Marine Pollution Bulletin 109 (2016) 14–45

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Pollution Bulletin

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

Review

A comprehensive guide of remediation technologies for oil contaminated

soil — Present works and future directions
Mee Wei Lim, Ee Von Lau ⁎, Phaik Eong Poh
School of Engineering, Monash University Malaysia, Jalan Lagoon Selatan, 47500 Bandar Sunway, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia

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

Article history: Oil spills result in negative impacts on the environment, economy and society. Due to tidal and waves actions, the
Received 20 January 2016 oil spillage affects the shorelines by adhering to the soil, making it difficult for immediate cleaning of the soil. As
Received in revised form 7 April 2016 shoreline clean-up is the most costly component of a response operation, there is a need for effective oil remedi-
Accepted 11 April 2016
ation technologies. This paper provides a review on the remediation technologies for soil contaminated with var-
Available online 4 June 2016
ious types of oil, including diesel, crude oil, petroleum, lubricating oil, bitumen and bunker oil. The methods
Keywords:
discussed include solvent extraction, bioremediation, phytoremediation, chemical oxidation, electrokinetic re-
Oil spills mediation, thermal technologies, ultrasonication, flotation and integrated remediation technologies. Each of
Oil contaminated soil these technologies was discussed, and associated with their advantages, disadvantages, advancements and future
Remediation technologies work in detail. Nonetheless, it is important to note that no single remediation technology is considered the best
Review solution for the remediation of oil contaminated soil.
Advancement Capsule: This review provides a comprehensive literature on the various remediation technologies studied in the
removal of different oil types from soil.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2. Biological remediation technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.1. Bioremediation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.1.1. Bioaugmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.1.2. Biostimulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.1.3. Bioventilation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.1.4. Advantages and limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.1.5. Advancements & future work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.2. Phytoremediation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.2.1. Phytostabilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.2.2. Phytodegradation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.2.3. Phytovolatization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.2.4. Rhizodegradation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.2.5. Advantages and limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.2.6. Advancements and future work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3. Chemical remediation technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.1. Chemical oxidation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.1.1. Fenton's reagent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.1.2. Ozone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.1.3. Other oxidants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.1.4. Advantages & limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.1.5. Advancements and future work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.2. Electrokinetic remediation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: lim.mee.wei@monash.edu (M.W. Lim), lau.ee.von@monash.edu (E.V. Lau), poh.phaik.eong@monash.edu (P.E. Poh).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.04.023
0025-326X/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 M.W. Lim et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 109 (2016) 14–45 15

3.2.1. Electrokinetic studies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

3.2.2. Advantages & limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.2.3. Advancements and future work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4. Thermal remediation technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.1. Incineration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.2. Thermal desorption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.3. Microwave frequency heating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.4. Advantages & limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.5. Advancements and future work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.5.1. After effects of thermal remediation (soil health and air pollution) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.5.2. Numerical modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.5.3. Advancements in microwave technology as a feasible thermal remediation technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5. Physical–chemical remediation technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.1. Solvent extraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.1.1. Water/organic solvents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.1.2. Surfactant-aided extraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.1.3. Subcritical fluid extraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.1.4. Supercritical fluid extraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.1.5. Advantages & limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.1.6. Advancements & future work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.2. Soil vapour extraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5.2.1. Air sparging/SVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.2.2. Bioventing/SVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.2.3. Thermally enhanced SVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.2.4. Advantages & limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.2.5. Advancements and future work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.3. Flotation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5.3.1. Flotation studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5.3.2. Advantages & limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5.3.3. Advancements and future work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
5.4. Ultrasonication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
5.4.1. Ultrasonication studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
5.4.2. Advantages & limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
5.4.3. Advancements and future work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
6. Integrated remediation technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
6.1. Integrated physical–chemical remediation technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
6.2. Integrated physical–biological remediation technology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
6.3. Integrated chemical–biological remediation technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
6.4. Advancements and future work of integrated remediation technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
7. Final recommendations and conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

1. Introduction
In the past, marine oil spills have caused devastating impacts on both
shorelines and seas due to the hazardous property of the oil. In 1978, the
large oil spill due to the Amoco Cadiz in France released over
223,000 tonnes of light crude oil and 4000 tonnes of bunker oil, contam-
inating a total shoreline length of 320 km up to a depth of 20 inches
(Conan et al., 1982; Haensly et al., 1982). Failure to remove oil from
the shoreline resulted in a long term contamination, with layers of oil
still remained buried in the beach site up to 8 years after the oil spill in-
cident (Page et al., 1988). Similarly the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989
which spilled 11 million gallons of crude oil into the sea drifted and dam-
aged up to 1300 miles of shoreline (Paine et al., 1996). Despite the efforts
in clean-up, only 10% of the oil was recovered (Bragg et al., 1994). A
study by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
showed that more than 87 m3 of oil still remains in the Alaska's sandy
soil in the contaminated beaches shoreline as of 2010, breaking down
at a rate estimated at 4% per year (Register, 2010). Table 1 summarizes
the top 10 largest oil spills and the corresponding clean-up costs, ranging
from controversial oil spills to accidental oil spills in history.
The toxicity of oil spills on contaminated soil is of a great concern es-
pecially on the environment, and this issue had been highlighted by sev-
eral groups of researchers (El-Sheshtawy et al., 2014; Gao et al., 2015;
Hentati et al., 2013; Kanarbik et al., 2014; Ma et al., 2014a; Tang et al.,
2011). Tang et al. (2011) investigated on the toxic effects of petroleum
soil contamination of up to 10.57% on the earthworm, bacteria and
plant. The death rate of earthworms was at 90% after 7 days at oil con-
tent of 2%, while no earthworms survived in the soil contaminated
with oil content of 3% and more. Likewise, inhibition rate of bacteria is
nearly 100% at petroleum content of 1%. In terms of plant germination
at oil content of 3%, the germination inhibition rate of maize and
wheat is 51.3% and 48.4% respectively. The root growth also showed
similar trend whereby higher concentrations of oil inhibit the growth
of roots (Tang et al., 2011). Similarly, increase in oil concentration
from 31 mg/kg to 1000 mg/kg was found to vastly decrease the survival
rate of earthworms from 80% to 33% after 14 days (Hentati et al., 2013).
In addition, a recent study by Ramadass et al. (2015) also showed that
used motor oil concentrations of greater than 3.88 g/kg soil caused com-
plete mortality of earth worms. Clearly, it could be seen that the oil spill-
age on soil greatly impacts the surrounding environments, which
highlights the urgent need for effective removal of oil contaminant
from soil.
At present, most clean-up efforts for oil spill on soil and shoreline re-
quire mechanical and labour intensive methods as they may be a quick
and simple solution to remove oil contaminants (Broman et al., 1983).
However, there are many disadvantages associated to these methods.
For instance, the usage of high pressure washing to displace oil may de-
stroy the microbial populations, while the chemical sorbents and
16 M.W. Lim et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 109 (2016) 14–45
Table 1
Top 10 largest marine oil spills in history (Conan et al., 1982; Haensly et al., 1982; Page et al., 1988).
No Name of oil spill Year Place of oil spill
1 Gulf War January 23, 1991 Persian Gulf, Kuwait
2 Deepwater Horizon April 20, 2010 Mexican Gulf, Mexico
3 Ixtoc 1 oil well June 3, 1979 Mexican Gulf, Bay of Champeche
4 Atlantic Empress oil spill July 19, 1979 Carribean Sea, off the coast of Trinidad
and Tobago
5 Nowruz oil field February 10, 1983 Persian Gulf, Nowruz Field Platform
6 ABT Summer May 28, 1991 Off coast of Angola, Africa
7 Castillo de Bellver oil spill August 6, 1983 Table Bay; Saldanha Bay, South Africa
8 Amoco Cadiz March 16, 1978 Brittany coast, up to Channel Islands;
Portsall, France
9 M/T Haven Tanker oil spill April 11, 1991 Mediterranean Sea; Genoa, Italy
10 Odyssey oil spill November 10, 1988 North Atlantic, off the coast of Nova Scotia
dispersants may be harsh to the environment. In addition, these me-
chanical methods are tedious, time consuming and are only capable of
removing the oil contaminants up to a certain extent, leaving behind a
large amount of oil adsorbed in the soil. These conventional first re-
sponse actions are therefore not able to achieve efficient clean-up of
oil spills under a short period of time.
Therefore, there is an urgent need to investigate on other
environmental-friendly remediation methods to remove oil contami-
nants in soil. To date, there is a variety of technologies available for
the remediation of oil contaminated soil, ranging from widely applied
technologies such as solvent extraction and bioremediation to the
emerging technologies such as electrokinetic remediation and sonica-
tion. The remediation technologies for oil contaminated soil can be clas-
sified into biological, chemical, thermal and physicochemical methods.
The following sections will discuss about the remediation technologies
in detail.
2. Biological remediation technologies
2.1. Bioremediation
Bioremediation is viewed as a method to accelerate the natural bio-
degradation process of oil samples, via the supply of nutrients and oxy-
gen required by the bacteria or through external treatments such as
aeration or temperature control (Hoff, 1993). The bioremediation tech-
nology had been developed since the 1940s, but only gained popularity
in the 1980s due to the famed Exxon Valdez oil spill (Bragg et al., 1994;
Hoff, 1993). Table 2 shows a compilation for bioremediation studies to
date in the remediation of oil contaminated soil.
In a field study in 1994, the effectiveness of PES-51 a biosurfactant
was investigated for the removal of weathered crude oil from contami-
nated sand from the Exxon Valdez oil spill at La Touche Island, Prince
William Sound. The results from the investigation showed that all the
diesel range oil was removed below the detection limit of 0.5 mg/kg.
70% of the semivolatile components was removed as a result from the
biodegradation as well (Tumeo et al., 1994). Other in situ studies also
showed similar enhanced results with the addition of fertilizers (Bragg
et al., 1994; Prince et al., 2003) or external microbe for the removal of
oil from soil. However, the addition of nutrients/external microbial con-
sortium may not necessarily increase the oil removal efficiency as dem-
onstrated in works by Venosa et al. (1996). The addition of water
soluble nutrients with and without the supplement of natural microbial
inoculum for the degradation of crude oil on the shoreline of Delaware
Bay did not provide a significant increase in the remediation rate as
compared to natural attenuation of oil. This was attributed to the high
levels of nitrogen already existing in the soil levels, which is sufficient
to support the oil biodegradation. Thus, tailor-made biological remedia-
tion plans specific to the contaminated site are usually required in a
Type of fuel Amount of oil spilled Clean-up cost
(million gallons) estimated
in 2010 (US dollars)
Crude oil 240–336 $ 540 million
Crude oil 210 $ 10 billion
Crude oil 140 $ 283.9 million
Light crude oil 9 $ 187 million
Oil 80 $161.5 million
Iranian crude oil 80 $ 163.2 million
Light crude oil 78.5 $ 153 million
Light Iranian and Arabian 68.7 $ 136 million
crude oil & bunker fuel
Crude oil 45 $ 85 million
North Sea crude oil 43 $ 86.7 million
small-scale study prior to actual on-site bioremediation of contaminat-
ed soil.
Therefore, it could be seen that the bioremediation demonstrated
high potential to successfully remediate oil contaminated soil. The suc-
cess of bioremediation could be attributed to the three common mech-
anisms, which are bioaugmentation, biostimulation, and bioventilation.
2.1.1. Bioaugmentation
Bioaugmentation is defined as the enhancement of performance of
microorganism populations through the addition of genetically
engineered bacteria with specific catabolic activities, isolated bacterial
strains or enrichment consortia to increase the rate of degradation
(Abdulsalam et al., 2011). In other words, an external source of oil
degrading bacteria is added to the existing microbial population to
boost the oil degradation rate. The criteria for choosing microbes are
the physiology and metabolic ability of the microbes to degrade the oil
contaminated soil (Boopathy, 2000). Since there are no single strain of
bacteria which has the sufficient metabolic capacity to efficiently de-
grade all the oil components, many studies have focused on various
types of bacteria and fungi for the remediation of oil contaminated soil.
The efficiency of crude oil degradation of individual bacterial cul-
tures and designed bacterial consortium was tested by Rahman et al.
(2002). Five bacterial strains (Micrococcus sp. GS2-22, Corynebacterium
sp. GS5-66, Flavobacterium sp. DS5-73, Bacillus sp. DS6-86 and Pseudo-
monas sp. DS10-129) were selected for the study out of 130 oil
degrading bacterial cultures, due to their efficiency for crude oil degra-
dation. Results showed that a mixed bacterial consortium from these
bacterial strains showed up to 78% of oil degradation efficiency after
20 days of sampling period. This was also shown in studies reported
by Singh et al. (2012) where the use of microbial consortia reduce the
petroleum contaminant in soil from 30.9% to 0.97% after 360 days of
treatment, as compared to only 5% of reduction in the control plot.
While the addition of external bacterial consortium could enhance
oil degradation, it is noted that the indigenous oil-degrading microor-
ganisms in most environments could accomplish natural attenuation
of the oil contaminant if the environmental conditions are not the lim-
iting factor (Nikolopoulou et al., 2013a). Hence Ueno et al. (2007) inves-
tigated on the potential use of microorganisms exclusive from the
contaminated soil/sand site, and this concept of bioaugmentation is de-
fined as autochthonous bioaugmentation. These microbes are obtained
from the contaminated site, and further enhanced by enriching the bac-
teria under similar conditions of the site, and the autochthonous mi-
crobe would be better equipped to degrade the oil contaminant from
soil (Nikolopoulou et al., 2013b; Ueno et al., 2007). A study by Roy
et al. (2014) was also conducted on the bioremediation of crude oil con-
taminated soil using four native crude oil degrading bacterial strains
(Pseudomonas aeruginosa AS03, P. aeruginosa N108, P. aeruginosa
N002, and Achromobacter xylosoxidans N78). The combination of these
bacterial strains and fertilizers showed an overall 80% decrease of
 M.W. Lim et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 109 (2016) 14–45 17

Table 2
Bioremediation of oil contaminated soil.

Type of Additions/supplement specific Oil contaminant Contaminant Process Maximum Reference

addition/supplement name limit duration removal
efficiency (%)

Fertilizer Oleophilic fertilizer Petroleum 2500 mg/kg 38 days 80% (Margesin et al., 2007)
Microorganism and fertilizer Bacterial consortium and nutrient Crude oil 10 w/w% 18 months 99.9% (Singh et al., 2012)
mixture
Soluble and slow-release Prilled ammonium nitrate, super IF-30 fuel grade oil Up to 6% 7 days 89.3% (Prince et al., 2003)
fertilizer phosphate, ferrous sulfate, yeast
extract, Inipol SP1
Microorganism and fertilizer Microbial consortium (Nocardia Heavy crude oil 5.4% 41 days 7.4% (Trindade et al., 2005)
nova & Rhodotorula glutinis var.
dairenesis); inoculum, nutrients
Biopolymer and fertilizer Chitosan and Osmocote (slow Arabian light crude oil 3.5 w/w% 56 days 99.7% (Xu et al., 2005)
release fertilizer) (ALCO)
Biosurfactant PES-51 Weathered crude oil 100 μg/g 3 months 70% (Tumeo et al., 1994)
Fertilizer Bacterial consortium, inorganic Petroleum refinery sludge 5 w/w% 90 days 76% (Vasudevan and Rajaram, 2001)
nutrients (ammonium nitrate &
dipotassium hydrogen
phosphate), compost and bulking
agent (wheat bran)
Commercial product OSEII® (Oil Spill Eater Diesel fuel 10,336 mg/kg 45 days 49.4% (Dias et al., 2012)
International, Corp.)
Metal Cd, Cu, Pb Arabian light crude oil b26 μg/g 15 days 32% (Almeida et al., 2013)
Biosurfactant Guar gum Diesel fuel 4600 mg/kg 12 weeks 82% (Hernández-Espriú et al., 2013)
Air flow Oxygen B20 (80% diesel, 4 w/w% N60 days 85% (Thomé et al., 2014)
20% biodiesel)
Organic solid waste Soycake Diesel 5 w/w% 18 weeks 81% (Dadrasnia and
15 w/w% 42% Agamuthu, 2014)
Microorganism and fertilizer Pseudomonas aeruginosa AS03, Crude oil 2 v/v% 24 weeks 80% (Roy et al., 2014)
Pseudomonas aeruginosa N108,
Pseudomonas aeruginosa N002,
Achromobacter xylosoxidans N78
Fertilizer NH4Cl and NaH2PO4 Arabian oil 55.2 ppm 63 days 9.6%a (Abed et al., 2015)
Biosurfactant Paenibacillus dendritiformis CN5 Motor oil 20 w/w% 24 h 81% (Bezza and Chirwa, 2015)
Organic waste Sugarcane bagasse and oil palm Crude oil 3 v/w% 20 days 100% (Hamzah et al., 2014)
empty fruit bunch, Pseudomonas
aeruginosa UKMP-14T and
Acinetobacter baumannii
UKMP-12T
Microbial inoculates Pseudoallescheria sp., Petroleum 5 g/L 60 days 79.7% (Covino et al., 2015)
lignocellulosic mixture
Microbial inoculates S. saprophyticus UFPEDA 800 and S. Diesel 10 v/v% 7 days 69% (Silva et al., 2015)
marcescens UFPEDA 839 and the
yeasts R. aurantiaca UFPEDA 845
and C. ernobii UFPEDA 862
Microbial consortium Burkholderia cepacia GS3C, Crude oil 5000 mg/kg 40 days 64.4% (Shen et al., 2016)
Sphingomonas GY2B and
Pandoraea pnomenusa GP3B
strains
a
Maximum percentage of oil degraded at 50 °C.

crude oil (2 v/v%) after 24 weeks of testing. Covino et al. (2015) also
assessed the application of autochthonous filamentous fungi from pe-
troleum polluted clay soil for the degradation of aliphatic petroleum hy-
drocarbons from clay soil. Results from this study showed a 79.7%
degradation of 5 g/L oil in clay soil augmented with Pseudoallescheria
sp. and lignocellulosic mixture as a slow-release fertilizer after 60 days.
Likewise, an ex situ bioaugmentation study by Varjani et al. (2015)
showed significant crude oil (3 v/v%) degradation of up to 83.7% after
75 days. The hydrocarbon utilizing bacterial consortium (HUBC)
consisting of six bacterial isolates viz. Ochrobactrum sp. (01),
Stenotrophomonas maltophilia (02) and P. aeruginosa (03) was obtained
from crude oil polluted soil samples in India isolated from crude oil pol-
luted sites of ONGC fields of Gujarat, India. This study showed the HUBC
potential for the biodegradation of hydrocarbon contaminants, and fur-
ther studies were conducted to evaluate the potential of HUBC for the
degradation of hydrocarbons in situ (Varjani et al., 2015). Other recent
autochthonous studies include investigation of the response of autoch-
thonous microbiota in diesel polluted soils to different biostimulating
agents. Silva-Castro et al. (2015) studied the microbial activity in soils
contaminated with two concentrations of diesel (10 and 20 g/kg) and
evaluated the effect of addition of two biostimulating agents, which
are Bioversal surfactant (commercial surfactant agent) and inorganic
fertilizer NPK. The maximum degradation efficiency showed the highest
rate of degradation at 50% and 63% in 10 g/kg and 20 g/kg diesel con-
taminated soil respectively, under a blend of surfactant and NPK.
2.1.2. Biostimulation
Biostimulation involves the adjustment of environmental parame-
ters such as limiting nutrients such as slow-release fertilizers,
biosurfactants and biopolymers (Prince et al., 2003) that could stimu-
late the growth of oil degrading microorganisms and increase the bio-
degradation rate of the natural microorganisms affected on site. The
influence of nutrient amendments is apparent as demonstrated by
Chaineau et al. (2005) whereby the biodegradation of crude oil in soil
was investigated over a series of fertilized and unfertilized soil for a pe-
riod of 150 days. The soil added with nitrogen, phosphorus, and potas-
sium at a ratio of 170:17:48 (low fertilization) showed the highest
biodegradation rate at 62% in comparison with unfertilized soil at 47%
of degradation. Likewise, a recent study by Abed et al. (2015) showed
that the addition of nutrients (NH4Cl and NaH2PO4 as N and P sources)
18 M.W. Lim et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 109 (2016) 14–45
for biostimulation of oil polluted desert soil resulted in a 20% increase to
give an oil removal efficiency of 9.6% at 50 °C. The biostimulation effi-
ciency for untreated soil was reported to be at 8.0% under similar condi-
tions. While the addition of nutrients affects the success of
biostimulation, Abed et al. (2015) noted that elevated temperatures
could further stimulate the activity of thermophilic oil degrading bacte-
ria in desert soils, while a high salinity condition would slow down the
growth rate and degradation capacity of bacteria due to the reduced ox-
ygen availability and hydrocarbons solubility.
The type of fertilizers used plays an important role in the oil degra-
dation as demonstrated by Emami et al., 2014. The impact of different
forms of nitrogen fertilizer (NO3-N and NH4-N) was investigated for
the removal of petroleum from contaminated soil. The addition of
NH4-N showed better oil removal efficiency due to its high recovery of
soil germination capability and better respiration values. Nevertheless,
the type of fertilizer used for oil degradation is not limited to nitrogen
fertilizer only. Present studies showed that various biowastes including
soycake (Dadrasnia and Agamuthu, 2014), poultry droppings (Ezenne
et al., 2014), oil palm empty fruit bunch and sugarcane bagasse
(Hamzah et al., 2014) have been successfully used as fertilizers to im-
prove the bioremediation and degradation of oil contaminated soil. In
a separate study, Jung et al. (2014) reported that the presence of red
clay enhanced the diesel biodegradation by a factor of up to 6.7;
which was attributed to the bacterial growth from the presence of red
clay.
Biosurfactant is another well-studied nutrient as it is non-toxic and
biodegradable as well. The presence of biosurfactant would accelerate
the biodegradation capability by dispersing the oil. The biosurfactants
are able to increase the substrate bioavailability for the microorganisms,
and are also able to increase the hydrophobicity of cell surface, which al-
lows the hydrophobic substrate to interact freely with the bacterial
cells. The effect of cyclodextrin, a form of biosurfactant, on soil bioreme-
diation and soil toxicity and on soil contaminated with diesel and min-
eral oil at concentrations of 46,290 and 47,170 mg/kg respectively was
investigated by Gruiz et al. (1996) . The addition of randomly methylat-
ed β-cyclodextrin (RAMEB) resulted in a slight increase in the removal
efficiency of 2.6% and 4.8% respectively for diesel and mineral oil com-
pared to treatment without the use of RAMEB. Besides increasing the
biodegradation of hydrocarbons, the RAMEB was found to decrease
soil toxicity and subsequently enhanced further growth of plant roots
from 5 to 20 mm. The effects of cyclodextrin concentration in bioreme-
diation of soil contaminated with transformer oil were also reported by
Molnar et al. (2005). This study showed that the increase in oil removal
efficiency is attributed to the enhanced availability of aerobic heterotro-
phic and oil-degrading bacteria, up to 57% due to the presence of
RAMEB. As RAMEB is a biodegradable compound, the authors also
noted that the environmental risk associated with the RAMEB is also
considerably lower.
2.1.3. Bioventilation
Bioventilation or bioventing involves the addition of oxygen to the
soil voids to stimulate the growth of microorganisms. The presence of
oxygen is necessary to produce an aerobic condition for the microorgan-
isms, as aerobic conditions could enhance the metabolism of organic
matter and generate more energy. A recent study by Thomé et al.
(2014) assessed the bioventilation method for the remediation of clay
soil contaminated with 4 wt% of B20, a blend of diesel and biodiesel
fuel. A maximum degradation efficiency of 85% was obtained via
bioventing as opposed to 64% from natural attenuation after 60 days
of remediation, which shows that oxygen air flow enhanced microbial
activity and increased degradation of contaminant.
2.1.4. Advantages and limitations
The use of bioremediation for oil contaminated soil remediation had
been extensively researched on, and to date there are many reviews
available of bioremediation techniques in both laboratory and field
scale (Boopathy, 2000; Hoff, 1993; Mearns, 1997; Naseri et al., 2014;
Prince, 1993; Swannell et al., 1996; Venosa and Zhu, 2003). In general,
bioremediation has demonstrated success in both in situ and ex situ re-
mediation of oil contaminated soil. These technologies are capable of
degrading the oil contaminants permanently without leaving behind
any adverse long-term toxic effects on the environment. In addition,
this remediation method is low cost, eliminates wastes permanently
and does not disrupt the environment. Moreover, biological treatments
are widely accepted by the society due to their aesthetically pleasing
and low-cost alternative.
However, these technologies require long treatment durations up to
several years to acquire satisfactory removal efficiency results. It was
also observed that high concentrations of oil contaminants render the
activity of the microbial community which resulted in low removal effi-
ciencies. Margesin et al. (2007) reported that the total petroleum hydro-
carbon losses for unfertilized soil samples showed a 60% drop with an
increase in initial diesel contamination from 2500 to 20,000 mg/kg
soil, attributed to the high toxicity of soil environment, which is not con-
ducive for microbial activity. Similar results were obtained using NPK
fertilized and oleophilic fertilized soil, whereby a drop of 34% and 33%
was observed respectively with the increase in initial oil contamination
concentration. In addition, the results from biological treatments are in-
consistent, as these treatments are highly dependent on the contami-
nant, weather and soil parameters such as temperature, pH, salinity,
contaminant composition, contaminant concentration, and weathering
effect. For example, high temperatures may affect the concentration of
microbial community (Venosa and Zhu, 2003), while extreme pH levels
in soil could be toxic to bacteria and/or fungi. A study by Rahman et al.
(2002) reported that a pH of 7.5 provides the optimum biodegradation
of crude oil of 78%, while extreme pHs were shown to reduce the ability
of microbial populations to degrade the hydrocarbons. The weathering
effect on the oil also affects the efficiency of bioremediation. Trindade
et al. (2005) studied the effect of weathering process on the bioremedi-
ation of 4-year weathered heavy crude oil contaminated soil as com-
pared to a recently spiked contaminated soil. In both conditions, the
soil was contaminated with 5.4% of TPH. The maximum bioremediation
efficiency of the weathered contaminated soil with nutrient supplement
was found to be 7.4% after 41 days of biodegradation treatment, which is
approximately three times greater compared to biodegradation effi-
ciency of recently spiked soil of 2.4%. This was attributed to the adapta-
tion of native microbial population to the high pollutant concentration
in the weathered soil that contributed to the higher biodegradation ef-
ficiency of oil. The authors however noted that while the adaption of mi-
crobial concentration is important, the high crude oil concentration in
sample would inhibit the microorganism growth and limit the biodeg-
radation efficiency.
2.1.5. Advancements & future work
2.1.5.1. Specific and genetically modified microbial consortium activities.
The application of bioremediation had been extensively investigated
throughout decades for the remediation of oil contaminated soil.
While bioremediation has a huge potential for onsite remediation of
contaminated soil, this method is not universal for all contaminated
sites due to the different biological activities. Szulc et al. (2014) sug-
gested that the strategy for the success of bioremediation on site is by
conducting laboratory tests to select the microorganisms for
inoculation. The authors studied on the influence of bioaugmentation
and biosurfactant addition for bioremediation of soil artificially contam-
inated with diesel (1 w/w%). The study was conducted for 365 days in
both laboratory and field scale using the same type of soil. The laborato-
ry tests were conducted to select the microbial consortium (Aeromonas
hydrophila, Alcaligenes xylosoxidans, Gordonia sp., Pseudomonas
fluorescens, Pseudomonas putida, Rhodococcus equi, S. maltophilia,
Xanthomonas sp.) that could best degrade the diesel in the contaminat-
ed soil. Following that, the bioremediation was only then conducted on
 M.W. Lim et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 109 (2016) 14–45
field studies, and the results obtained showed that the introduction of
microbial consortium for bioaugmentation provided the highest diesel
oil degradation efficiency of 89% as opposed to 53% without the addition
of microbial consortium. The initial laboratory tests to select the micro-
organisms for inoculation prior to the in situ work could increase the
chances for success in the field studies as demonstrated in the results.
Another method to select the microorganisms that could remediate
the oil contaminated soil is by using the diagnosis method, successfully
developed by Kim et al. (2014). The authors had successfully developed
a DNA diagnostic method via an oligonucleotide microarray method
that could select sites that are suitable for bioremediation by detecting
microbacterial strains that would lead to hydrocarbon degradation. Re-
sults from the DNA diagnosis showed that the remediation of contami-
nated soil was implemented successfully. This diagnosis would be able
to reduce any trial and error, as it could determine the candidate site
for bioremediation while assessing the bioremediation progress.
While much work had been performed on the effectiveness of sever-
al bacterial consortiums on the biodegradation of oil, the study on the
effect of oil on the microbiological matter is currently lacking. Recent
work from Smułek et al. (2015) studied on the interaction between
Rahnella sp. strain EK12 cell surface with natural diesel surfactants
after long term contact with diesel oil. The study showed significant
changes in the hydrophobicity, zeta potential and fatty acids profiles,
after interaction with the tested oil surfactants, attributed to genetic
modifications in the genes encoding components of capsules. The re-
sults suggest that there is an impact on the genetic material of bacteria
after long term interaction with the oil contaminant. Recent works by
Wu et al. (2015) had also simulated the molecular modelling of the in-
teractions between the heavy crude oil and soil organic matter to eval-
uate the mobility, diffusivity and partitioning of crude oil fractions such
as saturates, aromatics, resins and asphaltenes on soil organic matter.
The authors concluded that the addition of soil organic matter promotes
the bioavailability of heavy crude oil in an environmental friendly man-
ner, attributed to the mobilization of oil contaminant by soil organic
matter.
A similar study was conducted by Bastida et al. (2015) to investigate
the impact of crude oil contamination on the biomass, composition and
functionalities of the microorganisms, and the corresponding biostimu-
lation capability with the addition of compost. The results showed that
the decrease of metaproteome of compost-treated soil would increase
the removal of oil by up to 88% as opposed to no significant oil removal
through the natural biodegradation of soil without compost. This
metaproteomic analysis was therefore useful to determine the function-
al and phylogenetic relationships between petroleum contamination
and microbial community, which would lead to an enhanced under-
standing of the biodegradation mechanism. Experimental work had
also been conducted to investigate on the bacterial resistance on the
toxicity effects of oil. Das et al. (2015) investigated on the complete ge-
nome sequence analysis of bacterial strain P. aeruginosa N002 using Ion
Torrent method. Results from the genome analysis showed the degrada-
tion mechanism of crude oil by N002 strain, and also the different bac-
terial adaptive responses in the toxic crude oil contaminated soil
environment. The outcome from this work highlights the necessity of
genome analysis prior to the actual bioremediation, and future work
in this area could be conducted to understand the factors associated
with crude oil degradation, and the general adaption of the above men-
tioned strain on the crude oil contaminated environment.
2.1.5.2. More environmentally friendly nutrient additions. Recent works
currently had been focused on obtaining novel methods and methodol-
ogy, selection of unique microbial and fertilizer additions, fundamental
studies, and optimization of process parameters that could improve and
accelerate the degradation efficiency. In previous years, research on bio-
remediation is mostly focused on aerobic bioremediation, or aerobic oil
degrading bacteria.
19
The addition of these inorganic nutrients was reported successful in
aiding the bioremediation, but the leaching of these nutrients into the
groundwater or any water source could promote algal blooms which
would adversely affect the water quality. An alternative to these inor-
ganic nutrients is the usage of organic matter derived from plant or an-
imals. Horel et al. (2015) investigated on the effect of plant (Spartina
alterniflora) and fish tissue (Chloroscombrus chrysurus) organic matter
on the degradation of weathered diesel fuel in sub-tropical sediments.
The addition of fish tissue was found to significantly increase the degra-
dation rates by 104% as compared to inorganic nutrients of nitrogen and
phosphorus of 57%, while the addition of plant base organic matter only
marginally enhanced the degradation rate by 7% after 42 days. The re-
sults showed that the addition of animal based organic material could
enhance the hydrocarbon degradation rate for a successful removal of
diesel contaminant from sandy soils.
Recent works had also been focused on the production of various hy-
drocarbon degrading biosurfactants that are low in toxicity, stable
under heat and alkaline conditions, lower surface tension, while in-
creasing oil contaminant solubility. In current literature, the production
of biosurfactant by the following microorganisms: Pseudomonas spp.,
Acinetobacter spp., Bacillus sp., Streptomyces spp., Rhodococcus spp.,
Achromobacter spp., Brevibacterium spp., and Arthobacter spp. has been
thoroughly reviewed (Petrikov et al., 2013; Xia et al., 2014). Currently,
research had been focused on finding a novel hydrocarbon degrading
biosurfactants that would enhance the biodegradation of contaminant.
Ayed et al. (2015) had successfully produced a biosurfactant from a bac-
terial strain Bacillus amyloliquefaciens An6 that has a good stability over
a wide range of temperature, pH and salinity while effectively enhances
the solubility of diesel by up to 10% as compared to SDS or Tween 80 re-
spectively. A significant increase of up to 30% in biodegradation capabil-
ity was observed after the addition of 2 g/L of biosurfactant. Likewise,
Bezza et al. (2015) also reported the production of an efficient
biosurfactant from Ochrobactrum intermedium CN3 for degradation of
petroleum. The biosurfactant exhibited tolerance to high temperatures,
extreme salinity and pH, while producing a 70% degradation of petro-
leum sludge in a span of 3 weeks. This shows the potential application
of biosurfactant isolated from bacterial strains for the application of bio-
remediation of oil contaminated soil.
2.1.5.3. Better methodologies for bioremediation applications. As men-
tioned earlier, the efficiency of bioremediation is affected by the follow-
ing parameters: (i) addition of oil-degrading microorganisms, (ii)
presence of nutrients such as dissolved oxygen, nitrogen and phospho-
rus, and (iii) environmental factors (Margesin et al., 2007; Mearns,
1997); and therefore current oil remediation works are focused on
obtaining the optimum operating parameters for the best oil removal
efficiency. Therefore, optimization of biostimulation process using re-
sponse surface methodology was conducted by Álvarez et al. (2015)
for the bioremediation of petroleum contaminated Antarctic soil. Addi-
tions of nitrogen and phosphorus levels were optimized, and the corre-
sponding C:N:P ratio would aid the development of pilot scale
bioremediation of diesel fuel contaminated soil. The optimized values
were found to be at C:N:P ratio of 100:17.6:1.73 which gave a diesel re-
moval efficiency of 54.9% as opposed to 27.8% at unoptimized C:N:P
ratio of 100:10:1. The results therefore showed the importance of opti-
mization that would reduce fertilizer consumption, while proving the
most efficient diesel removal from contaminated shorelines.
Another methodology for bioremediation applications that had
gained popularity from researchers worldwide is anaerobic bioremedi-
ation. Anaerobic bioremediation involves the remediation of oil through
the stimulation of microorganism using nitrate, sulfate, iron and carbon
dioxide as an alternative to oxygen. This is a cost effective method as
compared to aerobic bioremediation process, as the delivery of oxygen
to the contaminated site could be expensive. This method has been
studied (Franco et al., 2014; Hasinger et al., 2012; Siddique et al.,
2011) as it is considered feasible especially in contaminated sites that
20 M.W. Lim et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 109 (2016) 14–45
are already anaerobic in nature. Boopathy (2004) investigated on sever-
al anaerobic conditions, namely sulfate reducing, nitrate reducing, me-
thanogenic and mixed electron acceptor conditions for the in situ
bioremediation of soil contaminated with No. 2 diesel fuel
(550 mg/kg). After 310 days of testing, the mixed electron acceptor con-
dition showed a high diesel degradation efficiency at 81%, as opposed to
the sulfate reducing condition which demonstrated a 54.5% diesel deg-
radation. This could be attributed to the high bacterial counts in the
mixed electron acceptor conditions. Similar results were observed by
Sherry et al. (2013) whereby up to 77% of crude oil was degraded
after 302 days using sulphur reducing microorganisms.
Other novel methods that could accelerate the oil degradation rate
include the study of a novel nutrient application strategy for the dissem-
bling of nutrients that could maximize nutrient residence time which
could be used for all oil polluted beaches. Li et al. (2007) utilizes the
tidal waves at the beach to help out with the nutrient injection strategy.
The optimal nutrients for flower (nitrogen and phosphorus addition be-
tween 2 and 10 mg/L) were obtained through numerical investigations
from tidal wave action, density gradient and saltwater wedge. The au-
thors concluded that the numerically optimized nutrient injection strat-
egy is the application of nutrient solution through a perforated pipe at
high tide, parallel to the shoreline at high tide and last for a tidal circle
for maximum residence time. On the other hand, the usage of inorganic
fertilizer such nitrogen and phosphorus as fertilizer to stimulate biore-
mediation had been heavily investigated in the previous years.
In addition to the above work, other studies that had been conducted
include mathematical modelling of biosurfactant effects on petroleum
degradation (Montagnolli et al., 2015), simulation of hydrocarbon bio-
degradation of an oil spill on a sandy beach via mathematical modelling
(Geng et al., 2014), enhanced isolation of bacterial strains at low tem-
peratures (Pham et al., 2014), and the effect of different bioremediation
methods such as nitrogen addition, Suaeda salsa planting, and
arbuscular mycorrhiza fungi inoculation on the soil physicochemical
properties, degradation rate, alterations of crude oil fraction and soil
bacterial composition (Gao et al., 2014).
The understanding of the effect of parameters and additions is im-
portant for the success of bioremediation, however there are several
areas which could be further improved on for successful application
for in situ bioremediation of oil contaminated soil. Future work could in-
clude studies on novel bioremediation method that could enhance the
rate of biodegradation and oil removal efficiency, fundamental studies
that would understand the biodegradation mechanism, and computa-
tion studies that could further optimize the operating parameters for
maximum oil removal.
2.1.5.4. Recent advancements in bioremediation field studies. Field studies
in the recent years showed highly promising results for removal of oil
from soil (Akbari and Ghoshal, 2014; Beškoski et al., 2011; Ferradji
et al., 2014; Meyer et al., 2014; Venosa et al., 2010). In recent studies
for remediating on site oil contaminated soil, the results show that bio-
remediation could be a suitable alternative for field treatment. Gomez
and Sartaj (2013) investigated on field scale ex situ bioaugmentation
and biostimulation as bioremediation treatment for petroleum contam-
inated soil of 940 μg/g concentration using microbial consortia inoculant
and mature organic compost at a treatment facility. The usage of indi-
vidual microbial consortia and mature organic compost showed similar
removal efficiencies of 55% and 52% respectively, but the combination of
microbial consortia and mature compost provided a significant increase
in removal efficiency up to 82% by decreasing the petroleum concentra-
tion below the allowable limits (166 μg/g) within 40 days of treatment.
Nevertheless, while this treatment is successful ex situ, the use of this
method still requires further study on its application in situ in cold cli-
mate areas. A subsequent study by the same authors investigated on
the optimization of microbial consortia application rate and amount of
fertilizer added for maximum contaminant removal rates over a period
of 94 days (Gomez and Sartaj, 2014).
Likewise, Suja et al. (2014) investigated on the factors that could af-
fect the bioremediation of crude oil contaminated soil from an oil and
gas facility in Malaysia. The soil was contaminated in 2002 with an aver-
age of 1% w/w oil concentration to soil. The kinetic tests showed that the
combination of biostimulation and bioaugmentation has the highest
degradation rate constant of 0.0339/day in the field test. A high degra-
dation rate constant was observed, with up to 97% of the crude oil
found to be degraded within 1 m depth of soil when bioaugmented
with Acinetobacter sp. and Pseudomonas sp. microbial consortia, nutrient
addition and air stimulation.
2.2. Phytoremediation
Phytoremediation, otherwise known as plant-assisted bioremedia-
tion is a method of remediating soil removing toxic contaminants using
plants and their roots (Merkl et al., 2005b; Peng et al., 2009). The pres-
ence of the plants aids in the degradation of the contaminant due to
the presence of root enzymes that could chemically alter and degrade
the contaminants. In addition, the availability of easily degradable organ-
ic substance such as root exudates and mucilage secretion by root caps
could enhance the degradation of oil contaminant (Dominguez-Rosado
et al., 2004; Merkl et al., 2005a). Several recent reported works in
phytoremediation are summarized in Table 3.
The successful implementation of phytoremediation is dependent on
many factors. One of the factors that could affect is the addition of fertil-
izer as an extra source of nutrients between the microorganisms and
plants. Therefore, the contaminated site must be optimally fertilized
not only to support plant growth and maximize microbial population,
but also to prevent excessive addition of fertilizer which could be detri-
mental to the environment as well as soil salinity balance. Due to these
conditions, there is a certain amount of uncertainty about the optimum
amount of fertilizer required for maximum oil degradation. Several stud-
ies had been conducted on the fertilizer levels on phytoremediation of oil
contaminated soils and fertilizer component (Cartmill et al., 2014;
Dadrasnia and Agamuthu, 2013; Jagtap et al., 2014; Merkl et al., 2005a;
Ribeiro et al., 2014). Ribeiro et al. (2014) highlighted that the choice of
nutrient additions may differ among plant species as the type of nutrient
added (Hoagland nutrient solution) to Phragmites australis shows little to
no influence on its biomass. On a different note, Jagtap et al. (2014) also
showed that the diesel degradation rate using Pinus densiflora, Thuja
orientalis, and Populus tomentiglandulosa in 6000 mg/kg diesel contami-
nated soil increased from 36.9% to 75.2% in the presence of fertilizer
treatment, regardless of fertilizer level added.
In recent laboratory-scale studies, different types of plants are still
being researched on for the remediation of oil contaminated soil. A re-
view by Cook and Hesterberg (2013) summarized that the majority of
plants used for phytoremediation were trees and grasses, due to the
wider root coverage and greater biomass provided for rhizoremediation.
For example, Moreira et al. (2013) used Avicennia schaueriana, a black
mangrove plant for the removal of paraffin oil with an initial concentra-
tion of 32.2 mg/g from contaminated soil. The mangrove system was
simulated in a lab scale study, where the physical, chemical, microbiolog-
ical and biogeochemical parameters were kept under conditions similar
to a mangrove site. After 90 days of phytoremediation, it was found that
the usage of A. schaueriana aids the removal of the oil to achieve a remov-
al efficiency of 87%, attributed to the increase in microbial concentration.
On the other hand, the usage of endophyte infected grass (Festuca
arundinacea Schreb. and Festuca pratensis Huds.) showed a removal of
petroleum of up to 72% after 7 months of remediation. Endophyte infect-
ed grass was chosen due to its extensive root structure and shoot bio-
mass compared to non-infected endophyte grass (Soleimani et al., 2010).
The field trial of phytoremediation also showed success in the elim-
ination for oil contaminant as well. Phytoremediation using willow
stands was carried out on mineral oil contaminated sediment at a
400 m2 site in Belgium by Vervaeke et al. (2003). The field trial was con-
ducted for 1.5 years. The authors reported that a decrease of 57% in
Table 3
Phytoremediation of oil contaminated soil.

