Chemosphere 230 (2019) 92e106

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Chemosphere
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/chemosphere

Quantitative Assessment of Life Cycle Sustainability (QUALICS):

Framework and its application to assess electrokinetic remediation
Adan W. da S Trentin a, Krishna R. Reddy b, *, Girish Kumar b, Jyoti K. Chetri b,
Antonio Thome
a
a
Graduate Program of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Passo Fundo, Passo Fundo, Brazil
b
Department of Civil and Materials Engineering, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, USA

h i g h l i g h t s

A new quantitative life cycle sustainability assessment framework is developed.

The framework integrates MIVES and AHP methodology for decision making.

The framework can be used for sustainability assessment of remedial alternatives.

A case study is presented to demonstrate the use and applicability of the framework.

The framework can be successfully applied to any product/project/process in general.

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

Article history: In recent years, the broader environmental impacts of remediation that arise from different remediation
Received 11 November 2018 activities has drawn attention of practitioners, remediation design professionals and academicians to
Received in revised form evaluate the net environmental benefit of environmental remediation projects. The main objective of this
21 April 2019
paper is to describe the Quantitative Assessment of Life Cycle Sustainability (QUALICS) framework, a new
Accepted 25 April 2019
tool developed to strengthen decision-making in the selection of sustainable remedial technologies for
Available online 8 May 2019
the clean-up of contaminated sites. The proposed framework is a combination of two multi-criteria
Handling Editor: Oznur Karaca evaluation methods namely, the Integrated Value Model for Sustainable Assessment (MIVES) and Ana-
lytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). The QUALICS uses a multi-criteria assessment framework to support
Keywords: decision-making in remediation projects. A description of the methodology adopted for sustainability
Contaminated site assessment of alternative remedial strategies using QUALICS framework is presented in this study. In
Green remediation addition, a case study is discussed to demonstrate the application of the QUALICS framework for the
Sustainable remediation sustainability assessment of different remediation options for clean-up of a contaminated site. The case
Multi-criteria decision analysis
study involves sustainability assessment of different remediation options namely, electrokinetic reme-
Electrokinetic remediation
diation (EKR), excavation/disposal, and phytoremediation for remediation of a contaminated site. A
sensitivity analysis was also performed for the EKR option by varying different parameters including
electrode materials, energy source, electrolyte used, to analyze their influence on the sustainability of the
alternative remedial options. The proposed framework can also be applied to any project in general to
quantify and compare the sustainability indices of each of the alternative options considered and thereby
identify the most sustainable option.
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction increasingly recognized as a major environmental concern in the

