Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Surfactant-Enhanced Remediation of Contaminated Soil: A Review
Surfactant-Enhanced Remediation of Contaminated Soil: A Review
www.elsevier.nl/locate/enggeo
Abstract
Extracting aqueous solutions with or without additives are employed to solubilize contaminants in soil. Since water solubility
is the controlling removing mechanism, additives are used to enhance ef®ciencies. These additives can reduce the time to treat a
site compared to the use of water alone. Additives must be of low toxicity and biodegradable. The research in this area has
focussed mainly on halogenated volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and is still quite limited for metal removal. Additives
include surfactants, organic and inorganic acids, sodium hydroxide, which can dissolve organic soil matter, water-soluble
solvents such as methanol, displacement of cations with nontoxic ones, complexing agents such as EDTA, acids in combination
with complexing agents or oxidizing/reducing agents. Cationic, anionic and nonionic surfactants are particularly used for soil
washing or ¯ushing. They contain both hydrophobic and hydrophilic portions, making them ideal for solubilization of hydro-
phobic compounds. Numerous studies have indicated that surfactants enhance recoveries of non-aqueous phase liquids
(NAPLs). There have also been indications that pretreatment of soil with surfactant washing to solubilize hydrophobic
compounds such as PAHs enhances biodegradation of these contaminants. A few in situ ®eld studies have been performed
with surfactants. Large-scale treatment has been done mostly for organic removal. Soil pH, soil type, cation exchange capacity
(CEC), particle size, permeabilities and contaminants all affect removal ef®ciencies. High clay and organic matter contents are
particularly detrimental. Understanding the chemistry of the binding of the contaminant and the hydrogeology of the site are
very important. Once the water is pumped from the soil, it must be extracted and then treated to remove the hydrocarbons and
metals. Several technologies exist such as sodium hydroxide or sodium sul®de precipitation, ion exchange, activated carbon
adsorption, ultra®ltration, reverse osmosis, electrodialysis and biological processes. Recycling of the surfactants is desired to
decrease treatment costs.
This paper will provide an overview of the laboratory research, ®eld demonstration and full-scale application of surfactants
for the remediation of contaminated soil. The majority of pilot scale in situ ¯ushing tests, particularly in the United States, have
involved the use of surfactants and co-solvents. There are only a few full-scale projects however. Recent laboratory scale efforts
by the authors concerning the use of biosurfactants, biologically produced surfactants, to enhance the removal of copper,
cadmium and zinc from contaminated soils and sediments are discussed. Three types of biosurfactants were evaluated for their
effectiveness. They included a lipopeptide called surfactin from Bacillus subtilis, a rhamnolipid from Pseudomonas aeruginosa
and a sophorolipid from Torulopsis bombicola. The results indicated the feasibility of removing the metals with the anionic
biosurfactants even though the exchangeable fractions were not signi®cant. q 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Soil ¯ushing; Soil remediation; Surfactant; Metals; Field studies
0013-7952/01/$ - see front matter q 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0013-795 2(00)00117-4
372 C.N. Mulligan et al. / Engineering Geology 60 (2001) 371±380
and penetrants (Mulligan and Gibbs, 1993). Petro- have been examined (Shiau et al., 1995). These
leum users have traditionally been the major users, surfactants were able to remove one to two orders of
as in enhanced oil removal applications. In this appli- magnitude more chlorinated organics such as
cation, surfactants increase the solubility of petroleum perchloroethylene (PCE), trichloroethylene (TCE)
components (Falatko, 1991) or lower the interfacial and 1,2 dichloroethane (1,2-DCE) than water alone
tension to enhance mobility of the petroleum. They by formation of microemulsions. Other surfactants
have also been used for mineral ¯otation as well as the with indirect food additive status such as alkyl
pharmaceutical industries. Typical desirable proper- diphenyl disulfonate (DOWFAX) indicated lower
ties include solubility enhancement, surface tension levels of losses via sorption and precipitation while
reduction, the critical micelle concentrations, wett- substantially solubilizing naphthalene and other
ability and foaming capacity. PAHs. Recently, a plant-based surfactant from the
Numerous batch and column studies have indicated fruit pericarp of Sapindus mukurossi, a plant from
that surfactants enhance recoveries of NAPL (Ellis et the tropical regions of Asia has shown potential for
al., 1985; Abdul et al., 1992; Kan et al., 1992; Soerens the removal of hexachlorobenzene (Roy et al., 1997).
