See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/313773004

Remediation of contaminated lands in the Niger Delta, Nigeria: Prospects and

challenges

Article  in  Science of The Total Environment · February 2017

DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.02.075

CITATIONS READS

14 2,691

3 authors, including:

Nenibarini Zabbey Kabari Sam

University of Port Harcourt Cranfield University
23 PUBLICATIONS   258 CITATIONS    15 PUBLICATIONS   44 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

A multi-attribute methodology for contaminated land prioritisation View project

Contaminated land management policy in Nigeria: Current challenges and future direction View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nenibarini Zabbey on 27 September 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

STOTEN-22012; No of Pages 14
Science of the Total Environment xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Science of the Total Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scitotenv

Review

Remediation of contaminated lands in the Niger Delta, Nigeria: Prospects

and challenges
Nenibarini Zabbey a,c, Kabari Sam b,⁎, Adaugo Trinitas Onyebuchi c
a
Department of Fisheries, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Port Harcourt, PMB 5323, East-West Road, Choba, Rivers State, Nigeria
b
Cranfield University, School of Water, Energy, and Environment, College Road, Cranfield MK43 0AL, UK
c
Environment and Conservation Unit, Center for Environment, Human Rights and Development (CEHRD), Legacy Centre, 6 Abuja Lane, D-Line, Port Harcourt, Rivers State, Nigeria

H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

• Land contamination remediation in the

Niger Delta region of Nigeria is ad hoc
and utilises the do-nothing approach
to clean-up.
• Impacts of oil toxicity on the environ-
ment and exposed populations is vari-
able and deleterious.
• Different factors including overlapping
governance structure, stakeholder con-
flict, funding and lack of expertise is a
challenge to land contamination reme-
diation.
• Bioremediation is a potential approach
to effective and efficient clean-up given
its low greenhouse emissions and envi-
ronmental footprints.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Contamination of the total environment (air, soil, water and biota) by crude oil has become a paramount interest
Received 30 December 2016 in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria. Studies have revealed variable impacts of oil toxicity on the environment and
Received in revised form 8 February 2017 exposed populations. The revelation gained much international attention in 2011 with the release of
Accepted 8 February 2017
Environmental Assessment of Ogoniland report by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). This
Available online xxxx
has up scaled local and international pressures for urgent clean-up and restoration of degraded bio-resource
Editor: D. Barcelo rich environments of the Niger Delta, starting from Ogoniland. Previous remediation attempts in the area had
failed due to erroneous operational conclusions (such as conclusions by oil industry operators that the Niger
Keywords: Delta soil is covered by a layer of clay and as such oil percolation remains within the top soil and makes remedi-
Remediation ation by enhanced natural attenuation (RENA) suitable for the region) and the adoption of incompatible and in-
Coastal environment effective approaches (i.e. RENA) for the complex and dynamic environments. Perennial conflicts, poor regulatory
Niger Delta oversights and incoherent standards are also challenges. Following UNEP recommendations, the Federal Govern-
Contaminated land ment of Nigeria recently commissioned the clean-up and remediation of Ogoniland project; it would be novel
and trend setting. While UNEP outlined some measures of contaminated land remediation, no specific approach
was identified to be most effective for the Niger Delta region. Resolving the technical dilemma and identified so-
cial impediments is the key success driver of the above project. In this paper, we reviewed the socio-economic
and ecological impacts of contaminated land in the Niger Delta region and the global state-of-the-art remediation
approaches. We use coastal environment clean-up case studies to demonstrate the effectiveness of bioremedia-
tion (sometimes in combination with other technologies) for remediating most of the polluted sites in the Niger

⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: k.s.sam@cranfield.ac.uk (K. Sam).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.02.075
0048-9697/Published by Elsevier B.V.

Please cite this article as: Zabbey, N., et al., Remediation of contaminated lands in the Niger Delta, Nigeria: Prospects and challenges, Sci
Total Environ (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.02.075
2 N. Zabbey et al. / Science of the Total Environment xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

Delta. Bioremediation should primarily be the preferred option considering its low greenhouse gas and environ-
mental footprints, and low-cost burden on the weak and overstretched economy of Nigeria.
Published by Elsevier B.V.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
1.1. Geography of the study area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
2. Impacts of oil spill in the Niger Delta region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
2.1. Social and public health impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
2.2. Ecological and economic impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
2.3. Environmental impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
2.4. Preventing new spills and addressing legacy (oil spills) in the Niger Delta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
3. Remediation approaches for oil-related contaminated environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
3.1. Physical/mechanical remediation approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
3.2. Chemical remediation approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
3.3. Biological remediation approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
3.3.1. Phytoremediation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
3.3.2. Bioremediation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
4. Description of case studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
5. Prospects for bioremediation in the Niger Delta region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
5.1. Oil spill response in mangrove contaminated areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
5.2. No action/natural recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
5.3. Barrier methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
5.4. Manual oil recovery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
5.5. Passive collection with sorbents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
5.6. Vacuuming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
6. Challenges for effective contaminated land remediation in the Niger Delta region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
6.1. Complex and dynamic environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
6.2. Frequent oil spills and potential for re-impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
6.3. Lack of pre-spill environmental baseline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
6.4. Stakeholder conflict and social issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
6.5. Governance structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
6.6. Technical capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
6.7. Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
6.8. Current legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
7. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0

1. Introduction to issues of large-scale infrastructural damage, ecological devastation

Land is a scarce commodity, an important factor in economic sys-
tems and a critical component of the earth's life support system (Hou
and Al-Tabbaa, 2014; Yao et al., 2012). However, historic and ongoing
human activities have resulted in large-scale contamination of lands,
and in worst case scenario hitherto useful lands are transformed to
wastelands (Tinsley and Farewell, 2015). Nigeria is the eleventh largest
oil producer in the world. And the Niger Delta is the oil and gas region of
Nigeria, and doubles as the country's hub of mangroves and extraordi-
nary biodiversity. In Nigeria, oil extraction and processing activities
has resulted in massive land contamination (Sam et al., 2016; UNEP,
2011). Land affected by oil spill has been identified as a major challenge
to livelihood, human and environmental health in the Niger Delta
region of Nigeria (Sam et al., 2016).
Over the last five decades, environmental degradation and specifi-
cally soil contamination caused by petroleum hydrocarbon spill was
perceived in terms of relatively rare events, with poorly understood
but highly devastating impacts on human health and ecological systems
(Döberl et al., 2013). However, several incidences including the New
York Love canal in the US (Ikehata and Liu, 2011) and the Minamata di-
saster in Japan (Murata and Sakamoto, 2013) drew media attention to
the issue of soil contamination. Currently, the perception has changed
and adverse human health impacts, resulting from legacy sites and cur-
rent waste disposal methods. Presently, the issue of soil contamination
is gaining global recognition as it poses significant challenge to the pres-
ent and future generations. To this end, different countries (e.g. the UK
and USA) (Luo et al., 2009) have developed approaches and policies
for dealing with contaminated sites. Many developed countries
have gone further to implement such policies, for example, the UK,
Netherlands and the USA.
Developing countries on the other hand are yet to reflect this global
response to land contamination. Nigeria, for example, is yet to develop
policies that meet international standards in dealing with land contam-
ination despite widespread environmental contamination in the Niger
Delta region of the country (UNEP, 2011). As such, the level of land
contamination continues to surge with associated socio-economic and
environmental impacts. While soil quality, surface and ground water
has been adversely affected thus impacting drinking water quality
(Nduka and Orisakwe, 2011; UNEP, 2011; Ahiarakwem et al., 2012;
Lindén and Pålsson, 2013; Nganje et al., 2015; Davies and Abolude,
2016), many aquatic fauna and flora have reportedly gone into extinc-
tion (Luiselli et al., 2015). For example, the mangrove ecosystem in
the Niger Delta region is fast degrading (UNEP, 2011). This has led to de-
cades of public protest and outrage demanding urgent remediation in

Please cite this article as: Zabbey, N., et al., Remediation of contaminated lands in the Niger Delta, Nigeria: Prospects and challenges, Sci
Total Environ (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.02.075
 N. Zabbey et al. / Science of the Total Environment xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
the region to reduce risk to human health and restore environmental
ecosystem to restore livelihood support structures (UNEP, 2011).
Based on UNEP (2011) recommendations, the Federal Government of
Nigeria (FGN) flagged off clean-up and restoration of Ogoniland Project
on the shores of Bodo Creek on June 2, 2016 (Sam et al., 2016; UNEP,
2016). The project will be implemented by a newly created agency
under the Ministry of Environment, the Hydrocarbon Pollution Restora-
tion Project (HYPREP). Similar efforts by successive Governments have
suffered setbacks (Afinotan and Ojakorotu, 2009), however, if the
Ogoni clean-up and restoration is undertaken, given the seeming polit-
ical will by the current Government, the project will serve as a bench-
mark for future clean-up and remediation of oil contaminated
environments in the Niger Delta; a region ranked as one of the most
oil impacted regions in the world (Steiner, 2010). However, the Niger
Delta generally is a volatile region and as expected, experiences unpre-
dictable resource related conflicts which has been attributed to the in-
ability of the authority to ensure remediation of contaminated sites
(Omeje, 2005; Ikelegbe, 2006a; Oyefusi, 2007; Omofonmwan and
Odia, 2009). In some cases, the conflicts turned violent (e.g. hostage tak-
ing, kidnaping and the murder of seven industry workers and military
personnel in April 2004 in Delta state) (Ikelegbe, 2005; Ukeje, 2001;
Watts, 2007).
In this study, we assessed prospects of remediating the Niger Delta
coastal environments against the background of challenges that could
limit the effectiveness of remediating degraded environments in the re-
gion. We also reviewed conventional remediation options, weighed
their merits and demerits in the context of habitat type and peculiar
socio-ecological factors in the Niger Delta region. Analysis of multiple
factors that may impede smooth remediation of hydrocarbon contami-
nated environments in the Niger Delta, beginning with the take-off and
completion of the anticipated clean-up of Ogoniland, is imperative for
informed mitigation recommendations.
1.1. Geography of the study area
Nigeria is a West African nation fringing the Atlantic Ocean in the
Gulf of Guinea, covering an area of 923,773 km2 (Nwilo and Badejo,
2006), and has an estimated population of about 170 million people
(OPEC, 2015). Specific to this study, is the Niger Delta. The region has
a surface area of about 112,000 km2 (12% of Nigeria's total surface
area), with a population of about 31 million people in about 3000
communities (NDDC, 2014), representing one of the most densely
populated regions of Africa (Steiner, 2010).
The Nigerian extensive 853 km coastline is dissected by a series of
estuaries that form the Niger Delta swamp at the middle where the
lower Niger River system drains the waters of rivers Niger and Benue
into the Atlantic Ocean. The geographic Niger Delta (Fig. 1) stretches
450 km from the Benin River in the West to the Imo River in the East,
in the south-south geopolitical zone. It is the third largest wetland in
the world and has the fourth largest mangrove area in the world, the
largest in Africa (Spalding et al., 2010; Könnet, 2014). The Delta is also
home of extraordinary biodiversity (some of which are endemic) and
is also endowed with fertile alluvial soils that support bumper agricul-
ture, several mineral deposits such as marble, barites, limestone, sand
and gravel (Zabbey, 2009; Adelana and Adeosun, 2011; Pegg and
Zabbey, 2013). Nigeria has the largest oil and gas reserve in Africa, and
most of these resources exist in the Niger Delta and on the continental
shelf of the country (Lindén and Pålsson, 2013). The Niger Delta's mas-
sive oil deposits have been extracted for decades – since 1956. For many
decades now, the petroleum industry in the Niger Delta has remained
the backbone of the Nigerian economy, accounting for over 90% of the
country's total foreign exchange revenue (NDDC, 2014). The region is
plagued with oil related contamination, and has been rated as one of
the most oil spill vulnerable areas in the world (UNDP, 2006; Steiner,
2010; Könnet, 2014).
Please cite this article as: Zabbey, N., et al., Remediation of contaminated lands in the Niger Delta, Nigeria: Prospects and challenges, Sci
Total Environ (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.02.075
3
As at 2008, oil related activities in the region have resulted in the
contamination of an estimated 2000 sites (Ite et al., 2013), and capable
of having multitude of impacts (such as cancer, birth defects, genetic
mutation and reproductive defects) on the human population
(Heubeck et al., 2003; Léopold et al., 2008; Park and Park, 2010), and
the ecology, e.g. damage to mangrove forests and wetlands; water pol-
lution (Inam et al., 2015; Zabbey and Uyi, 2014; Elum et al., 2016; John
et al., 2016).
Nigeria's vast reserves of petroleum hydrocarbons was recently esti-
mated as having an export value of $89b per annum (Könnet, 2014;
OPEC, 2015) with over $600b worth of oil produced since 1960 (Ite et
al., 2013). In 2016, over 1 billion barrels of crude was discovered off
shore in Bayelsa, the central Niger Delta state (Asu, 2016), and incredible
oil discoveries made in hitherto non-oil producing states of Lagos and
drier far-northern Borno. Wealth from oil currently contributes 35% of
Nigeria's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and represents over 90% of its
foreign exchange wealth (Akpabio and Akpan, 2010; OPEC, 2015).
An estimated 10 m to 13 m tons of hydrocarbons have been report-
edly spilled into the Niger Delta over the last 50 years (Nwilo and
Badejo, 2006; Kadafa, 2012). During this period over 77% of spilled hy-
drocarbons were not recovered (Nwilo and Badejo, 2006; Kadafa,
2012). These spills have consequently led to an epidemic of contaminat-
ed land in the Niger Delta region, which has led to significant impacts to
human health and ecological systems (Lindén and Pålsson, 2013; Ite et
al., 2013).
2. Impacts of oil spill in the Niger Delta region
The increasing dependence of the Nigerian economy on hydrocar-
bon exploration and extraction has led to severe pressures on the envi-
ronmental components and other receptive systems (Ite et al., 2013),
resulting from accidental and incidental discharge of hydrocarbon and
its products into the environment.
Soil contamination in the Niger Delta has become widespread and
assumed international concern (UNEP, 2011), affecting local fisher
folks and farmers whose economic wellbeing is dependent of rivers
and alluvial fertile soil. There is increasing concern as large volumes of
toxic organic substances continually enter the coastal environment of
the Niger Delta (Eregha and Irughe, 2009; Linden and Palsson, 2013)
through different routes including leachate and seepage during opera-
tions, extraction, transportation, distribution storage, and refining
(UNEP, 2011). These routes involve human activities, which can be
prevented or controlled to minimize spills especially with proper mon-
itoring of oil infrastructure with state-of-the-act technology (Zabbey,
2016), even though spillage cannot be completely eliminated until ef-
fective regulatory oversight are in place and advanced technology for
detection of oil spills are implemented. Leaks from wellhead, pipelines,
overflows and dumping of slurry in the environment are other routes
that could be controlled to reduce spills (Kadafa, 2012; Nwilo and
Badejo, 2006). On the other hand, basic oil spill prediction models and
methodology alongside baseline or near real time data to evaluate oil
spill damages in the region are lacking (Anifowose et al., 2016). Hydro-
carbons through these routes continue to cause land contamination
even as the operators report that they apply best available technology
(BAT) in preventing discharges (Steiner, 2010; Ite et al., 2013). Al-
though, operators claim to use BAT, oil spills from facilities are bound
to continue provided the facilities remain aged and the interdiction of
these critical infrastructure continues unabated (Church et al., 2004).
In the following sections, we present a catalogue of impacts hydrocar-
bon exploration has had on the local population in the Niger Delta
region.
2.1. Social and public health impacts
For over five decades, poorly accounted hydrocarbon spillage in the
Niger Delta region, has adversely impacted biodiversity, soil and water
4 N. Zabbey et al. / Science of the Total Environment xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

