Sources and remediation techniques for mercury contaminated soil

Environment International

Volumn 74, Issue , 2015, Pages 42-53

  Xu, Jingying ^a,b   Bravo, Andrea Garcia ^a   Lagerkvist, Anders ^b   Bertilsson, Stefan ^a   Sjöblom, Rolf ^b   Kumpiene, Jurate ^b  

^a UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b LULEÅ UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Mercury contaminated soil; Mobility; Remediation; Soil washing; Stabilisation solidification

Indexed keywords

ATMOSPHERIC MOVEMENTS; BIOREMEDIATION; CARRIER MOBILITY; CEMENT INDUSTRY; ECONOMIC GEOLOGY; FOSSIL FUELS; MERCURY (METAL); REMEDIATION; SOIL POLLUTION; SOILS; STABILIZATION; WASHING;

ANTHROPOGENIC SOURCES; BIOLOGICAL TECHNIQUES; CEMENT PRODUCTION; CHLOR-ALKALI PLANTS; CONTAMINATED SOILS; LONG-RANGE ATMOSPHERIC TRANSPORTS; SOIL WASHING; STABILISATION/SOLIDIFICATION;

SOIL POLLUTION CONTROL;

ACTIVATED CARBON; FERRIC LIGNIN DERIVATIVE; MERCURY; MINERAL; NATURAL ORGANIC MATTER; ORGANIC MATTER; POLYMER; SODIUM SULFATE; SULFUR POLYMER; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG; SOIL; SOIL POLLUTANT;

ATMOSPHERIC TRANSPORT; ELEMENT MOBILITY; LONG RANGE TRANSPORT; MERCURY (ELEMENT); POLLUTANT SOURCE; POLLUTION CONTROL; SOIL POLLUTION; SOIL REMEDIATION; SOLIDIFICATION;

BIOREMEDIATION; CERAMIC INDUSTRY; CHEMICALLY BONDED PHOSPHATE CERAMIC; CONCENTRATION (PARAMETERS); ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION; EXTRACTANT; INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURES; LEACHING; NONHUMAN; OXIDATION REDUCTION POTENTIAL; PARTICLE SIZE; PH; PHYTOREMEDIATION; POLLUTION CONTROL; REEMISSION; RETENTION TIME; REVIEW; SOIL ANALYSIS; SOIL POLLUTION; SOIL WASHING; SOLIDIFICATION; STABILISATION; TEMPERATURE; THERMAL TREATMENT; WASTE MANAGEMENT; WASTE WATER RECYCLING; ANALYSIS; SOIL; SOIL POLLUTANT;

BIODEGRADATION, ENVIRONMENTAL; MERCURY; SOIL; SOIL POLLUTANTS;

EID: 84908372023     PISSN: 01604120     EISSN: 18736750     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2014.09.007     Document Type: Review

References (168)

