Next Article in Journal
Social Avoidance and Social Adjustment in Chinese Preschool Migrant Children: The Moderating Role of Household Chaos and Gender
Next Article in Special Issue
Organic Carbon Controls Mercury Distribution and Storage in the Surface Soils of the Water-Level-Fluctuation Zone in the Three Gorges Reservoir Region, China
Previous Article in Journal
Patterns and Determinants of Multimorbidity in Older Adults: Study in Health-Ecological Perspective
Previous Article in Special Issue
Adsorption Characteristics of Iron on Different Layered Loess Soils
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 19
Issue 24
10.3390/ijerph192416767
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

In Situ Remediation Technology for Heavy Metal Contaminated Sediment: A Review

by
Qinqin Xu
,
Boran Wu
and
Xiaoli Chai
*
State Key Laboratory of Pollution Control and Resource Reuse, College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Tongji University, 1239 Siping Road, Shanghai 200092, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(24), 16767; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416767
Submission received: 16 November 2022 / Revised: 9 December 2022 / Accepted: 12 December 2022 / Published: 14 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Remediation of Heavy Metal Contaminated Water and Soil)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Sediment is an important part of the aquatic ecosystem, which involves material storage and energy exchange. However, heavy metal pollution in sediment is on the increase, becoming an important concern for the world. In this paper, the state-of-art in situ remediation technology for contaminated sediment was elaborated, including water diversion, capping, electrokinetic remediation, chemical amendments, bioremediation and combined remediation. The mechanisms for these techniques to reduce/immobilize heavy metals include physical, electrical, chemical and biological processes. Furthermore, application principle, efficiency and scope, advantages and disadvantages, as well as the latest research progress for each restoration technology, are systematically reviewed. This information will benefit in selecting appropriate and effective remediation techniques for heavy metal-contaminated sediment in specific scenarios.

1. Introduction

Global metal production accounts for 7–8% of global energy consumption, which has a huge impact on the use of energy in the world [1]. In the 20th century, the use of metals grew rapidly. Of these, steel had the world’s largest yield in 2009, with over 1.2 billion tons, followed by aluminum and copper, with about 30 million and 24 million tons, respectively [1]. Until 2021, global crude steel production has reached up to 1.9 billion tons, according to World Steel Association. In the processes of primary metal production, serious local environmental impacts such as air emissions (greenhouse gases, sulfur dioxide, etc.), mine waste, groundwater pollution and loss of biodiversity can be caused [2,3,4]. Furthermore, in some developing countries, the end-of-life recycling rates for many metals are too low due to a lack of recycling infrastructure and technology [1]. Thus, large amounts of metal-containing waste are exposed to the environment, which creates severe risks to human health and environmental toxicity.
In an aquatic environment, sediment is considered both a source and sink for pollutants (like heavy metals). Heavy metals are non-degradable, and excessive concentrations of heavy metals can seriously disturb the ecosystem. Particularly, heavy metals in sediment can be assimilated, absorbed and accumulated by benthic organisms, which further amplified along the food chains, and eventually harm human health through the consumption of fishery products [5]. Many studies have found excessive exposure to heavy metals may lead to disruptions in gene expression, damage repair processes and enzymatic activities, increasing the risks of related diseases and cancers [6]. For example, arsenic (As) exposure can result in skin, liver, prostate and kuffer cell cancers through cell damage, oxidative stress and DNA damage [6,7]. Cadmium (Cd) can lead to kidney injuries, bone damage and various cancers (e.g., ovarian cancer and breast cancer) via disruption of components of the cellular antioxidant system, calcium metabolism and endocrine system [6,8,9]. So it is very important to treat heavy metal contamination.
Heavy metals cannot be effectively biodegraded, and their toxicity and bioavailability depend on their types and forms. Thus, the main purpose of heavy metal remediation in contaminated sediment is to reduce the metal contents and biological toxicity. At present, two remediation strategies have been adopted to remedy the heavy metal-contaminated sediment on the basis of whether sediment is dredged from the riverbed or not. Those are ex situ remediation technology and in situ remediation technology [10]. In situ remediation is suitable for sediments that are slightly contaminated, with the merits of being cost-effective and causing less natural disturbance, including water diversion, capping, electrokinetic remediation, chemical amendments and bioremediation [11,12]. Faced with the complexity of pollutants in the real environment, combined technology is often used [12]. In this paper, the state-of-art in situ remediation technology for contaminated sediment was elucidated. Particularly, application principle, efficiency and scope, advantages and disadvantages, as well as the latest research progress of each restoration technology, are systematically introduced. It is expected that this information will assist in the selection of appropriate and effective remediation techniques for heavy metal contaminated sediment in special scenes.

2. Heavy Metals in Sediment

2.1. Sources of Heavy Metals

There are two primary sources of heavy metals in the environment; those are natural sources and anthropogenic activities. Natural causes cover sea-bed volcanic activity, atmospheric convection, rivers or erosion, and the main anthropogenic sources exist in various industries (such as present and former mining activities, electroplating, electronic and metal-finishing industries) [13,14], the excessive use of fossil fuels [15] and agricultural activities (like pesticides and fertilizers comprising As, Pb and Cd) [16]. In aquatic systems, atmospheric bulk deposition of pollution-derived atmospheric particles is an important source, particularly in regions that have suffered from heavy air pollution in the past [17]. Additionally, surface runoffs (including urban runoffs, agricultural runoffs and stormwater runoffs) and discharges of contaminated groundwater or industrial wastewater contribute greatly to heavy metal pollution in the freshwater ecosystem [18,19]. Since heavy metals are transported into the water, a small portion is dissolved in the water and the other portion (>90%) is trapped in sediment by adsorption, hydrolysis, and forming solid compounds with carbonate, sulfate and sulfur [20]. Thus, the sediment becomes the ultimate sink for heavy metals, which can be several orders of magnitude higher than in the overlying water.

2.2. Distribution and Transformation of Heavy Metals

The distribution of heavy metals depends not only on the terrestrial inputs but also on the physicochemical and biological characteristics of that system. The total metal concentrations can be a good indicator for source assessment, whereas bioavailability and toxicity of metals are related to their chemical forms in the sediment [21,22]. The primary forms for the metal in sediment are soluble, ion-exchangeable, Fe-Mn oxides, organic matters/sulfides and carbonates [23]. Chemical forms of exchangeable carbonate and Fe-Mn oxides are weak to bind with heavy metals, which can be readily ingested by organisms [24,25]. When metals are adsorbed by crystal or completely bound to organic matter/sulfides, they exhibit low potential bioavailability and toxicity [26,27]. Interdependently, the loading of metals has correlated with the transformation between metal species [28].
The partitioning of metals between sediment and porewater at the sediment–water interface is governed by the reactions of sorption/desorption and dissolution/precipitation, redox and acidification, which is strongly affected by pH, sulfides, organic matter, iron hydroxides, redox conditions and so on [20,29,30]. At low pH, the negative surface charge of organic matter, clay particles and Fe-Mn-Al oxides is reduced, and carbonates, sulfides and Fe-Mn oxide fractions are dissolved, while high pH promotes the formation of stable complexes with metals [31,32,33]. When carbonate is present in sediment, it not only settles the metal directly but also acts as an effective buffer against pH reduction [34]. In the surficial sediments, the process of organic matter degradation, the acid volatile sulfide oxidation and the other reduced species (such as NH4+, Mn2+, Fe2+ and HS−) oxidation can result in pH decreased, which causes the mobilization of the heavy metals [35,36]. Meanwhile, the environmental behavior of organic matter on metals in sediment mainly includes adsorption, complexation and chelation [37,38]. Dissolved organic ligands often form soluble metal complexes, but the complexation of metal to insoluble organic ligands can reduce metal availability [38]. On the other hand, organic matter provides a food source for microorganisms and indirectly affects metal’s fate. In eutrophic environments, the availability of organic matter and sulfate concentrations are often abundant; sulfate-reducing bacteria exploit simple organic molecules and obtain energy by reducing sulfate to sulfides that are potentially bound to metals in anoxic sediments [39]. In these processes, acid volatile sulfides (AVS) can form thermodynamically stable metal sulfide precipitates with Simultaneously Extracted Metals (SEM; Cu, Pb, Cd, Zn, Ni, Cr and Ag) to reduce metal bioavailability [40,41]. On the other hand, metal sulfides may be oxidized with oxygen increasing resulting in the mobilization of metals in the sediment [42]. Therefore, the fate of metals in sediments is phase-specific under changing environmental conditions.

3. In Situ Remediation Technology

In situ remediation refers to the means that directly treat contaminated sediment without removing them from rivers, lakes, or harbors by various techniques. According to the different remediation principles, in situ remediations can be divided into physical remediation, chemical remediation, bioremediation and combined remediation. In situ treatment is a less disruptive method with the advantages of practicability, cost-effectiveness and rapid implementation.

