the pollutants (Pan et al. 2017). pollutants are collected.. HNO3. Rodriguez-Cruz et al. microwave the stabilization of pollutants in soil and sediment by reducing their extraction (Merdassa et al. heavy metals are divided into exchangeable. ultrasonic extraction (Jurado- mobility. inductively coupled plasma-atomic choosing the method for assessment. 2012) to measure the reduction of contaminants in 3. the change of soil and unstabilized part. Thus.. 2013) and et al. In a study of in situ remediation of PAHs contaminated content of heavy metals in the ash provides useful information about soils (Ma et al. Under natural a basic parameter when analyzing the characteristics of soil and 46 .. the collected vapor can be used for recycling and monitoring the concentration 3. 2015). Han et al.2. 2008. For organic pollutants. after remediation.. Among these defined chemical speciation. For example. Fan et al. and H2O2 are soil and sediment.. and carbon dioxide in the soil or sediment. 2013. Zhang is estimated by measuring the pollutant concentrations in pore water or et al. Generally. In some cases.. These properties strongly depend Sanchez et al. mineral and the concentration change of these pollutants can be a useful substances. the fewer pollutants remained in soil or For organic pollutants. The extraction is usually In situ immobilization or stabilization technology aims at increasing conducted by Soxhlet extraction (Schmidt et al. Fe/Mn oxides bounded.2. 2016a). and toxicity. soil residue parts. The changes in pollutant partitioning content of heavy metals is quantitatively analyzed with precise detect- behavior can affect the validity of assessing the remediation effective- ing instruments.1.. Measuring the spatial position. which should be taken into account when absorption spectrometry (AAS).. 2015. and residual organic pollutants. Moreover. pH pore water. 2005. and supernatant. bed rock.. Vardy et al. Environment International 105 (2017) 43–55 Removal rate (%) = (1 − A B) × 100 (1) conditions.. or pressurized fluid extraction (Fuller and on the chemical speciation of pollutants. but also reflect the amount of the Phytoremediation through phytoextraction for remediating soil and pollutants that have already been degraded. Sumon et al. Changes of pollutant species and distribution gathered by extractants before detecting them. Pisanello et al.. 2006. a vapor cap is constructed or installed on the top of the remediation locality..2. HClO4. such as pH. 2015). Here. heavy metals can be detected by atomic ness with this method. Song et al. 2015. High the content of pollutants transformed into species with low-toxic or performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). of pollutants (McGuire et al. recycling sediment. et al.2. 2013. (2016) used oxalate-based washing process to remove arsenic in 2016).. (2013b) Cd Immobilization by mining. Wang et al. The competing ions (Bache. root distribution and their ability to take up nutrients and water are affected by soil structure. (2009) Cu. However.. (2013a) products Cd and Zn Phytoextraction in combination with amendments based on Decreased Amoakwah et al. reducing erodibility. (2016) Petroleum oil Low-temperature thermal desorption treatment Decreased Yi et al. an increase of organic matter 200 and 16 mmol elemental sulphur and (NH4)2SO4). ments are often used to reduce the mobility. 3.2.6. Additionally. (2014) Pb and Zn Washing assisted with reagents and ultrasound Destroyed Wang et al. (2014) Electrical conductivity Cu and pyrene Enhanced-electrokinetic remediation with oxidants and pH Increased Cang et al. positively charged ions are adsorbed by 47 . It is important to choose an optimal addition amount to ensure nants can cause more severe groundwater pollution.1. Pb. (2016) Cation exchange capacity Cu and Cd Remediation using compost with inorganic amendments Increased Gadepalle et al. Higher pH favors metal can increase soil porosity in the range of transmission pores precipitation and simultaneously decreases the metal solubility. porosity. elemental sulphur and (NH4)2SO4 (2014) Cd Immobilization by sepiolite and palygorskite Increased Liang et al. metals. acidified amendments are applied (Ma et al. Environment International 105 (2017) 43–55 Table 1 Alterations of soil and sediment characteristics after different in situ remediation treatments. however. groundwater is not increased.3. of the environment. and Remediation with biochar and iron filing amendments Deteriorated Sneath et al. when compared with soil bulk density and the increase of soil aeration because of the the control.B. (50–500 μm) in a low-plastic shrink-swell soil thus improve the soil Therefore. 2.8 units. the pH value usually increased after such remediation structure. (2016) Heavy metals Phytoremediation in combination with ferrous sulfate Decreased Sigua et al. Similar results can also be found in the research by Sigua et al. elemental sulphur and NH4+ is the reason behind the decrease of soil Alterations of soil and sediment structure (density. Iron amendments can cations in a form that these cations can be easily desorbed by their cause soil particles to cement together and reduce the soil porosity. (2011) retention Organic matter content Metals and As Remediation with compost and biochar amendments Increased Beesley et al. Favorable soil structure is important to maintaining soil fertility. and Ni Immobilization by biochar Increased Uchimiya et al. leachability. contributing to the cementation (Colombo and Torrent.. Liang et al. Mena et al. In a washing process of the soil contaminated by heavy (Houben et al. (2013) phenanthrene Metal and metalloid Remediation with iron-based amendments Improved Gargiulo et al. 1976). 3. 2012). in these examples. (2014) used some pH lowering amendments contaminated soil. and pH. and Zn Phytoremediation Increased Houben et al. To ensure silicate minerals. (2013a) Zn Adsorption by manure. and agricultural solid by. 2014). For in situ immobilization of heavy metals.. alkaline amend. Cation exchange is caused by negatively reason behind this is the high adsorption ability of iron oxides towards charged colloidal clay and humus particles of the soil matrix. (2016) Pb and pyrene Phytoremediation (rhizodeposition) Improved Li et al. Increased Wang et al. (2014) found that iron-based amendments ability of heavy metals in soil and sediment.and lignocellulose-derived biochars Decreased Dai et al. respectively. (2016) Enzyme activity Heavy metals Stabilization by pig slurry and compost Increased Pardo et al. Facilitated transport of contami- factor. 2006). At the same time. Zn. and bioavail. Cd. (2011) Cd. while blocked that the phytoextraction of heavy metals is facilitated while the transport can result in that contaminants remain in soil and sediment potential risk caused by the movement of solubilized metals into for a longer time. 2013b. and some remediation methods intentionally lower pH to strong acids could destroy soil structure by mineral dissolution. (2010) Heavy metals Stabilization by biochar Increased Fellet et al.2. (2013) control Capacity of nutrients and water Heavy metals Stabilization by biochar Enhanced Fellet et al. Amoakwah et al. pore size distribution) strongly influence the contaminant transport (2016). 1991). As. 2013). Structure and increasing agricultural productivity (Bronick and Lal. the soil pH content by using organic amendments could result in the decrease of decreased by 2. Song et al. and Pb Biochar-induced immobilization Increased Houben et al. (2016) persulfate Cr Reduction by acidified hydrazine hydrate Increased Ma et al. Soil or sediment structure is the arrangement of particles and Hence. The production of H+ during the oxidation processes of redistribution of pore space... industrial. But Gargiulo et al. 2005). (2014) PCBs Electrokinetic remediation in combination with activated Decreased Fan et al. (2015) As Oxalate-based washing Improved Lee et al. In the growth process of plants. the amendment dosage is the key parameters (Safadoust et al. and 1. (2016) Structure Metals. It plays an important role in the function of soil and sediment. soil structure would be destroyed by the ultrasonic cavitation. (2014) contaminants Pb. Characteristic Pollutants Remediation treatment Effect Reference pH Cd. (Tejada et al. which can form bridges between iron oxides and other electric neutrality of the whole. 2013a. Their results showed that using oxalate as washing (elemental sulphur and (NH4)2SO4) to enhance solubilization of Cd and agent could achieve high arsenic removal rate and minimize the Zn so as to facilitate phytoextraction of the heavy metals. In situ remediation treatments have considerable influences on the structure of soil and sediment. Obviously.. soil particles. nanometers to centimeters (Oades. and Cd EDTA washing Remained stable Zupanc et al. 2015). evaluating the structure change of amended soil should be associated pores in soil or sediment across the size range from necessary for agricultural reuse. Zn.. bringing about a lasting threat towards surroundings. Since 2016). ultrasonic-assisted desorption was used to enhance the removal excessive change of the pH value is not allowed. 