et al., 1992) by solubility enhancement or desorption. FDA approval, however, does not guarantee that the
There have also been indications that pretreatment of surfactant or its biodegradation products are safe and
a soil with surfactant washing (Igepal CA-720) to acceptable to the regulators and the public. Solubili-
solubilize PAHs enhanced biodegradation of these zation of TCE by surfactants was not permitted in a
contaminants (Joshi and Lee, 1995). pilot test (Fountain et al., 1996), even though the
Anionic and nonionic surfactants are less likely to surfactant has a toxicity similar to sucrose and that
be absorbed to the soil. Cationic surfactants have been it was used in food and food processing. Many surfac-
used to lower aquifer permeabilities by sorption on to tants are of low toxicity to humans but can affect
the aquifer materials (Westall et al., 1992). Surfactant animals and plants. Ethoxylated alcohols, which are
soil washing was originally developed in petroleum found in laundry detergents and dish soap, are toxic to
recovery operations. Surfactants have potential for ®sh. They can be, however, degraded in biological
use in aquifer remediation of DNAPLs. wastewater treatment systems.
Several factors can in¯uence the ef®ciency of soil Overall, desirable surfactant characteristics include
¯ushing with surfactants. Groundwater that is too hard biodegradability, low toxicity, solubility at ground-
may be detrimental to the effectiveness of a surfactant water temperatures, low adsorption to soil, effective
(AAEE, 1993). Surfactants can adsorb onto clay at concentrations lower than 3%, low soil dispersion,
fractions, reducing their availability. Too quick low surface tensions and low CMC (Kimball, 1992).
biodegradation can inactivate the surfactant although Anionic surfactants may precipitate. However,
some degradability is required to avoid accumulation. coinjection with a nonionic surfactant can reduce
Removal of the surfactant from the recovered water precipitation and also CMC values (Sabatini et al.,
from ¯ushing can be dif®cult and lead to high 1995). Biosurfactants may be more biodegradable,
consumption rates. more tolerant to pH, salt and temperature variation,
The main factors that should be considered when and in some cases less expensive (West and Harwell,
selecting surfactants include effectiveness, cost, 1992).
public and regulatory perception, biodegradability
and degradation products, toxicity to humans, animals 2.1. Biosurfactants
and plants and ability to recycle. The ®rst considera-
tion is that the surfactants are ef®cient in removing the Some surfactants, known as biosurfactants, are
contaminant. This can be established by previous biologically produced from yeast or bacteria from
experience or by laboratory studies prior to the various substrates including sugars, oils, alkanes and
®eld-scale demonstrations. wastes (Lin, 1996). For example, Pseudomonas
To reduce risk, food-grade surfactants (T-MAZ 28, aeruginosa can produce rhamnolipids from substrates
T-MAZ 20 and T-MAZ 60), which have been including C11 and C12 alkanes, succinate, pyruvate,
approved by the Food and Drug Administration citrate, fructose, glycerol, olive oil, glucose and
374 C.N. Mulligan et al. / Engineering Geology 60 (2001) 371±380
Table 2
Summary of surfactant soil ¯ushing ®eld tests. (PV, Pore volume; BTEX, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene; TCE, trichloroethylene;
TCA, trichlorethane; TCET, tetrachlorethane, PCE, perchloroethylene: PCB, polychlorinated biphenyls)
SUNY-Buffalo with Dupont at Addition of 1% surfactant 73 gal carbon tetrachloride Fountain (1993)
Corpus Christi Site (approved in food successfully removed in
preparation) Witconol 2722 comparison to pump and treat