3.1. Physical Remediation

Physical remediation is to directly or indirectly repair heavy metal pollution in sediment by physical means and some specific engineering techniques. In situ physical repair techniques mainly include in situ capping, electrokinetic remediation and water diversion.
Capping means leaving pollutants in place and isolating them from overlying water by proxy compartments to reduce resuspension and bioavailability [43]. Passive capping commonly employs the inert materials of sand, clay, silt, organic carbon and crushed stone on geotextiles [44]. However, when it is applied to shallow areas, sensitive habitats and marine environments, the toxic risk of pollutants remain [44]. Active capping is another option that the capping materials can react with sediments pollutants to encourage degradation or sequestration [45]. Active capping materials often involve ion exchange resins, clay minerals, apatite, activated carbons (AC) or alumina, biochar (BC), barite, chitosan, red mud, mesoporous support and geopolymers (e.g., alkali-activated blast-furnace-slag (BFS-GP), metakaolin geopolymer (MK-GP)) (Table 1) [44,46]. Even so, passive capping is a mature technology, whereas active capping is relatively new, and only a few pilot-scale experiments have been reported [44]. In situ capping minimizes the movement of contaminated sediments and their impact on the overlying water, but some capping materials (e.g., AC) are harmful to benthic macrofauna resulting in a substantial decrease (up to 90%) in the diversity, abundance and biomass of benthic species [47].
Electrokinetic remediation applies an electric potential gradient or a low direct current to induce a low electric current across contaminated soil/sediment through a pair of electrodes and transports contaminants to the electrodes (Figure 1) [66]. The main relevant phenomena occurring in electrokinetic remediation are electroosmosis, electromigration, electrolysis and electrophoresis so that heavy metals can be removed by adsorption, electrodeposition and precipitation or co-precipitation [67]. There are some side effects, such as thermal effects, crystallization effect, electrode corrosion and focusing effect (the formation of hydroxide precipitate), which are becoming the main challenges of electrokinetic technology [68]. The current studies, though, have provided some solutions. For instance, the focusing effect can be overcome by controlling the pH, polarity exchange technique, ion exchange membranes, approaching anodes, the superimposed electric field and adding electrolytes (such as chelators and surfactants) [69,70,71,72,73]. The crystallization effect and electrode corrosion can be relieved by adding citric acid or polyaspartic acid and coating electrically conductive polymers, respectively [74,75], while the mechanism of thermal effects is still unclear. On the other hand, EKR combined with other remedy techniques are more effective; for example, EKR-bioremediation requires low energy and improves the growth of plants and the spread of microorganisms. EKR-PRB simultaneously achieves pollutants removal, degradation or recycling from soil/sediment [68,76]. In terms of improving energy utilization efficiency and developing self-powered technology, pulsed electric fields (FE), solar power and microbial fuel cells have been extensively studied [68].
Water diversion is to introduce clean water to polluted areas so that contaminant concentrations are diluted and the water self-purification process is accelerated [77]. There are many factors affecting this process, such as diverted discharge, diversion routes, wind direction/magnitude and ways of managing diversion projects [78,79]. Generally, long-term diversion with a low flow rate is better than short-term diversion with a high flow rate, and a low nutrient concentration of diverted water is also important [78,79,80]. Hydrodynamic and water quality models are introduced to simulate the transport of pollutants, the flow movement, water level changes and the effectiveness of water transfer projects, including HEC-RAS, MKIE11, MIKE 21 FM, EFDC, FVCOM and other models [79,81,82,83,84,85]. This technique improves water exchange and the reoxygenation rate, which is especially suitable for polluted lakes [81]. Successful examples are Moses Lake, Xihu Lake, Tianyinhu Lake and Dongshan Lake [78,81,86,87]. Water diversion responds quickly to pollutants, but the diverted water needs to be reasonably distributed to avoid the occurrence of dead water zones [78].

3.2. Chemical Remediation

Chemical remediation is to add chemical additives to stabilize heavy metals. Commonly, chemical additives include phosphate, clay minerals, biochar, sulfide, silicocalcium materials, iron-based materials, aluminum salts, industrial residue and nanomaterials (Table 1). The mechanisms for immobilizing heavy metals involve adsorption, oxidation, reduction, ion exchange, complexation and precipitation and other reactions [88]. Chemical remediation is quick, simple, easy to apply and relatively economical, but the introduction of large quantities of other chemicals can easily cause secondary pollution to the environment.
Phosphate compounds include soluble phosphates and insoluble phosphates. Soluble phosphates, such as phosphoric acid, ammonium, sodium, potassium phosphates and hydrogen ordihydrogen, can react with metal ions to form insoluble metal phosphate salts [89]. Insoluble phosphates, such as hydrargyrite and the apatite family (hydroxylapatite), are frequently encountered examples. In particular, hydroxylapatite is the most cost-effective reactive media for most metals and radionuclides to form mineral deposits that are not bioavailable [89]. Excessive or improper use of phosphate may lead to water eutrophication and other risks [90]. Clay minerals are a kind of abundant natural minerals, in which bentonite, montmorillonite, attapulgite, kaolinite, sepiolite and zeolite are the most widely used due to their high specific surface areas (SSA), cation exchange capacity (CEC) and swelling/expanding capacity [91]. The methodologies of organic modification, acid modification, thermal modification and nano zero-valent iron (nZVI) modification can improve their adsorption capacities [91]. At the same time, modification adds additional costs, and new chemical agents also increase environmental threats; for instance, organoclays between 5 and 100% v/v have adverse effects on crustaceans [45]. Biochar is produced by carbonization or pyrolysis of various materials (such as wood, feces, leaves and animal manure) [92]. The performance of biochar can be enhanced by steam activation, magnetization, oxidation and digestion treatment to reach remediation requirements [92]. However, extensive application of biochar can lead to a decrease in the unconfined compressive strength and shear strength of the soil [93]. Sulfide minerals (such as FeS2, FeS, Na2S, Na2S2O3 and dithiocarbamate) have been recognized as important scavengers for heavy metals [94]. For example, iron sulfide (FeS) displays a disordered tetragonal mackinawite structure with a highly reactive surface [95], which is very effective in immobilizing metal ions such as Hg2+, Cd6+, Cu2+, Pb2+, Mn2+, Zn2+, Ca2+, Mg2+ and Ni2+ [96,97,98]. Mercury can be immobilized by FeS through surface complexation, substitution into metastable FeS compounds and precipitation of HgS(s) [99,100], and Chromium(VI) can be reduced into chromium(III) by a source of Fe(II) and S(-II) species as electron donors from FeS [96]. Furthermore, amendments of silicocalcium materials (e.g., CaO and MgO), iron-based materials (e.g., Fe0, Fe2O3, Fe3O4 and Fe(OH)3), aluminum salts (e.g., aluminum chloride and aluminum polychloride), industrial residue (e.g., steel slag) and polymers (e.g., alkali-activated materials and biopolymers) also can reduce the bioavailability of metals effectively, applying as the pilot- or full-scale in sediment remediation [12,43,101,102].
Nanomaterials include carbon nanomaterials (nanoscale biochar materials, nano black carbon, multiwalled carbon nanotubes and C60), metal-based nanomaterials (nanoscale zero-valent iron (nZVI) and metallic oxide nanomaterials) and nano mineral materials [103]. In recent years, novel nanomaterials have emerged due to their superior performance in environmental pollution cleanup. For instance, metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) are formed by coordination bonds of metal ion precursors and organic ligands, which have rich functional groups and designable structures that can capture various heavy metal ions [104]. MXenes is a two-dimensional transition metal carbide or nitride material with advantages of excellent conductivity, high specific surface area, rich surface functionalities, mechanical flexibility and hydrophilicity, and their adsorption capacity for heavy metals depends upon their surface terminal groups (-OH, -F, and -O) and interlayer spacing [105]. Graphitic carbon nitride (g-C3N4) is a two-dimensional metal-free semiconductor that has multiple surface features and abundant functional groups (e.g., -NH2/-NH-/=NA-), making it a promising adsorbent for pollutant elimination [80,106]. Although nanomaterials have great potential to remedy heavy metal contamination, they are rarely used in commercial applications. As a new type of environmental remediation materials, nanomaterials have great uncertainties and should be used with caution. Nanomaterials can easily enter the environment and living cells due to their tiny size. The nanomaterials used to remedy sediments are not easily separated after restoration, resulting in secondary pollution and adverse effects on benthic microbial communities and aquatic organisms [107].

