The selection of specific wastewater treatment technologies should account for high
contaminant removal yields (larger than 90%) for an effective soil treatment, high
recovery yields for expensive chemicals, simple and low-cost treatments compatible
with the lifetime of active agents. Despite the topic having emerged since the late
1990s, a lot remains to be done since the economic benefit of this strategy is not
proven yet. Whereas intensive physical wastewater treatment technologies are more
appropriate for SW, adsorption seems more applicable for in situ SF because of the
dilution effects generated by groundwater.
Acknowledgments The research leading to these results was elaborated within the framework of
the TIMBRE project (grant agreement no.
265364). The editors and reviewers are acknowledged
for their help in improving the manuscript. Laura Fatin-Rouge is acknowledged for her help to
improve the English of the manuscript.
References
Abou-Nemeh I, Das A, Saraf A, Sirkar KK (1999) A composite hollow fiber membrane-based
pervaporation process for separation of VOCs from aqueous surfactant solutions. J Membr Sci
158:187–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0376-7388(99)00011-3
Abriola LM, Dekker TJ, Pennell KD (1993) Surfactant enhanced solubilization of residual
dodecane in soil columns. Mathematical modeling. Environ Sci Technol 27:2341–2351.
https://doi.org/10.1021/es00048a006
Ahlers R, Dunn S (2016) Understanding NAPL seepage: a robust CSM leads to cost-effective sheen
mitigation. In Advances in remediation—a new way of thinking. Arcadis
Ahmed Mohamed M (2014) Reuse of fluids for the treatment of metals and hydrocarbons contaminated soils. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Franche-Comté
Ahmed Mohamed M, Efligenir A, Husson J, Persello J, Fievet P, Fatin-Rouge N (2013) Extraction
of heavy metals from a contaminated soil by reusing chelating agent solutions. J Environ Chem
Eng 1:363–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2013.05.015
Ahn CK, Kim YM, Woo SH, Park JM (2007) Selective adsorption of phenanthrene dissolved in
surfactant solution using activated carbon. Chemosphere 69:1681–1688. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.chemosphere.2007.06.018
Ahn CK, Kim YM, Woo SH, Park JM (2008a) Soil washing using various nonionic surfactants and
their recovery by selective adsorption with activated carbon. J Hazard Mater 154:153–160.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2007.10.006
Ahn CK, Lee MW, Lee DS, Woo SH, Park JM (2008b) Mathematical evaluation of activated
carbon adsorption for surfactant recovery in a soil washing process. J Hazard Mater 160:13–19.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.02.074
Ahn CK, Woo SH, Park JM (2010) Selective adsorption of phenanthrene in nonionic–anionic
surfactant mixtures using activated carbon. Chem Eng J 158:115–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cej.2009.12.014
Alexander M (2000) Ageing, bioavailability and overestimation of risk from environmental pollutants. Environ Sci Technol 34:4259–4265. https://doi.org/10.1021/es001069+
Ang CC, Abdul AS (1994) Evaluation of an ultrafiltration method for surfactant recovery and reuse
during in-situ washing of contaminated sites: laboratory and field studies. Ground Water Monit
Remediat 14:160–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6592.1994.tb00477.x
Atteia O, Del Campo Estrada E, Bertin H (2013) Soil flushing: a review of the origin of efficiency
variability. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol 12:379–389. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-013-9316-0
1 Contaminant Mobilization from Polluted Soils: Behavior and Reuse of Leaching. . .
49
contaminant removal yields (larger than 90%) for an effective soil treatment, high
recovery yields for expensive chemicals, simple and low-cost treatments compatible
with the lifetime of active agents. Despite the topic having emerged since the late
1990s, a lot remains to be done since the economic benefit of this strategy is not
proven yet. Whereas intensive physical wastewater treatment technologies are more
appropriate for SW, adsorption seems more applicable for in situ SF because of the
dilution effects generated by groundwater.
Acknowledgments The research leading to these results was elaborated within the framework of
the TIMBRE project (grant agreement no.
265364). The editors and reviewers are acknowledged
for their help in improving the manuscript. Laura Fatin-Rouge is acknowledged for her help to
improve the English of the manuscript.
References
Abou-Nemeh I, Das A, Saraf A, Sirkar KK (1999) A composite hollow fiber membrane-based
pervaporation process for separation of VOCs from aqueous surfactant solutions. J Membr Sci
158:187–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0376-7388(99)00011-3
Abriola LM, Dekker TJ, Pennell KD (1993) Surfactant enhanced solubilization of residual
dodecane in soil columns. Mathematical modeling. Environ Sci Technol 27:2341–2351.
https://doi.org/10.1021/es00048a006
Ahlers R, Dunn S (2016) Understanding NAPL seepage: a robust CSM leads to cost-effective sheen
mitigation. In Advances in remediation—a new way of thinking. Arcadis
Ahmed Mohamed M (2014) Reuse of fluids for the treatment of metals and hydrocarbons contaminated soils. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Franche-Comté
Ahmed Mohamed M, Efligenir A, Husson J, Persello J, Fievet P, Fatin-Rouge N (2013) Extraction
of heavy metals from a contaminated soil by reusing chelating agent solutions. J Environ Chem
Eng 1:363–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2013.05.015
Ahn CK, Kim YM, Woo SH, Park JM (2007) Selective adsorption of phenanthrene dissolved in
surfactant solution using activated carbon. Chemosphere 69:1681–1688. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.chemosphere.2007.06.018
Ahn CK, Kim YM, Woo SH, Park JM (2008a) Soil washing using various nonionic surfactants and
their recovery by selective adsorption with activated carbon. J Hazard Mater 154:153–160.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2007.10.006
Ahn CK, Lee MW, Lee DS, Woo SH, Park JM (2008b) Mathematical evaluation of activated
carbon adsorption for surfactant recovery in a soil washing process. J Hazard Mater 160:13–19.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.02.074
Ahn CK, Woo SH, Park JM (2010) Selective adsorption of phenanthrene in nonionic–anionic
surfactant mixtures using activated carbon. Chem Eng J 158:115–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cej.2009.12.014
Alexander M (2000) Ageing, bioavailability and overestimation of risk from environmental pollutants. Environ Sci Technol 34:4259–4265. https://doi.org/10.1021/es001069+
Ang CC, Abdul AS (1994) Evaluation of an ultrafiltration method for surfactant recovery and reuse
during in-situ washing of contaminated sites: laboratory and field studies. Ground Water Monit
Remediat 14:160–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6592.1994.tb00477.x
Atteia O, Del Campo Estrada E, Bertin H (2013) Soil flushing: a review of the origin of efficiency
variability. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol 12:379–389. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-013-9316-0
1 Contaminant Mobilization from Polluted Soils: Behavior and Reuse of Leaching. . .
49