and Tergitol 15-S012
Canadian Air Forces Base at 2% mixture of surfactant 80% of PCE recovered Fountain and Hodges (1992)
Borden (SUNY) added to sandy aquifer
General Motors NAO Research 0.75% nonionic ethoxylated 10% of PCBs, oils removed in Ang and Abdul (1991)
and Development Center surfactant washing with ®rst test and 14% in second
recovery exceeding expectations
University of Michigan Injection of 4% Witconol Removal of 10% dodecane Abriola et al. (1993)
and Tween 80 and modeling required 0.7 l surfactant and
130,000 l water
Eckenfelder, Inc. Injection of 2.5% SDS and Injection of 7.7 pore volumes Underwood et al. (1993)
recycle/reuse of surfactant of 2.5% SDS removed as
much PCB as 20 to 40 pore
volumes of water (90% waste
volume reduction)
US DOE Gaseous Diffusion Site 4% sodium dihexyl DNAPLs, TCE with some Jafvert (1996)
Portmouth, OH sulfosuccinate surfactant/4% PCBs and other chlorinated
isopropyl alcohol as solvents, .90% removed by
cosolvent and 2% electrolyte solubilization
(1:1 NaCl and CaCl2)
Dover AFB, Dover DE (single Surfactant DNAPL (PCE or Internet report:
phase microemulsion) perchloroethylene) www.epa.gov/Superfund/
index.htm
Ecosites Inc., Estrie Reg. Shop, Biodegradable nontoxic Hydrocarbons, LNAPLs, Jafvert (1996)
Que., Canada surfactant ªCutting Oilº, 160,000 kg
hydrocarbon recovered in 12
months, US$ 1.2 million Cdn
for fulll scale, commercial
completed project
Fredicksburg, VA Wood treating Alkaline agent (0.5% Creosote-based wood treating Rice University (1997)
site Na2CO3), nonyl phenol oil (DNAPL), unable to inject
surfactant with 10 mol ¯uid, poor site evaluation
ethylene oxide (0.1% wt
Makon-10) and polymer
(1500 mg/l xanthan gum)
TWCC Biosolve Group Patented non-hazardous, 80% removal of NAPL, 90% USEPA (1998)
biodegradable surfactant removal of transmission ¯uids
(1±2% concentration) in Northern California,
increases biodegradation by
30%. Cost US$ 0.35±0.85 per
gallon
Hill Air Force Base, Layton, UT 6.6 PV of surfactant (2.2% LNAPL (JP-4 jet fuel, Jafvert (1996)
Cell 5, Surfactant Mobilization Aerosol OT/ 2.1%Tween) chlorinated and
and Electrolyte (CaCl2) nonchlorinated VOCs,
injected naphthalene, pesticides, PCBs,
dioxins)
Cell 6, Surfactant Solubilization 10 PV of 4.3% surfactant Mixture of VOCs, Jafvert (1996)
(Dowfax) naphthalene, pesticides, PCBs,
dioxins, JP-4 fuel
376 C.N. Mulligan et al. / Engineering Geology 60 (2001) 371±380
Table 2 (continued)
Cell 8, Surfactant/cosolvent Surfactant (3.5% wt Brij 91) LNAPL (JP-4 jet fuel, AATDF (1998)
solubilization and cosolvent (2.5% wt n- chlorinated and
pentanol), , 10 PV injected nonchlorinated solvents,
PCBs), 72% average reduction
OU2-Micellar Flood 0.6 PV of surfactant (7.5% Chlorinated solvents (TCE, Jafvert (1996)
sodium dihexyl TCA, PCE, and TCET),
sulfosuccinate), cosolvent petroleum hydrocarbons,
(3.75% isopropyl alcohol) DNAPL (70% TCE), 99%
and electrolyte (7000 mg/l recovery of DNAPL
NaCl)
Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 400 mg/l of Triton X-100 TCE, rate of desorption Jafvert (1996)
increased by 30% by
surfactant addition
S.S. Papadopulos & Assoc. Non-toxic biodegradable PCBs (solubility increased by USEPA (1998)
(DeNAPL process) Delmont, PA surfactant (91% Witconol 50 times) in fractured rock.at a
SN-70, 9% Mirataine BET cost of US$ 40±100 per sq ft
C-30), maximum
concentration of 13,000 mg/l
Serrener/Varisco Consortium, Surfactants BTEX, aliphatic hydrocarbons USEPA (1998) GSI
Quebec, Canada (2500 kg/day of hydrocarbons Environmental Marketing
recovered, 85% extraction Information
ef®ciency, 1000 m 3/week)
Cost US$ 50±250/m 3
Surtek, Inc. Mobility controlled Low concentration of EPA 23,000 gallons of residual USEPA (1998)