Fig. 1. The Niger Delta and pipeline networks (red lines) (Sam, 2016). (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

resources (Kadafa, 2012; Zabbey and Uyi, 2014). The contamination
may persist for many years as ineffective remediation methods and un-
skilled personnel are deployed (UNEP, 2011). For example, the spill that
occurred in Ejama-Ebubu, Eleme in 1969 during the Nigerian civil war
which burnt for several months, impacting over 255 ha of farmland in
the area is yet to be fully remediated and still impacting on biodiversity
(Amajor, 1985; Hart et al., 2007; UNEP, 2011; Giadom, 2015). As a result
the local population continue to be exposed to petroleum hydrocarbon
hazards. The people of Ogale Eleme, Ogoni had been drinking water
containing benzene 900 times above WHO permissible limits (UNEP,
2011). On a more immediate devastating note, the1998 Jesse pipeline
spill fire outbreak claimed over 1000 lives including children and
women in the region (Chinweze et al., 2012).
The region is currently plagued with diverse environmental, socio-
economic and public health issues. Public health issues such as birth de-
fects, cancer, various illnesses and death have been linked to petroleum
hydrocarbon (Amaize, 2016). Human health impacts due to contami-
nated land have not been empirically studied in the Niger Delta; howev-
er, surrogate data from other regions exist. A study on the Prestige
oil spill in Spain indicated adverse health impacts due to exposure to
hydrocarbon (Suárez et al., 2005). Acute exposures to aromatic
hydrocarbon caused respiratory illness and are carcinogenic to humans.
While high molecular polycyclic-aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) caused
mutagenicity and bioaccumulation in tissues due to their lipophilic
character (Ite and Semple, 2012). With these evidences, humans
exposed to hydrocarbon could suffer respiratory and chromosomal de-
fects. Moreover, PAH could cause skin damage, bronchial disease in vul-
nerable groups such as children and skin tumours (Rodríguez-Trigo et
al., 2010). Thus, increased hydrocarbon contamination in the Niger
Delta region has contributed significantly to carcinogenic health im-
pacts (UNEP, 2011). This has the potential of inducing ‘cancer villages’
in the region in the near future (Lu et al., 2015). For example, the local
population in Nsisioken community in Ogoniland continue to consume
water heavily contaminated by benzene (UNEP, 2011).
Several legacy sites and on-going spills have made the region one of
the most impacted deltas globally, devastating surface and ground
water, soil for agriculture, and the local economy (UNEP, 2011;
Zabbey and Uyi, 2014). Studies have suggested decline in some species
of benthic fauna including molluscs (oysters - crassostrea gasar) and
crabs, and local extirpation of fish species (Raji and Abejide, 2013). Eco-
nomic loss due to the impact of contaminated land resulting from oil
spills has severely impacted farming and fishing (livelihoods), thereby