1. Abumaizar R.J., Smith E.H. Heavy metal contaminants removal by soil washing. J Hazard Mater 1999, 70(1-2):71-86.
2. AMAP/UNEP Technical background report for the global mercury assessment 2013. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, Oslo, Norway/UNEP ChemicalsBranch, Geneva, Switzerland 2013.
3. Annual General Meeting of China Council for International Cooperation on Environment and Development Special policy study on mercury management in China, 2011 2011, [http://www.cciced.net/encciced/policyresearch/report/201205/P020120529368288424164.pdf].
4. Bae W., Mehra R.K., Mulchandani A., Chen W. Genetic engineering of Escherichia coli for enhanced uptake and bioaccumulation of mercury. Appl Environ Microbiol 2001, 67(11):5335-5338.
5. Bae W., Wu C.H., Kostal J., Mulchandani A., Chen W. Enhanced mercury biosorption by bacterial cells with surface-displayed MerR. Appl Environ Microbiol 2003, 69(6):3176-3180.
6. Barkay T., Wagner-Dobler I. Microbial transformations of mercury: potentials, challenges, and achievements in controlling mercury toxicity in the environment. Adv Appl Microbiol 2005, (57):1-52.
7. Barkay T., Miller S.M., Summers A.O. Bacterial mercury resistance from atoms to ecosystems. FEMS Microbiol Rev 2003, 27(2-3):355-384.
8. Barrow N.J. The effects of pH and chloride concentration on mercury sorption. I. By goethite. J Soil Sci 1992, 43(2):295.
9. Benoit J.M., Gilmour C.C., Mason R.P., Heyes A. Sulfide controls on mercury speciation and bioavailability to methylating bacteria in sediment pore waters. Environ Sci Technol 1999, 33(6):951-957.
10. Beone G., Trevisan M., Cattani I., Del Re A., Boccelli R., Zhang H. The role of natural purified humic acids in modifying mercury accessibility in water and soil. J Environ Qual 2009, 38(2):493-501.
11. Berndt M.E., Engesser J., Berquó T.S. Mercury chemistry and Mössbauer spectroscopy of iron oxides during taconite processing on Minnesota's iron range. Proceedings Air Quality V, International Conference on Mercury, Trace Elements, SO3, and Particulate Matter. Washington, DC 2005.
12. SM sediment washing technology. Final Report on the Pilot Demonstration Project 1999, [December. http://www.bnl.gov/wrdadcon/publications/reports/BioGenesis_BNL.PDF].
13. Bizily S.P. Phytoremediation of methylmercury pollution: MerB expression in arabidopsis thaliana confers resistance to organomercurials. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1999, 96(12):6808.
14. Bollen A. Mercury extraction from contaminated soils by L-cysteine: species dependency and transformation processes. Water Air Soil Pollut 2011, 219(1-4):175-189.
15. Bonner WF, Brouns R A, Buelt J L. U.S. Patent No. 4,376,598. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,1983.
16. Boyce P.K., Almskog K.E. Much ado about mercury: evaluation of treatment options for mercury contaminated soil at BNL. Geology of Long Island and Metropolitan New York Conference 1999.
17. Branch U.C. The global atmospheric mercury assessment: sources, emissions and transport 2008, UNEP-Chemicals, Geneva.
18. Bravo A.G., Cosio C., Amouroux D., Zopfi J., Chevalley P.A., Spangenberg J.E., et al. Extremely elevated methyl mercury levels in water, sediment and organisms in a Romanian reservoir affected by release of mercury from a chlor-alkali plant. Water Res 2014, 49:391-405.
19. Brown N.L., Stoyanov J.V., Kidd S.P., Hobman J.L. The MerR family of transcriptional regulators. FEMS Microbiol Rev 2003, 27(2-3):145-163.
20. Burton D.T. Bioaccumulation of total mercury and monomethyl mercury in the earthworm Eisenia fetida. Water Air Soil Pollut 2006, 170(1-4):37-54.
21. Busto Y. Potential of thermal treatment for decontamination of mercury containing wastes from chlor-alkali industry. J Hazard Mater 2011, 186(1):114-118.
22. Chattopadhyay S., Randall P.M. Evaluation of chemically bonded phosphate ceramics for mercury stabilisation of a mixed synthetic waste 2003, US Environmental Proectection agency, Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory.
23. Clarkson T.W. Human exposure to mercury: the three modern dilemmas. J Trace Elem Exp Med 2003, 16(4):321.
24. Colombo M.J., Ha J., Reinfelder J.R., Barkay T., Yee N. Anaerobic oxidation of Hg (0) and methylmercury formation by Desulfovibrio desulfuricans ND132. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 2013, 112:166-177.
