RESEARCH ARTICLE

Environmental assessment on electrokinetic remediationof multimetal-contaminated site: a case study

Do-Hyung Kim & Jong-Chan Yoo & Bo-Ram Hwang &

Jung-Seok Yang & Kitae Baek

Received: 4 December 2013 /Accepted: 23 January 2014 /Published online: 11 February 2014# Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Abstract In this study, an environmental assessment on anelectrokinetic (EK) system for the remediation of a multimetal-contaminated real site was conducted using a green and sus-tainable remediation (GSR) tool. The entire EK process wasclassified into major four phases consisting of remedial inves-tigations (RIs), remedial action construction (RAC), remedialaction operation (RAO), and long-term monitoring (LTM) forenvironmental assessment. The environmental footprints, in-cluding greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, total energy used,air emissions of criteria pollutants, such as NOx, SOx, andPM10, and water consumption, were calculated, and the rela-tive contribution in each phase was analyzed in the environ-mental assessment. In the RAC phase, the relative contributionof the GHG emissions, total energy used, and PM10 emissionswere 77.3, 67.6, and 70.4 %, respectively, which were higherthan those of the other phases because the material consump-tion and equipment used for system construction were high. Inthe RAO phase, the relative contributions of water consump-tion and NOx and SOx emissions were 94.7, 85.2, and 91.0 %,respectively, which were higher than those of the other phases,

because the water and electricity consumption required forsystem operation was high. In the RIs and LTM phases, theenvironmental footprints were negligible because the materialand energy consumption was less. In conclusion, the consum-able materials and electrical energy consumptionmight be veryimportant for GSR in the EK remediation process, because theproduction of consumable materials and electrical energy con-sumption highly affects the GHG emissions, total energy used,and air emissions such as NOx and SOx.

Keywords Environmental assessment . Electrokineticremediation .Multimetal-contaminated site . Green andsustainable remediation

Introduction

The rapid industrial development which has taken place overthe past few decades has caused many sites in Korea to becomecontaminated. Because of the serious effect that these sites haveon human health and ecosystems, it is necessary to remediate orclean them up in order to reduce this risk. Therefore, the KoreanMinistry of Environment (MOE) established the Soil Environ-ment Conservation Act (SECA) in 1995 to protect soil qualityand regulate hazardous pollutants (MOE 1995). The KoreanMOE reported that a total of 434 contaminated sites wereremediated during the period of 2000–2006 (MOE 2007). Inthe first 10 years, most remediation activities were carried outfor the purpose of cleaning up petroleum-contaminated sites.However, the proportion of metal-contaminated sites has in-creased gradually since 2006, and the Korean standard methodfor metal was revised based on the total content extracted byaqua regia in 2009. Tomeet the requirements posed by this newregulation level, that is, to reduce the total content of metals inthe soil, separation techniques such as soil washing and elec-trokinetic remediation have been applied to remove the metalsfrom the soil. Even though soil washing is a common choice formetal-contaminated sites in Korea, several researchers have

Responsible editor: Philippe Garrigues

D.<H. KimDepartment of Civil and Environmental Sciences, Korea ArmyAcademy at Yeong-Cheon, 495 Hoguk-ro, Gogyeong-meyon,Yeongcheon-si, Gyeongbuk 770-849, Republic of Korea

J.<C. Yoo :B.<R. Hwang :K. Baek (*)Department of Environmental Engineering, Chonbuk NationalUniversity, 567 Baekje-daero, Deokjin-gu, Jeonju,Jeollabuk-do 561-756, Republic of Koreae-mail: kbaek@jbnu.ac.kr

J.<S. YangKorea Institute of Science and Technology (KIST), GangneungInstitute, Gangneung, Ganwon-do 210-340, Republic of Korea

K. BaekDepartment of Bioactive Material Sciences, Chonbuk NationalUniversity, 567 Baekje-daero, Deokjin-gu, Jeonju,Jeollabuk-do 561-756, Republic of Korea

