Arabian Journal of Geosciences (2022) 15: 781

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-022-10037-1

REVIEW PAPER

Critical review on the efficacy of electrokinetic techniques

in geotechnical and geoenvironmental applications
Nuruddin Mohammad1   · Arif Ali Baig Moghal1   · Romana Mariyam Rasheed2   · Abdullah Almajed3 

Received: 15 February 2022 / Accepted: 1 April 2022 / Published online: 13 April 2022
© Saudi Society for Geosciences 2022

Abstract
Several soil remediation techniques aid in removing contaminants from soil and groundwater in the current scenario.
Electrokinetic treatment (EKT) is one technique that can transport the organic and inorganic contaminants in a very low-
permeable soil matrix that otherwise has proven to be ineffective by conventional methods such as bioremediation and soil
vapor extraction, soil flushing, phytoremediation, and vitrification. EKT can also improve the engineering properties such
as shear strength and dynamic properties of soft soils effectively compared to other conventional methods such as preload-
ing and preloading with vertical drains in removing the water from clayey soils. The electrokinetic remediation process
requires a minimum of two electrodes penetrated into the ground and connected to a direct current to induce an electric field
between the electrodes. This electric field will make the contaminants transport by different mechanisms depending on the
type of pollutant and soil structure present in the field. The current review article highlights the various EKT mechanisms
involved in transporting different types of pollutants in low-permeable soils, their removal efficiencies, the factors affecting
the contaminant removal rate(s), and their limitations. Furthermore, the effect of EKT on engineering properties and various
geoenvironmental applications is critically reviewed and discussed.

Keywords  Decontamination, Dewatering, Electrokinetic, Electromigration, Electroosmosis

Introduction agricultural practices resulting in an increased number of

contaminated sites in various parts of the world (Zalidis
The environment has become a recipient of the enormous et al. 2002; Bhagure and Mirgane 2011; Panagos et al. 2013;
amount of organic and inorganic contaminants due to rapid Proshad et al. 2018; Maïga Yaleu et al. 2020). The contami-
industrialization, unsustainable urbanization, and intensive nated sites can be categorized into waste storage areas, pro-
duction areas, mine tailing sites, chemical waste handlers,
storage sites, treatment sites, landfills, dumps, and spill sites
Responsible Editor: Zeynal Abiddin Erguler
located in various land uses. Due to sheer ignorance and
* Arif Ali Baig Moghal other socioeconomic reasons, humankind is carrying out
reach2arif@gmail.com; baig@nitw.ac.in the unethical practice of dumping all kinds of organic and
Nuruddin Mohammad inorganic wastes into the soil, assuming that the soil has a
mnce20224@student.nitw.ac.in limitless absorption capacity. The heavy metals could be
Romana Mariyam Rasheed dumped in the landfills if a lining was provided with suit-
romanamrasheed@tkmce.ac.in able soil to retain the toxic heavy metals (Mohammed and
Abdullah Almajed Moghal 2016). It takes almost 200 to 400 years to originate
alabduallah@ksu.edu.sa 1cm of savage soil, and hence, the soil must be considered a
non-renewable natural resource, as it takes almost 200 to 400
1
Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute years to originate 1cm of savage soil (Castelo-Grande et al.
of Technology Warangal, Warangal 506004, India
2010). Technologies such as soil flushing and pump-and-
2
Department of Civil Engineering, TKM College treat are proven ineffective in remediating the contaminated
of Engineering, Kollam 691005, India
fine-grained soils due to inherent low hydraulic conductiv-
3
College of Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, ity values followed by high specific area which provides
King Saud University, Riyadh 11421, Saudi Arabia

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
781 Page 2 of 15
numerous active sites for surface reactions (Yeung 2006;
Alshawabkeh et al. 1999a). Over the last few decades, the
electrokinetic remediation technique (ERT) has garnered
attention by becoming an effective process (either as an
in situ or ex situ remediation) for removing organic as well
as inorganic heavy metals in heterogeneous natural deposits
containing fine-grained soils, especially clayey soils due to
its promising experimental results (Acar and Alshawabkeh
1993; Virkutyte et al. 2002; Hamed et al. 1991).
A delayed or limited ion transport due to precipitation/
dissolution, sorption, biological transformation, and chemi-
cal redox transformation has been quantified in terms of a
factor known as Reactive Mass Transference Factor (RMTF,
which is a measure of the rate of reactive mass transport by
electroosmosis and ion migration relative to the electrical
conductivity of the soil). It indicates the favorable conditions
for the electrokinetic phenomenon in the soil. The RMTF
provides an understanding of the effects of the variables
(primarily electroosmosis, ionic migration, concentration,
electrical conductivity, and reactivity) which are transient,
heterogeneous, and interdependent on the performance of
electrokinetic remediation (Alshawabkeh 2009). The lit-
erature has shown that other conventional methods such as
soil vapor extraction, bioremediation, and soil flushing are
ineffective in removing organic and inorganic contaminants
in low-permeable soils (Fernández Rodríguez et al. 2014;
Gandhi et al. 2022; Kirtland and Aelion 2000; Senevirathna
et al. 2021). Therefore, researchers have integrated electro-
kinetic phenomenon with other methods like bioremediation
and soil vapor extraction to remove inorganic and organic
pollutants from soil and water (Alshawabkeh 2009; Lageman
et al. 2005).
Fig. 1  Schematic diagram of different contaminant transport mechanisms under electrokinetic technique
13
Arab J Geosci (2022) 15: 781
This paper presents in detail the various contaminant
transport mechanisms occurring in soil on the application
of an electric current and the factors affecting the process
of electrokinetic remediation. In addition, improvement in
geotechnical properties such as shear strength and consoli-
dation and treatment strategies adopted for decontaminat-
ing soil laden with organic and inorganic contaminants are
discussed in detail.
Contaminant transport mechanism
The electrokinetic phenomena in porous media are generated
by the relative motion of a charged surface and the mass
solution at its interface. The electrokinetic mechanisms
mainly depend on the electrical double layer formed at the
surface of electrically charged clay particles. Electrokinetic
remediation aids in decontamination mainly by (a) electro-
osmotic advection of pore fluid flushing the contaminants;
(b) electromigration or ionic migration of contaminants car-
rying charges; and (c) electrophoresis of charged colloidal-
sized particles carrying contaminants (Yeung 2006; Alsha-
wabkeh et al. 1999b; Saichek and Reddy 2005; Cameselle
et al. 2013) which are depicted in Fig. 1.
Electromigration is the transportation of ionic species
in solution within a soil medium toward the electrode of
opposite charge. The anions migrate toward the anode, i.e.,
positively charged electrode, and the cations migrate toward
the cathode, i.e., negatively charged electrode (Yeung 2006;
Shenbagavalli and Mahimairaja 2010; Acar et al. 1995). The
ionic metals, polar organic material, and colloidal electro-
lytes are mobilized majorly by electromigration. Generally,
Arab J Geosci (2022) 15: 781 Page 3 of 15 781

it occurs in all moist, porous materials under an applied water very tightly. This thin coating of water is termed an
current (Hansen et al. 2016). This electromigration works adsorbed layer. As the distance increases from the surface of
equally for fine-grained and coarse-grained soils as the pore clay particles, the electrical force of attraction between clay
size does not affect the electromigration process (Virkutyte particles and water molecules gets reduced. Because of the
et al. 2002). clay's negative charge, the double-layer formation occurs.
Electroosmosis is the movement of the bulk mass or net The double layer is divided into two layers depending on
flux of water influenced by the electric field (Alshawabkeh their characteristics. The very tight and closer layer to the
et al. 1999a). When an electric field is applied, the positively clay particle is called the fixed or adsorbed layer, and the
charged water molecules will migrate toward a negatively layer next to the adsorbed layer is diffused layer (Revil and
charged electrode (cathode). A shearing effect starts when Glover 1997). In diffused layer, the negatively charged and
the cations migrate toward the negatively charged electrode. positively charged ions are attracted toward clay minerals.
The cations move faster through the pore water, dragging As depicted in Fig. 2, the fixed layer is also referred to
the water molecules behind them. Then, a large quantity of as the Stern layer, while the diffused layer can be called the
water moves from anode to cathode. This electroosmosis Gouy layer (Park and Seo 2011). Clay minerals can allow
flow can transport any chemical substance in solution out the water molecules to adsorb and absorb because of their
of porous media. This transport mechanism is influenced by negative charge. If the clay layer gets saturated, then the
the solid surface’s electrical properties, fluid properties, and migration of water molecules through that clay does not
the interaction between the surface of the solid and solution take place. Due to this phenomenon, clayey soils have very
components. poor hydraulic conductivities. Since a sufficient flow volume
Generally, soil and sediments are electronegative. There-
fore, the electroosmotic flow moves from anode to cathode.
If the soil and sediments are electropositive, then the elec-
troosmotic flow occurs from cathode to anode (Acar and
Alshawabkeh 1993). Organic contaminants are electrically
neutral and can be removed from soil by electroosmosis
(Alcántara et al. 2010). Electrophoresis transports charged
colloidal particles and bounded contaminants when a sta-
tionary pore fluid is subjected to a low DC. The colloids like
micelles and bacteria can be removed by this mechanism.
In a low permeability soil matrix, mass movement due to
electrophoresis is insignificant when compared to electro-
migration and electroosmosis (Virkutyte et al. 2002).
Electroosmosis and electromigration are the key mecha-
nisms involved in the majority of the contaminant(s) removal
while electrophoresis removes specific types of contami-
nants such as colloidal sized particles (Alshawabkeh et al.
1999b; Saichek and Reddy 2005). Owing to the compacted
nature of the soil matrix, the movement of large colloidal
particles is not possible. However, the dissolved contami-
nants in the pore fluid can mobilize quickly through elec-
tromigration and electroosmosis (Saichek and Reddy 2005).