Plant type Plant species Contaminants Initial contaminant Process Maximum removal Reference
concentration duration efficiency (%)

Ornamental plant Mirabilis Jalapa L. Petroleum 5 g/kg 127 days 63.2% (Peng et al., 2009)
Legumes, grasses Calopogonium mucunoides, Centrosema brasilianum, Crude oil 5 w/w% 180 days 57.69% (Eleusine indica) (Merkl et al., 2005b)
Stylosanthes capitala, Brachiaria brizantha, Cyperus
aggregatus, Eleusine indica
Scots pine, poplar, grass mixture, Pinus sylvestris, Populus deltoides × Wettsteinii, red Diesel 0.5 w/w% 180 days 67–74% (Legume mixture) (Palmroth et al., 2002)

M.W. Lim et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 109 (2016) 14–45

legume mixture fescue, Festuca rubra, Poa pratensis, Lolium perenne,
white clover, Trifolium repens, Pisum sativum
Ditch reed, alfalfa Phragmites australis, Medicago sativa Bitumen 79.7 g/kg 27 months 82% (Reed) (Muratova et al., 2003b)
Non-edible plant Jatropha curcas Lubricating oil 1 w/w% 180 days 67.3% (Agamuthu et al., 2010)
Crop plant, wild grasses, legume Triticum aestivum L., Secale cereale L., Avena sativa L., Oil sludge 15.6 g/kg 72 days 52% (Rye) (Muratova et al., 2008)
Hordeum vulgare, Sorghum bicolor L. Moench,
Panicum miliaceum L., Zea mays L., Lolium perenne L.,
Bromopsis inermis, Agropyron cristatum L.,
Agropyron tenerum L., Festuca pratensis Huds.,
Medicago sativa L., Trifolium pratense L., Onobrychis
antasiatica Khin.
Non-edible plant Hibiscus cannabinus Lubricating oil 1 w/w% 90 days 91.8% (Abioye et al., 2012)
Willow stand Salix viminalis L. Mineral oil & PAH 245.2 mg/kg 1.5 years 57% (Vervaeke et al., 2003)
Tall rescue plant Festuca arundinacea Petroleum 50 g/kg 120 days 50% (Huang et al., 2005)
Soybean/greenbean, sunflower/Indian Glycine max, Phaseolus vulgaris, Helianthus annuus, Motor oil 1.5 w/w% 150 days 100% (Mixed clover) (Dominguez-Rosado
mustard, mixed grasses/maize, mixed clover Brassica juncea, Zea mays, red clover, Trifolium and Pichtel, 2004)
pratense/ladino clover, Trifolium repens
Alfalfa, reed Medicago sativa, Phragmites australis Bitumen 79.7 g/kg 27 months 82% (Muratova et al., 2003a)
Tropical pasture grass Brachiaria brizantha Crude oil 5 w/w% 22 weeks 18.4% (Merkl et al., 2005a)
Endophyte infected and non-infected grasses Festuca arundinacea Schreb., Festuca pratensis Huds. Petroleum 4700 mg/kg 7 months 72% (Infected endophytic grasses) (Soleimani et al., 2010)
Non-edible plants Dracaena reflexa amended with 5% organic wastes Diesel 1 w/w% 270 days 99% (Dadrasnia and Agamuthu, 2013)
Perennial ryegrass Lolium perenne L. Diesel 50 g/kg 90 days 57.3% (Chuluun et al., 2014)
Salt marsh plants P. australis Arabian light crude oil 5 mL/L 150 days 16% (Ribeiro et al., 2014)
– Pinus densiflora, Thuja orientalis, and Populus Diesel 6000 mg/kg 150 days 86.8% (Jagtap et al., 2014)
tomentiglandulosa amended with microbial
consortium
Black mangrove Avicennia schaueriana Light paraffin oil 32.2 mg/g 90 days 87% (Moreira et al., 2013)
Herbaceous bush Bassia scoparia (L.) A. J. Scott (Chenopodiaceae) Crude oil 40 g/kg 5 months Up to 57.7% (Moubasher et al., 2015)

21
22 M.W. Lim et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 109 (2016) 14–45
mineral oil concentration was observed, which shows that the usage of
willow stand increases the degradation of mineral oil.
The success of phytoremediation of soil contaminated with hydro-
carbons is conceptualized to occur through four different mechanisms,
namely phytostabilization, phytodegradation, phytovolatilization and
rhizodegradation (Germida et al., 2002).
2.2.1. Phytostabilization
In phytostabilization, the root zone acts as a stabilizer to immobilize
the contaminants in soil, thus preventing the hydrocarbon in the con-
taminated soil from mitigating off-site through erosion, leaching or dis-
persion. An extensive root system is required in phytostabilization as
the absorption and accumulation of the hydrocarbons occur within the
root zone, root membrane and root cells (Germida et al., 2002).
Byström and Hirtz (2002) studied the efficiency of Salix viminalis, a
type of willow tree to remediate hydrocarbon-contaminated soils, and
investigated the effect of phytostabilization in this study for low and
moderate petroleum contaminated soils. Results showed an increase in
the petroleum concentrations in soil around the root zone from
584 mg/kg to 1018 mg/kg after 10 h in the presence of S. viminalis,
which leads to the immobilization of contaminants within the root
zone. This indicated that phytostabilization could reduce the fraction of
contaminant in the soil through containment of hydrocarbon in the soil.
2.2.2. Phytodegradation
Phytodegradation, on the other hand, involves the breakdown of the
hydrocarbons through the metabolic processes of the plant. They re-
lease certain enzymes such as dehalogenase, nitroreductase, and
laccase, which act as a catalyst to chemical reactions that are able to ac-
celerate the contaminants degradation process (Germida et al., 2002).
Palmroth et al. (2002) reported the phytoremediation of subartic soil
contaminated with diesel fuel using several plant treatments, and ob-
served that low concentrations of diesel-range compound were found
in grass roots (up to 10 g/kg of dry plant tissue), while no diesel com-
pounds were detected in the legume roots extracts.
2.2.3. Phytovolatization
Phytovolatilization may also occur through the absorption of con-
taminants through the roots of the plant, metabolization and transpor-
tation through the plant in a different form and finally volatization from
the surfaces of the plant (Germida et al., 2002). However, this method is
only suitable for volatilizable oil compounds, such as trichloroethylene,
and napthalene (Germida et al., 2002; Zhu et al., 2010). This mechanism
was observed by Wiltse et al. (1998), who reported a leaf burn observa-
tion in alfalfa plants growing in crude oil contaminated soil, which is at-
tributed to the translocation of an unknown compound through the
stem and leaves. In this study, it was further observed that this phenom-
enon disappeared through the progress of the experiment which indi-
cated that phytovolatilization is responsible for this effect.
2.2.4. Rhizodegradation
Rhizodegradation is defined as the degradation of the soil through
enhanced microbial activity in the rhizosphere zone of soil, which is ap-
proximately 1–5 mm from the soil surface (Germida et al., 2002). The
microorganisms benefit the plant by supplying the necessary vitamins,
amino acids, and cytokinins to increase plant growth, while the plant
roots provide habitat for hydrocarbon degrading microbes
(Dominguez-Rosado and Pichtel, 2004; Qixing et al., 2011). Researchers
suggest that the key role for phytoremediation is the rhizodegradation
mechanism, and this area had been highly investigated in the
phytoremediation area. Muratova et al. (2003a, 2003b) demonstrated
an increase in the amount of degrader microorganisms in the rhizo-
sphere from 2.4 × 106 CFU/g to 1.4 × 107 CFU/g and 4.3 × 106 CFU/g
in soil with reed and alfalfa respectively. The reed plant shows a higher
bitumen degradation of 82% as compared to alfalfa of 74%. Likewise, a
similar research by Agamuthu et al. (2010) showed that the presence
of a large amount of hydrocarbon utilizing microorganism bacteria in
the rhizosphere zone at 2.4 × 107 CFU/g soil suggests that the
rhizodegradation mechanism is responsible for the phytoremediation
of the oil contaminated soil using Jatropha curcas. Moubasher et al.
(2015) also demonstrated that a herbaceous bush that easily grows in
different soil types; Bassia scoparia (L.) A. J. Scott (Chenopodiaceae)
could aid the remediation of petroleum contaminated sandy soil. Due
to its high tolerance of petroleum hydrocarbons up to 2–3 wt%, the av-
erage degradation efficiency of petroleum is up to 57.7% for natural soil
after 5 months.
2.2.5. Advantages and limitations
To date, there are many reviews on the potential application of differ-
ent plants, efficiency and challenges on the usage of phytoremediation
for oil contaminated soil (Alkorta and Garbisu, 2001; Bordoloi and
Basumatary, 2015; Cook and Hesterberg, 2013; Cunningham et al.,
1995; Dhar et al., 2015; Gerhardt et al., 2009; Tripathi et al., 2015).
There are many advantages of the usage of phytoremediation as a reme-
diation strategy. Phytoremediation is easy to implement for on-site re-
mediation, with minimal maintenance costs. The implementation of
this method is not limited to site size, and can be easily used in any
area that supports plant growth. The addition of fertilizer for plant
growth also helps to provide sufficient nutrient and organic materials
which could help to improve the quality of remediated soil in the long
run. In addition, the plants also help to stabilize the soil due to the exten-
sive root structure. In a non-scientific context, the plants are environ-
mentally attractive and widely accepted by the community.
Nevertheless, phytoremediation is a slow remediation process, and
could only be considered as a long-term solution. Phytoremediation is
a complicated process with many external parameters that could affect
the success, such as type and concentration of contaminant, soil param-
eters, water content, nutrient concentration, type of plants, plant charac-
teristics, plant resistance to phytotoxic effects and other factors that
could affect plant growth. The main challenge is the search for plant spe-
cies which could withstand the toxicity of the oil contaminant, as the tox-
icity of oil causes negative impacts for plant growth, which includes
inhibition of seed germination, reduction in nutrient uptake, stunts
plant roots and harms photosynthesis pigments (Peng et al., 2009). If
the plant species chosen is incapable of growing in oil contaminated
site, the plant would not be able to produce sufficient biomass for the mi-
crobe to facilitate contaminant degradation (Huang et al., 2005). More-
over, there is a need to contain the contaminants which may be highly
water soluble, as these contaminants may leach outside the root zone
which defeats the purpose of phytoremediation (Cunningham et al.,
1995).
2.2.6. Advancements and future work
2.2.6.1. Field studies of phytoremediation. Recent on-field site studies on
the phytoremediation demonstrated success in the utilization of
phytoremediation of remediation of oil contaminated soil. The
phytoremediation field study of four crude oil contaminated drill sites
in Assam, India was carried out using native plants with the presence of
hydrocarbon degrading bacterial formulation by Yenn et al. (2014). The
drill sites were contaminated with 15.1 to 32.8% crude oil. Native plants
(Azadirachta indica, Michelia champaca, stumps (saplings) of Tectona
grandis and Gmelina arborea) were used for the phytoremediation,
while bacterial strains P. aeruginosa N3 and P. aeruginosa N4 were isolated
for the degradation of crude oil. The initial phytoremediation study using
only plants on the crude oil contaminated soil showed that the plants
were not able to grow in the highly contaminated crude oil soil. Subse-
quent to that, the added bacterial consortium was shown to enhance
the plant survival rate and growth in the crude oil contaminated soil by
up to 40%. This leads to an enhanced removal efficiency ranging between
65.23 and 88.5% after 24 months at the remediated field sites, which was
attributed to the external application of microbial consortiums. In
 M.W. Lim et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 109 (2016) 14–45
addition, Leewis et al. (2013) studied the effect of long term nutrient ad-
dition and phytoremediation on the native plants, microbial communities
and oil removal from diesel and crude oil contaminated soils in subarctic
Alaska after 15 years without active site management. This study is a con-
tinuation from a phytoremediation field study using plants (Festuca
rubra, Lolium multiflorum) and/or nutrients between 1995 and 1996 by
Reynolds and Koenen (Reynolds et al., 1997a; Reynolds et al., 1997b;
Reynolds and Koenen, 1997). Within 15 years, the entire area was colo-
nized by the native plants, which led to a decrease in the oil concentra-
tion, and the test site achieved successful oil removal rates of up to 95%,
which is below the ADEC (Alaska Department of Environmental Conser-
vation) level required for regulatory clean-up limits (1000 mg/kg). The
authors concluded that the use of phytoremediation may be an effective
remediation method especially for remote sites which in turn could pro-
mote ecological recovery (Leewis et al., 2013), if a long term solution is
required for the remediation of oil contaminated soil.
2.2.6.2. Bioaccumulation in plants and its toxicity. Currently, the main con-
cern of phytoremediation is the bioaccumulation of oil in the plants,
many recent studies are now focusing on the investigation on the plants'
resistance to the toxicity of oil. In these studies, the growth of plants and
the impact of oil on plant characteristics such as plant stem density,
shoot height, and biomass were observed in soils contaminated with
various concentrations of oil fuels as demonstrated in selected publica-
tions (Balasubramaniyam and Harvey, 2014; Lin and Mendelssohn,
2009; Redondo-Gómez et al., 2014; Shahsavari et al., 2013; Zhang
et al., 2013). These studies concluded that high concentrations of oil
negatively impact the growth of the plants. However, Redondo-Gómez
et al. found that even with the detrimental effects of diesel oil on the
plant (Spartina argentinensis), the plants continued growing and did
not exhibit chlorosis after 250 days of treatment in up to 3 v/w% diesel
contaminated soil. Further works in this field of research may be re-
quired to understand and identify more plants that are capable of grow-
ing in oil contaminated soils, while investigating on the long term
consequences of oil onto plant growth, as continuous exposure of plants
to oil may cause acute manner photosynthesis which may affect the nat-
ural mineral balance in the ecosystem.
In addition to the works mentioned above, the focus of phyto-
remediation on oil contaminated soil had been shifted to the fundamental
studies of phytoremediation, such as the correlation between root mor-
phology on oil degradation (Merkl et al., 2005c), effect of oil on the plant's
rhizosphere section (Dominguez-Rosado et al., 2004), mechanism of oil
removal (Agamuthu et al., 2010; Palmroth et al., 2002), plant screening
such as plant resistance to phytotoxic effects and the ability to reduce
oil contaminant (Muratova et al., 2008; Redondo-Gómez et al., 2014),
and kinetic model (Dadrasnia and Agamuthu, 2013). The interlink be-
tween these factors has to be further studied to ensure the success of
phytoremediation on site.
2.2.6.3. Environmentally friendly enhancements of phytoremediation.
While the enhancement of phytoremediation by the addition of fertil-
izers and microbial consortium is commonly investigated on their effi-
ciencies for oil contaminated soil remediation, there are many other
types of additions that could enhance the phytoremediation efficiency.
Some examples include organic wastes, biosurfactants, and plant
growth promoting bacteria. Dadrasnia and Agamuthu (2013) investi-
gated on the use of non-edible plants (Dracaena reflexa and Podocarpus
polystachyus) enhanced with 5% organic wastes such as tea leaves, soy
cakes and potato skin for the remediation of 2.5% and 1% diesel contam-
inated soil. The usage of D. reflexa amended with organic wastes provid-
ed an oil removal efficiency of up to 99%, as compared to 91% using P.
polystachyus and organic wastes. The presence of organic wastes en-
hanced the removal of diesel by up to 50% as the organic waste aided
the growth of D. reflexa and increase in bacterial concentration in the
soil which enhanced the rhizodegradation mechanism. Likewise, the
addition of bacterial consortium to phytoremediation of 50 mg/kg diesel
23
contaminated soil (bioaugmented phytoremediation) increased the
phytoremediation efficiency to 57.3% as compared to standalone
phytoremediation (50.0%) and bioaugmentation (52.0%) as reported
by Chuluun et al. (2014). The interactions between the plant and bacte-
rial consortium aided the growth of bacterial population due to the ex-
tensive fibrous roots which led to an enhanced diesel degradation.
Biosurfactants had also been investigated on the potential as biocat-
alyst to enhance the phytoremediation. The presence of biosurfactants
could increase the hydrophobicity of the cell surface, which allows the
direct contact between the cell and hydrocarbon droplets, while de-
creasing surface tension and reducing viscosity of the oil. Almansoory
et al. (2015) investigated on the performance of biosurfactant in com-
parison with hydrocarbon degrading bacteria, sodium dodecyl sulfate
(SDS) and bacterial culture supernatant for phytoremediation of
2 g/kg of gasoline contaminated soil. Results from the studies showed
a significant removal of 93.5% using biosurfactant as compared to
85.4%, 70.3% and 86.3% using bacteria, culture supernatant and SDS re-
spectively after 72 days of testing.
Other additions that had garnered much interest from researchers
are the addition of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR).
PGPR could help promote plant growth, reduce environmental stress
and enhance the degradation capacity of the existing rhizosphere bacte-
ria. In addition, PGPR could also increase the plants' capability to with-
stand the toxicity of hydrocarbons compounds. The mechanisms for
phytoremediation of petroleum contaminated soil using tall fescue (F.
arundinacea L.) enhanced by PGPR were investigated by Hou et al.
(2015). A total of 67.9% of hydrocarbons were successfully removed
after 4 months of investigation. The authors also noted that petroleum
degradation highly depends on the presence of specific petroleum de-
graders and biosurfactant producers, and does not depend on the diver-
sity of bacterial community.
3. Chemical remediation technologies
3.1. Chemical oxidation
Different types of oxidants have been investigated for the remedia-
tion of oil contaminated soil via the chemical oxidation reactions, includ-
ing hydrogen peroxide, Fenton's reagent, persulfate, peroxymonosulfate,
permanganate and ozone (Do et al., 2009; Do et al., 2010; Goi et al., 2009;
Goi et al., 2006; Li et al., 2014; Oh and Shin, 2014; Pardo et al., 2014;
Sherwood and Cassidy, 2014; Shin et al., 2005; Tsai and Kao, 2009;
Usman et al., 2012; Villa et al., 2010; Yu et al., 2007). Table 4 presents
the recent studies employing chemical oxidation for the remediation of
oil contaminated soil.
3.1.1. Fenton's reagent
Chemical oxidation remediation uses hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) as
the reactive oxidant. The H2O2 generates highly reactive free radicals
(OH•) when coupled together with soluble iron compounds such as
iron ions, Fe2+ (Eq. 1). The free radicals would then oxidize with either
the unsaturated organic contaminant to form free radical that could
transform into an organic product through electrophilic addition
(Eq. 2) or saturated organic compounds to form free radical and water
via hydrogen subtraction (Eq. 3) (Villa et al., 2010).
H2 O2 þ Fe2þ →OH− þ OH þ Fe3þ : ð1Þ
RH þ OH →ROH þ Hþ : ð2Þ
RH þ OH →R þ H2 O: ð3Þ
It is interesting to note that there is no need for further addition of
soluble iron catalyst for soil rich in natural metal oxide minerals such
as hematite α-Fe2O3, goethite α-FeOOH, magnetite Fe3O4, ferrihydrite,
MnO and Al2O3. In recent studies, the modified Fenton process was
24 M.W. Lim et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 109 (2016) 14–45

Table 4
Chemical oxidation of oil contaminated soils.