During the last few decades, contaminated sites have been
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: kreddy@uic.edu (K.R. Reddy).
United States and other parts of the globe. The advances in risk
assessment, and risk management processes have led to the iden-
tification of thousands of sites that are contaminated and need
urgent remedial action. The United States Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (USEPA) has estimated several tens of thousands of
contaminated sites in the United States (Reddy and Adams, 2015).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.04.200
0045-6535/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 A.W. da S Trentin et al. / Chemosphere 230 (2019) 92e106
In Europe, there are more than 2.5 million potentially contaminated
sites of which 14% are expected to require remediation (Liedekerke
et al., 2014). Contamination of soil and groundwater has been a
major problem at these sites (Reddy and Adams, 2015). Several
remediation technologies have been developed over the years
based on the contaminated media, type of contaminants, extent of
contamination, and other site characteristics (Sharma and Reddy,
2004).
While site remediation aims at reducing risks to humans and
ecosystems, the energy intensive activities and processes involved
in a remediation project may induce significant secondary negative
impacts to the environment and society that makes the net envi-
ronmental benefit of site remediation questionable. In the last few
years, researchers, decision-makers, and stakeholders have given
more attention to evaluating the net environmental benefit of
remediation and have focused on incorporating the elements of
green remediation into practice (Sparrevik et al., 2011; Harclerode
et al., 2013; Reddy et al., 2014; Hou and Al-Tabbaa, 2014;
Huysegoms and Cappuyns, 2017; Huysegoms et al., 2018). With the
aim of incorporating concepts of sustainability into the decision-
making process of contaminated site remediation projects,
several qualitative, semi-quantitative and quantitative tools have
been developed. These tools have been developed to make the
remedial strategy selection process more holistic in facilitating the
choice of the most sustainable remedial option. However, there is
no tool till date that can quantitatively assess the sustainability
with a life cycle perspective towards each of the sustainability di-
mensions (environment, economy and society).
Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a vital component of
sustainability assessment tools as it allows for assessing the un-
certainty associated with the data used for sustainability assess-
ment and also identify the relevance and/or importance of each
criteria used in sustainability assessment. Specifically, the combi-
nation of two multi-criteria methods MIVES and AHP has gained
prominence in sustainability related studies. This combination has
proved to be effective as a tool to support decision-making in the
selection of sustainable options. However, it has not yet been
implemented in the field of contaminated site remediation.
MIVES is a methodology that combines the concepts of MCDA
and value engineering. It uses a generic value function, that stan-
dardizes each indicator within different criteria and having
different units to be compared with the same scale. Originally
MIVES was developed for the assessment of sustainability in con-
struction (Lombera and Rojo, 2010; Aguado et al., 2011; Pons and
Aguado, 2012). However, the MIVES methodology has been
applied for decision-making in many different fields including se-
lection of urban pervious pavements (Jato-Espino et al., 2014), in-
vestment priorities for the management of hydraulic structures
(Pardo-Bosch and Aguado, 2015), evaluation, prioritization, and
selection of public investment projects (Pujadas et al., 2017),
rehabilitation of heritage sites (Pin~ ero et al., 2017), choosing of
optimal temporary housing site locations (Hosseini et al., 2018),
evaluation of global and local sustainability of transportation sys-
tems in urban areas (Oses et al., 2017), and sustainability assess-
ment of urban agriculture in compact cities (Nadal et al., 2018).
AHP on the other hand is a methodology that allows the orga-
nization of information about a problem efficiently. The analysis of
multi-criteria decision issues is performed according to a paired
comparison scale, considering the decision maker's consistency
and weights obtained through the concept of eigenvalues (Saaty,
2008). The use of AHP allows obtaining the importance value of
each criterion analyzed in relation to the whole set of criteria. In
this study, the new quantitative sustainability assessment frame-
work which is developed using the MIVES and AHP methodology is
described. In addition, a case study involving the application of the
93
proposed framework to a contaminated site is presented to
demonstrate the potential use of this framework in professional
practice.
1.1. Previous studies
Several approaches, guidelines, as well as several case studies
focusing on inclusion of sustainability principles into the decision
making of remedial actions for contaminated sites exist. In this
regard, several tools and frameworks are available to support de-
cision making in remediation projects (Praamstra, 2009; USEPA,
2012; Do € berl et al., 2013; US Navy, 2015; Rose
n et al., 2015;
USEPA, 2016; Søndergaard et al., 2018; Golder Associates, 2017).
They may vary in different aspects, such as the type of assessment
(qualitative, semi-quantitative or quantitative), criteria and in-
dicators considered among others. Most of these tools are focused
on environmental footprint analysis and sometimes incorporate
economic and social impacts with a semi-quantitative approach for
overall sustainability assessment. However, according to some of
the recently published studies outlined below, there are many tools
that do not consider the life cycle environmental, economic, and
social impacts in their assessments in a quantitative and integrated
manner.
Huysegoms and Cappuyns (2017) performed a critical review
and analyzed how the decision support tools (DSTs) evaluate sus-
tainability of different remedial alternatives for contaminated site
remediation. The review contains an analysis of thirteen tools
specifically developed to assess the sustainability of contaminated
site remediation alternatives. The review and analysis of the DSTs
was based on six criteria; environmental, economic, and social
aspects used in the Sustainable Remediation Forum, UK (SuRF-UK)
sustainability assessment framework (CLAIRE, 2010), along with
time, uncertainty, and user friendliness as the other three criteria.
The conclusions presented by the authors identified several im-
balances in the sustainability assessment method by the different
DSTs that were reviewed. There were inconsistencies in the
assessment of environmental, economic, and social aspects, favor-
ing the environmental aspect more than the other two aspects. In
addition, a lack of clarity was observed regarding how decision-
makers will define their choices and the lack of flexibility in
adjustment of the indicators defining different characteristics of
each site and project, since each remediation project has its own
characteristics and needs to be reflected in the decision-making
process. The study also emphasized the need for the tools to be
user-friendly, flexible, and transparent for wider applicability and
reproducibility.
Cappuyns (2016) presented an evaluation of twelve DSTs
showing how the social aspects are considered in sustainability
assessment of remediation projects based on the SuRF-UK social
indicator set. It was concluded that the consideration of social as-
pects by the tools is limited; however, the authors pointed out that
there has been an increased consideration to social aspects over
time. The most recently developed tools have been addressing the
issue with inclusion of social aspects in sustainability assessment
(Rose
n et al., 2015; Søndergaard et al., 2018; Golder Associates,
2017).
Harbottle et al. (2008) presented a framework for assessing
sustainability of contaminated land remediation focusing mainly
on the technical appropriateness (effectiveness and efficiency) and
environmental sustainability of the remediation technology. A
framework was proposed by SuRF-UK for overall sustainability
assessment and selection of the most sustainable remedial option
(CLAIRE, 2010). The Network for Industrially Contaminated Land of
Europe (NICOLE) introduced a Sustainable Remediation (SR) work
group in 2008 for the assessment of sustainability in remediation
94 A.W. da S Trentin et al. / Chemosphere 230 (2019) 92e106
projects (NICOLE, 2010). They presented a road map illustrating the
need for the sustainability assessment tool to incorporate envi-
ronmental, economic and social elements as well as to assess the
net benefit of the remediation action.
Do€berl et al. (2013) developed a sustainability assessment
method based on the principles of cost effectiveness analysis to
support decision making in contaminated site management. They
presented the use of modified cost-effectiveness analysis (MCEA)
method which incorporates assessment of environmental, socio-
economic and technology-related effects of remediation projects.
Rose
n et al. (2015) developed a multi-criteria decision analysis
method called Sustainable Choice of Remediation (SCORE) which
enables sustainability assessment of different remediation alter-
natives for a contaminated site incorporating environmental, eco-
nomic and social aspects. The SCORE decision support framework
comprises of selection of key performance criteria which involves
the three pillars (environment, economy and society) of sustain-
ability. This framework allows involvement of stakeholders’ in
selecting the key criteria for sustainability assessment.
Søndergaard et al. (2018) also introduced a multi-criteria
assessment method to improve and support decision-making in
the selection of sustainable remedial technologies for contami-
nated sites. The method includes remedial effect (on groundwater,
surface water, soil, air) and remediation time (time to achieve
remedial goals) along with the three pillars of sustainability
(environmental, economic and social) as the major criteria for
sustainability assessment. This method allows stakeholders’
involvement in decision making process by involving stakeholders
in determination of weightages of the criteria used for sustain-
ability assessment.
Hou et al. (2018) proposed a framework for sustainability
assessment of agricultural land remediation in China. The frame-
work was divided into four main categories: environmental, eco-
nomic, social and agricultural. The main categories were further
subdivided into 11 subcategories and 32 indicators. Each remedi-
ation alternative was given scores for all indicators from 0 to 5. The
categories were given weightages based on the preference of the
practitioners.
The sustainability assessment methods discussed above typi-
cally encompass the triple bottom line aspects, but with a prime
focus on the secondary environmental impacts which are not al-
ways quantitatively assessed in traditional decision-making tools
(Hou et al., 2018). Further, these tools are not completely quanti-
tative in economic and the social aspects, which makes the analysis
performed using these tools subjective and unreliable. Moreover, a
life cycle perspective is not included in evaluating the impacts
related to the three pillars of sustainability. The following section
presents a detailed description of the methodology of the new
framework developed for quantitative life cycle sustainability
assessment of remedial alternatives.
2. Methodology
2.1. Quantitative assessment of life cycle sustainability (QUALICS)
framework
The proposed framework combines a set of triple bottom line
indicators to create a multi-criteria decision analysis tool for sus-
tainability assessment by combining two methods, MIVES
(Lombera and Aprea, 2010) and AHP (Saaty, 2008). The framework
has hierarchic levels (requirements, criteria, and indicators) and
comprises of eight main steps as shown in Fig. 1. The eight steps
are: (1) Defining remediation alternatives; (2) Defining hierarchy of
requirements, criteria and indicators; (3) Establishing weightages
for all the hierarchic levels (requirements, criteria, indicators); (4)
Determining the value of each indicator; (5) Establishing the value
function for each indicator; (6) Sensitivity analysis; (7) Determining
sustainability index for each alternative; and (8) Decision making.
2.2. Defining remediation alternatives
The first step comprises of identifying the potential remediation
options to be analyzed and compared. This is based on the technical
aspects of the remediation problem which involves site character-
ization, hazard identification, risk assessment and identifying the
remedial goals. Based on these aspects several potential remedial
alternatives are identified and further evaluated with regard to
preliminary feasibility evaluation based on conditions put forth by
the national contingency plan (EPA, 1990) for remedy selection
namely, the overall protection of human health and the environ-
ment, compliance with applicable or relevant federal, state and
local laws and regulations, long-term effectiveness and perma-
nence, reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume through treatment,
short-term effectiveness, implementability, or technical feasibility
of the cleanup plan, overall cost, state acceptance, community
acceptance, for remedy selection. The most feasible and effective
remedial alternatives complying by the above criteria are short
listed and a preliminary design for those options is prepared.
2.3. Defining hierarchy of requirements, criteria and indicators
This step involves selecting the parameters that best describe
the environmental, economic and social impacts of the site-specific
remediation activities and presenting all the selected parameters in
a hierarchical format, with three different levels: requirements,
criteria, and indicators (see Table 1). The requirements are divided
into criteria, which in turn are divided into indicators. These levels
constitute the hierarchical structure of the framework and may
include quantitative and/or semi-quantitative variables. The sche-
matic of the MIVES methodology integrated into the proposed
framework is presented in Fig. 2. In the following section, the ele-
ments constituting the MIVES methodology are explained in detail.
The requirements are essentially the basis of the triple-bottom
line sustainability assessment on a broader perspective. Thus,
environmental, economic, and social dimensions are considered as
the three main elements at the requirement level. This is followed
by the establishment of different criteria under each of the three
dimensions or requirement levels. Environmental criteria in the
QUALICS framework are defined based on the core elements of
green remediation as defined by USEPA. Thereafter, the environ-
mental impact categories used in life cycle impact assessment
methodologies (e.g. ReCiPe, TRACI) and other renowned quantita-
tive environmental sustainability assessment tools such as
Spreadsheets for Environmental Footprint Analysis (SEFA) and
SiteWise were used as environmental impact indicators in the
proposed framework. Economic criteria are defined as the direct
and indirect costs associated with the remediation project. The
direct costs can include cost of materials, equipment, labor, trans-
portation of construction materials, equipment use and waste
treatment and/or disposal, while indirect costs include social cost of
atmospheric emissions/impacts, and administrative costs among
others. Several other unaccounted costs generally incurred in the
remediation projects can also be incorporated under indirect costs
based on site specific information. The social sustainability criteria
for the proposed framework were based on four different social
domains namely, Socio-Individual, Socio-Community, Socio-
Economic and Socio-Environmental. This categorization was pro-
posed by Reddy et al. (2014) as it includes and contemplates indi-
vidual and community aspects in societal issues, as well as covers
the economic and environmental aspects at a social level, allowing
 A.W. da S Trentin et al. / Chemosphere 230 (2019) 92e106 95