25. Comuzzi C. Salt-assisted thermal desorption of mercury from contaminated dredging sludge. J Hazard Mater 2011, 193:177-182.
26. Cui W.W., Wang X.L., Duan J.J., Yang M., Zi W., Liu X.C. Advances on remediation techniques of heavy metal Cd and Hg in contaminated soil. Guizhou Agric Sci 2011, 7:67.
27. Dermont G. Metal-contaminated soils: remediation practices and treatment technologies. Pract Period Hazard Toxic Radioact Waste Manag 2008, 12(3):188-209.
28. Dermont G., Bergeron M., Mercier G., Richer-Lafleche M. Soil washing for metal removal: a review of physical/chemical technologies and field applications. J Hazard Mater 2008, 152(1):1-31.
29. Dyrssen D. The sulphur-mercury (II) system in natural waters. Water Air Soil Pollut 1991, 56(1):507.
30. Farrah H. pH effects in the adsorption of heavy metal ions by clays. Chem Geol 1979, 25(4):317.
31. Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable (FRTR.) Technology cost and performance-soil washing at the King of Prussia Technical Corporation Superfund Site 1995, [http://costperformance.org/profile.cfm?ID=125andCaseID=125].
32. Federal remediation technologies roundtable (FRTR) Guide to documenting and managing cost and performance information for remediation projects 1998, No. EPA 542-B-98-007.
33. Federal remediation technologies roundtable (FRTR.) Chemical extraction. Federal remediation technologies reference guide and screening manual, version 4.0 2001, [http://www.frtr.gov/matrix2/section4/4-15.html].
34. Feng X., Li P., Qiu G., Wang S., Li G., Shang L., et al. Human exposure to methylmercury through rice intake in mercury mining areas, Guizhou Province, China. Environ Sci Technol 2007, 42(1):326-332.
35. Fernández-Gómez C., Drott A., Björn E., Díez S., Bayona J.M., Tesfalidet S., et al. Towards Universal Wavelength-Specific Photodegradation Rate Constants for Methyl Mercury in Humic Waters, Exemplified by a Boreal Lake-Wetland Gradient. Environ Sci Technol 2013, 47(12):6279-6287.
36. Ferrara R. Atmospheric mercury sources in the Mt. Amiata area, Italy. Sci Total Environ 1998, 213(1-3):13-23.
37. Ferrara R. Volcanoes as emission sources of atmospheric mercury in the Mediterranean basin. Sci Total Environ 2000, 259(1-3):115-121.
38. Fleming E.J., Mack E.E., Green P.G., Nelson D.C. Mercury methylation from unexpected sources: molybdate-inhibited freshwater sediments and an iron-reducing bacterium. Appl Environ Microbiol 2006, 72(1):457-464.
39. Frohne T., Rinklebe J., Langer U., Du Laing G., Mothes S., Wennrich R. Biogeochemical factors affecting mercury methylation rate in two contaminated floodplain soils. Biogeosciences 2012, 9(1):493-507.
40. François F., Lombard C., Guigner J.M., Soreau P., Brian-Jaisson F., Martino G., et al. Isolation and characterization of environmental bacteria capable of extracellular biosorption of mercury. Appl Environ Microbiol 2012, 78(4):1097-1106.
41. Fuhrmann M. Sulfur polymer solidification/stabilisation of elemental mercury waste. Waste Manag 2002, 22(3):327.
42. Gabriel M. Principal biogeochemical factors affecting the speciation and transport of mercury through the terrestrial environment. Environ Geochem Health 2004, 26(3-4):421-434.
43. Gavis J. The cycling of mercury through the environment. Water Res 1972, 6(9):989.
44. Ghosh U., Luthy R.G., Cornelissen G., Werner D., Menzie C.A. In-situ sorbent amendments: a new direction in contaminated sediment management. Environ Sci Technol 2011, 45(4):1163-1168.
45. Gilmour C.C., Henry E.A., Mitchell R. Sulfate stimulation of mercury methylation in freshwater sediments. Environ Sci Technol 1992, 26(11):2281-2287.
46. Gilmour C.C., Riedel G.S., Ederington M.C., Bell J.T., Gill G.A., Stordal M.C. Methylmercury concentrations and production rates across a trophic gradient in the northern Everglades. Biogeochemistry 1998, 40(2-3):327-345.
47. Gilmour C.C., Podar M., Bullock A.L., Graham A.M., Brown S.D., Somenahally A.C., et al. Mercury methylation by novel microorganisms from new environments. Environ Sci Technol 2013, 47(20):11810-11820.
48. Griffiths R.A. Soil-washing technology and practice. J Hazard Mater 1995, 40(2):175-189.
