Todd Martin is the lead author of two recent publications in Wiley Periodicals’ Remediation Journal. The articles explore the application of in situ treatment technologies for remediation of metals in soils. Abstracts for these articles are provided below.
In Situ Remediation of Arsenic in Contaminated Soils Remediation Journal, Winter 2003;(14)1:21-32. T. Martin and Michael V. Ruby
Click here for article
Abstract
In situ chemical fixation represents a promising and potentially cost-effective treatment alternative for metal-contaminated soils. This article presents the findings of the use of iron-bearing soil amendments to reduce the leachability and bioaccessibility of arsenic in soils impacted by stack fallout from a zinc smelter. The focus of this investigation was to reduce the lead bioaccessibility of the soils through addition with phosphorus-bearing amendments. However, as phosphorus addition was expected to increase arsenic mobility, the fixation strategy also incorporated use of iron-bearing amendments to offset or reverse these effects. The findings of this investigation demonstrated that inclusion of iron-bearing chemicals in the amendment formulation reduced arsenic leachability and bioaccessibility without compromising amendment effectiveness for reducing lead bioaccessibility. These results suggest that in situ chemical fixation has the potential to be an effective strategy for treatment of the impacted soils.
Review of In-Situ Remediation Technologies for Lead, Zinc, and Cadmium in Soil
Remediation Journal Summer, 2004;(14)3:35-53. T. Martin and Michael V. Ruby
Click here for article
Abstract
This article presents a review of in situ technologies for the remediation of soils contaminated with lead, zinc, and/or cadmium. The objective of this review is to assess the developmental status of the available in situ technologies, and to provide a general summary of typical applications and limitations of these technologies. The literature review identified seven in situ remediation technologies—solidification/stabilization, vitrification, electrokinetic remediation, soil flushing, phytoextraction, phytostabilization, and chemical stabilization. These technologies were considered for their ability to meet a specific set of remediation objectives under a range of conditions. Each of these technologies has both strengths and weaknesses for addressing particular remedial situations, and this issue is discussed for each of the technologies. A general summary of which technologies are most applicable to common remedial scenarios is also provided.