Environ Sci Pollut Res (2014) 21:6751–6758DOI 10.1007/s11356-014-2597-1

focused on the removal of various pollutants using electroki-netic remediation for contaminated sites, as laboratory and pilotscale and field applications (Acar et al. 1995; Amrate et al.2005; Cho et al. 2009; Cho et al. 2010; Gent et al. 2004; Kimet al. 2013a; Kim et al. 2011; Kim et al. 2009; Kim et al. 2012;Kim et al. 2013c; Lee et al. 2011; Ryu et al. 2010; Zhou et al.2006). Even though the electrokinetic (EK) technique canremove heavy metals from the soil, this remedial activity mightnegatively affect the environment. For instance, the processconsumes electrical energy during system operation, and elec-trode materials and enhancing chemicals are generally used forsystem installation and operation. The production of materials/chemicals, generation of electrical energy, and consumption ofnatural resources causes the discharge of toxic gases and envi-ronmental pollutants. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate theenvironmental net footprint of these remediation techniques.

The technical, environmental, and economic parametersshould be comprehensively considered for the selection ofthe remediation actions of the contaminated sites (Lemming2010). However, so far in Korea, remediation projects havebeen carried out to meet the regulation levels within limitedcosts without consideration of the environmental impactsduring these activities. Nowadays, climate change and theenergy crisis have spurred a great deal of interest in greenand sustainable remediation (GSR), which achieves cleanupwhile minimizing the emissions (USEPA 2008a, b). Environ-mental assessment is a technique to evaluate the environmen-tal footprints and benefits during remediation activity basedon life-cycle assessment (LCA), which is well known for thequantitative analysis of the environmental impacts of a prod-uct or process through its whole life cycle (Lemming et al.2010a; Morais and Delerue-Matos 2010; Suèr et al. 2004).Several researchers made an environmental assessment ofremediation technologies using LCA, focusing on organicpollutants (Bayer and Finkel 2006; Cadotte et al. 2007;Harbottle et al. 2007; Higgins and Olson 2009; Hu et al.2011; Lemming et al. 2010b; Sanscartier et al. 2010; Suerand Andersson-Sköld 2011; Toffoletto et al. 2005; Volkweinet al. 1999) and heavy metals (Page et al. 1999). Volkweinet al. (1999) reported an environmental assessment of the on-site remediation for a PAHs contaminated site using LCA.Cadotte et al. (2007) conducted an environmental assessmenton several remedial options such as bioslurping, bioventing,and biosparging for the cleanup of a petroleum-contaminatedsite including light nonaqueous phase liquid, soil, and ground-water using LCA. Page et al. (1999) reported a case study onremediation options comparedwith excavation and landfill fora Pb-contaminated site using LCA. However, most studies onenvironmental assessment focused on the technology for or-ganic pollutants, while there have been fewer studies on thetechnology for heavy metals. Furthermore, environmentalassessment on electrokinetic remediation (EKR) has not beenaccomplished. In this study, a pilot EK system was applied to

remediate a multimetal-contaminated site, and we assessed theenvironmental impacts on the whole process of an EK systembased on the operational data using a GSR tool. The purposeof this research is to analyze the environmental footprint,calculate the relative contribution of each phase on the EKsystem at a multimetal-contaminated site, and to providestrategies for GSR based on the evaluation results.

Materials and methods

Description of a pilot scale electrokinetic remediation

The environmental assessment was conducted using an in situpilot scale EK treatment. Figure 1 shows a schematic of EKprocess used in this study. A system was installed situated at369 Jangam-ri within 1 km of the Janghang refinery plantapproximately 150 km from Seoul, South Korea. An in situEKR system to treat a multimetal-contaminated site wasinstalled as a pilot-scale system. The area of the site wasapproximately 60 m2 (6 m [W]×10 m [L]), and its volumewas 90 m3 (1.5 m [H]). The entire EK system consists ofmajor four parts for the electrode, electrolyte, circulation, andpower supply compartments. The detail description of pilotEK system in this study was summarized in Table 1. The totalduration for the EK system including site investigation andpreparation, system installation, operation, maintenance, mon-itoring, dismantlement, and site closure was approximately12 months, and the duration of the EK system used for theactual operation was approximately 11 months.