49. Guo X.X., Liu C.Q., Zhu Z.Z., Wang Z.L., Li J. Evaluation methods for soil heavy metals contamination: a review. Chin J Ecol 2011, 30(5):889-896.
50. Hamelin S., Amyot M., Barkay T., Wang Y., Planas D. Methanogens: principal methylators of mercury in lake periphyton. Environ Sci Technol 2011, 45(18):7693-7700.
51. He Z., Siripornadulsil S., Sayre R.T., Traina S.J., Weavers L.K. Removal of mercury from sediment by ultrasound combined with biomass (transgenic Chlamydomonas reinhardtii). Chemosphere 2011, 83(9):1249-1254.
52. Hintelmann H. Levels of total mercury and methylmercury compounds in sediments of the polluted Elbe River: influence of seasonally and spatially varying environmental factors. Sci Total Environ 1995, 166(1-3):1.
53. Hintelmann H. Measurement of complexation of methylmercury (II) compounds by freshwater humic substances using equilibrium dialysis. Environ Sci Technol 1997, 31(2):489.
54. Holmes P. Is low-level environmental mercury exposure of concern to human health?. Sci Total Environ 2009, 408(2):171-182.
55. Hseu Z.Y., Su S.W., Lai H.Y., Guo H.Y., Chen T.C., Chen Z.S. Remediation techniques and heavy metal uptake by different rice varieties in metal-contaminated soils of Taiwan: new aspects for food safety regulation and sustainable agriculture. Soil Sci Plant Nutr 2010, 56(1):31-52.
56. Hsu-Kim H., Kucharzyk K.H., Zhang T., Deshusses M.A. Mechanisms regulating mercury bioavailability for methylating microorganisms in the aquatic environment: a critical review. Environ Sci Technol 2013, 47(6):2441-2456.
57. Hu H., Lin H., Zheng W., Rao B., Feng X., Liang L., et al. Mercury reduction and cell-surface adsorption by Geobacter sulfurreducens PCA. Environ Sci Technol 2013, 47(19):10922-10930.
58. Hu H., Lin H., Zheng W., Tomanicek S.J., Johs A., Feng X., et al. Oxidation and methylation of dissolved elemental mercury by anaerobic bacteria. Nat Geosci 2013, 6(9):751-754.
59. Hutchison A.R. Mercury pollution and remediation: the chemist's response to a global crisis. J Chem Crystallogr 2003, 33(8):631-645.
60. Jackson T.A. Mercury in aquatic ecosystems. Metal metabolism in aquatic environments 1998, 77-158. Springer, US.
61. Jones K.W. Dredged material decontamination demonstration for the port of new York/New Jersey. J Hazard Mater 2001, 85(1-2):127.
62. Kabata-Pendias A. Behavioural properties of trace metals in soils. Appl Geochem 1993, 8:3-9.
63. Kabata-Pendias A. Trace elements in soils and plants 2010, CRC Press.
64. Karlsson T., Skyllberg U. Bonding of ppb levels of methyl mercury to reduced sulfur groups in soil organic matter. Environ Sci Technol 2003, 37(21):4912-4918.
65. Keating M.H., Mahaffey K.R., Schoeny R., Rice G.E., Bullock O.R. Mercury study report to Congress. Volume 1. Executive summary (No. PB--98-124738/XAB; EPA--452/R-97/003) 1997, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC (United States), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
66. Kim C.S., Rytuba J.J., Brown G.E. EXAFS study of mercury (II) sorption to Fe-and Al-(hydr) oxides: II. Effects of chloride and sulfate. J Colloid Interface Sci 2004, 270(1):9-20.
67. Kotrba P. Genetically modified plants in phytoremediation of heavy metal and metalloid soil and sediment pollution. Biotechnol Adv 2009, 27(6):799-810.
68. Krämer U., Chardonnens A. The use of transgenic plants in the bioremediation of soils contaminated with trace elements. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2001, 55(6):661-672.
69. Kumpiene J., Lagerkvist A., Maurice C. Stabilisation of As, Cr, Cu, Pb and Zn in soil using amendments-a review. Waste Manag 2008, 28(1):215-225.
70. Kwaansa-Ansah E.E., Voegborlo R.B., Adimado A.A., Ephraim J.H., Nriagu J.O. Effect of pH, sulphate concentration and total organic carbon on mercury accumulation in sediments in the Volta Lake at Yeji, Ghana. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 2012, 88(3):418-421.
71. Kwon S. Evaluation of two sulfur impregnation methods on activated carbon and bentonite for the production of elemental mercury sorbents. Environ Eng Sci 2000, 17(6):303.
72. Kyllönen H. Ultrasonically aided mineral processing technique for remediation of soil contaminated by heavy metals. Ultrason Sonochem 2004, 11(3-4):211.
