Coupling phytoremediation of Pb-contaminated soil and biomass energy production: A comparative Life Cycle Assessment

Espada, Juan J.; Rodríguez, Rosalía; Gari, Vanessa; Salcedo‐Abraira, Pablo; Bautista, Luis Fernando

doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.156675

Cited by 13 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Sustainable immobilization does not solve the issue faced by all immobilization techniques, that contaminant substances are entrained within the treated material, requiring long-term risk monitoring and Enhanced reductive dechlorination 84 Biopile 166 Biopile 165 Energy recovery 86 Biomass disposal 86 Energy recovery 85 Biomass disposal 85 Colloidal Hydraulic gradient (m m -1 ) 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018 0.020 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20…”

Section: Sustainable Immobilizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…a, The environmental impact of sustainable immobilization in comparison with dig and haul and conventional cement-based solidification and stabilization, based on life-cycle impact assessments for specific cases in New York, USA 162 , Helsingborg, Sweden 163 , and Celje, Slovenia 164 . b, The environmental impact of microbial bioremediation or phytoremediation in comparison with that of dig and haul, based on life-cycle impact assessments of five cases [84][85][86]165,166 . c, The environmental impact of in-situ chemical treatment (ISCT) in comparison with in-situ bioremediation (ISB) under a range of site characteristics, including width of treatment zone, length of treatment zone, hydraulic gradient, hydraulic conductivity and native electron acceptor demand 92 ; colour bar on the far right provides a scale for the ratio between ISCT and ISB impacts, with the solid black triangle representing a ratio of 1. d, The environmental impact of permeable reactive barrier (PRB) in comparison with pump and treat (P&T) for different operation times, media longevity and wall material compositions 105,106 ; colour bar on the far right provides a scale for the ratio between PRB and P&T impacts, with the solid black triangle representing a ratio of 1.…”

Section: Ecosystem Acidi Icationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, both phytoremediation and microbial bioremediation still face challenges, especially related to the long time (several years to a decade or more) taken to achieve remediation goals. Moreover, without the recovery of plant biomass for energy, phytoremediation could still have high environmental footprints due to energy required for biomass transportation and incineration 85,86 (Fig. 4b).…”

Section: Low-impact Bioremediationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reduce fossil fuel consumption and CO 2 emission; restore degraded land; reduce erosion 85,86 Enhance economic competitiveness of phytoremediation 150 Reduce competition with food production; enhance fuel price stability 151 Not suitable for heavy contamination; potential contamination transfer to biofuel; air pollution; substantial water usage 138,139 Solar power Conserve greenfield; improve air quality 32 ;…”

Section: Energy Biomassmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Sustainable remediation and redevelopment of brownfield sites

Hou

Al‐Tabbaa

O’Connor

et al. 2023

Nat Rev Earth Environ

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Widespread pollution from industrial activities has driven land degradation with detrimental human health effects, especially in urban areas. Remediation and redevelopment of the estimated 5 million brownfield sites globally is needed to support the sustainable transition and increase urban ecosystem services, but many traditional strategies are often environmentally harmful. In this Review, we outline sustainable remediation strategies for the clean-up of contaminated soil and groundwater at brownfield sites. Conventional remediation strategies, such as dig and haul, or pump and treat, ignore secondary environmental burdens and socioeconomic impacts; over their life cycle, some strategies are more detrimental than taking no action. Sustainable remediation technologies, such as sustainable immobilization, low-impact bioremediation, new forms of in-situ chemical treatment and innovative passive barriers, can substantially reduce the environmental footprint of remediation and maximize overall net benefits. Compared with traditional methods, they can typically reduce the life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions by ~50-80%. Integrating remediation with redevelopment through nature-based solutions and sustainable energy systems could further increase the socioeconomic benefit, while providing carbon sequestration or green energy. The long-term resilience of these systems still needs to be understood, and ethics and equality must be quantified, to ensure that these systems are robust and just. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment Review articleoften hindered by high costs, cumbersome administrative processes and uncertain remediation performance 12 . Sustainable remediation has the potential to accelerate BRR 13 through accounting for three factors: adverse life-cycle impacts of traditional remediation, institutional pressures exerted by new industrial norms, and stakeholder demand for sustainable practices 13 . Yet there are also concerns that businesses will use this concept for 'green washing' (claiming a remediation project or technology is sustainable, without robust evidence 14 ) or to reduce project costs by undertaking less remediation 15 . Thus, it is vital to better understand the holistic impacts of remediation and redevelopment to support the implementation of sustainable practices.In this Review, we outline sustainable strategies for BRR. We begin with a discussion of the primary, secondary and tertiary impacts of traditional practices over the life cycle of remediation. Then, we summarize promising sustainable strategies, namely, innovative in-situ soil and groundwater remediation technologies and strategies that integrate remediation with redevelopment. We end by identifying challenges and future research directions. Life-cycle impactsTraditional brownfield remediation was long considered inherently sustainable because it removes toxic chemicals from the environment, frees up contaminated land for reuse and reduces urban sprawl. However, holistic sustainability assessments and life-based approaches have exposed...

show abstract

Section: Sustainable Immobilizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Ecosystem Acidi Icationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Low-impact Bioremediationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Energy Biomassmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Sustainable remediation and redevelopment of brownfield sites

Hou

Al‐Tabbaa

O’Connor

et al. 2023

Nat Rev Earth Environ

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…12,13 Moreover, phytoremediation is an in situ remediation, simple, low-cost and green technology. 14,15 For soil pollution, phytoextraction and phytostabilization are the two main phytoremediation strategies and are the most widely used. 16 In recent years, hyperaccumulators have been widely used for soil remediation and have attracted remarkable attention.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%