Please cite this article as: Zabbey, N., et al., Remediation of contaminated lands in the Niger Delta, Nigeria: Prospects and challenges, Sci
Total Environ (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.02.075
 N. Zabbey et al. / Science of the Total Environment xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
persuading the local population into vandalism of oil pipelines and
militancy to enable them meet societal obligations (Orubu et al., 2004;
Raji and Abejide, 2013).
2.2. Ecological and economic impacts
Spilled oil is reported to have deeply penetrated the ecosystems,
food chains and life-supporting entities such as controlled waters
(Ajai, 2010), making oil spill the worst nightmare to host communities
(Chinweze et al., 2012) and depriving them their environmental bene-
fits. Consequently, ecosystem services such as wood, breeding areas
for fish, mangrove forest have apparently disappeared in the region
(Kadafa, 2012) and other irreversible long term impacts such as cancer
are prevalent (Olawuyi, 2012).
Ecologically, the Niger Delta region has been adversely impacted.
The mangrove forest and freshwater wetlands have been degraded by
oil spills, and consequently rendered the ecosystems unsuitable for
wildlife and biodiversity (Chinweze et al., 2012). For example, only a
single spill incidence (the Funiwa-5 oil well blowout in 1980) killed a
total acreage of 836 of mangroves and defoliated an un-estimated man-
grove seedlings (Raji and Abejide, 2013). This has further affected the
coastal mangroves which formed breeding ground for fishes and other
aquatic organisms (Kadafa et al., 2012). Consequently, fishery resources
are in decline in the region (UNEP, 2011). A recent review of oil impact
on mangroves indicates that 27% of the global impact had occurred in
the Niger Delta (Duke, 2016).
2.3. Environmental impacts
Environmental impacts on land in the Niger Delta region have been
documented (Akpabio and Akpan, 2010; Orubu et al., 2004). Various or-
ganic contaminants that make-up petroleum hydrocarbon are harmful
when introduced into the environment (Farrel-Jones et al., 2003;
Rodrigues et al., 2009). Contaminants are persistent in soil, have high
mobility leading to ground water contamination, and can change the
chemical composition of soil, water and other ecological components
(Fent, 2004). For example, rural communities that depend on surface
water as the principal source for drinking water have been adversely
impacted (Brassington et al., 2007; UNEP, 2011). Moreover, chemical
properties of petroleum hydrocarbon have interfered with the soil
properties and functionalities thereby making the soil unsafe for micro-
bial enzymatic activities (Labud et al., 2007; Alrumman et al., 2015).
This has affected soil nutrient cycle and resulted in unfertile soil making
it unsuitable for plant growth by reducing soil nutrient and increasing
toxicity. Not only do these affect soil microbial activities but the entire
soil ecosystem (Alrumman et al., 2015).
In addition, chemical pollution has significant implication for food
security and eco-toxicological impacts in the region (Fent, 2004).
For example, some contaminants, including organotins, have high
lipophilicity which enhances their bio-accumulating activity in aquatic
ecosystem food webs (Fent, 2004). There is evidence that by virtue of
bioaccumulation of toxic components of hydrocarbon in root crops
and other agricultural products, the local food chain might be poisoned
and consequently affect human health after consumption (Fent, 2004).
For example, Omemu and Aderoju (2008) reported increasing food
safety risks in Nigeria resulting from soil and water pollution. The
sources of contamination range from chemical pollution, pesticide
over-application to fertilizer application on soil. This suggests that in-
creasing chemical pollution in the Niger Delta has significant food safety
risks in the region.
Further to this, the local population whose livelihood depends on
farming have been rendered redundant without an alternative liveli-
hood (UNEP, 2011). Increase in land contamination reduces the avail-
able land for agricultural purposes (Orubu et al., 2004; Umukoro,
2012). This results to situation where farmers migrate to other commu-
nities for farmlands leading to increased pressure on limited fertile land
Please cite this article as: Zabbey, N., et al., Remediation of contaminated lands in the Niger Delta, Nigeria: Prospects and challenges, Sci
Total Environ (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.02.075
5
and often inter-communal crisis over limited fertile land (Olawuyi,
2012; Umukoro, 2012). Similarly, fishers can be affected if the petro-
leum hydrocarbon toxicity suffocates fishes, and reduce the capacity
of the rivers to support valuable fish species (Umukoro, 2012). Thus,
fishers become jobless and gradually become alien in the society. Such
unemployed population take up arms and indulge in social vices within
the environment (Watts, 2007).
2.4. Preventing new spills and addressing legacy (oil spills) in the Niger
Delta
It is unclear how much preventive measures have been implement-
ed in the Niger Delta region and the effectiveness of such measures.
However, it has been reported that poorly enforced regulations and
standards, corruption, duplication of regulatory bodies and consequent-
ly overlapping of roles, high cost of procuring and maintaining mitiga-
tion equipment, knowledge gap and carelessness of operators are
some of the issues affecting preventive measures in Nigeria (Nwilo
and Badejo, 2006; UNEP, 2011).
The lack of preventive measures to avoid hydrocarbon discharge and
remediation has led to decades of political unrest and communal
clashes, as the local population felt exploited, asking for compensation
(Umukoro, 2012). Despite the need for compensation, it is a moral
and legal obligation to remediate contaminated lands. For example,
the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill at the Gulf of Mexico gulped over $14
billion in clean-up operations and over $15 billion paid in compensa-
tions (Ramseur and Hagerty, 2013). The amounts were exclusive of
the billions of dollars paid for restoration projects. Considering the
widespread land and water contamination in the Niger Delta (UNEP,
2011), there is urgent need for similar response action given to the
Deepwater Oil Horizon Spill.
Several remediation techniques have been implemented in the
Niger Delta to address hydrocarbon contamination with little or no suc-
cess (UNEP, 2011), as they are inappropriate for the environment and
thus complete remediation is not achieved (Giadom, 2015), or they
negatively impact the environment (e.g. open dump burning), which
consequently lead to air pollution. For example, UNEP reported that
the continuous use of remediation by enhanced natural attenuation
(RENA) has become inappropriate for the Niger Delta environment
(Sam et al., 2016; UNEP, 2011). RENA – the do nothing technology,
has been traditionally used for contaminated land clean-up in the
Niger Delta region by regulators and industry operators (Sam et al.,
2015; UNEP, 2011). RENA is however unsuitable for majority of the
sites in the region as the spilled oil has percolated the soil beyond 5 m
and contaminated groundwater aquifers in different locations (Ebuehi
et al., 2005; Orji et al., 2012). This is because soils have limited ability
to absorb, degrade and attenuate the effects of contaminants
(Bierkens and Geerts, 2014).
The highlighted socio-economic, environmental and secondary im-
pacts of contaminated land in the region suggest effective clean-up of
contaminated land could, to a large extent, resolve the adverse effects
suffered in the Niger Delta. Evidence from other regions that have expe-
rienced the scale of oil spills in the Niger Delta also indicate the impacts
of oil spills on surrounding environment and highlights the need for im-
mediate remediation (Lim et al., 2016). There is, therefore, urgent need
to explore measures that would achieve clean-up and ensure residual
concentrations of contaminants in soil do not cause unacceptable risk
to human and environmental health.
3. Remediation approaches for oil-related contaminated environment
Remediation is the process of returning soil, water or air functional-
ity that existed prior to contamination. Variety of techniques exist for
remediation depending on the media (e.g. air, water, or soil) and con-
taminant (e.g. heavy metals, PCB) (Gomes et al., 2013). This could be
by physical, chemical or biological methods (Hamby, 1996; Khan et al.,
6 N. Zabbey et al. / Science of the Total Environment xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
2004; Yao et al., 2012; Lim et al., 2016). Given the peculiar (i.e. variable
habitat, interlinked water bodies and variable soil types) nature of the
Niger Delta environment (UNEP, 2011), unsuccessful remediation at-
tempts have been reported due to the use of inappropriate technologies.
Thus, it is imperative to explore an approach or a combination of
technologies that would be appropriate and sustainable for the varied
Nigerian environments.
3.1. Physical/mechanical remediation approach
While physical method principally involves soil replacement and
thermal desorption, the method is labour intensive, expensive and suit-
able for small contaminated sites (Khan et al., 2004). This implies it
could be unsuitable for large-scale contamination in the Niger Delta re-
gion. In the following sections, we explored other remediation ap-
proaches with a likelihood of suitability in the Niger Delta.
3.2. Chemical remediation approach
Chemical method involves washing contaminated soil using clean
water, reagents, and solvents that can leach the contaminants from the
soil (see Hamby, 1996; Yao et al., 2012; Lim et al., 2016). This method
could be achieved through chemical leaching, chemical fixation, electroki-
netic remediation, vitrify technology, chemical immobilisation, oxidation,
chemical fluid extraction and photodegradation among others. The meth-
od is expensive and has the potential to contaminate other environmental
media including air and water bodies through the introduction of solvents
and reagents during remediation (Yao et al., 2012). Specifically, the ap-
proach is fast at clean-up of contaminants, however, harmful wastes gen-
erated in the process include carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases
which are emitted into the surrounding environment (Cappuyns, 2013).
3.3. Biological remediation approach
3.3.1. Phytoremediation
Phytoremediation involves the use of living green plants or their
roots to fix or absorb contaminants from soil. This approach uses en-
zymes present in plant roots to aid degradation of contaminants. It re-
duces contaminant concentration in soil and consequently reduces
risk posed by such contaminants to the environment and human health.
For example, Peng et al. (2009) used Mirabilis jalapa L. to remove 63.2%
of petroleum from contaminated soil. Phytoremediation has five ap-
proaches which include phyto-stabilisation, phyto-volatilisation,
phyto-extraction, phytodegradation and rhizodegradation (Wang et
al., 2011; Lim et al., 2016). Phyto-stabilisation is the use of plant roots
to absorb and precipitate contaminants thereby fixing them to a point
and reducing their bioavailability and migration to other ecological sys-
tems such as food chain and underground water (Yao et al., 2012).
Phytovolatilisation is the transfer of contaminants (e.g. mercury) to a
gaseous state by the use of special matters secreted by plant roots
(Watanabe, 1997). Phyto-extraction on the other hand involves the
use of tolerant and accumulating plants to absorb contaminants from
soil, which are transferred and stored in over-ground parts (Yao et al.,
2012). The breakdown of contaminants through the metabolic process-
es of the plant is described as phytodegradation. Plant roots in such
cases release catalytic enzymes such as dehalogenase and laccase, to ac-
celerate the contaminant breakdown process (Lim et al., 2016).
Rhizodegradation entails the degradation of contaminants through en-
hanced microbial activity in the rhizosphere zone (1–5 mm) of the
soil. In this case, soil microbes benefit the soil by supplying the needed
nutrients such as vitamins and amino acids to increase plant growth,
while the plant roots provide habitat for microbes that degrade hydro-
carbons (Germida et al., 2002; Lim et al., 2016). Generally, the different
approaches of phytoremediation have peculiar characteristics that
make them appropriate for different soil contaminants. For example,
phytovolatilisation is only appropriate for compounds with volatilisable
Please cite this article as: Zabbey, N., et al., Remediation of contaminated lands in the Niger Delta, Nigeria: Prospects and challenges, Sci
Total Environ (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.02.075
properties. Phytoremediation provides an approach that allows for
low maintenance cost, easily implemented on-site and in areas that
generally support plant growth.
Despite the benefits of phytoremediation in contaminated land
clean-up, there still remain a gamut of challenges which have led
to continuous search for more sustainable approaches (Susarla et
al., 2002; Sas-Nowosielska et al., 2004). For example, specific
phytoremediation prescription could not be applicable to diverse
site conditions, as concentration levels could be toxic to the inter-
vention plants (Susarla et al., 2002). Phytoremediation is a slow re-
mediation strategy and could only be considered for long-term
clean-up. In addition, the approach is affected by external parame-
ters which include type and concentration of contaminants, water
content, soil chemical properties and plant resistance to phototoxic
effects (Lim et al., 2016), and prevailing ecological and climatic con-
ditions. The primary challenge is to identify and select plant species
which could withstand the toxicity of the contaminants (Peng et
al., 2009; Lim et al., 2016). This is followed by the bioaccumulation
of hydrocarbon in plants. Plants are affected by stress and pressure
from other site conditions including the presence of pests, pathogens
and insects. Plant exposure to these organisms and contaminants re-
duces the ability of plants over time to absorb contaminants. More
importantly, plant tissues (e.g. roots) responsible for contaminant
uptake must be able to access contaminants in soil; thus, where con-
taminants have percolated into soil layers out of reach of plant root
system the approach might be unviable. Also, safe disposal of used
plants is a challenge yet to be resolved in many regions (Sas-
Nowosielska et al., 2004).
3.3.2. Bioremediation
Bioremediation is an approach that facilitates the natural biodeg-
radation process of hydrocarbons through the provision of nutrients
and oxygen required by microbes. Bioremediation technologies are
cost-effective and resource conservative approaches (Susarla et al.,
2002; Lim et al., 2016). The technique was developed in the 1940s
and has since been tested on different spill sites. For example, in
1994, the effectiveness of a biosurfactant called PES-51 for the re-
moval of weathered crude from contaminated sand was investigat-
ed in Exxon Valdaz oil spill in La Touche Island. The results
indicated 70% of the semivolatile components was removed from
the sample (Tumeo et al., 1994). In other studies, for example,
Prince et al. (2003) demonstrated similar enhanced results through
the addition of fertilizers or external microbes for the removal of
contaminants from soil. While the addition of nutrients or microbes
may not necessarily increase the rate of contaminant removal
(Venosa et al., 1996), the addition of water soluble nutrients with-
out supplements of microbial population for the degradation of con-
taminants on the shoreline of Delaware Bay did not reflect
significant increase in biodegradation rate compared to natural re-
mediation of contaminants. This was however attributed to multiple
factors such as high levels of nitrogen already existing in soil levels
significant to influenced contaminant biodegradation (Lim et al.,
2016). Thus, extant literature shows that biodegradation demon-
strate high potential for effective and successful remediation of hy-
drocarbon. Three distinctive approaches are adopted in the context
of bioremediation, namely, bioaugmentation, biostimulation and
bioventilation.
3.3.2.1. Bioaugmentation, biostimulation and bioventilation. Bioaugmen-
tation is to enhance the performance of the microbial population
through the addition of bacterial with specific catabolic activities,
strains or enrichment consortia to increase the rate of contaminant
degradation (Abdulsalam et al., 2011; Lim et al., 2016). This implies
an import of some contaminant degrading microbes to the already
existing microbial population at the intervention area to quicken
the rate of contaminant degradation. One challenge of this approach
 N. Zabbey et al. / Science of the Total Environment xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
is that there is no single strain of bacteria that has the requisite met-
abolic capacity to degrade all oil components. Thus, studies
recommend different types of bacteria strains and fungi for the
remediation of hydrocarbon contaminants (Lim et al., 2016). The ad-
justment of environmental parameters such as nutrient introduc-
tion, biopolymers and biosurfactants is described as biostimulation
(Prince et al., 2003; Jiang et al., 2016). The adjustment of these pa-
rameters could stimulate the growth of oil degrading microbes and
thus the rate of responsive degradation by the microbes. The influ-
ence of nutrient amendments had been demonstrated (Chaîneau et
al., 2005). The study investigated biodegradation of crude oil in dif-
ferent soil samples including fertilised and unfertilised soil for a pe-
riod of 150 days. The results indicated that the fertilised soil where
nutrients including nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium in the ra-
tion 170:17:48 were added had 62% biodegradation while the
unfertilised soil had 47% biodegradation (Chaîneau et al., 2005).
Bioventilation on the other hand involves the addition of oxygen to
the soil voids to stimulate the growth of microbes. Oxygen is a neces-
sity and often the limiting factor in the process of biodegradation as
it enhances microbial metabolism of organic matter and generate
more energy (Lim et al., 2016). Bioventing has been shown to be ef-
fective and efficient in the remediation of a blend of diesel and bio-
diesel fuel with a higher remediation rate compared to natural
attenuation (Thomé et al., 2014). They reported 85% contaminant
degradation efficiency compared to 64% observed in natural attenu-
ation after 60 days.
Generally, bioremediation has been researched extensively with
success in hydrocarbon removal from soil in laboratories and afield
(Dadrasnia and Agamuthu, 2014; Jung et al., 2014; Abed et al.,
2015; Lim et al., 2016). Bioremediation has been shown to degrade
oil contaminants permanently and successfully and leaves little or
no adverse effects on the environment. It is also cost effective and
eliminates wastes safely without threatening the wider environment
(Lim et al., 2016). However, bioremediation requires longer
treatment durations (up to several years) to achieve satisfactory
contaminant removal. Comparatively, thermal remediation
approaches (e.g. thermal desorption) are quick and could achieve
99% contaminant removal however, they are expensive, utilise ex-
cessive energy and produce by-products and unwanted air pollution
(Lim et al., 2016). In the next section, we discuss a number of case
studies similar to the Niger Delta physicochemical properties. The
case studies validate the choice of bioremediation, particularly the
success of the approach in remediating hydrocarbon in coastal
environments.
4. Description of case studies
Case studies of hydrocarbon bioremediation in other regions that
are similar to the Niger Delta are described to provide a background
to successful remediation of polluted coastal environment in the lat-
ter region. The physical and microbiological characteristics of the
Niger Delta is reported to favour natural and biological remediation
(Ajlan, 2016). For example, Ejechi and Ozochi (2015), reported that
the Niger Delta soil has a pH of 6.1 ± 1.1 with a temperature ranging
between 28–35 °C. These characteristics were considered in the se-
lection of case studies similar to the Niger Delta in efforts to explore
similar scenarios where bioremediation has been effectively applied.
The general principle is that the selected coastal regions have certain
characteristics in common and could provide guidance for successful
remedial measures suitable for the Niger Delta region, in terms of
least environmental and socio-economic impacts and the derivation
of net benefit from the remediation process (Bardos et al., 2016; Sam
et al., 2016).
Case I. Large scale bioremediation of petroleum hydrocarbon
contaminated waste at various installations of ONGC, India.
Please cite this article as: Zabbey, N., et al., Remediation of contaminated lands in the Niger Delta, Nigeria: Prospects and challenges, Sci
Total Environ (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.02.075
7
The study of Mandal et al. (2014), explained a bioremediation exer-
cise on oil contaminated effluent pits, sludge pits, oil spilled land and
tank bottom at Ankleshwar, Mehsana, Assam and Cauvery Asset of Oil
and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC), India. The contaminants
included heavy paraffinic, asphaltic and light crude oil and emulsified
oil sludge/contaminated soil. An indigenous microbial consortium was
produced from four different bacteria species isolated from different
oil contaminated sites in India. The consortium was applied to the de-
scribed contaminated sites and it successfully bioremediated the con-
taminated sites. For example, their results indicated that in 65 case
studies of different batch sizes of the bioremediation process, the initial
total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) content varying from 69.20–
662.70 g/kg of oily waste was biodegraded to 5.30–16.90 g/kg of oily
waste in a range of 2 to 33 months. Bioremediation was therefore iden-
tified as an effective and efficient approach for the management of
ONGC contaminated sites.
Case II. Bioremediation of diesel and lubricant oil-contaminated soils
using enhanced landfarming system.
Wang et al. (2016) investigated the effectiveness of remediating lu-
bricant and diesel oil-pollutant sites in Taiwan. The aim of the research
was to explore the application of an enhanced landfarming to
bioremediate soils polluted by lubricant and diesel. The study evaluated
the optimal treatment conditions with the addition of different addi-
tives including nutrients, activated sludge, compost, and TPH-degrading
bacteria to enhance TPH removal. Results from the study indicated that
the additives of activated sludge and compost could increase soil micro-
bial population and consequently increase efficient degradation of TPH.
For example, 83% of TPH removal was achieved within 175 days of
incubation.
Case III. Bioremediation of crude oil contaminated sites in China.
In the studies of Xu et al. (2015), a bacterial consortium from oil con-
taminated sites mainly consisting of pseudomonas species, in combina-
tion with fertilizer, rice husk and plowing, was used to remediate oil
contaminated sites in Jianghan oil field. The variation of TPH, n-alkanes
and PAHs in the bioremediation process showed that more than 95% of
petroleum hydrocarbon could be efficiently removed. The results from
their study also indicated that n-alkanes with long carbon chain and
PAHs with 5–6 rings were degraded in the bioremediation process.
Case IV. Bio stimulation of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH).
Sarkar et al. (2005) confirmed that the use of bio-solids for
biostimulation of TPH is more effective than the Monitored Natural
Attenuation (MNA). Incubation of TPH with N and P in addition to
C degraded about 99% of TPH after 8 weeks unlike MNA, which was
approximately 93.8%. MNA is however viable in high microbial pop-
ulation soils.
Case V. Restoration of oil impacted mangrove soils in Mahakam,
Indonesia.
As in the Niger Delta, the over five decades of oil devastation due to
oil exploitation and exploration in the Mahakam Delta of Indonesia se-
verely affected local livelihood and mangrove ecology (Dutrieux et al.,
2014). It is reported that as at 2001, 80% of the mangrove in the
Mahakam Delta were destroyed (Dutrieux et al., 2014). To alleviate
and facilitate mangrove recovery, Dutrieux et al. (2014) adopted a
mixed restoration by natural techniques including natural re-colonisa-
tion. Their results indicated that mangrove restoration in oil impacted
areas could be quicker under stimulated environmental conditions. In
addition, the works of Sánchez-Arias et al. (2013) demonstrated the re-
covery of mangrove soils after oil spills in a coastal area. The study eval-
uated a site where oil spills led to death of 100% of the mangrove forest
and made survival and natural re-colonisation near unsuccessful. The
study adopted the natural and stimulated biodegradation of oil
8 N. Zabbey et al. / Science of the Total Environment xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
approach, which includes the effect of water saturation in it, and red
mangroves (Rhizophora mangle L.) were used as success indicators.
The results indicated that biodegradation in a stimulated environment
can remove about 78.5% of spilt oil in the first two months, improving
the quality of the degraded soil.
The UNEP (2011) study in Ogoniland identified current technologies
in contaminated land remediation. However, many of the remediation
approaches for example, containment, air stripping, fixation and incin-
eration, could leave behind environmental footprint (Rosén et al.,
2015), deny access to land for agriculture and accelerate greenhouse
gas emissions (Hou et al., 2014; Hou and Al-Tabbaa, 2014). Cautiously,
ancillary and secondary environmental impacts resulting from remedi-
ation technologies should be considered in order not to create more
problems in the process of solving one.
The analysed case studies demonstrate the efficacy of bioremedia-
tion to achieving clean-up in coastal environments. This suggests that
the prospects for contaminated land clean-up in the Niger Delta region
could benefit from similar technology considering similarities in physi-
cal nature of impacts and chemical structure of contaminants in coastal
environments. Bioremediation is economically viable, socially accept-
able as it will create jobs and allow access to farmlands and environ-
mentally safe legacy due to reduced greenhouse gas emission and
climatic impacts.
5. Prospects for bioremediation in the Niger Delta region
Bioremediation has been studied extensively and has been tried on
small scales, with only a few large-scale applications. However, the
analysed examples suggest that bioremediation is moving into
commercialisation (Røberg et al., 2007; Sarkar et al., 2005). Bioremedi-
ation has become more popular in the clean-up of contaminated sites
(Balba et al., 1998; Yang et al., 2009; Guimarães et al., 2010). There is ev-
idence that microorganisms present in soil have the capacity to degrade
hydrocarbons to avoid higher concentrations that could pose unaccept-
able risk to human health and the environment (Jorgensen et al., 2000;
Ebuehi et al., 2005; Laraia, 2013). Specifically, the Niger Delta fluvial and
coastal characteristics, would require certain conditions (e.g. under-
standing the diversity and distribution of microbial flora and augment-
ing nutrient supplementation) to effectively remediate the coastal
environment including studying the current state of contamination
and deciding appropriate technique for remediation.
Many contaminated land clean-up techniques exist; however, the
use of microorganisms has many advantages including cost-effective-
ness, few or no by-products and reusability among others (Das and
Dash, 2014). Microbes are readily available, rapidly characterised, high-
ly diverse and can use many noxious elements as their nutrients (Das
and Dash, 2014). These characteristics have led to increase in the use
of microorganisms to degrade contaminants on contaminated sites in
coastal regions such as the Niger Delta.
Given the effectiveness, low environmental footprint and the suit-
ability of bioremediation for clean-up of different contaminants in soil,
this approach will benefit the coastal environment of the Niger Delta re-
gion. However, prior to application, there is the need to ensure contam-
ination is within the topsoil and that ground water has not been
contaminated in areas to be applied. Research is also needed to deter-
mine the biodegradability of the contaminant in soil.
5.1. Oil spill response in mangrove contaminated areas
Mangroves dominate the intertidal zone of tropical and sub-tropical
deltas, lagoons and estuarine systems that receive significant inputs of
exogenous material, but they can also be found colonizing the shoreline
receiving little or no terrestrial run-off (Duke, 1992; Twilley, 1995).
Mangroves are halophyte, woody and seed bearing plants that share
common habitat preferences, physiognomy, functional, and structural
adaptations (Kinako, 1989; Duke, 1992). Ecologically, mangroves are
Please cite this article as: Zabbey, N., et al., Remediation of contaminated lands in the Niger Delta, Nigeria: Prospects and challenges, Sci
Total Environ (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.02.075
defined as an assemblage of tropical trees and shrubs, including faunal
communities that inhabit the coastal intertidal zone (Hoff, 2010;
UNEP, 2011).
‘Recent’ mapping shows that the area occupied by mangroves in the
world is 152,000 km2 (Spalding et al., 2010). Mangroves in Africa cover
an estimated 32,000 km2, constituting about 19% of global coverage
(FAO and UNEP, 1981). The extent of the Niger Delta mangrove ecosys-
tem is approximately 10,515 km2 (Spalding et al., 2010). There are
about 69 species of mangrove plants in the world (Duke, 1992), but
there is controversy about the definite number of mangrove species in
Nigeria (Jackson and Lewis, 2000). Kinako (1989) listed three families
represented by six species of mangroves in Nigeria. These are: red
mangroves Rhizophoraceae (Rhizophora racemosa, R. harrisonii, and R.
mangle), white mangroves Avicenniaceae (Avicennia germinans),
Combretaceae (buttonwood Conocarpus erectus and black mangrove
Laguncularia racemosa). R. racemosa is the dominant mangrove in Nige-
ria. The alien nypa palm (Nypa fruticans) was erroneously introduced to
the coast of Calabar in Nigeria in 1906, and the palm now competes vig-
orously with the above native mangrove species along the Niger Delta
coast (Zabbey and Tanee, 2016), up to as far as the coast of Cameroon
(Morakinyo and Sunderland, 2002).
Mangroves are the last line of defence of many coastal communities
in the Niger Delta, in terms of shoreline protection, food resources, fish
reproductive function, etc., and literature abounds on mangrove goods
and ecosystem services (Moberg and Rönnbäck, 2003; Ronnback,
1999; Rönnbäck et al., 2007; Zabbey, 2008; Zabbey et al., 2010).
Zabbey (2008) and Zabbey et al. (2010) listed oil spillage, overexploita-
tion for fuel wood, conversion to other forms of development, dredging
and industrial discharges, and unhindered spread of N. fruticans as
major threats to mangroves in the Niger Delta. Oil spillage typically re-
sults in death of mangrove seedlings and trees; and many crabs and
shellfishes as well as causing disruption of detritus-based food webs
with consequent reduction in the fishery (Kautsky et al., 2000; Kio
and Ola-Adams, 1986). A recent review of global oil spill impact on
mangroves indicates that as much 27% had occurred in the Niger Delta
region (Duke, 2016). Natural recovery of oil damaged mangrove areas
can occur through recolonization by floating mangrove seedlings in
areas where oil concentration is lower than 30,000 ppm (Lewis,
1983). However, residual oil in sediment may persist for months and
can take about 12 months to weather (Hoff, 2010) and residual oil tox-
icity can result in mortality impact on mangrove seedlings as long as the
residual concentration remains high (Getter et al., 1984). Mangrove and
fringing tidal mudflats in the Niger Delta are among the worst oil im-
pacted environments on the global scale (UNEP, 2011; Duke, 2016),