Fig. 1. Schematic of QUALICS framework.

for a broader and more holistic selection of social sustainability
indicators. The number of social sustainability indicators and the
social sustainability indicators themselves may differ based on the
problem and the site-specific conditions.
2.4. Establishing weightages for all the hierarchic levels
The AHP method proposed by Saaty (2008) is used to determine
the weightages of the requirements (Wreq), criteria (Wcr), and in-
dicators (Wind) and to identify the most relevant indicators/criteria
for the sustainability assessment. In this study the application of
AHP method specific to site remediation is considered. A detailed
explanation of the concept used in AHP and its general applicability
is presented in Saaty (2008). The AHP in the context of this study is
performed within a group of experts in the field of remediation in
order to determine the value of the weightages corresponding to
the different indicators/criteria. Saaty (2008) proposed a funda-
mental scale of comparison, varying between 1 and 9, to compare
the relative importance of the indicators, criteria or requirements
for the sustainability assessment of the design alternatives. AHP
allows a problem to be decomposed and ordered in a hierarchy,
allowing for a pairwise comparison. Pairwise comparison of vari-
ables means comparing the relative importance of one variable
against another under an impact category. For example, under the
category of environmental sustainability, comparing the relative
importance of ozone depletion against greenhouse gas emissions is
regarded as a pairwise comparison of indictors/categories. After
completion of the comparison by the decision makers, it is neces-
sary to check the consistency of pairwise comparison matrix to
assess the reliability of the estimates for the weightages obtained.
96 A.W. da S Trentin et al. / Chemosphere 230 (2019) 92e106

Table 1
Requirements, criteria, and indicators.

Requirements Criteria Indicators

Environmental Air Ozone depletion (kg CFC-11 eq)

Greenhouse gas emissions/Global warming (kg CO2 eq)
Smog Formation (kg O3 eq)
Human health - Cancer (CTUcancer)
Human health - Noncancer (CTUnoncancer)
Human health - Particulate (PM2.5eq)
Water usage and Acidification potential
impacts Eutrophication potential
Energy Fossil fuel depletion
Land and Ecosystems Ecotoxicity
Economic Direct costs Materials
Labor
Transport
Equipment
Water consumption
Waste treatment and/or disposal
Indirect costs Social Cost of CO2
Social Cost of CH4
Social Cost of N2O
Social Socio-individual Overall health and happiness
Income generating activities
Contaminant exposure (trespassers, workers)
Accident risk-injury
Effect on recreational activities
Socio-community Appropriateness of future land use with respect to the community environment
Enhancement of commercial/income-generating land uses
Enhancement of recreational facilities
Degree of “grass-roots" community outreach and involvement
Time for completion of project and access to public
Degree of improvement in aesthetic value
Socio-economic Economic impacts of project on community
Accidental risk and damage to property
Effect on tourism
Disruption of businesses and local economy during construction/remediation
Employment opportunities during construction/remediation
Socio-environmental Degree of consumption of natural resources
Degree to which proposed project will affect other media (i.e., emissions/air pollution resulting from soil or groundwater
remediation)
Effects of anthropogenic contaminants at “chronic” concentrations
Degree of protection afforded to remediation workers by proposed remediation
Effects of anthropogenic contaminants at “acute” concentrations

Typically, some inconsistencies may arise in the assessment of the
pairwise comparison of each category. In order to deal with the
inconsistencies, Saaty (2008) introduced a parameter called Con-
sistency Ratio (CR) for each pairwise comparison matrix which is
obtained by performing consistency test for the results of each
comparison matrix. According to Saaty (2008), a matrix can be
considered consistent when the CR is less than 0.1. The CR may be
calculated using the Consistency Index (CI) and the Random Index
(RI), according to Equation (1).
Consistency Index ðCIÞ
CR ¼
Random Index ðRIÞ
priorities of analyzed elements/criteria represents the relative
importance of each element/criteria in relation to others. This re-
sults in the weighting of each element/criterion, obtained through
the pairwise comparison matrix that is received from the experts. A
number of tools have been developed to estimate the consistency
rates and weighting of the data. Some of them are commercial tools
(e.g. Expert Choice or Transparent Choice) while some are available
for free in a public domain (e.g. model developed by Goepel (2013)
or Super Decisions Version 3.0). A schematic representation of AHP
method is presented in Fig. 3.
(1)
2.5. Determining value for each indicator

The Consistency Index (CI) may be computed by means of the

largest eigenvalue (lmax ) and the size (n) of the pairwise compari-
son matrix, according to Equation 2.
lmax  n
CI ¼
n1
The CI value can be compared with the consistency index of a
random matrix (random index), which is directly related to the
number of elements (n) of the matrix. The values of RI for cases
with n  10 are presented in Saaty (Saaty, 1990).
The last step of AHP consists of obtaining the priority vector of
each element under decision making hierarchy. The vector of
The values of environmental indicators are obtained through
the evaluation of the environmental impacts of each remediation
option analyzed. This evaluation is performed by the quantitative
environmental impact assessment tools (e.g. Life Cycle Assess-
(2) ment, SEFA, SiteWise). The values of economic indicators are
determined from the assessment of direct and indirect costs
involved in the execution of the project and are expressed in U.S.
dollars. Social indicators are semi-quantitative and are therefore
subjective in nature, which makes it difficult to reliably quantify
the social impacts. The quantification of social impacts is per-
formed by sending out an online survey to specialists, pro-
fessionals, and professors in the field of environmental
 A.W. da S Trentin et al. / Chemosphere 230 (2019) 92e106 97

Fig. 2. MIVES methodology.