Cathode

Tank

Anode

Tank

Anode

Tank

Cathode

Tank

Inlet Pump

Outlet

9.6m

6.25m

Power supply &

Monitoring system

Circulation

AnodeCathode

Fig. 1 Schematic of electrokinetic remediation system

6752 Environ Sci Pollut Res (2014) 21:6751–6758

The site was highly contaminated with arsenic (As), copper(Cu), and lead (Pb), and especially, the concentration of Aswas approximately 150 mg/kg, which is six times higher thanthe regulatory level (25 mg/kg) in South Korea.

Environmental assessment

The environmental assessment was conducted on an EK pro-cess using a GSR tool including goal and scope definition,data collection and analysis, and output assessment afterconducting EK field application to a real site. Then, wesuggested strategies for GSR based on the evaluation results.In this study, we analyzed the environmental impacts of theremedial activities using activity-based SiteWise™ ver. 2 pro-gram. SiteWise™ is designed to evaluate remediation technol-ogy and to compare alternative technologies based on theirenvironmental footprints (Battle Memorial Institute 2011).For the analysis, the whole activity was separated into fourphases: remedial investigations (RIs); remedial action con-struction (RAC); remedial action operation (RAO), andlong-term monitoring (LTM). The total footprints were ana-lyzed by calculating the footprints of each phase separately.

Goal and scope definition

The goal of this studywas to assess the environmental impacts onan in situ EK process in the remediation of an As-, Cu-, and Pb-contaminated site and calculate the relative contribution for theenvironmental footprint of each phase in the entire EK process.

A functional unit is defined as a measure of the remedialactivities required to meet a certain reference level after theremediation (Volkwein et al. 1999). The functional unit in thisstudy, viz the average concentration of As, was approximately65 mg/kg after the EK application. Generally, soil pollutionlevel and the remediation time could affect the emission of theenvironmental footprint. In this study, the arsenic was reducedapproximately 65 % from the initial concentration (approxi-mately 150 mg/kg), and the remediation time is 12 months.

Figure 2 shows the overall procedure for environmentalassessment on the EK process. The entire EK process wascategorized into seven unit processes including transportationof personnel and/or equipment, site preparation, system instal-lation, operation, maintenance, monitoring, and dismantling,and the major materials such as steel and energy sources suchas electricity and diesel were arranged to limit the systemboundary for the environmental assessment (Fig. 2).

Data collection and analysis

The major materials and energy used in each unit process forthe analysis in the EK process are presented in Table 2. Theenergy and materials used in each unit process were calculatedbased on the data and information from a real field application.In this data collection and analysis, the unit process such as sitepreparation, system establishment, operation, and monitoringin the entire EK system was divided into four phases for theoutput assessment using SiteWise™ ver. 2 (Table 2.). The RIsphase includes the activity for site sampling and investigation.The RAC phase includes site preparation, establishment, clo-sure, and dismantling, which consists of the materials andinstallation for electrode/electric wire, power supply and datamonitoring, drainage system, etc. The RAO phase includes theactivity for system operation, monitoring, and maintenance.The LTM phase includes the activity for system monitoring.

Output assessment

Output assessment is employed to assess the potential envi-ronmental effects such as the environmental footprints withrespect to humans and the environment in this study. The lifecycle inventory (LCI) database used for the output assessmentis very important. In this study, the national LCI DB of SouthKorea was used as the database, including electricity, diesel,and major materials (MOE 2012). When specific data was notincluded in the LCI DB, the default values in the SiteWise™

ver. 2 program were used.

Table 1 The detail description ofpilot EK system in this study Contents Description

General Test site: 6 m (W)×10 m (L)×1.5 m (H)

Electrode Anode: a steel bar in polyvinyl chloride (PVC) casings

Cathode: a hollow stainless steel

Waste electrodes and PVC: recycling or disposal after EK treatment

Electrode configurations: parallel (24 m2), square (20 m2), hexagonal (16 m2)

Electrolyte Anolyte: NaOH, catholyte: EDTA, and the electrolytes were circulated using pumps during EKoperation

Waste electrolytes was treated after EK treatment

Power supply Potential gradient: 1 V/cm

Monitoring Current, soil temperature, and pH in electrolyte tanks

Sampling Twelve points of soil were sampled four times during the remediation at three different depths