1993). (2014) sediment. To avoid alkalization rates of heavy metals (Wang et al. Lee facilitate migration of pollutants (Cang et al.. CEC Researchers have reported that iron filings as amendments negatively CEC is a measurement of the ability of soil or sediment to adsorb impacted the soil structure (Sneath et al. After applying destruction of soil structure.. activated carbon. Wang et al. Rani et al. (2016) using nano-hydroxyapatite Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L. Pardo et al. and fungi Stabilization by natural sepiolite Functional diversity of soil microbial communities was recovered. Experimental type Test species Remediation treatment Assessment results Reference Phytotoxicity test Mung bean (Phaseolus radiatus L. Jin et al.) Fenton oxidation and remediation with nanoscale Both of the remediation treatments showed to be prejudicial for lettuce Rede et al. Animal toxicity test Benthic communities Remediation with activated carbon The remediation showed negative effects on benthic communities. while the González et al. (2013) multi-walled carbon nanotubes and root growth). biochar. Environment International 105 (2017) 43–55 . pekinensis) stabilized nanoscale zero-valent iron Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum L. (2016a) Microbial toxicity test Bacteria (Photobacterium phosphoreum) Biostimulation in combination with modified Fenton Microbial toxicity of the treated soil extract reduced greatly after the Gong (2012) oxidation chemical oxidation process. Springtail (Folsomia candida) and earthworm Remediation with activated carbon. (2013) organic amendment made the metal-contaminated soil more toxic. actinomycete. Addition of aged dairy manure compost and presence of grasses was Centofanti et al. Herath et al. The upward translocation capacity of Pb in soil-plant system was Yang et al. (2016) composted biosolids. (2014) cabbage (Brassica rapa ssp. Samuelsson et al. Table 2 Applications of ecotoxicological tests for assessing in situ remediation effectiveness. Bacteria. AVLB2 metabolites.) and Chinese Immobilization by sodium carboxymethyl cellulose The remediation exerted an inhibitory effect on plant growth. (2013) Microbial communities Bioremediation with biostimulant Diversity of sulfate reducing bacteria was enhanced. biochar. Bacteria (Vibrio fischeri) Remediation with activated carbon. (2013) activity. Subha et al. (2015a) nitida) Earthworm (Lumbricus terrestris) Remediation with two types of composted manure. Hale et al. Nematode (Caenorhabditis elegans) Remediation with zero-valent ion nanoparticles Zero-valent ion nanoparticles induced infertility risk in nematode. (2016b) hydroxyapatite effectively reduced. 48 Earthworm (Eisenia fetida) Remediation using pig slurry and compost in Amendments reduced the soil toxicity to invertebrates. and biochar effective in reducing the accumulation of soil-derived Pb in earthworms. (2013) (Aporectodea caliginosa. (2016) nanoscale zero-valent iron abundance. and These soil amendments had variable but never strongly deleterious effects Hale et al. (2016) zero-valent iron seeds. Cabbage mustard (Brassica alboglabra Bailey) Remediation with biochar-supported nano. (2012) Garden cress (Lepidium sativum L. Edible rape (Brassica campestris L. (2013) ferric oxyhydroxide Microbial communities Remediation with iron grit The remediation treatment increased microbial diversity and respiratory Kaplan et al. Eisenia fetida) ferric oxyhydroxide on the invertebrates studied.) Remediation with biochar. (2012) Earthworm (Eisenia andrei) Remediation with organic and inorganic amendments The inorganic amendment did not significantly reduce toxicity.) Bioremediation with Cd-resistant strains The strains were able to reduce Cd accumulation in roots and shoots.) Phytoremediation enhanced by Pb immobilization Ryegrass biomass was significantly increased. (2016) Microbial communities Immobilization by sodium alginate modified The treatment increased bacterial taxa and improved bacterial Huang et al. Song et al. and All amendments reduced the inhibition of luminescence. (2015) Ryegrass (Lolium perenne L. and These materials reduced sediment toxicity (inhibition of seed germination Jośko et al. Sun et al.) Immobilization by biochar Metal-induced toxicities in tomato plant were reduced. Kupryianchyk et al. (2015) Bacteria (Escherichia coli) Biodegradation by plant-growth promoting Toxicological studies revealed non-toxic nature of 4-NA biodegraded Silambarasan and Vangnai Acinetobacter sp. B. (2014) combination with hydrated lime Polychaete (Hediste diversicolor) and clam (Abra Capping with activated carbon Bioaccumulation of PCBs and PAHs in benthic fauna was reduced. Yang et al. the more chance that seed Therefore. morphological. Implementing in situ treatments overall toxicity. nutrients and water retention. 2016.4. plant roots. and ability to prevent groundwater from ecological risk assessment.B. nation of soil enzyme activity can also be useful for assessing the not all of the remediation treatments are conducive to the reduction of remediation effectiveness in some cases. both Fenton oxidation and nanoremediation showed Applying biochar for in situ remediation could enhance the capacity of negative impact on the development of lettuce seeds. Contaminants in soil and sediment are of growing concern for their potentials to cause adverse ecological effects. 2013). as well as hydroxyapatite for immobilizing lead in soil.1 mg/kg. However. (2009) found that using compost for 3. and plantlet contact with the pollutant the more toxic it is. (2016b) conducted enzyme activities after using organic and inorganic amendments for phytotoxicity assessment for in situ remediation of lead contaminated remediation of a contaminated mine soil.. remediation activities.. sensitive. 2012. effectiveness is based on the alteration of hazardous substances in soil and other cations. This gical processes (e. Soil enzyme activity mainly results from cell restoring the soil quality for planting. For widely used as test species due to their intimate contact with soil and evaluating remediation effectiveness. In their of soil increased after electrokinetic remediation (Cang et al. this remediation method increased the ryegrass biomass. Ecological risks and ecotoxicological tests of soil and sediment) could also increase the phytotoxicity after remediation (Jośko et al. and ecological characteristics Herein. soil or sediment structure.. electrical conductivity.3. Due to their sensitivity and reflection of the pollution by cation contaminants. the oxidation process (Atkinson et al. And the oxidation of and reproducible results.. garden cress. Some of (Dai et al. Addition 80% were observed. mechanical strength. the assessment focuses on the their importance in terrestrial food webs (González et al. and the removal of lead from soil by ryegrass was enhanced. CEC is widely change of original ecological risks and probable new risks caused by the used in characterizing soil and sediment for assessment of their fertility. Singh et al. lettuce. subsequently causing nutrients loss and CEC reduc. and properties 3. Basing on these results. However. Ecotoxicological tests are an important part of nutrients retention capacity. which also influence the enzyme activity. Na+. surface functional groups on biochar also contributes to the CEC Cabbage mustard. Rede et al. Jin et al. a level which is below activities of the soil. Fenton oxidation. Additionally. Alteration of these Apart from the above-mentioned properties. Abujabhah et al. 2016. EPA.. 2013. Ca2 +. Yang et al. Besides. it is unfavorable for phytoremediation with hyperaccumu. which allows them to be used for tion of soil and sediment decreases CEC during the remediation process evaluating the remediation effectiveness (Pardo et al. Heavy metals can exchange with K+. and they meet the validity criteria of the test. the production of free radicals appears to contribute tion and land reusing after remediation.. the use nanoscale zero- of organic amendments like compost might increase organic matter valent iron particles for remediation might cause the deposition of iron content of the soil (Beesley et al. 1964).. mung bean. the antagonistic effect caused plant. Ecological risk is the 3. Yang et al.. When combined biochar stabilization and phytoremediation for pollutant exhibits stronger toxicity when it is easy to be absorbed by treating heavy metal contaminated sites. seed germination. β-glucosidase. and organic 3. As for significant in characterizing soil and sediment for effectiveness evalua.. 2015). Use of phytotoxicity test for evaluation of the remediation sediment. the stressors refer to the contaminants in soil and sediment. 2013a. Gadepalle et al. that the materials could effectively reduce the concentration of lead in The organic amendments increased cellulase. Song et al. In order to conduct valid phytotoxicity tests. and species of pollutants are key factors influencing seed uptake and accumulation of heavy metals by plants (Haghiri.. and amenable. due to the phytotoxicity. and ryegrass are increase of the amended soil due to the increases of charge density recently used in phytotoxicity tests for assessing remediation effective- per unit surface of biochar and surface area for cation adsorption after ness of contaminated soil and sediment (Rani et al. physiological. Pardo et al. Phytotoxicity test remediation of the soil contaminated by copper and cadmium could Phytotoxicity is defined as detrimental effects on various physiolo- increase CEC with the enhancement of organic matter content. and water retention. All these changes are species in the root. 1992). Therefore. closely associated with soil fertility and structure. because biochars can cause large cation exchange on themselves Besides. 