Fig. 3. Analytical hierarchy process.

remediation. The survey comprises of social indicators, covering
four areas of social aspects considered in the framework (socio-
individual, socio-community, socio-economic and socio-
environmental). The participants of the social sustainability
assessment survey were asked to assign scores, say 1 to 4 if there
are four remediation alternatives for comparison (1 being the best
and 4 being the least good), for each indicator. The score can be
adjusted according to the number of remediation options being
analyzed and the choice of the score is at the discretion of the
evaluator.
2.6. Establishing value function for each indicator
The main objective of the value function is to enable comparison
of the indicators with different units of measurement. The value
function transforms a quantifiable variable into a dimensionless
variable, in a scale of 0e1, where 0 reflects the minimum satisfac-
tion (Smin) and 1 reflects the maximum satisfaction (Smax) (Alarcon
et al., 2011). To define the satisfaction value of an indicator, the
MIVES model (MIVES, 2002, 2010) describes the need to execute
four steps: (1) Definition of the trend (increase or decrease) of the
value function; (2) Definition of the points corresponding to
98 A.W. da S Trentin et al. / Chemosphere 230 (2019) 92e106
minimum satisfaction (Smin, value 0) and maximum satisfaction
(Smax, value 1); (3) Definition of the form of the value function
(linear, concave, convex, S-shaped; see Alarcon et al. (2011)); (4)
Definition of the mathematical expression of the value function. In
this study, the value function followed a logarithmic trend given by
Equation 3 below.