Environ Sci Pollut Res (2014) 21:6751–6758 6753

In the SiteWise™ ver. 2 program, all data on the energy andmaterial consumption should be inputted, and then, all of theenvironmental footprints including GHG emissions, energy use,air emissions of criteria pollutants such as SOx, NOx, and PM10,and water and resource consumption were calculated based onthe inputted data by multiplying the emissions and the usageamount during a remedial action (Battle Memorial Institute2011). In the RIs phase, the environmental footprints werecalculated based on the fuel consumption of the vehicles and

equipment used for site characterization. In the RAC phase, theenvironmental footprints were calculated based on the energyand material consumption for EK system installation. In theRAO phase, the environmental footprints were calculated basedon the electricity, water and chemical usage for EK systemoperation, and fuel consumption of vehicles for the maintenanceof the EK process. In the LTM phase, the environmental foot-prints were calculated based on the electricity usage for theonline monitoring system of the EK process. In this study, the

Fig. 2 Overall procedure ofenvironmental assessment onelectrokinetic remediationprocess

Table 2 Materials and energy used for EK process

Phase Unit Process Activity Materials and energy used Inputs (unit)

RIs Site investigation and sampling Sampling Manual sampling equipment (liner): HDPE 1.39 (m2)

Transportation of personneland equipment

Vehicle (five times, 19.3 km, 10 km/1 L): diesel 38.6 (L)

RAC Site preparation, closure anddismantling system installed

Excavation, rolling drillingand installing

Excavator : (0.2 m3, 5 L/hr, 16 hr/2 days): diesel 79.9(L)

Transportation of personneland equipment

Vehicle (five times, 10 km/1 L): diesel 38.6 (L)

System install Anode electrode: steel 48 (kg)

Cathode electrode: SUS 2,448 (kg)

Anode (casing): PVC 140.2 (kg)

Circulation pipe: main-PVC and Sub-PE 7.6 (kg), 25.1 (kg)

Anode and cathode: PET(preventing, filtration cloth): HDPE

25 (kg)

Electrolyte tank (2 m3, 2 ea): LLDPE 112 (kg)

Equipment and etc: electricity and water 400 (kwh), 1 (m3)

RAO System operation and maintenance Operation Water (2 m3/month) 50 (m3)

Chemical (0.01 M) (NaOH, EDTA) 10, 36.5 (kg)

Pump, power supply, etc: electricity 6,000 (kwh)

Transportation of personnelfor maintenance

Vehicle (onetime/week, 19.3 km, 10 km/1 L): diesel 92.7 (L)

LTM System monitoring Online monitoring Equipment etc: electricity 200 (kwh)

6754 Environ Sci Pollut Res (2014) 21:6751–6758

total footprints were analyzed after the footprints of each phasewere calculated separately, and then, the relative contribution ofeach phase was calculated in the entire EK system. This couldprovide strategies for GSR based on the evaluation results.

Results and discussion

Environmental footprint

GHG emissions

Figure 3a shows the results obtained for the GHG emissions ofthe EK process. The GHG emissions are important footprints

because of the increasing concerns about climate change allover the world. Generally, carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrousoxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) contribute greatly to GHGemissions, and CO2 is a major indicator of the greenhouseeffect (MOE 2008).

In the environmental assessment, various activities areresponsible for the GHG emissions, including the operationof equipment and energy use, transportation of personnel,materials, and equipment, and the production of consumablematerials (ITRC 2011). Table 3 presents the environmentalfootprints and relative contribution (%) in each phase in theoverall EK process. In the RIs phase, the GHG emissions wereapproximately 0.32 t because of site characterization includ-ing soil sampling and the transportation of personnel, wheremainly diesel oil was consumed. In the RAC phase, the GHGemissions were approximately 16.13 t, which was muchgreater than that of the other phases because of the dieselconsumption caused by the operation of equipment (e.g.,excavator) for system construction and the use of consumablematerials such as electrode materials, wires, and polyvinylchloride (PVC). The electrodes made of stainless steel andsteel bars used in the EK process were consumed and couldnot be reused for other EK processes because the electrolysisreaction seriously corroded the materials, while the PVCcould be reused. In the RAO phase, the GHG emissions wereapproximately 4.34 t, which were mainly caused by the elec-tricity used for the system operation. The Korean LCI DBreported that 1 kwh of electricity produces approximately0.424 kg of CO2. In the LTM phase, the GHG emissions werenegligible (approximately 0.09 t) because the material andenergy consumption was negligible compared to the otherphases. In this study, the RAC phases emitted much moreGHGs than in the RAO phase, which indicates that the mate-rials consumed during the process installation phase should beconsidered more seriously than the electricity consumptionduring system operation when attempting to decrease theGHG emissions.