Chemical oxidant Catalyst Contaminants Process details Maximum removal Reference

efficiency (%)

H2O2 Fe2+ (FeSO4) Diesel Mechanical stirring with continuous addition of 80% (Villa et al., 2010)
H2O2 of various concentrations using a
peristaltic pump at ambient temperatures
Basic oxygen furnace Fuel oil, diesel oil Mechanical spinning for 30 mins at 10,000 rpm 76% (Fuel oil), 96% (Tsai and Kao, 2009)
(BOF) slag at room temperature (diesel oil)
Fe2+ (FeSO4) Diesel Magnetic stirring at 20 °C in laboratory scale 93% (Goi et al., 2009)
Fe3+-EDTA complex Petroleum (total Mechanical stirring at 25 °C in darkness 85% (Lu et al., 2010a)
dichloromethane-extractable
organics, TEO)
Soil organic matter Diesel No stirring. reaction conducted at 4 °C for 72 h 98% (Sherwood and
Cassidy, 2014)
H2O2, persulfate Magnetite, soluble Fresh crude oil Magnetic stirring at 20–25 °C in darkness N80% (Usman et al., 2012)
Fe (II)
Zero-valent iron, Fe(0) Diesel Mechanical stirring at 180 rpm in shaking water N90% (Oh and Shin, 2014)
bath at 22 °C
Ozone – Diesel Column flushing with 4 inlet and outlet ports ≈95% (Shin et al., 2005)
with flow rate of 11.8 L/min
– Diesel Column flushing with flow rate of 50 mL/min 94% (Yu et al., 2007)
– Diesel Semi-continuous bubble column with gas 48% (Goi et al., 2006)
injection flow rate of 1.0 L/min
– Diesel Ozonation reactor with gas injection rate of 180 92% (Li et al., 2014)
mL/min at 20 °C for 20 h (Fine sands)
Persulfate/Fe (II) Goethite, hematite, Diesel Mechanical stirring at 25 °C 35% (Do et al., 2010)
magnetite, manganese (Manganese oxide)
oxide
Peroxymonosulfate Cobalt Diesel Incubated mechanical shaker at 25 °C 47% (Do et al., 2009)
(PMS)
Persulfate, H2O2, Fe2+ (FeSO4) Diesel, fuel oil Centrifugal spinning for 10 min at 8000 rpm at 60% (Yen et al., 2011)
permanganate 25 °C in darkness

tested on diesel fuel contaminated organic matter rich soil from Canadi-
an Arctic in a laboratory scale system. The authors reported that the re-
actors with soil organic matter alone showed a higher diesel fuel
oxidation efficiency per hydrogen peroxide compared to reactors with
EDTA added as chelating agent. The percentage removal of diesel is up
to 98% for all soils studied at reaction temperature and time of 4 °C
and 72 h respectively. This study attributes the success of Fenton oxida-
tion in the presence of soil organic matter which forms a SOM-FE (III)
oxidant which has a lower stability constant of 20 orders than EDTA-
Fe(III). This therefore increases the native Fe oxides available for Fenton
reactions (Sherwood and Cassidy, 2014).
Goi et al. (2009) investigated the effects of H2O2 ratio when
catalysed by Fe2+ in the removal of diesel oil from soil. The uncatalysed
degradation of diesel oil with H2O2/diesel ratio (w/w%) of 2:1 showed a
degradation efficiency of 95% while the addition of small amounts of
Fe2+ as catalyst not only improved the degradation efficiency for diesel
removal up to 93%, but also decreased the dosage of H2O2 used by 84%.
Another study by Villa et al. (2010) showed that multiple additions of
H2O2 (0.09–0.18 g/g of diesel contaminated soil) every 20 min resulted
in high remediation efficiencies up to 80%.
3.1.2. Ozone
The use of ozone (O3) in the chemical oxidation technology for the
remediation of unsaturated hydrocarbon contaminated soil has shown
promising results. Due to its gaseous nature, ozone is easily delivered
to the contaminated vadose zone for treatment, while the presence of
natural metal oxides such as goethite, MnO and Al2O3 on the surface
of the soil helps to catalyse the decomposition of ozone to hydroxyl rad-
icals (OH•) (Shin et al., 2005; Yu et al., 2007). The ozone degrades the oil
molecules by splitting the C–H bond within the oil molecule through an
intermediate transient, namely hydrotrioxide (R–O–O–O–H) before
subsequently converting it into decomposition products as seen in
Eq. 4 (Yu et al., 2007):
RH þ O3 →½R–O–O–O–H →R þ OH þ O2 →ROH þ R ¼ O þ ROOH: ð4Þ
Shin et al. (2005) had investigated the removal efficiency of total pe-
troleum hydrocarbons (TPHs) from sand using ozone while a separate
study by Yu et al. (2007) also used ozone to remove diesel fuel from un-
saturated soil. Both studies showed high removal efficiency of 90–95%
and 94% respectively. These results were however contradictory to a
study by Goi et al. (2006) who compared the efficiency between
ozone and Fenton reagent on diesel fuel contaminated soil. The authors
reported that the Fenton treatment showed higher efficiency of 87.5%,
compared to oxidation via ozonation at 48%. The low removal using
ozone was suggested to be due to the limitation by the rate of diesel de-
sorption and high content of organic matter which consumed high
amounts of the introduced ozone.
Li et al. (2014) investigated on the influence of soil grain size and
water content on the degradation of diesel (25 g/kg) which underwent
ozonation for 20 h for diesel removal from soil. It was found that the re-
moval efficiency of diesel from fine sand particle size was 92%, approx-
imately 1.2 factors higher than coarse sand at 77%. This is attributed to
the higher surface area available for contact between ozone and sand
particles for fine sand. In addition, it was found that the ozonation effi-
ciency was not affected by soil water content of less than 18 w/w%
which suggests that the ozonation method would be efficient in both
wet and dry sand conditions.
3.1.3. Other oxidants
Alternative oxidants are being sourced for oxidation due to the neg-
ative impacts of the former two oxidants on the natural attenuation of
soil. Fenton-like oxidation is generally defined as the modification of
Fenton reagent to incorporate different catalysts to increase the efficien-
cy of remediation. Tsai and Kao (2009) applied waste basic oxygen fur-
nace slag (BOF slag) as a catalyst to enhance Fenton oxidation for the
remediation of petroleum-hydrocarbon contaminated soil. The major
metal oxide compounds found in BOF slag such as α-Fe2O3 (amorphous
iron) and α-FeOOH (soluble iron) act as the iron sink for the Fenton-like
oxidation. Therefore, the use of BOF slag could be a potential catalyst for
Fenton-like oxidation with a reported removal efficiency of 96% for fuel
oil contaminated soil.
 M.W. Lim et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 109 (2016) 14–45
Persulfate anion (PS), S2O28 − which is another strong oxidant and
generally more stable than the hydroxyl radical, has shown to have
less affinity for natural soil organics, and therefore resulting in a higher
remediation efficiency (Usman et al., 2012). Do et al. (2010) evaluated
the pH and PS/Fe(II) molar ratio for diesel degradation on natural soil
and artificial sand, and found that the highest diesel degradation oc-
curred at pH 3, with an optimum molar ratio of 100:1 [PS/Fe (II)].
Usman et al. (2012) also investigated the efficiency of magnetite
mixed with Fe2 + and Fe3 + (catalyst) to activate both persulfate and
H2O2 on crude oil contaminated soil at neutral pH levels. Results from
this study showed that the use of magnetite provides high efficiency
of oil degradation at 80% for both oxidants, while the use of soluble
Fe2 + only showed low degradation efficiencies of 10–15% under the
same experimental conditions. The authors suggest that magnetite
could be used to activate both persulfate and H2O2 oxidants for remedi-
ation of soil at neutral soil pH which would not affect the natural soil
properties. Another study by Oh and Shin (2014) also investigated on
Fenton oxidation using persulfates and zero-valent iron (Fe(0)) for
treatment of diesel-contaminated soil. The reason why zero-valent
iron was chosen for this study is due to its low cost and toxicity. The re-
sults show that the usage of Fe (0) enhanced the removal efficiency
compared to Fe2+, attributed to the formation of corrosion which pre-
vents the decrease in pH from the formation of SO2− 4 .
Another type of oxidant used for oxidation of hydrocarbon contam-
inants in soil is the peroxymonosulfate (PMS), HSO− 5 . Similar to persul-
fate anions, PMS has to be activated to form sulfate radicals (SO− 4 ),
which are strong oxidizing species. Do et al. (2009) investigated the
use of PMS oxidant catalysed by transition metals (Fe2+ and Co2+) for
the remediation of diesel contaminated soil together with the effects
of the counter anion (Cl− and SO2− 4 ). It was reported that a maximum
degradation of diesel was found to be 47% with a single injection of
PMS and CoCl2, while subsequent injections every 2 h showed increased
removal efficiencies up to 88%.
3.1.4. Advantages & limitations
Chemical oxidation method is a useful remediation method for
remediating oil contaminated soil as it is non-selective and is also not af-
fected by the toxicity of the contaminant. This minimizes contaminant
dispersion and helps to contain the oil contaminant. The delivery meth-
od of chemical oxidants is typically via injection of liquid/gaseous chem-
ical to the ground. This is much favoured due to its simplicity in
operation which could provide fast results with low operational costs.
In addition, the chemical oxidation method is also capable of degrading
oil contaminants to more biodegradable compounds without the forma-
tion of toxic by-products. For example, the decomposition of ozone and
hydrogen peroxide provides oxygen to the microbial community which
promotes aerobic biodegradation (Goi et al., 2009). However, care must
be taken to avoid excessive dosage of ozone and hydrogen peroxide
which could cause an adverse impact on the environment. Hence, mod-
erate additions of the oxidant should be applied to protect the environ-
ment (Goi et al., 2006).
The toxicity of the soil before and after chemical oxidation using
ozone was also studied by Shin et al. (2005) using established methods
to confirm the potential risk of increased toxicity on-site. An ecotoxicity
test using earthworms was conducted, whereby the effect of the ozon-
ation on the behaviour, survival rate, growth and reproduction system
of earthworms was carried out in this study. The study was conducted
before and after ozonation of diesel-contaminated soil aged for
2 weeks. They concluded that the mortality of earthworms decreased
significantly at the end of the ozonation which signified that the by-
products of the chemical oxidation of diesel had no effect on earthworm
survival. This indicates that the toxicity of the soil actually decreased
after the ozonation process.
Despite the high oil removal efficiencies using the Fenton reagent in
laboratory works, the oxidation process requires low pH (~3) environ-
ments, which results in negative impacts on soil properties and quality
25
(Lu et al., 2010a). The efficiency of the chemical oxidation is limited by
low soil permeability, highly alkaline soil, and high reactivity of oxidant
towards components of soil. It is also difficult to control the heat emitted
from the oxidation reaction, which could further impact the natural bi-
ological forms in the soil (Goi et al., 2009). Therefore, the soils which
had been treated by chemical oxidation are not able to sustain vegeta-
tion, or further bioremediation in the future (Usman et al., 2012). In
terms of soil health, the chemical oxidation mobilizes the soil nutrients
such as carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus species, which leads to a
higher treatment cost. In addition, the dissolved organic carbon which
is released through chemical oxidation is preferentially biodegraded
over hydrocarbon products which delays the bioremediation of hydro-
carbons as well (Sutton et al., 2014).
The adverse effects of chemical oxidation as mentioned above man-
ifested during the application of chemical oxidation in field work, as
demonstrated through a study by Ferguson et al., (2004) in Antarctica.
In this field trial, oxidative treatments using Fenton's reagent, hydrogen
peroxide and sodium hypochlorite were conducted at Old Casey Station,
East Antarctica to remediate diesel contaminated soil aged for over a de-
cade. They reported a lack of significant reduction in hydrocarbon con-
centrations using 8.8 mol/L H2O2 solution, which may not be sufficient
to overcome the strong adsorption of contaminant on soil particles. In
addition, the strong oxidative conditions, coupled together with the
heat produced from exothermic reactions and acidic conditions from
the Fenton process caused the decrease in the microbial concentrations
which would hinder natural attenuation (Ferguson et al., 2004). The au-
thors concluded that the usage of chemical oxidation is not compatible
for field use in Antarctica. From the studies, it was observed that the suc-
cess of in situ applications of chemical oxidation is highly dependent on
the interaction forces between the soil and oil, or in other words the
aging time of oil contaminant. The high interaction forces between soil
and oil may require high concentrations of oxidant to overcome these
forces, which may lead to low efficiencies of removal. Hence it could
be concluded that the usage of chemical oxidation remediation may
not be compatible for weathered oil contaminated sites.
3.1.5. Advancements and future work
3.1.5.1. Soil health upon oxidation. Many researchers had concluded that
the usage of chemical oxidation remediation method reduces the con-
centration of microorganisms due to the type of oxidant used, which in-
directly means low soil health. Despite the vast study on the effect of
oxidant on organic matters and microbes, the impact of oxidant on the
soil properties, particularly mineralogy and physicochemical soil prop-
erties remains a grey area in this research field. The impact of soil fertil-
ity was studied by da Silva et al. (2012) in the recent years. The authors
showed that the addition of H2O2 during the chemical oxidation treat-
ment resulted in a sharp decrease in organic matter content and swell-
ing clays in the vertisol soil (predominantly clay with high chemical
fertility). The cation exchange capacity of this soil was also found to di-
minish, resulting in soil infertility due to reduction in water and nutri-
ents retention.
However, the environmental impact of chemical oxidation on the
environment, particularly on microbial populations, changes in soil
health such as concentrations of nutrient, and soil organic matter con-
tent, and changes in oil composition after chemical oxidation treatment
is still lacking, and should be investigated prior to implementation of in
situ chemical oxidation remediation.
3.1.5.2. Organic and non-toxic chelating agents. Studies should be carried
out to decrease the toxicity of chemical oxidation, by investigating on al-
ternative oxidants or additives that are less toxic and biodegradable, yet
provide a high oil removal efficiency. Some recent works added organic
chelating agents such as cyclodextrins, ethylenediaminete-traacetic
acid (EDTA), and gallic acid to modified Fenton systems to preserve
the degradation at pH 6.0–9.0. However, the use of chelating agents
26 M.W. Lim et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 109 (2016) 14–45
may affect the success of chemical oxidation by decreasing the removal
efficiencies. This is evident in works by Pardo et al. (2014) whom inves-
tigated on the treatment of B20 biodiesel blend (20% biodiesel, 80% die-
sel) via modified Fenton process with and without chelating addition
(trisodium citrate). The presence of trisodium citrate decreased the re-
moval efficiencies by 15% (approximately 75% without chelating
agent, 60% with chelating agent) as the chelating agent competes with
the pollutant during the oxidizing reaction. However, it is important
to note that while the chemical oxidization of oil pollutants without
the usage of chelating agents provides higher removal efficiencies, the
soil condition must be kept in constant acidic condition which may be
detrimental in real environment. The presence of the chelating agent
helps to maintain the soil pH during oxidizing reactions. Therefore, a
balance must be made between oil removal efficiencies and maintaining
soil pH before in situ testing of chemical oxidation method.
While chemical oxidation had shown promising results for the
laboratory-scale oil remediation process, the lack of consistency of the
application of chemical oxidation for in situ field applications highlights
the necessity for further work to ensure success for remediation on site.
The optimization of parameters such as optimum ratio of hydrogen per-
oxide to hydrocarbon contaminant, with the corresponding oxidized oil
percentage for a particular soil type is still required. In addition, the use
of heat generated on site could also be further investigated.
3.2. Electrokinetic remediation
Electrokinetic remediation is an in situ remediation method which
employs low levels of direct electric current between appropriately dis-
tributed electrodes (anodes and cathodes) embedded at each side of the
oil contaminated soil mass, forming an electric field across the area. This
forms a voltage potential gradient which causes the fluid medium to
flow preferentially towards the cathode while dragging the contami-
nant together with the bulk flow (Sri Ranjan et al., 2006). Early studies
of the electrokinetic remediation are primarily focused on removal of
heavy metals and organic components (Maini et al., 2000), but recently
much attention had been shifted on the usage of electrokinetic remedi-
ation for oil contaminated soil.
The combination of several mechanisms (electroosmosis,
electromigration, and electrophoresis) contributes to the effectiveness
of the electrokinetic remediation of oil contaminated soil (Kim et al.,
2011). Out of these mechanisms, the main mechanism that determines
the kinetics of electrokinetic remediation is electroosmosis fluid flow.
Electroosmosis is the movement of soil moisture and groundwater
from the positive anode to the negative cathode. Due to the excess of
cations in the electrolyte system to neutralize the negatively charged
soil particles, the moving cations impart a viscous drag onto the aqueous
phase (Elektorowicz and Boeva, 1996). The contaminants are subse-
quently solubilised and mobilized by the solution of the fluid and are
then transported towards the cathode. The efficiency of the electroos-
mosis mechanism is thus dependent on the flow rate, whereby the in-
crease in flow rate increases the efficiency due to the increased
migration of contaminants along with the fluid flow.
The mechanism of electrophoresis and electromigration results in
the movement of charged ions, colloids, and ion complexes towards
the electrodes (Kim et al., 2010). Electrophoresis is defined as the trans-
portation of charged colloids such as surfactant micelles towards the op-
posite charged electrode due to the electrical potential gradient. The
contaminants which are absorbed on the surface of the charged colloids
would be transported as well (Kim and Lee, 1999; Sri Ranjan et al.,
2006). Electromigration, on the other hand, is the migration of charged
ions due to the influence of electric force. The application of electric cur-
rent between electrodes causes the electrolysis of water, forming H+
and OH− ions in the anode and cathode respectively. The H+ ions that
migrate within the soil create a pH gradient which subsequently causes
elution of the contaminant to the cathode for subsequent recovery
(Maini et al., 2000). The electromigration mechanism is affected by
the electric force voltage, electrolyte concentration and the strength of
ionic charge of the species (Page and Page, 2002). Typically, pollutants
with an ionic charge such as heavy metals and salts are removed
through this mechanism (Kim et al., 2011).
3.2.1. Electrokinetic studies
The effects of electric field voltage, electrode materials, conductivity
of electrolyte and concentration of contaminant which affect the effi-
ciency of the electrokinetic remediation of oil contaminated soils have
been vastly studied (Han et al., 2009a; Jeon et al., 2010; Kim and Lee,
1999; Page and Page, 2002; Park et al., 2009; Pazos et al., 2012b; Sri
Ranjan et al., 2006; Tsai et al., 2010; Virkutyte et al., 2002). Table 5 sum-
marizes the electrokinetic studies for remediation of oil contaminated
soil.
Pazos et al. (2012b) studied the effect of electric gradient and elec-
trolyte concentration on the electrokinetic remediation of loamy sand
soil samples contaminated with diesel fuel. The maximum efficiency
of 73% was observed at electrical voltage of 2 V cm−1 and 0.67 M of citric
acid, mainly due to the high concentration of electrolyte that favours the
electroosmotic flow of contaminants. The effect of electrode materials
(graphite and iron rods) and electrolyte on the removal of diesel from
contaminated soils was also investigated by Tsai et al. (2010). Results
of this study showed that a removal efficiency of 56% was achieved at
the highest concentration of NaCl addition (0.1 M) which provided a
high electric current density. The use of iron electrodes was also found
to be more superior than graphite electrodes based on hydrocarbon re-
moval efficiency performance due to the higher current density of
44 mA/cm2 as compared to graphite electrodes of 29 mA/cm2. Jeon
et al. (2010), on the other hand, investigated on the feasibility of
surfactant-enhanced electrokinetic removal of petroleum hydrocarbon
from residual clayey soil after soil washing. The diesel removal efficien-
cy was found to be 39% using 0.1 M of NaOH, 1 V/cm voltage across elec-
trodes and 0.5 wt% of Teregitol 15-S-7.
3.2.2. Advantages & limitations
The advantage of this remediation method is that electrokinetic re-
mediation could be performed in situ which provides a faster response
time and lower operating cost in a case of soil remediation. The usage
of electrokinetic remediation also provides a more precise control of
movement of the aqueous phase and contaminants through heteroge-
neous soils. The electric field could provide a uniform flow distribution
which makes it attractive for the remediation of low permeability soils,
sands and/or sludges. In addition, the electroosmosis flow rate is not af-
fected by soil pore size and distribution, which means that the electro-
osmotic flow is constant through the entire soil mass (Sri Ranjan et al.,
2006). This leads to a successful oil recovery, especially for low perme-
ability soils.
However, the electrolysis process around the electrodes could create
thermal hot spots in the soil and alter the pH of the soil after an extend-
ed period of time. This undesirable phenomenon is detrimental to the
environment. While addition of bicarbonate buffers could maintain
the pH of the soil, further research should be undertaken on preserving
soil health while providing maximum oil removal efficiency. In addition,
the electrokinetic process is not effective in low concentrations of con-
taminant, due to the longer path of migration which could lead to stag-
nant zones between the electrodes (Mosavat et al., 2012).
3.2.3. Advancements and future work
3.2.3.1. Electrokinetic technology to remove selective organic pollutants in-
stead of bulk oil. At present, there are limited studies on the use of elec-
trokinetic technology as the sole technology for the remediation of oil
contaminated soil, suggesting the lack of viability of this method in
field scale. While the usage of electrokinetic technology showed some
positive results for remediation of oil contaminated soil, a concern for
electrokinetic remediation is the presence of organic pollutants such
 M.W. Lim et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 109 (2016) 14–45
Table 5
Compilation of electrokinetic studies.
Electric field Electrolyte Contaminants
1.0 V cm−1, 2.0 V cm−1 Citric acid Commercial
diesel fuel
0.5 V cm−1, 1 V cm−1, 2 V cm−1 0.1 mol/L HNO3 (catholyte); Lubricant oil
MgSO4 with 0.5 wt%
tergitol (anolyte)
10 mA EDTA & NaCl Diesel oil
40 V Tap water, 0.01 M NaCl, Diesel oil
0.1 mol/L NaCl
1 V cm−1 0.1 M NaOH Diesel oil
a
Electric gradient of 2 V cm−1, 0.67 M citric acid, without any soil amendments.
b
0.1 mol/L NaCl, iron electrode.
as PAH which hinders the efficient removal of cationic contaminants
(Pazos et al., 2012a). Further work on the removal of such organic pol-
lutants existing in the oil contaminant prior to electrokinetic treatment
is still required, and therefore recent electrokinetic studies are now
more focused on the removal of organic pollutants rather than bulk oil
(Ammami et al., 2015; Bocos et al., 2015; Boulakradeche et al., 2015;
Fan et al., 2014; López-Vizcaíno et al., 2014; Xu et al., 2014; Yusni and
Tanaka, 2015). Hence, it is not surprising that there is a lack of work ob-
served in many other areas for the overall success of this oil contaminat-
ed soil remediation technology. In particular, understanding the
interactions between the electrokinetic parameters, contaminant and
microbial community would be crucial in providing a better direction
in choosing the type of electrolyte to be used.
3.2.3.2. Environmentally friendly electrolytes. It is therefore important to
highlight that the efficiency of this process is highly dependent on the
need to modify the properties of the contaminated soil to accommodate
for the process. This process may not be environmentally friendly. For
example, the changes to the soil condition due to pH, electrolyte and
temperature could affect the soil microbial concentration and activity.
Kim et al. (2010) demonstrated that the usage of EDTA as electrolyte
could cause a detrimental effect on the microbial community, due to
the changes in soil pH and electric current. In addition, the simultaneous
mobilization of soil nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus could di-
minish the quality and functionality of the soil after electrokinetic treat-
ment (Pazos et al., 2012b). This however contradicts with recent works
by Mena et al. (2014) which show that the direct effect of electric cur-
rent does not significantly affect the microorganisms. In fact, the in-
crease in the DC electric field up to 2.0 V cm− 1 increased the diesel
degradation rates. The difference in these two works could be attributed
to the choice of electrolyte for the electrokinetic cell, where the former
used EDTA for their works while the latter used a suspension of diesel-
degrading microorganisms. Further studies could therefore be conduct-
ed to obtain novel electrolytes which are environmental friendly, non-
toxic and biodegradable, yet could withstand the electrical current for
in situ electrokinetic applications. In addition, recent works had been fo-
cused on a brand new combination of bioremediation and electrokinetic
remediation to form a new technology called electrobioremediation for
oil contaminated soil remediation, with promising results. This would
be discussed in greater detail in the upcoming Integrated Technology
section.
3.2.3.3. Understanding the electric field flow and its application in the elec-
trokinetic technology. Further studies on the kinetics of soil remediation
and its principles of oil contaminant flow under applied electric field
(Ghazanfari et al., 2014) would be beneficial to further understand the
working mechanism of electrokinetic remediation. For this purpose, a
two-dimensional apparatus had been developed by Gu et al. (2015)
for an enhanced simulation of the electrokinetic parameters for the
27
Process details Maximum removal Reference
efficiency
Graphite electrode chambers 4 L using 0.03 73%a (Pazos et al., 2012b)
mol/L citric acid; duration of 15 days
Pt-coated titanium and carbon plate 55.4% (1 V cm−1) (Park et al., 2009)
electrode chambers; duration of 17 days
Soil chamber; duration between 14–25 days 38% (0.01 M EDTA) (Han et al., 2009a)
Graphite and iron electrodes; duration of 45 56%b (Tsai et al., 2010)
days
Electrokinetic reactor using platinum-coated 39% (Jeon et al., 2010)
titanium anode and graphite plate as
cathode; duration of 14 days
field application of this technology. The installation of electrodes and
probes, gas and fluid volume measurement devices was able to measure
the two-dimensional distribution of electrical voltage, gas generation
and electroosmotic flowrates as a function of time. The simulation ex-
periments were compared with the bench scale extraction experimen-
tal for the removal of cadmium on soil. Results from the work showed
that the gas generation rate correlates well with the electrical current,
which was in line with the Faraday's law of electrolysis. The authors
concluded that the 2D profiles of the physicochemical parameters
such as voltage distribution and contaminant concentration would be
useful to further understand the transport phenomena in the electroki-
netic remediation. However to the best of our knowledge, there had
been no papers which investigated on the simulation of electric field
force between electrodes, and further work could be conducted on
this area to further understandthe application of electrokinetic technol-
ogy for the remediation of oil contaminated soil.
4. Thermal remediation technologies
Thermal remediation of soil typically applies heat to remove con-
taminants. Currently, there are three different technologies under ther-
mal remediation, namely incineration, thermal desorption and
microwave frequency heating (Rushton et al., 2007). Table 6 summa-
rizes the works of thermal remediation for the removal of oil from soil.
4.1. Incineration
Incineration is the destruction of contaminants through the burning
of soil at high temperatures up to 1000 °C and is one of the easiest
methods for removing oil contamination (Rushton et al., 2007). In a
study by Bucala et al. (1994), a laboratory-scale electrically heated foil
reactor was employed to remove weathered oil from gravel sludge
under rapid heating conditions of 1000 °C/s. The authors reported that
approximately 100% of contaminant was removed from the soil in a
mere 0.7 s, quantified through the weight loss of oil-treated soil. In a
pilot-scale investigation, Anthony and Wang (2006) also showed that
all oil compounds were removed from coal-tar contaminated soil and
oil-contaminated gravel using a pilot-scale combustor under working
temperatures of up to 800 °C.
4.2. Thermal desorption
Thermal desorption is the manipulation of temperatures to increase
the vapour pressure of the organic contaminants, leading to their vola-
tilization and subsequent desorption from contaminated soil (Rushton
et al., 2007). Upon thermal desorption, a sweep gas is usually passed
through to carry away the volatile contaminants for further treatment
or disposal. The parameters that determine the efficiency of thermal de-
sorption include soil composition and temperature, treatment time,
28 M.W. Lim et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 109 (2016) 14–45

Table 6
Thermal remediation of oil contaminated soil.