2014).. assessment of the environmental state. and water may be because organic matter makes significant contributions to the uptake) of plants caused by specific substances or growing conditions soil CEC (Helling et al. 2014). In an acidic condition. tion as cations are disproportionately replaced with H+ (Sharma et al..3. Higher CEC favors stabilization of heavy metals in soil and 2017).1. and the increase was observed to be higher in the the tolerance limit (0.2. Jin et al. nutrients implies the ecological impact of the adopted remediation technology. 2010. soil and sediment properties will change during the by CEC alteration should be taken into consideration. Some studies have shown that the CEC of (Deepesh et al. Rede et al. 2013. electrical conductivity. 1974).3. it should be considered that the tested species can give reliable (Zhang et al. For soil contamination. 2016b.... Some other properties matter content significantly affect the plant growth. and urease the aerial part of cabbage mustard to 0. 2011) as well as the seed germination up to 45% and a root elongation inhibition around mechanical strength of the soil and sediment (Lu et al. as of soil or sediment fauna. 2017). Their results showed method had a positive effect on soil enzyme activities after remediation. increased CEC of soil can reduce the distribution. germination and plantlet growth.g. Additionally. the deterioration of plant growth conditions (e. and organic matter content Reduction and stabilization of the pollutants in soil and sediment of soil and sediment. electrical conductivity impact of two soil remediation treatments on lettuce seeds. Animal toxicity test likelihood of adverse ecological effects that are occurring or may occur Animal toxicity test investigates the effect of unfavorable factors on as a result of exposure to one or more stressors (U. ecotoxicological tests can provide a comprehensive brings about significant impacts on CEC of soil and sediment. Moreover.. behavioral. Such evaluation can be helpful in soil treated by compost. (2016) investigated the ecotoxicological transport of ions from electrolytes into the soil. For example. 2013. remediation effectiveness are presented in Table 2. determi. CEC.. Pardo 49 . remediation. Acidifica. experiments. soil enzyme activity is experiments. Environment International 105 (2017) 43–55 soil particles (Bache.S.. Song et al. 2016). and microorganisms in soil.. Mg2 +. temperature. Their results showed that this soil by biochar-supported nano-hydroxyapatite. to the increased phytotoxicity. seedling growth. 2014).. Additionally. 2016). The content. earthworms are well as the adverse factors caused by remediation activities.g. According to their decomposition of organic debris.. the negative charges of soil or recent applications of ecotoxicological tests for assessing in situ sediment decrease. with humic matters. water availability. soil and sediment increased after using biochars as amendments seeds of the test plant should be uniform.3 mg/kg).2. A decrease of nutrients and water retention (Fellet et al. finally being co-precipitated or forming complexes and sediment as well as plant growth conditions. In the environmental area.. and the lator. Generally. Properties including pH. 1976). inhibiting the uptake of nutrients and water. (2016) also used nano- secretion of animals. (2014) measured the usually diminish the phytotoxicity.. in situ remediation can properties changes the phytotoxicity of the soil and sediment. 2014). 2016). Jośko et al. Song et al.. Additionally. residue in vegetated areas had lower pH. (2013) Good remediation strategies can improve habitats of animals in soil assessed microbial communities in acidic soil after applying natural and sediment. In a case of 3. Microbial toxicity test that the water cannot be used for human consumption or agriculture Microbial toxicity refers to the adverse effects on physiological due to the carcinogenic health risks (Antunes et al. However. Besides earthworms. and inexpensive. Moreover. and total aluminum and sodium compared to unvegetated situ remediation effectiveness. Environment International 105 (2017) 43–55 et al. Based on this problem. Compared with toxicity time spans from a few months to even more than 10 years (Schoof et al.3.9% after the application of contaminant concentrations and exposure of fish to PAHs.. fast. 2012). 2013). communities indicated that a certain functional recovery of the soil Kupryianchyk et al. ment (Haimi. On the one hand. (2013) used iron grit to conduct in situ remediation for tem. on faunas are sensitive to sediment contaminants. an abandoned mine in Portugal. Song et al. 2013). 2014. and micro- sediment attract more attention. Remediation treatments reduce pollutant concentra.. Gong (2012) adopted a combined method of biostimulation remediation. available microbial tests can be classified into single- species tests. and redundancy (Fig.3. Huang et al.. As to the ecotoxicity assessment of contaminated In general. with increased microbial biomass. For a better interpretation of soil areas. showing specific account of that the stress and influence of the pollutant to microorgan- response to the change of pollutants (Rodriguez-Iruretagoiena et al. which species for testing ecotoxicity of sediment (Lim et al. fishes and their biomarkers have been also activity can be a useful tool for evaluating the effectiveness of in situ explored for assessing sediment remediation (Meier et al.. Song et al. health risks via food chain or other productive reuse of the contami- city test is effective as a tool for assessing in situ remediation nated sites (Wcisło et al. 2000). and molecular methods (Diepens possible methods have also been explored for assessing the effectiveness et al. In addition to the evaluation methods introduced above.. (2016a) used a mathematical modelling method in a case of assessing lience.. and reflect the biodiversity of benthic communities (De Jonge controlling trace metal contamination. Many benthic tion intensity. other animal concepts together. According to their research.1 to 232. Compared with toxicity tests using plants. using AC for sediment amount of microbes (called “hydrocarbon degraders” by the author) remediation only suitable for high concentration system of HOCs. including vigor. vegetation encroachment upon bauxite residue and applied it as an tion and change properties of soil and sediment. after the remediation of effectiveness.. Yang et al. although there was a whereas a negative trend was observed on Pisidiidae and Lumbriculidae considerable reduction of the total petroleum hydrocarbons.. ecological relevance. and these alterations indicator of in situ remediation processes. alkalinity. sepiolite. at a cadmium level of 1. Generally. nematodes. And their further studies microorganisms play an important role in the formation of soil indicated that monitoring exposure of fish and benthic macroinverte. and tiveness after treatment.4. a reduction of pollutant amount enhances the soil and sediment. (2012) used activated carbon (AC) for sediment occurred. These integrity scores in remediated river sections. the after 15 months. The treatment significantly affected Meier et al. it is still necessary to conduct with the soil fertility and the degradation of pollutants. Centofanti et al. This exposure refers to concentrations and electrical conductivity in the amended soil. only a small quantity of sample is needed to induce physiological changes (Beelen and Doelman.. 2014). 2013. These methods are effective for determining the toxicity of of in situ remediation. 2016). In their assessment. their results showed that bacteria were the most proved fish assemblages with a increase of 60% in the index of biotic sensitive species in the soil. For example.4. and closely associated complicated and difficult. 1997. and the resulting from exposure to unfavorable factors. microbial populations. Through linking the the risk of zero-valent iron nanoparticles released from the in situ 50 . suppressiveness. After brates to sediment contaminants before and after remediation can be sepiolite treatment. Santini and Fey (2013) observed a spontaneous soil and sediment. Currently. Kaplan et al. and im. On the other health risk assessment. Their results showed that the remediation effectively reduced the bacteria count increased by 71. AC showed a positive trend and modified Fenton oxidation for the remediation of weathered on species abundance after the remediation with AC for 3 months. tests using plants and animals. microbial respira- invertebrate species are abundant in aquatic ecosystem. 2016). 2015).. isopods. tion.. collembolan. the remediation will diminish the risk amendment at concentrations above 25% increased available metal of immediate exposure to hazardous substances. sepiolite for cadmium stabilization.. The microbial diversity and et al. bauxite have significant impacts on soil or sediment toxicity to microorganisms. Diepens demonstrated that monitoring soil microbial communities and their et al. benthic sediment health. 