Energy and water consumption

Figure 3b shows the total energy used in this study. Themegajoule (MJ) has generally been used as the internationalunit (SI) of energy. The EK process utilizes various types ofenergy including electricity for system operation, fuel forequipment, transportation of personnel, and production ofconsumable materials (Institute 2011; ITRC 2011). In thisstudy, the total electricity was measured by an electric meter,and the consumption of fuel such as diesel was calculatedthrough its actual usage. The total electricity consumptionsduring the RAC, RAO, and LTM phases were approximately400, 6,000, and 200 kwh, respectively.

In the RIs phase, approximately 4.32E+03 MJ were usedfor the transportation of personnel for soil sampling and

GH

Gs

emis

sion

s (T

on)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Residual HandlingEquipment Use and MiscTransportation-EquipmentTransportation-PersonnelConsumables

Tot

al E

nerg

y U

sed

(MJ)

0.0

2.0e+4

4.0e+4

6.0e+4

8.0e+4

1.0e+5

1.2e+5

1.4e+5

1.6e+5

1.8e+5Residual HandlingEquipment Use and MiscTransportation-EquipmentTransportation-PersonnelConsumables

RIsRAC

RAOLTM

Wat

er C

onsu

mpt

ion

(m3 )

0

10

20

30

40

50

60Residual HandlingEquipment Use and MiscTransportation-EquipmentTransportation-PersonnelConsumables

a

b

c

Fig. 3 Emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) (a), total energy used forthe remediation (b), and water consumption during the activities (c)

Environ Sci Pollut Res (2014) 21:6751–6758 6755

investigation. In the RAC phase, 1.59E+05 MJ were utilized,which was higher than that of the other phases because of theequipment operation (e.g., excavator) for system constructionand energy consumption during the production of consumablematerials. The RAO phase consumed 6.99E+04 MJ, whichwas used for the system operation (electricity for EK process).The LTM phase utilized 2.18E+03MJ for systemmonitoring.

Even though the electrical energy consumption in the RAOphase was much higher than that of the RAC phase, the totalenergy consumed in the RAC phase was two times higher thanthat of the RAO phase, which indicates that the energy con-sumption associated with the production of consumable ma-terials was much higher than the electricity consumption.Therefore, reducing the amount of consumable materials usedin the process installation phase could help to reduce the totalenergy required for remediation.

Figure 3c shows the water consumption in this study.Approximately 64.3 m3 of water was used for the entiresystem, 61.3 m3of water was utilized for the electrolyte, and3.0 m3 of water was used for other purposes (Table 3). Thewater used in this study for the electrolyte was collected, andthen reinjected into the electrolyte tank for beneficial usewithout any treatment during the remedial activities.

Emissions of air pollutants

Figure 4 shows the air emissions of the EK process. Theemissions of NOx, SOx, and PM10 are important footprintsbecause they are designated as air pollutants in South Korea(MOE 2008), which are emitted during remedial activities

including transportation, electricity use, and the use ofheavy machinery and equipment. The emission of NOx

and SOx comes mainly from the energy consumption, andPM10 mainly depends on the use of heavy machinery andequipment. In this study, the emissions of NOx and SOx inthe RAO and PM10 in the RAC phases were higher thanthose of the other phases because of the heavy consump-tion and use of energy and equipment. The NOx and SOx

emissions in the RAO phase were 10.1 and 11.2 t, respec-tively, and the PM10 emission in the RAC phase was9.22E−05 t (Table 3). In conclusion, the electrical energyconsumption significantly affected the emissions of NOx

and SOx, while the use of heavy machinery and equip-ment mainly led to the emission of PM10.