Technology Working temperature Contaminants Process details Maximum removal Reference

(°C) efficiency

Incineration ≈200–300 Coal tar and Saudi Pilot scale fluidized bed combustion technology 100% (Anthony and Wang, 2006)
crude oil
≈850 Oil contaminated Pilot scale fluidized bed combustion technology 100% (Anthony and Wang, 2006)
gravel
300–500 No. 2 fuel oil Heating time of 25 s at 1000 °C/s in a ≈100% (Bucala et al., 1994)
laboratory-scale heating reactor vessel
Thermal desorption 100–300 Diesel Laboratory-scale tubular electric furnace at ≈98% (Falciglia et al., 2011)
maximum power of 1.5 kW
200–900 Diesel fuel oil Heating time of 35 min in an insulated electric 98% (Piña et al., 2002)
oven
200–350 Diesel Fluidized bed desorber in continuous operation ≈100% (Lee et al., 1999)
120–355 Diesel oil Fluidized-bed desorber with a heat pipe 99.9% (Lee et al., 1998)
300–400 Diesel Lab-scale indirectly heated desorber with two N99.5% (Tatàno et al., 2013)
electrical resistor elements
Microwave frequency NA Crude oil Heating time of 15 min in a modified domestic 99% (Li et al., 2009b)
heating microwave oven (power 800 W; frequency 2.45
GHz, absolute pressure 0.08 MPa)
700 Crude oil Heating time of 4 min in a modified domestic 99% (LI et al., 2009a)
microwave oven (power 800 W; frequency 2.45
GHz)
NA Petroleum Heating time of 3.5 h, on-site microwave 75.6–98.4% (Chien, 2012)
heating system (power: 2 kW; frequency: 2450
MHz) using antenna (4 m)
Up to 600 Crude oil Heating time of 10 min in a modified domestic 99% (Li et al., 2008)
microwave oven (power 800 W; frequency 2.45
GHz)
Up to 500 °C Diesel/marine fuel Heating time of 20–150 s in a domestic 92.5% (Chang et al., 2011a)
microwave oven (power: 700 W; frequency 89.5%
2.45 GHz)
Up to 260 °C Diesel fuel Heating time of 5–60 min in a modified 95% (Falciglia et al., 2013)
domestic microwave oven (power: 1000 W;
frequency 2450 MHz)
Up to 275 °C Diesel fuel Heating time of 30 min in a modified domestic N90% (Falciglia and
microwave oven (power: 1000 W, frequency Vagliasindi, 2015)
2.45 GHz)

vapour pressure of contaminant, concentration and composition of con-
taminants, bulk density of soil, particle size distribution, and moisture
content (Falciglia et al., 2011; Troxler et al., 1993). Piña et al. (2002) in-
vestigated the thermal treatment of soils contaminated with gas oil at
temperatures between 200–900 °C. Results showed that the chemical
composition of the soil highly affects the efficiency of the thermal de-
sorption treatment, since this strongly influences the amount and the
composition of the flue gases produced. In other works, Falciglia et al.
(2011) reported that the increase in temperature from 100 °C to
250 °C significantly increased the removal of diesel from sand from
47% to 100%. This study also reported that while a removal efficiency
of up to 95% of oil from sandy and silty soil was achieved at low temper-
atures below 175 °C, higher temperatures of 250 °Care required to
achieve similar efficiencies from clayey soils. Likewise, Lee et al. (1998,
1999) developed a fluidized bed desorber for low temperature desorp-
tion for the remediation of diesel-contaminated soils. A fluidized bed
which operates at 294 °C was shown to provide a desorption efficiency
of more than 95%. In another recent study by Tatàno et al. (2013), more
than 99.5% of diesel was removed from soil in a laboratory-scale indirect
heated desorber with two electrical resistor elements operating at 300–
400 °C.
contaminated soil to aid the conversion of microwave energy to thermal
energy. Li et al. (2009b) investigated the effects of granulated activated
carbon as a microwave absorber to enhance the remediation of soil con-
taminated with crude oil. The authors showed that the addition of 10%
of granulated activated carbon resulted in the removal of up to 99% of
oil contaminant. Subsequent studies by the same authors compared
other types of microwave absorbers including 0.1 wt% of graphite
fibre and activated carbon fibre, as well as 10 wt% of activated carbon
powder, granulated activated carbon, MnO2 and Cu2O (Li et al.,
2009a). Results showed that the removal efficiency of oil from soil
using 0.1 wt% of carbon fibre was highest, with nearly 100% oil removal.
The success of these studies was also seen in a latter study by the same
authors which employed the same technology to remove petroleum hy-
drocarbon from soil (Li et al., 2008). Other recent studies which investi-
gated the microwave frequency heating to remove oil from soil include
studies by Chang et al. (2011a) and Falciglia et al. (2013). The former
study showed that a removal efficiency of diesel and marine fuel of up
to 92.5% was achieved using a domestic microwave oven at a frequency
of 2.45 GHz, while the latter study also showed that a maximum of 95%
removal efficiency of diesel fuel was achieved using a modified domes-
tic microwave at a frequency of 2450 MHz.

4.3. Microwave frequency heating 4.4. Advantages & limitations

Microwave frequency heating converts microwave energy into ther-
mal energy to remove contaminants via heating and volatilization
(Rushton et al., 2007). In microwave heating, many organic materials
and soil particles are resistant to microwaves, and are not capable of ab-
sorbing the microwave energy directly to heat up the contaminants.
Therefore, microwave absorbers are usually mixed together with the
Thermal technologies are very effective in destroying oil contami-
nants when high heat is applied. Out of the three types of thermal tech-
nologies, incineration method is commonly considered in major oil spill
sites due to its capability to treat large volumes of contaminated site,
quick, reliable, as well as effective removal of hazardous materials up
to 99%. On the other hand, thermal desorption method is preferred as
 M.W. Lim et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 109 (2016) 14–45
compared to incineration in certain cases because it emits little or no
contamination into the atmosphere, and uses less energy comparative-
ly. The recovered contaminants could be collected and recycled for fur-
ther use which could help to reduce the overall operational cost. Lastly,
the advantages of microwave heating are similar as compared to incin-
eration, as the oil removal through microwave remediation is rapid, uni-
form, and selective and avoids the overheating of soil substrate surface
which reduces the total energy consumption (Li et al., 2009a). Based on
all three methods, the advantages of thermal remediation could be sum-
marized as quick, and easy with high removal efficiencies.
However, the challenge for thermal remediation is the destruction of
hazardous material while avoiding environmental pollution. For con-
ventional incineration, the outer layer of the soil must be heated up to
very high temperatures for sufficient heat transfer to the core of the
test area. This leads to an excessive energy consumption (Li et al.,
2009a). Another major setback for incineration is the production of haz-
ardous by-products and unwanted air pollutants. Preventive measures
such as scrubbers are required to treat the exhaust air before releasing
it into the atmosphere, which subsequently increases the operational
cost. In addition, this method is also not suitable for high water content,
as the presence of moisture in soil would lead to incomplete combustion
of oil contaminants, resulting in a lower removal efficiency. Inversely,
while the thermal desorption technology is capable of recovering the
contaminant, this method is only limited to volatile contaminants to en-
sure success of remediation. In microwave remediation instead, great
care should be taken to ensure temperatures do not escalate due to
carbonisation of humus materials in organic-rich soil which could
pose a safety threat (Kawala and Atamanczuk, 1998). The possible for-
mation of hot spot areas in the soil also consumes energy and decreases
the efficiency of oil removal. In addition, exposure to microwave radia-
tion may lead to health concerns in the society.
4.5. Advancements and future work
4.5.1. After effects of thermal remediation (soil health and air pollution)
Many fundamental studies had been carried out to ensure the suc-
cess of thermal remediation. For example, the rate of decontamination
per time had been studied as a function of temperature, time, heating
rate, flow rate of carrier gas, and initial concentration (Falciglia et al.,
2011; Li et al., 2008; LI et al., 2009a; Li et al., 2009b; Piña et al., 2002).
Nevertheless, the drawbacks of thermal remediation highlight many
potential areas for thermal remediation research especially in the ener-
gy and cost consumption section, modelling of heat and mass transfer of
contaminants and soil matrix (Barba et al., 2012), and in situ applica-
tions of thermal remediation.
While the usage of thermal remediation methods could significantly
remove large quantities of oil contaminant from polluted soils, the
usage of high temperatures may severely impact the chemical and bio-
logical quality of soils. This may incur more cost for the restoration of
soil. Pape et al. (2015) investigated on the impact of thermal
(b1000 °C) and smouldering (N500 °C) remediation of coal tar contam-
inated soil (80 g/kg), on the growth of red clover (Trifolium pratense)
and red fescue (F. rubra). The increase in temperature was observed to
reduce the nutrient availability such as Cu, Zn and P, nitrogen and car-
bon which leads to a declining plant growth; while there is minimal mi-
crobial re-colonization in soils when heated to temperature greater
than 500 °C. Therefore, the understanding of the geochemical changes
after thermal remediation would help and would lead to better rehabil-
itation process, and future studies could include the integration of ther-
mal method with biological enhancements to ensure that the
remediated sites would have the sufficient nutrients for a better
ecosystem.
The study on the simultaneous treatment of by-products after the
combustion of oil is currently lacking in literature as well. A recent
paper by Samaksaman et al. (2015) reported on the thermal treatment
of soil contaminated with both lubricating oil and heavy metals in a
29
pilot-scale low-temperature two-stage fluidized bed (LTTSFB) incinerator
and co-firing of polyethylene blend with co-contaminated soil (PE/CCS)
that could control the emission of gaseous pollutants during the thermal
treatment. The parameters investigated were operating temperature in
the first-stage reactor, ratio of sand bed height/diameter in second-stage
reactor, and gas velocity. Results show that the removal efficiency of
lube oil was N98.3% through incineration, while increase in ratio of sand
bed height/diameter and gas velocity could reduce the carbon monoxide
concentrations. On the other hand, the presence of PE could subsequently
reduce the organic gaseous pollutants, as the addition of PE could influ-
ence the combustion efficiency which results in the reduction of emission
concentration of BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes) and
PAH. The authors concluded that the usage of LLTSFB incinerator and co-
firing of PE/CCS could be an effective alternative treatment of remediation
oil contaminated soil.
4.5.2. Numerical modelling
Recent studies of thermal remediation for contaminated soil had
been focused on the numerical modelling for the designing and optimi-
zation of the remediation process for in situ applications. Hasan et al.
(2015) present the development and validation of a computational
model that simulates the smouldering combustion of coal tar contami-
nated sand. The authors used an ISSM (In Situ Smouldering Model)
which uses both the multiphase flow model DNAPL3D with the
Richards front expansion expressions that could predict the 2D propa-
gation of the smouldering front movement through a porous medium.
A series of 2D experiments were conducted to observe the time-
dependent vertical and lateral smouldering front. The outcome of this
work would therefore be useful for the designing of thermal remedia-
tion scheme for oil contaminated soil. Likewise, Falciglia and
Vagliasindi (2015) also investigated on the diesel oil removal kinetics
from microwave frequency heating. The understanding of the diesel re-
moval kinetics would aid the understanding of the parameters (operat-
ing power and type of soil) that could potentially affect the desorption
process, and the corresponding response of the decontamination treat-
ment. The contaminant residual concentration data was fitted to a
power low kinetic model equation, as defined in their previous work
(Falciglia et al., 2011), and results showed that the contaminant removal
process was dependent on the thermal properties and the specific sur-
face area of soil (Falciglia and Vagliasindi, 2015).
4.5.3. Advancements in microwave technology as a feasible thermal
remediation technology
In the recent work, it was also observed that the direction of thermal
remediation for oil contaminated soil is in the use of microwave heating.
A recent field-scale study performed by Chien (2012) successfully
showed the feasibility of microwave energy for in-site soil remediation
of petroleum contaminated soil in an oil-refinery in Taiwan. A 4-meter
antenna in length was used to radiate microwave energy with power
of 2 kW for 3.5 h, and the removal efficiency was reported to be between
75–99% depending on the distance and depth away from the microwave
antenna. The results suggested that microwave energy could be safely
used to remediate oil contaminated soils in a short period of time with-
out excavating the soil, and this novel research could provide direction
for further research efforts to establish microwave heating in situ in
large industrial scales. Nevertheless, the usage of microwave technology
in soil remediation in situ may present a unique set of social impact chal-
lenges, as exposure to high levels of microwave radiation could cause an
adverse impact on human health. Studies should continue not only in
the aspect of remediation efficiencies of this technology in situ, but
also on the social studies for the acceptance of this technology by the
general public.
However, the energy consumption for thermal remediation of soil
has been a subject of concern in industries despite the efficiency of
this method in a short time frame. A recent study by Falciglia and
Vagliasindi (2014) attempts to bridge this gap by investigating on the
30 M.W. Lim et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 109 (2016) 14–45

technical, energy and economical factors on ex situ microwave treat-
ment of diesel contaminated soil. The researchers simulated an ex situ
microwave treatment plant using a bench-scale apparatus by modifying
a 2.45 GHz microwave oven to irradiate the diesel contaminated soil
samples. Up to 94.8% was recorded for the removal of diesel from wet
soils at an irradiation power higher than 600 W for 30 min. A first
order kinetic model was used to model the contaminant removal with
respect to time. The experimental result shows that the operating
power applied to the microwave oven significantly affects the removal
kinetics. In terms of energy and cost consumption, the energy consump-
tion of microwave radiation plant for oil contaminated soil remediation
decreased by 25% in comparison to an ex situ thermal desorption meth-
od using rotary kiln systems. This shows that the microwave remedia-
tion method may be a suitable alternative to conventional thermal
remediation of oil contaminated soil. Nevertheless, further work is still
required to investigate on its application for in situ site. Studies on the
recovery of heat could also be conducted to minimize energy
consumption.
5. Physical–chemical remediation technologies
5.1. Solvent extraction
Solvent extraction is a widely used technology for soil remediation,
in which contaminants are removed from soil using a single or mixture
of solvents (Gan et al., 2009). Non-aqueous liquid or solvents are used to
remove organic contaminants by separation and concentration process.
The effectiveness of the extraction depends on the realization of an inti-
mate contact between the soil and the solvent mixture. Typical solvents
which have been studied to remove oil from soil include exhaustive or-
ganic solvents, surfactant-aided aqueous solutions, supercritical and
subcritical fluids (Wu et al., 2011). Table 7 summarizes the solvent ex-
traction studies to date for the remediation of oil contaminated soil.
soil. Other types of solvents investigated include the use of hexane/ace-
tone (4:1, v/v%) for the removal of crude oil from soil (Li et al., 2012). A
recent study by Sui et al. (2014) demonstrated that the usage of petro-
leum ether as the solvent for extraction of weathered petroleum from
soil showed satisfactory results, removing 76–94% (12,416 mg/kg of
contaminant) of total petroleum hydrocarbons after 20 min in a labora-
tory scale apparatus.
5.1.2. Surfactant-aided extraction
Surfactants are classified into nonionic, cationic or anionic depend-
ing on the surface charge of the head group type. Typically, surfactants
are amphiphilic molecules (hydrophobic tail, hydrophilic head) that
can reduce the surface tension between two liquids or liquid–solid in-
terfaces. As the concentration of surfactant increases, micelles will be
formed through the aggregation of molecules. The surfactant concentra-
tion upon formation of micelles is known as the critical micelle concen-
tration, CMC. At this point, the use of the surfactant will exhibit the
lowest surface tension. This property can be used to access the suitabil-
ity of the surfactant for the efficiency of contaminant removal. For an oil
contaminated soil system, the surfactants used reduce the interfacial
tension between oil/soil and oil/water interfaces. This subsequently re-
duces the capillary forces which leads to an enhanced oil removal sys-
tem (Urum and Pekdemir, 2004; Urum et al., 2004).
Nonionic surfactants are also rapidly gaining popularity due to their
high efficiencies. Han et al. (2009b) investigated the use of non-ionic
green surfactants, alkyl polyglucosides (APGs) for the washing of
weathered crude oil contaminated soil. APG which is produced from
fatty alcohols and sugars is characterized based on the length of alkyl
chain. The addition of 100 mL of 0.75 wt% of APG to 10 g of contaminat-
ed weather soil at a temperature of 80 °C in an agitator yielded a remov-
al efficiency of 97%. This study shows that green surfactants are
promising extraction agents for oil from soil due to their environmental
friendly property.

5.1.1. Water/organic solvents 5.1.3. Subcritical fluid extraction

Numerous researches have been conducted on the development of
solvents to achieve high removal efficiencies in oil contaminated soil
remediation. Silva et al. (2005) investigated the use of ethyl acetate/
acetone/water (5:4:1, v/v/v%) for the removal of petroleum hydrocar-
bons from contaminated soil. The use of this solvent mixture in a 3-
stage crosscurrent and counter current batch extraction study showed
a hydrocarbon removal of 85% and more than 97% oil removal from
Subcritical fluid extraction uses high temperature and pressure
fluids that are still in the liquid state, maintained below the critical
point. Subcritical water extraction (SCWE) is considered a green tech-
nology that uses superheated water (100 °C b T b 374 °C), at high pres-
sures above 22.1 MPa to maintain it in its liquid form. At high
temperatures, the hydrogen bonding forces between water molecules
weaken, decreasing the dielectric constant and polarity. Thus, the

Table 7
Solvent extraction/soil washing studies for remediation of oil contaminated soil.