Electrical double layer

Due to clay particles’ high cation exchange capacity, they

can efficiently react with the water molecule when they
encounter water. The negatively charged surface of clay
minerals, and the exchangeable cations around the nega-
tively charged clay particles, attract dipolar water. At the
same time, oxygen atoms on the clay surface and hydrogen
atoms from the water molecule form hydrogen bonds. As a
result, the clay mineral surface holds the innermost layer of Fig. 2  Schematic diagram of electric double layer and different
potentials at different planes

13
781 Page 4 of 15
cannot be generated by an externally imposed hydraulic
gradient alone, general soil treatment techniques like pump
and treat will not be economical and are almost impossible
(Alshawabkeh et al. 1999a).
Factors affecting electrokinetic remediation
Only a few studies have included the practical considerations
for field applications and the factors that affect the electroki-
netic process (Sims 1990). The most important influencing
factors are mentioned below.
Soil type and mineral type
The electrokinetic method has successfully treated fine-
grained clays with low cation exchange capacity, silty clays
with moderate plasticity, and fine sandy soils (Acar et al.
1995; Alshawabkeh and Bricka 2001; Virkutyte et al. 2002).
Therefore, the soil that does not possess high absorption
and cation exchange capacities is most effective. In contrast,
soil with high buffering capacity or high carbonate buffers
is unsuitable for this technique. High-activity soils, such as
illite, montmorillonite, and impure kaolinite, have a high
acid/base buffer capacity and therefore require the use of
excessive acid and/or enhancement agents to desorb and
solubilize contaminants encrusted on the surface of the soil
particle before they can be transported through the subsur-
face and removed.
In a study on the removal of Cu (II), Zn (II), and Pb (II)
from clay minerals such as kaolinite, smectite, vermiculite,
hematite, allophane, and humic-allophane, migration of Pb
(II) was minimal due to the creation of PbSO4 and signifi-
cant complexation at the mineral surface. Cu (II) and Zn
(II) clearance rates were found to be maximum in a soil
dominated by kaolinite and crystalline hematite. Cu (II) and
Zn (II) did not migrate considerably in humic–allophanic
and allophanic soils due to the high pH-buffering capacity
of allophane at the anode end (Darmawan and Wada 2002).
Water content
The water content must be optimal for the soil to be conduc-
tive and perfect for permitting electromigration (Virkutyte
et al. 2002; Malekzadeh et al. 2016). The removal efficiency
is dependent on the electrical conductivity of pore fluid and
path length through the soil specimen, both of which are
affected by the soil moisture content. The electroosmosis
requires nearly water content to form flux that will flow from
one electrode to another. Otherwise, the process of electro-
kinetic treatment cannot be conducted efficiently. Generally,
the electroosmotic flux moves toward the cathode zone if the
soil surface is negatively charged (Virkutyte et al. 2002).
13
Arab J Geosci (2022) 15: 781
pH and electrical conductivity
During electrokinetic treatment, the pH of soil near the
electrodes changes due to the electric current. These changes
in the pH value can disturb the geochemical stability and
complicate the contaminant removal. Generally, the pH at
the anode gets increased due to the generation of hydrogen
ions during electrolysis. This acidification of the soil may
tend to cause dissolution of the minerals and thereby
increase the electrical conductivity (EC) and ionic strength
of soil (Acar and Alshawabkeh 1993). The sorption of
cations will be observed when the pH value is less, and
at high pH values, the ions get precipitated (Moghal et al.
2020a, b). Thus, more energy is required to transport the
contaminants because most of the energy is consumed for
the transfer of ions generated between the electrodes rather
than the migration of the contaminant.
To overcome this uncontrolled pH value, several
enhancement strategies are being adopted, such as (a) using
acidic minerals at the cathode region to decrease the pH
level, (b) restriction of H+ and OH- ions by providing the
ion exchange membrane between the soil and electrode,
and (c) chelating agents to form soluble conditions for
different pH values (Reddy and Cameselle 2009). The use
of complexing or chelating agents like citric acid effectively
removes various types of metal pollutants from fine-grained
soils (Alshawabkeh and Bricka 2001).
Voltage and current
The intensity of the electric current should be of very
few amperes per square meter or in the form of mA/cm2
(Shenbagavalli and Mahimairaja 2010; Acar et al. 1995;
Alshawabkeh and Bricka 2001; Reddy and Saichek 2003;
Acar and Gale 1994; Mosavat et al. 2012). The variations
depend on the electrochemical properties of the soil, mainly
electrical conductivity, as a higher current is required for
soils having higher electrical conductivity compared to
soils with lower electrical conductivity (Alshawabkeh and
Bricka 2001). The required voltage and current are also
proposed depending on the contaminant type, electrode
spacing, chemical composition, and processing duration.
The cost of the method increases with an increase in the
current density (Jayasekera 2008). However, the power
consumption can be reduced by applying intermittent
current to the soil matrix, and it also reduces the rate of
corrosion without affecting the efficiency of the technique
(Micic et al. 2001; Lo et al. 2000). The optimal current
intermittence intervals for the marine sediments are
studied and identified as 2 minutes on and 1 minute off
(Mohamedelhassan and Shang 2001).
Arab J Geosci (2022) 15: 781
Electrodes
Electrodes can be placed in one-dimensional (1D) and two-
dimensional (2D) configurations which create 1D and 2D
electric fields in the soil. 1D electrode configuration con-
sists of an anode parallel to the cathode. In the 2D electrode
configuration, the anode or cathode is placed at the center,
and other electrodes are placed around the central electrode.
The electrically active area depends on the electrode con-
figuration adopted. The effective electric area is more for
2D configuration when compared to the 1D configuration,
as shown in Fig. 3 (Alshawabkeh et al. 1999b; Kim et al.
2012). Compared to a hexagonal configuration with 2-m
electrode spacing, a square configuration with the same
electrode spacing exhibited higher removal efficiency at the
bottom level of the electrode (Kim et al. 2014). It has been
observed that anode electrodes are sensitive to corrosion due
to electrolytic decay and acidic conditions (Virkutyte et al.
2002). Therefore, inert electrodes such as graphite, coated
platinum, and titanium are preferred to resist corrosion (Kim
et al. 2002). The metal for electrodes such as copper and
steel is more effective than lead, black carbon, and platinum
(Acar and Alshawabkeh 1993).
Fig. 3  Area of effective and ineffective electric field for a 1-D elec-
trode configuration and b 2-D electrode configuration
Page 5 of 15 781
Treatment time
The time depends on the transport rate, voltage levels, cur-
rent density, electrode spacing, and configuration. The soil
gets consolidated after dewatering, and the time taken for
consolidation is significantly less than other conventional
techniques such as preloading and preloading with sand
drains (Mohamedelhassan 2011).
Cost
The cost depends on processing time, type of contaminant,
and depth up to which the contaminants are present, the
electrical conductivity of soil and pore water, electrode
spacing, site preparation requirements, electricity, and labor
cost (Alshawabkeh et al. 1999a). The five major components
which are required to estimate the total cost of full-scale
in situ electrokinetic remediation are:
• cost for installation of electrodes and fabrication,
• cost of electric current,
• cost of enhancing agents if added,
• cost of any necessary follow-up treatment,
• fixed expenses/costs.
The cost of electrokinetic remediation for inorganic con-
taminated soils ranges between USD115 and USD400 per
one ­m3 of soil. The cost for soils contaminated with organ-
ics ranges between USD90 and USD275 per one m ­ 3 of soil
approximately (Reddy and Cameselle 2009).
Effect of EKT on engineering properties
The engineering behavior of the soil can be improved when
it is treated with an electrokinetic treatment technique
(Wahab et al. 2021). Enzyme-induced calcite precipitation
(EICP) is also one of the emerging and prominent meth-
ods that can increase the engineering properties of the soil
when compared to conventional mechanical stabilization
methods (Moghal et al. 2020a, b). However, EICP studies
are mostly limited to sandy and silty soils and require exten-
sive research in clayey or low permeable soils to understand
their efficacy completely. The following are the engineering
properties affected by the electrokinetic treatment.
Dewatering
Electrokinetic remediation treatment can be used for dewa-
tering, especially in low-permeable soils such as clayey soils
where conventional techniques are not found to be effec-
tive. The laboratory test of electrokinetic treatment enhanced
with preloading proved to be effective in removing a high
13
781 Page 6 of 15
Fig. 4  Cumulative water volume drained before and during electroki-
netic treatment
Fig. 5  Water content of soil at anode and cathode vicinities
volume of water and the variation of cumulative water vol-
ume observed before and during the electrokinetic treatment
is shown in Fig. 4 (Mohamedelhassan 2011).
The dewatering rate is mainly affected by electrode mate-
rial. A comparative analysis on two different types of elec-
trodes, namely graphite and stainless steel, for 28 days and
carried out under three different voltage gradients showed
a more homogenous water depletion at the graphite elec-
trode than at the stainless-steel electrode. The rapid drain-
age of water during the first few days eventually settled
down. For both electrodes, the strength of the high-plastic-
ity clay decreased from anode to cathode, consistent with
the water content and the direction of the electro-osmotic
flow as shown in Figs. 5 and 6. The stainless-steel electrode
13
Arab J Geosci (2022) 15: 781
outperformed the graphite electrode with a voltage gradi-
ent of 0.5 V/cm and 2 V/cm due to its higher conductivity
(Mahalleh et al. 2021).
Shear strength
Compaction, soil reinforcement, preloading with vertical
drains, and soil stabilization with lime, cement and fly ash
are some of the traditional ways for increasing soil shear
strength. In certain cases, lime stabilization in soils spiked
with heavy metals showed an increase in shear strength
(Moghal et al. 2020c, d). Stabilization of soil using xan-
than gum is also an innovative and sustainable technique
that increases the shear strength in silty sands (Moghal and
Vydehi 2021). However, these methods are time-consuming
in the treatment of problematic soils such as low-permea-
bility soils, soft soils, and so on (Micic 1998). Compared
to these conventional methods, the electrokinetic treatment
technique is preferable due to its numerous advantages in
terms of operating time and cost.
The electrokinetic treatment is very effective in increas-
ing the shear strength of soft clay while causing minimum
disturbance to the existing soil structure (Mohamedelhassan
2011; Wahab et al. 2021; Keykha et al. 2014). The shear
strength of soil increases when pore fluid drains out. The
laboratory test conducted on soft clay with different pore flu-
ids subjected the soil sample to a surcharge load of 40.8 kg
in four load increments (5, 10, 20, and 40.8 kg) in 7 days and
thereafter performed the electrokinetic treatment for the next
7 days. An identical control test performed without inducing
the electric current aided in providing baseline data. The
increased shear strength observed near the anode was 99.3
kPa ± 15.4 kPa, whereas the shear strength in the control
test was obtained as 12.1 kPa ± 1.7 kPa as depicted in Fig. 7
(Mohamedelhassan 2011).
Chien et al. (2009) conducted experiments on kaolinite
and silty clay soils to increase the shear strength of soil using
electroosmosis. The soil was consolidated under the pressure
of 100 kPa and stopped when it achieved 95% consolidation.
Two types of tests were conducted on the consolidated soil,
electrokinetic test without injecting saline solution and test
with an injection of saline solutions. Different concentra-
tions of 0.01N, 0.1N, and 1N ­CaCl2 and 0.1N of NaCl and
KCl were used as saline solutions. Among all soil samples,
the soil injected with a saline solution of 1N ­CaCl2 exhibited
a higher increase in shear strength as depicted in Fig. 7 and it
is about 4-5 times greater than the undrained shear strength
obtained in soils without injecting the saline solution. The
electrokinetic enhanced surcharge loading is very effective
in increasing the strength of clayey soils (Mohamedelhassan
2011; Manda et al. 2021).
The shear strength of soil increases due to dewater-
ing and the generation of cementation compounds. These
Arab J Geosci (2022) 15: 781
Fig. 6  Compressive strength of
anode zone and cathode under
various voltage gradients for
two electrodes.
Fig. 7  Undrained shear strength versus distance from the anode
cementation agents intensively precipitate near the cathode
region due to the high amount of pH and ionic exchange near
the cathode (Micic et al. 2001; Mohamedelhassan 2011).
Experiments were conducted on salt-affected soils by adding
fresh water and lime solution near the anode and observed
huge development in the compressive strength of the soil as
shown in Fig. 8 (Jayasekera 2008).
During strengthening of soft marine clays near a skirted
foundation, withdrawal of electric field caused an increase in
shear strength (Micic et al. 2003). During the electrokinetic
treatment, ferrous ions (­ Fe2+) were released by steel anodes
into the seawater resulting in the formation of iron-rich
Page 7 of 15 781
Fig. 8  Unconfined compressive strength variation at the anode, mid-
dle, and cathode with time
cement in the calcareous sand by the precipitation of ferrous
and ferric ions. This mechanism increased the electrokinetic
strengthening of caisson anchors implanted in offshore cal-
careous sand resulting from the cementation of soil solids
and the bonding of soil and caisson shafts, thereby increas-
ing side resistance and overall pullout resistance.
Due to this cementation mechanism, a significant amount
of iron-rich cement was produced and this increased the
strength of the caisson by more than 90% (Rittirong et al.
2008). Electrokinetic treatment of Jordan expansive soil
with chemicals such as Ca(OH)2, ­CaCl2, KOH, and KCl to
13
781 Page 8 of 15 Arab J Geosci (2022) 15: 781