3.3. Bioremediation

Bioremediation involves phytoremediation and microbial remediation. Phytoremediation is to use of plants and their related rhizosphere microorganisms to remove, degrade or fix a variety of contaminants in contaminated soil, sediments or waters [108]. It is an operationally simple, cost-effective (25% less than other remediation techniques) and a promising clean-up solution for a wide variety of contaminated sites despite some restrictions (e.g., the climatic and geological conditions, low biomass, slow growth rate) [109]. Microbial remediation is the use of microorganisms to reduce, eliminate, contain and transform pollutants in contaminated environmental media (e.g., sediment) [110]. The advantages of microbial remediation are safe, simple and effective, but it is time-consuming, and the remediation effect is difficult to predict [12].
Phytoremediation strategies for heavy metal pollution mainly include phytovolatilization, phytostabilization and phytoextraction. The mechanisms involve the production of root exudates that enhance heavy metals mobility and the production of metal-chelating agents (e.g., metallothionines, phytochelatins and antioxidant compounds) [111]. Phytovolatilization means that pollutants are absorbed by the roots, transferred to the leaves and volatilized through the stomata (transpiration), in which toxic metals are converted to less toxic and volatile compounds (such as Hg). The divalent cation Hg2+ can be reduced to elemental mercury by bacteria to enhance the volatilization ability of associated plants [112]. However, the volatilized metals can be advected by winds and transported a considerable distance, finally returning to land by atmospheric bulk deposition [113]. Plants have the capability to isolate or fix/stabilize contaminants in the rhizosphere by absorption at the root surface or precipitation within the root zone. This process is called phytostabilization [111,114]. The plants must have dense rooting systems, a relatively long life and self-propagating capacity [108]. Frequently, phytostabilization is used in combination with chemical stabilization, and the ideal amendments are nontoxic, easy to produce and inexpensive, including lime, phosphate, biochar, biosolids, compost and manure [115,116,117]. However, pollutants need to be monitored regularly to ensure optimal stability conditions, and soil/sediment amendments are required to be applied regularly to maintain their effectiveness [118]. Phytoextraction refers to the pollutants are absorbed by root systems of plant and then translocated and concentrated to the aboveground harvestable parts [119]. In this process, hyperaccumulators are particularly important, which must have characteristics of high biomass production, fast growth and easy harvesting and cultivation [120]. The criteria used for hyperaccumulators are > 100 mg/kg for Cd; >1000 mg/kg for Cu, Ni, and Pb; >10,000 mg/kg for Mn and Zn in plant shoots (all accumulations are dry weight) [12]. There are approximately 500 known hyperacculator taxa covering 45 angiosperms families, and the number is still increasing, among which about 25% come from Brassicaceae [119,121,122]. Commonly used hydrophyte for sediment remediation includes Hydrilla verticillata, Elodea Canadensis, Phragmites australis, Eichhornia crassipes, microalgae, mangrove plant and so on (Table 2). The metals that exit as free ions, soluble complexes and in an ion exchange state are considered available for plant uptake, which depends on soil-associated factors and plant-associated factors [122]. The addition of chelating agents to form metal chelates prevents the deposition and adsorption of metals in the soil/sediment, thus maintaining the availability of plants. Synthetic/natural chelating agents include citric acid, oxalic acid, amino acid, ethylenediaminedisuccinic acid (EDDS), ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid (EDTA), ethylenediamine-N, nitrilotriacetic acid (NTA) and gibberellic acid (GA) [123,124,125,126]. On the other hand, microbial communities sourced from contaminated soil/sediment and plant root-soil interface (rhizosphere communities) are commonly applied to improve metal phytoextration [127]. The mechanisms is to increase bioavailability of heavy metals in the soil/sediment and/or promote plant growth. Additionally, genetic engineering that transferred of genes (e.g., metal uptake, translocation, and sequestration) into candidate plants has great potential to improve phytoremediation, but there are still some risks for technical economic and ecological impacts [114].
Microbial remediation strategies for heavy metal pollution mainly include biosorption, bioaccumulation, biotransformation, bioprecipitation and bioleaching [12]. Microbial types, including archaea, bacteria, cyanobacteria and fungi, are potentially used for soil/sediment remediation for heavy metals (Table 2). Biosorption is a physicochemical process that microorganisms adsorb metals by electrostatic force, ion or proton displacement, complexation or chelation [142]. The interaction between functional groups of microbial cell surface and metals is non-metabolism dependent, so the dead biomass can be used as sorbents [143]. Bioaccumulation is a metabolically-active process in which microorganisms transport metals into their intracellular space and sequester them with proteins and peptide ligands (i.e., storage system) [110,142]. The importer system is a translocation pathway that is formed through the lipid bilayer, where channels (passive diffusion), secondary carriers and primary active transporters affect metals uptake [142]. Bioaccumulation is a slow and irreversible process in the cell wall and lipid membrane are physically or chemically destroyed when heavy metals are obtained [142]. Biotransformation covers the transition of metal valence states to alter their mobility, bioavailability and toxicity, whose processes include reduction and oxidation, methylation and demethylation, and hydrogenation [144]. For example, metal-reducing bacteria can directly enzymatic reduce soluble heavy metals to insoluble or immobile forms [110]. Metal precipitation may occur when heavy metals react with extracellular polymers or anions (such as sulfides or phosphates) from microbial metabolites, which is called bioprecipitation [110,145]. Further, bioleaching means metallic cations dissolved from insoluble ores by biological oxidation and complexation processes, which is an innovative and low-carbon technology for metal extraction [146,147]. In order to improve the efficiency of microbial remediation, gene engineering and nanobioremediation technology have come into being [142,148]. For instance, genetically encoded metal-binding proteins and enzymatically produced metal-binding peptides and polymers can enhance the storage of heavy metals [142]. Nanobioremediation is a combined technology that nanoparticles are applied as immobilization carriers enhancing the microbial mechanisms of environmental cleanup [148].

3.4. Combined Remediation

Heavy metal pollution in sediment is complex and cannot be completely solved by a single remediation technology. Thus, combined remediation with two or more remediation technologies encourages the realization of their full potential and improves remediation efficiency. Generally, combined remediation concludes physical-chemical remediation, chemical-biological remediation, phyto-microorganism remediation and other group remediation (combined more than three methods) [12]. Physical-chemical remediation is a conventional method with characteristics of high efficiency and high cost, including electrokinetic combined remediation (such as electrokinetic-acidification/flocculant/adsorption/ion exchange membrane/permeable reactive barrier), combined remediation by chemical leaching and ultrasonic/microwave–chemical combined remediation [149]. Biological-related combined methods have obvious advantages of low cost and small impact on the ecological environment, but they are time-consuming and unstable in remediation efficiency. Chemical-biological combined remediation contains phyto-stabilizing agent combined remediation and phyto-activator combined remediation, which promotes the processes of phytostabilization and phytoaccumulation. Phyto-microorganism remediation is mainly to repair contaminated sediment through the symbiotic system between microorganisms and plants. Evidence that P-solubilizing microorganisms and siderophores produced by microorganisms can increase heavy metal-mobilization and phytoextraction [150]. Furthermore, group technology (combined with more than two remediation technologies) is becoming a trend in sediment remediation, but it has not been widely applied in practice [12].