and would present the most difficult cleanup and restoration
challenges.
There are demonstrated techniques to either safeguard against or
clean-up of oil spills in mangrove areas. Some of them will be discussed
in detail, however, it is important to stress that site evaluation is key in
selecting the most suitable potential response strategies for oil spill
clean-up in mangrove environments (Owens and Sergy, 2003; Marine
et al., 2009; Dale et al., 2014). This will afford experts the opportunity
to analyse the remedial options to ensure the ultimate benefits out-
weighs the possible environmental costs to the mangroves and also
other sensitive habitats associated with it. Determining the initial spill
response option is dependent on variables such as oil type, availability
of response equipment, weather, wind direction, current and location
(Hoff, 2010; UNEP, 2011; Duke, 2016).
The following are some of the clean-up techniques developed to
minimize the impact of oil spills on natural resources that may be at risk.
5.2. No action/natural recovery
According to Duke (2016), no action is usually recommended for
most mangrove areas affected with oil spills because of the sensitive
nature of the environment and the likely damage that may result if
 N. Zabbey et al. / Science of the Total Environment xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
clean-up process is improperly conducted. Oil spill response is critical in
minimizing the volume of spilled oil finding its way into the mangrove
environment, thereby impacting negatively on the sensitive habitat.
However, in doing this, the process has to be assessed to ensure the po-
tential benefits of cleaning up oil spills outweigh the environmental cost
associated with it (NOAA, 2014). Conducting effective cost benefit anal-
ysis will arm the stakeholders with relevant information to make an in-
formed decision. If the evaluation process indicates that the clean-up
activity will cause more harm than benefit to mangrove species (flora
and fauna) as well as other associated habitats, it will be appropriate
to do nothing in order to safeguard the environment. However, it is
worth mentioning that the soil and microbial community recovery pro-
cess through this approach is slow – and in the context of this study
where stakeholders are primarily farmers, fertile soil for agricultural ac-
tivities could be a challenge. The volume and nature of the spill are fac-
tors to consider when making such decision as light oils will naturally
evaporate and breakdown very rapidly and may not require clean-up
(UNEP, 2011).
5.3. Barrier methods
This method entails the use of suitable materials such as booms, sed-
iment berms, dams and filter fences (NOAA, 2014; Duke, 2016) to pre-
vent the entry of oil spill into mangroves. This method can be effective
when factors (such as appropriate boom, effective deployment) are rel-
atively under control in trapping large quantities of mobile oil and min-
imize oil impact on mangroves. According to IUCN-NDP (2013), for
barrier methods to function in real-time as an effective oil spill response,
adequate pre-planning for placement of sufficient booms and materials
are critical. This process sometimes can be challenging as exemplified in
the Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico with waves higher
than 3 ft., booms were ineffective in preventing the spill from getting
to the shore. Other factors that can contribute to the ineffectiveness of
the process include physical characteristics such as current strength
and water depth, and nature of the spill oil. It is important to note that
the efficiency and effectiveness of the process is partly dependent on
obtaining and managing the services of competent and skilled person-
nel who will lay the needed number of booms. It can be extremely ex-
pensive and to some extent not realistic to pre-position materials and
trained personnel who will be saddled with the responsibility of
deploying them in the event of an emergency (Hoff, 2010; Duke, 2016).
5.4. Manual oil recovery
This method is applicable to remediation process involving heavy
oils such as crude oil or bunker C oil, stranded in the mangrove environ-
ment (Hoff, 2010) as it has the tendency to persist longer thereby
resulting to exposure to long term risk (Duke, 2016). It entails the use
of hand tools and labour to remove the contaminant of interest from
the environment as such limit the spread to other uncontaminated
mangroves. This activity should be done by personnel with relevant
skills and competence to prevent mechanical damage to the tangle of
prop roots and pneumatophores. Manual removal of oil encourages
trampling of oil deeper into the sediment and other forms of physical
damage resulting from foot traffic of workers. Oil buried in sediment
persists for a long time, gradually resurface and having prolonged
chronic impacts on exposed biota. Depending on the site-specific
challenge, the use of boat in conducting clean-up activities under the
supervision of competent personnel is advisable (Hoff, 2010; UNEP,
2011; Duke, 2016).
5.5. Passive collection with sorbents
The use of adsorbent to either remove or prevent oil from accessing
the mangrove forest is another promising method. This includes floating
organic materials (e.g. wool, straw, hair, coconut fibre, rice husk, banana
Please cite this article as: Zabbey, N., et al., Remediation of contaminated lands in the Niger Delta, Nigeria: Prospects and challenges, Sci
Total Environ (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.02.075
9
peels); booms, dust or fibre sorbent, inorganic materials such as plasma
silicates, zeolites, cat litter among others (NOAA, 2014; Ifelebuegu et al.,
2015; Duke, 2016; Ukotije-ikwut et al., 2016). Sorbent with oleophilic
characteristics (either to adsorb or absorb) can be placed at the fringe
of oiled mangrove forests to passively recover oil. These materials can
either be natural or synthetic and can be designed in different forms
to actualize the purpose of minimizing the impact of oil spill on the
mangrove (UNEP, 2011).
5.6. Vacuuming
This method is suitable for removing pooled oil at the outer fringe of
the mangrove or in open stands, depressions, and channels with coarse
sediment as well as heavy oil (Duke, 2016; Hoff, 2010). The equipment
for accomplishing this task varies from large to small suction devices
usually mounted on dredges in an open area free from vegetation, the
outer fringe of the mangrove to avoid further mechanical damage. The
field applicability of this method is dependent on the nature of the
spilled oil as well as other logistics factors. This is because vacuuming
is not suitable with lighter, more flammable petroleum products such
as diesel and jet fuel, however, it can be used effectively on heavier
and medium oils as long as it is reasonably fluid (UNEP, 2011; NOAA,
2014; Duke, 2016). Another downside to this method is the challenge
in gaining access to the spill site with heavy equipment.
6. Challenges for effective contaminated land remediation in the Ni-
ger Delta region
Previous studies have demonstrated successful remediation of con-
taminated land via the use of bioremediation (Sarkar et al., 2005;
Røberg et al., 2007). Successful contaminated land remediation is de-
pendent on many factors including availability of technical know-how
(UNEP, 2011), stakeholder engagement and effective communication
(Adelana and Adeosun, 2011; Ikelegbe, 2006b), governance structure
(Ambituuni et al., 2014; Elenwo and Akankali, 2014), the complex na-
ture and dynamics of the environment, and adequate funding (UNEP,
2011; Abdullahi, 2015). We therefore explore the availability of these
factors in the context of the Niger Delta for effective contaminated
land remediation.
6.1. Complex and dynamic environment
Land contamination in the Niger Delta region is widespread with
varying concentrations of different contaminants in different media –
in land areas, swamps and sediments (UNEP, 2011). The contamina-
tions are chronologically variable, some have occurred in recent times
while others are decades old. Broadly, land contamination particularly
is caused by crude oil in many locations and refined products in few
cases (Onojake et al., 2015). The physical nature and chemical composi-
tion of hydrocarbon contaminants vary between sites and are dynamic
overtime. As a result, a number of factors affect the remediation of hy-
drocarbon-contaminated land. In the first instance, this is dependent
on the inherent properties of each compound that constitute hydrocar-
bon (Wilson and Jones, 1993; James, 1996), for example polycyclic-aro-
matic hydrocarbon (PAH). In addition, soil properties that alter
degradation of hydrocarbon including organic matter, structure, and
particle size could hinder the effectiveness of remediation. Other envi-
ronmental factors including pH, temperature, and soil aeration also af-
fect remediation (Samanta et al., 2002). There are also possibilities for
the presence of other contaminants that are toxic to microbes, for exam-
ple, heavy metals and cyanides, which may hinder degradation
(Boopathy, 2000).
As a result, in order to effectively characterise complex and dynamic
contaminant properties, detailed site specific risk analysis is required
whether clean-up is needed on a site, and to which extent remediation
is needed; and where remediation is required, what approach is
10 N. Zabbey et al. / Science of the Total Environment xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
sustainably appropriate (UNEP, 2011). In addition, decision on remedi-
ation of hydrocarbon contaminated sites is complex and require more
than mere consideration of intervention levels. Other factors including
vegetation damage, erosion, impact on aquatic biota and natural recov-
ery needs to be integrated in the decision-making. There is also need to
conduct a ground-truth assessment of contaminated sites, when recom-
mendations of initial post impact assessment studies such as UNEP,
2011 report had not been implemented for over three years. In
Ogoniland, for instance, this (ground-truth assessment) and additional
baseline study are imperative as several new spills had occurred beside
sites hitherto assessed by UNEP (Sam et al., 2017).
Owing to the diverse nature of contamination and receptors in
the region, solutions for remediation might require a combination
of approaches. Expertise is therefore required to conduct a site-by-
site risk analysis to characterise the dynamic and complexities
associated with contamination in each location, and hence choice
of appropriate combination of technologies where needed. This
could be a challenge as this level of expertise seems to be lacking in
the region (UNEP, 2011).
6.2. Frequent oil spills and potential for re-impact
The nature of oil infrastructure and contextual issues within the
Niger Delta encourages frequent spills to occur. These circumstances
lead to unpredictable and inevitable spills in the region causing re-im-
pact of clean-up of areas (UNEP, 2011). Oil pipelines for example are lo-
cated within settlements and farmlands (Sam et al., 2016), with little or
no effective security making it easily accessible (UNEP, 2011). In such
instance, socio-economic challenges such as hunger and poverty
which have plagued the region for decades (Onwuka, 2005; Elum et
al., 2016), is often considered as a motivating factor that encourages
youths to tap into pipelines to access crude for artisanal refining (Sam
et al., 2016). Although, it is worth mentioning that hungry youths can-
not indulge in such a complex and technical exercise such as pipeline
vandalism without expert aid. Other factors that facilitate re-impact in-
clude engineering failure, pipeline rupture and fatigue, and inadequate
pipeline maintenance and surveillance model, and sabotage bombing
by militants. Re-impact of clean-up sites should be prevented as much
as possible (UNEP, 2011), and efficient contingency response measures
need be put in place to contain and recover oil resulting from inevitable
spills. Zabbey (2016) recommends the use of automatic (internal and
external) leak detection devices (e.g. acoustic pressure wave method,
infrared radiometers or thermal cameras, vapour sensors, etc.) as useful
innovative technologies for monitoring pipeline leakages in the Niger
Delta.
6.3. Lack of pre-spill environmental baseline
An essential element for a successful contaminated land restoration
project is pre-disturbance baseline study (Snowden and Ekweozor,
1990). The lack of baseline data affects the quality and validity of con-
clusions reached both at the end of a restoration project and post impact
assessment (Snowden and Ekweozor, 1990; Zabbey and Uyi, 2014). The
unavailability of baseline data could be a major challenge for effective
and efficient contaminated land restoration of impacted areas of the
Niger Delta. It is reported that certain species of fauna and flora that
existed in the pre-disturbance era in the Niger Delta has been extirpated
(Eniang et al., 2016; Luiselli et al., 2015). For example, Luiselli et al.
(2015) reported a total of 45 lost species in the region due to oil spills.
Where baseline studies that could identify, these species are lacking,
evaluation of efficient restoration and remediation could be challenge.
In addition, baseline data could indicate the level to which environmen-
tal restoration is required which in turn indicates the efforts and re-
sources required for restoration. Thus, a lack of baseline data could
result in use of excessive resources and efforts to achieve ambitious
clean-up levels, and also undermine effective monitoring and
Please cite this article as: Zabbey, N., et al., Remediation of contaminated lands in the Niger Delta, Nigeria: Prospects and challenges, Sci
Total Environ (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.02.075
evaluation outcomes. It is, therefore, imperative to collect pre-remedia-
tion baseline data that would form yardstick for post remediation
evaluation.
6.4. Stakeholder conflict and social issues
There is a high level of disengagement between different contami-
nated land stakeholder groups in the Niger Delta region. For example,
while the local population perceive the government to be weak at
implementing available policy for strict contaminated land clean-up
(Ikelegbe, 2006b), oil operators accuse local population of sabotage of
pipeline and thus operators decline adequate clean-up of spill sites in
such cases (Adelana and Adeosun, 2011). As a result, stakeholder groups
lack trust and confidence in each other resulting in lack of engagement
(Nzeadibe et al., 2015). In turn, conflicts characterise the relationship
between stakeholder groups, for example, local communities and mul-
tinational corporations (Omeje, 2005; Ikelegbe, 2006a). In such situa-
tions, it is difficult for stakeholder groups to engage and discuss
mechanisms for ensuring contaminated land remediation. In developed
regions, integrated and robust approaches are used to ensure greater
stakeholder participation in contaminated land management decision-
making process. For example, the Organisation for Economic Coopera-
tion and Development (OECD) used stakeholder engagement to inform
the development of nanotechnology policy (OECD, 2012) and to build
trust between policy makers and the public (OECD, 2001, 2005). In
the UK, stakeholder engagement has become a mandatory component
of the policy development process (Cundy et al., 2013; Geaves and
Penning-Rowsell, 2016), and both the Environment Agency and the De-
partment for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) regularly seek
the participation of stakeholders (e.g. Society of Brownfield Risk Assess-
ment) to improve policy (e.g. brownfield risk assessment). The stake-
holder engagement opportunity is used to address perceived conflict
that might affect the decision-making process. Similar approaches will
help Nigeria address conflicts among stakeholders in the decision-mak-
ing process. A robust stakeholder engagement process will allow differ-
ent stakeholder groups to participate and contribute to decisions made,
in the process social issues caused or aggravated by land contamination
are identified (Sam et al., 2016), and addressed adequately in the con-