Surfactant Flushing and FDA approved wood treating oil (DNAPL)
surfactants recovered (89%) Cost of US$
50±125 per cubic yard
Thouin Sand Quarry, Quebec, Surfactant/cosolvent Oil waste and chlorinated Jafvert (1996)
Canada, Laval University (n-butanol, hostapur (SAS), solvents in the form of
d-limonene DNAPL (density, 1.02;
viscosity, 18 cp), 86%
recovery of DNAPL
US Coast Guard, Traverse City, 2100 l of 36,000 mg/l PCE, TCE and recalcitrant jet Jafvert (1996)
MI Dowfax 8390 injected fuel, PCE and LNAPL
concentrations increased 40-
and 90-fold, respectively
US DOE Gaseous Diffusion Pint, 1% food grade sorbitan TCE (DNAPL) Rice University (1997)
Paducah, NY monooleate, (3.8 l/min over
3.8 days)
Volk Air National Guard Base, 9±14 PV of Adsee 799 and Hydrocarbons, chlorinated Nash (1988)
WI Hyonic PE-90 (50:50) blend hydrocarbons
(Dichloromethane,
chloroform, TCA, TCE)
from a sandy loam soil than from a silt loam soil and that times more effective than SDS. The bene®t of the
sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) was less effective than addition of the biological and synthetic surfactants in
the biosurfactants in removing hydrocarbons. Recently, assisting the biodegradation process was less evident.
DescheÃnes et al. (1994) showed that the rhamnolipids Research with another strain, Pseudomonas marginalis,
from the same strain in a bioslurry could enhance the also indicated that the produced biosurfactants
solubilization of four-ring PAHs more signi®cantly than solubilized PAHs such as phenanthrene and enhance
three-ring PAHs and that the biosurfactants were ®ve biodegradation (Burd and Ward, 1996).
C.N. Mulligan et al. / Engineering Geology 60 (2001) 371±380 377
Cu removal (%)
carbon contaminants. Only recently, has it been 60
shown that surfactants can be used to enhance metal
removal (Mulligan et al., 1999a,b). Biologically 40
produced surfactants, surfactin, rhamnolipids and
sophorolipids (Mulligan et al., 1999a) were able to 20
remove copper and zinc from a hydrocarbon-contami-
nated soil. This is due to the anionic character of these 0
surfactants. A series of washings was performed with 0 1 2 3 4 5
surfactin and compared to a control. Initial concentra- Time (days)
5. Conclusions
Cd removal (%)
However, limited studies have been performed over Fig. 3. Series of washings for (A) copper, (B) zinc and (C) cadmium
a long period of time to determine the levels of by 0.25% surfactin with 1% NaOH (B) and the control (1% NaOH)
residual contamination that are achievable at full (A) according to Mulligan et al. (1999b).
scale. Some of the limitations may include low soil
permeability, heterogeneity and extremely insoluble treatment zone to receive more solution than others
contaminants. For example, low permeability clays and thus increase solution requirements. Control of
with hydraulic conductivities in the order of mobility by the addition of polymers or foam can
10 24 cm/s may signi®cantly increase the time for the reduce this problem. Another potential factor in
surfactant to permeate through the contaminated zone. surfactant ¯ushing that must be taken into considera-
Heterogeneities could cause some sections of the tion is that since the NAPLs are mobilized by the
C.N. Mulligan et al. / Engineering Geology 60 (2001) 371±380 379
surfactant, there is the potential for downward or The impact of a biological and chemical anionic surfactants on
horizontal movement of the contaminant and subse- the biodegradation and solubilization of PAHs in a creosote
contaminated soil. Presented at the Fourth Annual Symposium
quent groundwater contamination. Research is under-
on Groundwater and Soil Remediation, September 21±23,
way to minimize this possibility (Fountain, 1998). Calgary, Alta.