4. Conclusions and Prospect

Heavy metal pollution in rivers and lakes has become an important concern in the world. Most of the metals that flow into rivers are stored in sediments and ingested by aquatic life, so sediment remediation is necessary. Due to the complexity of heavy metal pollution and the particularity of different pollution sites, the selection of treatment methods is also different.
In situ remediation is simple, effective and low cost, but contaminants always exist and have a risk of re-release. Physical remediation is traditional and widely used, but the emerging active capping is still in the experimental stage and requires further research. Chemical remediation has a relatively single function, and composite additives are usually used for multi-heavy metal complex pollution. The remediation amendments themselves have certain environmental risks, so it is particularly important to explore green, environmentally-friendly and multi-functional remediation materials. Bioremediation is a great potential application technology with no secondary pollution. However, this technique is currently at its fledging stage; thus, understanding the mechanisms to improve tolerance and extraction efficiency for plants and microorganism is necessary to further research and development. These techniques can be combined to improve remediation efficiency, which is always the trend in research.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Q.X.; methodology, Q.X. and B.W.; software, Q.X.; validation, B.W. and X.C.; formal analysis, Q.X.; investigation, Q.X.; resources, B.W. and X.C.; data curation, Q.X.; writing—original draft preparation, Q.X.; writing—review and editing, B.W. and X.C.; visualization, Q.X., B.W. and X.C.; supervision, B.W. and X.C.; project administration, B.W and X.C.; funding acquisition, B.W and X.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was financially supported by Shanghai Science and Technology Committee, grant number 21YF1449100, 21230714500, Ministry of Science and Technology, People’s Republic of China, grant number 2020YFC1908603, National Natural Science Foundation of China, grant number 52100159, 51978495, Tongji University, grant number 22120210533, 2022-4-YB-11 and State Key Laboratory of Pollution Control and Resource Reuse, grant number PCRRF21015.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. UNEP. Responsible Resource Management for A Sustainable World: Findings from the International Resource Panel; Panel, T.I.R., Ed.; UNEP: Athens, Greece, 2012; pp. 1–36. [Google Scholar]
  2. Zeider, K.; Overmeiren, N.V.; Rine, K.P.; Sandhaus, S.; Ramírez-Andreotta, M.D. Foliar surfaces as dust and aerosol pollution monitors: An assessment by a mining site. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 790, 148164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Mnu, A.; Naka, B. Heavy metal pollution index of surface and groundwater from around an abandoned mine site, Klein Aub. Phys. Chem. Earth 2021, 124, 103067. [Google Scholar]
  4. Murguia, D.I.; Bringezu, S.; Schaldach, R. Global direct pressures on biodiversity by large-scale metal mining: Spatial distribution and implications for conservation. J. Environ. Manag. 2016, 180, 409–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Hajrić, D.; Smajlović, M.; Antunović, B.; Smajlović, A.; Alagić, D.; Tahirović, D.; Brenjo, D.; Članjak-Kudra, E.; Djedjibegović, J.; Porobić, A.; et al. Risk assessment of heavy metal exposure via consumption of fish and fish products from the retail market in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Food Control 2021, 133, 108631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kim, H.S.; Kin, Y.J.; Seo, Y.R. An overview of carcinogenic heavy metal: Molecular toxicity mechanism and prevention. J. Cancer Prev. 2015, 20, 232–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Tsai, T.L.; Kuo, C.C.; Hsu, L.I.; Tsai, S.F.; Chiou, H.Y.; Chen, C.J.; Hsu, K.H.; Wang, S.L. Association between arsenic exposure, DNA damage, and urological cancers incidence: A long-term follow-up study of residents in an arseniasis endemic area of northeastern Taiwan. Chemosphere 2021, 166, 129094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Stojsavljević, A.; Rovčanin, B.; Krstića, Đ.; Jagodić, J.; Borković-Mitić, S.; Paunović, I.; Živaljević, V.; Mitić, B.; Gavrović-Jankulović, M.; Manojlović, D. Cadmium as main endocrine disruptor in papillary thyroid carcinoma and the significance of Cd/Se ratio for thyroid tissue pathophysiology. J. Trace Elem. Med. Biol. 2019, 55, 190–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wang, L.; Zhang, S.; Wang, Z.; Xu, M.; Yuan, L.; Cui, J.; Liu, S. A protective role of Heme-regulated eIF2α kinase in cadmium-induced liver and kidney injuries. Chemosphere 2017, 185, 284–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Peng, J.F.; Song, Y.H.; Yuan, P.; Cui, X.Y.; Qiu, G.L. The remediation of heavy metals contaminated sediment. J. Hazard. Mater. 2009, 161, 633–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Zhang, Y.; Labianca, C.; Chen, L.; Gisi, S.D.; Wang, L. Sustainable ex-situ remediation of contaminated sediment: A review. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 287, 117333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Peng, W.H.; Li, X.M.; Xiao, S.T.; Fan, W.H. Review of remediation technologies for sediments contaminated by heavy metals. J. Soil Sediments 2018, 18, 1701–1719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Smolders, A.J.P.; Lock, R.A.C.; Velde, G.V.D.; Hoyos, R.I.M.; Roelofs, J.G.M. Effects of mining activities on eavy metal concentrations in water, sediment, and macroinvertebrates in different reaches of the pilcomayo river, South America. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2003, 44, 314–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Pandey, V.; Rattan, V.K. Assessment of monthly variation in heavy metal characteristics of Electroplating industrial untreated wastewater at selected sites of Chandigarh. J. Appl. Nat. Sci. 2021, 13, 250–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Onder, S.; Dursun, S. Air borne heavy metal pollution of Cedrus libani (A. Rich.) in the city centre of Konya (Turkey). Atmos. Environ. 2006, 40, 1122–1133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Gimeno-García, E.; Andreu, V.; Boluda, R. Heavy metals incidence in the application of inorganic fertilizers and pesticides to rice farming soils. Environ. Pollut. 1996, 92, 19–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Marrugo-Negrete, J.L.; Urango-Cardenas, I.D.; Núñez, S.M.B.; Díez, S. Atmospheric deposition of heavy metals in the mining area of the San Jorge river basin, Colombia. Air Qual. Atmos. Health 2014, 7, 577–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Khan, R.; Saxena, A.; Shukla, S. Evaluation of heavy metal pollution for River Gomti, in parts of Ganga Alluvial Plain, India. SN Appl. Sci. 2020, 2, 1451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Liu, Z.; Wang, T.; Song, B.; Geng, H.; Zhang, F. Risk assessment and prediction of heavy metal pollution in groundwater and river sediment: A case study of a typical agricultural irrigation area in Northeast China. Int. J. Anal. Chem. 2015, 2015, 921539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Singh, K.P.; Mohan, D.; Singh, V.K.; Malik, A. Studies on distribution and fractionation of heavy metals in Gomti river sediments-a tributary of the Ganges, India. J. Hydrol. 2005, 312, 14–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Simpson, S.L. Exposure-effect model for calculating copper effect concentrations in sediments with varying copper binding properties: A synthesis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2005, 39, 7089–7096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Chang, Z.; Yu, Z.G.; Zeng, G.M.; Jiang, M.; Yang, Z.Z.; Fang, C.; Zhu, M.Y.; Shen, L.Q.; Hu, L. Effects of sediment geochemical properties on heavy metal bioavailability. Environ. Int. 2014, 73, 270–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Hou, D.; Jiang, H.; Lue, C.; Ren, L.; Fan, Q.; Wang, J.; Xie, Z. Distribution characteristics and potential ecological risk assessment of heavy metals (Cu, Pb, Zn, Cd) in water and sediments from Lake Dalinouer, China. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2013, 93, 135–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Kelderman, P.; Osman, A.A. Effect of redox potential on heavy metal binding forms in polluted canal sediments in Delft (The Netherlands). Water Res. 2007, 41, 4251–4261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Baumann, Z.; Fisher, N.S. Relating the sediment phase speciation of arsenic, cadmium, and chromium with their bioavailability for the deposit-feeding polychaete Nereis succinea. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2011, 30, 747–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Campana, O.; Blasco, J.; Simpson, S.L. Demonstrating the appropriateness of developing sediment quality guidelines based on sediment geochemical properties. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 7483–7489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Gustavsson, J.; Yekta, S.S.; Karlsson, A.; Skyllberg, U.; Bo, H.S. Potential bioavailability and chemical forms of Co and Ni in the biogas process—An evaluation based on sequential and acid volatile sulfide extractions. Eng. Life Sci. 2013, 13, 572–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Burton, E.D.; Phillips, I.R.; Hawker, D.W. Factors controlling the geochemical partitioning of trace metals in estuarine sediments. Soil Sediment Contam. Int. J. 2006, 15, 253–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Simpson, S.L.; Rochford, L.; Birch, G.F. Geochemical influences on metal partitioning in contaminated estuarine sediments. Mar. Freshw. Res. 2002, 53, 9–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Yu, K.C.; Tsai, L.J.; Chen, S.H.; Ho, S.T. Chemical binding of heavy metals in anoxic river sediments. Water Res. 2001, 35, 4086–4094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Equeenuddin, S.M.; Tripathy, S.; Sahoo, P.K.; Panigrahi, M.K. Metal behavior in sediment associated with acid mine drainage stream: Role of pH. J. Geochem. Explor. 