taminated land management process. Thus, societal expectations will
be achieved in the process of contaminated land management. Stake-
holder engagement would also enable clarification of grey issues and
help to manage stakeholder expectations. For instance, some stake-
holders erroneously think that the clean-up and restoration of oil dam-
aged Ogoni environments would be preceded by payment of monetary
compensation. Some had been canvassing for monetization of the
clean-up. That is, leaving the degraded environment to ‘recover’ natu-
rally while the clean-up-designated fund be distributed among the pop-
ulation – a manifest of economic desperation and unprecedented
poverty. This is a potential recipe for conflict. However, such wrong
perception and disposition can be resolved/corrected through robust
stakeholder engagement and proactive sensitization outreach.
6.5. Governance structure
Contaminated land regulation in the Niger Delta region is a shared
responsibility between agencies. This has been reported to result in
overlap of responsibilities and conflict. For example, the Department
of Petroleum Resources (DPR) and the National Oil Spill Detection Agen-
cy (NOSDRA) have often conflicted over clean-up responsibilities
(Ambituuni et al., 2014; Rim-rukeh, 2015). This overlap in responsibility
has often created conflicts in the administration of remediation (Elenwo
and Akankali, 2014). For example, different and conflicting intervention
and target values are used to regulate contaminated land remediation.
While DPR uses 5000 mg/kg as target level for total petroleum hydro-
carbon, NOSDRA uses 50 mg/kg for the same purpose (UNEP, 2011).
The implication is that multiple standards are implemented within the
 N. Zabbey et al. / Science of the Total Environment xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
region, which compromises synergy between regulatory agencies and
their ability to effectively manage the environment. Secondly, it creates
opportunity for pollution liable operators to choose between the bench-
marks as it pleases them or depending on the regulator dictating the
pace. In regions where contaminated land management regulations
are developed, responsibility of regulatory agencies is well defined
and streamlined to prevent overlap. For example, the roles of the Envi-
ronment Agency and the local authorities in the UK contaminated land
regime are well defined under the Environment Protect Act 1990 and
supporting Statutory Guidance (DEFRA, 2012), while the Environment
Agency regulates special sites and develops policies, the local authori-
ties regulate determined contaminated sites (Luo et al., 2009; Brombal
et al., 2015). A clear delineation of responsibilities for regulatory
agencies under a unified contaminated land regulation, similar to the
Environment Protection Act 1990 in the UK, will benefit Nigeria.
6.6. Technical capacity
The complex nature of land contamination in the Niger Delta region
requires highly professional personnel for effective remediation. The re-
gion currently lacks the technical expertise required to implement suc-
cessful remediation technology considering the level of contamination
(UNEP, 2011; Sam et al., 2016). For example, previous studies suggest
that regulators often depend on the expertise of the operators during in-
vestigation of oil spill sites (Eneh, 2011). As a result, the regulators can-
not identify the use of inappropriate remediation technology in the
region, thus, operators continue to use substandard technologies for
contaminated land clean-up in the region (UNEP, 2011). This practice
suggests that regulators require training in current science for effective
contaminated land remediation. In developed regions, such as the UK
and the USA, regular training platforms are established for contaminat-
ed land management practitioners to encourage knowledge and infor-
mation sharing. For example, the sustainable remediation forum UK
(SuRF UK) is a professional platform for sustainable contaminated
land management. SuRF UK provides an opportunity for contaminated
land management practitioners in the UK to exchange and share exper-
tise in sustainable contaminated land management paradigms (Bardos
et al., 2016). Similar collaborative platforms have been developed in
the USA and China (Coulon et al., 2016). For purposes of training and ca-
pacity development in contaminated land management, similar plat-
forms such as SuRF Nigeria will provide an opportunity for training of
contaminated land practitioners and knowledge sharing with overseas
experts.
Importantly, the standard or soil screening criteria recommended
by the environmental guideline and standard for petroleum industry
in Nigeria (EGASPIN) for risk resulting from exposure to hydrocar-
bon contaminant was adopted from another country (DPR, 2002;
UNEP, 2011). As a result, previous studies have raised pertinent
questions on the appropriateness of the target levels recommended
in the EGASPIN for the Nigerian environment (UNEP, 2011). For ex-
ample, plausible exposure routes for hydrocarbon contaminants in
the US could differ from the Nigerian context in such ways as diet,
fate of contaminant in the soil, soil type and texture, which are
often considered in the modelling of exposure routes for determin-
ing soil screening criteria (Nathanail, 2006; Nathanail et al., 2013).
This suggests that contaminated land regulatory agencies in Nigeria
lack the appropriate standard for ensuring contaminated land
clean-up. To develop appropriate soil screening standards for the
protection of human and environmental health, a methodology
that considers the contextual differences in Nigeria is a necessity.
Different parameters that are considered in the process of develop-
ing screening standards (e.g. soil physicochemical characteristics,
diet, and exposure routes) differ across regions (Cheng and
Nathanail, 2009), as such, Nigeria requires a soil screening standard
developed for its context.
Please cite this article as: Zabbey, N., et al., Remediation of contaminated lands in the Niger Delta, Nigeria: Prospects and challenges, Sci
Total Environ (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.02.075
11
6.7. Funding
Providing funds for contaminated land remediation in the Niger
Delta region seems a perennial problem. Successive governments in
Nigeria has made promises and set different deadlines for the remedia-
tion of the Niger Delta region, however, providing the necessary funds
for putting boots on the ground had been elusive. For example, the af-
termath of the UNEP report would have been the establishment of an
initial USD 1 billion Trust Fund for the clean-up of Ogoniland (UNEP,
2011), with contributions from the Nigeria Government and the indus-
try operators. However, till this moment, no publishable efforts have
been made towards establishing a trust fund for the remediation
(Könnet, 2014). As a result of lack of funds, past and on-going spills
have received little or no attention for remediation even during many
years of oil boom. Presently, Nigeria is in economic recession (Chukwu
et al., 2015). This would largely undermine the amount of fund that
would be allocated to remediation of contaminated environments
since the federal government is grappling with basic issues such as pro-
vision of potable water, sanitation, education, health care, etc. Thus
there is need for Nigeria to prioritise sites that pose greatest risk to pub-
lic and environmental health in order to optimise limited available re-
sources (Sam et al., 2016). Sam et al. (2016) used a risk-based
approach to prioritise the 66 sites that were investigated by UNEP in
2011 in order to help decision makers to focus on sites with greatest
risk to public health. On the other hand, oil producing
host communities impacted by oil would insist on restoration of the
environment to restore their livelihood support structures. The
contending positions are recipes for conflict in the region.
A renewed vigour towards deliberate funding of contaminated land
remediation is required in the Niger Delta region. In other regions, a sus-
tainable funding mechanism is developed to ensure prompt attention to
sites that pose threats to human health and the environment. For exam-
ple, in the USA, the Superfund programme places a tax on chemical and
petroleum products for the Superfund Trust Fund (Kiel, 2013; Kapp,
2014). Monies from the Superfund Trust Fund are used to remediate
sites on the National Priority List (USEPA, 1992). Instances where iden-
tified contaminated sites pose significant threat to residents and the
party responsible for the contamination cannot be immediately identi-
fied, funds in the Trust Fund are used for remediation. Similar approach
can benefit Nigeria. A percentage of sales from petroleum can be set
aside to remediate contaminated land impacts in the Niger Delta region.
This approach will ensure there are always funds for remediation as
long as petroleum remains the mainstay of the Nigerian economy.
6.8. Current legislation
A fundamental challenge to the clean-up of Ogoniland is the avail-
ability of appropriate legislation for effective and efficient remediation
in the area (UNEP, 2011; Sam et al., 2016, 2017). Policy framework
and implementation in Nigeria is largely tenure-based. The implication
is that a policy or commitment made by an administration might
be neglected by succeeding administrations. Meanwhile restoration of
degraded ecosystem most times takes decades of sustained scientific
and financial commitment. Thus, we recommend that the federal
government of Nigeria should enact requisite laws that will insure
the clean-up, remediation and restoration of highly oil degraded
environment in the Niger delta – starting with the Ogoniland clean-up.
7. Conclusion
In this paper, we outlined the prospects of adopting bioremediation
as a sustainable alternative for the clean-up of large scale contaminated
sites in the Niger Delta region. We characterise the complex and multi-
dimensional challenges faced by efforts for effective remediation of the
Niger Delta region. Given the lack of technical skills, funds, and stake-
holder conflicts and governance issues, high expectation from the
12 N. Zabbey et al. / Science of the Total Environment xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
local population and lack of best practice for contaminated land remedi-
ation in Nigeria, the prospect for effective clean-up seems daunting. Fol-
lowing the selection of remediation technologies currently in practice
globally, evidence from case studies indicated bioremediation is most
appropriate for coastal environment. This is because, the approach
emits relatively zero greenhouse gas and it is environmentally friendly.
We, therefore, strongly recommend that contaminated land remedia-
tion in the Niger Delta region should consider mainly bioremediation.
We recognise the possibility for combination of approaches; however,
low greenhouse gas emissions, climatic factors and long-term environ-
mental and socio-economic factors should guide the choice of any other
options. We also recommend policy review, capacity strengthening, col-
lection of pre-disturbance and pre-intervention data for monitoring and
evaluation, sustainable funding regime, stakeholder consultation and
effective communication among stakeholders as panacea to achieving
successful land remediation in Nigeria's heavily oil-damaged Niger
Delta region.
Acknowledgement
The Niger Delta Development Commission in Nigeria through the
Foreign Scholarship Programme sponsored Kabari Sam (NDDC/DEHSS/
2013PGFS/RV/4).
References
Abdullahi, M.S., 2015. Soil remediation and plants. Soil Remediation and Plants. Elsevier
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-799937-1.00018-8.
Abdulsalam, S., Bugaje, I.M., Adefila, S.S., Ibrahim, S., 2011. Comparison of biostimulation and
bioaugmentation for remediation of soil contaminated with spent motor oil. Int.
J. Environ. Sci. Tech. 8:187–194. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1516-89132009000300027.
Abed, R.M.M., Al-Kharusi, S., Al-Hinai, M., 2015. Effect of biostimulation, temperature and
salinity on respiration activities and bacterial community composition in an oil pol-
luted desert soil. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 98:43–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ibiod.2014.11.018.
Adelana, S., Adeosun, T., 2011. Environmental pollution and remediation: challenges and
management of oil spillage in the Nigerian coastal areas. Am. J. Sci. Ind. Res. 2:
834–845. http://dx.doi.org/10.5251/ajsir.2011.2.6.834.845.
Afinotan, L.A., Ojakorotu, V., 2009. The Niger Delta crisis: issues, challenges and prospects.
Afr. J. Polit. Sci. Int. Relat. 3, 191–198.
Ahiarakwem, C., Nwankwor, G., Iwuagwu, C.J., Ejike, E., Onyekuru, S., 2012. Water Quality
Monitoring of a Tropical Lake and Associated Rivers: A Case Study of Oguta Lake and
Its Tributaries, Niger Delta Basin, Southeastern Nigeria. 1 pp. 818–826.
Ajai, O., 2010. Balancing of interests in environmental law in Nigeria. Balanc. Interes.
Environ. Law Afr. 379.
Ajlan, A., 2016. A review on bioremediation. Microbiol. Int. J. 1, 1–7.
Akpabio, E.M., Akpan, N.S., 2010. Governance and oil politics in Nigeria's Niger Delta: the
question of distributive equity. J. Hum. Ecol. 30, 111–121.
Alrumman, S.a., Standing, D.B., Paton, G.I., 2015. Effects of hydrocarbon contamination on
soil microbial community and enzyme activity. J. King Saud Univ. - Sci. 27:31–41.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jksus.2014.10.001.
Amaize, E., 2016. Strange ailments in N-Delta: “oil pollution deforming, killing Ogoni
babies” - Vanguard news. Vanguard Spec. Rep. 20.
Amajor, L., 1985. The Ejamah-Ebubu oil spill of 1970: a case history of the 14 year-oil spill.
Proceedings of the International Seminar on the Petroleum Industry and the Nigerian
Environment. NNPC, Kaduna, pp. 21–201.
Ambituuni, A., Amezaga, J., Emeseh, E., 2014. Analysis of safety and environmental regu-
lations for downstream petroleum industry operations in Nigeria: problems and
prospects. Environ. Dev. 9:43–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2013.12.002.
Anifowose, B., Lawler, D.M., van der Horst, D., Chapman, L., 2016. A systematic quality as-
sessment of environmental impact statements in the oil and gas industry. Sci. Total
Environ. 572:570–585. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.07.083.
Asu, F., 2016. ExxonMobil discovers one billion barrels of oil in Nigeria. Punch Newsp. 36.
Balba, M.T., Al-Awadhi, N., Al-Daher, R., 1998. Bioremediation of oil-contaminated soil:
microbiological methods for feasibility assessment and field evaluation. J. Microbiol.
Methods 32:155–164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-7012(98)00020-7.
Bardos, R.P., Bone, B.D., Boyle, R., Evans, F., Harries, N.D., Howard, T., Smith, J.W.N., 2016.
The rationale for simple approaches for sustainability assessment and management
in contaminated land practice. Sci. Total Environ. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2015.12.001.
Bierkens, J., Geerts, L., 2014. Environmental hazard and risk characterisation of petroleum
substances: a guided “walking tour” of petroleum hydrocarbons. Environ. Int. 66:
182–193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2014.01.030.
Boopathy, R., 2000. Factors limiting bioremediation technologies. Bioresour. Technol. 74:
63–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0960-8524(99)00144-3.
Brassington, K.J., Hough, R.L., Paton, G.I., Semple, K.T., Risdon, G.C., Crossley, J., Hay, I.,
Askari, K., Pollard, S.J.T., 2007. Weathered hydrocarbon wastes: a risk management
primer. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 37, 199–232.
Please cite this article as: Zabbey, N., et al., Remediation of contaminated lands in the Niger Delta, Nigeria: Prospects and challenges, Sci
Total Environ (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.02.075
Brombal, D., Wang, H., Pizzol, L., Critto, A., Giubilato, E., Guo, G., 2015. Soil environmental
management systems for contaminated sites in China and the EU. Land Use Policy 48:
286–298. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.05.015.
Cappuyns, V., 2013. Environmental impacts of soil remediation activities: quantitative
and qualitative tools applied on three case studies. J. Clean. Prod. 52:145–154.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.03.023.
Chaîneau, C.H., Rougeux, G., Yéprémian, C., Oudot, J., 2005. Effects of nutrient concentration
on the biodegradation of crude oil and associated microbial populations in the soil. Soil
Biol. Biochem. 37:1490–1497. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2005.01.012.
Cheng, Y., Nathanail, P.C., 2009. Generic assessment criteria for human health risk
assessment of potentially contaminated land in China. Sci. Total Environ. 408,
324–339.
Chinweze, C., Abiola-Oloke, G., Jideani, C., 2012. Oil and gas resources management and
environmental challenges in Nigeria. J. Environ. Sci. Eng. 1, 535–542.
Chukwu, B.A., Liman, N.A., Enudu, T.O., Ehiaghe, A.F., Administration, B., State, E., 2015.
The effect of economic recession in textile manufacturing industries in Nigeria.
Asian J. Bus. Manag. 7, 43–54.
Church, R.L., Scaparra, M.P., Middleton, R.S., 2004. Identifying critical infrastructure: the
covering facility median interdiction problems and. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 94:
491–502. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/.
Coulon, F., Jones, K., Li, H., Hu, Q., Gao, J., Li, F., Chen, M., Zhu, Y.-G., Liu, R., Liu, M., Canning,
K., Harries, N., Bardos, P., Nathanail, P., Sweeney, R., Middleton, D., Charnley, M.,
Randall, J., Richell, M., Howard, T., Martin, I., Spooner, S., Weeks, J., Cave, M., Yu, F.,
Zhang, F., Jiang, Y., Longhurst, P., Prpich, G., Bewley, R., Abra, J., Pollard, S., 2016.
China's soil and groundwater management challenges: lessons from the UK's experi-
ence and opportunities for China. Environ. Int. 91:196–200. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.envint.2016.02.023.
Cundy, A.B., Bardos, R.P., Church, A., Puschenreiter, M., Friesl-Hanl, W., Müller, I., Neu, S.,
Mench, M., Witters, N., Vangronsveld, J., 2013. Developing principles of sustainability
and stakeholder engagement for “gentle” remediation approaches: the European
context. J. Environ. Manag. 129:283–291. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.
07.032.
Dadrasnia, A., Agamuthu, P., 2014. Biostimulation and monitoring of diesel fuel polluted
soil amended with biowaste. Pet. Sci. Technol. 32:2822–2828. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1080/10916466.2014.913624.
Dale, P.E., Knight, J.M., Griffin, L., Beidler, J., Brockmeyer, R., Carlson, D., Cox, D., David, J.,
Encomio, V., Gilmore, G., Haydt, P., Lewis, R., McNelly, J., O'Connell, S.M., Peery, B.,
Rey, J., Tucker, J., 2014. Multi-agency perspectives on managing mangrove wetlands
and the mosquitoes they produce. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 30:106–115. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2987/13-6393.1.
Das, S., Dash, H., 2014. Microbial bioremediation: a potential tool for restoration of con-
taminated areas. Microb. Biodegrad. Bioremediation 1–12.
Davies, O., Abolude, D., 2016. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (Pahs) of surface water
from Oburun Lake, Niger Delta, Nigeria. Appl. Sci. Rep. 13, 20–24.
DEFRA, 2012. Environmental Protection Act 1990: Part 2A Contaminated Land Statutory
Guidance. HM Government, London.
Döberl, G., Ortmann, M., Frühwirth, W., 2013. Introducing a goal-oriented sustainability
assessment method to support decision making in contaminated site management.
Environ. Sci. Policy 25:207–217. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.10.013.
DPR, 2002. Environmental Guidelines and Standards for the Petroleum Industry in
Nigeria. Department of Petroleum Resources, Lagos, Nigeria.
Duke, N., 1992. Mangrove floristics and biogeography. Tropical Mangrove Ecosystems.
Volume 41, pp. 63–100 Washington DC.
Duke, N.C., 2016. Oil spill impacts on mangroves: recommendations for operational plan-
ning and action based on a global review. MPB 109:700–715. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.marpolbul.2016.06.082.
Dutrieux, E., Proisy, C., Fromard, F., Walcker, R., Liman, M., Pawlowski, F., Ferdiansyah, H.,
Ponthieux, O., 2014. Mangrove restoration in the vicinity of oil and gas facilities: les-
sons learned from a large scale project. Society of Petroleum Engineers - SPE Interna-
tional Conference on Health, Safety and Environment 2014: The Journey Continues:
pp. 1103–1120 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11273-011-9244-0.
Ebuehi, O.A.T., Abibo, I.B., Shekwolo, P.D., Sigismund, K.I., Adoki, A., Okoro, I.C., 2005. Re-
mediation of crude oil contaminated soil by enhanced natural attenuation technique.
J. Appl. Sci. Environ. Manag. 9.
Ejechi, B.O., Ozochi, C.A., 2015. Assessment of the physicochemical and microbiological
status of western Niger Delta soil for crude oil pollution bioremediation potential.
Environ. Monit. Assess. 187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10661-015-4598-z.
Elenwo, E.I., Akankali, J.A., 2014. Environmental policies and strategies in Nigeria oil and
gas industry: gains. Chall. Prospects 884–896.
Elum, Z.A., Mopipi, K., Henri-Ukoha, A., 2016. Oil exploitation and its socioeconomic ef-
fects on the Niger Delta region of Nigeria. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 23:
12880–12889. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-6864-1.
Eneh, O.C., 2011. Managing Nigeria's environment: the unresolved issues. J. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 4, 250–263.
Eniang, E.A., Akani, G.C., Amadi, N., Dendi, D., Amori, G., Luiselli, L., 2016. Recent distribu-
tion data and conservation status of the leopard (Panthera pardus) in the Niger Delta
(Nigeria). Trop. Zool. 29:173–183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03946975.2016.
1214461.
Eregha, P.B., Irughe, I.R., 2009. Oil induced environmental degradation in the Nigeria's
Niger Delta: the multiplier effects. J. Sustain. Dev. Africa 11, 160–175.
FAO and UNEP, 1981. Tropical Forest Resources Assessment Project: Forest Resources of
Tropical Asia. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
Farrel-Jones, J., Thompson, K.C., Nathanail, C.P., 2003. Petroleum Hydrocarbons and
Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons. Blackwell Publishing CRC Press, New York.
Fent, K., 2004. Ecotoxicological effects at contaminated sites. Toxicology 205:223–240.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tox.2004.06.060.
 N. Zabbey et al. / Science of the Total Environment xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
Geaves, L.H., Penning-Rowsell, E.C., 2016. Flood risk management as a public or a private
good, and the implications for stakeholder engagement. Environ. Sci. Policy 55 (Part
2):281–291. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.06.004.
Germida, J.J., Frick, C.M., Farrell, R.E., 2002. Phytoremediation of oil-contaminated soils.
Dev. Soil Sci. 28:169–186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0166-2481(02)80015-0.
Getter, C., Cintron, B., Dicks, R., Lewis, R., Seneca, E., 1984. The recovery and restoration of
salt marshes and mangroves following an oil spill. Restoration of Habitats Impacted
by Oil Spills. Butterworth Publishers, Boston, pp. 65–113.
Giadom, F.D., 2015. Groundwater contamination and environmental risk assessment of a
hydrocarbon contaminated site in eastern Niger. J. Environ. Earth Sci. 5, 166–176.
Gomes, H.I., Dias-Ferreira, C., Ribeiro, A.B., 2013. Overview of in situ and ex situ remedia-
tion technologies for PCB-contaminated soils and sediments and obstacles for full-
scale application. Sci. Total Environ. 445–446:237–260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2012.11.098.
Guimarães, B.C.M., Arends, J.B.a., van der Ha, D., Van de Wiele, T., Boon, N., Verstraete, W.,
2010. Microbial services and their management: recent progresses in soil bioremedi-
ation technology. Appl. Soil Ecol. 46:157–167. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.
2010.06.018.
Hamby, D.M., 1996. Site remediation techniques supporting environmental restoration
activities — a review. Sci. Total Environ. 191:203–224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0048-9697(96)05264-3.
Hart, A., Amarh, E., Zabbey, N., 2007. Biocoenosis of planktonic flora in a 36 years old
crude oil polluted freshwater pond in lower Niger Delta, Nigeria. Afr. J. Appl. Zool. En-
viron. Biol. 9, 63–69.
Heubeck, M., Camphuysen, K.C.J., Bao, R., Humple, D., Sandoval Rey, A., Cadiou, B., Brager,
S., Thomas, T., 2003. Assessing the impact of major oil spills on seabird populations.
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 46, 900–902.
Hoff, R., 2010. Oil Spills in Mangroves: Planning and Response Considerations (Louisiana).
Hou, D., Al-Tabbaa, A., 2014. Sustainability: a new imperative in contaminated land
remediation. Environ. Sci. Policy 39:25–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.
2014.02.003.
Hou, D., Al-Tabbaa, A., Guthrie, P., 2014. The adoption of sustainable remediation behav-
iour in the US and UK: a cross country comparison and determinant analysis. Sci.
Total Environ. 490:905–913. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.05.059.
Ifelebuegu, A.O., Anh Nguyen, T.V., Ukotije-Ikwut, P., Momoh, Z., 2015. Liquid-phase sorp-
tion characteristics of human hair as a natural oil spill sorbent. J. Environ. Chem. Eng.
3:938–943. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2015.02.015.
Ikehata, K., Liu, Y., 2011. Land disposal of wastes. In: Nriagu, J.O. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of En-
vironmental Health. Elsevier, Burlington:pp. 353–361 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
B978-0-444-52272-6.00521-3.
Ikelegbe, A., 2006a. Beyond the threshold of civil struggle: youth militancy and the mili-
tia-ziation of the reource conflicts in the Niger Delta region of Somalia. Afr. Stud.
Monogr. 37, 87–122.
Ikelegbe, A., 2006b. The Economy of Conflict in the Oil Rich Niger Delta Region of Nigeria.
5 pp. 23–56.
Ikelegbe, A., 2005. Engendering civil society: oil, women groups and resource conflicts in
the Niger Delta region of Nigeria. J. Mod. Afr. Stud. 43:241–270. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1017/S0022278X05000820.
Inam, E., Offiong, N.A., Essien, J., Kang, S., Kang, S.Y., Antia, B., 2015. Polycyclic aromatic hy-
drocarbons loads and potential risks in freshwater ecosystem of the Ikpa River basin,
Niger Delta—Nigeria. Environ. Monit. Assess. 188:1–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s10661-015-5038-9.
Ite, A.E., Ibok, U.J., Ite, M.U., Petters, S.W., 2013. Petroleum exploration and production:
past and present environmental issues in the Nigeria's Niger Delta. Am. J. Environ.
Prot. 1, 78–90.
Ite, A.E., Semple, K.T., 2012. Biodegradation of petroleum hydrocarbons in contaminated
soils. Microb. Biotechnol. Energy Environ. 250–278.
IUCN-NDP, 2013. Sustainable Remediation and Rehabilitation of Biodiversity and Habitats
of Oil Spill Sites in the Niger Delta. A Report by the Independent IUCN - Niger Delta
Panel (IUCN-NDP) to the Shell Petroleum Dev (Port Harcourt, Nigeria).
Jackson, L., Lewis, R.R., 2000. Restoration of Mangroves of Nigeria for the Petroleum
Industry (Florida).
James, B.R., 1996. The challenge of remediating chromium-containing soil. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 30, 248A–251A.
Jiang, Y., Brassington, K.J., Prpich, G., Paton, G.I., Semple, K.T., Pollard, S.J.T., Coulon, F.,
2016. Insights into the biodegradation of weathered hydrocarbons in contaminated
soils by bioaugmentation and nutrient stimulation. Chemosphere 161:300–307.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.07.032.
John, R.C., Ntino, E.S., Itah, A.Y., 2016. Impact of crude oil on soil nitrogen dynamics and
uptake by legumes grown in wetland ultisol of the Niger Delta, Nigeria. J. Environ.
Prot. (Irvine, Calif.) 7, 507–515.
Jorgensen, K.S., Puustinen, J., Suortti, A.-M., 2000. Bioremediation of petroleum hydrocar-
bon-contaminated soil by composting in biopiles. Environ. Pollut. 107, 245–254.
Jung, J., Choi, S., Hong, H., Sung, J.S., Park, W., 2014. Effect of red clay on diesel bioremedi-
ation and soil bacterial community. Microb. Ecol. 68:314–323. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1007/s00248-014-0420-7.
Kadafa, A.A., 2012. Oil exploration and spillage in the Niger Delta of Nigeria. Civ. Environ.
Res. 2, 38–51.
Kadafa, A.A., Zakaria, M.P., Othman, F., 2012. Oil spillage and pollution in Nigeria: organi-
zational management and institutional framework. J. Environ. Earth Sci. 2, 22–30.
Kapp, R.W., 2014. CERCLA; revised as the superfund amendments reauthorisation act
(SARA). Encycl. Toxicol. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-386454-3.00833-
2.
Kautsky, N., Rönnbäck, P., Tedengren, M., Troell, M., 2000. Ecosystem perspectives on
management of disease in shrimp pond farming. Aquaculture 191:145–161. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(00)00424-5.
Please cite this article as: Zabbey, N., et al., Remediation of contaminated lands in the Niger Delta, Nigeria: Prospects and challenges, Sci
Total Environ (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.02.075
13
Khan, F.I., Husain, T., Hejazi, R., 2004. An overview and analysis of site remediation tech-
nologies. J. Environ. Manag. 71:95–122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.02.
003.
Kiel, K.A., 2013. Superfund program. Encycl. Energy, Nat. Resour. Environ. Econ.:222–225
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-375067-9.00037-1.
Kinako, P., 1989. Ecology and Conservation of Natural Resources (Port Harcourt, Nigeria).
Kio, P.R., Ola-Adams, B., 1986. Utilization and development of wetlands. Proceedings of
Nigerian Man and the Biosphere National Committee and UNESCO Supported by
the Nigerian Conservation Foundation Conference, pp. 27–29 Port Harcourt, Nigeria.
Könnet, B.R., 2014. Inadequate monitoring and enforcement in the Nigerian oil industry:
the case of shell and ogoniland. Cornell Int. Law J. 11, 181–205.
Labud, V., Garcia, C., Hernandez, T., 2007. Effect of hydrocarbon pollution on the microbial
properties of a sandy and a clay soil. Chemosphere 66, 1863–1871.
Laraia, M., 2013. Remediation of radioactively contaminated sites and management of the
resulting waste. In: Lee, W.E., Ojovan, M.I., Jantzen, C.M. (Eds.), Radioactive Waste
Management and Contaminated Site Clean-Up, Woodhead Publishing Series in Energy.
Woodhead Publishing:pp. 301–326 http://dx.doi.org/10.1533/9780857097446.1.301.
Léopold, E.N., Jung, M.C., Auguste, O., Ngatcha, N., Georges, E., Lape, M., 2008. Metals
pollution in freshly deposited sediments from river Mingoa, main tributary to the
Municipal lake of Yaounde. Cameroon. Geosci. J. 12, 337–347.
Lewis, R.R., 1983. Impact of oil spills on mangrove forests. Biology and Ecology of
Mangroves. Springer, The Hague, Netherlands, pp. 171–183.
Lim, M.W., Lau, E. Von, Poh, P.E., 2016. A comprehensive guide of remediation technolo-
gies for oil contaminated soil — present works and future directions. Mar. Pollut.
Bull. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.04.023.
Linden, O., Palsson, J., 2013. Oil contamination in ogoniland, Niger Delta. Ambio 42,
685–701.
Lindén, O., Pålsson, J., 2013. Oil contamination in ogoniland, Niger Delta. Ambio 42:
685–701. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13280-013-0412-8.
Lu, Y., Song, S., Wang, R., Liu, Z., Meng, J., Sweetman, A.J., Jenkins, A., Ferrier, R.C., Li,
H., Luo, W., Wang, T., 2015. Impacts of soil and water pollution on food safety and
health risks in China. Environ. Int. 77:5–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.
2014.12.010.
Luiselli, L., Amori, G., Akani, G.C., Eniang, E.A., 2015. Ecological diversity, community struc-
ture and conservation of Niger Delta mammals. Biodivers. Conserv. 24:2809–2830.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10531-015-0975-8.
Luo, Q., Catney, P., Lerner, D., 2009. Risk-based management of contaminated land in the
UK: lessons for China? J. Environ. Manag. 90:1123–1134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvman.2008.05.001.
Mandal, A.K., Sarma, P.M., Jeyaseelan, C.P., Channashettar, V.A., Singh, B., Agnihotri, A., Lal,
B., Datta, J., 2014. Large scale bioremediation of petroleum hydrocarbon contaminat-
ed waste at various installations of ONGC. India: Case Studies 2, 41–52.
Marine, R., Emergency, P., Plan, M.A., 2009. Mediterranean Guidelines on Oiled Shoreline
Assessment (Malta).
Moberg, F., Rönnbäck, P., 2003. Ecosystem services of the tropical seascape: interactions,
substitutions and restoration. Ocean Coast. Manag. 46:27–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/S0964-5691(02)00119-9.
Morakinyo, T., Sunderland, T., 2002. A weed in west Africa. PALMS 46, 154–155.
Murata, K., Sakamoto, M., 2013. Minamata disease? Reference Module in Earth Systems
and Environmental Sciences. Elsevier http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-
9.02075-3
Nathanail, C.P., 2006. Generic and site specific criteria in assessment of human health risk
from contaminated soil. Soil Use Manag. 21, 500–507.
Nathanail, C.P., Bardos, R.P., Gillett, A., McCaffrey, C., Ogden, R., Scott, D., Nathanail, J.,
2013. International Processes for Identification and Remediation of Contaminated
Land. Land Quality Management Ltd., Nottingham, UK.
NDDC, 2014. Niger Delta Development Master Plan 2006. URL. http://www.nddc.gov.ng/
NDRMPChapter1.pdf.
Nduka, J.K., Orisakwe, O.E., 2011. Water-quality issues in the Niger Delta of Nigeria: a look
at heavy metal levels and some physicochemical properties. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.
18:237–246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-010-0366-3.
Nganje, T.N., Hursthouse, A.S., Edet, A., Stirling, D., Adamu, C., 2015. Hydrochemistry of
surface water and groundwater in the shale bedrock, Cross River basin and Niger
Delta region, Nigeria. Appl. Water Sci. J. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13201-015-
0308-9.
NOAA, 2014. Oil Spills in Mangroves (Louisiana).
Nwilo, P.C., Badejo, O.T., 2006. Impacts and management of oil spill pollution along the Ni-
gerian coastal areas. Adm. Mar. Spaces Int. Issues 119.
Nzeadibe, T.C., Ajaero, C.K., Okonkwo, E.E., Okpoko, P.U., Akukwe, T.I., Njoku-Tony, R.F.,
2015. Integrating community perceptions and cultural diversity in social impact as-
sessment in Nigeria. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 55:74–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.eiar.2015.07.005.
OECD, 2012. Planning Guide for Public Engagement and Outreach in Nanotechnology
(Paris, France).
OECD, 2005. Evaluating Public Participation in Policy Making. Organisation of Economic
Cooperation and Development, Paris, France.
OECD, 2001. Citizens as Partners: Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Pol-
icy Mkaing. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, France.
Olawuyi, D.S., 2012. Legal and sustainable development impacts of major oil spills.
J. Sustain. Dev. 9, 1–15.
Omeje, K., 2005. Oil conflict in Nigeria: contending issues and perspectives of the local
Niger Delta people. New Polit. Econ. 10:321–334. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
13563460500204183.
Omemu, A.M., Aderoju, S.T., 2008. Food safety knowledge and practices of street food ven-
dors in the city of Abeokuta, Nigeria. Food Control 19:396–402. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.foodcont.2007.04.021.
14 N. Zabbey et al. / Science of the Total Environment xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
Omofonmwan, S.I., Odia, L.O., 2009. Oil exploitation and conflict in the Niger-Delta region
of Nigeria. J. Hum. Ecol. 26, 25–30.
Onojake, M.C., Anyanwu, C.O., Iwuoha, G.N., 2015. Chemical fingerprinting and diagnostic
ratios of Agbada-1 oil spill impacted sites in Niger Delta, Nigeria. Egypt. J. Pet. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpe.2015.10.012.
Onwuka, E.C., 2005. Oil extraction, environmental degradation and poverty in the Niger
Delta region of Nigeria: a viewpoint. Int. J. Environ. Stud. 62:655–662. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/00207230500040823.
OPEC, 2015. Nigeria: Facts and Figures. URL. http://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/about_
us/167.htm.
Orji, F.A., Ibiene, A.A., Ugbogu, O.C., 2012. Petroleum hydrocarbon pollution of mangrove
swamps: the promises of remediation by enhanced natural attenuation. Am. J. Agric.
Biol. Sci. 7, 207–216.
Orubu, C.O., Odusola, A., Ehwarieme, W., 2004. The Nigerian oil industry: environmental
diseconomies, management strategies and the need for community involvement.
J. Hum. Ecol. 16, 203–214.
Owens, E.H., Sergy, G.A., 2003. The development of the SCAT process for the assessment of
oiled shorelines. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 47:415–422. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0025-
326X(03)00211-X.
Oyefusi, A., 2007. Oil-dependence and Civil Conflict in Nigeria. CSAE (University of
Oxford), Oxford, UK.
Park, I.S., Park, J.W., 2010. A novel total Petroleum hydrocarbon fractionation strategy for
human health risk assessment for petroleum hydrocarbon-contaminated site
management. J. Hazard. Mater. 179, 1128–1135.
Pegg, S., Zabbey, N., 2013. Oil and water: the Bodo spills and the destruction of traditional
livelihood structures in the Niger Delta. Commun. Dev. J. 48:391–405. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1093/cdj/bst021.
Peng, S., Zhou, Q., Cai, Z., Zhang, Z., 2009. Phytoremediation of petroleum contaminated
soils by Mirabilis Jalapa L. in a greenhouse plot experiment. J. Hazard. Mater. 168:
1490–1496. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.03.036.
Prince, R.C., Bare, R.E., Garrett, R.M., Grossman, M.J., Haith, C.E., Keim, L.G., Lee, K., Holtom,
G.J., Lambert, P., Sergy, G.A., Owens, E.H., Guénette, C.C., 2003. Bioremediation of
stranded oil on an arctic shoreline. Spill Sci. Technol. Bull. 8:303–312. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/S1353-2561(03)00036-7.
Raji, A.O.Y., Abejide, T.S., 2013. An Assessment of Environmental Problems Associated
With Oil Pollution and Gas Flaring in the Niger Delta Region Nigeria, C. 1960s–
2000. 3 pp. 48–62.
Ramseur, J., Hagerty, C.L., 2013. Deepwater horizon oil spill: recent activities and ongoing
developments. Washingt. Congr. Res. Serv. 1–16.
Rim-rukeh, A., 2015. Oil spill management in Nigeria: SWOT analysis of the Joint Investi-
gation Visit (JIV) process. J. Environ. Prot. (Irvine, Calif.) 6, 259–271.
Røberg, S., Stormo, S.K., Landfald, B., 2007. Persistence and biodegradation of kerosene in
high-arctic intertidal sediment. Mar. Environ. Res. 64:417–428. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.marenvres.2007.03.003.
Rodrigues, S.M., Pereira, M.E., da Silva, E.F., Hursthouse, A.S., Duarte, A.C., 2009. A review
of regulatory decisions for environmental protection: part I-challenges in the imple-
mentation of national soil policies. Environ. Int. 35, 202–213.
Rodríguez-Trigo, G., Zock, J.P., Pozo-Rodríguez, F., Gómez, F.P., Monyarch, G., Bouso, L.,
Coll, M.D., Verea, H.C., Antó, J.M., Fuster, C., Barberà, J.A., 2010. Health changes in fish-
ermen 2 years after clean-up of the Prestige oil spill. Ann. Intern. Med. 153:489–498.
http://dx.doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-153-8-201010190-00279.
Ronnback, P., 1999. The ecological basis for economic value of seafood production by
mangrove ecosystems. Ecol. Econ. 29:235–252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-
8009(99)00016-6.
Rönnbäck, P., Crona, B., Ingwall, L., 2007. The return of ecosystem goods and services in
replanted mangrove forests: perspectives from local communities in Kenya. Environ.
Conserv. 34:313–324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0376892907004225.
Rosén, L., Back, P.-E.P.-E., Soderqvist, T., Norrman, J., Brinkhoff, P., Norberg, T., Volchko, Y.,
Norin, M., Bergknut, M., Döberl, G., 2015. SCORE: a novel multi-criteria decision anal-
ysis approach to assessing the sustainability of contaminated land remediation. Sci.
Total Environ. 511:621–638. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.12.058.
Sam, K., 2016. Environmental Management of Oil Contaminated Sites in Nigeria: Improv-
ing Policy and Risk-based Framework. Cranfield University.
Sam, K., Coulon, F., Prpich, G., 2017. A multi-attribute methodology for the prioritisation of
oil contaminated sites in the Niger Delta. Sci. Total Environ. 579:1323–1332. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.11.126.
Sam, K., Coulon, F., Prpich, G., 2016. Working towards an integrated land contamination
framework for Nigeria. Sci. Total Environ. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.
07.075.
Sam, K., Prpich, G., Coulon, F., 2015. Environmental and societal management of contam-
inated land in Nigeria: the need for policy and guidance changes. 4th International
Contaminated Site Remediation Conference: Program and Proceedings,
pp. 427–428 Melbourne, Australia.
Samanta, S.K., Singh, O.V., Jain, R.K., 2002. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: environmen-
tal pollution and bioremediation. Trends Biotechnol. 20:243–248. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/S0167-7799(02)01943-1.
Sánchez-Arias, L.E., Remolina, D.A., Alvarez-León, R., 2013. Evaluation of a recovery tech-
nique for mangrove soils affected by oil spills, using as indicator plantules of
Rhizophora mangle L. (Rhizophoraceae). Panam. J. Aquat. Sci. 8, 79–88.
Sarkar, D., Ferguson, M., Datta, R., Birnbaum, S., 2005. Bioremediation of petroleum hydro-
carbons in contaminated soils: comparison of biosolids addition, carbon supplemen-
tation, and monitored natural attenuation. Environ. Pollut. 136:187–195. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2004.09.025.
Sas-Nowosielska, a., Kucharski, R., Małkowski, E., Pogrzeba, M., Kuperberg, J.M., Kryński,
K., 2004. Phytoextraction crop disposal — an unsolved problem. Environ. Pollut.
128:373–379. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2003.09.012.
Please cite this article as: Zabbey, N., et al., Remediation of contaminated lands in the Niger Delta, Nigeria: Prospects and challenges, Sci
Total Environ (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.02.075
View publication stats
Snowden, R.J., Ekweozor, I.K.E., 1990. Littoral infauna of a west African estuary: an oil pol-
lution baseline survey. Mar. Biol. 105:51–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01344270.
Spalding, M., Kainuma, M., Collins, L., 2010. World Atlas of Mangroves. Earthscan, London.
Steiner, R., 2010. Double standard: Shell practices in Nigeria compared with international
standards to prevent and control pipeline oil spills and the Deepwater Horizon oil
spill. Friends of the Earth Netherlands (Amsterdam, Netherlands).
Suárez, B., Lope, V., Perez-Gomez, B., Aragones, N., Rodriguez-Artalejo, F., Marques, F.,
Guzman, A., Viloria, L.J., Carrasco, J.M., Martin-Moreno, J.M., 2005. Acute health prob-
lems among subjects involved in the cleanup operation following the Prestige oil spill
in Asturias and Cantabria (Spain). Environ. Res. 99, 413–424.
Susarla, S., Medina, V.F., McCutcheon, S.C., 2002. Phytoremediation: an ecological solution
to organic chemical contamination. Ecol. Eng. 18:647–658. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0925-8574(02)00026-5.
Thomé, A., Reginatto, C., Cecchin, I., Colla, L.M., 2014. Bioventing in a residual clayey soil
contaminated with a blend of biodiesel and diesel oil. J. Environ. Eng. 140:1–6.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0000863.
Tinsley, A., Farewell, T., 2015. Soil degradation: a growing concern. Dissecting Soil:
Safeguarding an Invaluable Natural Resource. The Environmentalist, IEMA, UK,
pp. 14–17.
Tumeo, M., Braddock, J., Venator, T., Rog, S., Owens, D., 1994. Effectiveness of a
biosurfactant in removing weathered crude oil from subsurface beach material.
Spill Sci. Technol. Bull. 1:53–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/1353-2561(94)90007-8.
Twilley, R., 1995. Properties of mangrove ecosystems related to the energy signature of
coastal environments. Maximum Power: The Ideas and Applications of H.T. Odum.
University Press of Colorado, Colorado.
Ukeje, C., 2001. Oil communities and political violence: the case of ethnic Ijaws in
Nigeria's Delta region. Terror. Polit. Violence 13:15–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
09546550109609698.
Ukotije-ikwut, P.R., Idogun, A.K., Iriakuma, C.T., Aseminaso, A., Obomanu, T., 2016. A novel
method for adsorption using human hair as a natural oil spill sorbent. Int. J. Sci. Eng.
Res. 7, 1754–1765.
Umukoro, N., 2012. Governance and environmental inequality in Nigeria: implications for
conflict management strategies in the Niger Delta. Int. J. Environ. Stud. 69, 913–920.
UNDP, 2006. Niger Delta Human Development Report.
UNEP, 2016. Nigeria Launches $1 Billion Ogoniland Clean-up and Restoration Programme
- UNEP [WWW Document]. URL. http://www.unep.org/newscentre/default.aspx?
DocumentID=27076&ArticleID=36199 (accessed 8.16.16).
UNEP, 2011. Environmental Assessment of Ogoniland. UNEP, Switzerland.
USEPA, 1992. CERCLA/SUPERFUND Orientation Manual CERCLA/Superfund Orientation
Manual.
Venosa, A.D., Suidan, M.T., Wrenn, B.A., Strohmeier, K.L., Haines, J.R., Eberhart, B.L., King,
D., Holder, E., 1996. Bioremediation of an experimental oil spill on the shoreline of
Delaware Bay. Environ. Sci. Technol. 30:1764–1775. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/
es950754r.
Wang, J.-Z., Zhang, G.-H., Mu, H.-D., Yan, M.-J., 2011. Quantitative valuation and validation
of the influence degree of human activities on shallow groundwater. Shuili Xuebao
(J. Hydraul. Eng.) 42, 1445–1451.
Wang, S., Kuo, Y., Hong, A., Chang, Y., Kao, C., 2016. Bioremediation of diesel and lubricant
oil-contaminated soils using enhanced landfarming system. Chemosphere 164:
558–567. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.08.128.
Watanabe, M.E., 1997. Phytoremediation on the brink of commercialization. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 31, 182–186.
Watts, M., 2007. Petro-insurgency or criminal syndicate? Conflict & violence in
the Niger Delta. Rev. Afr. Polit. Econ. 34:637–660. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
03056240701819517.
Wilson, S.C., Jones, K.C., 1993. Bioremediation of soil contaminated with polynuclear aro-
matic hydrocarbons (PAHs): a review. Environ. Pollut. 81:229–249. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/0269-7491(93)90206-4.
Xu, G.L., Liu, H., Li, M.J., Li, Z.M., Peng, Z.H., Zuo, L.M., He, X., Liu, W.W., 2015. In situ biore-
mediation of crude oil contaminated site: a case study in Jianghan oil field, China in
situ bioremediation of crude oil contaminated site: a case study. Bull. Environ.
Contam. Toxicol. 95:624–631. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10916466.2015.1115873.
Yang, S.Z., Jin, H.J., Wei, Z., He, R.X., Ji, Y.J., Li, X.M., Yu, S.P., 2009. Bioremediation of oil
spills in cold environments: a review. Pedosphere 19:371–381. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/S1002-0160(09)60128-4.
Yao, Z., Li, J., Xie, H., Yu, C., 2012. Review on remediation technologies of soil contaminated
by heavy metals. Procedia Environ. Sci. 16:722–729. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
proenv.2012.10.099.
Zabbey, N., 2016. The risk of not measuring. Smart Water Utilities: Complexity Made Sim-
ple. IWA Publishing, UK, pp. 227–230.
Zabbey, N., 2009. Impacts of oil pollution on livelihoods in Nigeria. Petroleum and Pollu-
tion — How Does That Impact Human Rights? Amnesty International, Forum Syd and
Friends of the Earth, Sweden Kulturhuset, Stockholm, Sweden. (27th April 2009).
Zabbey, N., 2008. Nigeria and the prospect of shrimp farming: critical issues. Global
Hunger: Is Food for Man or Machine?Fraction Magazine, Port Harcourt, Nigeria,
pp. 19–21.
Zabbey, N., Hart, A., Erondu, E., 2010. Functional roles of mangroves of the Niger Delta to
the coastal communities and national economy. Proceedings of the 25th Annual
Conference and Fair of the Fisheries Society of Nigeria. FISON, Lagos, Nigeria.
Zabbey, N., Tanee, F.B.G., 2016. Assessment of asymmetric mangrove restoration trials in
Ogoniland, Niger Delta, Nigeria: lessons for future intervention. Ecol. Restor. 34:
245–257. http://dx.doi.org/10.3368/er.34.3.245.
Zabbey, N., Uyi, H., 2014. Community responses of intertidal soft-bottom macrozoobenthos
to oil pollution in a tropical mangrove ecosystem, Niger Delta, Nigeria. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
82:167–174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.03.002.