Another concern of the regulators is the toxicity of Ellis, W.D., Payne, J.R., McNabb, G.D., 1985. Treatment of
the ¯ushing solutions. Therefore, it is very important contaminated soils with aqueous surfactants, US EPA No.
to develop the use of non-toxic biodegradable surfac- EPA/600/2-85/129.
Falatko, D.M., 1991. Effects of biologically reduced surfactants on
tants to enhance the acceptability of this technology.
the mobility and biodegradation of petroleum hydrocarbons, MS
The development of the use of biosurfactants both for thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
hydrocarbon and metal removal should help alleviate Blackburg, VA.
this concern. Fountain, J.C., 1993. A pilot scale test of surfactant enhanced pump
and treat, Proceedings of Air and Waste Management Associa-
tion 85th Annual Meeting in Denver, CO, June 13±18.
References Fountain, J.C., Hodges, D., 1992. Project Summary: Extraction of
Organic Pollutants Using Enhanced Surfactant Flushing Ð
Initial Field Test (Part 1), NY State Center for Hazardous
AATDF, 1998. Surfactants and Cosolvents for NAPL Remediation.
Waste Management, February 1992.
Technical Practices Manual. Ann Arbor Press, Ann Arbor, MI.
Fountain, J.C., Starr, R.C., Middleton, T., Beikirch, M., Taylor, C.,
Abdul, A., Gibson, T., Ang, C., Smith, J., Sobczynski, R., 1992. In-
situ surfactant washing of polychlorinated biphenyls and oils Hodge, D., 1996. A controlled ®eld test of surfactant-enhanced
from a contaminated site. Ground Water 30, 219±231. aquifer remediation. J. Ground Water 34, 910±916.
Abriola, L.M., Pennell, K.D., Dekker, T.J., Weber, W.J., Jr., 1993. Fountain, J.C., 1998. Report: Technologies for Dense Nonaqueous
Laboratory and modeling investigations of surfactant enhanced Phase Liquid Source Zone Remediation. Ground-Water
aquifer remediation. 19th Annual Risk Reduction Engineering Remediation Technologies Analysis Center, Document TE-98-
Laboratory Hazardous Waste Research Symposium, Cincinnati, 02 [gwrtac.org].
OH, April 13±15, pp. 173±176. Harvey, S., Elashi, I., Valdes, J.J., Kamely, D., Chakrabarty, A.M.,
American Academy of Environmental Engineers (AAEE), 1993. In: 1990. Enhanced removal of Exxon Valdez spilled oil from
Anderson, W.C. (Ed.), Soil washing/soil ¯ushing, Innovative Alaskan gravel by a microbial surfactant. Biotechnology 8,
Site Remediation, vol. 3, WASTEC. 228±230.
Ang, C.C., Abdul, A.S., 1991. Aqueous surfactant washing of Hayes, M.E., Nestau, E., Hrebenar, K.R., 1986. Microbial surfac-
residual oil contamination from sandy soil. Ground Water tants. Chemtech 16, 239±245.
Monit. Rev. 11, 121±127. Jafvert, C.T., 1996. Report: Surfactants/Cosolvent. Ground-Water
Anonymous, 1984. Surfactants. Chem. Week 135, 58. Remediation Technologies Analysis Center, Document TE-96-02.
Banat, I.M., 1995. Characterization of biosurfactants and their use Javaheri, M., Jenneman, G.E., McInnerey, M.J., Knapp, R.J.,
in pollution removal: state of the art (review). Acta Biotechnol. 1985. Anaerobic production of a biosurfactant by Bacillus
15, 251±267. licheniformis. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 50, 698±700.
Biermann, M., Lange, F., Piorr, R., Ploog, U., Rutzen, H., Schindler, Jawitz, J.W., Annable, M.D., Rao, P.S.C., Rhue, R.D., 1998. Field
J., Schmidt, R., 1987. Synthesis of surfactants. In: Falbe, J. implementation of a Winsor Type I surfactant/alcohol mixture
(Ed.), Surfactants in Consumer Products, Theory, Technology for in situ solubilization of a complex LNAPL as a single-phase
and Application. Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 23±132. microemulsion. Environ. Sci. Technol. 32, 523±530.
Brown, C.L., Delshad, M., Dwarakanath, V., Jackson, R.E., Londer- Joshi, M.M., Lee, S., 1995. A novel treatment train for remediation of
gan, J.T., Meinardus, H.W., McKinney, D.C., Oolman, T., Pope, PAH contaminated soils. Fresenius Environ. Bull. 4, 617±623.
G.A., Wade, W.H., 1999. Innovative in situ physical and Kan, A., Tomson, M., McRae, T., 1992. Chemically enhanced
chemical remediation technologies Ð 6. Demonstration of removal of residual aviation gasoline in sandy aquifer material
Surfactant Flooding of an Alluvial Aquifer Contaminated with Ð comparison of cosolvents and surfactants. Subsurface
Dense Non-aqueous Phase Liquid. ACS Symposium Series, vol. Restoration Conference Proceedings, National Center for
545, pp. 64±85. Groundwater Research, Dallas, TX, June 21±24.
Burd, G., Ward, O.P., 1996. Bacterial degradation of polycyclic Kanga, S.H., Bonner, J.S., Page, C.A., Mills, M.A., Autenrieth,
aromatic hydrocarbons on agar plates: the role of biosurfactants. R.L., 1997. Solubilization of naphthalene and methyl-substi-
Biotechnol. Tech. 10, 371±374. tuted naphthalenes from crude oil using biosurfactants. Environ.
Cooper, D.G., 1986. Biosurfactants. Microbiol. Sci. 3, 145±149. Sci. Technol. 31, 556±561.
Dave, H., Ramakrishna, C., Bhatt, B.D., Desai, J.D., 1994. Kimball, S.L., 1992. Surfactant-enhanced soil ¯ushing: an overview
Biodegradation of slop oil from a petroleum industry and of an in situ remedial technology for soils contaminated with
bioreclamation of slop-oil contaminated soil. World J. hydrophobic hydrocarbons. In: Kostecki, P.T., Calabrese, E.J.,
Microbiol. Biotechnol. 10, 653±656. Bonazountas, M. (Eds.), Hydrocarbon Contaminated Soils, Vol.
DescheÃnes, L., Lafrance, P., Villeneuve, J.-P., Samson, R., 1994. II. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton.
380 C.N. Mulligan et al. / Engineering Geology 60 (2001) 371±380
Lang, S., Wagner, F., 1987. Structure and properties of biosurfactants. Sale, T., Pionek, K., Pitts, M., 1989. Chemically enhanced in situ
In: Kosaric, N., Cairns, W.L., Gray, N.C.C. (Eds.), Biosurfactants washing. Proceedings of the 1989 NWWA/API Conference on
and Biotechnology. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp. 21±45. Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Organic Chemicals in Ground
Lin, S.C., 1996. Biosurfactants: recent advances. J. Chem. Tech. Water Ð Prevention, Detection and Restoration. Houston,
Biotechnol. 63, 109±120. TX, November 15±17, 1989.
Mulligan, C.N., Gibbs, B.F., 1993. Factors in¯uencing the econom- Scheibenbogen, K., Zytner, R.G., Lee, H., Trevors, J.T., 1994.
ics of biosurfactants. In: Kosaric, N. (Ed.), Biosurfactants, Enhanced removal of selected hydrocarbons from soil by Pseu-
Production, Properties, Applications. Marcel Dekker, New domonas aeruginosa UG2 biosurfactants and some chemical
York, pp. 329±371. surfactants. J. Chem. Tech. Biotechnol. 59, 53±59.
Mulligan, C.N., Yong, R.N., Gibbs, B.F., 1999a. On the use of Shiau, B.-J., Sabatini, D.A., Harwell, J.H., 1995. Properties of food
biosurfactants for the removal of heavy metals from oil- grade (edible) surfactants affecting subsurface remediation of
contaminated soil. Environ. Prog. 18, 31±35. chlorinated surfactants. Environ. Sci. Tech. 29, 2929±2935.
Mulligan, C.N., Yong, R.N., Gibbs, B.F., 1999b. Removal of heavy Soerens, T., Sabatini, D., Harwell, J., 1992. Surfactant enhanced
metals from contaminated soil and sediments using the bio- solubilization of residual DNAPL: column studies, Subsurface
surfactant surfactin. J. Soil Contam. 8, 231±254. Restoration Conference, Dallas, TX, June 21±24.
Nash, J.H., 1988. Project summary ®eld studies of in situ soil Underwood, J.L., Debelak, K.A., Wilson, D.J., Means, J.M., 1993.
washing. EPA/600/S2-87/1110. US Environmental Protection Soil cleanup by in-situ surfactant ¯ushing. V. Sep. Sci. Technol.
Agency. February 1988. 28, 1527±1537.
Pankow, J.F., Cherry, J.A., 1996. Dense Chlorinated Solvents and USEPA, 1987. Treatability studies under CERCLA: an overview.
other DNAPLs in Ground-Water. Waterloo Press, Portland. OSWER Directive 9380.3-02FS.
Rice University, 1997. Technology Practice Manual for Surfactants USEPA, 1997. Of®ce of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
and Cosolvent. Rice University, Houston, TX. Recent Developments for In Situ Treatment of Metal Contami-
Robert, M., MercadeÂ, M.E., Bosch, M.P., Parra, J.L., Espiny, M.J., nated Soils. EPA-542-R-97-004.
Manresa, M.A., Guinea, J., 1989. Biotechnol. Lett. 11, 871.
USEPA, 1998. Of®ce of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
Rosen, M.J., 1978. Surfactants and Interfacial Phenomena. Wiley,
Vendor Information System for Innovative Treatment Technol-
New York.
ogies. VISITT 6.0, EPA-543-C-98-001.
Roy, D., Kommalapati, R.R., Mandava, S.S., Valsarai, K.T.,
Van Dyke, M.I., Couture, P., Brauer, M., Lee, H., Trevors, J.T.,
Constant, W.D., 1997. Soil washing potential of a natural
1993. Pseudomonas aeruginosa UG2 rhamnolipid biosurfac-
surfactant. Environ. Sci. Technol. 31, 670±675.
tants: structural characterization and their use in removing
Sabatini, D.A., Knox, R.C., Harwell, J.H., 1995. Emerging technol-
hydrophobic compounds from soil. Can. J. Microbiol. 39,
ogies in surfactant-enhanced subsurface remediation. In:
1071±1078.
Sabitini, D.A., Knox, R.C., Harwell, J.H. (Eds.), Surfactant-
West, C.C., Harwell, J.H., 1992. Surfactant and subsurface reme-
Enhanced Subsurface Remediation, Emerging Technologies.
diation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 26, 2324±2330.
ACS Symposium Series 594. American Chemical Society,
Westall, J., Hat®eld, J., Chen, H., 1992. The use of cationic surfac-
Washington DC, pp. 1±9.
Sale, T., Pitts, M., 1988. Chemically enhanced in situ soil washing. tants to modify aquifer materials to reduce the mobility of
Proceedings of the Conference on Petroleum Hydrocarbons and hydrophobic organic compounds. A study of equilibrium and
Organic Chemical in Ground Water: Prevention, Detection and kinetics. Subsurface Restoration Conference, Dallas, TX, June
Restoration, 487, Houston. Dublin, Ohio, National Water Well 21±24.
Association.