Relative contribution of each phase and strategy for greenand sustainable remediation (GSR)

As previouslymentioned, GSR is simultaneously employed toachieve cleanup and to minimize the emissions (USEPA2008a, b). For GSR, it is important to reduce the environmen-tal footprint during remedial activity. To achieve GSR, it isnecessary to analyze the total environmental footprints in theoverall remediation process and the relative contribution ofeach phase of the overall process. Therefore, we analyzed therelative contribution of the environmental footprints of eachphase in the overall EK system. Table 3 presents the totalenvironmental footprints and relative contribution (%) of eachphase in the overall EK process. In the RAC phase, the relativecontribution of GHG emissions, total energy used, and PM10

Table 3 Environmental foot-prints and relative contribution(%) in each phase

Environmental footprints RIs RAC RAO LTM Total

GHG emissions

(t) 0.32 16.13 4.34 0.09 20.88

(%) 1.5 77.3 20.8 0.4 100.0

Total energy used

(MJ) 4.32E+03 1.59E+05 6.99E+04 2.18E+03 2.32E+05

(%) 1.8 67.6 29.6 0.9 100.0

Water consumption

(m3) 0.50E+00 1.77E+00 61.7E+00 0.39E+00 64.3E+00

(%) 0.8 2.7 94.7 1.8 100.0

NOx emissions

(t) 4.38E−05 1.48E−03 1.01E−02 2.39−E04 1.2E−02(%) 0.3 12.5 85.2 2.0 100.0

SOx emissions

(t) 7.89E−07 7.79E−04 1.12E−02 3.26−E04 1.2E−02(%) 0 6.4 91.0 2.6 100.0

PM10 emissions

(t) 1.79E−06 9.22E−05 3.70E−05 – 1.3E−04(%) 1.4 70.4 28.2 – 100.0

6756 Environ Sci Pollut Res (2014) 21:6751–6758

emissions were 77.3, 67.6, and 70.4 % (Table 3), respectively,which were much higher than those of the other phasesbecause the materials used represented the highest contribu-tion to the GHG emissions and total energy used.

In the RAO phase, the relative contributions of the waterconsumption and NOx and SOx emissions were 94.7, 85.2,and 91.0 % (Table 3), respectively, which were higher thanthose of the other phases because the water and electricity

consumption required for the system operation was high.Even though the environmental footprints were lower in theRIs and LTM phases (Table 3), it is necessary to reduce thefuel consumption, such as the diesel for transportation for siteinvestigation and sampling in the RIs phase and the electricalenergy consumption, because this was the highest contribu-tion to the environmental footprint.

In conclusion, the consumable materials and electrical en-ergy consumption might be very important for GSR in theEKR process, because the production of consumable materialsand electrical energy consumption greatly affects the GHGemissions and air emissions such as NOx and SOx. Toffolettoet al. (2005) reported that site preparation and site closurewere the major contributing stages to the overall impact andthat off-site transport and the biotreatment process did notcontribute notably to the level of environmental impactin the LCA of the ex situ bioremediation of diesel-contaminated soil. Harbottle et al. (2007) also reported thatone of the major impacts is the emissions from cement pro-duction during the stabilization/solidification of contaminatedsoil, which indicate that the installation of the process contrib-utes more than its operation. Page et al. (1999) reported thatexcavation and backfilling contributed to the PM10 emissionsin air pollution and that transportation was the highest con-tributor to CO2 emissions in a lead-contaminated site remedi-ation using LCA. In our recent study, consumable chemicalssuch as HCl and NaOH for system operation highly contrib-uted to GHG emissions in the soil washing process (Kim et al.2013b). In this study, the major impacts on the EK process arethe emissions from the production of consumable materialsand the installation of the system, as reported in other studies.

Although this result is site specific to the Janghang refineryplant in South Korea, it suggests several strategies whichcould be used in future EK process applications for GSR.First, the use of alternative materials and reuse/recycling ofthe electrode should be considered, especially focusing onlowering the GHG emissions and the amount of energy used.Potential alternatives for the electrode should be durable, suchas stainless steel and steel in the EK process. Second, alterna-tive energy sources for electricity should be considered, espe-cially focusing on their feasibility in field applications. Poten-tial alternatives for energy might be solar cells to reduce theelectrical energy consumption. Third, alternative vehicles fortransportation should be considered, especially focusing oncommon use. Potential alternatives for transportation might beelectric or hybrid vehicles to reduce energy consumption.

Conclusions

In this study, an environmental assessment was conductedusing a GSR tool of an EK system for the remediation of amultimetal-contaminated real site. The relative contributions of

NO

x em

issi

ons

(Ton

)

0.0

2.0e-3

4.0e-3

6.0e-3

8.0e-3

1.0e-2

1.2e-2Residual HandlingEquipment Use and MiscTransportation-EquipmentTransportation-PersonnelConsumables

SOx

emis

sion

s (T

on)

0.0

2.0e-3

4.0e-3

6.0e-3

8.0e-3

1.0e-2

1.2e-2Residual HandlingEquipment Use and MiscTransportation-EquipmentTransportation-PersonnelConsumables

RIsRAC

RAOLTM

PM

10 e

mis

sion

s (T

on)

0.0

2.0e-5

4.0e-5

6.0e-5

8.0e-5

1.0e-4

Residual HandlingEquipment Use and MiscTransportation-EquipmentTransportation-PersonnelConsumables

a

b

c

Fig. 4 Emissions of NOx (a), SOx (b), and PM10 (c) during the remedi-ation process

Environ Sci Pollut Res (2014) 21:6751–6758 6757

the environmental footprint in the RAC phase, including GHGemissions, total energy used, and air emissions such as NOx andSOx in the RAO phase were 77.3, 67.6, 85.2, and 91.0 %,respectively, which were the highest. In conclusion, alternativematerials, the reuse/recycling of the electrode and alternativeenergy sources such as solar energy for the system operationmight be important in the EK process for GSR. There are somelimitations to this study, namely the insufficiency of the domes-tic LCI database and the use of the database in the SiteWise™

model. Furthermore, the results obtained at this site cannot beapplied to other sites because the environmental assessmentusing a GSR tool is very site specific. Nevertheless, this studycould be used as a general reference for environmental assess-ment in the EKR process, which can be used as a decision-making process to assist selection of the EKR at the contami-nated site. To our knowledge, this is the first study on the use ofenvironmental assessment for the EK process in a real fieldapplication. Additional research is necessary to compare with insitu EK and alternative technologies such as the ex situ EKprocess and soil washing technology.

Acknowledgments This work was funded by the National ResearchFoundation (NRF) (grant number 2012R1A1A2007941)

References

Acar YB, Gale RJ, Alshawabkeh AN, Marks RE, Puppala S, Bricka M,Parker R (1995) Electrokinetic remediation: basics and technologystatus. J Hazard Mater 40:117–137

Amrate S, Akretche DE, Innocent C, Seta P (2005) Removal of Pb from acalcareous soil during EDTA-enhanced electrokinetic extraction. SciTotal Environ 349:56–66

Bayer P, Finkel M (2006) Life cycle assessment of active and passivegroundwater remediation technologies. J ContamHydrol 83:171–199

Cadotte M, Deschênes L, Samson R (2007) Selection of a remediationscenario for a diesel-contaminated site using LCA. Int J Life CycleAss 12:239–251

Cho JM, Kim KJ, Chung KY, Hyun S, Baek K (2009) Restoration ofsaline soil in cultivated land using electrokinetic process. Sep SciTechnol 44:2371–2384

Cho JM, Park SY, Baek K (2010) Electrokinetic restoration of salineagricultural lands. J Appl Electrochem 40:1085–1093

Gent DB, Bricka RM, Alshawabkeh AN, Larson SL, Fabian G, GranadeS (2004) Bench- and field-scale evaluation of chromium and cad-mium extraction by electrokinetics. J Hazard Mater 110:53–62

Harbottle MJ, Al-Tabbaa A, Evans CW (2007) A comparison of thetechnical sustainability of in situ stabilisation/solidification withdisposal to landfill. J Hazard Mater 141:430–440

Higgins MR, Olson TM (2009) Life-cycle case study comparison ofpermeable reactive barrier versus pump-and-treat remediation.Environ Sci Technol 43:9432–9438

HuX, Zhu J, Ding Q (2011) Environmental life-cycle comparisons of twopolychlorinated biphenyl remediation technologies: incineration andbase catalyzed decomposition. J Hazard Mater 191:258–268

Institute BM (2011). SiteWise™ version 2 user guideITRC (2011) Green and sustainable remediation: state of the science and

practice, The Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council, Greenand Sustainable Remediation Team

Kim BK, Park GY, Jeon EK, Jung JM, Jung HB, Ko SH, Baek K (2013a)Field application of in situ electrokinetic remediation for As-, Cu-,and Pb-contaminated paddy soil. Water Air Soil Pollut 224:1698

Kim DH, Jeon CS, Baek K, Ko SH, Yang JS (2009) Electrokineticremediation of fluorine-contaminated soil: conditioning of anolyte.J Hazard Mater 161:565–569

Kim DH, Cho JM, Baek K (2011) Pilot-scale ex situ electrokineticrestoration of saline greenhouse soil. J Soils Sediments 11:947–958

Kim DH, Jo SU, Choi JH, Yang JS, Baek K (2012) Hexagonal twodimensional electrokinetic systems for restoration of saline agricul-tural lands: a pilot study. Chem Eng J 198–199:110–121

Kim DH, Hwang BR, Moon DH, Kim YS, Baek K (2013b)Environmental assessment on a soil washing process of a Pb-contaminated shooting range site: a case study. Environ Sci PollutRes 20:8417–8424

KimDH, Jo SU, Yoo JC, Baek K (2013c) Ex situ pilot scale electrokineticrestoration of saline soil using pulsed current. Sep Purif Technol120:282–288

Lee YJ, Choi JH, Lee HG, Ha TH, Bae JH (2011) Pilot-scale study on insitu electrokinetic removal of nitrate from greenhouse soil. Sep PurifTechnol 79:254–263

Lemming G (2010) Environmental assessment of contaminated site re-mediation in a life cycle perspective, Technical University ofDenmark

Lemming G, Hauschild M, Bjerg P (2010a) Life cycle assessment of soiland groundwater remediation technologies: literature review. Int JLife Cycle Ass 15:115–127

Lemming G, Hauschild MZ, Chambon J, Binning PJ, Bulle CC, MargniM, Bjerg PL (2010b) Environmental impacts of remediation of aTrichloroethene-contaminated site: life cycle assessment of remedi-ation alternatives. Environ Sci Technol 44:9163–9169

MOE (1995). Soil Environment Conservation ActMOE (2007). Guideline for contaminated soil remediation methodsMOE (2008). Clean Air Conservation ActMOE (2012). National LCI DB. In: http://www.edp.or.kr/lcidb/lcidb/

lcidb_intro.asp (Hrsg.)Morais SA, Delerue-Matos C (2010) A perspective on LCA application

in site remediation services: critical review of challenges. J HazardMater 175:12–22

Page CA, Diamond ML, Campbell M, McKenna S (1999) Life-cycleframework for assessment of site remediation options: case study.Environ Toxicol Chem 18:801–810

RyuBG,Yang JS, KimDH, BaekK (2010) Pulsed electrokinetic removal ofCd and Zn from fine-grained soil. J Appl Electrochem 40:1039–1047

Sanscartier D, Margni M, Reimer K, Zeeb B (2010) Comparison of thesecondary environmental impacts of three remediation alternativesfor a diesel-contaminated site in Northern Canada. Soil SedimentContam 19:338–355

Suèr P, Nilsson-Påledal S, Norrman J (2004) LCA for site remediation: aliterature review. Soil Sediment Contam 13:415–425

Suer P, Andersson-Sköld Y (2011) Biofuel or excavation?—life cycleassessment (LCA) of soil remediation options. Biomass Bioenerg35:969–981

Toffoletto L, Deschênes L, Samson R (2005) LCA of ex-situ bioremedi-ation of diesel-contaminated soil (11 pp). Int J Life Cycle Ass 10:406–416

USEPA (2008a) Incorporating sustainable practices into site remediation,EPA 542/F/08/002

USEPA (2008b) Green remediation: incorporating sustainable environ-mental practices into remediation of contaminated site, EPA 542/R/08/002

Volkwein S, Hurtig HW, Klöpffer W (1999) Life cycle assessment ofcontaminated sites remediation. Int J Life Cycle Ass 4:263–274

Zhou DM, Cang L, Alshawabkeh AN, Wang YJ, Hao XZ (2006) Pilot-scale electrokinetic treatment of a Cu contaminated red soil.Chemosphere 63:964–971

6758 Environ Sci Pollut Res (2014) 21:6751–6758