Extraction agent Specific name Contaminant Process details Efficiency Reference

Water/organic solvents
Surfactant-aided
Subcritical fluid extraction
Supercritical fluid extraction
Ethyl acetate-acetone-water Petroleum Magnetic agitation at room temperature 85% (Silva et al., 2005)
Hexane/acetone Heavy crude oil 3-stage crosscurrent and countercurrent 97% (Li et al., 2012)
solvent extraction with solvent:soil ratio of
6:1 (v/w%)
Petroleum ether Petroleum Magnetically agitated for 20 min 94% (Sui et al., 2014)
Rhamnolipid Crude oil Mechanical shaking with surfactant:soil N80% (Urum et al., 2004)
ratio of 6:1 (v/w%)
Rhodococcus ruber Crude oil Soil column flushing 82% (Kuyukina et al., 2005)
Alkyl polyglucosides (APG) Weathered crude oil Mechanical agitation at 4000 rpm and 70 °C 97% (Han et al., 2009b)
Rhamnolipid Petroleum Mechanical shaking at 50 rpm and 25 °C 63% (Lai et al., 2009)
with surfactant:soil ratio of 2:1 (v/w%)
Sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) in Diesel Mechanical stirring at 13,500–22,500 rpm in 96% (Couto et al., 2009)
colloidal gas aphrons (CGA) form a reactor column
(microbubbles)
Bacillus licheniformis MTCC 5514 Crude oil Incubated at 37 °C under shaking for 48 h N85% (Kavitha et al., 2014)
Superheated water Lubricating oil Cylindrical extraction cell at temperature of 62% (Islam et al., 2013)
275 °C and pressure of 6 MPa
CO2 in presence of acetone Crude oil Extraction cell at temperature of 80 °C and 75% (Morselli et al., 1999)
pressure of 227 atm
CO2 Crude oil Dual-chamber extraction module at 72.4% (Al-Marzouqi et al., 2007)
temperature of 100 °C and pressure of 300
bars
 M.W. Lim et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 109 (2016) 14–45
subcritical water adopts a hydrophobic nature, and behaves as an alter-
native organic solvent (Gan et al., 2009). Works by Islam et al. (2013)
showed that the increase in temperature of SCWE from 200 to 275 °C
at 6 MPa showed a reduction in TPH concentration in soil contaminated
by lubricating oil up to 3.5 times. This is attributed to the decrease in di-
electric constant and surface tension of subcritical water, which reduced
the polarity of the water and enhanced the dissolution of the lubricating
oil. Further works in the subsequent year by the same author showed an
improved removal efficiency of lubricating oil of more than 98% at
275 °C using static dynamic extraction for a 120 min extraction in a
laboratory-scale apparatus, as well as a 150 min extraction in a 30 fold
scale-up experiment (Islam et al., 2014). The change from static mode
in the earlier works to static-dynamic mode increases the intraparticle
diffusion and mass transfer rate which results in the further increase
in removal efficiency.
5.1.4. Supercritical fluid extraction
Supercritical fluid extraction (SCFE), on the other hand, uses fluid
which is heated and pressurized above the critical point, otherwise
known as supercritical fluid (SCF) (Gan et al., 2009). Due to the high
temperatures and pressures, SCF exhibits gaseous–liquid properties
such as liquid-like density, high diffusivity, low viscosity and no surface
tension (Anitescu and Tavlarides, 2006; Gan et al., 2009; Morselli et al.,
1999). The efficiency of SCFE depends greatly on the solubility and mass
transfer of the contaminant into the SCF (Morselli et al., 1999).
The most commonly used fluid for SCFE is carbon dioxide due to its
non-polar nature and liquid solubility characteristics. It is also inexpen-
sive, non-toxic, and vastly available and owns a moderate critical pres-
sure and temperature. Other SCFs considered include propane and
butane. While the latter SCFs exhibit excellent oil and grease removal
from soil and sludge, these fluids are highly flammable making their
use potentially hazardous to human health (Low and Duffy, 1995). Al-
Marzouqi et al. (2007) investigated the use of CO2 for the extraction of
crude oil from contaminated soil under pressures ranging from 80–
120 bars for temperatures between 40–60 °C, and 200–300 bars for
temperatures between 100–140 °C. The authors reported that although
supercritical CO2 could only remove up to 4% of crude oil in soil at pres-
sures of 80 bars in the temperature range studied, the efficiency of CO2
was seen to increase with pressure, reaching up to a maximum of 72.4%
at 300 bars and 100 °C.
Other documented works on the use of supercritical CO2 for the re-
mediation of petroleum hydrocarbons include the study by Morselli
et al. (1999). This study reported that with an addition of 5 v/v % of ac-
etone to supercritical CO2 at 80 °C and pressure of 227 atm, the removal
efficiency of crude oil from soil increased to 75%, as compared to 60%
without the acetone addition. The results suggest that the acetone ex-
erts a swelling action on the soil which helps to pry open the inter-
layers of the soil structure.
Likewise, Geranmayeh et al. (2012) also used carbon dioxide for the
extraction of oil from contaminated soil from the Pazanan II production
unit site in Gachsaran, Iran. In this study, the optimum operating param-
eters such as pressure, temperature, flow rate and duration were ob-
tained to optimize the removal of the contaminant. It was found that
increase in pressure increases the removal efficiency. The optimal oper-
ating conditions of this study were shown to be at 328.15 K, 190 bars,
0.05 cm3/s CO2 flow rate, and extraction time of 75 min to yield removal
efficiencies of 48.7% per 0.03 m3 of consumed CO2.
5.1.5. Advantages & limitations
Currently, there are many reviews for solvent extraction remedia-
tion method of contaminated soil in literature (Hall et al., 1990; Mao
et al., 2014; Mulligan et al., 2001; Raghavan et al., 1991). Solvent extrac-
tion is proven effective for oil contaminated soil remediation as it has
shown high efficiencies and quick results. Other advantages include
low energy consumption and enhancement of heat and mass transfer
process due to the additional mechanical agitation. Nonetheless, the
31
main disadvantage of solvent extraction technology is the introduction
of a secondary pollution from the solvents used, which may continue to
persist in the remediated soil and subsequently pose an environmental
risk due to its low biodegradability. There is also a possibility for the ad-
sorption of the surfactant/solvent into soil particles, which could de-
crease the concentration of the surfactant/solvent which reduces its
efficiency. In addition, the solvent extraction technology consumes
large amounts of solvent which leads to a high operational cost.
The current limitations of solvent extraction are the selection of an
effective and environmental friendly solvent, recycling of solvent or sol-
vent regeneration, and development of proper equipment for scale up
process. The selection of environmental friendly solvents showed the
use of biosurfactants or non-ionic surfactants instead of chemically pro-
duced surfactants. While these surfactants show promising result as an
environmentally friendly alternative to typical chemical produced sur-
factants, there is still a need to investigate on a universal surfactant
that could provide a high oil removal efficiency under any conditions.
5.1.6. Advancements & future work
5.1.6.1. Advancements in environmentally friendly solvents/surfactants —
biosurfactants and ionic liquid. A major concern of solvent extraction is
the impact of solvents on the environment, as the solvents used are
commonly toxic in nature. Recent papers are currently headed towards
the direction of green solvents, that would not further impact the envi-
ronment. One of the green solvents that had garnered much interest
from researchers worldwide is biosurfactants, which are formed from
biodegradable means. Biosurfactants are amphiphilic compounds, and
are easily produced from renewable resources with possible reuse by
regeneration due to their lower toxicity. They are also more stable in
harsh and extreme environmental conditions (low/high temperatures,
pH, salinity) (Kuyukina et al., 2005). A study to compare the crude oil re-
moval efficiency using synthetic surfactant and biosurfactant was inves-
tigated by Urum et al. (2006). The surfactants studied were rhamnolipid
(biosurfactant), saponin (biosurfactant) and sodium dodecyl sulfate
(SDS) (synthetic surfactant). Weathered oil contaminated soil washing
was carried out at 20 °C using 20 mL of surfactant solution at
200 strokes/min for 20 min. Both SDS and rhamnolipid showed equal
efficiencies at approximately 45%, followed by saponin at 27%. Results
showed that both the rhamnolipid and SDS preferentially removes ali-
phatics compared to aromatics, while saponin removed more of the ar-
omatic hydrocarbons comparatively to aliphatics. These results are
consistent with the characteristics of the crude oil contaminant, where-
by the crude oil used contained more aliphatics compared to aromatics
(2:1, v/v%). Therefore, it could be concluded that the selection of surfac-
tant for the removal of contaminant from contaminated soil is crucial for
the success for soil remediation. Works by Kuyukina et al. (2005)
showed similar observations whereby the efficiency of biosurfactants
depends greatly on the composition of contaminants. They studied the
use of Rhodococcus ruber for the removal of oil from soil, and reported
that the biosurfactant selected is up to 2.3 times greater than synthetic
surfactant, Tween 60 of similar properties. At temperature of 28 °C
and concentration of surfactant up to twice the value of its CMC, the
maximum oil recovery obtained was 82%. It was also noted that the
crude oil contained up to 95% of biodegradable aromatics and aliphatics,
as opposed to high molecular weight paraffins and asphaltenes, which
are non-biodegradable compounds. Therefore, the results suggest that
the above mentioned surfactant may not be efficient for contaminants
with high compositions of paraffins and asphaltenes. Kavitha et al.
(2014) also investigated the use of Bacillus licheniformis (MTCC 5514)
for the removal of crude oil (10%) from contaminated soil. The authors
reported that the use of MTCC 4413 was able to remove crude oil from
soil with an efficiency of up to 85%.
Different forms of biosurfactants such as microfoam for soil washing
had been a promising alternative as compared to aqueous
biosurfactants. Microfoam contains several layers of surfactants and
32 M.W. Lim et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 109 (2016) 14–45
liquids surrounding the gas bubble. da Rosa et al. (2015) studied the re-
moval of two oil contaminants (5 w/w% petroleum and 5 w/w% diesel re-
spectively) from sandy soils using biological and chemical surfactants in
both solution and microfoam form. The biosurfactant used was
rhamnolipid, while the chemical surfactants were sodium dodecyl sul-
fate, SDS and cetyltrimethylammonium bromide, CTAB. Microfoams
were produced via a homogenizer at 15,000 rpm. Results showed that
usage of microfoam across all three surfactants provided a significant in-
crease in remediation efficiency by up to 7.3% for the removal of diesel oil,
and 13.9% for the removal of petroleum. This was attributed to the small
structure and large interfacial area of microfoam which contains several
layers of surfactants and liquids, that would improve the contact with
the contaminated soil, and this allows it to penetrate the soil lattice to
help degrade the oil contaminant. The usage of microfoam rhamnolipid
biosurfactant and SDS surfactant provided a petroleum removal efficien-
cy of approximately 42.1% and 44.3% respectively, and diesel removal ef-
ficiency of 44.8% and 62.9%. While the usage of microfoam form may be
an interesting direction for surfactant application, further investigation
should be focused on investigating the type of microfoam biosurfactants
for bioform which could provide a significant oil removal efficiency for
contaminated soil. The oil removal mechanism involved in the remedia-
tion process using microfoam biosurfactants could be conducted as well.
Other than biosurfactant, recent developments in the solvent extrac-
tion technology showed that the petroleum industry had been looking
into the application of ionic liquids for oil recovery applications, due to
the surfactant-like properties that are able to dissolve many polar,
non-polar, organic and inorganic compounds. Ionic liquid is also consid-
ered a green chemical as its characteristics of low vapour pressure and
high chemical and thermal stability, were reported to not contribute
to air pollution (Benzagouta et al., 2013; Pereira et al., 2014). The advan-
tages of ionic liquid over the conventional solvents lead to an increased
interest by researchers worldwide on the application of ionic liquid for
oil recovery. The study of ionic liquid based oil recovery process from
sands was first conducted by Pereira et al. (2014). Experiments were
conducted in a crude oil contaminated water-wet sand column, and
the ionic liquid used was 2 wt% aqueous solution of 1-ethyl-3-
methylimidazolium tosylate [C2mim][OTs]. Results showed that the
flooding process with 4 pore volume of ionic liquid could recover
65.7% of oil, which was almost double the amount collected by 2 wt%
NaCl. The authors suggested that further optimization of the ionic liquid
characteristics and concentrations is required to enhance oil recovery in
reservoirs. This was in good agreement with results by Gou et al. (2015),
whereby the usage of PAAD/C8mmBr as the ionic liquid was able to re-
cover up to 63.6% of crude oil from contaminated sand as opposed to
40% from the usage of NaCl. The better performance of PAAD/C8mmBr
as opposed to NaCl was attributed to the superior temperature resis-
tance of ionic liquid and shear reversible performance that would en-
hance oil recovery. The high potential of ionic liquids for applications in
oil recovery from contaminated sand leads to further studies on the oper-
ating parameters such as concentration, salinity and pH that would affect
the oil recovery efficiency (Asadabadi and Saien, 2016; Mohsenzadeh
et al., 2015), and fundamental work such as the wetting behaviour of
ionic liquid on an oily surface (Delcheva et al., 2014) and bubble attach-
ment onto oil layer in a ionic liquid medium. However, it should be
noted that the toxicology of ionic liquids is still lacking in literature to
date (Benzagouta et al., 2013). Therefore, it is crucial to evaluate the
ecotoxicity and biodegradability of ionic liquids prior to their application
on-site to prevent further environmental problems in the future.
While works on biosurfactants and ionic liquid as an environmental
friendly solvent alternative had shown promising results, environmen-
tal analysis such as the impact of the solvents used on the environment
should also be analysed prior to implementation of solvent extraction
for on-site applications.
5.1.6.2. Regeneration of used solvents/surfactants. As high operational cost
is a disadvantage to solvent extraction technology due to the large
consumption of solvents, methods to reduce the operational cost such
as recycling, regeneration or recovery of solvents to their original prop-
erties should be further explored, while cost analysis for the scale up of
this technology could also be conducted. However, studies on solvent
regeneration so far are limited, as it is difficult to recover the solvent.
One of the papers published in this area is by Wu et al. (2011), whom
managed to implement a water washing method for the recycling of
solvent used in the solvent extraction of petroleum hydrocarbons
from soil. The recycled solvent could further remove the residual con-
taminant, and this leads to an overall higher removal efficiency. In this
study, water was introduced into a soil column with a solution mixture
of hexane/pentane (4:1, v/v%). The solvent floated to the top, which
then overflowed into a solvent recycling bottle, before being recycled
back into the water wash column. With a high recycling efficiency of
97%, this study demonstrated a promising method for reducing residual
concentration of solvent in the contaminated soil upon solvent
extraction.
5.1.6.3. Fluid mechanics of solvent extraction. In the previous works of sol-
vent extraction, many of the existing works were conducted in laborato-
ry scale with successful removal efficiencies, whereby the operating
conditions are easily manipulated. While the success rate of laboratory
scale solvent extraction is high, few studies had been performed on
the scale up equipment for industrial purposes, or field study for reme-
diation of oil contaminated soil. A recent study by Liu et al. (2014) aims
to bridge that gap by investigating on the use of continuous fluidized
counter current solvent extraction in a scale-up equipment design as a
potential application for the removal of oil pollutant from contaminated
soil. A fundamental fluid mechanic study was conducted to establish a
counter current extraction system and observe the basic hydro-
mechanical performance. The authors successfully obtained an operat-
ing curve for soil remediation by counter-current solvent extraction
for solvent (hexane/pentane) and solid (glass beads) flow rates ranging
between 10 to 800 L/h and 8 to 107 kg/h respectively (Liu et al., 2014).
While the fundamental study by these authors demonstrated a further
understanding for the application of counter-current fluid mechanism
for solvent extraction technology, further work should still be conduct-
ed for the application of this technology for the solvent extraction of oil
contaminated soil.
While recent advancements in the solvent extraction technology are
currently looking into fundamental studies for potential scale up, regen-
eration of solvents to biodegradable solvents that are not hazardous to
the environment, nevertheless there are still gaps particularly for
scale-up applications. Future work should be conducted on the funda-
mentals of solvent extraction, particularly in the modelling of mass
transfer to understand the contaminant extraction process.
5.2. Soil vapour extraction
Soil vapour extraction (SVE), also known as soil venting or vacuum
extraction is an in situ soil remediation technology that has been studied
to remove organic compound particularly from the soil unsaturated
zone using either horizontal or vertical screened wells (Lee et al.,
2002; Pendersen et al., 1991). The extracted vapour is then drawn to-
wards the extraction wells for further treatment with activated carbon
before release to prevent atmospheric contamination (Albergaria
et al., 2008). Factors which affect the efficiency of SVE include opera-
tional parameters such as air flow rate and temperature, contaminant
characteristics such as vapour pressure and solubility, and soil charac-
teristics such as moisture content and natural organic content
(Albergaria et al., 2008, 2012; Lee et al., 2002; Malina et al., 2002).
The usage of SVE is commonly employed in high porosity and high
permeability soil, which is contaminated with highly volatile contami-
nant. Nevertheless, SVE exhibits low efficiency for low concentrations
of heavy volatile organic compound (VOC) contamination and contam-
inants with low volatility, such as inorganic compounds. Due to the
 M.W. Lim et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 109 (2016) 14–45
limitations of SVE, researchers are currently developing integrated tech-
nologies to enhance the performance efficiency of SVE, which include
the integration of air sparging/SVE, bioventing/SVE and thermally en-
hanced SVE.
5.2.1. Air sparging/SVE
Air sparging (AS) involves the injection of atmospheric air into the
soil, promoting the transfer of aqueous phase contaminants into the va-
pour phase, while the oxygen transferred from the air promotes the bio-
degradation of volatile organic compounds (Al-Maamari et al., 2009).
The injected air would form channels through the saturated and vadose
zone in soil, volatilize the contaminants, and then be transported back
into the vadose zone where it will be further treated through biological
methods or SVE (Kirtland and Aelion, 2000). The combination of AS and
SVE is highly suitable for treatment of volatile contaminants in high per-
meability soils such as sand, whereby a large percentage of the contam-
inant would be affected by the air flow. Kirtland and Aelion (2000)
studied the effectiveness of AS/SVE system on low permeability sand
in Columbia contaminated with gasoline. The authors reported that
ten pulsed AS/SVE tests were effective in removing TPH in the low per-
meability sand up to 17.6 kg/day at low air flow rates (≈25 m3/h) when
compared to the removal efficiency of 14.3 kg/day in continuous opera-
tion. This was attributed to the increased mass removal and decreased
energy consumption of pulsed operations. Johnston et al. (2002) also re-
ported that the combination of air sparging to SVE as an in situ technol-
ogy improves the volatilization of gasoline petroleum hydrocarbons
from sandy soils by a factor of 1.9.
5.2.2. Bioventing/SVE
The use of both SVE and bioventing (BV) enhances the soil remedia-
tion whereby SVE removes the air phase pollutants through volatiliza-
tion, while BV attempts to increase the subsequent bioremediation
rate through an additional aeration of oxygen for microbiological activ-
ity (Lee et al., 2002; Lee et al., 2001).
Lee et al. (2001) investigated the feasibility of the integrated BV/SVE
system to remove toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene compounds from a
petroleum-contaminated site. The removal rate via SVE in the field test
was initially high due to the large amounts of toluene volatized. The
contribution of SVE eventually decreased with the concentration of con-
taminants and the effect of biodegradation on contaminant removal be-
comes apparent after 30 days. The effect of BV resulted better, with the
removal of 130 kg contaminants after 100 days of treatment due to the
more volatile properties of toluene. A similar study by Malina et al.
(2002) also reported that the integrated BV/SVE system showed high
removal efficiencies (N 99.5%) of toluene and decane contamination in
soil in an intermittent flow regime.
5.2.3. Thermally enhanced SVE
Conventional SVE has limited efficiencies in removing semi-volatile
contaminants from soil due to their low volatility. Therefore, the in-
crease in working temperatures would increase the vapour pressures
of the contaminant, making it easier to remove the semi-volatile con-
taminants via SVE. There is a variety of methods for increasing the soil
temperature, such as radio and microwave frequency, hot air injection
and electrical resistance (Park et al., 2005). Poppendieck et al. (1999) in-
vestigated the effect of soil temperatures on the rate of petroleum re-
moval from soil in a laboratory-scale study. The increase in soil
temperature from 50 °C to 150 °C increased the removal rate constant
from 0.0099 h−1 to 0.13 h−1 for C13 (tridecane hydrocarbon) a common
component found in petroleum. A similar study by Park et al. (2005)
was also conducted to study the effects of temperature and air flow
rate on thermally enhanced SVE in the remediation of diesel contami-
nated soil. Results showed that the increase in working temperatures
from 30 °C to 100 °C at an air flow rate of 20 mL/min showed a drastic
increase in the removal rate from 0 to 60% for n-C16. Likewise, a higher
gas flow rate up to 80 mL/min was shown to yield higher removal rates
33
of volatile organic components, but up to a certain extent due to the
lower contact time of air with soil. In the same study, a field pilot scale
study showed that the hot air injection method showed promising re-
sults with up to 95% removal efficiency compared to the standard SVE
method within 30 days of operation.
5.2.4. Advantages & limitations
Similar to solvent extraction, soil vapour extraction aids the removal
of large quantities of volatile contaminants in uniform soils within a
short treatment time. In addition, soil vapour extraction also stimulates
the bio growth of microorganisms with oxygen through the flow of air,
which further enhances the biodegradation rate of organic contaminants.
Nevertheless, the efficiency of soil vapour extraction is affected by
several factors, namely operational conditions such as soil temperature
and air flow rate, contaminant properties such as volatility of contami-
nant, and soil properties such as water and soil organic matter content
(Albergaria et al., 2012). SVE is inefficient for heavy volatile organic
compounds as well as contaminants with low volatility. In addition, it
is also not suitable for soils with low air permeability, as the air induced
prefers to flow into paths of lower resistance (high soil permeability).
The low permeability region would not be crossed by air flow, and
could only be remediated by other means which greatly decreases the
efficiency of this treatment method. A soil with high water content
also affects the efficiency of SVE, as the water fills up the pores in the
soil matrix, which acts as a barrier between contaminant and air flow
preventing efficient evaporation of contaminant into the sweep gas. An-
other main disadvantage for SVE is the treatment of the down-stream
contaminant and sweep gas, which may require a substantial large
amount of cost for subsequent treatment downstream.
5.2.5. Advancements and future work
5.2.5.1. Simulation studies on multi-phase flow of air and contaminants.
There are a couple of review papers dedicated for the usage of SVE for
remediation purposes in literature (Hutzier et al., 1991; Rathfelder
et al., 1995). A great deal of focus had been placed on the usage of SVE
for in situ remediation. Therefore, the fundamental studies had been ex-
tensively conducted, for example on field pneumatic pump test, calcula-
tion of air permeability using transient and stead state pressure data
(Lee et al., 2002), and understanding the volatilization behaviour and
volatilization rate coefficient of diesel oil under the influence of wind
speed, vessel diameter and mean grain size of porous media from con-
taminated soil (Ma et al., 2014b). Another fundamental study that was
conducted in the SVE method includes the simulation study of airflow
within the soil system. As the air sparging system is determined by
the contact between injected air with contaminant and resident time
of air in soil, it is imperative that the air flow distribution is well under-
stood before implementing this remediation method for contaminated
soils. Song et al. (2015) simulated the two-dimensional airflow distribu-
tion, observed the shape of zone of influence (ZOI) and calculated the
ZOI radius through nine different sizes of transparent fused silica
sands that simulate natural soil. Results showed that the airflow distri-
bution could be fitted using a unified dimensionless Gaussian function
under different sparging pressures, which would be useful for the de-
sign of air sparging for remediation of oil contaminated soil.
While a large number of modelling studies were conducted to date,
studies had been previously focused on mass transfer processes using a
one-dimensional (1D) or two-dimensional (2D) model (Carroll et al.,
2012; Høier et al., 2009; Kaleris, 2002; Rathfelder et al., 2000). The dis-
advantage of the usage of 1D/2D models, is that they may not complete-
ly simulate complex fluid flows and transport processes in soils with
high heterogeneity. Therefore, the recent modelling studies had been
focused on three-dimensional (3D) models as 3D models could provide
a more realistic prediction than 1D/2D models by utilizing all informa-
tion available to provide a detailed soil mapping process. A 3D multi-
phase flow in a multi-component transport situation had been
34 M.W. Lim et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 109 (2016) 14–45
successfully developed by Nguyen et al. (2013) using Comsol
Multiphysics software via a finite element method, that could identify
the mass transfer value, and is able to predict laboratory findings for re-
moval of NAPL from contaminated soil.
Other recent studies that had been conducted in the SVE field include
the kinetic study on the calculation of degradation rate constant of petro-
leum hydrocarbons of up to 4 kg of contaminated soil (loamy sand, silt
loam and sandy loam soil) in an intermediate scale experiment to obtain
the degradation model of BV/SVE after a 30 day period (Khan and Zytner,
2013). Through numerical modelling of the SVE performance, the clean-
up time can be estimated and hence providing a framework on the deci-
sion to continue or terminate soil vapour extraction via numerical
modelling method (Carroll et al., 2012). The estimation of clean-up
time through mathematical/analytical modelling had also been exten-
sively studied (Alvim-Ferraz et al., 2006a; Alvim-Ferraz et al., 2006b;
Kaleris and Croisé, 1997; Zhao and Zytner, 2008).
However, there are certain areas that are currently lacking in litera-
ture which could help and enhance the implementation of SVE on site.
While an assessment scheme for the continuation of SVE on site was re-
ported successful for understanding the remediation progress over
time, the impact of geological factors may cause complexity and the ef-
fect of these factors should be focused on the future researches. Also, the
benefit of extra cost to heat soil for thermal enhanced SVE should be in-
vestigated, as high operating costs are not favoured for industry applica-
tions. For that reason, an assessment scheme or cost and energy analysis
could be projected from the on-going simulation studies inclusive the
downstream processes (cleaning of sweep gas) prior to SVE field
application.
5.3. Flotation
The flotation technology is the combination of chemical, physio-
chemical and physical methods to separate oil from soil via a gas–liq-
uid–solid system. This technology relies on the difference in surface
properties of both contaminant and soil, and thus is capable of separat-
ing very small or light weight particles with low settling velocities. The
mechanism of flotation lies in the generation of gas bubbles which at-
taches to the hydrophobic contaminants. The gas-contaminant bubble
which is buoyant then rises to the surface of the liquid, creating a
layer of separated particles which could be recovered. In short, the flo-
tation mechanism is dependent on: (a) collision between contaminants
and bubbles, (b) attachment of contaminants and bubble to form
bubble-contaminant, (c) flotation of bubble-contaminant due to differ-
ence in buoyancy and (d) detachment of contaminant from bubble-
contaminant (Tao, 2005).
5.3.1. Flotation studies
The variables which can affect flotation are broadly classified into
physical, chemical and bubble hydrodynamics. Physical parameters
which affect the efficiency of flotation include agitation rate, tempera-
ture, concentration of oil contaminant, aging time and oil characteris-
tics. The effects of agitation rate were reported by Tsai et al. (2007)
whereby an increase in agitation rate was suggested to increase the in-
tensity of turbulence in the cell which promoted bubble-contaminant
collisions and increased the amount of oil removed. However, a further
increase in impeller speed was seen to generate a large centrifugal force
which ruptured the bubble-contaminant aggregates, thus reducing the
flotation recovery efficiency. The increase in temperature also aids the
removal efficiency of contaminant by reducing the density of oil con-
taminants, making it easier for bubble attachment (Zhang et al., 2000).
This is in agreement with works by Chou et al. (1998) whereby an in-
crease in temperature from 22 °C to 45 °C showed an increase in flota-
tion efficiency from 62% to 78% in the removal of non-volatile paraffin
oil from contaminated soils via a counter-current column flotation. Sim-
ilar findings were also shown by Masliyah et al. (2004) whereby an
increase in process temperature from 35 °C to 50 °C increased the re-
moval efficiency of bitumen from sandy grains by nearly 50%.
The efficiency of flotation is also affected by the addition of chemical
products which change the interfacial interactions. High pH is favoured
due to the formation of OH− groups formed onto the polar surface of the
soil particles. The OH− groups would weaken the adsorption energy be-
tween the oil contaminant and soil particles (Hong et al., 2012; Liu et al.,
2005; Long et al., 2007). Moreover, the addition of alkaline additives re-
acts with the organic acids in bitumen, forming a natural surfactant
which enables the flotation of bitumen from soil (cited by Clark and
Pasternack in (Liu et al., 2005)). In contrast to this, however, Al-
Otoom et al. (2009) showed that the amount of base (NaOH) and the
flotation agent was found to have a negative effect on the release of bi-
tumen from sand in a fluidized bed flotation. In particular, this was sug-
gested to be due to the increase in the hydrophilicity of the bitumen
with the increase in NaOH. On a different note, it was shown that the ad-
dition of surfactants also reduces the surface tension between the solid–
liquid (soil-oil) interfaces, therefore enhancing the removal of oil from
soil through flotation. Typical surfactants that have been studied include
sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), sodium dioctyl sulfosuccinate (AOT),
polyoxyethylene lauryl ether (Brij 35), rhamnolipid, and saponins
(Urum et al., 2006). The concentration of surfactants added to the flota-
tion system also affects the flotation efficiency. Zhang et al. (2000) re-
ported that the increase of SDS from 100 ppm to 300 ppm improved
the paraffin oil removal efficiency from 52% to 57%, attributed to the de-
crease in surface tension between oil contaminant and soil.
Bubble hydrodynamics such as size, rising velocity and concentra-
tion play an important role in the flotation technology. At constant air
flow rates, the decrease in bubble size provides a larger surface area
available for contact, which enhances the adhesion of bubbles to con-
taminants. On the other hand, bubbles which are too small have low ris-
ing velocity and insufficient buoyancy to lift larger contaminants to the
surface (Tsai et al., 2007). Many other authors have looked into various
aspects of the flotation technology to remove oil from soil. Zhou et al.
(2010) investigated the effect of bubble nucleation in water on bitumen
flotation from oil sands. The presence of these bubbles increased the col-
lision and adhesion probability of the bitumen to bubbles, contributing
to a higher oil removal efficiency of 64% compared to 42%. In a different
study, Kim et al. (2012) utilised the collapse energies of microbubbles
generated from bubbly water to separate oil contaminants from soil in
a separation device. By using positively charged bubbles in a dissolved
air flotation process, a maximum of 97% of total petroleum hydrocarbon
was removed from soil. In a recent study by Hong et al. (2012), the re-
moval of bitumen from contaminated sand was conducted using
microbubbles generated from the compression and decompression cy-
cles of air. Under optimum process parameters, bitumen recovery of
92% was achieved after 5 min of treatment time at 4 pressure cycles of
air (6.9 atm) and 105 °C. This process may provide a high bitumen re-
moval efficiency, but may incur a high operational cost due to the high
pressure needed for the compression of air.
5.3.2. Advantages & limitations
The use of flotation and its operating parameters had been exten-
sively studied especially for Canadian and Utah oil sands in the previous
years (Drelich et al., 1995; Masliyah et al., 2004; Schramm et al., 2003),
due to its simplicity, low operational cost and high oil removal efficien-
cies. This technology is capable of separating very small or light weight
particles with low settling velocities. However, flotation technology re-
quires large amounts of water to aid the process, which may incur high
downstream cost for treatment of wastewater. The usage of this tech-
nology may not be efficient for the removal of aged or weathered soil.
The aging of oil in soil increases the interaction forces between oil and
soil which makes it difficult for efficient flotation. As shown by Wang
et al. (2009), an increase in the aging time from 7 to 30 days decreased
the flotation efficiency of waxy crude oil from soil by approximately
27%. Research by Urum et al. (2004) also showed that upon evaporation
 M.W. Lim et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 109 (2016) 14–45
of lighter oil components, the remaining higher molecular weight oil in
soil acquires stronger interactions which resulted in a low removal effi-
ciency for the flotation of weathered soil.
5.3.3. Advancements and future work
5.3.3.1. Bubble innovations. Currently, new innovations had been intro-
duced to further enhance the flotation efficiency for oil recovery from
difficult sites such as low grade oil sand ores, while reducing energy
consumption and water use. Harjai et al. (2012) proposed the use of a
robust aqueous–nonaqueous hybrid bitumen extraction process at low
temperatures with reduced intake of feed water for the removal of bitu-
men from Athabasca oil sand ores to cater to the environmental and
economic demand. Kerosene and naphtha of 4 to 11 wt% were used as
the diluent to decrease bitumen viscosity. Zhou et al. (2010) introduced
the usage of carrier flotation for accelerating bitumen extraction from
Athabasca oil sands by blending coal particles as carrier materials to-
gether with bitumen coated glass beads to simulate bitumen droplets.
The presence of the carrier material aids in the detachment of bitumen
from the particle due to the gravitational effect of the larger and heavier
materials. An increase in bitumen removal of up to 30% was observed
with the addition of the carrier material (coal) (Li et al., 2013).
Other new methods would be the introduction of nanobubbles to aid
the flotation of oil contaminant. Nanobubbles had been applied in min-
eral flotation as nanobubbles with its small bubble size could provide a
better bubble-particle attachment for enhanced flotation efficiency
(Calgaroto et al., 2014). Therefore, studies on the flotation of oil contam-
inant could gravitate towards the application of nanobubbles to im-
prove the oil recovery.
5.3.3.2. Fundamental studies on interactions between phases (solid–liquid,
liquid–liquid and liquid–gas). Studies on the flotation technology had
also gravitated towards the interaction studies between the solid, liquid
and gaseous phases. For example, the parameters that would affect the
oil-sand contact were investigated by Lim et al. (2015) to further under-
stand the detachment process of oil from contaminated sand in a flota-
tion process. Flury et al. (2013) on the other hand investigated on the
interaction between oil and bubbles, and the corresponding liquid prop-
erties that would affect the bubble attachment onto the oil. The authors
reported that the application of different caustic types (sodium hydrox-
ide and ammonium hydroxide) for bitumen flotation would affect the
induction time between bitumen-bubble attachments. Other funda-
mental studies include the understanding of frother like properties of
process water in bitumen flotation, the natural frother from the bitu-
men process water had been characterized and compared with a well
known frother, DF-250 (Nassif et al., 2014).
5.4. Ultrasonication
At present, ultrasonication has found many uses in a variety of appli-
cations including medical imaging, synthesis of catalysts, pollution con-
trol and oil extraction from sand or similar materials. Oil removal from
soil using ultrasonication is made possible by two important phenome-
na; (i) formation and collapse of cavitation bubbles, and (ii) generation
of shock waves from the collapse of cavitation bubbles (Abramov et al.,
2009; Mason et al., 2004). The formation and collapse of bubbles at the
nucleation sites create localised hot spots in the liquid, due to the sud-
den increase in pressure during the implosive collapse of the bubbles.
High temperatures enhance the breakage of bonds and desorption of
oil contaminant from soil particles (Flores et al., 2007). Moreover, the
generation of shock waves can induce particle cracking, where the ultra-
sonic vibrations penetrate the interior of soil particles via capillary ac-
tion which are typically inaccessible in other separation methods.
Therefore, detachment of the contaminant occurs when the extraction
reagent penetrates through the formed soil fractures from the effect of
oscillating cavitational bubbles and shock waves (Abramov et al.,
35
2009; Mason et al., 2004). In the remediation of soil, ultrasonication
also helps desorption of the contaminant, and promotes the formation
of strong oxidant, OH− radicals which would enhance the oil removal
efficiency (Feng and Aldrich, 2000; Shrestha et al., 2009). Table 8 sum-
marizes the studies to date using ultrasonication for the removal of oil
from soil.
5.4.1. Ultrasonication studies
Initial ultrasonication studies were conducted by Sadeghi et al. for the
extraction of bitumen from sand (Chilingarian et al., 1989; Sadeghi et al.,
1994; SADEGHI et al., 1990a; Sadeghi et al., 1990b). A similar study by
van Ellen et al. (1995) concluded that the use of acoustic waves from
sonication could enhance the removal efficiency by up to 30% of contam-
inants from soil. From these studies, the removal of contaminant was at-
tributed to the breaking of larger contaminant particles to smaller
particles due to the alternating pressure applied from the sonication.
The smaller contaminant particles could therefore be easily recovered
from the system. A similar study was conducted by Mohammadian
et al. (2012) for the removal of kerosene, vaseline and engine oil from
a sand pack using a series of normal and ultrasonic simulated water-
flooding experiments. The authors reported that the use of ultrasonic
waves triggered a 16% increase in oil recovery as compared to the normal
stimulated water flooding experiment. This was attributed to the in-
crease in oil emulsification and bubble cavitation as well as a reduction
in oil viscosity which contributed to the improved recovery of oil. Like-
wise, recent studies had also show that the use of ultrasound increased
the removal of super heavy oil from weathered soil in a surfactant en-
hanced solution by a further 13–14%, signifying that the ultrasonication
method is a potentially useful method for the remediation of oil contam-
inated soil (Ji et al., 2011)
Many parameters which influence the efficiency of ultrasonication
during the removal of oil from soils have been studied, including type
and density of soil, sonication power (Feng and Aldrich, 2000; Kim
and Wang, 2003; Shrestha et al., 2009), sonication period, pH of slurry
(Feng and Aldrich, 2000; Shrestha et al., 2009), amount of water used,
surfactant dosage (Shrestha et al., 2009), and oil content (Feng and
Aldrich, 2000). The effect of sonication power on vegetable oil removal
had been investigated by Kim and Wang (2003). The authors reported
that there was an increase in oil removal efficiency with the increase
in sonication power up to 100 W, followed by a drop in efficiency
with further increase in power. The drop in efficiency was attributed
to the high occurrence of cavitation which caused the acoustic pressure
level to decrease as the sonication power was further increased above
100 W. Similar results were observed by Shrestha et al. (2009) on the
removal of hexachlorobenzene and phenanthrene, both of which are
contaminants commonly found in oil, from soil. A drop in removal effi-
ciency was observed at powers beyond 100 W, which again was sug-
gested to be due to the effect of cavitation. Therefore, there is a need
to optimise the level of power input whereby too low a power would
provide low removal efficiencies, while a high power input will not
only increase the effect of cavitation but also increases the power con-
sumption of the sonicator.
The same authors also reported that the increase in sonication dura-
tion in soil increased the temperature up to a certain level, which
remained constant with further increase in sonication time. Hence, the
removal efficiency of organic compound remained relatively constant
when the sonication time was increased from 1 to 6 h. However, this
contradicts with results published by Feng and Aldrich (2000), who
noted that the increase in sonication time initially showed a sharp in-
crease in diesel removal, followed by a gradual decrease after 5 min of
sonication. This was attributed to the formation of oil droplet emulsions.
As the oil emulsion concentration increased with sonication time, the
re-adsorption of oil into the soil was seen to surpass the desorption of
oil from soil.
Investigations by Feng et al. (2001) reported that larger soil particle
size had a better contaminant removal due to the weaker bonding force
36 M.W. Lim et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 109 (2016) 14–45
Table 8
Ultrasonication in the remediation of oil contaminated soil.
Soil type Oil contaminant
Tar sand from Canada High paraffinaceous oil/residual fuel oil
White kaolin/clay/natural soil Persistent organic compounds:
hexachlorobenzene, phenanthrene,
hexane, acetone
Chemical grade sea sand Diesel
Test soil Ottawa Crisco pure vegetable oil
sand & natural soil
Sandy soil Severely biodegraded heavy oil
NA Crude oil
Chemical grade sea sand Diesel
Sand and residual soil Diesel
Sandy soil Diesel
Granite soil Naphthalene or diesel-oil
Solids in sludge Crude oil
between the contaminants and the soil surface. In addition, fine soil par-
ticles produce high viscosity slurries which may impede the cavitation
of the ultrasound, resulting in a net decrease in the removal of oil
(Feng and Aldrich, 2000). The same study also showed that a higher die-
sel content of 5 wt% had a removal efficiency of 99% as compared to die-
sel content of 0.5% which provided a removal efficiency of 93%. The
higher removal efficiency in highly contaminated soil was attributed
to the initial dissolution of free oil which was not adsorbed to the soil
particles.
On a different note, Feng and Aldrich (2000) found that
ultrasonication at extremely low pH (acidic conditions) resulted in
very low separation of diesel from soil due to the formation of hydrogen
bonds between the two mediums. A high pH environment, on the other
hand, enhances the hydrophilic behaviour by shifting the hydrophilic-
lipophilic balance, decreasing the interfacial tension between bitumen
and water surface and improving the negativity of surface of oil and
soil (Abramov et al., 2009).
5.4.2. Advantages & limitations
The promising potential of using ultrasonication for the removal of
oil from soil had been considered in several review papers (Bordoloi
and Basumatary, 2015; Mason, 2003, 2007). The ultrasonication tech-
nology has been dubbed as one of the major green science and engi-
neering technologies due to its process which uses virtually no
chemicals to eliminate other hazardous chemicals in the system. At
present, this technology is gaining popularity in the removal of oil
from contaminated soil due to its advantages including its on-site
heating and intense agitation which enhances heat and mass transfer
processes.
However, the downside of the ultrasonication is the costly setup,
high energy consumption for the generation of acoustic waves and its
difficulty for on site implementation. Son et al. (2012) performed a com-
parison of energy consumption between ultrasonication and a typical
mechanical agitation for diesel removal at various agitation speeds. It
was reported that a total of 3.4 W is required for mechanical agitation
to achieve a diesel removal efficiency of 40%. Under the same conditions,
the energy requirement for ultrasonication is almost triple the electrical
power consumed by mechanical agitation at 9.9 W to obtain a diesel re-
moval efficiency of 40% as well.
Process details Maximum removal Reference
efficiency
Ultrasonication at 22 kHz, sonication power of ≈100% (Abramov et al., 2009)
100–1000 W, temperature of 60 °C ≈90%
Ultrasonication at 30 kHz, sonication power of ≈71% (Shrestha et al., 2009)
20–140 W, duration of 1 h ≈55%
Mechanical stirring prior to ultrasonication at 30 83–87% (Feng and Aldrich, 2000)
kHz, sonication power intensity of 20–100 W/cm2,
temperatures of 60 °C, duration of 5 min
Ultrasonication at 20 kHz, sonication power of 25–45% (Kim and Wang, 2003)
0–140 W, temperature of 19–22 °C
Ultrasonication at 28 kHz, power density of 80 W/L, 75.5% (Ji and Sui, 2010)
temperature of 70 °C, duration of 0–1800 s
Ultrasonication at 20 kHz, sonication power of 66 ≈65% (Zhang et al., 2012)
W, duration of 10 min
Ultrasonication at 30 kHz, sonication power density 63% (Feng et al., 2001)
of 460 W/cm2, temperature of 25 °C
Ultrasonication at 20 kHz, sonication power of 500 ≈70% (Kim et al., 2007)
W, temperature of 30 °C, duration of 30 min
Ultrasonication at 20 kHz, sonication power density 18% (Wulandari, 2010)
of 462 W, duration of 10 min
Mechanically mixed with ultrasonication at 20 kHz, 85% (Na et al., 2007)
sonication power density of 500 W, temperature of
20 °C
Ultrasonication at 20 kHz, sonication power of 75 N60% (Hu et al., 2014)
W, duration of 6 min, slurry temperature of 25 °C
5.4.3. Advancements and future work
As ultrasonication is a relatively new technology applied for the re-
mediation of oil contaminated soil, most present studies are still focused
on the effects of ultrasonication parameters. Hu et al. (2014) investigat-
ed on the oil recovery from crude oil sludge using ultrasonication,
whereby the effects of sonication power, duration, sludge-to-water
ratio, and slurry temperature were studied. It was found that an optimal
removal efficiency of more than 60% was obtained at ultrasonication
power of 75 W, duration of 6 min, initial slurry temperature of 25 °C,
and sludge-to-water ratio of 1:4 in a laboratory scale apparatus.
Nevertheless, the use of sonication may consume a lot of energy
which is not cost effective. Therefore prior to industrial applications,
the design of acoustic ultrasound generators should be developed for
the reduction of energy consumption. The successful design for reduc-
ing energy consumption could decrease the operational cost of
ultrasonication technology. In addition, the understanding of the funda-
mentals of ultrasonication for oil removal from contaminated soil is cur-
rently lacking in literature as well. The modelling of pressure wave and
cavitation bubble generation that form localised hot spots could provide
an understanding of the sonochemical activity within the reaction reac-
tor and on site. The study on mass and heat transfer should also be con-
ducted as well to further understand the contaminant disposal for
onsite application.
6. Integrated remediation technologies
The remediation technologies discussed in the earlier sections each
has their own characteristics and limitations. Therefore, many present
studies include integrated remediation technologies for oil contaminat-
ed soil to complement the individual remediation technologies and to
further improve the soil remediation efficiency.
6.1. Integrated physical–chemical remediation technology
The combination of electrokinetic-Fenton (EK-Fenton) technology
had been studied by Pazos et al. (2011) for the remediation of diesel pol-
luted soil. The use of electric field enhances the mobilization of the
Fenton reagent, which facilitates the Fenton reaction to take place inside
 M.W. Lim et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 109 (2016) 14–45
the soil. The advantage of the integrated EK-Fenton is the use of Fenton
oxidants as electrokinetic processing fluids, which renders the need for
other processing fluids from the anode and cathode chambers. Results
showed that approximately 78% of diesel fuel was removed after elec-
trokinetic remediation alone, as opposed to 87% using the EK-Fenton
treatment. A similar study by Tsai et al. (2010) also noted that this inte-
grated technology was suited for soil with high iron content, which pro-
motes the Fenton oxidation. In a later study by Pazos et al. (2012a), the
addition of EDTA was shown to remove 90% of TPH in a shorter time pe-
riod of 15 days. This addition was suggested to favour the iron
solubilisation and H2O2 stabilization which subsequently enhanced
the Fenton treatment process.
A recent ex situ study was conducted for surfactant enhanced soil
washing and EK-Fenton technology using a soil column experimental
setup for diesel contaminated soil. Tween 80 surfactant was employed
at different concentrations greater than CMC value as the washing solu-
tions. Results showed that initial washing with concentration of 5% of
Tween 80 only removed 1% of the contaminant after 24 h of washing
while further electrochemical treatments after elution showed almost
complete removal of hydrocarbons (N99.5%), within 32 h according to
a linear trend. However, the toxicity test showed that the resulting solu-
tion after complete removal has a higher toxicity as compared to the ini-
tial solution, due to the inhibition of up to 95% of Vibrio fischeri bacteria.
This demonstrates that the toxic compounds were not fully removed
even after complete removal of oil in the soil matrix. The authors con-
cluded that the combination of soil washing with EK-Fenton process
needs to be further improved, and suggested a possible implementation
of thermal treatment on the soil column to increase the efficiency of
contaminant removal (Huguenot et al., 2015).
Ji and Zhou (2010) investigated on the effect of ultrasonication time
coupled with non-ionic surfactant (Triton X-1100 micellar) solution on
the removal of super heavy oil from contaminated soil. Clean soil was
initially contaminated with super heavy oil at a soil:oil ratio of 9:1 (w/
w%). The contaminated soil was initially mixed with Triton X-100 solu-
tion and stirred at 180 rpm for 1800 s at a temperature of 70 °C.
Ultrasonication was then carried out at a frequency of 28 kHz and
power density of 80 W/L. The increase in ultrasonication time from
360 to 1800 s was shown to increase the efficiency of solvent extraction
from 66.4% to 88.7%. The increase in heavy oil removal efficiency was at-
tributed to the increase in the number of shock waves from the
ultrasonication, which helps to overcome the interfacial forces between
the soil particles and contaminant. Therefore, the Triton-X surfactant
could easily penetrate into the soil particles' surface, enhancing the de-
tachment of oil from soil. Likewise, the combination of ultrasonication
and flotation separation of bitumen from oil sands were also attempted
by Okawa et al. (2011) in a hydrogen peroxide aqueous solution. The
authors investigated on the effect of low (28 kHz) and high (200 kHz)
frequency sonication on the oil recovery rate, with and without the
presence of hydrogen peroxide as the frothing agent. Results showed
that the usage of hydrogen peroxide aided in the removal of bitumen,
as the hydrogen peroxide decomposes to water and oxygen bubbles.
The oxygen bubbles would then attach itself onto the bitumen, which
helped the flotation of bitumen during sonication. Therefore, a low fre-
quency ultrasonication coupled with H2O2 (concentration N 1000 ppm)
could provide an increase in bitumen recovery by up to 10% as opposed
to high frequency sonication without H2O2.
6.2. Integrated physical–biological remediation technology
In a recent study, Wu et al. (2015) evaluated the efficiency and sus-
tainability of the integrated solvent extraction and biodegradation for
the remediation of petroleum contaminated soil. The contaminated
soil was initially mixed with organic solvent of hexane and pentane
(4:1, v/v%) for 20 min in a mechanical shaker, prior to bioremediation
using microcosms bioaugmented with Bacillus subtilis FQ06 strains
and rhamnolipid for 132 days. The solvent extraction pretreatment
37
reduced the TPH concentration and toxicity in soil, which then provided
a more favourable environment for the latter bioremediation treatment.
Approximately 90% of contaminants was removed after 15 min of sol-
vent extraction. Subsequent bioremediation further reduced the petro-
leum contamination up to 97% after 132 days. The authors concluded
that this integrated method showed good performance for remediation
of high concentrations of weathered hydrocarbons due its high efficien-
cy and sustainability. An in situ study by Guerin (2015a, 2015b) also
showed similar results whereby the combination of biostimulation
and surfactant (Biosolve) could remove the petroleum hydrocarbon
concentration in a sandy rock fill from 20,000 mg/kg to b200 mg/kg
after 180 weeks of treatment. However, a similar integrated remedia-
tion study conducted by Wyrwas et al. (2011) that uses Triton X-100
as the extraction solvent prior to bioremediation of diesel contaminated
soil demonstrated poor removal efficiency of 25%, which suggested an
uneven involvement of the microbial population during the biodegra-
dation process due to the presence of the surfactant.
Another study demonstrated the use of bioremediation as the sec-
ondary treatment after electrokinetic remediation. Dong et al. (2013)
investigated on the integration of electrokinetic remediation with bio-
degradation for remediation of petroleum and heavy metal contaminat-
ed soil in a laboratory-scale electrokinetic reactor. The electrolyte used
for the electrokinetic process was a combination of sulfates and nitrates,
which coincidently acts as a nutrient supply to the bacterial consortium.
Replenishment of electrolyte solution was performed every 3 days to re-
plenish the mobile ions in soil. It was found that the addition of Tween
80 and EDTA as an anolyte and catholyte conditioning agent showed
high efficiency in the removal of both TPH and heavy metals. EDTA
also helped to remove heavy metals which subsequently decreased
the toxicity in soil, and enhanced the activity of microbial degradation
of oil. Tween 80, on the other hand, acts as a second substrate for micro-
bial growth and biodegradation. The TPH removal efficiency through
the combined electrokinetic and biodegradation technology after
30 days was found to be at 88.3%.
In the recent years, it was observed that there is an increase in inter-
est for the integration of biological permeable reactive barrier, or
biobarriers; and electrokinetic remediation for soil remediation. The
combination of these two technologies had been deemed as electro-
bioremediation, and is efficient for the removal of contaminants and
maintains appropriate condition for optimal microorganism growth.
The working mechanism is that the biobarrier would act as a biodegrader
from the attached microbial biofilm which would aid the biodegradation
of the contaminant, while the electrokinetic technology would drive the
pollutants to the barrier from the mass transport process. Mena et al.
(2015) first investigated on the usage of biobarriers coupled with elec-
trokinetic soil flushing for the remediation of diesel polluted soil. A diesel
degradation efficiency of 30% was observed after 2 weeks of operation,
and the energy consumption was under 70 kWh/m3. Feasibility studies
on the effectiveness of electrobioremediation were also performed by
Ramírez et al. (2015a, 2015b). The results showed that for a diesel con-
taminated soil of 10 g/kg, approximately 27% of the diesel was removed
after 336 h, with sodium dodecyl sulfate as the anionic surfactant and
constant voltage gradient of 1.0 V/cm. The authors observed that there
was an increase in biomass by 25% after the process, which indicates bi-
ological growth on the biobarrier and leads to biodegradation of the die-
sel contaminant. However, it should be noted that the electroosmotic
flow and biodegradation removed a certain amount of water, surfactant
and inorganic nutrients which have to be continuously replaced for a
long-term experiment (Ramírez et al., 2015b).
A follow up study by the same authors compared the efficiency of
electrobioremediation with other strategies of combined bioremedia-
tion and electrokinetic soil remediation for the purpose of remediation
of diesel (10 g/kg) contaminated soil. The four options tested were:
(1) singular control bioremediation test (Bio), (2) direct combination
of electrokinetic soil flushing and biological technologies (EKSF-Bio),
(3) EKSF-Bio with daily polarity reversal of electric field (PR- EKSF-
38 M.W. Lim et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 109 (2016) 14–45
Bio), and (4) combination of electrokinetic soil flushing and a perme-
able reactive biological barrier (EKSF-BioPRB). Results from the experi-
ments showed a very low diesel removal efficiency for the EKSF-Bio test,
due to the high buffer concentration required to control the pH which
affected the microbial growth. The highest diesel removal efficiency
was found to be 29% using the EKSF-BioPRB technique as compared to
12% for Bio test and 20% for PR-EKSF-Bio test. This was attributed to
the presence of biological barrier which protected the biological activity
which therefore improved the degradation of diesel in the contaminat-
ed soil (Ramírez et al., 2015a).
6.3. Integrated chemical–biological remediation technology
Lu et al. (2010b) studied the removal of petroleum from soil via the
Fenton-like treatment followed by biodegradation. The use of chemical
oxidation method as a pre-treatment does not only destroy the targeted
compounds, but also reduced the overall toxicity of contaminants to the
microorganisms in the latter biodegradation process (Gong, 2012; Tekin
et al., 2006; Yahiat et al., 2011). Results showed that a removal efficiency
of 67.3% was observed during the Fenton-like treatment using the opti-
mum ratio of H2O2:Fe3+ of 300:1 (v/v%). A further observation of 50.6%
of contaminant was removed after 10 weeks of microbial treatment,
resulting in a total oil removal efficiency of approximately 83.5% for
this integrated remediation technology.
This is in good agreement with works performed by Kim and Lee
(2012) who also looked into the integrated chemical oxidation and bio-
remediation method for the remediation of diesel contaminated soil. In
the chemical oxidation treatment alone using 20% H2O2 solution, the
TPH removal efficiency was 63.5%. This removal efficiency was shown
to increase by 48.6%, resulting in a total removal efficiency of 81.2%
upon the latter bioremediation treatment. A pilot scale test on a diesel
contaminated site was subsequently performed, whereby 17.5% H2O2
solution was flushed for 15 days with removal efficiency of 51.5%.
After the seventh day, the mixed microorganism cultured solution of
43 L was injected into the contaminated site, which showed a further
improvement in the TPH removal up to 71.1%. This study showed that
the addition of H2O2 did not compromise the biodegradation process,
and the integrated technologies are efficient in the removal of contam-
inants from a contaminated field site.
Similar works were performed by Gong (2012) whereby the author
performed a bioremediation prior to chemical oxidation process for the
remediation of weathered crude oil contaminated soil. Bioremediation
was initially carried out using additional nutrients and peanut hull as
a bulking agent for up to 8 weeks, followed by the modified Fenton ox-
idation which was then conducted with the addition of H2O2 directly
into the soil. The contaminant removal during the bioremediation
stage showed a removal efficiency of 38.6% followed by an increase to
88.9% with the addition of H2O2.
A pilot scale plant was carried out by Silva-Castro et al. (2013) using
Fenton oxidation and subsequent biostimulation as post treatment for
diesel contaminated soil. The modified Fenton remediation technology
using H2O2 as oxidant was applied for 14 days, followed by biostimulation
using inorganic NPK fertilizer for a further 28 days for the remediation of
soil artificially polluted with 20 g/kg of diesel. Results showed that the
combination of Fenton oxidation and biostimulation increased the TPH
removal efficiency by up to 34% in the non-saturated layer, as opposed
to natural attenuation of diesel. This was attributed to the latter biostim-
ulation process which increased the concentration of biodegrading
microbe and therefore increased the biological activity within the con-
taminated soil.
6.4. Advancements and future work of integrated remediation technologies
In the previous decade, a new energy saving bioremediation process
called bioelectrochemical systems (BESs), also known as microbial elec-
trochemical systems was developed for enhanced and accelerated
remediation of oil contaminated soil. In this system, the electrochemically
active bacteria (EAB) such as Geobacter spp. (Lovley, 2011; Rabaey and
Rozendal, 2010), Comamonas testosteroni, P. putida, and Ochrobactrum
anthropi (Lu et al., 2014a) are able to catalyse both oxidation and reduc-
tion reactions of hydrocarbon pollutant and extracellularly transfer elec-
trons respectively, to convert chemical energy into electrical current. A
prime example of a BES is a microbial fuel cell (MFC) technology.
The use of BES has several advantages. BES provides two redox reac-
tions (oxidation and reduction) that results in the integrated microbial-
electro-chemical removal mechanisms, and hence, an improved remov-
al efficiency even for complex contaminants. In addition, BES does not
require large amounts of energy or external chemical amendments for
operation, due to the presence of electrodes as non-exhaustible electron
acceptors and donors for the degradation of oil contaminant. The elim-
ination of energy and chemical costs would then lead to an overall lower
operational cost in the long run. The produced electrical current from
the reaction could serve as a real-time bioremediation indicator and at
the same time could power up the wireless sensor for online monitor-
ing. The easy configuration of BES is also another advantage (Li et al.,
2015; Lu et al., 2014b; Wang et al., 2015).
Many studies have reported that the use of BES as a remediation
technology could accelerate the remediation process and shorten reme-
diation time as compared to biodegradation alone. Lu et al. (2014b)
demonstrated that the application of BES in a 50 L pilot scale reactor
for remediation of diesel contaminated soils could provide a removal ef-
ficiency of up to 89.7%. The observed results are 241% greater than the
conventional biodegradation method. Similar results were also ob-
served by Li et al. (2015) who reported that the degradation of petro-
leum from soils increased by 268% after 135 days. The increase in the
degradation rate was attributed to the BES anode electrode influence
on microbial activity, which maximizes the reactive surface area for ef-
ficient electron collection from the microbial degradation processes. Re-
sults from these studies suggest that BES could be an innovative and
sustainable alternative for the remediation of oil contaminated soil in
large field scale. A detailed review of the application of BES for soil reme-
diation was compiled by Wang et al. (2015).
Overall, BES for oil remediation is still in infancy study stage. Due to
the complexity and diversity of this application, more process develop-
ment needs to be conducted for application of BES for in situ remedia-
tion of oil contaminated soil.
7. Final recommendations and conclusion
The contamination of soil by oil is inevitable in many sectors, ranging
from the petroleum industry, transportation and to marine oil spillages
onto sea water and shorelines. A variety of remediation technologies
have been developed, with some implemented onto field-scale applica-
tions. Table 9 provides a brief overview of the advantages and limita-
tions, average cost, efficiencies and duration for all the remediation
technologies for oil contaminated soil discussed in this review article.
For a successful oil remediation, the understanding of the site contam-
inant would lead to a better decision of remediation technology best for
the removal of oil contaminant. Therefore, assessment of the soil contam-
ination via integrated field spectroscopy and spatial analysis could be ini-
tially conducted to expedite the characterization of onsite concentration
and distribution of contaminants. (Horta et al., 2015). Following that,
the choice of a remediation technology for field application is loosely de-
pendent on two factors; (1) site specific conditions such as characteristics
of contaminants, properties of soil, and weather; and (2) operational con-
ditions that would influence the oil removal efficiency.
The site specific conditions play an important role in determining
the success of remediation technology, particularly the characteristics
of contaminants such as volatility, concentration, aging and weathering,
water content and biodegradability of oil. For example, the use of bio-
logical remediation method for highly contaminated soil (high concen-
tration of oil contaminant) would not be recommended as the high
Table 9
Summary of advantages and limitations of oil contaminated soil remediation technology.