2013b). Other evaluation methods 2016). organization. benthic invertebrates are used most often. petroleum oil-contaminated soil. surface water in the mining-impacted area was found to contain several metals and arsenic. But even so.B. benthic invertebrates play important roles in ecosys. Since the process of vegetation encroachment took a long time microbial properties as indicators of soil quality. to the death of all earthworms in undiluted soil and a complete improper remediation of contaminated sites may induce potential reproduction inhibition. benthic invertebrates are recommended respiratory activity increased after the effective remediation.3. remediation of contaminated soil and sediment. In his research. but helpful for long-term study of ecological impacts. Sun et al. The organic compost risk to human health. different microbial indicators of soil quality can be species such as enchytraeids. electrical con- which makes it possible to use microbial properties for assessment of in ductivity. the assessment is not suitable for common remediation (2012) grouped microbial properties within a set of ecosystem health cases. the microbial toxicity test is simple. leading the direct contact with the contaminants in soil and sediment. 3. Investigation processes and ecological functions or characteristics of microorganisms of health risks needs long-time observation and monitoring. attributes of ecological relevance. assessing risk to human health is likely to be more generally highly abundant in soil and sediment. 2008. community-level assessments based on functionality. resulting in an increase of biomass and biodiversity. 2016). isms can be relieved by remediation treatments (Zhang et al. the increased amount and biodiversity of microbial used to evaluate the remediation effectiveness (Meier et al. which in turn reflects the remediation effec- hand. and structural diversity of microbial communities.. the organic amendments One of the main purposes of the remediation activities is to reduce caused an adverse effect (González et al. microbial toxicity tests of soil and 2016). decreased sharply at week 6 after the chemical oxidation process due to And the concentration of AC should not be too high to ensure that the cell wall disintegration caused by H2O2 and radicals. 3). Risk to human health remediation of metal-contaminated soil. These results demonstrated that animal toxi. aggregates and the production of plant growth promoters. For these reasons.. which leads to 3. microorganisms are organisms. 2016). understood from the perspective of ecosystem health attributes of and protozoans also show a good potential for soil ecotoxicity assess.25 mg/kg.. resi. animals. some other biomass and physiological processes. followed by actinomycete and fungi. mites. Generally.. Moreover. Gómez-Sagasti et al. 2014). For example. (over 30 years). the positive effects of AC in reducing HOCs toxicity outweigh the negative effects of AC application on benthic communities. (2013) conducted bioassessment for a sediment remedia. Actual situation is more complicated. An interpretation of soil microbial properties as indicators of soil quality. more research work and trials are need to verify the methods of pollutant analysis and ecotoxicological tests need to be validity of the evaluation methods. it and make decisions to remediation activities. community. there is still a lack of practical cases and some remediation. Adopted from Gómez-Sagasti et al.. And engi- changes of pollutant concentrations as a reference and studied the neering difficulties. Therefore. However. 3. the relationship between various aspects of remediation assessment 51 . remediation need to be monitored (Rohr et al. researchers investi. group. Secondly. evaluation indicators and associated parameters. the phytotoxicity of sediment might inaccurately indicate the mended as follows: changes of pollutant concentrations after a long time remediation for (1) Studies for establishing quality criteria of soil and sediment as the data showed both positive and negative correlations on the same well as technical criteria for remediation is encouraged. Currently. Additionally. They used the and sediment can also affect groundwater or atmosphere. and the whole ecosystem). Besides. makes it difficult for regulators to monitor the pollution proposed evaluation methods are unfeasible at present. (2) There is a need to establish a comprehensive assessment system which is based on the quality criteria and technical criteria. future research is recom- results. The pollution of soil applied for assessing the remediation effectiveness. Researchers only partly studied the alteration of pollutant content. lack of criteria. and their model was validated to be useful for quantitatively assessing the potential envir. Limitations and future research needs based on Caenorhabditis elegans biomarker. Song there are insufficient assessment cases in practical soil and sediment et al. assessments focus on a single aspect. remediation. They developed a probabilistic risk assessment model 4. In future. economic aspects. Song et al. there are some limitations when adopting the above- onmental risks after remediation. toxicity. But before this. Therefore.5. and bioavailability of the target pollutant. 2016). In most cases. the combined evalua. gated only the changes of evaluation indicators after remediation. Validity of the evaluation methods results of assessment may not be convincing.B. including evaluation method has been being considered and explored for the quality criteria for soil and sediment as well as technical criteria for assessment. especially for using soil or sediment standardized. population. (2012). lacking integrated assessment system. (2017) investigated whether the phytotoxicity of sediment can be remediation. particularly when long-term impacts of the tion methods have been reported. soil and sediment characteristics. To different level of ecosystem (single species. and this is unfavorable for the project management and the enhancement of remediation effec- A valid evaluation method can correctly reflect the changes of tiveness. or ecological risks. and social issues need to be validity by comparing the Pearson correlation coefficients between considered. most of current needs more development in the future. the 3. Additionally. reviewed evaluation methods for assessment of in situ remediation of tion which involves two or more different types of above-mentioned contaminated soil and sediment. date. the ecological assessment should be based on concentrations. Environment International 105 (2017) 43–55 Fig. According to their Based on these gaps and challenges. characteristics and ecological risks in assessment. relatively few studies that determined the validity of the evalua. Thus. Firstly. Esposito.R.. Wik. (4) Coordination between assessment methods. 2016b. 2012. J. Sawai. Chemosphere 34 (3). zinc (II) and lead (II) by Penicillium simplicissimum: isotherms. 40–50.1..H. R. Zhou. Toxicological impact mobility in soils.. 2015.Y.. Res. 51579095.W. 1 Springer International Diepens. 255–302. nologies. Blust. 2016. Feng. R. 2014. 563-564. 2013. Van Den Publishing.. 273–280. 187–191. Xu. Total This review presents the latest applications and knowledge on the Environ.. R.P. Belpaire. Significance and application of microbial toxicity tests in amended soil being reused for agricultural production. pesticides... the assess. an abandoned W > Sn mine (NE Portugal). Bocos. Adv. 312. W. 48 (3). Washington. Pollut. Doyle. Sci.. C.. Jung. Van Slycken. and sediment is strongly recommended. K. Effects of biochar and and lignocellulose-derived biochars on adsorption and desorption of zinc by acidic compost amendments on soil physico-chemical properties and the total community types of soil with different properties.. C.. disturbance to the natural environment... M. In situ sequestration of hydrophobic organic University. Appl. R.H. Assessing the influence of compost and biochar amendments on the mobility further investigated. 8(4): 301–322.. 67 (1). Phytoremediation with Ryegrass. sediments contaminated with heavy metals.. Biotechnol.. Biochem. B. Sediment toxicity testing of organic chemicals in the Antunes..E. M. G. G.. 1–18. Guo.W. Xu.S. Bowman. 2015. M. Newman. Contam. D. Song et al. S.. P.. Adv. Suma. Jeong. Jensen. M. Davis. Awad. Zeng..M. X. R. phytoremediation. et al. Integr. 1 cadmium (II). 2013.S. Phytoremediation: coastal sediments of Korea. Environ. Toxicol. Chen S.. M. De Jonge.. B. Sci. 2014. 171. M. engineering tech. Bull.. Huang. 2013. Chemosphere 87 (10). pp. Chemosphere 90 (8). De Cooman. et al. Application of in situ remediation technologies . 2014. Pollut. J. T... K.M.. Chemosphere 337 (1). H. R. and combined remediation methods have been Bronick. Hipps. Zeng. Heuvel-Greve. R.. Preliminary attempts and potential methods Cai. M.C. 112. Y... P. abatement and control programs for soil and sediment contamination.. Liu. D. Moreno-Jimenez. et al. pesticides from polluted soils by enhanced electrokinetic-Fenton treatment. 298–302.A. Sanroman. E. Technology R & D Program of Hunan Province (2015SK2001-1).. Hasegawa.. Bache. H... Sajad. et al. Zhou. Zhang.. 