Developing field-scale, gentle remediation options for nuclear sites contaminated with 137Cs and 90Sr: The role of Nature-Based Solutions
Open accessAbstract
The remediation of contaminated land using plants, bacteria and fungi has been widely examined, especially in laboratory or greenhouse systems where conditions are precisely controlled. However, in real systems at the field scale conditions are much more variable and often produce different outcomes, which must be fully examined if ‘gentle remediation options’, or GROs, are to be more widely implemented, and their associated benefits (beyond risk-management) realized. These secondary benefits can be significant if GROs are applied correctly, and can include significant biodiversity enhancements. Here, we assess recent developments in the field-scale application of GROs for the remediation of two model contaminants for nuclear site remediation (90Sr and 137Cs), their risk management efficiency, directions for future application and research, and barriers to their further implementation at scale. We also discuss how wider benefits, such as biodiversity enhancements, water filtration etc. can be maximized at the field-scale by intelligent application of these approaches.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Lab-scale experiments (<12 months) tend to be shorter than field experiments (averaged 6.7 years).
“Lab-scale experiments (<12 months) tend to be shorter than field experiments (averaged 6.7 years) since lab-scale experiments often focuses only on the NbS to uptake contaminants in controlled environments whereas field experiments are subject to variable environmental and economic factors [27].”
From Life cycle assessment and cost-benefit analysis of nature-based solutions for contaminated land remediation: A mini-review (2023) · cites this paper as [27]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 147 · Cited by 14
- Authors
- Purkis, J. M., Bardos, R. P., Graham, J., & Cundy, A. B.
- Affiliations
- National Oceanography Centre (GB)
- University of Brighton (GB)
- National Nuclear Laboratory (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Cundy, Andrew B.
- Venue
- Journal of Environmental Management
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2022-04
- Volume
- 308
- Pages
- 114620
- ISSN
- 0301-4797 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4210934660
- Cited by
- 14
- References
- 147
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 0.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Environmental Management (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/S01019X/1, EP/S01019X/)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Radioactive contamination and transfer
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Microbial bioremediation and biosurfactants
- Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Inorganic Chemistry › Radioactive element chemistry and processing
- Keywords
- nature-based solutions, cesium-137, strontium-90, nuclear site remediation, field-scale application, risk management, biodiversity enhancement, water filtration, contaminated site remediation, phytoremediation, fungal bioremediation
- MeSH terms
- Biodegradation, Environmental, Cesium Radioisotopes, Plants, Risk Management, Soil Pollutants, Strontium Radioisotopes, Environmental Restoration and Remediation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