73. Le Cloirec P., Andres Y. Bioremediation of heavy metals using microorganisms. Bioremediation of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems 2005, 97-140.
74. Leonard T.L., Taylor G.E., Gustin M.S., Fernandez G.C. Mercury and plants in contaminated soils: 2. Environmental and physiological factors governing mercury flux to the atmosphere. Environ Toxicol Chem 1998, 17(10):2072-2079.
75. Liao L., Selim H.M., DeLaune R.D. Mercury adsorption-desorption and transport in soils. J Environ Qual 2009, 38(4):1608-1616.
76. Lin S.L., Lai J.S., Chian E.S. Modifications of sulfur polymer cement (SPC) stabilisation and solidification (S/S) process. Waste Manag 1995, 15(5):441-447.
77. Lindqvist O., Johansson K., Bringmark L., Timm B., Aastrup M., Andersson A., et al. Mercury in the Swedish environment-recent research on causes, consequences and corrective methods. Water Air Soil Pollut 1991, 55(1-2):xi-261.
78. Lockwood R.A., Chen K.Y. Adsorption of mercury (II) by hydrous manganese oxides. Environ Sci Technol 1973, 7(11):1028-1034.
79. Loux N.T. An assessment of mercury-species-dependent binding with natural organic carbon. Chem Speciat Bioavailab 1998, 10(4):127-136.
80. Lovley D.R., Giovannoni S.J., White D.C., Champine J.E., Phillips E.J.P., Gorby Y.A., et al. Geobacter metallireducens gen. nov. sp. nov., a microorganism capable of coupling the complete oxidation of organic compounds to the reduction of iron and other metals. Arch Microbiol 1993, 159(4):336-344.
81. Marvin-DiPasquale M., Agee J., McGowan C., Oremland R.S., Thomas M., Krabbenhoft D., et al. Methyl-mercury degradation pathways: a comparison among three mercury-impacted ecosystems. Environ Sci Technol 2000, 34(23):4908-4916.
82. Mason R.P., Choi A.L., Fitzgerald W.F., Hammerschmidt C.R., Lamborg C.H., Soerensen A.L., et al. Mercury biogeochemical cycling in the ocean and policy implications. Environ Res 2012, 119:101-117.
83. Moreno F.N., Anderson C.W., Stewart R.B., Robinson B.H. Mercury volatilisation and phytoextraction from base-metal mine tailings. Environ Pollut 2005, 136(2):341-352.
84. Mukherjee A.B., Zevenhoven R., Brodersen J., Hylander L.D., Bhattacharya P. Mercury in waste in the European Union: sources, disposal methods and risks. Resour Conserv Recycl 2004, 42(2):155-182.
85. Mulligan C.N., Yong R.N., Gibbs B.F. An evaluation of technologies for the heavy metal remediation of dredged sediments. J Hazard Mater 2001, 85(1):145-163.
86. Nance P., Patterson J., Willis A., Foronda N., Dourson M. Human health risks from mercury exposure from broken compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs). Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2012, 62(3):542-552.
87. Oliva J., Cama J., Cortina J., Ayora C., De Pablo J. Biogenic hydroxyapatite (apatite II™) dissolution kinetics and metal removal from acid mine drainage. J Hazard Mater 2012, 213:7-18.
88. Oremland R.S., Culbertson C.W., Winfrey M.R. Methylmercury decomposition in sediments and bacterial cultures: involvement of methanogens and sulfate reducers in oxidative demethylation. Appl Environ Microbiol 1991, 57(1):130-137.
89. Padmavathiamma P.K., Li L.Y. Phytoremediation technology: hyper-accumulation metals in plants. Water Air Soil Pollut 2007, 184(1-4):105-126.
90. Pak K.R., Bartha R. Mercury methylation by interspecies hydrogen and acetate transfer between sulfidogens and methanogens. Appl Environ Microbiol 1998, 64(6):1987-1990.
91. Pant P., Allen M., Tansel B. Mercury contamination in the riparian zones along the east fork poplar creek at oak ridge. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 2011, 74(3):467-472.
92. Payne R. The adsorption of hydroxyl ions at the mercury-solution interface and the anodic double-layer capacity in fluoride solutions. J Electroanal Chem 1964, 7(5):343.
93. Payne R. Specific adsorption of chloride ions at the mercury/aqueous solution interface. Trans Faraday Soc 1968, 64:1638.
94. Pedron F., Petruzzelli G., Barbafieri M., Tassi E., Ambrosini P., Patata L. Mercury mobilization in a contaminated industrial soil for phytoremediation. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 2011, 42(22):2767-2777.
95. Peer W.A., Baxter I.R., Richards E.L., Freeman J.L., Murphy A.S. Phytoremediation and hyperaccumulator plants. Molecular biology of metal homeostasis and detoxification 2006, 299-340. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg.