2016.P.. H. developing an Fan. 93 (2).P. Comparison of ex situ and in situ bioremediation of the adopted method should not only have a remarkable effect on unsaturated soils contaminated by petroleum..M. Jackson. Carberry. On the one hand.B. C.. Cham. the health risks needs to be studied before the Beelen... Veterinary antibiotics contamination in water. V.S. H. 655–661. Manag. D. C. Chemosphere 91 (7). Zhou. Chaney.. Bull. Zhang. T. Neiva. 1. microbes and future research needs.. 455–499. Santos. Dai. 582–598. 483. J.. Land Contamination & Reclamation 2000. C. Y.. Hydroxyl radicals Innovative Research Team in University (IRT-13R17). 2016a. G.. M. Khan...R. Chem. Pazos.. S. Sci.. Maki. lowland river using translocated zebra mussels and resident macroinvertebrates. contaminants in sediments under stagnant contact with activated carbon. 2015. Fernandez-Costas. Environmental Protection Agency. C. J. Mar.. 160 (2). M. N. Therefore.. G.J.. S. Eng. 73 (1).. Wang. Chen. Orlofsky. G.. 99–108.G. X. Z. C. D. Rev.. 2005.. Remediation of toxic metal contaminated soil by washing with biodegradable 5. I. A. 227 (9).. A. Technol. Benami. Gill. O. 2–8.. 2016. Land management: resolving soil pollution in China. Crit.. Environ. 243–253..E. U. 2014. Bardos RP. 51508175..D. evaluation methods for assessment of in situ remediation of contami..M. and ecological risks. G. Clemente.H. Phytoremediation of heavy metals—concepts and Evaluation of an organic soil amendment generated from municipal solid waste applications. L. M. J. Rahman. 170–177. Water Air Soil Pollut. Environ. On the other Agric. Sun LN. biological. Assessment of pathogenic bacteria in treated graywater and irrigated soils. van Hullebusch.A. A.. L. G. J. D... J. G. Lai. DC. Zeng. Nature 505 attention should be paid to the evaluation methods for assessing the (7484). Chemosphere 125. ized for the first time basing on the content of pollutants. Verma... R.I. Kim.. Eng. Q.. Enhanced-electrokinetic remediation sediment characteristics. Ye.... Hazard. 2016. Brookes.. petroleum.. 98.. 44 Potential risk assessment in stream sediments. 2013. bioaugmentation-assisted phytoremediation. Geoderma 124 being explored and adopted for solving the problems of soil and (1–2). C. J.G. B. Lanza. When implementing of copper-pyrene co-contaminated soil with different oxidants and pH control. Hoke.. Mater.. C.. hand. 33 (6). ensuring that the assessment methods are indeed and toxicity of metals and arsenic in a naturally contaminated mine soil. J. P. Kim. Assessment of trace element accumulation by earthworms in an orchard soil the ecological impact assessment needs to be involved in the establish. et al.. Sci. H. contaminated soil by natural attenuation.S... within a temperate agricultural soil.. Comparison of phytoremediation.. Deepesh. 168–174. Herzberg. Ajay. T. bioaugmentation and natural attenuation for remediating saline soil contaminated by for assessing the remediation effectiveness are systematically summar. Total Environ. 3–22. Bioremediation of soils contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Environment International 105 (2017) 43–55 needs to be explored. D. K. S. Pollut. L. X. soil and Cang.S.A. W. P. Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment. D.... Davis. Shin. Journal of Environmental reducing the amount and toxicity of pollutants. A.. R. H.N. Liu.P. K. R. Environ. A. context of prospective risk assessment: a review. M. Technol.. Cho. Liang.. O.B. C. Carvalho. Food ment can be conducted according to the specific pollutant. P. Bagard.. remediation study using soil amendments.. Hazard. Li.. 1223–1228. 186.C. N. 745–755. Comparison of the solubilizing 273–286. Relationships between aggregation and iron oxides in Terra Rossa soils from southern Italy. Ecological impact assessment of sediment remediation in a metal-contaminated Comparative bioremediation of heavy metals and petroleum hydrocarbons co. Soil Sci. Lian. In actual remediation projects. T. S. Tate. Gnanavelu.. 1992. seeded with activated sewage sludge... D. Int. Meng.. 51–59. EPA/630/R-92/001. Van Den Brink. M. Norton..H. D. For example. kinetics (1). Bervoets. 1835–1842.. Removal of PAHs and nated soil and sediment from an environmental perspective. Dai. Choi.A.. Physical. Lai. X. Vol. Y. assessment of heavy metal contamination on macrobenthic communities in southern Ansari.L. A.... Pardo. Bound.R. Beyer. Xu. Doelman. 1976.. Huang.... Environ. He. Li.H. Y. G.P. Mater.. Beesley. 284. Assessing and managing contaminated sediments: part I. Huguenot.. L.A. Environmental Earth Sciences 71 (3).. and soil near a swine (3) Specific assessment for in situ remediation of contaminated soil manure composting facility. Sci. Luthy. 2016.. ment of remediation goals and environmental criteria. 1991. 2326–2331. I. S. more Chen.. Zhang. 1997.L. The measurement of cation exchange capacity of soils... Y.C. chemical. Acknowledgments chlorophenols and heavy metals by composting: applications. 135–145. 869–881. R. efficiencies of some pH lowering (sulphur and (NH4)2SO4) amendments on Cd and Zn Lim..M. 2016.. heavy crude oil. 2010. Catena 18 (1).P.. Ecotoxicol. Gill.J.. C. Conclusions aminopolycarboxylate chelants. Centofanti. methods. Pollut. Fitzgerald. 27 (3).. K.. EPA. Electrokinetic delivery of persulfate to agricultural benefits from biochar application to temperate soils: a review. 2016.. E. M. 2013. Essumang. Yang. Choi. H.. and thermodynamics... Saf... soils and waters after remediation in (3). Kim. J. Q.S..P.A. feasible.. Biosorption of effective investigation and risk evaluation strategy. 2016.T. Smidt... V. Madhusudanan. Gross.. E.. Lal. Zhang.G.M.S... J. Atkinson. Inneh. Gillor. et al. and economic aspects under field conditions need to be 2014. B. McConnell.. Huang. 138–147.. the Program for Changjiang Scholars and Cheng. C. Risk Apitz. Abd El-Azeem. Agnello.. T. Geeraerts... 458-460.J. 1433–1440. Zeng. Plant Soil remediate PCBs polluted soils: effect of different activation methods. 2014.W. E.M. Potential mechanisms for achieving Fan. J. 2005. 693–703.A. Mater. J. Effects of manure- Abujabhah. S.. Degradation of Hunan province university innovation platform open fund project atrazine by a novel Fenton-like process and assessment the influence on the treated (14K020) and the Interdisciplinary Research Funds for Hunan soil. 144. bioaugmentation and Environ. H.C.. The authors are grateful for the financial supports from National Chen... 133. Fan.. Vonshak.Y. but also cause less Science & Health 36 (8).W. C. different reuse purposes should adopt different assessment Contextual framework. Z. Gomes. 184–191. et al. V. Kim.K.. Torrent. P. A. sediment contamination. 18 (2).. Column studies. C. 2016. Eur. J. D. Assess. Morgan P. J. the Key based advanced oxidation processes (AOPs) for remediation of soils contaminated with organic compounds: a review. Cycles Waste Manage.M. Ma. J. P. 362–368. References Colombo. 51521006. I. Chao L. Sun TH. G.J....J. 2001. Mater. M. Plant-microorganism combined remediation for remediation effectiveness while developing new remediation technol.J. 1161–1170..M. Ali. E. 52 . 1491–1503. Z. Environ. L.C... Begum. Soil Ecol. sediment. J.. 195–202... 2008. Cang.. Arts..H.. Amoakwah. S. Trans Tech ogies in future research. Swannell RPJ. M. X. 1–14. Publ. Res. Brock.C. Cheng. 610–613. Yan.. Shi... Soil structure and management: a review. E. et al. D. 2012. Assessment Forum. et al. Gomes. L.. Management of Environmental Contaminants.. assessing ecotoxicological risks of contaminants in soil and sediment. 51679085). Finkelstein. U. Hohreiter.. A. Sci. Combined Remediation of Pyrene-Contaminated Soil with a Coupled System of Persulfate Oxidation and Natural Science Foundation of China (51378190. Yang.D.K. Xu. Environ. Oleszczuk. Huang. L.. Riedel. Adsorption Cd in river sediments by sodium alginate modified nanoscale zero-valent iron: impact of Cd (II) and Zn (II) from aqueous solutions using magnetic hydroxyapatite on enzyme activities and microbial community diversity.. S. Stroo. contamination of soils: sources. Guo.. Heavy metal chemical oxidation remediation. Yu.. 1262–1267. contaminated soil using the acidified hydrazine hydrate. 89–95. Baligar.. X... 2016. zinc. X.K. 2016. Jensen.Y. Cham. 2012. Wei.M.W. Ma. 13721–13729. Sci. C. Baek.. Wang. Garbisu. J. Chlorinated Solvent Source Zone cationic dyes from aqueous solution using magnetic multi-wall carbon nanotube Remediation. 2013b. 50–59. E. 1267–1276. reduction of lead toxicity.C.. Eng....M.. Res.... Sci. Sci.. D. Gray. Pol. B. 50 (11)... 15–25. 97 (3). Liu.. Niu..R. P. 2008. Simón. S. Decomposer animals and bioremediation of soils. Q. Environ. Lv.Y.P. Wang.. 04015025.. Environ. S. B. 2014. Guiwei. Liang. water quality. Gillespie. 2014.. 322. Monitoring Huang. Geoderma 270. Wang.. S. J. Effect structure: a lab experiment using soil micromorphology and image analysis of pores. Zeng.. Hazard. 20 (11). C. coupled plasma mass spectrometric determination. Int. D. Huang.. Vogel. mercury. Cu-. Feng. Y. S. G. Venkateswarlu. E. GY2B and biosurfactant. Irshad. 28 (4). Yang. J. Remediation of Cr(VI)- Soc... W. Gautam.... 15 (1). contaminated soils. Baek. Remediation of a mine soil with Lee. E.R. Sci. Naidu.. Xing.G. In situ electrokinetic Fuller. M. Mater.. Sci. Lu. contaminated soils: a review. pollution in the surface soils of a region that had undergone three decades of intense Toxicol. L. D. Evrard. 9–18.. Abel.. Zhang. Anza.Y. of biochars.. W. Tang. Plant-bacteria partnerships for the Biodegrad... 2013.... Eng. Kim. Liu. Stalmachová. Fang. Water Air Soil Pollut. In-situ remediation of the contaminated soils in Ostrava city (Czech Republic) Gong..S. T.. C.. Int. Field application of modified in situ soil flushing in contaminated soil to the earthworm Eisenia andrei... Jung. Hazard... Lin.. S. Chemosphere 121. trace metal contamination and in situ remediation on microbial diversity and Technol.. Zhang. E. 22 (1). Qual..T. Nomngongo.E. 2013. nanoparticles as adsorbents.. T. Z. Liu.. Wernsing. Becerril. P. X. 2014... 7669–7676.. Toxicol. Am. J. Jiang.. Environ. M.. Palanisami.. Environ. van Gestel. 107 Liang... Akkanen. J. Electrokinetic remediation of 53 . J.X. Zeng.. G. B.. I. Trends Biotechnol. H. F. soil cation-exchange capacity as affected by the pH of the saturating solution. 223 (6).. Y. Chen. I... A. Environ. 6150–6159. Lu. Geoderma 235-236. Zong.. Bioremediation. Gilmour. Habibullah-Al-Mamun. Assessing the impact of amended with activated carbon. 2016. Remediation Approaches for the Management of Contaminated Sites: A contaminated soil at a gas manufacturing plant by a combined two-phase partition Comprehensive Overview... 653–661.T.K.. Du.. Beneficial effects of biochar application to Matong. Environ. kinetics and thermodynamics. Villaseñor. B. Catena 114. D.. 60. Z. H. 2016.. 70. 2013. 162 (2).. 68 (1). Zhang. 42 (13). L. S. C. 37–44. Y.. Mater.. H. M. K. W.. Y.. Adv. E.L... 48 Hu.. C.. 12001–12010. Hartnik. J. 141 (10). 1–8. Houben. Pollut. Ecol. E. Zhang. Soil Sci.R... 180–183. Hutchings. 8806–8824. Assessment of physical properties of expansive clayey soil (Vertisol). J.A. Ahmed. Sonnet.. S. G.. Q. Adsorption of (12). system washing and microbial degradation process... Hou. P. X. Field. P. Hale. C. Niu. Effect of rhizodeposition Haghiri.. Stoffella. 41–47. J. X. Y. Khan.H.L. 2013. 2015. M. G. Baumann. 2013a. T. 178 (7)..W. 392–394. M. C. Hu.. Technol. Res. R. 2016. Wan. Application of biochar on combined technologies for removal of organic pollutants from contaminated soils.. K. Xu... et al. J. Megharaj. 2017. Soils Sed.M. Q. V.. Electrochem.L.. 17–18. Li.R. 20 (9).. 2016. integrated assessment of sediment remediation in a midwestern U. T. 47 (23). Res. Q. 10735–10742. Assessing heavy metal sediment chemistry. 690-693.. Oxalate-based remediation of arsenic insoluble polyacrylate polymers enhances soil quality and plant growth. Jia. 22 Kupryianchyk. Islam. Electrokinetic remediation and its Mena. 42–55..U. 2015. and Pb-contaminated paddy soil using hexagonal electrode fluid extraction. nanocomposite as adsorbent.J... C. B. Comparison of microwave assisted.. Liang. Mills.. Ballesteros. K. Gargiulo. Waseem.. 24 (4). Cornelissen...Y.L. Water Res. Masunaga. I.. S. Environ.. et al. et al. X. H... Gerhardt. G.T. 2013.... Arch. 2013.M. 2016. Technol. Z. Kim.K. Pollut. Eng. Iqbal. Karapanagioti. soils and sediments. Raknuzzaman. Shih.. Electrokinetic- Short-term effect of the soil amendments activated carbon. Environ... configuration: a full scale study. Y.C. H. 2015. Total Environ.. Wang...and perfluoroalkyl Chemosphere 92 (11).S.. Ghosh. Environ. 285. W.. Environ. Ko.F. Sci.. Philp. Biol... M. hydroxyapatite immobilized lead and enhanced plant growth of ryegrass in a 196 (1). Degradation exposure of brown bullheads and benthic macroinvertebrates to sediment of lead-contaminated lignocellulosic waste by Phanerochaete chrysosporium and the contaminants in the Ashtabula river before. Appl. Liu. Sci. Effects of iron-based amendments on soil Jośko. 2013. Jakob.. H...... Xu. 2016. J. V. M. J. Pervez. Geol.. Toxicol. Plant uptake of cadmium as influenced by cation exchange capacity.G..L. G. Z. Rodrigo. I.. Vithanage. K. Lehmann. Kubečka. 735–744. 2009. Li. Sun. D. 2012.. 92–106. M.. Effect of rice husk biochar and coal fly ash on some Hassan. Remediation of polycyclic technology for the bioeconomy... Xiao.J. B.C. Sani. T. V. 5774–5780. J. Low-concentration tailing and Indicators 9....Q. an environmental remediation Kang.. on alterations of soil structure and microbial community in pyrene–lead co- organic matter. Kim. Han. J. Shen. Chem. Terribile. H. indicators and assessment. P. heavy metals in wheat plants irrigated with contaminated wastewater. Fiedel.M. Sci. Y.. Res..G. 2014. Evrard.. stream using Hu. Toxicol. et al. Hazard. reduction? J. Reichman.. E.. X.L. Rakowska. A.A. 2015. Cheng. 2015. sediment contaminated by inorganic and organic pollutants. Z. Sigler. K..S. B. Y. Sci.. 48 (13).. et al. 1964. Springer International Publishing.. Guo. Marschalko. biochar. Q. B. Gong. P.. Felix-Henningsen. Batin. Kim. Gong..F. 2010. Immobilization of Feng.. Schaefer.M. D. G.. Z. et al.. X. Contribution of organic matter and clay to contaminated soils by mechanical soil aeration. bioavailability and pH-dependent McGuire. I. Gadepalle.. Evaluation of biochars and activated carbons for in situ remediation of Kaplan.A. substance distribution at a former firefighter training area. Stevens. W.. C. Cho.. et al.M. Glick. et al.C. Q. 126–138. Stud. C.. Afzal. Long-term recovery of benthic communities in sediments González. J. J. Zeng.. J. Kim. J. 293–301. Biomass Bioenergy 57. M. M.. Mater. 1490–1494. X. H.. X.. S.. Hazard.. F. et al.... 3. J.. A.. 306–314. Wang. C. C. L.... Immobilization and phytotoxicity reduction of heavy metals in serpentine soil using Mao. L. 355–368. Environ. Mahmood. 14 (8). Schnell. et al.. 1450–1457. sewage sludge. et al. Cañizares. 2013. Chem. Microbial monitoring of the recovery of soil quality during heavy metal Kempa. 117–123. and ferric enhanced remediation of phenanthrene-contaminated soil combined with oxyhydroxide on bacteria and invertebrates. E. Manag. Environ. W.B. Liu.. P.. Peeters. Karakashev.. 2015.. 6644–6652.M. substrate. Richards.S. Xu. 286. 4946–4951. Greenberg.. Chemosphere 83 (9). J. X. et al.. K.. Liu.. Remediation of copper and cadmium in Jin. Nyaba.. Snyder.A. combination of biostimulation and modified Fenton oxidation. 2013. G. Chemosphere 154. Springer. Haimi. Peressotti. Yang. X.J.. Corey. Pollut... M. Environ. Li. X.H. Environ. 2016. P.. Technol. Sci. C. J. (16). U. V. Jiang. 1370–1377. 2015. Nybom. Res.. Marchiol. W. and methylmercury. E.. Mele.. J... 1974. 185 (1). Sci. M.. Impact of sediments impacted with organics. 46 (19). Pollut...L. Environ. Beckingham.M.. X. J.M. X. Contam... Cheng.G. Technol. 711–720.... Sci...... X.. K. Kumarathilaka. 2013.. Ecol.. Phytoremediation and Jurado-Sanchez.. D.. Biodeterior. industrialization and urbanization. Y. Mater. G. J.C. C.S. 8674–8683.. Cheng. D. 463-464. Sphingomonas sp.. P. A procedure for measuring microplastics using pressurized remediation of As-. 2014. J. activated carbon and multiwalled carbon nanotubes on phytotoxicity of J.H. zinc and lead in a contaminated soil amended with biochar. Environmental Earth Sciences 75 (2). Remediation of weathered petroleum oil-contaminated soil using a by steam curing/vapor.I. 2015. A... Meier. Yilmaz. 2012. Niu. Technol. Zeng.. I.H. Zeng.K. Oleszczuk. Zhang. et al. M. D. Int. R.. Int. Henriksen.. H. Xu..... Niu. Huang. Li. 1325–1338.. remediation of hydrocarbon contaminated soils.... S. Han. J. Y. Res.. Xue. Song et al. C. Environ. P. Gomez-Eyles... Environ. 95.. A. Use of surfactants for the remediation of biochar... Zeng. Effect of critical evaluation of magnetic activated carbon's potential for the remediation of rhamnolipid solubilization on hexadecane bioavailability: enhancement or sediment impacted by polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. 76–82. 2011. Sonnet. J. Removal of Kueper.. Mobility. 2014. Plant Sci. Yang. Alkorta. M. P. C. Guo. Shentu. S.. Lee. X. G. N. 106. Pb and Zn and the biomass agricultural soils using ultrasound assisted sequential extraction prior to inductively production of rapeseed (Brassica napus L.F. Gallego. Han.. Ratering. Lazorchak.M. Houben. 1517–1522. Bai. Z. J.A.B. 2014. B. L. 115–123. Park. C.Y.P.. S.M. Lee. Jeon. 25–29. X. Hu. M. combination with air sparging at a military site polluted by diesel and gasoline in 8162–8171. of Cd polluted paddy soil using sepiolite and palygorskite. 154. et al. Environment International 105 (2017) 43–55 Fellet. distribution characteristics of PAHs in coking plant contaminated soils by in situ He. I. In-Situ Gong. Chemosphere 90 (4). Bao. Pranagal.. Korea.. Gong. J. Environ.T. J. Zhong. Ma. 249–257..G. 233–238.. J. M. M.. J. X. G. H... Mater. Sun.. Contam. Huang. mine tailings: effects and perspectives for land reclamation... R. I. T. 7 (5). Chem. Removal efficiency and Environ. M. 329–332.E.. F... L. 2015. Public Health 11 (9). organic and inorganic amendments on the toxicity and bioavailability of a metal. L. Grotenhuis. Jiang. 31 (6). 2013. Y. Biotechnol.. 2000. 2009. contaminated soil. 487–494.. Q. 2008. Altfater. leaching of cadmium. M.. F.. and fish biomarkers. Angelidaki. phytoremediation.. Herath. Khan. Metal speciation in sediment and their bioaccumulation in fish species of three Bioaugmentation as a solution to increase methane production from an ammonia-rich urban rivers in Bangladesh.. Y.. G. and soil temperature1. Ward. ultrasonic assisted and Soxhlet extractions of N-nitrosamines and aromatic amines in 176 (1). G. Y. Pollut.P.M. Tan. G. Lacková. Epelde..K.. In situ field-scale remediation (2).. Li. Y. 47 (15). H. 2011. Eng. Ouki. H.. Li. W.. J. Shi. Fractionation of trace elements in contaminated soils on the bioavailability of Cd. and after remediation. X. de Varennes. rhizoremediation of organic soil contaminants: potential and challenges. 164 (2). An isotherms. 2015. Int. X. Ma. Int. H. Navaratne. J.. 419–435.. Hazard. A.. chromium (VI) by ethylenediamine-modified cross-linked magnetic chitosan resin: Meier. G. Sci. H.). A Liu. Backe. Water Air Soil Pollut. Bull. J. Biochem. et al. Technol.. 2016. M. Remediation of PAH... 517–520. Z. 32 (3). 20–30.. 350–356.D. Díez-Ortiz. Fotidis.... subsequent quicklime-enhanced remediation of volatile chlorinated hydrocarbon- Helling.M. 34 (6). 2013. 2009.. N. Journal of Environmental Ma. 394–401. Lu. Houtz. C. D. Zeng. Rajakaruna. G. J. during. Yupanqui.E. L. Fertility Soils 50 (5). 3249–3262. Nano- contaminated soils using compost with inorganic amendments. 1317–1332.D. 196–204. aromatic hydrocarbons in soil using hemoglobin-catalytic mechanism. Ye. T. M... Evidence of remediation-induced alteration of subsurface poly. A.J. J. et al. Y.. respiratory activity of heavily polluted Kastanozems. J. et al. B. J. S. S. Koelmans.. Cunha-Queda. Environ. 2013. S. bioassessment. Gómez-Sagasti. N. Xue.. Luo. Kuppusamy.N.M.. 2012. Mater. Hanauer. L. Chung. 22 (1). J. Soils Sed.... Delle Vedove..B. Chesters. Soil Use bound to amorphous Fe and Al hydrous oxides in soil. Eng. N.. J. Wang.B. J.. T... 4528–4544. R. Li. M. Garcia. M... source portable X-ray fluorescence spectrometer: 4. Int.H. K. L. Ramos..W. K.R. J.. Haderlein. Lazar.C. 130–134. M. B. C. Y. 265..C... 2016. M. Pollut. Sci. The pros and cons of ecological risk Netherlands. Siegrist. Escherichia coli and bromide..A. Soil & Sediment Tick... Triplett Kingston. C. 177–199... Reible. J. J. Handziuk.. C. Deng. White. Huang. situ remediation of 1. J. L.. Castiglione..... Paz-Alberto. 569-570.. Zhang.. Nie. Cosmochim. Technol.. Environ.. Scholes. Fang. K. 54 . Northern Italy): accumulation in benthic invertebrates and passive samplers. Gong.. A. Pollut. M. S. contaminated soils: a critical review of major limitations and counter-strategies. 69. chemical and Chemosphere 159. B. Treatment and Containment of Contaminated Sediments. Biophys.. 95–105.T. J. Dahlen. Crit. Li. Y.. Y. Res.. immobilization and nutrient release by biochar soil amendment: roles of natural 2015. 96–105. F. contaminated spoil.-U. C. Sneath. Z.C. Bernal. R.. K. In situ remediation of cadmium- Gallagher. Beyea. U.. Cicatelli. 2015..H. et al. 2014. Environ. Gredilla. Characterizing soils via hydrocarbons (PAHs) in urban soils of the megacity shanghai: occurrence. 111 (1–2). Bradshaw. Soils Sed. Giesy. X. Ryan. A. F.. 2015..K. Switzer.. Rosignoli. 137–178. 275. Clay metals contaminated sediment.P. G. 2017. historical mining with a holistic remediation and abatement program. Polycyclic aromatic Sharma. Cornelissen. 200–206.D.. N.. Assessment of blood lead level declines in an area of polluted soil reusing four by-products individually and in combination. Z. Miao.C. Alvarenga. M. for water-soluble organic matter in sediments by aqueous Soxhlet extraction.P. Hydrol. S.. 426–436.. Springer Basel. L. T. D. J.... Zhang. E. Total Environ. Wang.. De Boer. Y.. A.. Res. Weindorf. J. Contaminant Samuelsson. P. G. Choppala.. G. Dordrecht. 235–246.. Effects of in situ remediation using oxidants or evaluation of microbial diversity by pyrosequencing.. Pardo. 47 (21).P.. Wang. 439–451. 1–14. T. A. P. Song. 756–784. J. Sci. Rapid detection of phenanthrene by microwave-activated persulfate: implication for in situ subsurface picloram in agricultural field samples using a disposable immunomembrane-based remediation engineering..S... Y. Thermal treatment of arms range soils: influence of soil organic carbon and pH.. Geochem. Herring... K. J. Fu. Chem. J. 161 (2–3). Pollut. Biochem.. X.C. Liu. and ecotoxicological evaluation.. S.. Li. Santos. Environ.A. L. Chemosphere 172. Gharabaghi.H.. Major. Agric. J. Enhancing cleanup chromium in contaminated soil remediated by CMC-stabilized nZVI.. Water. Hazard. electrochemical sensor.. Celestino.. Environ.. International Journal of Environmental Wang. L.. Tejada. J. Shen. C.. NEXAFS and XPS characterisation contaminated sites. Santini. Microbiol. Wang.E. G. Eng. T.. Y. S. Sun. Mar. (Eds. M. Is there a direct relationship between stress biomarkers in Tomaszewski..E. 2016. 2012..W.. 2014. Cowie.. Y. Yedjou. et al.H.. Klasson. L. 1207–1212. Thomsen.. Environ. resistance heating remediation sites. Alberto..H. 1993. Rodríguez-Valdés. J.. 61 soil co-contaminated with lube oil and heavy metals in a low-temperature two-stage (32).. Faure.. Removal of Pb and Zn from Protection 6 (1). Efficiency of soil organic and 2012.M. D.. A. contaminated soil by different washing methods: the influence of reagents and Silambarasan. Xu. 1413–1421. W. F. Environ. 164.. Elmquist Kruså.. 2005. Poma. promoting Acinetobacter sp. F... Bangladesh. 2016.. Pollut.. 3290–3299. Landingham. Liang.. Hao.. Schoof. J. 93. 451–461. B.. Pollut. Air.. T.. Johnson. A. pore water and overlying water. 46 (16). Cheng. Song.. enhanced-solubilization agents on the dissolution and removal of a multicomponent Rodriguez-Iruretagoiena. extraction method for simultaneous determination of organophosphorus pesticides Song.. R.. 98 (1–2). C. P.. AVLB2 and toxicological analysis of its biodegradation Wcisło. 39 (19).. Qiu..A. bioaccumulation of PCBs and PAHs in marine sediment fauna.. Deacon. Zeng. X.L. Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation 32 (2). 80–90. D. 2016. Sanchez-Martin. P.F. M.. Clemente... J. G. Tosco. the role of pH and cation exchange. Deng. Sci.. Peng.X. Marziali. Hazard. Gallego.. Norton.. 83–96. Q. A. A. Assessment of biochar and iron filing Transformation of heavy metal speciation during sludge drying: mechanistic insights. of carbon functional groups of fresh and aged biochars..A. 2014. Biodegradation of 4-nitroaniline by plant-growth ultrasound.I. Development of a one-step microwave-assisted water disinfection.. (Ed.F. Remediation of PAH-contaminated soils 109.V. Mater. Lima. Santore.S.. Hernandez.L.-O. Usman. 122... D. Y. (L.. P. 430-431.. 2015.. T. P. Yu. Deng.. 343–351.R. 582–591. 131–138. Oliva-Teles. J. 2015..R. Rev.. Luna.E. Wu.. Woo. Technol.J. Sci. In: Luch. R. S. J. M. Vardy. Chemosphere 107. Biochem. A.).. B Environ. Sci.. 2015. 2014. 105-106. 2006.. 93–102. Sci.. Hydrol. Uchimiya. Sandu. Lin. 2014... dense nonaqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) source.B. D. G. M. et al. Smoldering remediation of coal-tar-contaminated soil: pilot field tests of STAR. 2013. 193–198.J.) Wilczek) assay. 7679–7688. A.L. 302. 923–928. J.. L. M.W. Sci. Chung. Meharg..M. Cation exchange capacity (CEC)...H. D. A. Environ. Bubak. Kuo.. E. 49 (24).L. 20 (5)... Effect of multi- and fungicides in soils by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Chang. Uchimiya. Org.. E.T. 80–89. green technology with ferrous sulfate. Y. Li.W. Sumon. Vigliotta..V. Contam. R. J. Tchounwou. Toxicol. Anal.. Spatial heterogeneity and kinetic regulation of arsenic dynamics in mangrove inorganic amendments on the remediation of a contaminated mine soil: II. M. A. Therm. J.H. M.. walled carbon nanotubes on phytotoxicity of sediments contaminated by 227–234.W. Sun. Murgulet... E.. I. arsenic and phenanthrene co. J. A.. 2015. Bolan. F.I. of contaminated coastal sediment by response surface methodology (RSM) and Pan. Appl. Y. Mar. Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation 32 (3). C. Chuasavathi. H.. Environ. 2015. The remediation of heavy cadmium (Cd) and lead (Pb) co-contaminated paddy soil using bentonite. F.. Song. Andrades.. Appl. Optimization of biostimulant for bioremediation structure. J..W. L.H.. Sci. Wang... Williams.. 1–10. X.. 2011.. J. Liang. Y.. J.. Tian. 447. A.. F. G. 2016. apportionment and potential human health risk. Kang.. assessment based on data from different levels of biological organization..C. quality improvements and mass discharge reductions at five in situ electrical Safadoust. Use of organic amendment Ecotoxicological impact of two soil remediation treatments in Lactuca sativa seeds. Souche. health risk assessment in restoring safe and productive use of abandoned Singh. Rodriguez-Cruz. Zeng. 2016.. Gerhard. M. microbial communities. Mahboubi. Song.. of heavy metal polluted landfill soils and improving soil microbial activity using Mater. G.. J. Y. Clinical and Environmental Pseudomonas putida 710A and Comamonas aquatica 710B using plant (Vigna radiata Toxicology: Volume 3: Environmental Toxicology. 103–112. Weng.J. Y.. Cui. Environ. S. oysters and the amount of metals in the sediments where they inhabit? Mar.. Tian. D. S.. 150... Bocos. Environ.. D.A. In situ stabilization remediation of Peng. P. Spontaneous vegetation encroachment upon bauxite Total Environ. Basel. 263. G.. J. L. 2013. Human metabolites. Koch. Hecker..P. 46 (9). Sun.T. 178. 401–415. F. Song et al. Wang. biological properties of soil. Heavy metal toxicity Rani.. Huang. S. Sci. G... 8645–8652. 377–400... 94. Wang. 20084–20091. Fenton oxidation to remediate PAHs in polluted sites.. G.. S.. Wang.E. Sci. Eng.R.. Environ. Molecular. Uyttebroek. Ma. 347–356.. J.P. Soil Biol. B. Geoderma 239-240.. pp.. Teitelbaum. Lee. Rementeria. 2013. Doering. 