X
ln Xmax
Vind ¼
 (3)
ln XXmax
min
where, X is the value obtained for a specific indicator; Xmax is the
maximum value of the specific indicator obtained among all the
alternatives assessed; Xmin is the minimum value of the specific
indicator obtained among all the alternatives assessed. The general
form of a value function is defined as a function of five parameters:
Ki, Ci, Xmax, Xmin and Pi, and Equation 4 shows the generalized value
function.
2
P 3
jXalt Xmin j i
1 4 Ki 
5 is the number of requirements (usually k is equal to 3).
Vi ¼ A þ  1  e Ci
(4)
B
where: Vi is the value function; Ci is the abscissa value where the
inflection point is produced in the curves with Pi > 1; Xmin is the
minimum reference point in the indicator scale under consider-
ation. The response to the indicator value of Xmin will generate a
value equal to 0; Xmax is the maximum reference point in the in-
dicator scale under consideration. The response to the indicator
value of Xmax will generate a value equal to 1; Xalt is the answer to
the alternative variable referring to the indicator considered,
something between the values Xmin and Xmax. The response to the
indicator will generate a value equal to Vi (Xalt); Pi is a shape factor
that defines whether the curve is concave, convex, straight or S-
shaped; where concave curves are obtained for values of Pi < 1,
convex or S-shaped curves if Pi > 1 and straight lines if Pi z 1; Di
defines the abscissa value where the inflection point is produced in
curves with Pi > 1; Ki defines the value of ordinates for point Ci; A is
the value of the response Xmin, where A ¼ 0 or A ¼ 1 (usually A ¼ 0);
B is a factor that holds the value function in the interval (0e1) and
the best answer with a value equal to 1. This factor is defined by
Equation 5.
1 The site under study is an 87.52-acre (3,812,371 ft2) land, located
B¼
Pi (5)
jXmax Xmin j
Ki 
1e Ci
Alarcon et al. (2010) presents some characteristic values of pa-
rameters Pi, Ci and Ki for construction of different types of the value
function, however, this is only an approximate guide, since the
parameters can vary according to preferences of the decision
maker.
2.7. Determining the sustainability index
To obtain the sustainability index (Vfinal), it is necessary to
calculate the criterion value (Vcr) for each indicator level which can
be obtained using Equation 6.
X
n
Vcr ¼ Vind  Wind (6)
1 The geology of the site is mostly clay deposits with some con-
where, Vcr is the value of the criterion; Vind is the value of each
indicator obtained by means of the value function; Wind is the
weightage of each indicator, and n is the number of indicators.
Using the value of the criterion (Vcr), the value of the requirement
(Vreq) is determined using Equation 7.
X
m
Vreq ¼ Vcr  Wcr (7)
1
where, Vreq is the value of the requirement; Vcr is the value of the
criterion for each level, as obtained from Equation 6 and Wcr is the
weightage of each criterion, and m is the number of criteria. The
final score, the sustainability index (Vfinal), is obtained using
Equation 8.
X
k
Vfinal ¼ Vreq  Wreq (8)
1
where, Vfinal is the value of the sustainability index (SI) of the
remediation alternative analyzed; Vreq is the value of the require-
ment (the three sustainability dimensions), as obtained from
Equation 7; Wreq is the weighted value for each requirement, and k
2.8. Sensitivity analysis
The sensitivity analysis is an important part of sustainability
analysis. It allows to identify the factors that influence the impacts
in either of the environmental, economic, or social category, the
most. For instance, in the environmental impact assessment,
sometimes impacts due to transportation dominates all the impact
categories. In such case, it is wise to run the analysis by normalizing
the transportation distance for all remediation options to examine
the other life cycle stages contributing to the negative impacts.
Likewise, the sensitivity analysis can be performed by varying the
input parameters involved in the life cycle stages of each of the
remediation option such as energy consumption, energy source,
distances traveled, materials used, cost of materials, etc. In addition,
in the process of calculating sustainability index, the weightages of
environmental, social and economic requirements can be varied as
per their relative importance based on the preference of the
stakeholders.
2.9. Site background
approximately 35 miles west of the City of Chicago, Illinois, United
States. A review of the historical information dating back to 1874
indicated that the site has been primarily used for agricultural
purposes. This site was transformed from an agricultural land to an
electrical power generation facility in 1969 through a property
acquisition. A total of 16 peaker units were installed on the
northeastern section of the property. The site discontinued elec-
tricity generation in 2004 and remains inactive till today. Six peaker
turbine units have been completely dismantled with the other in
various stages of dismantlement. The peaker plant operated for 35
years (1969e2004), during which five documented spills occurred.
These spills included fuel oil, lubricating oil, diesel fuel, and mineral
oil.
2.10. Site characterization
crete and fill from previous site activity. The saturated hydraulic
conductivity of the project site soils ranges between 1.26  105 m/
s and 3.17  106 m/s. The site lies on the Manhattan-Minooka
Ground Moraine, which is a glacially formed accumulation of
 A.W. da S Trentin et al. / Chemosphere 230 (2019) 92e106
unconsolidated glacier debris consisting of soil and rock. The well
borings showed that the groundwater table is between 3 feet and
12 feet below ground level.
During the initial site investigation, 96 borings were taken to
evaluate potential subsurface environmental impacts. Six moni-
toring wells were constructed to test groundwater conditions. The
site was tested for the following contaminants: BTEX, Poly-
chlorinated biphenyl (PCBs), ethylene glycol, Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs), Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs),
pesticides, and priority pollutant metals. The test results showed
that among 13 locations where samples were taken, seven loca-
tions had been detected to contain hazards. All seven locations
were contaminated with BTEX, PAHs, PCBs, and metals. The pre-
vious releases of diesel and mineral oil had contributed to the
contamination at the site.
2.11. Risk assessment
A conceptual site model was developed to identify all potential
or suspected sources of contamination, potentially contaminated
media, exposure pathways, and receptors. The exposure pathways
include incidental ingestion, inhalation of particulates, and dermal
contact. The potential receptors were residents and construction
workers. Based on the conceptual site model, exposure assessment
was carried out separately for both carcinogenic and noncarcino-
genic effects via ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact path-
ways. The toxicology data of contaminants of concern was obtained
primarily from USEPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).
For noncarcinogens, the reference dose (RfD) or reference con-
centration (RfC) was used to express the daily exposure levels via
oral and inhalation pathways, respectively. For carcinogens, the
slope factor (SF) or the inhalation unit risk (IUR) was used to ex-
press the potential risk level associated with the exposure. Based on
the risk assessment performed, remediation goals were set for the
site to reduce the negative impacts of chemicals on human health
and the environment. The preliminary remediation goals for the
site are presented in Table S1.
2.12. Remedial options evaluation
Many potential remedial options were identified for the project
site based on the contaminant characteristics, remediation goals,
feasibility of implementation, cost effectiveness, efficiency, among
others, as shown in Table S2. Limitations of these technologies are
also identified. The most feasible options were further pursued for
sustainability assessment.tab
Based on the baseline risk assessment, seven hot spots of
approximately 100 ft x 100 ft were identified for remediation as
shown in Fig. S1. Three remediation technologies were found
feasible and considered for assessment: electrokinetic remediation
(EKR), excavation/disposal, and phytoremediation. It is noted that
excavation and disposal is not a remedial technology, but it is
commonly used to manage contaminated soils. Preliminary design
and implementation considerations for each remediation option is
presented in Table 2.
Electrokinetic remediation is an in-situ treatment technology
which involves inserting of electrodes into the contaminated soil to
encompass the contaminated area and applying low electric po-
tential across the electrodes. The electric potential induces migra-
tion of the contaminants toward the electrodes by two primary
transport processes, namely electromigration and electroosmosis
(Reddy and Cameselle, 2009). EKR is suitable for treating clays
contaminated with heavy metals, radionuclides, and organic con-
taminants (Reddy and Adams, 2015). Fig. 4 shows the schematic
diagram of the EKR system design for this site. Soil trenches of 1 ft
99
wide and 4 ft depth at a spacing of 20 ft were considered across
each hotspot (100 ft x 100 ft). 2” diameter steel rods at a spacing of
10 ft were used as electrodes. Each trench was considered to be
filled with sand. Hydrogen peroxide solution, which acts as an
oxidant, with a concentration of 10% was introduced in each trench.
Volume of hydrogen peroxide equivalent to 1 pore volume of the
contaminated soil would need to be injected. An energy supply of
50 kWh per m3 of contaminated soil was considered for creating
necessary potential difference between the anodes and the cath-
odes. Alternative EKR designs involving the use of different mate-
rials for EKR design components, different source of energy for
electricity, different transportation distances were also evaluated
(Table S2).
According to Sharma and Reddy (2004), excavation/disposal is
the most common practice for remediation of contaminated soil.
Impacted soils are removed from the subsurface and are commonly
transported from the contaminated site to the appropriate disposal
site. However, excavation/disposal includes the use of heavy
equipment, which generates significant air emissions from fuel
combustion, increases wear on roadways during transport, and
increases land use and other related environmental impacts due to
landfilling or disposal. In this study, excavation of 100 ft x 100 ft x
4 ft. (40,000 ft3) of contaminated soil at each hotspot was
considered.
Phytoremediation involves removal, stabilization, or degrada-
tion of contaminants in soils by plants through different mecha-
nisms like rhizofiltration, phytodegradation, phytoaccumulation,
phytovolatilization, phytostabilization and rhizodegradation
(Chirakkara et al., 2015). Furthermore, phytoremediation prevents
excavation of contaminated soils, reduces risk of contaminants
dispersion, and it is applicable for the decontamination of sites with
various pollutants (ITRC, 2009; Tahir et al., 2016). However, phy-
toremediation is a slow process and the outcomes are often un-
certain. In this study, as a part of design considerations, 4-inch
mulch layer and fertilizer 3 lb/100 ft2 were considered. Watering
(47,000 L/day) of plants was considered once a week for initial two
months of plantation.
3. Sustainability assessment
3.1. Environmental impacts
The environmental impacts were divided into four main
criteria and subdivided into ten indicators (Table 1). The envi-
ronmental impacts of each remediation option, considered in this
study, were evaluated by performing LCA using SimaPro v8.5
software and its life cycle inventory. The LCA was performed using
TRACI 2.1 V1.01/US 2008 impact assessment method. TRACI, the
Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other
Environmental Impacts, is a midpoint analysis method developed
by USEPA specifically for the U.S. life cycle inventory (Bare, 2002).
TRACI method evaluates the environmental sustainability with ten
impact categories: ozone depletion, global warming, smog, acidi-
fication, eutrophication, carcinogenics, non carcinogenics, respi-
ratory effects, ecotoxicity, and fossil fuel depletion. The functional
unit considered was 100 ft  100 ft x 4 ft of contaminated soil (one
hotspot). The LCA was conducted in accordance with ISO14040
and ISO 14,044 (ISO, 2006a, b), following the four-step method-
ology: goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, impact
assessment, and interpretation. Fig. S2 presents the LCA bound-
aries of EKR option, excavation/disposal and phytoremediation
options, which includes raw materials acquisition, equipment
mobilization, energy usage, construction, transportation, and
waste disposal.
100 A.W. da S Trentin et al. / Chemosphere 230 (2019) 92e106
Table 2
Preliminary design of each remediation option.
Electrokinetic Remediation
1 ft wide and 4 ft deep anode and cathode trench at a spacing of 20 ft.
Trench filled with sand
10% hydrogen peroxide considering 1 PV of the affected soil
50 kWh/m3 of electricity
Diesel run power generator
50-mile distance considered for supply of materials
120-mile distance for soil disposal
200 diameter steel rods as electrodes at a spacing of 10 ft
3.2. Economic impacts
The economic impacts were determined as the direct and in-
direct costs of each remediation option (Table 1). Direct and indi-
rect costs represent the economic criteria in the QUALICS
framework. In this study, the economic indicators considered were
(direct cost of materials, equipment, labor, and transportation, cost
of different site operations, and social cost of CO2). Total direct and
indirect costs were determined for each remediation option.
3.3. Social impacts
Social impacts were divided into four criteria (socio-individual,
socio-community, socio-economic, and socio-environmental) and
twenty-one indicators. Social criteria and social indicators were
selected according to Reddy et al. (2014) as shown in Table 1. The
quantitative evaluation of social indicators was carried out with the
help of an online survey using the Google Forms platform. This
survey was sent to several professionals having knowledge about
environmental remediation and sustainability. The indicators rep-
resenting the impacts of remediation activity on the society at the
individual, community, economic, and environmental level were
chosen. Each indicator was rated on a scale of 1e3 (1 being the best
and 3 being the least good). The survey results were analyzed and a
final rating for each criterion was generated based on the scores
given by the respondents.
3.4. Weighting of requirements, criteria, and indicators
Each requirement, criterion, and indicator was weighted by the
expert judgment or assigned equal weightages in the absence of
expert's involvement. In the proposed framework, the AHP method
is used to determine the weightings of all the variables considered
in the study, in order to enable the participation of stakeholders in
the decision process. The effect of the relative preferences given to
each variable can be analyzed by varying the weightages assigned
to each variable and analyze the sensitivity.
3.5. Sensitivity analysis
The LCA results and sustainability index for each remediation
option depend largely on the choices and assumptions made
regarding the methods and data used, making it important to
perform the sensitivity analysis. In the present study, a sensitivity
analysis was performed by varying the input parameters involved
in the life cycle stages of each remediation option such as energy
consumption/energy source, distances traveled, materials used. In
the process of calculating sustainability index, the weightages of
environmental, social, and economic requirements were also
varied to identify the sensitivity of varying stakeholder
preferences.
Excavation and Disposal Phytoremediation
6 ft depth of excavation 400 thick mulch
Disposal site: 120 miles Fertilizer: 3 lb/100 ft2
Landfilling of excavated soil Water supply with a 4000-gallon tanker
15 cu. yd/truck, 10 trucks, 2 trips per day Watering 47,000 L/day
2HP power pump with pumping rate 80 gallon/min
Watering once a week for initial two months
4. Results and discussions
4.1. Environmental impact assessment
Fig. 5 shows the environmental impacts of the three remedia-
tion options (EKR, excavation/disposal, and phytoremediation)
obtained by the TRACI 2.1 V1.01/US 2008 impact assessment
method. EKR showed the highest scores in six impact categories:
ozone depletion, eutrophication, carcinogens, non-carcinogens,
respiratory effects, and ecotoxicity. EKR option appears to have
the highest negative impacts followed by the option of excavation/
disposal. The phytoremediation option had the least environmental
impacts. These results suggest that EKR is the least environmentally
sustainable among the three options for the site-specific conditions
assessed.
Fig. 6 shows the environmental impacts associated with each
life cycle stage of EKR (case 1). As shown in Fig. 6, most of the
impacts in EKR option come from landfilling of soil excavated from
trenches, operations involving placement of electrodes, sand, sup-
ply and injection of hydrogen peroxide, and energy usage associ-
ated with it. Phytoremediation has the lowest negative impacts
which can be attributed to lesser mechanical operations, materials
and energy usage thereby leading to lower emissions and other
environmental impacts.
EKR. EKR case sensitivity analysis
A sensitivity analysis was performed on EKR to identify the life
cycle stages causing most of the impacts. In this regard, different
cases of EKR options were analyzed by varying input parameters
such as trenches or wells, electrode material (steel, graphite, or
titanium), electrodes spacing (10 ft or 20 ft), electrolyte material
(10% H2O2 or 30% sodium persulfate (Na2S2O8)), energy (50 kWh/
m3 or 500 kWh/m3), and energy source (diesel (D) or solar (S)), as
shown in Table 3. EKR case 1 is the same as the preliminary design
of EKR discussed in Table 2. The impacts assessment was performed
using TRACI 2.1 V1.01/US 2008 method for each EKR case and the
results are shown in Fig. 7.
EKR case 4 (refer Table 3) obtained the highest score in most of
the impact categories: ozone depletion, global warming, acidifica-
tion, eutrophication, carcinogenics, and non carcinogenics. EKR
case 4 was similar to the baseline case (case 1) except for the type of
electrolyte (30% Na2S2O8) assumed. The impacts associated with
the manufacture and use of Na2S2O8 may have contributed to an
increase in the environmental impacts. Another case that had
higher negative impacts was the EKR case 7. This case was different
from the baseline case in terms of energy usage (500 kWh/m3).
Among all the cases, EKR case 8a had the lowest negative im-
pacts. EKR case 8a had solar power with energy usage rate of
50 kWh/m3, all other parameters being same as baseline case.
However, comparing EKR case 8a with excavation/disposal and
phytoremediation, EKR case 8a still had the highest negative im-
pacts in most of the impact categories as shown in Fig. 8. It means
that the energy source was not the main contributor to the negative
 A.W. da S Trentin et al. / Chemosphere 230 (2019) 92e106 101

Fig. 4. Configuration considered for EKR option (a) Plan view, (b) cross-sectional view.

impacts in EKR option. The EKR option in general had the highest 4.2. Economic impact assessment
negative environmental impact among all the remediation options
analyzed. Table S3summarizes the direct and indirect costs for each
remediation option (EKR, excavation/disposal, phytoremediation)
102 A.W. da S Trentin et al. / Chemosphere 230 (2019) 92e106

Fig. 5. Environmental impact assessment of the three remediation options using TRACI 2.1 V1.01/US 2008 method.

Fig. 6. Environmental impact assessment of each component of the EKR option (case 1) using TRACI 2.1 V1.01/US 2008 method.

including the different cases of EKR. EKR option appears to be
the most cost intensive option among all. In EKR, most of the
impacts are coming from the operations which involve large
amount of fuel consumption during the placing of electrodes,
injection of hydrogen peroxide and diesel run power generator.
Phytoremediation showed the lowest cost as it has least number
of fuel consuming operations involved. The EKR case 7 had the
highest total cost ($11,501,064), while EKR case 8a showed the
lowest total cost ($178,889), followed by EKR case 8b ($275,733).
The highest cost in EKR 7 is attributed to the higher energy
usage (10 times that of EKR case 1). EKR case 8a and 8b use
solar power for the energy supply in the electrodes which re-
duces the cost significantly. Comparing the indirect costs, exca-
vation/disposal has the highest impact which can be due to the
emissions emitted during excavation and transportation of the
contaminated soil.
 A.W. da S Trentin et al. / Chemosphere 230 (2019) 92e106 103

Table 3
System optimizations for EKR option.

Case Trench (T) Trench/Well Electrode material Electrode spacing within Electrolyte Energy Energy Source
or Well (W) spacing (ft) the trench (ft)

EKR case 1 T 20 Steel 10 10% H2O2 50 kWh/m3 Da

EKR case 2 T 20 Graphite 10 10% H2O2 50 kWh/m3 D
EKR case 3 T 20 Titanium (Anode) and 10 10% H2O2 50 kWh/m3 D
Steel (Cathode)
EKR case 4 T 20 Steel 10 30% Na2S2O8 50 kWh/m3 D
EKR case 5 T 20 Steel 20 10% H2O2 50 kWh/m3 D
EKR case 6 W 20 Steel 10 10% H2O2 50 kWh/m3 D
EKR case 7 T 20 Steel 10 10% H2O2 500 kWh/m3 D
EKR case 8a T 20 Steel 10 10% H2O2 50 kWh/m3 Sb
EKR case 8b T 20 Steel 10 10% H2O2 500 kWh/m3 Sb
a
Diesel.
b
Solar.

4.3. Social impact assessment 4.4. Overall sustainability assessment

The social impacts were assessed based on the responses ob-
tained through an online survey. The overall score for each of the
remedial alternatives based on the survey results is summarized in
Table S4. A lower score means a lesser negative impact. Among the
three remediation options, EKR option received the lowest score
indicating it has the lesser negative social impact and it is the best
option with regard to its social impacts. Excavation/disposal option
received the highest score indicating it has the highest negative
social impact. Since social sustainability is a subjective field, the
results may vary according to the social sample size. Factors such as
the involvement and experience of respondents in the area of
remediation and sustainability may also influence the final
outcome.
The sustainability index (Vfinal) for each remediation option
evaluated (EKR, excavation/disposal, and phytoremediation) is
presented in Fig. 9 (a)-(d). The sensitivity analysis was performed
by assigning different weightages to the three pillars of sustain-
ability to examine how the sustainability decision is affected by the
relative importance given to each sustainability pillar. Fig. 9 (a)
shows the results where an equal weightage (33%) was given to
each of the dimensions. Fig. 9(b)e(d) shows the influence of the
final weighting preferences assumed for each of the three pillars.
According to Fig. 9(a)e(d), phytoremediation obtained the
highest score, which means it is the most sustainable option among
all three remediation options. In all the weighting scenarios, EKR
received the second highest score which makes it the second most
preferred choice. Sometimes, the choice depends upon the relative
importance of the site. The site in this case study is a high school

Fig. 7. Environmental impact assessment for each ERK case.

104 A.W. da S Trentin et al. / Chemosphere 230 (2019) 92e106

Fig. 8. Environmental impact assessment for EKR case 8a, excavation/disposal, and phytoremediation.

Fig. 9. Sustainability indices based on different stakeholder preferences.

site and hence, phytoremediation might not be the most preferred dependency, etc. are associated with the phytoremediation. Hence,
choice in the decision-making process as the phytoremediation is a EKR may be the most preferred choice in this case.
slow process and may take a longer time for effective results and to
reach the remedial goals. In addition, many uncertainties such as
the probability of survival of the plant species, seasonal
 A.W. da S Trentin et al. / Chemosphere 230 (2019) 92e106
5. Conclusions
A multi-criteria assessment framework was developed in order
to support decision-making in remediation projects. The QUALICS
framework is the integration of MIVES and AHP methodologies to
facilitate the decision making in remediation projects. It considers
the three pillars of sustainability (environmental, economic and
social) with a life cycle perspective and quantifies the sustainability
index for each remediation option under consideration based on
the stakeholder preferences. Unlike most of the existing decision
support tools developed for sustainability assessment of remedial
options for contaminated site, the QUALICS framework provides
means to involve stakeholders in the decision-making process. The
use of the AHP method allows the stakeholders to participate in the
decision-making process by weighting of the requirements, criteria,
and indicators that form the decision tree.
In the case study discussed, the overall sustainability of three
remediation options (EKR, excavation/disposal, and phytor-
emediation) were evaluated using the QUALICS framework. The
sustainability assessment showed that the phytoremediation op-
tion was the most sustainable option with lowest environmental as
well as economic impacts. However, socially EKR was the most
preferred choice. Different cases were evaluated by varying the
relative preferences of environmental, economic and social aspects.
In all cases, phytoremediation appeared to be the most sustainable
option among the three options considered. The relative preference
of environmental, economic and social aspects depends upon the
relative importance of those aspects for the project and the
stakeholder's preference.
The quality of the information used in the sustainability
assessment is crucial for better reliability of the results obtained.
Obtaining data on the area to be remediated, precise design of the
remediation alternatives, environmental impact assessment, direct
and indirect costs analysis, social impact analysis as well as infor-
mation on stakeholder's preferences are key to the sustainability
assessment process. The proposed framework can be a great
starting point for future research. The growing relevance of the
consideration of sustainability aspects in the decision-making
processes bolsters the need for the development of such method-
ologies for remediation projects.
Acknowledgement
The first author (Adan Trentin) is grateful to CNPq-Brazil for
providing scholarship, which allowed conducting this research at
the University of Illinois at Chicago.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.04.200.
References
Aguado, A., Can ~ o, A.D., de la Cruz, M.P., Gomez, D., Josa, A., 2011. Sustainability
assessment of concrete structures within the Spanish structural concrete code.
J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 138 (2), 268e276.
Alarcon, B., Aguado, A., Manga, R., Josa, A., 2010. A value function for assessing
sustainability: application to industrial buildings. Sustainability 3 (1), 35e50.
Bare, J.C., 2002. TRACI: the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and
other environmental impacts. J. Ind. Ecol. 6 (3-4), 49e78.
Cappuyns, V., 2016. Inclusion of social indicators in decision support tools for the
selection of sustainable site remediation options. J. Environ. Manag. 184, 45e56.
Chirakkara, R.A., Reddy, K.R., Cameselle, C., 2015. Electrokinetic amendment in
phytoremediation of mixed contaminated soil. Electrochim. Acta 181, 179e191.
CLAIRE, 2010. A framework for assessing the sustainability of soil and groundwater
remediation, ISBN 978-1-905046-19-5. SuRF-UK report. CL:AIRE, London.
Available at: www.claire.co.uk/surfuk. (Accessed 5 November 2018).
105
Do€ berl, G., Ortmann, M., Frühwirth, W., 2013. Introducing a goal-oriented sustain-
ability assessment method to support decision making in contaminated site
management. Environ. Sci. Policy 25, 207e217.
EPA, 1990. National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan. 55
Fed. EPA Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC. Reg, at
8732.
Goepel, K.D., 2013. Implementing the analytic hierarchy process as a standard
method for multi-criteria decision making in corporate enterprisesea new AHP
excel template with multiple inputs. Proceedings of the International Sympo-
sium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Creative Decisions Foundation Kuala
Lumpur, pp. 1e10.
Golder Associates, 2017. GoldSET: Decision Support Tools across Project Life Cycle.
Retrieved from. https://golder.goldset.com/portal/default.aspx. (Accessed 14
August 2018).
Harbottle, M.J., Al-Tabbaa, A., Evans, C.W., 2008. Sustainability of land remediation.
Part 1: overall analysis. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Geotech. Eng. 161 (2), 75e92.
Harclerode, M.A., Lal, P., Miller, M.E., 2013. Estimating social impacts of a remedi-
ation project life cycle with environmental footprint evaluation tools. Reme-
diation 24 (1), 5e20.
Hosseini, S.A., Pons, O., de la Fuente, A., 2018. A combination of the Knapsack al-
gorithm and MIVES for choosing optimal temporary housing site locations: a
case study in Tehran. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 27, 265e277.
Hou, D., Al-Tabbaa, A., 2014. Sustainability: a new imperative in contaminated land
remediation. Environ. Sci. Policy 39, 25e34.
Hou, D., Ding, Z., Li, G., Wu, L., Hu, P., Guo, G., Wang, X., Ma, Y., O'Connor, D.,
Wang, X., 2018. A sustainability assessment framework for agricultural land
remediation in China. Land Degrad. Dev. 29 (4), 1005e1018.
Huysegoms, L., Cappuyns, V., 2017. Critical review of decision support tools for
sustainability assessment of site remediation options. J. Environ. Manag. 196,
278e296.
Huysegoms, L., Rousseau, S., Cappuyns, V., 2018. Friends or foes? Monetized life
cycle assessment and cost-benefit analysis of the site remediation of a former
gas plant. Sci. Total Environ. 619, 258e271.
ISO 14040, 2006a. Environmental Management: Life Cycle Assessment; Principles
and Framework. International Organization for Standardization.
ISO 14044, 2006b. Environmental Management: Life Cycle Assessment; Re-
quirements and Guidelines. International Organization for Standardization.
ITRC (Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council, 2009. Phytotechnology Tech-
nical and Regulatory Guidance and Decision Trees, Revised. PHYTO-3. Interstate
Technology and Regulatory Council, Phytotechnologies Team, Washington, DC,
USA. www.itrcweb.org. (Accessed 5 November 2018).
Jato-Espino, D., Rodriguez-Hernandez, J., Andre
s-Valeri, V.C., Ballester-Mun
~ oz, F.,
2014. A fuzzy stochastic multi-criteria model for the selection of urban pervious
pavements. Expert Syst. Appl. 41 (15), 6807e6817.
Liedekerke, M.V., Prokop, G., Rabl-Berger, S., Kibblewhite, M., Louwagie, G., 2014.
Progress in Management of Contaminated Sites in Europe. European Union,
Luxembourg. Retrieved from. https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/reference-
reports/progress-management-contaminated-sites-europe.
Lombera, J.T.S.J., Aprea, I.G., 2010. A system approach to the environmental analysis
of industrial buildings. Build. Environ. 45 (3), 673e683.
Lombera, J.T.S.J., Rojo, J.C., 2010. Industrial building design stage based on a system
approach to their environmental sustainability. Constr. Build. Mater. 24 (4),
438e447.
MIVES, I Project, 2002. Integrated Model for a Sustainable Constructive Design.
Application to Industrial and Service Buildings. Ministerio de Ciencia y Educa-
cion, Madrid, Spain.
MIVES IV Project, 2010. Quantification of Sustainability in Construction Engineering
with and without Uncertainty. Ministerio de Ciencia y Educacion, Madrid,
Spain.
Nadal, A., Pons, O., Cuerva, E., Rieradevall, J., Josa, A., 2018. Rooftop greenhouses in
educational centers: a sustainability assessment of urban agriculture in
compact cities. Sci. Total Environ. 626, 1319e1331.
Navy, U.S., 2015. US Army Corps of Engineers. SiteWise™ Version 3.1, User guide.
NICOLE, 2010. Road map for sustainable remediation. Network for industrially
contaminated land in Europe. Retrieved from: http://www.nicole.org/
uploadedfiles/2010-wg-sustainable-remediation-roadmap.pdf. . (Accessed 5
November 2018).
Oses, U., Rojí, E., Cuadrado, J., Larrauri, M., 2017. Multiple-criteria decision-making
tool for local governments to evaluate the global and local sustainability of
transportation systems in urban areas: case study. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 144 (1),
04017019.
Pardo-Bosch, F., Aguado, A., 2015. Investment priorities for the management of
hydraulic structures. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 11 (10), 1338e1351.
~ ero, I., San-Jose
Pin
, J.T., Rodríguez, P., Losa

n~ ez, M.M., 2017. Multi-criteria decision-
making for grading the rehabilitation of heritage sites. Application in the his-
toric center of La Habana. J. Cult. Herit. 26, 144e152.
Pons, O., Aguado, A., 2012. Integrated value model for sustainable assessment
applied to technologies used to build schools in Catalonia, Spain. Build. Environ.
53, 49e58.
Praamstra, T., 2009. Carbon footprint of soil remediation. Proceedings of the Green
Remediation Conference, pp. 9e10. Retrieved From. http://www.eugris.info/
newsdownloads/GreenRemediation/proc_decision_support.htm. (Accessed 5
November 2018).
Pujadas, P., Pardo-Bosch, F., Aguado-Renter, A., Aguado, A., 2017. MIVES multi-
criteria approach for the evaluation, prioritization, and selection of public
106 A.W. da S Trentin et al. / Chemosphere 230 (2019) 92e106
investment projects. A case study in the city of Barcelona. Land Use Pol. 64,
29e37.
Reddy, K., Adams, J., 2015. Sustainable Remediation of Contaminated Sites. Mo-
mentum Press.
Reddy, K.R., Cameselle, C., 2009. Electrochemical Remediation Technologies for
Polluted Soils, Sediments and Groundwater. John Wiley & Sons.
Reddy, K.R., Sadasivam, B.Y., Adams, J.A., 2014. Social sustainability evaluation
matrix (SSEM) to quantify social aspects of sustainable remediation. ICSI 2014:
Creating Infrastructure for a Sustainable World, pp. 831e841.

n, L., Back, P.E., So
Rose € derqvist, T., Norrman, J., Brinkhoff, P., Norberg, T., et al., 2015.
SCORE: a novel multi-criteria decision analysis approach to assessing the sus-
tainability of contaminated land remediation. Sci. Total Environ. 511, 621e638.
Saaty, T.L., 2008. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Serv.
Sci. 1 (1), 83e98.
Saaty, T.L., 1990. How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur. J. Oper.
Res. 48 (1), 9e26.
Sharma, H.D., Reddy, K.R., 2004. Geoenvironmental Engineering: Site Remediation,
Waste Containment, and Emerging Waste Management Technologies. John
Wiley & Sons.
Søndergaard, G.L., Binning, P.J., Bondgaard, M., Bjerg, P.L., 2018. Multi-criteria
assessment tool for sustainability appraisal of remediation alternatives for a
contaminated site. J. Soils Sediments 18 (11), 3334e3348.
Sparrevik, M., Saloranta, T., Cornelissen, G., Eek, E., Fet, A.M., Breedveld, G.D.,
Linkov, I., 2011. Use of life cycle assessments to evaluate the environmental
footprint of contaminated sediment remediation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45 (10),
4235e4241.
Tahir, U., Yasmin, A., Khan, U.H., 2016. Phytoremediation: potential flora for syn-
thetic dyestuff metabolism. J. King Saud Univ. Sci. 28 (2), 119e130.
USEPA, 2012. Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environ-
mental Footprint. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response and Office of
Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation. EPA 542-R-12-002.
Retrieved from. http://www.enviro.wiki/images/7/75/USEPA-2012-
Methodology_for_Understanding_and_Reducing_a_Projects_Envl_Footprint.
pdf. (Accessed 5 November 2018).
USEPA, 2016. Sustainable Remediation Tool (SRT) Contaminated Site Clean-Up In-
formation. 2016. Retrieved from. https://cluin.org/products/tins/tinsone.cfm?
num¼66247610. (Accessed 5 November 2018).