2013, 124, 230–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hong, Y.; Reible, D.D. Modeling the effect of pH and salinity on biogeochemical reactions and metal behavior in sediment. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2013, 225, 1800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Wang, Z.; Wang, Y.; Zhao, P.; Chen, L.; Yan, C.; Yan, Y.; Chi, Q. Metal release from contaminated coastal sediments under changing pH conditions: Implications for metal mobilization in acidified oceans. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2015, 101, 707–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Laing, G.D.; Rinklebe, J.; Vandecasteele, B.; Meers, E.; Tack, F.M.G. Trace metal behaviour in estuarine and riverine floodplain soils and sediments: A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2009, 407, 3972–3985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Boudreau, B.P. Modelling the sulfide-oxygen reaction and associated pH gradients in porewaters. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 1991, 55, 145–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Gang, L.; Nan, L.; Yang, W.; Zhu, D. Relationship between heavy metal content in polluted soil and soil organic matter and pH in mining areas. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2018, 394, 052081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Li, Y.; Gong, X. Effects of Dissolved Organic Matter on the Bioavailability of Heavy Metals during Microbial Dissimilatory Iron Reduction: A Review. In Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology; Voogt, P.d., Ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2021; Volume 257, pp. 72–86. [Google Scholar]
  38. Sekaly, A.L.R.; Mandal, R.; Hassan, N.M.; Murimboh, J.; Chakrabarti, C.L.; Back, M.H.; Grégoire, D.C.; Schroeder, W.H. Effect of metal/fulvic acid mole ratios on the binding of Ni(II), Pb(II), Cu(II), Cd(II), and Al(III) by two well-characterized fulvic acids in aqueous model solutions. Anal. Chim. Acta 1999, 402, 211–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Clark, M.W.; Mcconchie, D.M.; Lewis, D.W.; Saenger, P. Redox stratification and heavy metal partitioning in Avicennia-dominated mangrove sediments: A geochemical model. Chem. Geol. 1998, 149, 147–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Shyleshchandran, M.N.; Mohan, M.; Ramasamy, E.V. Risk assessment of heavy metals in Vembanad Lake sediments (south-west coast of India), based on acid-volatile sulfide (AVS)-simultaneously extracted metal (SEM) approach. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 25, 7333–7345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Jonge, M.D.; Blust, R.; Bervoets, L. The relation between Acid Volatile Sulfides (AVS) and metal accumulation in aquatic invertebrates: Implications of feeding behavior and ecology. Environ. Pollut. 2010, 158, 1381–1391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Jonge, D.M.; Teuchies, J.; Meire, P.; Blust, R.; Bervoets, L. The impact of increased oxygen conditions on metal-contaminated sediments part I: Effects on redox status, sediment geochemistry and metal bioavailability. Water Res. 2012, 46, 2205–2214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. USEPA. Use of Amendments for in Situ Remediation at Superfund Sediment Sites. In Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation; 2013; pp. 1–61. Available online: https://semspub.epa.gov/work/01/538504.pdf (accessed on 15 November 2022).
  44. Knox, A.S.; Paller, M.H.; Roberts, J. Active capping technology-new approaches for in situ remediation of contaminated sediments. Rem. J. 2012, 22, 93–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Libralato, G.; Minetto, D.; Lofrano, G.; Guida, M.; Notarnicola, M. Toxicity assessment within the application of in situ contaminated sediment remediation technologies: A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 621, 85–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Kutuniva, J.; Mäkinen, J.; Kauppila, T.; Karppinen, A.; Hellsten, S.; Luukkonen, T.; Lassi, U. Geopolymers as active capping materials for in situ remediation of metal(loid)-contaminated lake sediments. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2019, 7, 102852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Raymond, C.; Samuelsson, G.S.; Agrenius, S.; Schaanning, M.T.; Gunnarsson, J.S. Impaired benthic macrofauna function 4years after sediment capping with activated carbon in the Grenland fjords, Norway. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 28, 16181–16197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Chaudhary, D.K.; Bailon, M.X.; Kim, H.; Reible, D.; Hong, Y. Evaluation of sediment capping effectiveness in Hyeongsan River for in-situ management of total mercury and methylmercury contamination. J. Soils Sediments 2022, 22, 2578–2591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Liu, C.; Lin, J.; Zhang, Z.; Zhan, Y.; Hu, D. Effect of application mode (capping and amendment) on the control of cadmium release from sediment by apatite/calcite mixture and its phosphorus release risk. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 59846–59861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Laukkanen, J.; Takaluoma, E.; Runtti, H.; Mkinen, J.; Kauppila, T.; Hellsten, S.; Luukkonen, T.; Lassi, U. In situ remediation of metal(loid)-contaminated lake sediments with alkali-activated blast furnace slag granule amendment: A field experiment. J. Soils Sediments 2022, 22, 1054–1067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Srmo, E.; Silvani, L.; Braaten, H.; Bryntesen, T.; Eek, E.; Cornelissen, G. Formation and availability of methylmercury in mercury-contaminated sediment: Effects of activated carbon and biochar amendments. J. Soils Sediments 2022, 22, 1041–1053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Wikstrom, J.; Bonaglia, S.; Ramo, R.; Renman, G.; Walve, J.; Hedberg, J.; Gunnarsson, J.S. Sediment Remediation with New Composite Sorbent Amendments to Sequester Phosphorus, Organic Contaminants, and Metals. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2021, 55, 11937–11947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Cervi, E.C.; Hudson, M.; Rentschler, A.; Clark, S.; Brown, S.S.; Burton, G.A. Evaluation of Capping Materials to Reduce Zinc Flux from Sediments in a Former Mining Pit Lake. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2021, 41, 193–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Liu, Q.; Sheng, Y.; Liu, X. Efficacy of in situ active capping Cd highly contaminated sediments with nano-Fe2O3 modified biochar. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 290, 118134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Yu, T.; Ch’Ng, B.L.; Chen, C.; Ou, M.Y.; Cheng, Y.H.; Hsu, C.J.; Hsi, H.C. A simulation study of mercury immobilization in estuary sediment microcosm by activated carbon/clay-based thin-layer capping under artificial flow and turbation. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 708, 135068. [Google Scholar]
  56. Aliyu, M.K.; Karim, A.T.A.; Chan, C.M.; Nda, M. In Situ Remediation of Lead Contaminated Marine Sediment using Bentonite, Kaolin and Sand as Capping Materials. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 498, 012078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Liu, Q.; Sheng, Y.; Wang, W.; Liu, X. Efficacy and microbial responses of biochar-nanoscale zero-valent during in-situ remediation of Cd-contaminated sediment. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 287, 125076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Zhou, J.; Zhang, M.; Ji, M.; Wang, Z.; Hou, H.; Zhang, J.; Huang, X.; Hursthouse, A.; Qian, G. Evaluation of heavy metals stability and phosphate mobility in the remediation of sediment by calcium nitrate. Water Environ. Res. 2020, 92, 1017–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Wang, A.O.; Ptacek, C.J.; Blowes, D.W.; Gibson, B.D.; Landis, R.C.; Dyer, J.A.; Ma, J. Application of hardwood biochar as a reactive capping mat to stabilize mercury derived from contaminated floodplain soil and riverbank sediments. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 652, 549–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Li, X.C.; Yang, Z.Z.; Zhang, C.; Wei, J.J.; Hu, J.W. Effects of different crystalline iron oxides on immobilization and bioavailability of Cd in contaminated sediment. Chem. Eng. J. 2019, 373, 307–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Liu, Y.; Tang, Y.; Zhong, G.; Hui, Z. A comparison study on heavy metal/metalloid stabilization in Maozhou River sediment by five types of amendments. J. Soils Sediments 2019, 19, 3922–3933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Leven, A.; Vlassopoulos, D.; Kanematsu, M.; Goin, J.; O’Day, P.A. Characterization of manganese oxide amendments for in situ remediation of mercury-contaminated sediments. Environ. Sci. Process. Impacts 2018, 20, 1761–1773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Xiong, C.; Wang, D.; Fungyee, T.N.; Dai, Y.; Zhang, X.; Tang, X.; Yang, Y. Enhancement of active thin-layer capping with natural zeolite to simultaneously inhibit nutrient and heavy metal release from sediments. Ecol. Eng. 2018, 119, 64–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Chung, C.S.; Song, K.H.; Choi, K.Y.; Kim, Y.I.; Kim, H.E.; Jung, J.M.; Kim, C.J. Variations in the concentrations of heavy metals through enforcement of a rest-year system and dredged sediment capping at the Yellow Sea-Byung dumping site, Korea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2017, 124, 512–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Zhang, S.; Tian, K.; Jiang, S.F.; Jiang, H. Preventing the Release of Cu2+ and 4-CP from Contaminated Sediments by Employing a Biochar Capping Treatment. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2017, 56, 7730–7738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Fu, R.; Wen, D.; Xia, X.; Zhang, W.; Gu, Y. Electrokinetic remediation of chromium (Cr)-contaminated soil with citric acid (CA) and polyaspartic acid (PASP) as electrolytes. Chem. Eng. J. 2017, 316, 601–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Santos, E.; Ferro, S.; Vocciante, M. The Handbook of Environmental Remediation: Classic and Modern Techniques. In Chapter 5: Electrokinetic Remediation; Hussain, C.M., Ed.; CPI Group (UK) Ltd: Croydon, UK, 2020; pp. 121–144. [Google Scholar]