2012. D. Immobilization and phytotoxicity of Sigua.Y. Pollut. J. Intermediate-scale investigation of Contamination 15 (4).M. 16 (1). and enzyme activities in reduces the bioavailability and phytotoxicity of heavy metals. Voroney. Wartelle. 2012. Biological sediments: the Sundarbans. Jiang. Environ.. et al.M. Witt. 10–17. S. 2013a. T. M. Soils Sed. fluidized bed incinerator.R. Nisbet. J. 604. R. Bull. Int. Bull. et al. M. et al. 935–940..J.. Geoderma 56 (1–4). Acta 141. Vangnai.C.V. P. 77. Lu.. surfactants on subsurface organic matter and sorption of trichloroethene.S.. 2016. acidic soil. 2016. Li. Arana. D. G.Y. Stone. R.. Ann.. pp.T..S. J. 2013b. C. Mater. J. 167–176. Assessment of groundwater Toxicol. Roscioli... Ye.C.. G. Antibacterial properties effect of periodic polarity reversal and voltage gradient... Electrokinetic-Fenton technology for the remediation of hydrocarbons historically Usman.. Wu. P. M.. 38 (6).. Unc. 12089–12096.. Luthy. M. Ruby. 42 (4).R. phenanthrene and cadmium.. 117-118. C. J..M. M. Chemosphere 80 (8).S. Johnson. Hutchings. 88–99. 2015. S. Sánchez-Camazano. X. Patlolla... P. Environ.. Rede. 226 (11). Li. Vidumsky. C.N. M..P.J. 14 (3). Pisanello. Teng. Soil and soil environmental Comparison of pesticide sorption by physicochemically modified soils with natural quality monitoring in China: a review. Sutton.. A.. J. 7452–7459.. Sousa. metals and chelants on phytoremediation capacity and on rhizobacterial Environ. Y.. Effects of heavy 2015. Schmidt. Lu.. Zhang. 97–103. J. B..L. by magnetite catalyzed Fenton-like oxidation. Res. Liu.. Zhang. A. Y. de Leij. Mater.G. 2006.L. B. Extending the analytical window Velimirovic. 2015.. Z. 2016.E. Efficient oxidation of high levels of soil-sorbed Tang. G.B.A.L. et al. D..H... N. Matrella.. 2012. C. R.1-trichloroethane. M. Res. J. area in North China. Bronder. Chemosphere 156. Biochar sepiolite on cadmium stabilization. J.. Food Chem. F. C. Rosales. Arch. D.L.. D. G. C. Tsang. S. 2008. Capping in situ with activated carbon in Trondheim harbor (Norway) reduces organic matter. 30–36. 179–190. 299.. Stellman. A. 436–448. 2014. The role of biology in the formation. 2013... B. Y. Fang. L.. et al. 361–366. Saf.. Y. R... residue (red mud) as an indicator and facilitator of in situ remediation processes.. Oades. J. Lanczos. Fey. Y. 2009. 2013. M... Bannon. Popescu.F.R.. Gastone.. F. 179. Comparative in situ remediation potential of and the environment. Peng. T. communities of maize. Hinrichs... J. 2012. Int. Grant.. 2016. C. M. Jiao. N. Appl.. Gonzalez. Hanna. X. Yang. Soil Pollut. D. Y.. Lin. Xu.. F. amendments for the remediation of a metal. Z.. Smithenry.H.. Salice.G. 63 (3). Feldpausch.. 101–108. 2010... Solubility of lead and copper in biochar-amended small Samaksaman. Talanta 114. Technol. Guarino..X. Y. et al. Crimi. L. Effect of regenerated soil structure on unsaturated transport of 41–51.. G..L. A. Technol. G... L. Harvell. et al. Mosaddeghi. Catal. Ecotoxicol. Sorption of three tetracyclines by several soils: assessing metals in sediment.. E. M. Contamination situ bioavailability of DDT and Hg in sediments of the Toce River (Lake Maggiore and risk of heavy metals in soils and sediments from a typical plastic waste recycling basin. 133–164. Gunnarsson. In Tang. Wey... H. and mechanism of graphene oxide-silver nanocomposites as bactericidal agents for Merdassa. Manag. D. Ouyang.. 96–103. Megersa... F. 2016. T. Lowry. Technol... 14334–14342. 5 (2). E. Hanna. et al. 633–640. Y. Yuan. Zaldibar. Assessment of Columbia River sediment toxicity to white sturgeon: concentrations of Sassman. D... Pozzoni.M. A... as a strategy for saline soil remediation: influence on the physical. Jiang. soils as a function of soil properties and pesticide hydrophobicity... Y.. 2014.K.1. 449–458.. K. A. C. J. stabilization and degradation of soil Subha. Goel. Res. Sci.. 2016.). 22 (24). Antao.. G. Plant Soil 348 (1–2). G. Zeng. Environ. Y. Hazard. In: Reible. J. J. B. 230–237. Gong.. 2012. et al.. et al.. A. Environment International 105 (2017) 43–55 soil polluted with insoluble organics using biological permeable reactive barriers: Song. Field assessment of guar gum stabilized microscale zerovalent iron particles for in- Geochim.. 2006.. M. Springer Rohr. Chakraborty. Pazos. Zhang.. Cho. A.R. Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments...H. Zhang. Assessment of natural Park. Mestrot..X. Hazard... S. Environ.. 28–37. G. de Vallejuelo. L. Hedman. . Huang. health. Environ. Zeng. C. C.. metals and soil physicochemical properties on wetland soil microbial biomass and Zeng..Y... 2013b. Yang. Water Res. Chen. et al. Electrochemical and composition of antibiotics in sediment. J. et al.F. Zeng. Total Environ.. Environment International 105 (2017) 43–55 et al. D. C. Hu.. Park. L.. Zhu. Mirgorodsky. T.. N. based chronocoulometric aptasensor for amplified detection of Pb2 + using DNAzyme Yang. Total Environ... et al. Zeng.. C. 20 (12). 2016.. Assessment of the ecological contaminated site. Pollut. Reynolds.M. K.. Zeng.. S.G. C.. 2016a. 557-558. He. Ni.. Exposure to multiple sources of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and Zhang.. G. Distribution. Lestan. 2012. Wang.. C. 2016b. Manag. Z. Munster. M.. Tang. Lai.A.H. V.. 2121–2126. 247–251.... Grcman. Huang... C. and further utilization of the plant residues. J. Combined removal oxide nanomaterials in wastewater treatment: a review. Biosens. Büchel.. petroleum oil-contaminated soil after low-temperature thermal desorption treatment. D. Z.. 227 (4).. Zhou. 2016b.. J. 2013b. Fang. Y. Xu.. A. M. D.. Ge. Hydrometallurgy 131. 86. 2016. G. et al. X. In situ remediation and modified with Au nanoparticles.. 4 (98). Soil physical characteristics after regenerable electrochemical aptasensor based on nanoporous gold and thymine. In situ remediation-released zero-valent iron 989–996. Eng. et al.T. Huang. overlying water and pore water from sensor based on electrodeposited graphene-Au modified electrode and nanoAu carrier Taihu Lake.. Science 340 bacterial community structure. nanoporous gold-polyethyleneimine adsorbent. G. P.M. 89-90.. Performance and microbial Zeng. Zhang.. H. Lai. P..M. Z. T. K. Zeng. Kastelec. Wang. H. J... Nie. Practical and Zupanc. filters. Y. S. J. D.L. Bioelectron. B. C. nanoparticles impair soil ecosystems health: A C. L. L... C. Y.B. J.. Huang. Chen. Wei. 2013a. J. Mater. Electrokinetic in Zhang. et al. Jiang.. Sci. G. et al. 1–10.. Zhou.. Sci.. 424. D. Hua. Contam. Fang.M. Y. Wu.. G. Tang. Sci... 2016.Z..T. L. Zeng. 8472–8483..... 113–119. Total Environ. hydroquinone biosensor using modified core-shell magnetic nanoparticles supported Willscher. security of immobilized enzyme remediation process with biological indicators of soil 132. Y. 186. Yang.. Xu. Z. D. 2015.. 2012... 2016a. Tsang. Lu.. Use of iron Zhang..L. G.. Lai.. Tang.. Anal. 22 (9–10). H. X. Li. Risks of neonicotinoid pesticides. G. G. Ecol. et al.. Chen. L. Q. 2014. of di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) and Pb (II) by using a cutinase loaded 1–10.M. Huang.. Int. 20 (8). 2015. Efficacy of Environ. J. 174–181. 103–112.. Biosens. C. et al. Wang... D. Dong.. Res. Y.. Nanoporous Au- assessment.. G. Y.. phytotoxicity assessment of lead-contaminated soil by biochar-supported nHAP... sources Zhang. Xu. amplified signal strategy for attomolar mercury detection. 154.. 2007. 2016c.. Chen. Environ. Thomas. 267–273.. 46–53. Lai... G. 72–85. M. Changes in ecological properties of aqueous solution. X. Zeng.. D. 284. 55511–55518. 2014.. D. Zeng.. Sci. L. G. Chem. Jiang.. Cheng. A breast cancer incidence.. et al. Cao. Li. 56–62. 210–220. 136-137. Zhang. 182. Sung. Field scale phytoremediation experiments on a heavy metal and uranium Zhang. 424–430... Hydrol. Huang. Sarmah. D... Wu. Chen.. Tang. Zhang..M. D. et al. 185–192.. L... 81. Chen. Y. Prommer. Huang.. L. 2013. L. Lai.. S. C. Merten.... 1403.. Yi. 95. S. investigation using an in situ enclosure experiment in Lake Erhai. Environ. H. D. Sci. M. China. elegans biomarker-based risk Zhang.. Zeng. D. Zhao. 2014. D. (6139). Liang. 2016.. Zeng. C.. 317.E. C. Pollut. Y. Zhao. He. X. Using biochar for situ oxidation remediation: assessment of parameter sensitivities and the influence of remediation of soils contaminated with heavy metals and organic pollutants. Pollut. 2013a.. Bioelectron. Y. Zhang. Y.. Huang... Cao. C. Chem. He.. 785–790. RSC Adv. M. 38... aquifer heterogeneity on remediation efficiency.. S.. Du. Z..L. D. C. Yuan... Zhang. et al. Study of the Zhu. on carbon paste electrode. Chu.. G. C. China.. Jablonski. J.. Res. Hazard.M.. 61–67.: a short-term residues with Phanerochaete chrysosporium and reutilization of fermented residues. carbonaceous nanocomposites for sorbing ionizable antibiotic sulfamethazine from Yi. C. Shale gas: surface water also at risk. B. 2016. P. Song et al..X. Biosens.. J. Environ. Z. G.N. Bioelectron.. Guo. Yang. Fourie. P. S. EDTA washing and amendment with inorganic and organic additives.. M. Eng.H. Effects of heavy Water Air Soil Pollut.. 55 . 87 (2). D. C.. Zeng. 497-498. C. Waste Manag. Feng. A.. Liao. 5773–5780. Ollivier.. Xu. J... G. Kim. Cheng. C.. Hu. Zhou... Nature 499 analysis of two different inocula for the removal of chlorobenzene in biotrickling (7457). Improvement of water quality degradation of methylene blue by semi-solid-state fermentation of agricultural by sediment capping and re-vegetation with Vallisneria natans L. Hg2 +-thymine base pairs for Hg2 + detection.