Remediation techniques for heavy metal-contaminated soils: principles and applicability
Open accessAbstract
Globally there are over 20millionha of land contaminated by the heavy metal(loid)s As, Cd, Cr, Hg, Pb, Co, Cu, Ni, Zn, and Se, with the present soil concentrations higher than the geo-baseline or regulatory levels. In-situ and ex-situ remediation techniques have been developed to rectify the heavy metal-contaminated sites, including surface capping, encapsulation, landfilling, soil flushing, soil washing, electrokinetic extraction, stabilization, solidification, vitrification, phytoremediation, and bioremediation. These remediation techniques employ containment, extraction/removal, and immobilization mechanisms to reduce the contamination effects through physical, chemical, biological, electrical, and thermal remedy processes. These techniques demonstrate specific advantages, disadvantages, and applicability. In general, in-situ soil remediation is more cost-effective than ex-situ treatment, and contaminant removal/extraction is more favorable than immobilization and containment. Among the available soil remediation techniques, electrokinetic extraction, chemical stabilization, and phytoremediation are at the development stage, while the others have been practiced at full, field scales. Comprehensive assessment indicates that chemical stabilization serves as a temporary soil remediation technique, phytoremediation needs improvement in efficiency, surface capping and landfilling are applicable to small, serious-contamination sites, while solidification and vitrification are the last remediation option. The cost and duration of soil remediation are technique-dependent and site-specific, up to $500ton-1 soil (or $1500m-3 soil or $100m-2 land) and 15years. Treatability studies are crucial to selecting feasible techniques for a soil remediation project, with considerations of the type and degree of contamination, remediation goals, site characteristics, cost effectiveness, implementation time, and public acceptability.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 113 · Cited by 1,828
- Authors
- Liu, L., Li, W., Song, W., & Guo, M.
- Affiliations
- Nanjing University (CN)
- Delaware State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Guo, Mingxin
- Venue
- Science of The Total Environment
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-08
- Volume
- 633
- Pages
- 206-219
- ISSN
- 0048-9697 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2790834180
- Cited by
- 1,828
- References
- 113
- Citations by year
- 2026: 165 · 2025: 261 · 2024: 319 · 2023: 239 · 2022: 286 · 2021: 235 · 2020: 196 · 2019: 108 · 2018: 18
- FWCI
- 7.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- The Science of The Total Environment (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Key Technologies R&D Program of China (2017YFD0800305)
- USDA-AFRI (2014-38814-22561)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Heavy metals in environment
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Electrokinetic Soil Remediation Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Environmental and Analytical Chemistry Studies
- Keywords
- heavy metal-contaminated soil, soil remediation, in situ remediation, ex situ remediation, surface capping, encapsulation, landfilling, soil washing, electrokinetic extraction, chemical stabilization, solidification, vitrification, phytoremediation, bioremediation, heavy metal immobilization, treatability study, remediation costs, site characterization
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