  68. Wen, D.; Fu, R.; Li, Q. Removal of inorganic contaminants in soil by electrokinetic remediation technologies: A review. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 401, 123345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Xu, H.; Zhao, P.; Ran, Q.; Li, W.; Zhang, R. Enhanced electrokinetic remediation for Cd-contaminated clay soil by addition of nitric acid, acetic acid, and EDTA: Effects on soil micro-ecology. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 772, 145029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Vizcaino, R.L.; Yustres, A.; Asensio, L.; Saez, C.; Cañizares, P.; Rodrigo, M.A.; Navarro, V. Enhanced electrokinetic remediation of polluted soils by anolyte pH conditioning. Chemosphere Environ. Toxicol. Risk Assess. 2018, 199, 477–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Pazos, M.; Sanroman, M.A.; Cameselle, C. Improvement in electrokinetic remediation of heavy metal spiked kaolin with the polarity exchange technique. Chemosphere 2006, 62, 817–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Li, G.; Guo, S.; Li, S.; Zhang, L.; Wang, S. Comparison of approaching and fixed anodes for avoiding the ‘focusing’ effect during electrokinetic remediation of chromium-contaminated soil. Chem. Eng. J. 2012, 203, 231–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Sun, Z.; Wu, B.; Guo, P.; Wang, S.; Guo, S. Enhanced electrokinetic remediation and simulation of cadmium-contaminated soil by superimposed electric field. Chemosphere 2019, 233, 17–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Wen, D.D.; Fu, R.B.; Zhang, W.; Gu, Y.Y. Enhanced electrokinetic remediation of heavy metals contaminated soils by stainless steel electrodes as well as the phenomenon and mechanism of electrode corrosion and crystallization. Env. Sci. 2017, 38, 1209–1217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Hu, J.; Zhu, H.; Ma, Y.; Yi, T.; Mao, X.; Lin, A. Corrosion protection of stainless steel by separate polypyrrole electrode in acid solutions. Mater. Corros.-Werkst. Und Korros. 2011, 62, 68–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Ferro, S.; Vocciante, M. ElectroKinetic Remediation. In Scholarly Community Encyclopedia; MDPI AG: Basel, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  77. Hu, L.; Hu, W.; Zhai, S.; Wu, H. Effects on water quality following water transfer in Lake Taihu, China. Ecol. Eng. 2010, 36, 471–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Zhang, M.; Dolatshah, A.; Zhu, W.; Yu, G. Case study on water quality improvement in Xihu Lake through diversion and water distribution. Water 2018, 10, 333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Dong, F.; Huang, A.; Peng, W.; Liu, X. Study on effect of different reservoir water diversion modes on river water quality improvement. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 826, 012021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Wu, Y.; Pang, H.; Liu, Y.; Wang, X.; Yu, S. Environmental remediation of heavy metal ions by novel-nanomaterials: A review. Environ. Pollut. 2019, 246, 608–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Yang, H.; Wang, J.; Li, J.; Zhou, H.; Liu, Z. Modelling impacts of water diversion on water quality in an urban artificial lake. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 276, 116694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Wang, J.M.; Wu, J.F.; Fu, L.; You, A.J. Effects of ecological water diversion in coastal plain river network considering different control plans. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 626, 012012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Zhang, X.; Rui, Z.; Wang, Y.; Yong, L.; Guo, H. Is water age a reliable indicator for evaluating water quality effectiveness of water diversion projects in eutrophic lakes? J. Hydrol. 2016, 542, 281–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Jiang, X.; Ma, R.; Ma, T.; Sun, Z. Modeling the effects of water diversion projects on surface water and groundwater interactions in the central Yangtze River basin. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 830, 154606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. He, W.; Jiang, A.; Zhang, J.; Xu, H.; Yu, X. Comprehensive Hydrodynamic Fitness of an Estuary Channel and the Effects of a Water Diversion Inflow. Estuaries Coasts 2021, 45, 382–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Gong, R.; Xu, L.; Wang, D.; Li, H.; Xu, J. Water quality modeling for a typical urban lake based on the EFDC model. Environ. Model. Assess. 2016, 21, 643–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Welch, E.B.; Barbiero, R.P.; Bouchard, D.; Jones, C.A. Lake trophic state change and constant algal composition following dilution and diversion. Ecol. Eng. 1992, 1, 173–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Khalid, S.; Shahid, M.; Niazi, N.K.; Murtaza, B.; Bibi, I.; Dumat, C. A comparison of technologies for remediation of heavy metal contaminated soils. J. Geochem. Explor. 2016, 182, 247–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Nzihou, A.; Sharrock, P. Role of phosphate in the remediation and reuse of heavy metal polluted wastes and sites. Waste Biomass Valorization 2010, 1, 163–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. Zhou, S.W.; Xu, M.G. The progress in phosphate remediation of heavy metal-contaminated soils. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2007, 27, 3043–3050. [Google Scholar]
  91. Otunola, B.O.; Ololade, O.O. A review on the application of clay minerals as heavy metal adsorbents for remediation purposes. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2020, 18, 100692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Wang, Y.; Wang, H.S.; Tang, C.S.; Gu, K.; Shi, B. Remediation of heavy metal contaminated soils by biochar: A review. J. Environ. Geotech. 2019, 9, 135–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. Zhang, Z. A Preliminary Study on the Effect of Biochar on Soil Physical Properties. Master’s Thesis, Zhejiang University, Zhejiang, China, 2014; p. 62. [Google Scholar]
  94. Chen, J.; Liu, J.; Li, S.; Wang, L.; Wei, S. Effects of several sulfur compounds on stabilization of mercury in purple soil and approproiate stabilizing conditions. Chin. J. Environ. Eng. 2018, 12, 893–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Wolthers, M.; Charlet, L.; Linde, P.R.V.D.; Rickard, D.; Weijden, C.H.V.D. Surface chemistry of disordered mackinawite (FeS). Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2005, 69, 3469–3481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  96. Patterson, R.R.; Fendorf, S. Reduction of hexavalent chromium by amorphous iron sulfide. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1997, 31, 2039–2044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Watson, J.; Ellwood, D.C.; Deng, Q.; Mikhalovsky, S.; Hayter, C.E.; Evans, J. Heavy metal adsorption on bacterially produced FeS. Miner. Eng. 1995, 8, 1097–1108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Wharton, M.J.; Atkins, B.; Charnockab, J.M.; Livens, F.R.; Collison, D. An X-ray absorption spectroscopy study of the coprecipitation of Tc and Re with mackinawite (FeS). Appl. Geochem. 2000, 15, 347–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Skyllberg, U.; Drott, A. Competition between disordered iron sulfide and natural organic matter associated thiols for mercury(II)-an EXAFS study. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 1254–1259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Gong, Y.; Liu, Y.; Xiong, Z. Immobilization of mercury by carboxymethyl cellulose stabilized Iron sulfide nanopartides: Reaction mechanisms and effects of stabilizer and water chemistry. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 3986–3994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Padmanaban, I.; Nithila, S. Stabilization of black cotton soil by using ground granulated blast furnace slag and steel slag. Int. J. Eng. Manag. Sci. 2018, 3, 36–39. [Google Scholar]
  102. Wildt, C.; Gibert, O.; Cortina, J.L.; Coscera, G. On-site remediation of chromium-contaminated sediments by combination of sediment washing and stabilization with magnesium oxide/limestone mixtures. J. Soils Sediments 2004, 4, 184–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Zhang, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Akakuru, O.U.; Xu, X.; Wu, A. Research progress and mechanism of nanomaterials-mediated in-situ remediation of cadmium-contaminated soil: A critical review. J. Environ. Sci. 2021, 104, 351–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Zhao, X.; Yu, X.; Wang, X.; Lai, S.; Sun, Y.; Yang, D. Recent advances in metal-organic frameworks for the removal of heavy metal oxoanions from water Chem. Eng. J. 2020, 407, 127221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Sheth, Y.; Dharaskar, S.; Chaudhary, V.; Khalid, M.; Walvekar, R. Prospects of titanium carbide-based MXene in heavy metal ion and radionuclide adsorption for wastewater remediation: A review. Chemosphere 2022, 293, 133563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Yan, L.; Gao, H.; Chen, Y. Na-doped graphitic carbon nitride for removal of aqueous contaminants via adsorption and photodegradation. ASC Appl. Nano Mater. 2021, 4, 7746–7757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Cai, C.; Zhao, M.; Yu, Z.; Rong, H.; Zhang, C. Utilization of nanomaterials for in-situ remediation of heavy metal(loid) contaminated sediments: A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 662, 205–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Marques, A.P.G.C.; Rangel, A.O.S.S.; Castro, P.M.L. Remediation of heavy metal contaminated soils: Phytoremediation as a potentially promising clean-up technology. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 39, 622–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Mani, D.; Kumar, C. Biotechnological advances in bioremediation of heavy metals contaminated ecosystems: An overview with special reference to phytoremediation. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 11, 843–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  110. Tabak, H.H.; Lens, P.; Hullebusch, E.D.V.; Dejonghe, W. Developments in Bioremediation of Soils and Sediments Polluted with Metals and Radionuclides-1. Microbial Processes and Mechanisms Affecting Bioremediation of Metal Contamination and Influencing Metal Toxicity and Transport. Rev. Environ. Sci. Bio./Technol. 2005, 4, 115–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Tiwari, J.; Chakravarty, P.; Sharma, P.; Sinha, R.; Bauddh, K. Phytoremediation: A Sustainable Method for Cleaning up the Contaminated Sites. In Phytorestoration of Abandoned Mining and Oil Drilling Sites; Kuldeep Bauddh, J.K.a.P.S., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 3–32. [Google Scholar]