96. Permina E.A., Kazakov A.E., Kalinina O.V., Gelfand M.S. Comparative genomics of regulation of heavy metal resistance in Eubacteria. BMC Microbiol 2006, 6(1):49.
97. Petruzzelli G., Pedron F., Rosellini I., Barbafieri M. Phytoremediation towards the future: focus on bioavailable contaminants. Plant-based remediation processes 2013, 273-289. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg.
98. Pirrone N., Costa P., Pacyna J.M., Ferrara R. Mercury emissions to the atmosphere from natural and anthropogenic sources in the Mediterranean region. Atmos Environ 2001, 35(17):2997-3006.
99. PPG Canada Inc., Biogenie SRDC Inc. Demonstration of a pilot unit to treat mercury-contaminated soil. Eco-technology innovation section 1993, Environment Canada, Montreal, [http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/En1-17-9-1993E.pdf].
100. Qu L.Y., Fu S.Z., Liu L., An Y.M., Li M. A study on the soil improvement polluted by mercury. J Guizhou Normal Univ (Nat Sci) 2004, 2:13.
101. Randall P., Chattopadhyay S. Advances in encapsulation technologies for the management of mercury-contaminated hazardous wastes. J Hazard Mater 2004, 114(1):211-223.
102. Ravichandran M. Interactions between mercury and dissolved organic matter-a review. Chemosphere 2004, 55(3):319-331.
103. Reddy M.M., Aiken G.R. Fulvic acid-sulfide ion competition for mercury ion binding in the Florida Everglades. Water Air Soil Pollut 2001, 132(1-2):89-104.
104. Reimers R.S., Krenkel P.A. Kinetics of mercury adsorption and desorption in sediments. J Water Pollut Control Fed 1974, 352-365.
105. Richter R.B., Flachberger H. Soil washing and thermal desorption: reliable techniques for remediating materials contaminated with mercury. BHM Berg-Und Hüttenmännische Monatshefte 2010, 155(12):571-577.
106. Robles I., Lakatos J., Scharek P., Planck Z., Hernández G., Solís S., et al. Characterization and remediation of soils and sediments polluted with mercury: occurrence, transformations, environmental considerations and San Joaquin's Sierra Gorda Case 2014.
107. Rodríguez O., Padilla I., Tayibi H., López-Delgado A. Concerns on liquid mercury and mercury-containing wastes: a review of the treatment technologies for the safe storage. J Environ Manag 2012, 101:197-205.
108. Schlüter K. Review: evaporation of mercury from soils: an integration and synthesis of current knowledge. Environ Geol 2000, 39(3-4):249.
109. Schuster E. The behaviour of mercury in the soil with special emphasis on complexation and adsorption processes-a review of the literature. Water Air Soil Pollut 1991, 56(1):667-680.
110. Selin N.E. Global biogeochemical cycling of mercury: a review. Annu Rev Environ Resour 2009, 34(1):43.
111. Serrano S., Vlassopoulos D., Bessinger B., O'Day P.A. Immobilisation of Hg (II) by co-precipitation in sulfate-cement systems. Environ Sci Technol 2012, 46(12):6767-6775.
112. Sierra C., Menéndez-Aguado J.M., Afif E., Carrero M., Gallego J.R. Feasibility study on the use of soil washing to remediate the As-Hg contamination at an ancient mining and metallurgy area. J Hazard Mater 2011, 196:93-100.
113. Sinha A., Khare S.K. Mercury bioremediation by mercury accumulating Enterobacter sp. cells and its alginate immobilised application. Biodegradation 2012, 23(1):25-34.
114. Skyllberg U. Competition among thiols and inorganic sulfides and polysulfides for Hg and MeHg in wetland soils and sediments under suboxic conditions: illumination of controversies and implications for MeHg net production. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences (2005-2012) 2008, 113(G2).
115. Skyllberg U. Chemical speciation of mercury in soil and sediment. Environ Chem Toxicol Mercury 2012, 219-258.
116. Skyllberg U., Bloom P.R., Qian J., Lin C.M., Bleam W.F. Complexation of mercury (II) in soil organic matter: EXAFS evidence for linear two-coordination with reduced sulfur groups. Environ Sci Technol 2006, 40(13):4174-4180.
117. Skyllberg U., Drott A., Lambertsson L., Björn E., Karlsson T., Johnson T., et al. Net methylmercury production as a basis for improved risk assessment of mercury-contaminated sediments. AMBIO: A J Hum Environ 2007, 36(6):437-442.
118. Skyllberg U., Qian J., Frech W. Combined XANES and EXAFS study on the bonding of methyl mercury to thiol groups in soil and aquatic organic matter. Phys Scr 2005, 2005(T115):894.
119. Skyllberg U., Qian J., Frech W., Xia K., Bleam W.F. Distribution of mercury, methyl mercury and organic sulphur species in soil, soil solution and stream of a boreal forest catchment. Biogeochemistry 2003, 64(1):53-76.
120. Skyllberg U., Xia K., Bloom P.R., Nater E.A., Bleam W.F. Binding of mercury (II) to reduced sulfur in soil organic matter along upland-peat soil transects. J Environ Qual 2000, 29(3):855-865.
121. Sparks D.L. Environmental soil chemistry 2003, Academic Press.
122. Su Y., Shiyab S., Monts D. Phytoextraction and accumulation of mercury in selected plant species grown in soil contaminated with different mercury compounds. WM 2007 2007.
123. Subires-Munoz J.D., Garcia-Rubio A., Vereda-Alonso C., Gómez-Lahoz C., Rodríguez-Maroto J.M., Garcia-Herruzo F., et al. Feasibility study of the use of different extractant agents in the remediation of a mercury contaminated soil from Almaden. Sep Purif Technol 2011, 79(2):151-156.
124. Svensson M. Mercury immobilisation: a requirement for permanent disposal of mercury waste in Sweden 2006.
125. Tan K.H. Principles of soil chemistry 2011, CRC Press.
126. Tangahu B.V., Sheikh Abdullah S.R., Basri H., Idris M., Anuar N., Mukhlisin M. A review on heavy metals (As, Pb, and Hg) uptake by plants through phytoremediation. Int J Chem Eng 2011, 2011.
127. Tiffreau C., Lützenkirchen J., Behra P. Modeling the adsorption of mercury (II) on (hydr) oxides. I: amorphous iron oxide and α-quartz. J Colloid Interface Sci 1995, 172(1):82-93.
128. Tjerngren I., Karlsson T., Björn E., Skyllberg U. Potential Hg methylation and MeHg demethylation rates related to the nutrient status of different boreal wetlands. Biogeochemistry 2012, 108(1-3):335-350.
129. Twidwell L.G., Thompson R.J. Recovering and recycling Hg from chlor-alkali plant wastewater sludge. JOM 2001, 53(1):15-17.
130. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) Soil washing at the King of Prussia technical corporation superfund site, Winslow Township, New Jersey, cost and performance report 1995.
131. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) Technology alternatives for the remediation of soils contaminated with arsenic, cadmium, chromium, mercury, and lead 1997.
132. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) Recent developments for in situ treatment of metal contaminated soils 1997.
133. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) Technologies for immobilising high mercury subcategory wastes 1998.
134. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) A citizen's guide to soil washing 2001.
135. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) Cost and performance summary report: thermal desorption at the Lipari Landfill, Pitman, New jersey 2002.
136. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) Innovative technology summary report: the SepraDyne™-reduce system for recovery of mercury from mixed waste 2002.
137. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) Cost and performance summary report: thermal desorption at site B, western United States 2003.
138. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) Bioremediation of arsenic, chromium, lead, and mercury 2004, Washington DC.
139. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) Treatment technologies for mercury in soil, waste, and water 2007.
140. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) Laws and Regulations 2013, [Online at: http://www.epa.gov/mercury/regs.htm#rcra].
141. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) Use of monitored natural attenuation at Superfund, RCRA corrective action, and underground storage tank sites. Office of solid waste and emergency response directive 9200 1997, 4-17.
142. United States Geological Survey (USGS) Mercury in the environment Online at:. http://www.usgs.gov/themes/factsheet/146-00/.
143. United States Geological Survey (USGS) USGS minerals yearbook Online at:. http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/.
144. Universal Dynamics The REMERC™ process Online at:. http://udl.com/systems/remerc_x.html.
145. Venkatachalam P., Srivastava A.K., Raghothama K.G., Sahi S.V. Genes induced in response to mercury-ion-exposure in heavy metal hyperaccumulator Sesbania drummondii. Environ Sci Technol 2009, 43(3):843-850.
146. Vik E.A., Bardos P. Remediation of contaminated land technology implementation in Europe:[prepared by working group "Remediation technologies" of the concerted action "Contaminated Land Rehabilitation Network for Environmental Technologies"(CLARINET). . .] 2003, Umweltbundesamt.
147. Wagh A. Chemically bonded phosphate ceramics: twenty-first century materials with diverse applications 2004, Elsevier.
148. Wagh A.S. Recent Progress in Chemically Bonded Phosphate Ceramics 2013, International Scholarly Research Notices.
149. Bioremediation of mercury: current research and industrial applications 2013, Horizon Scientific Press. I. Wagner-Dobler (Ed.).
150. Wallschläger D., Desai M.V.M., Spengler M., Wilken R.D. Mercury speciation in floodplain soils and sediments along a contaminated river transect. J Environ Qual 1998, 27(5):1034-1044.
151. Wallschläger D., Desai M.V., Spengler M., Windmöller C.C., Wilken R.D. How humic substances dominate mercury geochemistry in contaminated floodplain soils and sediments. J Environ Qual 1998, 27(5):1044-1054.
152. Wang J., Feng X., Anderson C.W., Wang H., Wang L. Thiosulphate-induced mercury accumulation by plants: metal uptake and transformation of mercury fractionation in soil-results from a field study. Plant Soil 2014, 375(1-2):21-33.
153. Wang J., Feng X., Anderson C.W., Wang H., Zheng L., Hu T. Implications of mercury speciation in thiosulfate treated plants. Environ Sci Technol 2012, 46(10):5361-5368.
154. Wang J., Feng X., Anderson C.W., Xing Y., Shang L. Remediation of mercury contaminated sites-a review. J Hazard Mater 2012, 221:1-18.
155. Wang Y., Stauffer C., Keller C., Greger M. Changes in Hg fractionation in soil induced by willow. Plant Soil 2005, 275(1-2):67-75.
156. Warner K.A., Roden E.E., Bonzongo J.C. Microbial mercury transformation in anoxic freshwater sediments under iron-reducing and other electron-accepting conditions. Environ Sci Technol 2003, 37(10):2159-2165.
157. Wasay S.A., Barrington S., Tokunaga S. Organic acids for the in situ remediation of soils polluted by heavy metals: soil flushing in columns. Water Air Soil Pollut 2001, 127(1-4):301-314.
158. Weis J.S., Weis P. Metal uptake, transport and release by wetland plants: implications for phytoremediation and restoration. Environ Int 2004, 30(5):685-700.
159. Wiatrowski H.A., Ward P.M., Barkay T. Novel reduction of mercury (II) by mercury-sensitive dissimilatory metal reducing bacteria. Environ Sci Technol 2006, 40(21):6690-6696.
160. Wollast R., Billen G., Mackenzie F.T. Behavior of mercury in natural systems and its global cycle. Ecological toxicology research 1975, 145-166. Springer, US.
161. Xu J., Kleja D.B., Biester H., Lagerkvist A., Kumpiene J. Influence of particle size distribution, organic carbon, pH and chlorides on washing of mercury contaminated soil. Chemosphere 2014, 109:99-105.
162. Yang Y.K., Zhang C., Shi X.J., Lin T., Wang D.Y. Effect of organic matter and pH on mercury release from soils. J Environ Sci 2007, 19(11):1349-1354.
163. Yin Y., Allen H.E., Huang C.P., Sparks D.L., Sanders P.F. Kinetics of mercury (II) adsorption and desorption on soil. Environ Sci Technol 1997, 31(2):496-503.
164. Yin Y., Allen H.E., Li Y., Huang C.P., Sanders P.F. Adsorption of mercury (II) by soil: effects of pH, chloride, and organic matter. J Environ Qual 1996, 25(4):837-844.
165. Zhang H., Feng X., Larssen T., Qiu G., Vogt R.D. In inland China, rice, rather than fish, is the major pathway for methylmercury exposure. Environ Health Perspect 2010, 118(9):1183.
166. Zhang H., Feng X., Zhu J., Sapkota A., Meng B., Yao H., et al. Selenium in soil inhibits mercury uptake and translocation in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Environ Sci Technol 2012, 46(18):10040-10046.
167. Zhang J., Bishop P.L. Stabilisation/solidification (S/S) of mercury-containing wastes using reactivated carbon and portland cement. J Hazard Mater 2002, 92(2):199-212.
168. Zhao J., Gao Y., Li Y.F., Hu Y., Peng X., Dong Y., et al. Selenium inhibits the phytotoxicity of mercury in garlic (Allium sativum). Environ Res 2013, 125:75-81.