Classification Remediation Current Advantages Limitations Maximum Efficiencies Duration References

technology application contaminant (%)
for on-site level
remediation

Biological Bioremediation Yes Low cost, low environmental impact, high Long treatment durations, inconsistent results 2–10% ≈50–90+ Several (Boopathy, 2000; Chang et al., 2011b;
potential for on-site treatments, no waste and highly dependent on the contaminated months/years Chen et al., 2013; Hoff, 1993; Margesin
treatment required site, limited to biodegradable contaminants and Schinner, 1997; Mearns, 1997)
Phytoremediation Yes Aesthetically pleasing, low operational cost, Time-consuming, difficult to implement a 1–8% ≈50–90 Several (Cunningham et al., 1995; Gerhardt
roots of plants helps to stabilize soil which specific plant type for every oil spill, months/years et al., 2009; Muratova et al., 2008; Peng

M.W. Lim et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 109 (2016) 14–45

can prevent erosion, capable of remediating dependent on many environmental factors, et al., 2009)
large areas of contamination could only tolerate low concentrations of
toxins
Chemical Chemical No High efficiency, low operational costs, ease Limited by low soil permeability, highly 5–15% N80 Up to 72 h (Goi et al., 2009; Goi et al., 2006)
oxidation of operation, formation of environmental dependent on pH, destroys natural
friendly by-products microorganisms
Electrokinetic Yesa Uniform flow distribution, precise control Dependent on desorption of contaminant, 10–20% ≈40–70 14–45 Days (Ho et al., 1999; Kim and Lee, 1999; Page
remediation of movement, low operating cost, low unenvironmental friendly, time consuming, and Page, 2002; Pazos et al., 2012b;
power consumption may affect microbial activity due to Virkutyte et al., 2002)
mobilization of soil nutrients
Thermal Incineration, Yes High efficiency, quick, reliable, able to treat High costs, formation of greenhouse gases, 2–10% N95 Several (Anthony and Wang, 2006; Chien, 2012;
thermal large volumes of contaminated soil affected by high moisture content seconds–2 h Falciglia et al., 2011; Jones et al., 2002; LI
desorption, et al., 2009a; Smith et al., 2001;
microwave Yakymenko and Kyrjyienko, 2011)
heating
Physical–chemical Solvent No Easily implemented, high efficiency, quick High cost, consumes large amount of solvent, 0.5–30% 60–98 Several (Gan et al., 2009; Wu et al., 2011)
extraction unenvironmental friendly hours–10
months
Soil vapour Yes High efficiency for large quantities of Ineffective for low volatility contaminants and 3–15% 65–95 Several (Agency, 2012; Rathfelder et al., 1995)
extraction volatile content, quick, low cost, enhances soils with low air permeability days–months
growth of microorganisms
Flotation No Easy application, rapid operation time, low Requires large amounts of water, unable to 7.5–35% 65–97 Several hours (Tao, 2005)
technology operational cost, low space requirements treat soil contaminated with non-buoyant
contaminants
Sonication No Environmental friendly, low energy High equipment cost, limited to small area of 1–15% 20–100 Several (Abramov et al., 2009; Feng and Aldrich,
consumption, eliminates the need for treatment per run seconds–45 2000; Mason, 2003)
chemical addition min
a
Mainly when integrated with other types of remediation technology.

39
40 M.W. Lim et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 109 (2016) 14–45
concentration would be toxic to the plants and oil degrading microbe.
Likewise, remediation methods such as soil vapour extraction are not
suitable for low volatility oil contaminant. In addition, the use of thermal
remediation for removal of oil contaminant with high water content is
not encouraged due to possibility of incomplete combustion which
could reduce removal efficiency. Thus, it could be seen that the choice
of remediation technology highly depends on the characteristic of con-
taminant, as the incorrect selection may deter the success of remedia-
tion efficiency.
Properties of soil such as soil porosity/permeability, soil type, water
content, biomass and nutrient concentration, and soil pH also play an
important role in determining the remediation efficiency. A highly per-
meable soil is highly favoured for many remediation methods such as
chemical oxidation, solvent extraction and soil vapour extraction for ho-
mogeneous medium (air/solvent) circulation. Hence for a soil with low
permeability, the choice of electrokinetic, thermal or sonication remedi-
ation would be recommended, as these methods are less likely to be
hindered by the permeability of the soil. Likewise, soil with high water
content would not be suitable for thermal remediation or soil vapour
extraction as this affects the removal rate of contaminant under higher
temperatures. A soil of high biomass and nutrient concentration may be
favourable for biological remediation, subjected to the initial contami-
nant concentration as well.
The understanding of the site specific conditions could lead to a bet-
ter choice of remediation technology. The selected remediation technol-
ogy would then be tested in laboratory scale prior to applications on-
site. While the recent reported laboratory studies that could simulate
the site specific conditions had shown high performances, the success
of remediation technology in a laboratory studies does not necessarily
translate into success in field scale applications due to other external
factors such as the impact of weather. Therefore, recent direction in re-
mediation research is currently focused on fundamental studies and
mathematical modelling/simulation that could further understand the
mechanism of remediation technology. The enhanced knowledge of
the remediation kinetics could be applied to improve the practicality
of field scale applications of soil remediation.
In addition to the factors as mentioned above, the selection of a re-
mediation process does not only depend on the applicability, advan-
tages and limitations, it also depends on the cost of the remediation
alternative, practicality in implementing the selected remediation tech-
nology, and potential environmental impact of remedial measure.
Therefore in a recent publication, Dunea et al. (2014) had successfully
developed a software for the selection of remediation technologies for
the remediation of petroleum contaminated soil, whereby the decision
support system would be able to evaluate the most applicable and fea-
sible treatment technology depending on the site and contaminant
characteristics using software entitled Soil Petroleum Contamination
Assessment Prototype (eSCAP) which was developed from artificial in-
telligence techniques (Dunea et al., 2014). The usage of this software
prior to the remediation of contaminated soil could aid the selection
of the best remediation technology that has the highest potential for
the removal of oil from the contaminated soil.
It is crucial to understand that each remediation technology has their
own characteristics, advantages and limitations and that no single re-
mediation method could fulfil the needs as the universal method for
oil contaminated soil remediation. Therefore, the integration of two or
more soil remediation technologies could be investigated in the future
studies. Although enhanced removal efficiencies were achieved, further
evaluation on the cost, technical, social and environmental performance
aspect for possible scale-up and implementation for on-site oil contam-
inated soil remediation needs to be considered.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge Monash University Malaysia
and the Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) Malaysia for the
Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (FRGS, Grant No.: FRGS/1/2015/
TK07/MUSM/03/2) for providing research facilities.
References
Abdulsalam, S., Bugaje, I., Adefila, S., Ibrahim, S., 2011. Comparison of biostimulation and
bioaugmentation for remediation of soil contaminated with spent motor oil. Int.
J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 8, 187–194.
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.
Abioye, O., Agamuthu, P., Aziz, A.A., 2012. Phytotreatment of soil contaminated with used
lubricating oil using Hibiscus cannabinus. Biodegradation 23, 277–286.
Abramov, O., Abramov, V., Myasnikov, S., Mullakaev, M., 2009. Extraction of bitumen,
crude oil and its products from tar sand and contaminated sandy soil under effect
of ultrasound. Ultrason. Sonochem. 16, 408–416.
Agamuthu, P., Abioye, O., Aziz, A.A., 2010. Phytoremediation of soil contaminated with
used lubricating oil using Jatropha curcas. J. Hazard. Mater. 179, 891–894.
Agency, U.S.E.P., 2012. Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE).
Akbari, A., Ghoshal, S., 2014. Pilot-scale bioremediation of a petroleum hydrocarbon-
contaminated clayey soil from a sub-arctic site. J. Hazard. Mater. 280, 595–602.
Albergaria, J.T., Alvim-Ferraz, M.d.C.M., Delerue-Matos, C., 2008. Soil vapor extraction in
sandy soils: influence of airflow rate. Chemosphere 73, 1557–1561.
Albergaria, J.T., Alvim-Ferraz, M.d.C.M., Delerue-Matos, C., 2012. Remediation of sandy
soils contaminated with hydrocarbons and halogenated hydrocarbons by soil vapour
extraction. J. Environ. Manag. 104, 195–201.
Alkorta, I., Garbisu, C., 2001. Phytoremediation of organic contaminants in soils. Bioresour.
Technol. 79, 273–276.
Al-Maamari, R., Hirayama, A., Sueyoshi, M., Abdalla, O., Al-Bemani, A., Islam, M., 2009. The
application of air-sparging, soil vapor extraction and pump and treat for remediation
of a diesel-contaminated fractured formation. Energy Sources, Part A 31, 911–922.
Almansoory, A.F., Hasan, H.A., Idris, M., Abdullah, S.R.S., Anuar, N., 2015. Potential applica-
tion of a biosurfactant in phytoremediation technology for treatment of gasoline-
contaminated soil. Ecol. Eng. 84, 113–120.
Al-Marzouqi, A.H., Zekri, A.Y., Jobe, B., Dowaidar, A., 2007. Supercritical fluid extraction for
the determination of optimum oil recovery conditions. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 55, 37–47.
Almeida, R., Mucha, A.P., Teixeira, C., Bordalo, A.A., Almeida, C.M.R., 2013. Biodegradation
of petroleum hydrocarbons in estuarine sediments: metal influence. Biodegradation
24, 111–123.
Al-Otoom, A., Allawzi, M., Al-Harahsheh, A.M., Al-Harahsheh, M., Al-Ghbari, R., Al-Ghazo,
R., Al-Saifi, H., 2009. A parametric study on the factors affecting the froth floatation of
Jordanian tar sand utilizing a fluidized bed floatator. Energy 34, 1310–1314.
Álvarez, L.M., Balbo, A.L., Mac Cormack, W., Ruberto, L., 2015. Bioremediation of a petro-
leum hydrocarbon-contaminated Antarctic soil: optimization of a biostimulation
strategy using response-surface methodology (RSM). Cold Reg. Sci. Technol. 119,
61–67.
Alvim-Ferraz, M.d.C.M., Albergaria, J.T., Delerue-Matos, C., 2006a. Soil remediation time to
achieve clean-up goals I: influence of soil water content. Chemosphere 62, 853–860.
Alvim-Ferraz, M.d.C.M., Tomás Albergaria, J., Delerue-Matos, C., 2006b. Soil remediation
time to achieve clean-up goals II: influence of natural organic matter and water con-
tents. Chemosphere 64, 817–825.
Ammami, M.T., Portet-Koltalo, F., Benamar, A., Duclairoir-Poc, C., Wang, H., Le Derf, F.,
2015. Application of biosurfactants and periodic voltage gradient for enhanced elec-
trokinetic remediation of metals and PAHs in dredged marine sediments.
Chemosphere 125, 1–8.
Anitescu, G., Tavlarides, L., 2006. Supercritical extraction of contaminants from soils and
sediments. J. Supercrit. Fluids 38, 167–180.
Anthony, E.J., Wang, J., 2006. Pilot plant investigations of thermal remediation of tar-
contaminated soil and oil-contaminated gravel. Fuel 85, 443–450.
Asadabadi, S., Saien, J., 2016. Effects of pH and salinity on adsorption of different
imidazolium ionic liquids at the interface of oil–water. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem.
Eng. Asp. 489, 36–45.
Ayed, H.B., Jemil, N., Maalej, H., Bayoudh, A., Hmidet, N., Nasri, M., 2015. Enhancement of
solubilization and biodegradation of diesel oil by biosurfactant from Bacillus
amyloliquefaciens An6. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 99, 8–14.
Balasubramaniyam, A., Harvey, P.J., 2014. Scanning electron microscopic investigations of
root structural modifications arising from growth in crude oil-contaminated sand.
Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 21, 12651–12661.
Barba, A., Acierno, D., d'Amore, M., 2012. Use of microwaves for in-situ removal of pollut-
ant compounds from solid matrices. J. Hazard. Mater. 207, 128–135.
Bastida, F., Jehmlich, N., Lima, K., Morris, B., Richnow, H., Hernández, T., von Bergen, M.,
García, C., 2015. The ecological and physiological responses of the microbial commu-
nity from a semiarid soil to hydrocarbon contamination and its bioremediation using
compost. J. Proteome.
Benzagouta, M.S., AlNashef, I.M., Karnanda, W., Al-Khidir, K., 2013. Ionic liquids as novel
surfactants for potential use in enhanced oil recovery. Korean J. Chem. Eng. 30,
2108–2117.
Beškoski, V.P., Gojgić-Cvijović, G., Milić, J., Ilić, M., Miletić, S., Šolević, T., Vrvić, M.M., 2011.
Ex situ bioremediation of a soil contaminated by mazut (heavy residual fuel oil)–a
field experiment. Chemosphere 83, 34–40.
Bezza, F.A., Chirwa, E.M.N., 2015. Biosurfactant from Paenibacillus dendritiformis and
its application in assisting polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) and motor
oil sludge removal from contaminated soil and sand media. Process. Saf. Environ.
Prot.
 M.W. Lim et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 109 (2016) 14–45
Bezza, F.A., Beukes, M., Chirwa, E.M.N., 2015. Application of biosurfactant produced by
Ochrobactrum intermedium CN3 for enhancing petroleum sludge bioremediation. Pro-
cess Biochem.
Bocos, E., Fernández-Costas, C., Pazos, M., Sanromán, M.Á., 2015. Removal of PAHs and
pesticides from polluted soils by enhanced electrokinetic-Fenton treatment.
Chemosphere 125, 168–174.
Boopathy, R., 2000. Factors limiting bioremediation technologies. Bioresour. Technol. 74,
63–67.
Boopathy, R., 2004. Anaerobic biodegradation of no. 2 diesel fuel in soil: a soil column
study. Bioresour. Technol. 94, 143–151.
Bordoloi, S., Basumatary, B., 2015. Phytoremediation of hydrocarbon-contaminated soil
using sedge species, phytoremediation. Springer 279–282.
Boulakradeche, M.O., Akretche, D.E., Cameselle, C., Hamidi, N., 2015. Enhanced electroki-
netic remediation of hydrophobic organics contaminated soils by the combination of
non-ionic and ionic surfactants. Electrochim. Acta 174, 1057–1066.
Bragg, J.R., Prince, R.C., Harner, E.J., Atlas, R.M., 1994. Effectiveness of bioremediation for
the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Nature 368, 413–418.
Broman, D., Ganning, B., Lindblad, C., 1983. Effects of high pressure, hot water shore
cleaning after oil spills on shore ecosystems in the northern Baltic proper. Mar. Envi-
ron. Res. 10, 173–187.
Bucala, V., Saito, H., Howard, J.B., Peters, W.A., 1994. Thermal treatment of fuel oil-
contaminated soils under rapid heating conditions. Environ. Sci. Technol. 28,
1801–1807.
Byström, A., Hirtz, M., 2002. Phytoremediation of Petroleum Hydrocarbon-Contaminated
Soils with Salix Viminalis.
Calgaroto, S., Wilberg, K., Rubio, J., 2014. On the nanobubbles interfacial properties and fu-
ture applications in flotation. Miner. Eng. 60, 33–40.
Carroll, K.C., Oostrom, M., Truex, M.J., Rohay, V.J., Brusseau, M.L., 2012. Assessing perfor-
mance and closure for soil vapor extraction: integrating vapor discharge and impact
to groundwater quality. J. Contam. Hydrol. 128, 71–82.
Cartmill, A.D., Cartmill, D.L., Alarcón, A., 2014. Controlled release fertilizer increased
phytoremediation of petroleum-contaminated sandy soil. Int. J. Phytoremediation
16, 285–301.
Chaineau, C., Rougeux, G., Yepremian, 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.
Chang, H.J., Jou, C.-J.G., Lee, C.-L., 2011a. Treatment of heavy oil contaminated sand by mi-
crowave energy. Environ. Eng. Sci. 28, 869–873.
Chang, L.K., Ibrahim, D., Omar, I.C., 2011b. A laboratory scale bioremediation of Tapis
crude oil contaminated soil by bioaugmentation of Acinetobacter baumannii T30C.
Afr. J. Microbiol. Res. 5, 2609–2615.
Chen, Q., Bao, M., Fan, X., Liang, S., Sun, P., 2013. Rhamnolipids enhance marine oil spill
bioremediation in laboratory system. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 71, 269–275.
Chien, Y.-C., 2012. Field study of in situ remediation of petroleum hydrocarbon contami-
nated soil on site using microwave energy. J. Hazard. Mater. 199, 457–461.
Chilingarian, G.V., Sadeghi, K.M., Sadeghi, M.-A., Yen, T.F., 1989. Development of a new
method for the extraction of bitumen from tar sands using sonication and sodium sil-
icate. Chem. Technol. Fuels Oils 25, 3–11.
Chou, C.-C., Ososkov, V., Zhang, L., Somasundaran, P., 1998. Removal of nonvolatile hydro-
phobic compounds from artificially and naturally contaminated soils by column flo-
tation. J. Soil Contam. 7, 559–571.
Chuluun, B., Shah, S.H., Rhee, J.-S., 2014. Bioaugmented phytoremediation: a strategy for
reclamation of diesel oil-contaminated soils. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 16, 624–628.
Conan, G., Dunnet, G., Crisp, D., 1982. The long-term effects of the Amoco Cadiz oil spill
[and discussion]. philosophical transactions of the royal society of london. b. Biologi-
cal Sciences 297, 323–333.
Cook, R.L., Hesterberg, D., 2013. Comparison of trees and grasses for rhizoremediation of
petroleum hydrocarbons. Int. J. Phytoremediation 15, 844–860.
Couto, H.J., Massarani, G., Biscaia, E.C., Sant'Anna, G.L., 2009. Remediation of sandy soils
using surfactant solutions and foams. J. Hazard. Mater. 164, 1325–1334.
Covino, S., D'Annibale, A., Stazi, S.R., Cajthaml, T., Čvančarová, M., Stella, T., Petruccioli, M.,
2015. Assessment of degradation potential of aliphatic hydrocarbons by autochthonous
filamentous fungi from a historically polluted clay soil. Sci. Total Environ. 505, 545–554.
Cunningham, S.D., Berti, W.R., Huang, J.W., 1995. Phytoremediation of contaminated soils.
Trends Biotechnol. 13, 393–397.
da Rosa, C.F., Freire, D.M., Ferraz, H.C., 2015. Biosurfactant microfoam: application in the
removal of pollutants from soil. J.Environ. Chem. Eng. 3, 89–94.
Dadrasnia, A., Agamuthu, P., 2013. Organic wastes to enhance phyto-treatment of diesel-
contaminated soil. Waste Manag. Res. 31, 1133–1139.
Dadrasnia, A., Agamuthu, P., 2014. Biostimulation and monitoring of diesel fuel polluted
soil amended with biowaste. Pet. Sci. Technol. 32, 2822–2828.
Das, D., Baruah, R., Roy, A.S., Singh, A.K., Boruah, H.P.D., Kalita, J., Bora, T.C., 2015. Complete
genome sequence analysis of Pseudomonas aeruginosa N002 reveals its genetic adap-
tation for crude oil degradation. Genomics 105, 182–190.
Delcheva, I., Ralston, J., Beattie, D.A., Krasowska, M., 2014. Static and dynamic wetting be-
haviour of ionic liquids. Adv. Colloid Interf. Sci.
Dhar, P., Kar, C., Ojha, D., Pandey, S., Mitra, J., 2015. Chemistry, phytotechnology, pharma-
cology and nutraceutical functions of kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus L.) and roselle
(Hibiscus sabdariffa L.) seed oil: an overview. Ind. Crop. Prod. 77, 323–332.
Dias, R.L., Ruberto, L., Hernández, E., Vázquez, S.C., Lo Balbo, A., Del Panno, M.T., Mac
Cormack, W.P., 2012. Bioremediation of an aged diesel oil-contaminated Antarctic
soil: Evaluation of the “on site” biostimulation strategy using different nutrient
sources. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 75, 96–103.
Do, S.-H., Jo, J.-H., Jo, Y.-H., Lee, H.-K., Kong, S.-H., 2009. Application of a peroxymonosul-
fate/cobalt (PMS/Co (II)) system to treat diesel-contaminated soil. Chemosphere 77,
1127–1131.
41
Do, S.-H., Kwon, Y.-J., Kong, S.-H., 2010. Effect of metal oxides on the reactivity of persul-
fate/Fe (II) in the remediation of diesel-contaminated soil and sand. J. Hazard. Mater.
182, 933–936.
Dominguez-Rosado, E., Pichtel, J., 2004. Phytoremediation of soil contaminated with used
motor oil: II. Greenhouse studies. Environ. Eng. Sci. 21, 169–180.
Dominguez-Rosado, E., Pichtel, J., Coughlin, M., 2004. Phytoremediation of soil contami-
nated with used motor oil: I. Enhanced microbial activities from laboratory and
growth chamber studies. Environ. Eng. Sci. 21, 157–168.
Dong, Z.-Y., Xing, D.-F., Huang, W.-H., Zhang, H.-F., 2013. Remediation of soil co-
contaminated with petroleum and heavy metals by the integration of electrokinetics
and biostimulation. J. Hazard. Mater.
Drelich, J., Leliński, D., Hupka, J., Miller, J.D., 1995. The role of gas bubbles in bitumen re-
lease during oil sand digestion. Fuel 74, 1150–1155.
Dunea, D., Iordache, S., Pohoata, A., Frasin, L.B.N., 2014. Investigation and selection of re-
mediation technologies for petroleum-contaminated soils using a decision support
system. Water Air Soil Pollut. 225, 1–18.
Elektorowicz, M., Boeva, V., 1996. Electrokinetic supply of nutrients in soil bioremedia-
tion. Environ. Technol. 17, 1339–1349.
El-Sheshtawy, H., Khalil, N., Ahmed, W., Abdallah, R., 2014. Monitoring of oil pollution at
Gemsa Bay and bioremediation capacity of bacterial isolates with biosurfactants and
nanoparticles. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 87, 191–200.
Emami, S., Pourbabaei, A.A., Alikhani, H.A., 2014. Interactive effect of nitrogen fertilizer
and hydrocarbon pollution on soil biological indicators. Environ. Earth Sci. 1––7.
Ezenne, G., Nwoke, O., Ezikpe, D., Obalum, S., Ugwuishiwu, B., 2014. Use of poultry drop-
pings for remediation of crude-oil-polluted soils: effects of application rate on total
and poly-aromatic hydrocarbon concentrations. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 92,
57–65.
Falciglia, P., Vagliasindi, F., 2014. Remediation of hydrocarbon-contaminated soils by ex
situ microwave treatment: technical, energy and economic considerations. Environ.
Technol. 35, 2280–2288.
Falciglia, P., Vagliasindi, F., 2015. Remediation of hydrocarbon polluted soils using
2.45 GHz frequency-heating: influence of operating power and soil texture on soil
temperature profiles and contaminant removal kinetics. J. Geochem. Explor. 151,
66–73.
Falciglia, P., Giustra, M., Vagliasindi, F., 2011. Low-temperature thermal desorption of die-
sel polluted soil: influence of temperature and soil texture on contaminant removal
kinetics. J. Hazard. Mater. 185, 392–400.
Falciglia, P.P., Urso, G., Vagliasindi, F.G., 2013. Microwave heating remediation of soils con-
taminated with diesel fuel. J. Soils Sediments 1–12.
Fan, G., Cang, L., Fang, G., Zhou, D., 2014. Surfactant and oxidant enhanced electrokinetic
remediation of a PCBs polluted soil. Sep. Purif. Technol. 123, 106–113.
Feng, D., Aldrich, C., 2000. Sonochemical treatment of simulated soil contaminated with
diesel. Adv. Environ. Res. 4, 103–112.
Feng, D., Lorenzen, L., Aldrich, C., Mare, P., 2001. Ex situ diesel contaminated soil washing
with mechanical methods. Miner. Eng. 14, 1093–1100.
Ferguson, S.H., Woinarski, A.Z., Snape, I., Morris, C.E., Revill, A.T., 2004. A field trial of in
situ chemical oxidation to remediate long-term diesel contaminated Antarctic soil.
Original Research Article. Cold Reg. Sci. Technol. 40, 47–60.
Ferradji, F.Z., Mnif, S., Badis, A., Rebbani, S., Fodil, D., Eddouaouda, K., Sayadi, S., 2014. Naph-
thalene and crude oil degradation by biosurfactant producing Streptomyces spp. isolat-
ed from Mitidja plain soil (north of Algeria). Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 86, 300–308.
Flores, R., Blass, G., Dominguez, V., 2007. Soil remediation by an advanced oxidative meth-
od assisted with ultrasonic energy. J. Hazard. Mater. 140, 399–402.
Flury, C., Afacan, A., Tamiz Bakhtiari, M., Sjoblom, J., Xu, Z., 2013. Effect of caustic type on
bitumen extraction from Canadian oil sands. Energy Fuel 28, 431–438.
Franco, M.G., Corrêa, S.M., Marques, M., Perez, D.V., 2014. Emission of volatile organic
compounds and greenhouse gases from the anaerobic bioremediation of soils con-
taminated with diesel. Water Air Soil Pollut. 225, 1–9.
Gan, S., Lau, E., Ng, H., 2009. Remediation of soils contaminated with polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs). J. Hazard. Mater. 172, 532–549.
Gao, Y.-c., Guo, S.-h., Wang, J.-n., Li, D., Wang, H., Zeng, D.-H., 2014. Effects of different re-
mediation treatments on crude oil contaminated saline soil. Chemosphere 117,
486–493.
Gao, Y.-c., Wang, J.-n., Guo, S.-h., Hu, Y.-L., Li, T.-t., Mao, R., Zeng, D.-H., 2015. Effects of sa-
linization and crude oil contamination on soil bacterial community structure in the
Yellow River Delta region, China. Appl. Soil Ecol. 86, 165–173.
Geng, X., Boufadel, M.C., Personna, Y.R., Lee, K., Tsao, D., Demicco, E.D., 2014. BioB: a math-
ematical model for the biodegradation of low solubility hydrocarbons. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
83, 138–147.
Geranmayeh, A., Mowla, A., Rajaei, H., Esmaeilzadeh, F., Kaljahi, J.F., 2012. Extraction of
hydrocarbons from the contaminated soil of Pazanan II production unit by supercrit-
ical carbon dioxide. J. Supercrit. Fluids 72, 298–304.
Gerhardt, K.E., Huang, X.-D., Glick, B.R., Greenberg, B.M., 2009. Phytoremediation and
rhizoremediation of organic soil contaminants: potential and challenges. Plant Sci.
176, 20–30.
Germida, J., Frick, C., Farrell, R., 2002. Phytoremediation of oil-contaminated soils. Dev.
Soil Sci. 28, 169–186.
Ghazanfari, E., Pamukcu, S., Pervizpour, M., Karpyn, Z., 2014. Investigation of generalized
relative permeability coefficients for electrically assisted oil recovery in oil forma-
tions. Transp. Porous Media 105, 235–253.
Goi, A., Trapido, M., Kulik, N., Palmroth, M., Tuhkanen, T., 2006. Ozonation and Fenton
treatment for remediation of diesel fuel contaminated soil. Ozone Sci. Eng. 28, 37–46.
Goi, A., Trapido, M., Kulik, N., 2009. Contaminated soil remediation with hydrogen perox-
ide oxidation. World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol. 52, 185–189.
Gomez, F., Sartaj, M., 2013. Field scale ex-situ bioremediation of petroleum contaminated
soil under cold climate conditions. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 85, 375–382.
42 M.W. Lim et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 109 (2016) 14–45
Gomez, F., Sartaj, M., 2014. Optimization of field scale biopiles for bioremediation of pe-
troleum hydrocarbon contaminated soil at low temperature conditions by response
surface methodology (RSM). Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 89, 103–109.
Gong, X.-B., 2012. Remediation of weathered petroleum oil-contaminated soil using a
combination of biostimulation and modified Fenton oxidation. Int. Biodeterior.
Biodegrad. 70, 89–95.
Gou, S., Yin, T., Yan, L., Guo, Q., 2015. Water-soluble complexes of hydrophobically mod-
ified polymer and surface active imidazolium-based ionic liquids for enhancing oil re-
covery. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 471, 45–53.
Gruiz, K., Fenyvesi, E., Kriston, E., Molnar, M., Horvath, B., 1996. Potential use of cyclodex-
trins in soil bioremediation. J. Incl. Phenom. Mol. Recognit. Chem. 25, 233–236.
Gu, Y., Fu, R., Li, H., An, H., 2015. A new two-dimensional experimental apparatus for elec-
trochemical remediation processes. Chin. J. Chem. Eng.
Guerin, T.F., 2015a. Bioremediation of diesel from a rocky shoreline in an arid tropical cli-
mate. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 99, 85–93.
Guerin, T.F., 2015b. A safe, efficient and cost effective process for removing petroleum hy-
drocarbons from a highly heterogeneous and relatively inaccessible shoreline.
J. Environ. Manag. 162, 190–198.
Haensly, W., Neff, J., Sharp, J., Morris, A., Bedgood, M., Boem, P., 1982. Histopathology of
Pleuronectes platessa L. from Aber Wrac'h and Aber Benoit, Brittany, France: long-
term effects of the Amoco Cadiz crude oil spill. J. Fish Dis. 5, 365–391.
Hall, D.W., Sandrin, J.A., McBride, R.E., 1990. An overview of solvent extraction treatment
technologies. Environ. Prog. 9, 98–105.
Hamzah, A., Phan, C.-W., Yong, P.-H., Mohd Ridzuan, N.H., 2014. Oil palm empty fruit
bunch and sugarcane bagasse enhance the bioremediation of soil artificially polluted
by crude oil. Soil Sediment Contam. Int. J. 23, 751–762.
Han, H., Lee, Y.-J., Kim, S.-H., Yang, J.-W., 2009a. Electrokinetic remediation of soil contam-
inated with diesel oil using EDTA–cosolvent solutions. Sep. Sci. Technol. 44,
2437–2454.
Han, M., Ji, G., Ni, J., 2009b. Washing of field weathered crude oil contaminated soil with
an environmentally compatible surfactant, alkyl polyglucoside. Chemosphere 76,
579–586.
Harjai, S.K., Flury, C., Masliyah, J., Drelich, J., Xu, Z., 2012. Robust aqueous–nonaqueous hy-
brid process for bitumen extraction from mineable Athabasca oil sands. Energy Fuel
26, 2920–2927.
Hasan, T., Gerhard, J.I., Hadden, R., Rein, G., 2015. Self-sustaining smouldering combustion
of coal tar for the remediation of contaminated sand: two-dimensional experiments
and computational simulations. Fuel 150, 288–297.
Hasinger, M., Scherr, K.E., Lundaa, T., Bräuer, L., Zach, C., Loibner, A.P., 2012. Changes in
iso- and n-alkane distribution during biodegradation of crude oil under nitrate and
sulphate reducing conditions. J. Biotechnol. 157, 490–498.
Hentati, O., Lachhab, R., Ayadi, M., Ksibi, M., 2013. Toxicity assessment for petroleum-
contaminated soil using terrestrial invertebrates and plant bioassays. Environ.
Monit. Assess. 185, 2989–2998.
Hernández-Espriú, A., Sánchez-León, E., Martínez-Santos, P., Torres, L.G., 2013. Remedia-
tion of a diesel-contaminated soil from a pipeline accidental spill: enhanced biodeg-
radation and soil washing processes using natural gums and surfactants. J. Soils
Sediments 13, 152–165.
Ho, S.V., Athmer, C., Sheridan, P.W., Hughes, B.M., Orth, R., McKenzie, D., Brodsky, P.H.,
Shapiro, A., Thornton, R., Salvo, J., 1999. The Lasagna technology for in situ soil reme-
diation. 1. Small field test. Environ. Sci. Technol. 33, 1086–1091.
Hoff, R.Z., 1993. Bioremediation: an overview of its development and use for oil spill
cleanup. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 26, 476–481.
Høier, C.K., Sonnenborg, T.O., Jensen, K.H., Gudbjerg, J., 2009. Model analysis of mecha-
nisms controlling pneumatic soil vapor extraction. J. Contam. Hydrol. 103, 82–98.
Hong, P., Cha, Z., Zhao, X., Cheng, C.-J., Duyvesteyn, W., 2012. Extraction of bitumen from
oil sands with hot water and pressure cycles. Fuel Process. Technol.
Horel, A., Mortazavi, B., Sobecky, P.A., 2015. Input of organic matter enhances degradation
of weathered diesel fuel in sub-tropical sediments. Sci. Total Environ. 533, 82–90.
Horta, A., Malone, B., Stockmann, U., Minasny, B., Bishop, T., McBratney, A., Pallasser, R.,
Pozza, L., 2015. Potential of integrated field spectroscopy and spatial analysis for en-
hanced assessment of soil contamination: a prospective review. Geoderma 241,
180–209.
Hou, J., Liu, W., Wang, B., Wang, Q., Luo, Y., Franks, A.E., 2015. PGPR enhanced
phytoremediation of petroleum contaminated soil and rhizosphere microbial com-
munity response. Chemosphere 138, 592–598.
Hu, G., Li, J., Thring, R.W., Arocena, J., 2014. Ultrasonic oil recovery and salt removal from
refinery tank bottom sludge. J. Environ. Sci. Health A 49, 1425–1435.
Huang, X.-D., El-Alawi, Y., Gurska, J., Glick, B.R., Greenberg, B.M., 2005. A multi-process
phytoremediation system for decontamination of persistent total petroleum hydro-
carbons (TPHs) from soils. Microchem. J. 81, 139–147.
Huguenot, D., Mousset, E., van Hullebusch, E.D., Oturan, M.A., 2015. Combination of sur-
factant enhanced soil washing and electro-Fenton process for the treatment of soils
contaminated by petroleum hydrocarbons. J. Environ. Manag. 153, 40–47.
Hutzier, N., Murphy, B., Gierke, J., 1991. State of technology review: soil vapor extraction
systems. J. Hazard. Mater. 26, 225–230.
Islam, M.N., Jo, Y.-T., Park, J.-H., 2013. Remediation of soil contaminated with lubricating
oil by extraction using subcritical water. J. Ind. Eng. Chem.
Islam, M.N., Jo, Y.-T., Park, J.-H., 2014. Remediation of soil contaminated with lubricating
oil by extraction using subcritical water. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 20, 1511–1516.
Jagtap, S.S., Woo, S.M., Kim, T.-S., Dhiman, S.S., Kim, D., Lee, J.-K., 2014. Phytoremediation
of diesel-contaminated soil and saccharification of the resulting biomass. Fuel 116,
292–298.
Jeon, C.S., Yang, J.S., Kim, K.J., Baek, K., 2010. Electrokinetic removal of petroleum hydro-
carbon from residual clayey soil following a washing process. Clean: Soil, Air, Water
38, 189–193.
Ji, G., Sui, X., 2010. Impact of ultrasonic time on hot water elution of severely biodegraded
heavy oil from weathered soils. J. Hazard. Mater. 179, 230–236.
Ji, G., Zhou, G., 2010. Impact of ultrasonication time on elution of super heavy oil and its
biomarkers from aging soils using a Triton X-100 micellar solution. J. Hazard.
Mater. 179, 281–288.
Ji, G., Zhou, C., Zhou, G., 2011. Ultrasound enhanced gradient elution of super heavy oil
from weathered soils using TX100/SBDS mixed salt micellar solutions. Ultrason.
Sonochem. 18, 506–512.
Johnston, C., Rayner, J., Briegel, D., 2002. Effectiveness of in situ air sparging for removing
NAPL gasoline from a sandy aquifer near Perth, Western Australia. J. Contam. Hydrol.
59, 87–111.
Jones, D., Lelyveld, T., Mavrofidis, S., Kingman, S., Miles, N., 2002. Microwave heating appli-
cations in environmental engineering—a review. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 34, 75–90.
Jung, J., Choi, S., Hong, H., Sung, J.-S., Park, W., 2014. Effect of red clay on diesel bioreme-
diation and soil bacterial community. Microb. Ecol. 1–10.
Kaleris, V., 2002. Influence of rate-limited sorption on the cleanup of layered soils by
vapor extraction. J. Contam. Hydrol. 55, 1–27.
Kaleris, V., Croisé, J., 1997. Estimation of cleanup time for continuous and pulsed soil
vapor extraction. J. Hydrol. 194, 330–356.
Kanarbik, L., Blinova, I., Sihtmäe, M., Künnis-Beres, K., Kahru, A., 2014. Environmental ef-
fects of soil contamination by shale fuel oils. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 1–11.
Kavitha, V., Mandal, A.B., Gnanamani, A., 2014. Microbial biosurfactant mediated removal
and/or solubilization of crude oil contamination from soil and aqueous phase: An ap-
proach with Bacillus licheniformis MTCC 5514. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 94, 24–30.
Kawala, Z., Atamanczuk, T., 1998. Microwave-enhanced thermal decontamination of soil.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 32, 2602–2607.
Khan, A.A., Zytner, R.G., 2013. Degradation rates for petroleum hydrocarbons undergoing
bioventing at the meso-scale. Bioremediation Journal 17, 159–172.
Kim, J., Lee, K., 1999. Effects of electric field directions on surfactant enhanced electroki-
netic remediation of diesel-contaminated sand column. J. Environ. Sci. Health A 34,
863–877.
Kim, I., Lee, M., 2012. Pilot scale feasibility study for in-situ chemical oxidation using
HbsubN2b/subNObsubN2b/subN solution conjugated with biodegradation to reme-
diate a diesel contaminated site. J. Hazard. Mater.
Kim, Y., Wang, M., 2003. Effect of ultrasound on oil removal from soils. Ultrasonics 41,
539–542.
Kim, Y., Park, J., Kim, S., Khim, J., 2007. Ultrasonically enhanced diesel removal from soil.
Jpn. J. Appl. Phys., Part 1 46, 4912.
Kim, S.-H., Han, H.-Y., Lee, Y.-J., Kim, C.W., Yang, J.-W., 2010. Effect of electrokinetic reme-
diation on indigenous microbial activity and community within diesel contaminated
soil. Sci. Total Environ. 408, 3162–3168.
Kim, B.-K., Baek, K., Ko, S.-H., Yang, J.-W., 2011. Research and field experiences on electro-
kinetic remediation in South Korea. Sep. Purif. Technol. 79, 116–123.
Kim, T.-i., Kim, Y.-h., Han, M., 2012. Development of novel oil washing process using bub-
ble potential energy. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 64, 2325–2332.
Kim, S., Krajmalnik-Brown, R., Kim, J.-O., Chung, J., 2014. Remediation of petroleum
hydrocarbon-contaminated sites by DNA diagnosis-based bioslurping technology.
Sci. Total Environ. 497, 250–259.
Kirtland, B.C., Aelion, C.M., 2000. Petroleum mass removal from low permeability sedi-
ment using air sparging/soil vapor extraction: impact of continuous or pulsed opera-
tion. J. Contam. Hydrol. 41, 367–383.
Kuyukina, M.S., Ivshina, I.B., Makarov, S.O., Litvinenko, L.V., Cunningham, C.J., Philp, J.C.,
2005. Effect of biosurfactants on crude oil desorption and mobilization in a soil sys-
tem. Environ. Int. 31, 155–161.
Lai, C.-C., Huang, Y.-C., Wei, Y.-H., Chang, J.-S., 2009. Biosurfactant-enhanced removal of
total petroleum hydrocarbons from contaminated soil. J. Hazard. Mater. 167,
609–614.
Lee, J.K., Park, D., Kim, B.-U., Dong, J.-I., Lee, S., 1998. Remediation of petroleum-
contaminated soils by fluidized thermal desorption. Waste Manag. 18, 503–507.
Lee, J.K., Kim, B.-U., Park, D., 1999. Thermal treatment of petroleum contaminated soils by
a fluidized bed desorber. Korean J. Chem. Eng. 16, 684–687.
Lee, J.-Y., Lee, C.-H., Lee, K.-K., Choi, S.-I., 2001. Evaluation of soil vapor extraction and
bioventing for a petroleum-contaminated shallow aquifer in Korea. Soil Sediment
Contam. 10, 439–458.
Lee, C., Lee, J., Jang, W., Jeon, Y., Lee, K., 2002. Evaluation of air injection and extraction
tests at a petroleum contaminated site, Korea. Water Air Soil Pollut. 135, 65–91.
Leewis, M.-C., Reynolds, C.M., Leigh, M.B., 2013. Long-term effects of nutrient addition and
phytoremediation on diesel and crude oil contaminated soils in subarctic Alaska. Cold
Reg. Sci. Technol. 96, 129–137.
Li, H., Zhao, Q., Boufadel, M.C., Venosa, A.D., 2007. A universal nutrient application strategy
for the bioremediation of oil-polluted beaches. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 54, 1146–1161.
Li, D., Quan, X., Zhang, Y., Zhao, Y., 2008. Microwave-induced thermal treatment of petro-
leum hydrocarbon-contaminated soil. Soil Sediment Contam. 17, 486–496.
Li, D., Zhang, Y., Quan, X., Zhao, Y., 2009a. Microwave thermal remediation of crude oil
contaminated soil enhanced by carbon fiber. J. Environ. Sci. 21, 1290–1295.
Li, D., Zhang, Y., Quan, X., Zhao, Y., 2009b. Microwave thermal remediation of soil contam-
inated with crude oil enhanced by granular activated carbon. Huan jing ke xue
Huanjing kexue/[bian ji, Zhongguo ke xue yuan huan jing ke xue wei yuan hui"
Huan jing ke xue" bian ji wei yuan hui.] 30, 557.
Li, X., Du, Y., Wu, G., Li, Z., Li, H., Sui, H., 2012. Solvent extraction for heavy crude oil re-
moval from contaminated soils. Chemosphere 88, 245–249.
Li, H., Chow, R., Roberge, K., 2013. Role of carrier flotation in accelerating bitumen extrac-
tion recovery from mineable Athabasca oil sands. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 91, 1340–1348.
Li, X., Cao, X., Wu, G., Temple, T., Coulon, F., Sui, H., 2014. Ozonation of diesel–fuel contam-
inated sand and the implications for remediation end-points. Chemosphere 109,
71–76.
 M.W. Lim et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 109 (2016) 14–45
Li, X., Wang, X., Ren, Z.J., Zhang, Y., Li, N., Zhou, Q., 2015. Sand amendment enhances
bioelectrochemical remediation of petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated soil.
Chemosphere 141, 62–70.
Lim, M., Lau, E., Poh, P., Chong, W., 2015. Interaction studies between high-density oil and
sand particles in the oil flotation technology. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 131, 114–121.
Lin, Q., Mendelssohn, I.A., 2009. Potential of restoration and phytoremediation with
Juncus roemerianus for diesel-contaminated coastal wetlands. Ecol. Eng. 35, 85–91.
Liu, J., Xu, Z., Masliyah, J., 2005. Interaction forces in bitumen extraction from oil sands.
J. Colloid Interface Sci. 287, 507–520.
Liu, B., Li, X., Li, Z., Sui, H., Li, H., 2014. Fluidized countercurrent solvent extraction of oil
pollutants from contaminated soil. Part 1: fluid mechanics. Chem. Eng. Res. Des.
Long, J., Drelich, J., Xu, Z., Masliyah, J.H., 2007. Effect of operating temperature on water-
based oil sands processing. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 85, 726–738.
López-Vizcaíno, R., Alonso, J., Cañizares, P., León, M.J., Navarro, V., Rodrigo, M.A., Sáez, C.,
2014. Removal of phenanthrene from synthetic kaolin soils by electrokinetic soil
flushing. Sep. Purif. Technol. 132, 33–40.
Lovley, D.R., 2011. Live wires: direct extracellular electron exchange for bioenergy and the
bioremediation of energy-related contamination. Energy Environ. Sci. 4, 4896–4906.
Low, G.K., Duffy, G.J., 1995. Supercritical fluid extraction of petroleum hydrocarbons from
contaminated soils. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 14, 218–225.
Lu, M., Zhang, Z., Qiao, W., Guan, Y., Xiao, M., Peng, C., 2010a. Removal of residual contam-
inants in petroleum-contaminated soil by Fenton-like oxidation. J. Hazard. Mater.
179, 604–611.
Lu, M., Zhang, Z., Qiao, W., Wei, X., Guan, Y., Ma, Q., Guan, Y., 2010b. Remediation of
petroleum-contaminated soil after composting by sequential treatment with
Fenton-like oxidation and biodegradation. Bioresour. Technol. 101, 2106–2113.
Lu, L., Huggins, T., Jin, S., Zuo, Y., Ren, Z.J., 2014a. Microbial metabolism and community
structure in response to bioelectrochemically enhanced remediation of petroleum
hydrocarbon-contaminated soil. Energy Environ. Sci. 48, 4021–4029.
Lu, L., Yazdi, H., Jin, S., Zuo, Y., Fallgren, P.H., Ren, Z.J., 2014b. Enhanced bioremediation of
hydrocarbon-contaminated soil using pilot-scale bioelectrochemical systems.
J. Hazard. Mater. 274, 8–15.
Ma, J., Shen, J., Liu, Q., Fang, F., Cai, H., Guo, C., 2014a. Risk assessment of petroleum-
contaminated soil using soil enzyme activities and genotoxicity to Vicia faba. Ecotox-
icology 23, 665–673.
Ma, Y., Zheng, X., Anderson, S., Lu, J., Feng, X., 2014b. Diesel oil volatilization processes af-
fected by selected porous media. Chemosphere 99, 192–198.
Maini, G., Sharman, A.K., Knowles, C.J., Sunderland, G., Jackman, S.A., 2000. Electrokinetic
remediation of metals and organics from historically contaminated soil. J. Chem.
Technol. Biotechnol. 75, 657–664.
Malina, G., Grotenhuis, J., Rulkens, W., 2002. Vapor extraction/bioventing sequential treat-
ment of soil contaminated with volatile and semivolatile hydrocarbon mixtures. Bio-
remediation journal 6, 159–176.
Mao, X., Jiang, R., Xiao, W., Yu, J., 2014. Use of surfactants for the remediation of contam-
inated soils: a review. J. Hazard. Mater.
Margesin, R., Schinner, F., 1997. Laboratory bioremediation experiments with soil from a
diesel-oil contaminated site—significant role of cold-adapted microorganisms and
fertilizers. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 70, 92–98.
Margesin, R., Hämmerle, M., Tscherko, D., 2007. Microbial activity and community com-
position during bioremediation of diesel-oil-contaminated soil: effects of hydrocar-
bon concentration, fertilizers, and incubation time. Microb. Ecol. 53, 259–269.
Masliyah, J., Zhou, Z.J., Xu, Z., Czarnecki, J., Hamza, H., 2004. Understanding water-based
bitumen extraction from athabasca oil sands. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 82, 628–654.
Mason, T.J., 2003. Sonochemistry and sonoprocessing: the link, the trends and (probably)
the future. Ultrason. Sonochem. 10, 175–179.
Mason, T.J., 2007. Sonochemistry and the environment–providing a “green” link between
chemistry, physics and engineering. Ultrason. Sonochem. 14, 476–483.
Mason, T.J., Collings, A., Sumel, A., 2004. Sonic and ultrasonic removal of chemical contam-
inants from soil in the laboratory and on a large scale. Ultrason. Sonochem. 11,
205–210.
Mearns, A.J., 1997. Cleaning oiled shores: putting bioremediation to the test. Spill Sci.
Technol. Bull. 4, 209–217.
Mena, E., Villaseñor, J., Cañizares, P., Rodrigo, M.A., 2014. Effect of a direct electric current
on the activity of a hydrocarbon-degrading microorganism culture used as the flush-
ing liquid in soil remediation processes. Sep. Purif. Technol. 124, 217–223.
Mena, E., Ruiz, C., Villaseñor, J., Rodrigo, M.A., Cañizares, P., 2015. Biological permeable re-
active barriers coupled with electrokinetic soil flushing for the treatment of diesel-
polluted clay soil. J. Hazard. Mater. 283, 131–139.
Merkl, N., Schultze-Kraft, R., Arias, M., 2005a. Influence of fertilizer levels on
phytoremediation of crude oil-contaminated soils with the tropical pasture grass
Brachiaria brizantha (Hochst. ex A. Rich.) Stapf. Int. J. Phytoremediation 7, 217–230.
Merkl, N., Schultze-Kraft, R., Infante, C., 2005b. Assessment of tropical grasses and le-
gumes for phytoremediation of petroleum-contaminated soils. Water Air Soil Pollut.
165, 195–209.
Merkl, N., Schultze-Kraft, R., Infante, C., 2005c. Phytoremediation in the tropics–influence
of heavy crude oil on root morphological characteristics of graminoids. Environ.
Pollut. 138, 86–91.
Meyer, D.D., Beker, S.A., Bücker, F., Peralba, M.d.C.R., Guedes Frazzon, A.P., Osti, J.F.,
Andreazza, R., Anastácio de Oliveira Camargo, F., Bento, F.M., 2014. Bioremediation
strategies for diesel and biodiesel in oxisol from southern Brazil. Int. Biodeterior.
Biodegrad.
Mohammadian, E., Junin, R., Rahmani, O., Idris, A.K., 2012. Effects of sonication radiation
on oil recovery by ultrasonic waves stimulated water-flooding. Ultrasonics.
Mohsenzadeh, A., Al-Wahaibi, Y., Al-Hajri, R., Jibril, B., 2015. Effects of concentration, sa-
linity and injection scenario of ionic liquids analogue in heavy oil recovery enhance-
ment. J. Pet. Sci. Eng.
43
Molnar, M., Leitgib, L., Gruiz, K., Fenyvesi, E., Szaniszlo, N., Szejtli, J., Fava, F., 2005. En-
hanced biodegradation of transformer oil in soils with cyclodextrin–from the labora-
tory to the field. Biodegradation 16, 159–168.
Montagnolli, R.N., Lopes, P.R.M., Bidoia, E.D., 2015. Assessing Bacillus subtilis biosurfactant
effects on the biodegradation of petroleum products. Environ. Monit. Assess. 187,
1–17.
Moreira, I.T., Oliveira, O., Triguis, J.A., Queiroz, A.F., Ferreira, S.L., Martins, C., Silva, A.,
Falcão, B.A., 2013. Phytoremediation in mangrove sediments impacted by persistent
total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH's) using Avicennia schaueriana. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
67, 130–136.
Morselli, L., Setti, L., Iannuccilli, A., Maly, S., Dinelli, G., Quattroni, G., 1999. Supercritical
fluid extraction for the determination of petroleum hydrocarbons in soil.
J. Chromatogr. A 845, 357–363.
Mosavat, N., Oh, E., Chai, G., 2012. A review of electrokinetic treatment technique for im-
proving the engineering characteristics of low permeable problematic soils. Int.
J. GEOMATE 2, 266–272.
Moubasher, H., Hegazy, A., Mohamed, N., Moustafa, Y., Kabiel, H., Hamad, A., 2015.
Phytoremediation of soils polluted with crude petroleum oil using Bassia scoparia
and its associated rhizosphere microorganisms. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 98,
113–120.
Mulligan, C., Yong, R., Gibbs, B., 2001. Surfactant-enhanced remediation of contaminated
soil: a review. Eng. Geol. 60, 371–380.
Muratova, A., Hübner, T., Narula, N., Wand, H., Turkovskaya, O., Kuschk, P., Jahn, R.,
Merbach, W., 2003a. Rhizosphere microflora of plants used for the phytoremediation
of bitumen-contaminated soil. Microbiol. Res. 158, 151–161.
Muratova, A.Y., Turkovskaya, O., Hübner, T., Kuschk, P., 2003b. Studies of the efficacy of
alfalfa and reed in the phytoremediation of hydrocarbon-polluted soil. Appl.
Biochem. Microbiol. 39, 599–605.
Muratova, A.Y., Dmitrieva, T., Panchenko, L., Turkovskaya, O., 2008. Phytoremediation of
oil-sludge–contaminated soil. Int. J. Phytoremediation 10, 486–502.
Na, S., Park, Y., Hwang, A., Ha, J., Kim, Y., Khim, J., 2007. Effect of ultrasound on surfactant-
aided soil washing. Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 46, 4775.
Naseri, M., Barabadi, A., Barabady, J., 2014. Bioremediation treatment of hydrocarbon-
contaminated Arctic soils: influencing parameters. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 1–16.
Nassif, M., Finch, J.A., Waters, K.E., 2014. Determining frother-like properties of process
water in bitumen flotation. Miner. Eng. 56, 121–128.
Nguyen, V.T., Zhao, L., Zytner, R.G., 2013. Three-dimensional numerical model for soil
vapor extraction. J. Contam. Hydrol. 147, 82–95.
Nikolopoulou, M., Eickenbusch, P., Pasadakis, N., Venieri, D., Kalogerakis, N., 2013a. Micro-
cosm evaluation of autochthonous bioaugmentation to combat marine oil spills. New
Biotechnol. 30, 734–742.
Nikolopoulou, M., Pasadakis, N., Kalogerakis, N., 2013b. Evaluation of autochthonous bioaug-
mentation and biostimulation during microcosm-simulated oil spills. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
72, 165–173.
Oh, S.-Y., Shin, D.-S., 2014. Treatment of diesel-contaminated soil by fenton and persulfate
oxidation with zero-valent iron. Soil Sediment Contam. Int. J. 23, 180–193.
Okawa, H., Saito, T., Hosokawa, R., Nakamura, T., Kawamura, Y., Koda, S., 2011. Recovery of
bitumen from oil sand by sonication in aqueous hydrogen peroxide. Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 50.
Page, M.M., Page, C.L., 2002. Electroremediation of contaminated soils. J. Environ. Eng.
128, 208–219.
Page, D.S., Foster, J.C., Fickett, P.M., Gilfillan, E.S., 1988. Identification of petroleum sources
in an area impacted by the Amoco Cadiz oil spill. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 19, 107–115.
Paine, R.T., Ruesink, J.L., Sun, A., Soulanille, E.L., Wonham, M.J., Harley, C.D., Brumbaugh,
D.R., Secord, D.L., 1996. Trouble on oiled waters: lessons from the Exxon Valdez oil
spill. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 197–235.
Palmroth, M.R., Pichtel, J., Puhakka, J.A., 2002. Phytoremediation of subarctic soil contam-
inated with diesel fuel. Bioresour. Technol. 84, 221–228.
Pape, A., Switzer, C., McCosh, N., Knapp, C.W., 2015. Impacts of thermal and smouldering
remediation on plant growth and soil ecology. Geoderma 243, 1–9.
Pardo, F., Rosas, J.M., Santos, A., Romero, A., 2014. Remediation of a biodiesel blend-
contaminated soil by using a modified Fenton process. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 1–10.
Park, G., Shin, H.-S., Ko, S.-O., 2005. A laboratory and pilot study of thermally enhanced
soil vapor extraction method for the removal of semi-volatile organic contaminants.
J. Environ. Sci. Health 40, 881–897.
Park, S.-W., Lee, J.-Y., Yang, J.-S., Kim, K.-J., Baek, K., 2009. Electrokinetic remediation of con-
taminated soil with waste-lubricant oils and zinc. J. Hazard. Mater. 169, 1168–1172.
Pazos, M., Alcántara, M.T., Rosales, E., Sanromán, M.A., 2011. Hybrid technologies for the
remediation of diesel fuel polluted soil. Chem. Eng. Technol. 34, 2077–2082.
Pazos, M., Iglesias, O., Gomez, J., Rosales, E., Sanromán, M., 2012a. Remediation of contam-
inated marine sediment using electrokinetic-Fenton technology. J. Ind. Eng. Chem.
Pazos, M., Plaza, A., Martín, M., Lobo, M., 2012b. The impact of electrokinetic treatment on
a loamy-sand soil properties. Chem. Eng. J. 183, 231–237.
Pendersen, T.A., Curtis, J.T., Fan, C.-Y., Camp, D., 1991. Soil Vapor Extraction Technology:
Reference Handbook. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory.
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.
Pereira, J.F., Costa, R., Foios, N., Coutinho, J.A., 2014. Ionic liquid enhanced oil recovery in
sand-pack columns. Fuel 134, 196–200.
Petrikov, K., Delegan, Y., Surin, A., Ponamoreva, O., Puntus, I., Filonov, A., Boronin, A., 2013.
Glycolipids of Pseudomonas and Rhodococcus oil-degrading bacteria used in bioreme-
diation preparations: formation and structure. Process Biochem. 48, 931–935.
Pham, V.H., Kim, J., Jeong, S.-W., 2014. Enhanced isolation and culture of highly efficient
psychrophilic oil-degrading bacteria from oil-contaminated soils in South Korea.
J. Environ. Biol. 35, 1145–1149.
44 M.W. Lim et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 109 (2016) 14–45
Piña, J., Merino, J., Errazu, A.F., Bucalá, V., 2002. Thermal treatment of soils contaminated
with gas oil: influence of soil composition and treatment temperature. J. Hazard.
Mater. 94, 273–290.
Poppendieck, D.G., Loehr, R.C., Webster, M.T., 1999. Predicting hydrocarbon removal from
thermally enhanced soil vapor extraction systems: 1. Laboratory studies. J. Hazard.
Mater. 69, 81–93.
Prince, R.C., 1993. Petroleum spill bioremediation in marine environments. Crit. Rev.
Microbiol. 19, 217–240.
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., 2003. Bioremediation of stranded oil on an Arctic shore-
line. Spill Sci. Technol. Bull. 8, 303–312.
Qixing, Z., Zhang, C., Zhineng, Z., Weitao, L., 2011. Ecological remediation of hydrocarbon
contaminated soils with weed plant. J. Resour. Ecol. 2, 97–105.
Rabaey, K., Rozendal, R.A., 2010. Microbial electrosynthesis—revisiting the electrical route
for microbial production. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 8, 706–716.
Raghavan, R., Coles, E., Dietz, D., 1991. Cleaning excavated soil using extraction agents: a
state-of-the-art review. J. Hazard. Mater. 26, 81–87.
Rahman, K., Thahira-Rahman, J., Lakshmanaperumalsamy, P., Banat, I., 2002. Towards ef-
ficient crude oil degradation by a mixed bacterial consortium. Bioresour. Technol. 85,
257–261.
Ramadass, K., Megharaj, M., Venkateswarlu, K., Naidu, R., 2015. Ecological implications of
motor oil pollution: earthworm survival and soil health. Soil Biol. Biochem. 85, 72–81.
Ramírez, E.M., Camacho, J.V., Rodrigo, M.A., Cañizares, P., 2015a. Combination of bioreme-
diation and electrokinetics for the in-situ treatment of diesel polluted soil: a compar-
ison of strategies. Sci. Total Environ. 533, 307–316.
Ramírez, E.M., Jiménez, C.S., Camacho, J.V., Rodrigo, M.A.R., Cañizares, P., 2015b. Feasibility
of coupling permeable bio-barriers and electrokinetics for the treatment of diesel hy-
drocarbons polluted soils. Electrochim. Acta.
Rathfelder, K., Lang, J., Abriola, L., 1995. Soil vapor extraction and bioventing: applications,
limitations, and future research directions. Rev. Geophys. 33, 1067–1081.
Rathfelder, K.M., Lang, J.R., Abriola, L.M., 2000. A numerical model (MISER) for the simu-
lation of coupled physical, chemical and biological processes in soil vapor extraction
and bioventing systems. J. Contam. Hydrol. 43, 239–270.
Redondo-Gómez, S., Petenello, M.C., Feldman, S.R., 2014. Growth, nutrient status, and
photosynthetic response to diesel-contaminated soil of a cordgrass, Spartina
argentinensis. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 79, 34–38.
Register, F., 2010, Vol. 75, No. 14.
Reynolds, C., Koenen, B.A., 1997. Rhizosphere-enhanced bioremediation. Mil. Eng. 89,
32–33.
Reynolds, C., Koenen, B., Carnahan, J., Walworth, J., Bhunia, P., 1997a. Rhizosphere and nu-
trient effects on remediating subarctic soils. Situ On-Site Bioremediat 4, 297–302.
Reynolds, C., Koenen, B., Perry, L., Pidgeon, C., 1997b. Initial Field Results for Rhizosphere
Treatment of Contaminated Soils in Cold Regions. Fifth International Symposium on
Cold Region Development (ISCORD), Anchorage Alaska, pp. 4–10 May.
Ribeiro, H., Mucha, A.P., Almeida, C.M.R., Bordalo, A.A., 2014. Potential of
phytoremediation for the removal of petroleum hydrocarbons in contaminated salt
marsh sediments. J. Environ. Manag. 137, 10–15.
Roy, A.S., Baruah, R., Borah, M., Singh, A.K., Boruah, H.P.D., Saikia, N., Deka, M., Dutta, N.,
Bora, T.C., 2014. Bioremediation potential of native hydrocarbon degrading bacterial
strains in crude oil contaminated soil under microcosm study. Int. Biodeterior.
Biodegrad. 94, 79–89.
Rushton, D., Ghaly, A.E., Martinell, K., 2007. Assessment of Canadian regulations and re-
mediation methods for diesel oil contaminated soils. Am. J. Appl. Sci. 4, 465.
SADEGHI, K.M., SADEGHI, M.-A., KUO, J.-F., JANG, L.-K., YEN, T.F., 1990a. A new tar sand
recovery process: recovery methods and characterization of products. Energy Sources
12, 147–160.
Sadeghi, M.-A., Sadeghi, K., Kuo, J.-F., Jang, L.-K., Yen, T.F., 1990b. Sonication method and
reagent for treatment of carbonaceous materials. Google Patents.
Sadeghi, K.M., Lin, J.-R., Yen, T.F., 1994. Sonochemical treatment of fossil fuels. Energy
Sources 16, 439–449.
Samaksaman, U., Peng, T.-H., Kuo, J.-H., Lu, C.-H., Wey, M.-Y., 2015. Thermal treatment of
soil co-contaminated with lube oil and heavy metals in a low-temperature two-stage
fluidized bed incinerator. Appl. Therm. Eng.
Schramm, L.L., Stasiuk, E.N., Turner, D., 2003. The influence of interfacial tension in the re-
covery of bitumen by water-based conditioning and flotation of Athabasca oil sands.
Fuel Process. Technol. 80, 101–118.
Shahsavari, E., Adetutu, E.M., Anderson, P.A., Ball, A.S., 2013. Tolerance of selected plant
species to petrogenic hydrocarbons and effect of plant rhizosphere on the microbial
removal of hydrocarbons in contaminated soil. Water Air Soil Pollut. 224, 1–14.
Shen, W., Zhu, N., Cui, J., Wang, H., Dang, Z., Wu, P., Luo, Y., Shi, C., 2016. Ecotoxicity mon-
itoring and bioindicator screening of oil-contaminated soil during bioremediation.
Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 124, 120–128.
Sherry, A., Gray, N., Ditchfield, A., Aitken, C., Jones, D., Röling, W., Hallmann, C., Larter, S.,
Bowler, B., Head, I., 2013. Anaerobic biodegradation of crude oil under sulphate-
reducing conditions leads to only modest enrichment of recognized sulphate-
reducing taxa. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 81, 105–113.
Sherwood, M.K., Cassidy, D.P., 2014. Modified Fenton oxidation of diesel fuel in arctic soils
rich in organic matter and iron. Chemosphere 113, 56–61.
Shin, K.H., Jung, H., Chang, P., Choi, H., Kim, K.W., 2005. Earthworm toxicity during chem-
ical oxidation of diesel-contaminated sand. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 24, 1924–1929.
Shrestha, R.A., Pham, T.D., Sillanpää, M., 2009. Effect of ultrasound on removal of persis-
tent organic pollutants (POPs) from different types of soils. J. Hazard. Mater. 170,
871–875.
Siddique, T., Penner, T., Semple, K., Foght, J.M., 2011. Anaerobic biodegradation of longer-
chain n-alkanes coupled to methane production in oil sands tailings. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 45, 5892–5899.
Silva, A., Delerue-Matos, C., Fiuza, A., 2005. Use of solvent extraction to remediate soils
contaminated with hydrocarbons. J. Hazard. Mater. 124, 224–229.
Silva, L.A.d., Teixeira, S.C., Pérez, D.V., Marques, M.R.d.C., 2012. Impact of chemical oxida-
tion on Brazilian soils. J. Braz. Chem. Soc. 23, 367–371.
Silva, D.d.S.P., de Lima Cavalcanti, D., de Melo, E.J.V., dos Santos, P.N.F., da Luz, E.L.P., de
Gusmão, N.B., de Queiroz, M.d.F.V., 2015. Bio-removal of diesel oil through a microbi-
al consortium isolated from a polluted environment. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 97,
85–89.
Silva-Castro, G.A., Rodelas, B., Perucha, C., Laguna, J., González-López, J., Calvo, C., 2013.
Bioremediation of diesel-polluted soil using biostimulation as post-treatment after
oxidation with Fenton-like reagents: assays in a pilot plant. Sci. Total Environ. 445,
347–355.
Silva-Castro, G.A., Uad, I., Rodríguez-Calvo, A., González-López, J., Calvo, C., 2015. Response
of autochthonous microbiota of diesel polluted soils to land-farming treatments. En-
viron. Res. 137, 49–58.
Singh, B., Bhattacharya, A., Channashettar, V.A., Jeyaseelan, C.P., Gupta, S., Sarma, P.M.,
Mandal, A.K., Lal, B., 2012. Biodegradation of oil spill by petroleum refineries using
consortia of novel bacterial strains. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 89, 257–262.
Smith, M.T., Berruti, F., Mehrotra, A.K., 2001. Thermal desorption treatment of contami-
nated soils in a novel batch thermal reactor. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 40, 5421–5430.
Smułek, W., Zdarta, A., Guzik, U., Dudzińska-Bajorek, B., Kaczorek, E., 2015. Rahnella sp.
strain EK12: cell surface properties and diesel oil biodegradation after long-term con-
tact with natural surfactants and diesel oil. Microbiol. Res. 176, 38–47.
Soleimani, M., Afyuni, M., Hajabbasi, M.A., Nourbakhsh, F., Sabzalian, M.R., Christensen,
J.H., 2010. Phytoremediation of an aged petroleum contaminated soil using endo-
phyte infected and non-infected grasses. Chemosphere 81, 1084–1090.
Son, Y., Nam, S., Ashokkumar, M., Khim, J., 2012. Comparison of energy consumptions be-
tween ultrasonic, mechanical, and combined soil washing processes. Ultrason.
Sonochem. 19, 395–398.
Song, X., Zhao, Y., Wang, H., Qin, C., 2015. Predictive models and airflow distribution asso-
ciated with the zone of influence (ZOI) during air sparging remediation. Sci. Total En-
viron. 537, 1–8.
Sri Ranjan, R., Qian, Y., Krishnapillai, M., 2006. Effects of electrokinetics and cationic sur-
factant cetyltrimethylammonium bromide [CTAB] on the hydrocarbon removal and
retention from contaminated soils. Environ. Technol. 27, 767–776.
Sui, H., Hua, Z., Li, X., Li, H., Wu, G., 2014. Influence of soil and hydrocarbon properties on
the solvent extraction of high-concentration weathered petroleum from contaminat-
ed soils. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 21, 5774–5784.
Suja, F., Rahim, F., Taha, M.R., Hambali, N., Rizal Razali, M., Khalid, A., Hamzah, A., 2014.
Effects of local microbial bioaugmentation and biostimulation on the bioremediation
of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) in crude oil contaminated soil based on labo-
ratory and field observations. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 90, 115–122.
Sutton, N.B., Grotenhuis, T., Rijnaarts, H.H., 2014. Impact of organic carbon and nutrients
mobilized during chemical oxidation on subsequent bioremediation of a diesel-
contaminated soil. Chemosphere 97, 64–70.
Swannell, R., Lee, K., McDonagh, M., 1996. Field evaluations of marine oil spill bioremedi-
ation. Microbiol. Rev. 60, 342–365.
Szulc, A., Ambrożewicz, D., Sydow, M., Ławniczak, Ł., Piotrowska-Cyplik, A., Marecik, R.,
Chrzanowski, Ł., 2014. The influence of bioaugmentation and biosurfactant addition
on bioremediation efficiency of diesel-oil contaminated soil: feasibility during field
studies. J. Environ. Manag. 132, 121–128.
Tang, J., Wang, M., Wang, F., Sun, Q., Zhou, Q., 2011. Eco-toxicity of petroleum hydrocar-
bon contaminated soil. J. Environ. Sci. 23, 845–851.
Tao, D., 2005. Role of bubble size in flotation of coarse and fine particles—a review. Sep.
Sci. Technol. 39, 741–760.
Tatàno, F., Felici, F., Mangani, F., 2013. Lab-scale treatability tests for the thermal desorp-
tion of hydrocarbon-contaminated soils. Soil Sediment Contam. Int. J. 22, 433–456.
Tekin, H., Bilkay, O., Ataberk, S.S., Balta, T.H., Ceribasi, I.H., Sanin, F.D., Dilek, F.B., Yetis, U.,
2006. Use of Fenton oxidation to improve the biodegradability of a pharmaceutical
wastewater. J. Hazard. Mater. 136, 258–265.
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.
Trindade, P., Sobral, L., Rizzo, A., Leite, S., Soriano, A., 2005. Bioremediation of a weathered
and a recently oil-contaminated soils from Brazil: a comparison study. Chemosphere
58, 515–522.
Tripathi, V., Fraceto, L.F., Abhilash, P., 2015. Sustainable clean-up technologies for soils
contaminated with multiple pollutants: plant-microbe-pollutant and climate nexus.
Ecol. Eng. 82, 330–335.
Troxler, W.L., Cudahy, J.J., Zink, R.P., Yezzi Jr., J.J., Rosenthal, S.I., 1993. Treatment of non-
hazardous petroleum-contaminated soils by thermal desorption technologies. Air &
Waste 43, 1512–1525.
Tsai, T., Kao, C., 2009. Treatment of petroleum-hydrocarbon contaminated soils using hy-
drogen peroxide oxidation catalyzed by waste basic oxygen furnace slag. J. Hazard.
Mater. 170, 466–472.
Tsai, J.-C., Kumar, M., Chen, S.-Y., Lin, J.-G., 2007. Nano-bubble flotation technology with
coagulation process for the cost-effective treatment of chemical mechanical polishing
wastewater. Sep. Purif. Technol. 58, 61–67.
Tsai, T.-T., Sah, J., Kao, C.-M., 2010. Application of iron electrode corrosion enhanced
electrokinetic-Fenton oxidation to remediate diesel contaminated soils: a laboratory
feasibility study. J. Hydrol. 380, 4–13.
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.
Ueno, A., Ito, Y., Yumoto, I., Okuyama, H., 2007. Isolation and characterization of bacteria
from soil contaminated with diesel oil and the possible use of these in autochthonous
bioaugmentation. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 23, 1739–1745.
 M.W. Lim et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 109 (2016) 14–45
Urum, K., Pekdemir, T., 2004. Evaluation of biosurfactants for crude oil contaminated soil
washing. Chemosphere 57, 1139–1150.
Urum, K., Pekdemir, T., Çopur, M., 2004. Surfactants treatment of crude oil contaminated
soils. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 276, 456–464.
Urum, K., Grigson, S., Pekdemir, T., McMenamy, S., 2006. A comparison of the efficiency of
different surfactants for removal of crude oil from contaminated soils. Chemosphere
62, 1403–1410.
Usman, M., Faure, P., Hanna, K., Abdelmoula, M., Ruby, C., 2012. Application of magnetite
catalyzed chemical oxidation (Fenton-like and persulfate) for the remediation of oil
hydrocarbon contamination. Fuel 96, 270–276.
van Ellen, T., Lansink, C., Sändker, J., 1995. Acoustic soil remediation: introduction of a
new concept, contaminated soil'95. Springer 1193–1194.
Varjani, S.J., Rana, D.P., Jain, A.K., Bateja, S., Upasani, V.N., 2015. Synergistic ex-situ biodeg-
radation of crude oil by halotolerant bacterial consortium of indigenous strains isolat-
ed from on shore sites of Gujarat, India. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 103, 116–124.
Vasudevan, N., Rajaram, P., 2001. Bioremediation of oil sludge-contaminated soil. Environ.
Int. 26, 409–411.
Venosa, A.D., Zhu, X., 2003. Biodegradation of crude oil contaminating marine shorelines
and freshwater wetlands. Spill Sci. Technol. Bull. 8, 163–178.
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.
Venosa, A.D., Campo, P., Suidan, M.T., 2010. Biodegradability of lingering crude oil
19 years after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44, 7613–7621.
Vervaeke, P., Luyssaert, S., Mertens, J., Meers, E., Tack, F., Lust, N., 2003. Phytoremediation
prospects of willow stands on contaminated sediment: a field trial. Environ. Pollut.
126, 275–282.
Villa, R.D., Trovó, A.G., Nogueira, R.F.P., 2010. Diesel degradation in soil by Fenton process.
J. Braz. Chem. Soc. 21, 1088–1095.
Virkutyte, J., Sillanpää, M., Latostenmaa, P., 2002. Electrokinetic soil remediation—critical
overview. Sci. Total Environ. 289, 97–121.
Wang, J., Yin, J., Ge, L., Zheng, J., 2009. Using flotation to separate oil spill contaminated
beach sands. J. Environ. Eng. 136, 147–151.
Wang, H., Luo, H., Fallgren, P.H., Jin, S., Ren, Z.J., 2015. Bioelectrochemical system platform
for sustainable environmental remediation and energy generation. Biotechnol. Adv.
33, 317–334.
Wiltse, C., Rooney, W., Chen, Z., Schwab, A., Banks, M., 1998. Greenhouse evaluation of ag-
ronomic and crude oil-phytoremediation potential among alfalfa genotypes.
J. Environ. Qual. 27, 169–173.
Wu, G., Li, X., Coulon, F., Li, H., Lian, J., Sui, H., 2011. Recycling of solvent used in a solvent
extraction of petroleum hydrocarbons contaminated soil. J. Hazard. Mater. 186,
533–539.
Wu, G., Zhu, X., Ji, H., Chen, D., 2015. Molecular modeling of interactions between heavy
crude oil and the soil organic matter coated quartz surface. Chemosphere 119,
242–249.
Wulandari, P., 2010. Remediation of diesel fuel contaminated sandy soil using ultrasonic
waves. Civ. Eng. Dimens. 12, 118–122.
45
Wyrwas, B., Chrzanowski, Ł., Ławniczak, Ł., Szulc, A., Cyplik, P., Białas, W., Szymański, A.,
Hołderna-Odachowska, A., 2011. Utilization of Triton X-100 and polyethylene glycols
during surfactant-mediated biodegradation of diesel fuel. J. Hazard. Mater. 197,
97–103.
Xia, W., Du, Z., Cui, Q., Dong, H., Wang, F., He, P., Tang, Y., 2014. Biosurfactant produced by
novel Pseudomonas sp. WJ6 with biodegradation of n-alkanes and polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons. J. Hazard. Mater. 276, 489–498.
Xu, R., Yong, L.C., Lim, Y.G., Obbard, J.P., 2005. Use of slow-release fertilizer and biopoly-
mers for stimulating hydrocarbon biodegradation in oil-contaminated beach sedi-
ments. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 51, 1101–1110.
Xu, S., Guo, S., Wu, B., Li, F., Li, T., 2014. An assessment of the effectiveness and impact of
electrokinetic remediation for pyrene-contaminated soil. J. Environ. Sci. 26,
2290–2297.
Yahiat, S., Fourcade, F., Brosillon, S., Amrane, A., 2011. Removal of antibiotics by an inte-
grated process coupling photocatalysis and biological treatment–case of tetracycline
and tylosin. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 65, 997–1003.
Yakymenko, I., Kyrjyienko, S., 2011. Cancer growth: evidences from radars and mobile
communication systems. Exp. Oncol. 33, 62–70.
Yen, C.-H., Chen, K.-F., Kao, C.-M., Liang, S.-H., Chen, T.-Y., 2011. Application of persulfate
to remediate petroleum hydrocarbon-contaminated soil: feasibility and comparison
with common oxidants. J. Hazard. Mater. 186, 2097–2102.
Yenn, R., Borah, M., Boruah, H.D., Roy, A.S., Baruah, R., Saikia, N., Sahu, O., Tamuli, A., 2014.
Phytoremediation of abandoned crude oil contaminated drill sites of Assam with the
aid of a hydrocarbon-degrading bacterial formulation. Int. J. Phytoremediation 16,
909–925.
Yu, D.-Y., Kang, N., Bae, W., Banks, M.K., 2007. Characteristics in oxidative degradation by
ozone for saturated hydrocarbons in soil contaminated with diesel fuel. Chemosphere
66, 799–807.
Yusni, E.M., Tanaka, S., 2015. Removal behaviour of a thiazine, an azo and a
triarylmethane dyes from polluted kaolinitic soil using electrokinetic remediation
technology. Electrochim. Acta.
Zhang, L., Somasundaran, P., Ososkov, V., Chou, C., 2000. Flotation of hydrophobic contam-
inants from soil. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 177, 235–246.
Zhang, J., Li, J., Thring, R.W., Hu, X., Song, X., 2012. Oil recovery from refinery oily sludge
via ultrasound and freeze/thaw. J. Hazard. Mater. 203, 195–203.
Zhang, L., Yin, L., Pan, X., 2013. Germination, survival, growth response of eight desert
plants to oil pollution and removal efficiency of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon
(TPHs). Vegetos–Int. J. Plant Res. 26, 171–182.
Zhao, L., Zytner, R.G., 2008. Estimation of SVE closure time. J. Hazard. Mater. 153, 575–581.
Zhou, Z., Chow, R., Cleyle, P., Xu, Z., Masliyah, J., 2010. Effect of dynamic bubble nucleation
on bitumen flotation. Can. Metall. Q. 49, 363–372.
Zhu, K., Chen, H., Nan, Z., 2010. Phytoremediation of loess soil contaminated by organic
compounds, application of phytotechnologies for cleanup of industrial, agricultural,
and wastewater contamination. Springer 159–176.