  112. Chang, J.J.; Yan, Z.J.; Dong, J.; Wu, X.N.; Meng, Z.; Shi, Y.; Chen, J.Q. Mechanisms controlling the transformation of and resistance to mercury(II) for a plant-associated Pseudomonas sp. strain, AN-B15. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 425, 127948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Durnford, D.; Dastoor, A.; Figueras-Nieto, D.; Ryjkov, A. Long range transport of mercury to the Arctic and across Canada. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2010, 10, 6063–6086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  114. Jha, S. Progress, Prospects, and Challenges of Genetic Engineering in Phytoremediation. In Bioremediation of Pollutants; Pandey, V.C., Singh, V., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 57–123. [Google Scholar]
  115. Gucwa-Przepiora, E.; Malkowski, E.; Sas-Nowosielska, A.; Kucharski, R.; Krzyzak, J.; Kita, A.; Roemkens, P.F.A.M. Effect of chemophytostabilization practices on arbuscular mycorrhiza colonization of Deschampsia cespitosa ecotype Waryński at different soil depths. Environ. Pollut. 2007, 150, 338–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Visconti, D.; Ma, L.R.; Fiorentino, N.; Fagnano, M.; Clemente, R. Use of Brassica juncea and Dactylis glomerata for the phytostabilization of mine soils amended with compost or biochar. Chemosphere 2020, 260, 127661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Trippe, K.M.; Manning, V.A.; Reaedon, C.L.; Klein, A.M.; Weidman, C.; Ducey, T.F.; Novak, J.M.; Watts, D.W.; Rushmiller, H.; Spokas, K.A.; et al. Phytostabilization of acidic mine tailings with biochar, biosolids, lime, and locally-sourced microbial inoculum: Do amendment mixtures influence plant growth, tailing chemistry, and microbial composition? Appl. Soil Ecol. 2021, 165, 103962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Bolan, N.S.; Park, J.H.; Robinson, B.; Naidu, R.; Huh, K.Y. Phytostabilization: A green approach to contaminant containment. Adv. Agron. 2011, 112, 145–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Suman, J.; Uhlik, O.; Viktorova, J.; Macek, T. Phytoextraction of heavy metals: A promising tool for clean-up of polluted environment? Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 1476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  120. Krzciuk, K.; Gałuszka, A. Prospecting for hyperaccumulators of trace elements: A review. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 2015, 33, 522–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Rascio, N.; Navari-Izzo, F. Heavy metal hyperaccumulating plants: How and why do they do it? And what makes them so interesting? Plant Sci. 2011, 180, 169–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Sheoran, V.; Sheoran, A.S.; Poonia, P. Factors affecting phytoextraction: A review. Pedosphere 2016, 26, 148–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Ju, W.; Duan, C.; Liu, L.; Jin, X.; Bravo-Ruiseco, G.; Mei, Y.; Fang, L. Reduction of Cu and nitrate leaching risk associated with EDDS-enhanced phytoextraction process by exogenous inoculation of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria. Chemosphere 2022, 287, 132288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Gómez-Garrido, M.; Navarro, M.J.; Navarro, M.J.F.; Cano, F.A. The chelating effect of citric acid, oxalic acid, amino acids and Pseudomonas fluorescens bacteria on phytoremediation of Cu, Zn, and Cr from soil using Suaeda vera. Int. J. Phytorem. 2018, 20, 1033–1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Fei, L.; Xu, P.X.; Dong, Q.; Mo, Q.; Wang, Z.L. Young leaf protection from cadmium accumulation and regulation of nitrilotriacetic acid in tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea) and Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis). Chemosphere 2018, 212, 124–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Beavers, A.; Koether, M.; McElroy, T.; Greipsson, S. Effects of exogenous application of plant growth regulators (SNP and GA3) on phytoextraction by switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) grown in lead (Pb) contaminated Soil. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Sessitsch, A.; Kuffner, M.; Kidd, P.; Vangronsveld, J.; Wenzel, W.W.; Fallmann, K.; Puschenreiter, M. The role of plant-associated bacteria in the mobilization and phytoextraction of trace elements in contaminated soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2013, 60, 182–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  128. Yuan, Q.; Wang, P.; Wang, X.; Hu, B.; Tao, L. Phytoremediation of cadmium-contaminated sediment using Hydrilla verticillata and Elodea canadensis harbor two same keystone rhizobacteria Pedosphaeraceae and Parasegetibacter. Chemosphere 2022, 286, 131648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Al-Solaimani, S.G.; Abohassan, R.A.; Alamri, D.A.; Yang, X.; Rinklebe, J.; Shaheen, S.M. Assessing the risk of toxic metals contamination and phytoremediation potential of mangrove in three coastal sites along the Red Sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2022, 176, 113412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Lufthansa, U.M.; Titah, H.S.; Pratikno, H. The Ability of Mangrove Plant on Lead Phytoremediation at Wonorejo Estuary, Surabaya, Indonesia. J. Ecol. Eng. 2021, 22, 253–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Eid, E.M.; Shaltout, K.H.; Al-Sodany, Y.M.; Haroun, S.A.; Kai, J. Temporal Potential of Phragmites australis as a Phytoremediator to Remove Ni and Pb from Water and Sediment in Lake Burullus, Egypt. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2021, 106, 516–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Suttiarporn, P.; Hongsawat, P.; Siripokharattana, K.; Thongboonmee, N.; Dalert, M.; Thongsai, P.; Sombut, W. Residue in the Mangrove Surface Sediment with the Feasibility of Phytoremediation Application. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 586, 012008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Eliseo, R.; Bitacura, J. Heavy metal tolerance of filamentous fungi from the sediments of Visayas State University wastewater pond. Ann. Trop. Res. 2021, 43, 88–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Liaquat, F.; Haroon, U.; Munis, M.F.H.; Arif, S.; Khizar, M.; Ali, W.; Che, S.; Liu, Q. Efficient recovery of metal tolerant fungi from the soil of industrial area and determination of their biosorption capacity. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2021, 21, 101237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Arroyo-Herrera, I.; Román-Ponce, B.; Reséndiz-Martínez, A.L.; Santos, P.E.; Wang, E.T.; Vásquez-Murrieta, M.S. Heavy-metal resistance mechanisms developed by bacteria from Lerma–Chapala basin. Arch. Microbiol. 2021, 203, 1807–1823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Biglari, Z.; Atigh, Q.; Heidari, A.; Sepehr, A.; Mahbub, K.R. Bioremediation of Heavy Metal Contaminated Soils Originated from Iron Ore Mine by Bio-augmentation with Native Cyanobacteria. Babol Noshirvani Univ. Technol. 2020, 11, 89–96. [Google Scholar]
  137. Eid, E.M.; Galal, T.M.; Sewelam, N.A.; Talha, N.I.; Abdallah, S.M. Phytoremediation of heavy metals by four aquatic macrophytes and their potential use as contamination indicators: A comparative assessment. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 12138–12151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Rahman, M.S.; Babu, S.; Rahman, M.; Jolly, Y.N.; Hossain, M.B. Source of metal contamination in sediment, their ecological risk, and phytoremediation ability of the studied mangrove plants in ship breaking area, Bangladesh. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019, 141, 137–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Lee, G.; Suonan, Z.; Kim, S.H.; Hwang, D.W.; Lee, K.S. Heavy metal accumulation and phytoremediation potential by transplants of the seagrass Zostera marina in the polluted bay systems. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019, 149, 110509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  140. Sampanpanish, P.; Pinpa, K. Cadmium Removal from Contaminated Sediment Using EDTA and DTPA with Water Hyacinth. Int. J. Environ. Res. 2018, 12, 543–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Kwon, H.K.; Jeon, J.Y.; Oh, S.J. Potential for heavy metal (copper and zinc) removal from contaminated marine sediments using microalgae and light emitting diodes. Ocean Sci. J. 2017, 52, 57–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Diep, P.; Mahadevan, R.; Yakunin, A.F. Heavy metal removal by bioaccumulation using genetically engineered microorganisms. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2018, 6, 157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  143. Kushwah, A.; Srivastav, J.K.; Palsania, J. Biosorption of heavy metal: A review. Eur. J. Biotechnol. Biosci. 2015, 3, 51–55. [Google Scholar]