remove calcium and potassium ions proved to be a success- Geoenvironmental applications

ful method of soil stabilization. Because of the linkage pro-
vided by potassium ions, soil properties were considerably
improved. The plasticity index and percent free swell values
drastically reduced and shear strength increased (Abdullah
and Al-Abadi 2010).
Many researchers have identified that the electrokinetic
technique can be used to add lime as well as other suitable
chemical substances to the soil where conventional blending
methods are ineffective due to the highly cohesive nature of
soil and depth (Barker et al. 2004).
Consolidation
In the consolidation of soil, the volume of partly or fully
saturated soil gets reduced mainly due to the expulsion of
water from the soil pores. The electrokinetic consolidation
will remove the water from the pores by applying electric
current, and it can be achieved by employing different
mechanisms (Mahalleh et al. 2021). The water will be
dragged from anode to cathode due to the cation migration.
Another mechanism that helps in migrating water from
the soil pores is electroosmosis. The positive ions in the
electrical double layer will move toward the cathode and
along with ions, the water will also move toward the
cathode resulting in the migration of water from anode
to cathode. This mechanism is more significant when the
ion concentration outside the electrical double layer is low
and thus electroosmosis is the main mechanism involved
in removing water from the soil pores. Electrokinetic
consolidation is very much effective in consolidating the
soil compared to conventional consolidation methods
(Malekzadeh et al. 2016).
Electrokinetic stabilization of soil can be used in different
scenarios such as consolidation, slope stabilization, dis-
persive soil treatment, dewatering, decontamination of soil
and groundwater. The soil and groundwater contaminated
by organic, inorganic pollutants including heavy met-
als, radioactive elements create a risk to the environment
and humans because of their toxic nature (Kotresha et al.
2021). Nitrate-rich water which is highly carcinogenic can
cause health problems for human beings. Military opera-
tions are one of the main reasons causing the soil to be
contaminated with metals. Heavy metals in soil cannot
be biodegraded, and they remain in the soil for a long
time and later flow toward the aquifers which could harm
plants and aquatic animals (Santos et al. 2014). There are
some methods to immobilize the metal contaminants in
the soil such as enzymatically induced calcium carbon-
ate precipitation (EICP) which has proven its ability in
retaining the heavy metals in the soil matrix (Moghal et al.
2020a, b). But there is a need to adopt a technology that
removes these harmful toxic contaminants from the soil.
Electrokinetic remediation is a technology that can remove
organic and inorganic contaminants including heavy met-
als. The removal efficiencies of the different contaminants
are listed in Table 1 and Table 2. It has been observed
that electrokinetic remediation worked efficiently when
it was combined with other remediation technologies as
highlighted in Table 3.

Table 1  Effect of EKT on inorganic contaminant removal from soil

Soil type Contaminants Initial concentration Duration Removal Reference
(ppm) (h) (%)

Montmorillonite, Cd, Sr, Co, & Ni 40-8603 24 - 48 16.5-95 Pamukcu and Wittle 1992
Kaolinite and sand-
clay mix
Kaolinite Cu - 16 95 Eykholt and Daniel 1994
Kaolinite Zn 500 216 98 Probstein and Hicks 1993
Clayey soil Cr, Ni & Cd 500, 1000 & 1500 340 83,19 & 13, respectively Reddy and Chinthamreddy 2003
Silty clay Pb 1000 96 93.26 Mutter et al. 2014
Sandy soil Cu & Zn 120 96 Li et al. 1996
Kaolinite Pb(II) 118-145 100-1285 75-95 Hamed et al. 1991
Mine tailing soil Pb, Cd, & Zn 13365, 15742 &19565 48 35, 78 & 55, respectively Demir et al. 2015
Acid lake sediments Pb & Fe 216 20 Karaca et al. 2016
and mine tailing
Copper mine tailing Cu 1090-1240 192 42 Hansen et al. 2007

13
Arab J Geosci (2022) 15: 781 Page 9 of 15 781

Table 2  Effect of EKT on Soil type Contaminants Initial con- Duration Removal Reference
organic contaminant removal centration
from soil
(ppm) (h) (%)

Kaolinite Phenol 500 78-144 85-95 Acar et al. 1993

Kaolinite Benzene, hexane, 0.4-150 48-600 7-27 Bruell et al. 1992
Trichloroethylene
(TCE)
Sandy soil Atrazine - 120-228 89-98 Ribeiro et al. 2005
Kaolinite Phenol 500 216 95 Hicks and Tondorft 1994

Table 3  Effect of electrokinetic remediation enhanced with other technologies for organic contaminant removal
Soil type Contaminants Enhanced technology Duration Removal Reference
(h) (%)

Spiked soil Trichloroethylene (TCE) Electrokinetics and Fenton oxidation 240 89 Yang and Liu 2001
Spiked soil 2,4-Dichlorophenoxy- Bio-enhanced electrokinetics 96-528 39 Jackman et al. 2001
acetic acid (2,4-D)
Spiked sandy soil Trichloroethylene (TCE) Electrokinetics and Fenton oxidation with an 168-336 100 Yang and Yeh 2011
injection of nanoscale Fe3O4
Spiked sandy soil Phenanthrene Electrokinetics with chemical oxidation 504 68.9-81.6 Park et al. 2005
Spiked kaoline Acid dye Electrokinetics and electrochemical oxidation - 89 Lee et al. 2009

Removal of inorganic contaminants
The electrical force of soil colloids of negative charge
attracts heavy metal pollutants in ionic form in the soil.
Metal ion attraction to soil colloids is primarily determined
by the electronegativity and ion dissociation energy of the
soil. At a suitable pH, heavy metals are expected to bind to
negatively charged soil particles and get adsorbed. Metals
like cadmium and nickel show more adsorption to black cot-
ton soil and red soil (Mohammed et al. 2016). Desorption
of cations from the surface of the clay is necessary for the
removal of metal species from low-permeable sediments
with high cation exchange capacity.
The soil spiked with heavy metals shows high removal
efficiency compared to naturally contaminated soils
(Ottosen 2014) because the adsorption capacity of metals
with clay particles is very less in spiked soils. The stronger
adsorption of heavy metals can be observed in naturally
contaminated soils. So, the laboratory experimental results
do not match with the results obtained from in situ ERT
(Ottosen et al. 2009).
The electromigration is the main dominant mechanism
in extracting inorganic contaminants (Acar and Alsha-
wabkeh 1993). This phenomenon can work only when the
inorganic contaminants are in ionic form. If the inorganic
contaminants are not in ionic form, then the electroosmo-
sis can aid in extracting those contaminants from fine soils
(Acar and Alshawabkeh 1993; Ottosen et al. 2009). During
the electrokinetic process, the pH of soil gets changed due
to the electrochemical reactions. The alkaline front can be
developed at the cathode region because of the change in
pH of the soil, which leads to the precipitation or sorp-
tion of cationic metal contaminants. Similarly, the anionic
metal species get adsorbed near the anode region due to
the generation of low soil pH at the anode. The sorption
and precipitation are the hindering factors in removing
metal contaminants from the soils (Reddy and Cameselle
2009).
There are several enhancement techniques available to
enhance the metal removal from soils. They are a) placing
of ion exchange membrane in between the soil and elec-
trode b) pH reduction at cathode by using mineral acids,
and c) solubilization of metals using chelating agents at
different pH conditions. These enhancement techniques
have proven effective in treating cationic metal contami-
nated soils. The enhancement fluids such as acetic acid
and hydrochloric acid can be used at the cathode zone.
But the hydrochloric acid generates chlorine gas due to the
electrolysis, which can enter into groundwater and spread
its contamination. After considering all aspects, it is good
to use calcium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid as chelat-
ing agents at the anode and cathode zone, respectively
(Virkutyte et al. 2002).

13
781 Page 10 of 15
Removal of organic contaminants
Contaminated with hydrocarbons
Organic contaminants such as hydrocarbons can be effec-
tively extracted from the low-permeable soils (Bustos 2014).
Several studies were done on soils contaminated with hydro-
carbons such as diesel, petroleum, pesticides, trichloroeth-
ylene, and benzene (Saichek and Reddy 2005; Gomes et al.
2012; Parameswarappa Jayalakshmamma et al. 2021; Ji et al.
2020). The main mechanism involved in removing diesel
from the soil is electroosmosis (Santos et al. 2014). The
removal efficiency of hydrocarbons depends on their solubil-
ity. Organic compounds such as trichloroethylene, phenols,
and gasoline hydrocarbons have aqueous solubility. There-
fore, they can be easily extracted from contaminated soils.
But organics like hydrophobic organic compounds have low
solubility in water. Removing these low-soluble organics
using conventional methods is a challenging task (Saichek
and Reddy 2005).
An experimental study was conducted on the extraction
of hydrocarbons using different electrolytic solutions. The
highest removal efficiencies of 73.14%, 83.35% and 73.49%
were observed when NaOH (0.1 M), N ­ a2SO4, and citric
acid were used as electrolytes, respectively. Among them,
­Na2SO4 was very effective in removing total hydrocarbons
from contaminated soil (Santos et al. 2014).
The electrokinetic remediation combined with surfactants
called Tween 80 showed 80% removal efficiency whereas the
same soil treated with hydraulic flushing and enhanced with
the same surfactants exhibited removal efficiency of 52% in
fine-grained soils. This shows that electrokinetics is very
effective in removing hydrocarbons from clay compared
to the hydraulic flushing technique (Parameswarappa
Jayalakshmamma et al. 2021).
Soluble organics
Chlorinated organic compounds (COCs) are substances
that are formed due to the replacement of one or more
hydrogen atoms by the chlorine atoms in an organic mol-
ecule. There are aliphatic, aromatic, and cyclic struc-
tures in chlorinated organic molecules. Trichloroethylene
(TCE), carbon tetrachloride (CT), vinyl chloride (VC), are
aliphatic chlorinated organics. Polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) and pentachlorophenol (PCP) will come under
the aromatic group, and lindane (hexachlorocyclohexane)
and dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) are cyclic
chlorinated organics (Cameselle 2014). Many contami-
nated sites contain COCs that are usually utilized in the
industry. Mostly, in many industrial regions, the TCE is
a commonly observed organic solvent in soils and TCE is
13
Arab J Geosci (2022) 15: 781
observed in 50 percent of Superfund sites on the National
Priority List (NPL) (Kovalick 2002; Lu and Yuan 2009).
Electrokinetics has been utilized in many studies to mobi-
lize this TCE. Like other organics, TCE is relatively more
soluble in water and thus efficiently removed from the soil
by electroosmosis (Cameselle 2014; Yang and Lee 2009).
The TCE can be removed from the kaolin clay using EKT
and the removal efficiency of 25% was achieved in 3 days
of treatment with an applied voltage gradient of 0.4V/cm
(Bruell et al. 1992) and the TCE’s removal efficiency was
increased with increasing the electric gradient and adjust-
ing the pH of processing fluid (Weng et al. 2003). In TCE
contaminated soil, the pH at the cathode was controlled
by using acetate buffer as the enhancing agent. Thus, a pH
value of 6 was obtained at the cathode and showed a good
electroosmotic flux with an extraction efficiency of nearly
85-98% within 2 weeks of treatment (Chang et al. 2006).
The solubility of the organic contaminants has a direct effect
on removal efficiency (Cameselle 2014).
Reactive Black 5 is a complex chemical compound that
is difficult to decompose in the environment and is harm-
ful to living beings in water and soil (Yusni and Tanaka
2015). Reactive black 5 is water-soluble; however, it can be
adsorbed on the surface of organic materials and mineral
particles in soils and sediments (Cameselle and Gouveia
2018; Cameselle et al. 2013). At alkaline pH, the molecules
can be ionized when the sulfonic group becomes neutral
resulting in an anion having four negative charges. Dur-
ing EKT, the reactive black 5 will be transported toward
the anode as the reactive black 5 is in anionic form. The
adsorption capacity of the molecule can be reduced by using
potassium sulfate as the flushing solution at the anode and
cathode zone. The reactive black 5 was removed completely
in 5 days in a 10-cm spiked kaolin sample (Cameselle et al.
2013). The reactive black 5 can be removed only when the
desorption of molecules from the soil solids takes place, and
the pH of the soil is alkaline enough to achieve electromigra-
tion. The adsorbed molecules can be removed only by adopt-
ing the enhanced electrokinetic process (Pazos et al. 2006).
Low‑soluble organics
From the past few decades, there are many works conducted
on removing soluble organic contaminants from soil using
EKT, and this technique gives almost the same removal effi-
ciency as the conventional technologies (Reddy and Came-
selle 2009). Electrokinetic remediation technique alone can-
not be used to remove the hydrophobic organic compounds
(HOCs) which are low soluble in water and they are very
inclined to be adsorbed on the soil solids. ERT is not appli-
cable for low-soluble organics, because insoluble contami-
nants cannot transport through electroosmosis (Virkutyte
Arab J Geosci (2022) 15: 781
et al. 2002; Acar et al. 1995; Lu and Yuan 2009). There-
fore, some other methods need to be adopted along with
ERT to solubilize the HOCs (Reddy and Cameselle
2009).
HOCs like polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
are extremely hydrophobic and have low water solubil-
ity. The use of solubility-enhancing solutions such as
cosolvents and surfactants to attain the good efficiency
removal of PAHs from polluted sites has been exten-
sively researched (Yang and Lee 2009).
Removal of salts
Salts from soil
The saline soils contain high concentrations of salts, pri-
marily sodium, chloride, magnesium, calcium, nitrate,
sulfate, potassium, etc. (Cho et al. 2009). Nitrate salts
are the most poisonous substances, causing problems in
humans such as epidemiological gastric cancers in adults
and methemoglobinemia (blue baby syndrome) in infants
(Jia et al. 2006; Manokararajah and Sri Ranjan 2005).
The tideland contains a high concentration of salts, pri-
marily sodium chloride which can cause many problems.
Because of the reverse osmotic pressure, the salts prevent
the growth of plants. Therefore, salts are not only det-
rimental to the environment and human health but also
concrete structures. The chloride present in the soil will
enter into concrete and reinforcing bars of the building
which are constructed in tidelands and these chloride
ions will cause corrosion (Kim et  al. 2010). EKT has
been successful in removing salts such as sodium, potas-
sium, chloride, nitrate from saline greenhouse soil, and
the EC of the soil was reduced to about 60% (Cho et al.
2009). The chloride’s ionic mobility is 1.5 times that of
sodium, implying that chloride is removed more quickly
than sodium. Since the majority of the salts in tidelands
are found in silty clays, EKT is the preferred method for
separating salts such as chloride and sodium from such
soils (Kim et al. 2010).
Large-scale trial test on roughly one cubic meter of
salt-contaminated soil containing more than 15000 ppm
NaCl resulted in soil remediation to a level of less than
300 ppm of NaCl in just 4 days. The cathode material
consisted of steel metal grating that supported the weight
of the earth and the anodes were carbon electrodes placed
on top of the substance. Removal of liquid from the top
and bottom made contaminant removal easier (Mclenehan
and Holms 2016).
Page 11 of 15 781
Salts from drilling mud
Drilling mud is frequently polluted with salt in locations
where oil or gas drilling is frequent and must be disposed
of properly. Electrokinetic laboratory tests on drilling mud
revealed that the procedure may be used on media other than
soil. In just 12 hours, pollutant concentrations in dirt con-
taining 10,000 ppm NaCl reduced to less than 1000 ppm. A
bigger size field trial on drilling mud is carried out after suc-
cessful laboratory studies. At the beginning of the process, a
carbon-based electrode served as the anode, a steel electrode
served as the cathode, and water served as the electrolyte.
A mud tank at a drilling location in Southern Saskatchewan
filled with salt-contaminated muck from drilling operations
is constructed at the site. A DC delivered to an array of
anode and cathode wells in the mud tank for 8 hours of about
500 Watts of power indicated that the extraction rates from
the mud in the field scale trial are identical to the laboratory
results. Extraction rates vary depending on the amount of
contaminated material present, the type of contamination,
and the stage of the process (Mclenehan and Holms 2016).
The extraction rate is directly influenced by the spacing
of electrodes and the composition of the electrolyte. In non-
optimized conditions, recent testing showed chloride extrac-
tion rates of 1100- 1400 mg/L per hour and salt extraction
rates of 3500- 5700 mg/L per hour. This technology has
mainly been used to remove salt from drilling mud used in
oil and gas operations or other drilling activities.
Conclusions
The electrokinetic remediation technique can be used as an
in situ and ex situ remediation process. However, in situ is
more effective and consumes less energy as the soil is less
disturbed. This technique is applicable for a wide range
of contaminants including metallic and non-metallic by
the induced flux, especially in low-permeable soils. The
following conclusions are drawn from this critical review:
• Electrokinetic remediation aids in decontamination by
processes such as electro-osmotic advection of pore
fluid flushing the contaminants, electromigration or
ionic migration of contaminants carrying charges, and
electrophoresis of charged colloidal-sized particles car-
rying contaminants. The efficiency of the EKT technique
reduces with an increase in cation exchange capacity.
• EKT is quite successful in treating fine-grained clays,
silty clays with moderate plasticity, and fine sandy soils.
Soils devoid of high absorption and high cation exchange
capacities are effective, whereas those with high buffer-
ing capacity or high carbonate buffers do not respond to
EKT.
13
781 Page 12 of 15
• The soil moisture content affects the removal efficiency
which is dependent on the electrical conductivity of pore
fluid and path length through the soil specimen. Sev-
eral enhancement strategies adopted to control soil pH
include the use of acidic minerals at the cathode region
to decrease the pH level, restriction of ­H+ and O ­ H- ions
by providing the ion exchange membrane between the
soil and electrode, and chelating agents to form soluble
conditions for different pH values.
• The voltage and current required for EKT treatment
depend on the contaminant type, electrode spacing,
chemical composition, and processing duration. The
electrode configuration affects the treatment area, and
generally, the effective area for 2D configuration is larger
than 1D configuration.
• The dewatering rate is mainly affected by electrode
material, and inert electrodes such as graphite, coated
platinum, and titanium are preferred to resist corrosion
at the anode. There are significant costs associated with
the installation of electrodes and fabrication, electric cur-
rent, enhancing agents if added, any necessary follow-up
treatment, and fixed expenses/costs.
• The electrokinetic treatment is also very effective in
increasing the shear strength of soft clay while causing
minimum disturbance to the existing soil structure. This
mechanism is more significant when the ion concentra-
tion outside the electrical double layer is low.
• Organic, as well as inorganic contaminants, can be
treated using EKT. The accumulation of heavy metals
in the pH jumping zone becomes the limiting factor for
the extraction of heavy metals from the soil during elec-
trokinetic remediation. Methods such as the approaching
anode electrokinetic remediation are available to over-
come or control this process by enhancing the mobility
of heavy metals.
• Among the organic contaminants, removal of low-solu-
ble organics is not efficient using EKT alone. Extensive
studies are required to be conducted in the area of low-
soluble organics by the method of EKT.
Acknowledgments  The authors would like to thank the Researchers
Supporting Project number (RSP-2021/279), King Saud University,
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia for funding. The authors thank the reviewers for
their constructive comments which helped the cause of the manuscript.
Author contributions  Arif Ali Baig Moghal was involved in the concep-
tion of the idea for the article; Nuruddin Mohammad, Arif Ali Baig
Moghal, and Romana Mariyam Rasheed contributed to the review of
literature for preparing the paper; Nuruddin Mohammad, Arif Ali Baig
Moghal, Romana Mariyam Rasheed, and Abdullah Almajed drafted and
critically revised the work.
13
Arab J Geosci (2022) 15: 781
Funding  This project was financially supported by the Researchers
Supporting Project number (RSP-2021/279), King Saud University,
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Declarations 
Conflict of interest  The authors declare that they have no competing
interests.
References
Abdullah WS, Al-Abadi AM (2010) Cationic–electrokinetic improve-
ment of expansive soil. Appl Clay Sci 47:343–350. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/​
10.​1016/j.​clay.​2009.​11.​046
Acar YB, Alshawabkeh AN (1993) Principles of electrokinetic reme-
diation. Environ Sci Technol 27:2638–2647. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1021/​es000​49a002
Acar YB, Gale RJ (1994) Fundamental aspects of electrokinetic reme-
diation of soils. Waste Manag 14:340–341. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/​0956-​053X(94)​90098-1
Acar YB, Alshawabkeh AN, Gale RJ (1993) Fundamentals of extract-
ing species from soils by electrokinetics. Waste Manag 13:141–
151. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​0956-​053X(93)​90006-I
Acar YB, Gale RJ, Alshawabkeh AN et al (1995) Electrokinetic reme-
diation: Basics and technology status. J Hazard Mater 40:117–
137. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​0304-​3894(94)​00066-p
Alcántara MT, Gómez J, Pazos M, Sanromán MA (2010) Electroki-
netic remediation of PAH mixtures from kaolin. J Hazard Mater
179:1156–1160. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jhazm​at.​2010.​03.​010
Alshawabkeh AN (2009) Electrokinetic Soil Remediation: Challenges
and Opportunities. Sep Sci Technol 44:2171–2187. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1080/​01496​39090​29766​81
Alshawabkeh AN, Bricka RM (2001) Basics and Applications of Elec-
trokinetic Remediation. In: Wise D, Trantolo D, Cichon EJ et al
(eds) Remediation Engineering of Contaminated Soils. Marcel
Dekker, Inc, New York, pp 95–111
Alshawabkeh AN, Gale RJ, Ozsu-Acar E, Bricka RM (1999a) Optimi-
zation of 2-D Electrode Configuration for Electrokinetic Reme-
diation. J Soil Contam 8:617–635. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​10588​
33999​13395​04
Alshawabkeh AN, Yeung AT, Bricka MR (1999b) Practical Aspects
of In-Situ Electrokinetic Extraction. J Environ Eng 125:27–35.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1061/​(ASCE)​0733-​9372(1999)​125:​1(27)
Barker JE, Rogers CDF, Boardman DI, Peterson J (2004) Electroki-
netic stabilization: an overview and case study. Proc Inst Civ Eng-
Ground Improv 8:47–58. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1680/​grim.​2004.8.​2.​
47
Bhagure GR, Mirgane SR (2011) Heavy metal concentrations in
groundwaters and soils of Thane Region of Maharashtra, India.
Environ Monit Assess 173:643–652. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s10661-​010-​1412-9
Bruell CJ, Segall BA, Walsh MT (1992) Electroosomotic Removal
of Gasoline Hydrocarbons and TCE From Clay. J Environ Eng
118(1):68–83. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1061/​(ASCE)​0733-​9372(1992)​
118:​1(68)
Bustos E (2014) Electrokinetics in the Removal of Hydrocarbons from
Soils. In: Kreysa G, Ota K, Savinell RF (eds) Encyclopedia of
Applied Electrochemistry. Springer, New York. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1007/​978-1-​4419-​6996-5_​84
Cameselle C (2014) Electrokinetics in the Removal of Chlorinated
Organics from Soils. In: Kreysa G, Ota K, Savinell RF (eds)
Encyclopedia of Applied Electrochemistry. Springer, New York.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​978-1-​4419-​6996-5_​86
Arab J Geosci (2022) 15: 781
Cameselle C, Gouveia S (2018) Electrokinetic remediation for the
removal of organic contaminants in soils. Curr Opin Electro-
chem 11:41–47. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​coelec.​2018.​07.​005
Cameselle C, Gouveia S, Eddine D, Belhadj B (2013) Advances in
electrokinetic remediation for the removal of organic contami-
nants in soils. In: Rashed MN (ed) Organic pollutants - moni-
toring, risk and treatment. IntechOpen, pp 209–229. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​5772/​54334
Castelo-Grande T, Augusto PA, Monteiro P et al (2010) Remediation
of soils contaminated with pesticides: A review. Int J Environ
Anal Chem 90:438–467. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​03067​31090​
33741​52
Chang JH, Qiang Z, Huang CP (2006) Remediation and stimulation of
selected chlorinated organic solvents in unsaturated soil by a spe-
cific enhanced electrokinetics. Colloids Surf A Physicochem Eng
Asp 287:86–93. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​colsu​rfa.​2006.​03.​039
Chien SC, Ou CY, Wang MK (2009) Injection of saline solutions to
improve the electro-osmotic pressure and consolidation of foun-
dation soil. Appl Clay Sci 44:218–224. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
clay.​2009.​02.​006
Cho JM, Kim KJ, Chung KY et al (2009) Restoration of Saline Soil in
Cultivated Land Using Electrokinetic Process. Sep Sci Technol
44:2371–2384. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​01496​39090​29837​29
Darmawan, Wada SI (2002) Effect of clay mineralogy on the feasibil-
ity of electrokinetic soil decontamination technology. Appl Clay
Sci 20:283–293. https://​doi.o​ rg/​10.1​ 016/​S0169-1​ 317(01)​00080-1
Demir A, Pamukcu S, Shrestha RA (2015) Simultaneous Removal of
Pb, Cd, and Zn from Heavily Contaminated Mine Tailing Soil
Using Enhanced Electrochemical Process. Environ Eng Sci
32:416–424. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1089/​ees.​2014.​0384
Eykholt GR, Daniel DE (1994) Impact of System Chemistry on Elec-
troosmosis in Contaminated Soil. J Geotech Eng 120:797–815.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1061/​(ASCE)​0733-​9410(1994)​120:​5(797)
Fernández Rodríguez MD, García Gómez MC, Alonso Blazquez N,
Tarazona JV (2014) Soil Pollution Remediation. In: Wexler P (ed)
Encyclopedia of Toxicology, 3rd edn. Academic Press, Oxford, pp
344–355. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​B978-0-​12-​386454-​3.​00579-0
Gandhi M, Moghal AAB, Rasheed RM, Almajed A (2022) State-
of-the-art review on geoenvironmental benign applicability of
biopiles. Innov Infrastruct Solut 7:166. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s41062-​022-​00774-3
Gomes HI, Dias-Ferreira C, Ribeiro AB (2012) Electrokinetic reme-
diation of organochlorines in soil: Enhancement techniques and
integration with other remediation technologies. Chemosphere
87:1077–1090. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​chemo​sphere.​2012.​02.​
037
Hamed J, Acar YB, Gale RJ (1991) Pb (II) Removal from Kaolinite by
Electrokinetics. J Geotech Eng 117:241–271. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1061/​(ASCE)​0733-​9410(1991)​117:​2(241)
Hansen HK, Rojo A, Ottosen LM (2007) Electrokinetic remediation
of copper mine tailings. Electrochim Acta 52:3355–3359. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​elect​acta.​2006.​02.​069
Hansen HK, Ottosen LM, Ribeiro AB (2016) Electrokinetic Soil
Remediation: An Overview. In: Ribeiro A, Mateus E, Couto N
(eds) Electrokinetics Across Disciplines and Continents. Springer,
Cham. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​978-3-​319-​20179-5_1
Hicks RE, Tondorft S (1994) Electrorestoration of Metal Contami-
nated Soils. Environ Sci Technol 28:2203–2210. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1021/​es000​61a032
Jackman SA, Maini G, Sharman AK et al (2001) Electrokinetic move-
ment and biodegradation of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid in
silt soil. Biotechnol Bioeng 74:40–48. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​
bit.​1093
Jayasekera SJ (2008) An investigation into the modification of the engi-
neering properties of salt-affected soils using electrokinetics. Dis-
sertation, University of Ballarat
Page 13 of 15 781
Ji W, Parameswarappa Jayalakshmamma M, Abou Khalil C et al (2020)
Removal of hydrocarbon from soils possessing macro-heteroge-
neities using electrokinetics and surfactants. Chem Eng J Adv
4:100030. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ceja.​2020.​100030
Jia X, Larson DL, Zimmt WS (2006) Effective Nitrate Control with
Electrokinetics in Sandy Soil. Trans ASABE 49:803–809. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​13031/​2013.​20463
Karaca O, Cameselle C, Reddy KR (2016) Electrokinetic Removal of
Heavy Metals from Mine Tailings and Acid Lake Sediments from
Can Basin, Turkey. In: In: Geo-Chicago 2016. American Society
of Civil Engineers, Chicago, pp 225–234. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 061/​
97807​84480​168.​023
Keykha HA, Huat BBK, Asadi A (2014) Electrokinetic Stabilization of
Soft Soil Using Carbonate-Producing Bacteria. Geotech Geol Eng
32:739–747. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10706-​014-​9753-8
Kim SS, Han SJ, Cho YS (2002) Electrokinetic remediation strategy
considering ground strata: A review. Geosci J 6:57–75. https://d​ oi.​
org/​10.​1007/​BF029​11336
Kim KJ, Cho JM, Baek K et al (2010) Electrokinetic removal of chlo-
ride and sodium from tidelands. J Appl Electrochem 40:1139–
1144. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10800-​010-​0082-1
Kim DH, Jo SU, Choi JH et al (2012) Hexagonal two-dimensional
electrokinetic systems for restoration of saline agricultural lands:
A pilot study. Chem Eng J 198–199:110–121. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​cej.​2012.​05.​076
Kim WS, Jeon EK, Jung JM et al (2014) Field application of electroki-
netic remediation for multi-metal contaminated paddy soil using
two-dimensional electrode configuration. Environ Sci Pollut Res
21:4482–4491. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11356-​013-​2424-0
Kirtland BC, Aelion CM (2000) Petroleum mass removal from low
permeability sediment using air sparging/soil vapor extraction:
impact of continuous or pulsed operation. J Contam Hydrol 41(3-
4):367–383. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0169-​7722(99)​00071-6
Kotresha K, Mohammed SAS, Sanaulla PF et al (2021) Evaluation
of Sequential Extraction Procedure (SEP) to Validate Binding
Mechanisms in Soils and Soil-Nano-Calcium Silicate (SNCS)
Mixtures. Indian Geotech J 51:1069–1077. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1007/​s40098-​020-​00464-w
Kovalick WW (2002) Perspectives on innovative characterization and
remediation technologies for contaminated sites. In: Vujic J (ed)
Proceedings of the first international conference on environmental
recovery of Yugoslavia, pp 457–464. https://​inis.​iaea.​org/​search/​
search.​aspx?​orig_q=​RN:​34047​657. Accessed 17 March 2022
Lageman R, Clarke RL, Pool W (2005) Electro-reclamation, a versatile
soil remediation solution. Eng Geol 77:191–201. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​enggeo.​2004.​07.​010
Lee YJ, Han H, Kim SH, Yang JW (2009) Combination of Electro-
kinetic Separation and Electrochemical Oxidation for Acid Dye
Removal from Soil. Sep Sci Technol 44:2455–2469. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1080/​01496​39090​29838​02
Li Z, Yu JW, Neretnieks I (1996) A new approach to electrokinetic
remediation of soils polluted by heavy metals. J Contam Hydrol
22:241–253. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​0169-​7722(95)​00093-3
Lo KY, Micic S, Shang JQ, Lee YN, Lee SW (2000) Electrokinetic
strengthening of a soft marine sediment. Int J Offshore Polar Eng
10:137. https://​onepe​tro.​org/​IJOPE/​artic​le-​abstr​act/​35486/​Elect​
rokin​etic-​Stren​gthen​ing-​of-a-​Soft-​Marine?​redir​ected​From=​fullt​
ext. Accessed 17 Mar 2022
Lu X, Yuan S (2009) Electrokinetic Removal of Chlorinated Organic
Compounds. In: Reddy KR, Cameselle C (eds) Electrochemi-
cal Remediation Technologies for Polluted Soils, Sediments and
Groundwater. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, pp 219–234.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​97804​70523​650.​ch10
Mahalleh HAM, Siavoshnia M, Yazdi M (2021) Effects of electroos-
mosis on the properties of high plasticity clay soil: Chemical and
13
781 Page 14 of 15
geotechnical investigations. J Electroanal Chem 880:114890.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jelec​hem.​2020.​114890
Maïga Yaleu SB, Hahiou AD, Guel B (2020) Assessment of Surface
Water Contamination by Heavy Metals Due to Agricultural
Practices in the Northern Part of Burkina Faso. Int Res J Pure
Appl Chem 21:85–98. https://​doi.​org/​10.​9734/​irjpac/​2020/​v21i1​
030211
Malekzadeh M, Lovisa J, Sivakugan N (2016) An Overview of Elec-
trokinetic Consolidation of Soils. Geotech Geol Eng 34:759–
776. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10706-​016-​0002-1
Manda TJ, Tao Y, Zhou J et al (2021) Investigation of Soil Con-
solidation for The Combined Technique of Electro-osmosis and
Preloading. Int J Eng Res Appl 11:12–27. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
9790/​9622-​11050​31227
Manokararajah K, Sri Ranjan R (2005) Electrokinetic retention,
migration, and remediation of nitrates in silty loam soil under
hydraulic gradients. Eng Geol 77:263–272. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​enggeo.​2004.​07.​017
Mclenehan KJ, Holms MR (2016) Electrokinetic soil remedia-
tion. World Intellectual Property Organization, Alberta, p WO
2016/086287 A1
Micic S (1998) Electrokinetic strengthening soft marine sediments.
Dissertation, The University of Western Ontario
Micic S, Shang JQ, Lo KY et al (2001) Electrokinetic strengthening
of marine sediment using intermittent current. Can Geotech J
38:287–302. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1139/​t00-​098
Micic S, Shang J, Lo K (2003) Electrokinetic strengthening of soil
surrounding offshore skirted foundations. In: Proceedings of
Annual International Ocean (Offshore) and Polar Engineering
Conference (ISOPE) (vol 1, p 180). https://​onepe​tro.​org/​ISOPE​
IOPEC/​proce​edings-​abstr​act/​ISOPE​03/​All-​ISOPE​03/​ISOPE-I-​
03-​180/​8535. Accessed 17 March 2022
Moghal AAB, Vydehi KV (2021) State-of-the-art review on the effi-
cacy of xanthan gum and guar gum inclusion on the engineering
behavior of soils. Innov Infrastruct Solut 6:108. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1007/​s41062-​021-​00462-8
Moghal AAB, Lateef MA, Abu Sayeed Mohammed S et al (2020a)
Heavy Metal Immobilization Studies and Enhancement in Geo-
technical Properties of Cohesive Soils by EICP Technique. Appl
Sci 10:7568. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​app10​217568
Moghal AAB, Lateef MA, Mohammed SAS et al (2020b) Efficacy of
Enzymatically Induced Calcium Carbonate Precipitation in the
Retention of Heavy Metal Ions. Sustainability 12:7019. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​3390/​su121​77019
Moghal AAB, Ashfaq M, Al-Shamrani MA, Al-Mahbashi A (2020c)
Effect of heavy metal contamination on the compressibility and
strength characteristics of chemically modified semiarid soils. J
Hazard Toxic Radioact Waste 24(4):04020029. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1061/​(ASCE)​HZ.​2153-​5515.​00005​27
Moghal AAB, Mohammed SAS, Almajed A, Al-Shamrani MA
(2020d) Desorption of Heavy Metals from Lime-Stabilized
Arid-Soils using Different Extractants. Int J Civ Eng 18:449–
461. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s40999-​019-​00453-y
Mohamedelhassan E (2011) Laboratory Model Test on Improving
the Properties of Soft Clay by Electrokinetics. ISRN Civ Eng
2011:1–14. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5402/​2011/​560834
Mohamedelhassan E, Shang JQ (2001) Effects of electrode materials
and current intermittence in electro-osmosis. Proc Inst Civ Eng-
Ground Improv 5:3–11. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1680/​grim.​2001.5.​1.3
Mohammed SAS, Moghal AAB (2016) Efficacy of nano calcium
silicate (NCS) treatment on tropical soils in encapsulating heavy
metal ions: leaching studies validation. Innov Infrastruct Solut
1:21. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s41062-​016-​0024-9
Mohammed SAS, Sanaulla PF, Moghal AAB (2016) Sustainable
Use of Locally Available Red Earth and Black Cotton Soils
13
Arab J Geosci (2022) 15: 781
in Retaining C ­ d2+ and N ­ i2+ from Aqueous Solutions. Int J Civ
Eng 14:491–505. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s40999-​016-​0052-z
Mosavat N, Oh E, Chai G (2012) A Review of Electrokinetic Treat-
ment Technique for Improving the Engineering Characteristics
of Low Permeable Problematic Soils. Int J Geomate 2:266–272.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​21660/​2012.4.​3i
Mutter GM, Kariem NO, Howel LH (2014) Lead removal from the
contaminated soil by electro-kinetic remediation. Aust J Basic
Appl Sci 8:67–76. http://​www.​ajbas​web.​com/​old/​ajbas/​2014/​
Septe​mber/​67-​76.​pdf
Ottosen LM (2014) Electrokinetics in the Removal of Metal Ions from
Soils. In: Kreysa G, Ota K, Savinell RF (eds) Encyclopedia of
Applied Electrochemistry. Springer, New York. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1007/​978-1-​4419-​6996-5_​87
Ottosen LM, Hansen HK, Jensen PE (2009) Electrokinetic Removal of
Heavy Metals. In: Reddy KR, Cameselle C (eds) Electrochemi-
cal Remediation Technologies for Polluted Soils, Sediments and
Groundwater. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Hoboken, pp 95–126.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​97804​70523​650.​ch4
Pamukcu S, Wittle JK (1992) Electrokinetic removal of selected heavy
metals from soil. Environ Prog 11:241–250. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1002/​ep.​67011​0323
Panagos P, Van Liedekerke M, Yigini Y, Montanarella L (2013) Con-
taminated Sites in Europe: Review of the Current Situation Based
on Data Collected through a European Network. J Environ Public
Health 2013:1–11. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1155/​2013/​158764
Parameswarappa Jayalakshmamma M, Ji W, Khalil CA et al (2021)
Removal of hydrocarbons from heterogeneous soil using electro-
kinetics and surfactants. Environ Chall 4:100071. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​envc.​2021.​100071
Park SJ, Seo MK (2011) Intermolecular Force. In: Park SJ, Seo MK
(eds) Interface Science and Composites. Elsevier, Amsterdam,
pp 1–57. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​B978-0-​12-​375049-​5.​00001-3
Park JY, Kim SJ, Lee YJ et al (2005) EK-Fenton process for removal of
phenanthrene in a two-dimensional soil system. Eng Geol 77:217–
224. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​enggeo.​2004.​07.​012
Pazos M, Sanromán MA, Cameselle C (2006) Improvement in electro-
kinetic remediation of heavy metal spiked kaolin with the polarity
exchange technique. Chemosphere 62:817–822. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.​
1016/j.​chemo​sphere.​2005.​04.​071
Probstein RF, Hicks RE (1993) Removal of Contaminants from Soils
by Electric Fields. Science 260:498–503. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1126/​
scien​ce.​260.​5107.​498
Proshad R, Kormoker T, Mursheed N et al (2018) Heavy metal toxicity
in agricultural soil due to rapid industrialization in Bangladesh: a
review. Int J Adv Geosci 6:83–88. https://​doi.​org/​10.​14419/​ijag.​
v6i1.​9174
Reddy KR, Cameselle C (2009) Overview of Electrochemical Reme-
diation Technologies. In: Reddy KR, Cameselle C (eds) Electro-
chemical Remediation Technologies for Polluted Soils, Sediments
and Groundwater. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, pp 1–28.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​97804​70523​650.​ch1
Reddy KR, Chinthamreddy S (2003) Sequentially Enhanced Electro-
kinetic Remediation of Heavy Metals in Low Buffering Clayey
Soils. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 129:263–277. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1061/​(ASCE)​1090-​0241(2003)​129:​3(263)
Reddy KR, Saichek RE (2003) Effect of Soil Type on Electrokinetic
Removal of Phenanthrene Using Surfactants and Cosolvents. J
Environ Eng 129:336–346. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1061/​(ASCE)​0733-​
9372(2003)​129:​4(336)
Revil A, Glover PWJ (1997) Theory of ionic-surface electrical conduc-
tion in porous media. Phys Rev B 55:1757–1773. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1103/​PhysR​evB.​55.​1757
Ribeiro AB, Rodríguez-Maroto JM, Mateus EP, Gomes H (2005)
Removal of organic contaminants from soils by an electrokinetic
Arab J Geosci (2022) 15: 781
process: the case of atrazine. Chemosphere 59:1229–1239. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​chemo​sphere.​2004.​11.​054
Rittirong A, Shang JQ, Mohamedelhassan E et al (2008) Effects of
Electrode Configuration on Electrokinetic Stabilization for Cais-
son Anchors in Calcareous Sand. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
134:352–365. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1061/​(ASCE)​1090-​0241(2008)​
134:​3(352)
Saichek RE, Reddy KR (2005) Electrokinetically Enhanced Remedia-
tion of Hydrophobic Organic Compounds in Soils: A Review. Crit
Rev Environ Sci Technol 35:115–192. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​
10643​38059​09002​37
Santos EVD, Medeiros MO, Anjos ASDD et al (2014) Application of
electrochemical technologies to treat polluted soil by diesel. Chem
Eng Trans 41:157–162. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3303/​CET14​41027
Senevirathna STMLD, Mahinroosta R, Li M, KrishnaPillai K (2021)
In situ soil flushing to remediate confined soil contaminated with
PFOS- an innovative solution for emerging environmental issue.
Chemosphere 262:127606. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.c​ hemos​ phere.​
2020.​127606
Shenbagavalli S, Mahimairaja S (2010) Electrokinetic remediation
of contaminated habitats. Afr J Environ Sci Technol 4:930–935.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​5897/​AJEST.​90000​41
Sims RC (1990) Soil Remediation Techniques at Uncontrolled Hazard-
ous Waste Sites. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 40:704–732. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1080/​10473​289.​1990.​10466​716
Virkutyte J, Sillanpaa M, Latostenmaa P (2002) Electrokinetic soil
remediation - critical overview. Sci Total Environ 289:97–121.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​s0048-​9697(01)​01027-0
Wahab A, Embong Z, Ahmad Tajudin SA et  al (2021) The elec-
trokinetic stabilization (EKS) impact on soft soil (peat)
Page 15 of 15 781
stability towards its physical, mechanical, and dynamic properties
at Johor state, Peninsular Malaysia. Phys Chem Earth Parts ABC
123:103028. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​pce.​2021.​103028
Weng CH, Yuan C, Tu HH (2003) Removal of Trichloroethylene from
Clay Soil by Series-Electrokinetic Process. Pract Period Hazard
Toxic Radioact Waste Manag 7:25–30. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1061/​
(ASCE)​1090-​025X(2003)7:​1(25)
Yang JW, Lee YJ (2009) Electrokinetic Removal of PAHs. In: Reddy
KR, Cameselle C (eds) Electrochemical Remediation Technolo-
gies for Polluted Soils, Sediments and Groundwater. John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., Hoboken, pp 195–217. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​97804​
70523​650.​ch9
Yang GCC, Liu CY (2001) Remediation of TCE contaminated soils by
in situ EK-Fenton process. J Hazard Mater 85:317–331. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0304-​3894(01)​00288-6
Yang GCC, Yeh CF (2011) Enhanced nano-Fe3O4/S2O82−oxidation
of trichloroethylene in a clayey soil by electrokinetics. Sep Purif
Technol 79:264–271. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​seppur.​2011.​03.​
003
Yeung AT (2006) Contaminant Extractability by Electrokinetics. Envi-
ron Eng Sci 23:202–224. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 089/e​ es.2​ 006.2​ 3.2​ 02
Yusni EM, Tanaka S (2015) Removal behavior of a thiazine, an azo,
and a triarylmethane dyes from polluted kaolinitic soil using elec-
trokinetic remediation technology. Electrochim Acta 181:130–
138. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​elect​acta.​2015.​06.​153
Zalidis G, Stamatiadis S, Takavakoglou V et al (2002) Impacts of agri-
cultural practices on soil and water quality in the Mediterranean
region and proposed assessment methodology. Agric Ecosyst
Environ 88:137–146. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0167-​8809(01)​
00249-3
13