  144. Diaz-Bone, R.A.; Wiele, T.V. Biotransformation of metal(loid)s by intestinal microorganisms. Pure Appl. Chem. 2010, 82, 409–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Han, Z.; Yan, H.; Zhao, H.; Zhou, S.; Han, M.; Meng, X.; Zhang, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Sun, B.; Yao, C. Bio-precipitation of Calcite with Preferential Orientation Induced by Synechocystis sp. PCC6803. Geomicrobiol. J. 2014, 31, 884–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Potysz, A.; Hullebusch, V.; Eric, D.; Kierczak, J. Perspectives regarding the use of metallurgical slags as secondary metal resources—A review of bioleaching approaches. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 219, 138–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Vera, M.; Schippers, A.; Sand, W. Progress in bioleaching: Fundamentals and mechanisms of bacterial metal sulfide oxidation—Part A. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2013, 97, 7529–7541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Shahi, M.P.; Kumari, P.; Mahobiya, D.; Shahi, S.K. Nano-Bioremediation of Environmental Contaminants: Applications, Challenges, and Future Prospects. In Bioremediation for Environmental Sustainability; Kumar, V., Saxena, G., Shah, M.P., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 83–89. [Google Scholar]
  149. Zhang, M.; Wang, X.; Yang, L.; Chu, Y. Research on progress in combined remediation technologies of heavy metal polluted sediment. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 5098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  150. Wood, J.L.; Tang, C.; Franks, A.E. Microbial associated plant growth and heavy metal accumulation to improve phytoextraction of contaminated soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2016, 103, 131–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ijerph 19 16767 g001 550
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of EKR (The most important electron transfer reactions at electrodes is the electrolysis of water).
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of EKR (The most important electron transfer reactions at electrodes is the electrolysis of water).
Ijerph 19 16767 g001
Table
Table 1. Studies of in situ active capping and chemical amendments for heavy metal contaminated sediment in recent years.
Table 1. Studies of in situ active capping and chemical amendments for heavy metal contaminated sediment in recent years.
SedimentAdsorbentHeavy MetalAppling MethodFindingsReference
The Hyeongsan River estuary, South KoreaZeolite, AC/zeolite, AC/sand and zeolite/sandHgCappingCapping with AC/zeolite, AC/sand, and zeolite/sand reduced >90% of the Hg after 2 months.[48]
Pudong New District, Shanghai, ChinaApatite, apatite/calcite mixtureCdCappingThe reduction efficiencies of Cd by the apatite capping and apatite/calcite mixture capping on day 22 were 92.7% and 98.8%, respectively.[49]
Lake Kivijärvi, FinlandBFS-GP granulesFe, Zn, Ni, CrMixingThe amendment effectively reduced the mobility of Fe, Zn, Ni, and Cr by about 50–90%.[50]
The Gunneklev fjord, NorwayLignite AC (A-AC, 5%) and activated BC (A-BC, 5%)HgMixingThe A-AC and A-BC amendments strongly reduced the available MeHg-concentration in porewater (by 87% for A-AC and by 93% for A-BC after 12 months).[51]
A Baltic Sea bay, SwedenAl, Polonite (calcium-silicate) and ACCd, ZnMixingAl injection into anoxic sediments completely reduced the release of Cd (97%) and Zn (95%). Polonite mixed with AC reduced the release of Cd (67%) and Zn (89%).[52]
A Former Mining Pit Lake, Arkansas, USALimestone, bentonite clay and gravelZnCappingA three-layer cap consisting of limestone (top) + bentonite clay (middle) + gravel (bottom) was the most effective.[53]
Wulong River, ChinaBC and nano-Fe2O3 modified BC (nFe2O3@BC)CdCappingBoth BC and nFe2O3@BC capping inhibited Cd release from sediment (reduction rates >99%), and nFe2O3@BC capping has better effectiveness.[54]
An estuary pond within a former chlor-alkali plant, ChinaAC/bentonite, AC/kaolin and AC/montmorilloniteHgCappingThe caps with AC (3%) + bentonite (3%) and AC (3%) + kaolin (3%) reduced total Hg concentration in overlying water by 75–95% after 75-d operation.[55]
The estuary of Sungai Kuala Perlis, MalaysiaBentonite, kaolin and sandPbCappingBentonite, kaolin, and mixture of bentonite with kaolin effectively reduced the release of Pb.[56]
Guangdang River, Yantai, ChinaBC and BC-nanoscale zero-valent iron (nZVI/BC)CdMixingBC and nZVI/BC reduced the released Cd concentrations by 31–69% and 26–73%, respectively.[57]
Puhuitang Creek, Shanghai, ChinaCalcium nitrate and phosphateZn, Pb and CuMixingOver 50% of mobile Zn, Pb, and Cu might be reprecipitated in sediment.[58]
The South River in Virginia, USAHardwood BCHgCapping80% of the Hg was retained on the biochar without promoting Hg methylation.[59]
Xiangjiang River, ChinaFe3O4, (α + γ)-Fe2O3, and αFe2O3CdMixing(α + γ)-Fe2O3 exhibited better performances than the other iron oxides.[60]
Maozhou River, ChinaCaCO3, Ca(OH)2, zeolite, kaolin, FeCl2Cr, Ni, CuMixingStabilization effect can be ordered as CaCO3 > zeolite > FeCl2 > kaolin > Ca(OH)2.[61]
A mercury-contaminated site, USAMn(IV)-oxide phases pyrolusite or birnessiteHgMixingReaction of Mn(IV) oxide with pore water should poise sediment oxidation potential at a level higher than favorable for Hg methylation.[62]
A polluted reservoir, China.Natural zeolite (N-zeolite)Pb, Cd, Mn, ZnCappingThe inhibition rates of Cd, Pb, Mn, and Zn were 35.7%, 85.7%, 65.6% and 57.8%, respectively.[63]
Lake Pyhäjärvi and Lake Kivijärvi, FinlandBFS-GP, MK-GP, exfoliated vermiculiteAl, Cu, Fe, Cr, Zn, NiCappingBFS-GP was suitable for Al, Cu, Fe and Ni; MK-GP for Cu, Cr and Fe; and vermiculite for Al and Zn.[46]
The Yellow Sea, KoreaDredged materialsCr, Hg, Ni, Cu, Zn, Cd, PbCappingThe largest decreases were detected in Cr and Hg (≥ 80%), followed by Cd (74%), Cu and Zn (68%), Ni and Pb (10%).[64]
Nanfei River, Hefei, ChinaRice husk biochar (RHB)CuCappingRHB can maintain the concentrations of Cu below the national criterion at pH = 5 and 7.[65]
Table
Table 2. Bioremediation for heavy metal contaminated sediment/soil in recent years.
Table 2. Bioremediation for heavy metal contaminated sediment/soil in recent years.
Sediment/SoilBiosorbent TypeHeavy MetalsFindingsReference
Wangyu River, Jiangsu Province, ChinaHydrilla verticillata and Elodea canadensisCdThe bio-concentration factors (BCFs) of both macrophytes exceeded 1.0. Two keystone bacteria (Pedosphaeraceae and genus Parasegetibacter) posed significant potential for promoting plant growth and tolerating Cd bio-toxicity.[128]
Coastal sites along the Red Sea, Saudi ArabiaMangrove plantCd, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb, ZnSediment-to-plant transfer coefficient values were >1.[129]
Wonorejo Estuary, Surabaya, IndonesiaMangrove plantPbThe most effective mangrove involved in the accumulation of Pb was Avicennia. alba (BCFs: 1.13–90).[130]
Lake Burullus, EgyptPhragmites australisNi, PbThe highest monthly Ni and Pb standing stock were 18.2 and 18.4 g/m2, respectively. The translocation factor of Ni and Pb was >1.[131]
The coast of Rayong province, ThailandMangrove plantMn, Pb, Cr, Cu, ZnThe removal efficiency of heavy metals contaminated in sediment occurred in descending order of Mn > Pb > Cr > Cu > Zn (93.11%, 80.42%, 70.03%, 67.09% and 52.50%, respectively).[132]
A wastewater pond, PhilippinesFugi (Rhizopus sp., Mucor sp. and Trichoderma sp.)Cd, Cu, Fe, ZnRhizopus sp. was the most tolerant to all the heavy metals tested with the minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) of 5 mM < Cd ≤ 6.5 mM, 10 mM < Cu ≤ 15 mM, 30 mM < Fe ≤ 35 mM and 25 mM < Zn ≤ 30 mM.[133]
Yuepu industrial area, Shanghai, ChinaFugi (Fusarium fujikuroi, Fusarium solani, Trichoderma citronoviridae and Trichoderma reese)Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Hg, NiThe highest biosorption capacity of Pb was exhibited by Trichoderma citronoviridae, while Trichoderma reesei showed the best absorption capacity of Cu, followed by Fusarium solani.[134]
The Lerma-Chapala Basin, MexicoBacteria (mainly including Delftia and Pseudomonas)Zn, As, NiThe bacteria showed high heavy metal resistance, especially to Zn, As and Ni, which could be employed in the bioremediation process.[135]
Sangan iron ore mine, IranCyanobacteria (Oscillatoria sp. and Leptolyngbya sp.)Cr, Fe, Ni, As, Pb, CuCyanobacteria inoculation decreased the available concentration of Pb and Ni. The maximum metal removal efficiency was 32%.[136]
Kitchener Drain, Nile DeltaEichhornia crassipes, Ludwigia stolonifera, Echinochloa stagnina, Phragmites australisCd, Pb, NiPhragmites australis accumulated the highest concentrations of Cd (57.5 mg/kg) and (109.0 mg/kg), while Eichhornia crassipes accumulated the highest concentration of Pb (277.4 mg/kg).[137]
Shipbreaking area, BangladeshMangrove plantZn, Pb, Cu, CrAcanthus ilicifolius showed hypermetabolizing capabilities for most metals, and Avicennia alba showed hypermetabolizing capabilities for Cu, Zn, and Fe.[138]
Jaran Bay and Onsan Bay, KoreaSeagrass Zostera marinaCd, Zn, HgZostera marina transplants accumulated a great amount of heavy metals in their tissues, which have the phytoremediation potential for the heavy metal-contaminated sediments.[139]
The western watershed, ThailandEDTA and diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid (DTPA) combined with Water HyacinthCdWater hyacinth accumulated Cd of 112.73 mg/kg in root within 3 months.[140]
Suyeong Bay, KoreaPhaeodactylum tricornutum, Nitzschia sp., Skeletonema sp., and Chlorella vulgarisCu, ZnChlorella vulgaris grew under red LED and exhibited the highest Cu and Zn removal capacities with values of 17.5 × 10−15 g Cu/cell and 38.3 × 10−15 g Zn/cell, respectively.[141]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Xu, Q.; Wu, B.; Chai, X. In Situ Remediation Technology for Heavy Metal Contaminated Sediment: A Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 16767. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416767

AMA Style

Xu Q, Wu B, Chai X. In Situ Remediation Technology for Heavy Metal Contaminated Sediment: A Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(24):16767. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416767

Chicago/Turabian Style

Xu, Qinqin, Boran Wu, and Xiaoli Chai. 2022. "In Situ Remediation Technology for Heavy Metal Contaminated Sediment: A Review" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 24: 16767. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416767

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop