Advances in Sustainable Soil Health Restoration through Chemical Biological Physical Integrated and Nano Remediation Techniques

Kiran Keshyagol; U. Satisha Prabhu; Pavan Hiremath; B. M. Gurumurthy; Y. M. Shivaprakash; G. Divya Deepak; Suhas Kowshik

doi:https://doi.org/10.20900/jsr20250056

Abstract
Introduction
Methodology
Results and Discussion
Conclusions
Data Availability
Author Contributions
Conflict of Interest
Funding
Aknowledgemt
References
How to Cite This Article

< Previous Next >

TOTAL VIEWS
View Article Impact

This work is licensed under a

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

J Sustain Res. 2025;7(3):e250056. https://doi.org/10.20900/jsr20250056

Review

Advances in Sustainable Soil Health Restoration through Chemical Biological Physical Integrated and Nano Remediation Techniques

Kiran Keshyagol¹

, U. Satisha Prabhu²

, Pavan Hiremath^2,*

, B. M. Gurumurthy²

, Y. M. Shivaprakash²

, G. Divya Deepak²

, Suhas Kowshik²

¹ Department of Mechatronics, Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal 576104, India

² Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal 576104, India

* Correspondence: Pavan Hiremath

Received: 19 Apr 2025; Accepted: 11 Aug 2025; Published: 02 Sep 2025

ABSTRACT

Land degradation, caused by pollution, salinization, erosion, and nutrient loss, undermines food security, the resilience of climate systems, and the health of ecosystems. This review provides an assessment of distinct advanced techniques used for soil remediation which include chemical, biological, physical, integrated, and nano remediation. Some chemical methods like gypsum reclamation, electrokinetic remediation, and advanced oxidation processes (AOPs) focus on the mobilization and breakdown of contaminants, achieving high removal efficiencies epitomized by heavy metals and organics. Other methods, such as phytoremediation, bioaugmentation, and mycoremediation, enhance soil fertility and employ restorational biology while inventive methods like Microbially-Induced Calcite Precipitation (MICP) bolster soil strength. Some of the physical processes are soil flushing and thermal desorption which can efficiently remove pollutants, but energy costs are high. Integrated techniques, notably the application of biochar and electro-bioremediation, demonstrate synergistic enhancement with soil structure and bioremediation performance. Nano-remediation provides unparalleled efficiency for pollutant removal but using nano-zero valent iron (nZVI), nanoclays, and graphene oxide (GO) poses unchartered ecological threats. From the comparison, it is clear that the sustainable remedial approach requires a multifaceted hybrid methodology tailored to the specific site conditions.

KEYWORDS: soil; soil health; sustainability; soil remediation; soil organic carbon (SOC)

INTRODUCTION

Soils are fundamental to terrestrial ecosystems and perform essential functions including food production, water filtration, carbon sequestration, and biodiversity support [1]. In addition, healthy soils also act as natural reservoirs—storing moisture within their pore networks—thereby enhancing drought resilience and buffering ecosystems against climate variability [2]. These functions are critical not only for agricultural sustainability but also for broader climate adaptation and land restoration goals. However, decades of anthropogenic activities—especially industrialization, mining, improper waste disposal, and unregulated urban expansion—have led to widespread soil contamination, rendering vast land areas unfit for safe ecological or agricultural use [3,4]. This industrial legacy has created a pressing global challenge: how to remediate contaminated soils efficiently and sustainably while unlocking their potential for future productive use.

The scale of the problem is substantial. Over 10 million contaminated sites globally are estimated to contain hazardous levels of pollutants, including heavy metals (e.g., Pb, Cd, As), petroleum hydrocarbons, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and emerging contaminants like microplastics and pharmaceuticals [5]. Many of these sites are classified as brownfields—land areas abandoned or underutilized due to real or perceived contamination. In Europe alone, more than 2.8 million potentially contaminated sites have been identified, of which over 342,000 require urgent remediation [6]. Many concentrated in aging industrial corridors and urban zones. In rapidly developing nations such as India [7] and China [8], informal industrial operations and inadequate regulatory oversight have further intensified the spread of pollutants into peri-urban and even rural landscapes [9]. The contamination of soils with toxic compounds poses serious risks to human health, biodiversity, and environmental sustainability [10]. Furthermore, contaminated soils compromise essential functions such as water retention, microbial diversity, and fertility, perpetuating land degradation and limiting future land use options [11]. The reclamation and rehabilitation of these polluted soils is thus central not only to ecosystem restoration but also to achieving broader sustainability goals, including safe urban development, environmental justice, and land reuse planning [12,13]. In this context, soil remediation which refers to the process of removing, stabilizing, or transforming contaminants in soil to restore it for safe use. The technologies have evolved rapidly to address the complex chemical and physical heterogeneity of industrially contaminated sites. Techniques such as electrokinetic remediation [14], AOPs [15], soil washing [16], and thermal desorption have demonstrated high removal efficiencies for heavy metals, organics, and mixed pollutants [17,18]. Simultaneously, biological approaches such as phytoremediation [19], bioaugmentation [20], and mycoremediation [21] offer ecosystem-compatible alternatives, while nano-enabled technologies (e.g., nZVI, nanoclays, and GO composites) represent the frontier of precision decontamination [22,23].

However, the practical deployment of these methods is often limited to small to medium-scale sites, primarily due to economic and logistical constraints. Many remediation techniques, particularly those involving energy input or specialized reagents, are not viable at the scale of industrial agriculture, which typically spans hundreds to thousands of hectares. This limitation raises a critical issue previously underemphasized in the literature: Given this disconnect, a key goal of modern remediation science is to bridge the gap between high-efficiency industrial remediation methods and scalable, agriculture-compatible solutions. One promising avenue lies in reclaiming remediated brownfield sites for safe agricultural reuse. While mainstream agriculture may not adopt energy-intensive remediation approaches, brownfields cleaned to safe standards can be transitioned into urban farms, community gardens, and peri-urban food production zones. This concept of “brownfield-to-greenfield” conversion supports the growing trend of urban agriculture and land circularity, aligning well with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In this context, the objective of this review is to provide a holistic, comparative assessment of advanced soil remediation strategies by examining their mechanisms, effectiveness, sustainability, and alignment with global climate-resilient agriculture and SDGs.

The review is guided by three key hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1 (H1). Integrated remediation approaches, such as the combination of biochar with microbial or electrokinetic systems, provide enhanced and more sustainable outcomes than single-method applications;

Hypothesis 2 (H2). Nano-remediation methods offer high contaminant removal efficiency but raise environmental and regulatory concerns that need careful evaluation;

Hypothesis 3 (H3). Remediation practices based on circular economy principles and ecosystem-based management are more likely to ensure long-term soil health

While large-scale agricultural deployment of advanced remediation technologies remains economically prohibitive, these methods hold promise in the targeted rehabilitation of contaminated soils in peri-urban zones, smallholder farming systems, and urban agriculture. Additionally, the transformation of brownfields into arable land offers a sustainable pathway for increasing food production capacity without expanding agricultural frontiers, particularly in land-scarce regions. Thus, the methods reviewed herein, though originally designed for industrial remediation, may serve as critical enablers for selective agricultural land reuse and climate-smart urban development.

An Overview of Climate Change and Its Impact on Soil and Agriculture

Climate change is a critical global challenge, significantly affecting agriculture, soil quality, and ecosystems. Chaotic rainfall patterns bring drought to some regions and floods to others, eroding fertile soil and disrupting agricultural systems. Melting glaciers raise sea levels, submerging low-lying areas and contaminating freshwater with saltwater [24]. Torrential rains result in waterlogging, washing away topsoil, and hindering root development, while salinization from rising sea levels and poor irrigation renders soil unfarmable [25]. Increased atmospheric CO₂ and higher temperatures amplify the greenhouse effect, accelerating global warming. This creates drier conditions, fueling desertification and prolonged droughts, which strain water resources and reduce crop yields [26]. SOC disperses more easily, and nutrient-rich topsoil erodes under heavy rainfall and storms, lowering fertility and productivity. Excess moisture from flooding disrupts root respiration and microbial activities, while nutrient loss through leaching and volatilization further weakens soils [27]. Climate change also reduces photosynthesis due to high temperatures and water scarcity, affecting crop yields [28]. Degraded soils and nutrient-depleted crops lead to diminished food quality and security, exacerbating hunger and affecting livestock [29]. Figure 1 shows the impact of climate on soil and agriculture [30,31]. Addressing these challenges requires adopting eco-friendly farming methods, managing water resources, reducing soil erosion, cultivating climate-resilient crops, and lowering greenhouse gas emissions. Implementing these measures can create sustainable ecosystems, maintain healthy soils, and support long-term agricultural productivity.

FIGURE 1

Figure 1. The environmental outcomes of climate change and their impact on soil and hence impact on agriculture (Created in BioRender. DEPARTMENT, B. (2025) https://BioRender.com/t42b146).

Introduction to Soil Functions and Ecosystem Importance

Figure 2 shows the Functions of soil, it serves as the cornerstone of terrestrial ecosystems, performing a wide range of functions that are essential for life on Earth. It is a critical resource for agriculture, enabling crop growth and securing food production while also contributing to broader environmental sustainability goals [32]. Beyond agriculture, soil acts as a natural filter, purifying water and regulating the Earth’s hydrological cycles [33]. It plays a pivotal role in climate regulation by sequestering carbon dioxide and mitigating greenhouse gas emissions, which helps combat climate change [34]. These processes highlight soil’s vital contribution to ecosystem stability, biodiversity conservation, and human well-being. The multifunctionality of soil is evident in its diverse roles. The soil supports the provision of food, fiber, and fuel by supplying essential nutrients for plant growth, ensuring food security and raw materials for human needs [35]. Soil serves as a carbon sink, storing large amounts of organic carbon and contributing to climate mitigation [36]. It also filters pollutants and improves water quality, ensuring clean water for ecosystems and human use. Through nutrient cycling, soil recycles key elements like nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, making them available for plants and other organisms. Furthermore, soil provides a habitat for a vast array of microorganisms, fungi, and fauna, all of which are crucial for maintaining soil health and ecosystem functions [37]. It regulates food availability, quality, and security by preserving fertility and productivity, while its biodiversity serves as a reservoir for pharmaceuticals and genetic resources essential for medicine and biotechnology. Soil also provides the foundation for human infrastructure, offering structural stability for buildings and roads, and supplies essential raw materials like clay, sand, and gravel for construction [38]. Additionally, soil plays a cultural role by preserving archaeological artifacts and providing landscapes for recreation, thus contributing to cultural heritage and identity. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) emphasizes the importance of these functions for sustainable development and environmental health [39]. However, soil degradation through erosion, nutrient depletion, and contamination poses significant threats to these critical functions. The FAO’s International Year of Soils campaign in 2015 highlighted the urgency of addressing soil degradation and promoted sustainable practices such as conservation tillage, crop rotation, and organic amendments [40]. These measures are essential for preserving soil health and ensuring its ability to continue supporting future generations.

FIGURE 2

Figure 2. The infographic shows the Functions of soil.

Soil Health Indicators: The Role of SOC

SOC, is a key indicator of soil health, reflecting its quality, fertility, and ability to sustain life [41]. As a major component of soil organic matter (SOM), SOC plays a critical role in regulating physical, chemical, and biological soil properties, supporting agricultural productivity and ecosystem sustainability while aiding in climate change mitigation through carbon sequestration. Physically, SOC enhances soil structure, porosity, and water retention by forming stable aggregates, reducing erosion risk, and lowering bulk density, making soil easier to cultivate. Chemically, SOC stores essential nutrients like nitrogen, phosphorus, and sulfur, gradually releasing them through decomposition [42]. It improves cation exchange capacity (CEC), nutrient retention, and pH buffering, fostering optimal conditions for plant roots and microbial activity. Biologically, SOC fuels microbial diversity and activity, driving nutrient cycling, organic matter decomposition, and disease suppression, thus sustaining a balanced and resilient soil ecosystem [43]. SOC interacts with soil properties in a feedback loop: improved structure boosts aeration, stimulating microbial activity that replenishes SOC through decomposition, while nutrient release from SOC supports plant growth, further adding organic inputs. Factors influencing SOC are shown in Figure 3. which include geological attributes (soil type, mineralogy), physical properties (porosity, moisture), biological activity (microbes, earthworms), and chemical properties (pH, CEC). Climate variables (rainfall, temperature) and land use practices like agriculture and forestry also affect SOC levels. Effective management practices, such as conservation tillage, crop rotation, organic amendments, and controlled irrigation, are crucial for maintaining SOC. Enhancing SOC levels by minimizing soil disturbance and increasing organic inputs ensures long-term soil health, resilience against climate change, and sustainable agricultural systems.

FIGURE 3

Figure 3. Factors affecting the concentration of SOC in soils (Created in BioRender. DEPARTMENT, B. (2025) https://BioRender.com/e16e568).

Microbial and fungal communities are essential for decomposing organic matter, releasing nutrients, and maintaining soil fertility, particularly in the O and A soil horizons. These layers, however, are highly susceptible to degradation due to deforestation, overgrazing, and intensive agriculture [44]. Soil degradation manifests as erosion, nutrient depletion, salinization, compaction, organic matter loss, and contamination, all of which reduce productivity and disrupt ecosystems. Erosion, driven by wind and water, depletes nutrient-rich topsoil and leads to sedimentation in water bodies. Salinization, often caused by poor irrigation and fertilizer overuse, degrades soil structure and nutrient availability [45]. Nutrient depletion from monocropping and excessive fertilizer use reduces microbial activity and increases dependency on chemical inputs. Compaction limits water infiltration and root growth, while contamination from pollutants renders soil infertile. Degraded soils exacerbate climate change by reducing carbon sequestration and releasing greenhouse gases like nitrous oxide. Loss of microbial biodiversity further diminishes soil recovery [46]. Figure 4 shows the effects of soil salinity on plants.

FIGURE 4

Figure 4. Shows the effects of soil salinity on plants. (Created in BioRender. DEPARTMENT, B. (2025) https://BioRender.com/d51v629).

METHODOLOGY

Literature Search Strategy and Inclusion Criteria

The methodology adopted for this review involved a comprehensive examination of existing literature on advancements in soil remediation techniques. Emphasis was placed on evaluating advanced remediation strategies for their effectiveness in restoring degraded soils. Each method was critically analyzed based on environmental impact, practical applicability, and alignment with sustainability goals. Figure 5 presents the PRISMA flow diagram illustrating the study selection process, including identification, screening, and eligibility assessment of 212 studies sourced from major academic databases. The review predominantly incorporates recent publications, while foundational concepts are supported by earlier seminal works, as reflected in Figure 6.

FIGURE 5

Figure 5. PRISMA flow diagram illustrating the study selection process for the systematic review of soil remediation techniques.

FIGURE 6

Figure 6. Shows the publication year of literature used in this manuscript (studies grouped by 5-year publication intervals).

The regenerative methods such as cover cropping, compost addition, and reduced tillage are highly effective at restoring soil structure and microbial function, they are not sufficient for soils contaminated with industrial pollutants (e.g., heavy metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, persistent organic compounds). In such cases, remediation techniques—physical, chemical, or biological—must be employed first to remove or immobilize toxic contaminants before soil can be safely returned to use ecological function. These techniques are therefore most relevant in brownfield reclamation, urban agriculture on legacy-contaminated lands, or conversion of derelict industrial zones into productive green spaces. For the current review, soil remediation techniques are classified as shown in Figure 7.

FIGURE 7

Figure 7. Soil remediation methods categorized by principle, benefits, and limitations.

Chemical-Based Remediation Soil Reclamation with Gypsum

Gypsum, or calcium sulfate dihydrate (CaSO₄·2H₂O), is widely used for reclaiming salt-affected sodic soils, particularly in areas with high soil salinity and low rainfall [47]. Its primary benefit is replacing sodium ions in the soil with calcium ions, which improves soil structure, reduces compaction, and increases permeability [47]. Sodium is leached away by rain or irrigation, enhancing soil moisture retention and creating a healthier environment for plant roots and beneficial microbes [48]. Gypsum provides essential nutrients, such as calcium for root development and sulfur for protein synthesis and enzymatic activities, boosting soil fertility and crop production. It also reduces soil crusting, enhances water infiltration, and mitigates salt build-up in salinized irrigation systems, which is vital for steep or eroding terrains [49]. While gypsum is highly effective, its success depends on proper management practices, including correct application rates based on soil salinity, sodicity levels, and crop requirements [50]. Over-application may lead to imbalances in calcium and magnesium or excessive nutrient leaching. Regular monitoring of soil properties, such as pH, electrical conductivity, and exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP), is essential to ensure optimal results and sustainable soil health [51]. Soil reclamation with gypsum entails a fundamental chemical reaction wherein the calcium ions (Ca²⁺) contained in gypsum, displace the sodium ions (Na⁺) present in soil particles. The sodium ions that were displaced, get washed away in the form of soluble sodium sulfate (Na₂SO₄) in water. This process can be illustrated as follows:

Gypsum dissociates in water to release calcium ions (Ca²⁺) and sulfate ions (SO₄^2-)

${CaSO}_{4} \cdot 2 H_{2} O \to {Ca}^{2 +} + {SO}_{4}^{2 -} + 2 H_{2} O$ (1)

The calcium ions from gypsum displace the sodium ions on the soil exchange sites (sodium-bound clay particles)

$2 Na-clay + {Ca}^{2 +} \to Ca-clay + 2 {Na}^{+}$ (2)

The displaced sodium ions combine with sulfate ions in the soil solution to form sodium sulfate, which is water-soluble and can be leached out of the root zone:

$2 {Na}^{+} + {SO}_{4}^{2 -} \to {Na}_{2} {SO}_{4}$ (3)

${CaSO}_{4} \cdot 2 H_{2} O + 2 Na-clay \to Ca-clay + {Na}_{2} {SO}_{4} + 2 H_{2} O$ (4)

This reaction improves soil structure by replacing sodium with calcium, leading to better aggregation of soil particles, increased permeability, and enhanced soil health.

A recent study titled “A quantitative assessment of the dynamic process and potential capacity of using gypsum to reclaim sodic soil”, published in the Journal of Soils and Sediments in May 2023 [52], provides an in-depth analysis of gypsum’s effectiveness in ameliorating sodic soils. The research involved leaching sodic soil columns with gypsum solutions of varying concentrations to monitor changes in soil properties and ion dynamics. The findings indicated that gypsum application significantly reduced soil pH, ESP, and sodium adsorption ratio (SAR), thereby improving soil structure and permeability. The study also highlighted the efficient utilization of calcium ions from gypsum in replacing exchangeable sodium, emphasizing the importance of appropriate gypsum application rates tailored to specific soil conditions. This case study underscores the potential of gypsum as a viable amendment for sodic soil reclamation, offering valuable insights for optimizing its use in soil management practices.

Electrokinetic Remediation

Electrokinetic remediation is an advanced in-situ soil remediation technique that uses a low-intensity direct current electric field to mobilize and extract contaminants from soil, particularly in fine-grained soils like clay and silt, which are challenging to remediate using traditional methods [53,54]. The process is driven by three primary mechanisms: electromigration, where charged ions move toward electrodes under the electric field; electroosmosis, which facilitates water movement toward the cathode, carrying dissolved contaminants; and electrophoresis, involving the migration of charged particles such as colloids or microbial cells [55]. Redox reactions at the electrodes further enhance the breakdown of certain organic pollutants [56].

A recent study titled “Controlled Ion Transport in the Subsurface: A Coupled Advection-Diffusion-Electromigration System”, published on August 9, 2023 [57], explores the application of electrokinetic remediation for groundwater pollution. The research introduces a coupled advection-diffusion-electromigration system to control ion transport in subsurface environments, utilizing the Lattice-Boltzmann-Poisson method for simulations in various porous media. The study establishes an ion transport regime classification based on the Peclet number and a novel Electrodiffusivity index, identifying four transport regimes: large channeling, uniform flow, small channeling, and no flow.

Soil Washing with Surfactants

Soil washing with surfactants is an advanced remediation method that employs aqueous solutions containing surfactants to remove contaminants from soil [58]. Surfactants, or surface-active agents, lower surface tension, enhancing the desorption and mobilization of hydrophobic organic compounds and heavy metals [59]. This technique is particularly effective for soils contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and metals.

The process involves applying a surfactant solution to contaminated soil, where the surfactants form micelles that encapsulate hydrophobic pollutants, solubilizing them in water. This enables contaminants to detach from soil particles [60] and remain suspended in the washing solution. Heavy metals are removed via ion exchange or complexation with the surfactants [61]. The contaminated solution is collected, and pollutants are separated and treated, while the surfactant solution can be recycled for reuse. Nonionic surfactants, such as Tween and Triton, are commonly used due to their low toxicity and efficiency in solubilizing hydrophobic pollutants [62]. Anionic surfactants like sodium dodecyl sulfate are effective for both metals and organic pollutants, while cationic surfactants are less frequently used due to their tendency to adsorb onto soil particles. Soil washing with surfactants is versatile and effective for various contaminants [63].

A recent study reported by Zhao et al, in 2024 [64] provides a comprehensive review of surfactant-enhanced soil washing techniques for remediating oil-contaminated soils. The study examines various surfactants, including synthetic surface-active agents and biosurfactants, and their effectiveness in enhancing the solubilization, desorption, and separation of petroleum hydrocarbons from soil matrices. Key findings highlight that surfactant-enhanced soil washing can significantly improve the removal of hydrophobic organic contaminants, with efficiency influenced by factors such as surfactant type, concentration, soil properties, and contaminant characteristics. The authors also discuss the environmental implications of surfactant use, emphasizing the need for selecting biodegradable and environmentally friendly surfactants to minimize secondary pollution.

AOPs

AOPs are cutting-edge chemical treatments designed to degrade organic and inorganic soil contaminants using highly reactive hydroxyl radicals (·OH) [65]. These radicals are non-selective and capable of breaking down complex pollutants, such as petroleum hydrocarbons, pesticides, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), into harmless substances like carbon dioxide and water [66]. The key mechanisms involve oxidative cleavage, dehydrogenation, and mineralization, which destabilize pollutants and convert them into simpler compounds [58,67]. Hydroxyl radicals can be generated through various methods, including Fenton’s reaction (using hydrogen peroxide and iron salts), ozone oxidation enhanced by ultraviolet (UV) light, photocatalysis with UV and titanium dioxide, and electrochemical oxidation [68]. The process begins with introducing the oxidant into contaminated soil, followed by radical generation, pollutant breakdown, and post-treatment monitoring to ensure remediation effectiveness [69]. AOPs are versatile, effective for organic pollutants and some inorganic contaminants, and adaptable for complex mixtures. Their advantages include high efficiency, minimal toxic residue production, and scalability. However, they are cost-intensive and require specialized equipment and precise pH control for optimal performance [70]. Soil conditions, such as low permeability or high organic matter, can reduce effectiveness by consuming hydroxyl radicals prematurely [71].

A recent study highlighted the use of homogeneous and heterogeneous AOP systems for remediating creosote-contaminated soils. Homogeneous systems using sodium persulfate and ferrous ions showed high removal efficiencies for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), while heterogeneous systems with clay-based iron catalysts enabled catalyst recovery and reuse, showcasing AOPs’ potential in soil remediation [72]. Simultaneously, another recent review, “Recent Developments in AOPs for Organics Removal in Water and Wastewater Treatment,” [73] provides insights into the latest advancements in AOP technologies for managing organic pollutants in water. It covers methods such as photocatalysis, Fenton-based processes, ozonation, and sulfate radical-based oxidation. Innovations in catalytic materials and the integration of unconventional methods have significantly improved the efficiency of AOPs. Given their operational cost and complexity, AOPs are largely confined to industrial sites or small contaminated zones and are not applicable to broad-acre farming systems.

Biological and Microbial Techniques Phytoremediation

Phytoremediation is a sustainable soil remediation technique that uses plants to extract, stabilize, or degrade contaminants in soil, water, and air [74]. This eco-friendly method effectively treats pollutants such as heavy metals, organic compounds, and radionuclides, particularly in sites where traditional remediation methods are costly or impractical [75]. Phytoremediation performance varies widely depending on pollutant type, plant species, and conditions. The field studies on heavy metal–contaminated soils have shown that certain plants can extract on the order of 50–60% of metals like lead over several months [76]. Likewise, for organic pollutants such as petroleum hydrocarbons, phytoremediation using appropriate plant species (e.g., maize) can degrade or remove roughly 50–70% of total petroleum hydrocarbons under controlled conditions [76]. Key processes include phytoextraction, where plants absorb contaminants into harvestable biomass; phytostabilization, which immobilizes pollutants to prevent leaching and erosion; phytodegradation, involving enzymatic breakdown of organic pollutants by plants and microbes; phytovolatilization, which releases absorbed volatile compounds into the atmosphere in less harmful forms; and rhizome-filtration, where plant roots filter contaminants from water sources [77]. The plant selection must align with site-specific conditions and pollutant types [78]. Advancements in phytoremediation include genetic engineering to create plants with enhanced pollutant uptake and tolerance, the use of microbial symbionts like mycorrhizal fungi to improve nutrient and contaminant processing [19,70], and hybrid methods combining phytoremediation with techniques like soil washing or electro-kinetics. These developments enhance its efficiency and broaden its applicability, making phytoremediation a vital tool for sustainable soil remediation and ecological restoration [79]. Table 1 provides a comparison between biological and microbial techniques discussed in this article.

After the Chornobyl nuclear disaster, phytoremediation was employed using sunflowers to remove radioactive isotopes from contaminated soil and water. Sunflowers demonstrated a high capacity for absorbing cesium-137 and strontium-90, reducing soil toxicity and enabling safer environmental conditions. This case highlights the potential of phytoremediation for managing heavy metal and radioactive contamination in agricultural and industrial sites [80].

Microbially-Induced Carbonate Precipitation (MICP) Process for Soil Strengthening

MICP is an innovative biogeochemical process that utilizes microbial activity to enhance soil properties by inducing the precipitation of calcium carbonate (CaCO₃) [81]. As depicted in Figure 8 the process is driven by urease-producing microorganisms, such as cyanobacteria, which facilitate the hydrolysis of urea (CO(NH₂)₂) into ammonia (NH₃) and carbon dioxide (CO₂) [82]. This enzymatic reaction increases the pH of the surrounding environment by producing ammonium (NH₄⁺) and hydroxide (OH⁻) ions. The elevated pH enables the conversion of dissolved carbon dioxide into carbonate ions (CO₃²⁻), which then react with calcium ions (Ca²⁺) present in the soil or are added externally to precipitate calcium carbonate in the form of calcite. The precipitated calcite binds soil particles together, filling voids and pores within the soil matrix. This transformation converts loose, untreated soil into a denser and more stable material, significantly improving its mechanical properties, including strength, durability, and erosion resistance [83]. The treated soil becomes more compact and cohesive due to the formation of calcite bridges between particles [76,84]. The effectiveness of the process depends on factors such as the uniform distribution of microorganisms, the availability of calcium and urea, and environmental conditions like temperature and pH. The process requires careful optimization to ensure efficient calcite precipitation and soil stabilization [85].

FIGURE 8

Figure 8. MICP Process representation (Created in BioRender. DEPARTMENT, B. (2025) https://BioRender.com/t42b146) [86].

Bioaugmentation

Bioaugmentation is a biological remediation strategy involving the introduction of specific microorganisms into contaminated soils to enhance the degradation or transformation of pollutants [87]. These microorganisms are chosen for their ability to metabolize contaminants such as hydrocarbons, pesticides, heavy metals, and other hazardous compounds. This technique is particularly useful when the native microbial community lacks the metabolic capacity or sufficient populations to remediate the site effectively [88]. The bioaugmentation process starts with analyzing the contaminants and site conditions, followed by selecting microorganisms, often bacteria or fungi, tailored to the specific pollutants. These microbes are introduced into the soil, typically as liquid or solid formulations, and environmental conditions such as pH, oxygen, and nutrients are optimized to support their activity [89]. The introduced microbes then metabolize the pollutants through enzymatic processes, breaking them down into less harmful compounds. In some cases, bioaugmentation is combined with bio-stimulation, which involves adding nutrients to enhance microbial activity further [90]. Bioaugmentation offers several benefits, including cost-effectiveness, environmental friendliness, and the ability to target specific contaminants. It is particularly suitable for in-situ applications, preserving soil structure and minimizing the need for excavation [91].

Mycoremediation

Myco-remediation is an eco-friendly remediation method that uses fungi to degrade or transform environmental pollutants in soil and water [84,92]. Fungi, such as Pleurotus spp., Trametes versicolor, and Phanerochaete chrysosporium, are chosen for their robust enzymatic systems, including lignin peroxidase, manganese peroxidase, and laccase [93]. These enzymes effectively break down pollutants like hydrocarbons, pesticides, dyes, PAHs, and synthetic polymers [94]. The fungi are cultivated on substrates such as sawdust or compost and introduced into contaminated areas, where they metabolize organic pollutants into less harmful compounds or mineralize them into carbon dioxide and water [95]. For heavy metals, fungi use biosorption and bioaccumulation to immobilize contaminants, reducing their mobility. Myco-remediation has several advantages, including its ability to degrade a wide range of pollutants, low cost due to the use of agricultural byproducts, and applicability in both in-situ and ex-situ scenarios [88,96]. It also enhances soil health through nutrient cycling and structural improvements and is effective in extreme environmental conditions where other methods fail [97]. However, the process can be slow and is influenced by environmental factors like temperature, moisture, and pH. Additionally, incomplete mineralization of pollutants and the disposal of contaminated fungal biomass pose challenges [98]. Table 1 gives the case studies on biological and microbial remediation techniques.

TABLE 1

Table 1. Case studies on biological and microbial remediation techniques.

Physical Remediation Processes Soil Flushing

Leaching is a method of soil healing that allows the user to eliminate already existing soil from the vadose zone, as seen in the Figure 9, as well as the saturated zone, aiming to eliminate probable pollutants within the soil [101]. The efficiency is dependent on the parameters of the soil such as the permeability and porosity, which govern the movement of flushing agents. Even though soil flushing can be an effective remediation technique, there are limitations such as low permeability soils, pollutants that have diffused into areas that are not allowed, and that can hinder its success pollutant levels [102].

FIGURE 9

Figure 9. Soil flush technique (Created in BioRender. DEPARTMENT, B. (2025) https://BioRender.com/t42b146) [97,103].

Although soil flushing is often associated with groundwater remediation, recent pilot studies have demonstrated its feasibility in agricultural soil contexts, particularly in sandy loam soils contaminated with heavy metals. For example, Klik et al. (2021) performed column-scale flushing on contaminated agricultural soil and achieved significant amount of removal of Cu, Pb, and Zn using sewage-sludge derived washing agents, simultaneously improving soil fertility and microbial health post-treatment [104]. These examples underscore that, while uncommon in mainstream farming, soil flushing can be adapted for localized agricultural contamination scenarios under specific conditions [105].

Thermal Desorption

Thermal desorption is a soil remediation technique that uses controlled heat to volatilize and remove organic and some inorganic contaminants [106]. By elevating soil temperature, this method targets pollutants with low boiling points, such as hydrocarbons, VOCs, SVOCs, and certain pesticides, which are evaporated, captured, and treated. It is classified into Low-Temperature Thermal Desorption (LTTD), operating at 90 °C to 320 °C, ideal for volatile and semi-volatile compounds, and High-Temperature Thermal Desorption (HTTD), above 320 °C, suitable for persistent pollutants like PCBs. LTTD preserves soil integrity, while HTTD may alter soil properties [107]. Thermal desorption is effective for treating organic contaminants and offers a relatively quick treatment process with flexible application in situ or ex-situ. However, the method is energy-intensive, making it costly, and high temperatures can affect soil fertility and structure [108]. It is less effective for non-volatile contaminants like heavy metals. Recent innovations include microwave-assisted heating, hybrid systems that combine thermal desorption with other remediation techniques, and the use of renewable energy to improve energy efficiency and sustainability [109]. Table 2 gives case studies on soil flushing and thermal desorption methods.

TABLE 2

Table 2. Case studies on soil flushing, and thermal desorption.

Integrated Remediation Approaches Biochar Application

The sustainable agricultural innovation that incorporates biochar in the soil in order to retain its long-term productivity is known as biochar application [107]. Biochar is produced through the heat treatment of organic material in an oxygen-deprived setting which results in locking carbon which transforms biochar into a useful soil-enhancing product [109]. Biochar makes particles such as wood, crop residues, and animal manure [114]. One of the best uses of biochar is its ability to enhance the structure of soil and retain moisture [115]. Biochar’s pored composition serves as an air channel for the soil which promotes the retention of water, as a result, biochar is great to use with other sandy soils that fail to retain water [116]. Enhanced water retention helps plants sustain themselves during droughts and as a result, the frequency of irrigation is reduced [117]. Another great benefit that biochar provides is the higher concentration of nutrients and for improving soil quality. Biochar possesses a large surface area and an increased CEC which allows it to withhold nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium within the soil rather than letting these nutrients leach [118]. Biochar also plays a very important role in increasing microbial activity and the diversity of soil [119]. Enhanced water retention helps sustain the plants during droughts as a result the required frequency of irrigation is reduced. Increased activity of the microbes improves the fertility of the soil and aids the growth of the plants [120].

The soil remediation procedure involving biochar application involves complex chemical processes that typically encompass physical, biological, and chemical interactions [121,122]. Below is a simplified representation of the key chemical reactions associated with biochar’s role in soil remediation, particularly in binding and immobilizing contaminants and enhancing nutrient dynamics.

Nutrient Retention and Cation Exchange: Biochar has a high CEC and can adsorb nutrients, such as ammonium (NH₄⁺) and potassium (K⁺), making them available to plants over time:

${Biochar-Cation Exchange Site + NH}_{4}^{+} \to {Biochar - NH}^{4+}$ (5)

${Biochar-Cation Exchange Site + K}^{+} \to Biochar - K$ (6)

Heavy Metal Immobilization: Biochar can immobilize heavy metals, such as lead (Pb²⁺), cadmium (Cd²⁺), or arsenic (As³⁺), by binding them to its surface through ion exchange or precipitation:

$Biochar-OH + {Pb}^{2 +} \to Biochar-O-Pb + H^{+}$ (7)

For arsenic, precipitation with calcium ions (from biochar or other sources) can occur:

${Ca}^{2 +} + 2 {AsO}_{4}^{3 -} \to {Ca}_{3} {(({AsO}_{4}))}_{2} ((Calcium Arsenate Precipitate))$ (8)

Soil pH Buffering: Biochar, especially if derived from alkaline feedstocks, can neutralize acidic soils by releasing hydroxide ions (OH⁻):

${Biochar-CO}_{3}^{2 -} + 2 H^{+} \to H_{2} {CO}_{3} ((Carbonic Acid))$ (9)

$H_{2} {CO}_{3} \to H_{2} O + {CO}_{2} ((Gas Release))$ (10)

Organic Pollutant Adsorption: Biochar’s porous structure adsorbs organic pollutants like pesticides or hydrocarbons, reducing their bioavailability:

$Organic Pollutant + Biochar-Pore Surface \to Biochar-Pollutant Complex$ (11)

Carbon Sequestration: Biochar contributes to long-term carbon sequestration by stabilizing carbon in a recalcitrant form:

$Biomass \to Biochar + Volatile gasses + Bio - oils$ (12)

These reactions illustrate biochar’s multifunctional role in soil remediation, addressing issues like nutrient loss, contamination, acidity, and poor carbon storage. Table 3 gives case studies on biochar remediation.

TABLE 3

Table 3. Case studies on biochar for environmental remediation.

Electro-Bioremediation

Electro-bioremediation is an advanced hybrid soil remediation technique that combines electrokinetic processes with bioremediation to enhance the degradation or removal of contaminants [128]. This innovative approach leverages the strengths of both methods: the ability of electrokinetics to mobilize contaminants and nutrients through an electric field, and the metabolic capabilities of microorganisms to degrade or transform these contaminants into less harmful compounds [129]. Electro-bioremediation is particularly effective for treating a wide range of organic pollutants, such as hydrocarbons and pesticides, as well as inorganic contaminants like heavy metals [130]. Electro-bioremediation offers several advantages over conventional methods [131]. It enhances the efficiency of bioremediation by ensuring the even distribution of nutrients, contaminants, and microbial populations across the treatment zone, particularly in low-permeability soils like clay, where diffusion is limited. The electric field accelerates the degradation process, reducing the time required for remediation [132,133].

A recent study titled “Electro-bioremediation of nitrate and arsenite polluted groundwater” [134] explores the application of this method for treating groundwater contaminated with nitrate and arsenite. The research demonstrates that electro-bioremediation effectively reduces concentrations of these pollutants, leveraging the synergistic effects of electrokinetic transport and microbial activity. Another study, “Electro-bioremediation: An Advanced Remediation Technology for the Treatment of Textile Dye-Contaminated Soil,” discusses the use of electro-bioremediation to address soil contamination from textile dyes. The research highlights the process’s efficiency in degrading complex organic compounds present in dyes, facilitated by the combined action of electric fields and microbial degradation. Similarly, Table 4 gives comprehensive details of recent case studies on Electro-Bioremediation.

TABLE 4

Table 4. Electro-bioremediation case studies.

Green Stabilization

Green stabilization is an eco-friendly soil remediation and stabilization technique that utilizes vegetation, natural additives, and microbial interactions to improve soil structure, reduce erosion, and immobilize contaminants [144]. This approach leverages natural processes involving plant roots, organic materials, and soil microorganisms to achieve stabilization and remediation sustainably [145]. Plants with extensive root systems, such as grasses and shrubs, bind soil particles, prevent erosion, and reduce the mobility of contaminants. These roots also enhance soil structure by increasing organic matter and facilitating aeration and water infiltration [146]. In addition to vegetation, natural additives like biochar, compost, and natural clays are incorporated to improve soil cohesion, nutrient content, and contaminant immobilization. Soil microorganisms play a crucial role by transforming and immobilizing pollutants, enhancing nutrient cycling, and improving soil fertility [147]. In some cases, chemical stabilization occurs as plants and microbes interact to sequester heavy metals and other pollutants, transforming them into less bioavailable forms. Green stabilization is widely applied in scenarios such as erosion control on slopes, riverbanks, and construction sites, where it prevents soil loss and improves stability [148]. It is also effective for immobilizing contaminants, and reducing the leaching of heavy metals and organic pollutants into groundwater. Table 5 gives case studies on green stabilization.

TABLE 5

Table 5. Case studies on green stabilization for environmental remediation.

Nano-Remediation Techniques Nano Zero Valent Iron (nZVI)

nZVI is an advanced remediation technology employing nanoscale iron particles, less than 100 nanometers in size, to treat contaminants in soil and groundwater [152]. With a high surface area and strong reactivity, nZVI is particularly effective in degrading organic pollutants, immobilizing heavy metals, and addressing persistent contaminants like chlorinated solvents and pesticides [153]. The primary remediation mechanism involves redox reactions, where the zero-valent iron donates electrons to transform or reduce pollutants into less toxic forms while oxidizing itself to ferrous or ferric ions [154]. The nanoscale nature of nZVI allows for penetration into porous media, making it effective in treating contaminants in diverse soil and groundwater matrices [155]. Its advantages include high reactivity, versatility across a range of pollutants, and the ability to perform in situ applications, minimizing site disruption and reducing remediation costs. Additionally, nZVI performs well in anaerobic or low-pH environments [156].

While nano-scale materials (e.g., nanoscale zero-valent iron) show high reactivity in lab settings, their efficacy in real soils is often limited by issues like particle aggregation, rapid oxidation, and persistence in the environment. Such aggregation can drastically reduce the available reactive surface area and nanoparticle mobility [157]. Moreover, field deployments have revealed challenges with higher costs and only comparable performance relative to conventional bulk materials, along with uncertainties about long-term ecotoxicity and human health risks [157].

Nanoclays

Nanoclays, derived from naturally occurring clays, are nanostructured materials known for their layered structure, high surface area, and remarkable adsorptive and catalytic properties [158]. These properties make them effective in soil remediation by adsorbing, immobilizing, and degrading contaminants such as heavy metals, organic pollutants, and persistent chemicals [159]. The remediation process involves adsorption, ion exchange, and catalytic reactions [160]. Nanoclays’ layered structure provides abundant active sites for binding pollutants, and their ion exchange capabilities allow the replacement of harmful ions with less harmful ones, stabilizing contaminants and reducing mobility. Functionalized nanoclays, such as organo-clays or polymer-clay composites, are further tailored to target specific pollutants and catalyze the breakdown of complex organic molecules into less toxic forms [161]. Nanoclays are advantageous due to their high adsorption capacity, environmental friendliness, cost-effectiveness, and versatility in both in-situ and ex-situ remediation strategies [162]. They also improve soil properties, enhancing its structure and water retention, contributing to both remediation and agricultural productivity [163].

Carbon Nanotubes (CNTs) and Graphene Oxides (GO)

CNTs and GO are advanced nanomaterials with remarkable properties such as high surface area, mechanical strength, and strong adsorptive capabilities, making them highly effective for soil remediation [164]. These materials can target a range of contaminants, including heavy metals, hydrocarbons, pesticides, and pharmaceuticals [165]. Their remediation mechanisms include adsorption, catalytic degradation, and immobilization. The high surface area and functional groups of CNTs and GO provide active sites for adsorbing contaminants [166]. Heavy metals are removed through chemical bonding or ion exchange, while organic pollutants are adsorbed via π-π interactions, hydrophobic effects, or van der Waals forces [167]. Additionally, these nanomaterials serve as catalysts in AOPs, breaking down complex pollutants into less toxic compounds [168].

Table 6 gives the case studies that highlight the significant potential of nanomaterials for environmental remediation, focusing on soil and water pollutants. Nanomaterials, such as metal and metal oxide nanoparticles, demonstrate enhanced pollutant removal capabilities compared to conventional methods, but environmental and health risks remain a concern.

TABLE 6

Table 6. Case studies on nano-remediation techniques.

For example, TiO₂ and silver oxide nanoparticles effectively degrade organic compounds and treat microbial contamination, particularly under sunlight. However, potential toxicity and scalability challenges must be addressed. Platinum-studded PS particles have achieved 100% removal of industrial dyes like methylene blue and pharmaceuticals like tetracycline, showcasing the efficiency of size-optimized nanoparticles. However, scalability and particle size optimization for diverse contaminants remain challenges. nZVI is particularly effective in groundwater remediation, as demonstrated through predictive modeling of TCE behavior, aiding in the design of effective remediation strategies. Nevertheless, the complexity of subsurface environments necessitates field data validation. Further, nZVI stabilized with PVP shows antimicrobial properties, suggesting potential for bioremediation of pathogenic microorganisms in soil and water. Despite its promise, the long-term stability and ecological impacts of such nanoparticles require further exploration. These case studies underscore the transformative potential of nanomaterials in environmental remediation while highlighting the need for sustainable synthesis methods and risk mitigation strategies to ensure safe and effective applications.

The Table 7 provides a comparison of various remediation techniques. Chemical-based techniques like electrokinetic remediation and AOPs offer high efficiency for removing heavy metals, hydrocarbons, and organics but often come with high energy demands and operational costs. On the other hand, biological approaches, including phytoremediation and myco-remediation, emphasize eco-friendly and cost-effective solutions, though they are often time-consuming and limited by environmental conditions. Physical remediation processes, such as thermal desorption and soil flushing, are highly effective for specific contaminants like VOCs and hydrocarbons, yet they require significant resource inputs, including energy and water. Integrated approaches, such as biochar-amended remediation and electro-bioremediation, combine techniques to enhance efficiency and sustainability but necessitate precise optimization to maximize effectiveness. Emerging nano-remediation techniques show great promise due to their high reactivity and versatility. Materials like nZVI and GO demonstrate exceptional pollutant removal capabilities, especially for heavy metals and organic pollutants. However, concerns regarding cost, stability, and potential environmental risks associated with nanoparticle use remain critical challenges.

TABLE 7

Table 7. Comprehensive comparison of all the soil remediation techniques discussed in this article.

Table 8 provides a detailed overview of soil remediation techniques, their environmental risks, key concerns, and mitigation strategies. Chemical-based and biological remediation techniques emphasize the importance of precise application and monitoring to minimize secondary contamination and disruption of native microbial communities. Physical and nano-remediation methods, though effective, underline the need for careful assessment of their long-term environmental impacts, particularly in maintaining soil structure and preventing nanoparticle toxicity. Energy-intensive methods and their reliance on fossil fuels pose a significant challenge, advocating for a shift toward renewable energy integration and optimization of energy use. The integration of remediation with sustainable farming practices showcases the importance of balancing soil recovery efforts with agricultural productivity. Additionally, waste management strategies, focusing on the sustainable disposal and recycling of residues, highlight a critical area for reducing secondary pollution and enhancing environmental outcomes. There is a need for multi-disciplinary approaches that combine technological advancements, renewable energy solutions, and sustainable farming practices. Addressing these challenges requires robust policies, stakeholder collaboration, and adaptive management frameworks to ensure the success of remediation efforts while promoting environmental sustainability and resilience.

TABLE 8

Table 8. Environmental risks and mitigation strategies in advanced soil remediation.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Electro-bioremediation emerged as a particularly effective hybrid approach, achieving up to 90% degradation of persistent organic pollutants such as textile dyes and hydrocarbons. This synergy of electrokinetic stimulation with microbial action supports Hypothesis 1, indicating superior performance of integrated methods over standalone techniques. Likewise, biochar application—especially when enriched with microbial or nutrient amendments—significantly improved SOC content, microbial biomass, and nutrient retention [123].

The immobilization of heavy metals through sorption and pH regulation further confirms its multifunctional utility. Nano-remediation strategies, including the use of nZVI and GO, consistently achieved over 85–90% removal efficiency of contaminants such as chlorinated solvents and heavy metals in lab-scale studies. While these outcomes affirm Hypothesis 2 regarding the high removal efficiency of nano-materials, they also raise valid concerns about ecological toxicity, nanoparticle persistence, and regulatory constraints—thus partially refuting the blanket applicability of such methods without thorough risk assessment. The MICP not only stabilized heavy metals but also improved soil shear strength and erosion resistance. These methods are consistent with long-term fertility enhancement, validating Hypothesis 3, which emphasizes the benefits of ecosystem-based approaches.

The evaluation of individual and integrated soil remediation techniques reveals distinct performance characteristics across varying soil types and contaminant profiles. Chemical methods, such as gypsum reclamation, showed high efficacy in sodic soil improvement by lowering the ESP and enhancing soil permeability. Studies by [47–52] support these findings, demonstrating reductions in both soil pH and SAR post-treatment with gypsum amendments. These outcomes align with Hypothesis 1, which proposes that targeted chemical interventions can significantly improve soil structure and hydraulic conductivity. Electro-bioremediation emerged as a particularly effective hybrid approach, achieving up to 90% degradation of persistent organic pollutants such as textile dyes and hydrocarbons. This synergy of electrokinetic stimulation with microbial action supports Hypothesis 1, indicating superior performance of integrated methods over standalone techniques. Biological methods, especially phytoremediation and microbial augmentation, demonstrated sustainability and ecological balance. For example, the use of Echinacea purpurea in petroleum-contaminated soils led to significant pollutant reduction, supported by recent evidence [20]. Likewise, biochar application—especially when enriched with microbial or nutrient amendments—significantly improved SOC content, microbial biomass, and nutrient retention [123]. The immobilization of heavy metals through sorption and pH regulation further confirms its multifunctional utility. Nano-remediation strategies, including the use of nZVI and GO, consistently achieved over 85–90% removal efficiency of contaminants such as chlorinated solvents and heavy metals in lab-scale studies. While these outcomes affirm Hypothesis 2 regarding the high removal efficiency of nano-materials, they also raise valid concerns about ecological toxicity, nanoparticle persistence, and regulatory constraints—thus partially refuting the blanket applicability of such methods without thorough risk assessment. The MICP not only stabilized heavy metals but also improved soil shear strength and erosion resistance. These methods are consistent with long-term fertility enhancement, validating Hypothesis 3, which emphasizes the benefits of ecosystem-based approaches.

Comparison with Literature and Sustainability Considerations

The comparative matrix (Table 7) illustrates that while physical and chemical remediation methods offer rapid results, biological and integrated strategies are more aligned with sustainability and SDG frameworks. Physical approaches such as thermal desorption are effective but energy-intensive, limiting their feasibility in low-resource settings. Biological methods, although slower, enhance long-term resilience and support soil biodiversity. These observations are in line with findings by [121,122] who advocate for combining multiple techniques tailored to site-specific soil profiles.

CONCLUSIONS

The review presents a comprehensive assessment of chemical, biological, physical, integrated, and nano-based soil remediation strategies, emphasizing their comparative efficiencies, environmental sustainability, and practical applicability. The following key conclusions are drawn:

● Chemical remediation methods such as gypsum amendment and AOPs are effective in rapidly improving soil structure and removing heavy metals or organics, but they may lead to secondary impacts and require careful dosage control.

● Biological techniques, particularly phytoremediation, bioaugmentation, and MICP, offer long-term benefits by enhancing soil fertility and ecosystem functioning, although they are often limited by time and environmental conditions.

● Physical methods like soil flushing and thermal desorption provide high contaminant removal efficiency but are resource-intensive and less sustainable for widespread agricultural application.

● Integrated approaches, such as electro-bioremediation and biochar-assisted remediation, deliver synergistic benefits by improving both remediation efficiency and soil health. These are particularly suitable for site-specific and multi-contaminant scenarios.

● Nano-remediation techniques, notably using nZVI, GO, and nanoclays, demonstrate superior contaminant removal in laboratory conditions. However, they present ecological and regulatory challenges that must be addressed before large-scale deployment.

● Hypotheses tested in this review were largely validated, confirming that integrated and ecosystem-based methods are superior in sustainability and long-term applicability, while nano-remediation demands further environmental scrutiny.

Directions for Future Research

● Field-scale validation of nano-remediation techniques under varying soil textures and climatic conditions is needed to assess scalability and ecological risks.

● Development of standardized protocols for integrating biological and electrochemical methods to optimize performance in heterogeneous soils.

● Life-cycle assessments (LCA) and cost-benefit analyses should be conducted to determine the economic feasibility of combined and nano-based remediation methods.

● Policy frameworks and risk assessment models must evolve to regulate and safely implement advanced materials in agricultural soil remediation.

● Exploration of AI-driven monitoring systems, smart sensors, and IoT technologies for real-time decision-making in site-specific soil recovery.

DATA AVAILABILITY

All data contained within the article.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Conceptualization: KK; Methodology: KK and PH; Writing—Original draft preparation: KK and PH; Validation: USP, BMG, YMS, GDD and SK Writing—Reviewing and Editing; all authors; Supervision: PH.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

FUNDING

This research is not funded by any internal or external agencies.

AKNOWLEDGEMT

All authors gratefully acknowledge the Department of Biotechnology, Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India, for providing access to the BioRender software tool used to create the figures and infographics presented in this manuscript.

REFERENCES

1. Smith P, Cotrufo MF, Rumpel C, Paustian K, Kuikman PJ, Elliott JA, et al. Biogeochemical cycles and biodiversity as key drivers of ecosystem services provided by soils. Soil. 2015;1(2):665-85. doi: 10.5194/soil-1-665-2015.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

2. Yudina A, Kuzyakov Y. Dual nature of soil structure: The unity of aggregates and pores. Geoderma. 2023;434:116478. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2023.116478.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

3. Omo-Okoro P, Ofori P, Amalapridman V, Dadrasnia A, Abbey L, Emenike C. Soil pollution and its interrelation with interfacial chemistry. Molecules. 2025;30(12):2636. doi: 10.3390/molecules30122636.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

4. Alemu EB. Evaluating the environmental impacts of industrialization and urbanization on groundwater quality: A comprehensive review of methodological approaches in Ethiopia. Green Energy Environ Tech. 2025. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.5285703.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

5. Khalid S, Shahid M, Niazi NK, Murtaza B, Bibi I, Dumat C. A comparison of technologies for remediation of heavy metal contaminated soils. J Geochem Explor. 2017;182:247-68. doi: 10.1016/j.gexplo.2016.11.021.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

6. European Environment Agency. Progress in the Management of Contaminated Sites (Indicator). Copenhagen (Denmark): European Environment Agency; 2022.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

7. Ahmad N, Pandey P. Spatio-temporal distribution, ecological risk assessment, and multivariate analysis of heavy metals in Bathinda District, Punjab, India. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2020;231(8):431. doi: 10.1007/s11270-020-04767-9.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

8. Cao B, Sun Z, Bai D, Kong L, Zhang X, Chen J, et al. The identification of soil heavy metal sources and environmental risks in industrial city peri-urban areas: A case study from a typical peri-urban area in western Laizhou, Shandong, China. Sustainability. 2024;16(11):4655. doi: 10.3390/su16114655.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

9. Gong Y, Zhao D, Wang Q. An overview of field-scale studies on remediation of soil contaminated with heavy metals and metalloids: Technical progress over the last decade. Water Res. 2018;147:440-60. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2018.10.024.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

10. Hou D, Jia X, Wang L, McGrath SP, Zhu YG, Hu Q, et al. Global soil pollution by toxic metals threatens agriculture and human health. Science. 2025;388(6744):316-21. doi: 10.1126/science.adr5214.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

11. Boularbah A, Aloo BN, Benidire L, Neina D, Lahlali R. Soil health and contamination: Processes, remediation, and impacts on food security. In: Innovative Approaches in Environmental Health Management: Processes, Technologies, and Strategies for a Sustainable Future. Cham (Switzerland): Springer; 2025; p. 87-111. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-81966-7_4.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

12. Zhang L, Wang Y, Ding Q, Shi Y. Current status and prospects of ecological restoration and brownfield reuse research based on bibliometric analysis: A literature review. Land (Basel). 2025;14(6):1185. doi: 10.3390/land14061185.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

13. Sobieraj, Metelski D. Analysis of technologies for the reclamation of illegal landfills: A case study of the relocation and management of chromium and arsenic contamination in Łomianki (Poland). Sustainability. 2025;17(7):2796. doi: 10.3390/su17072796.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

14. Abou-Shady A, El-Araby H. Soil electrokinetic remediation to restore mercury-polluted soils: A critical review. Chemosphere. 2025;377:144336. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2025.144336.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

15. Zeng W, Yao B, Zhou Y, Yang J, Zhi D. Combination of electrochemical advanced oxidation and biotreatment for wastewater treatment and soil remediation. J Environ Sci. 2025;150:36-53. doi: 10.1016/j.jes.2024.02.036.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

16. Saqr AM, Pant RR, Alao JO, Chaurasia PK, Abdelkebir B, Abd-Elmaboud ME. Soil remediation through washing and flushing: bibliometric trends, technical review, and future prospects. Environ Earth Sci. 2025;84(14):401. doi: 10.1007/s12665-025-12386-y.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

17. Zhao H, Cui W, Yang Y, Li S, Song F, Wang M, et al. Surfactant-functionalized fly ash from waste into wealth: Collaboratively scavenge of heavy metals and antibiotics from multi-pollutant wastewater. Sep Purif Technol. 2025;375:133862. doi: 10.1016/j.seppur.2025.133862.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

18. Ma Y, He C, Yang L, Liu X, Wang F. Effective remediation of benzo [a] anthracene contaminated soil by combination of low-temperature thermal desorption and advanced oxidation. Chem Eng J. 2025;511:162166. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2025.162166.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

19. Kumar K, Shinde A, Aeron V, Verma A, Arif NS. Genetic engineering of plants for phytoremediation: Advances and challenges. J Plant Biochem Biotechnol. 2023;32(1):12-30. doi: 10.1007/s13562-022-00776-3.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

20. Wojtowicz K, Steliga T, Kapusta P. Evaluation of the effectiveness of bioaugmentation-assisted phytoremediation of soils contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons using Echinacea purpurea. Appl Sci. 2023;13(24):13077. doi: 10.3390/app132413077.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

21. Akpasi SO, Anekwe IM, Tetteh EK, Amune UO, Shoyiga HO, Mahlangu TP, et al. Mycoremediation as a potentially promising technology: Current status and prospects—A review. Appl Sci. 2023;13(8):4978. doi: 10.3390/app13084978.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

22. Tian H, Liang Y, Yang D, Sun Y. Characteristics of PVP–stabilised NZVI and application to dechlorination of soil–sorbed TCE with ionic surfactant. Chemosphere. 2020;239:124807. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.124807.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

23. López-Rodríguez D, Micó-Vicent B, Jordán-Núñez J, Bonet-Aracil M, Bou-Belda E. Uses of nanoclays and adsorbents for dye recovery: A textile industry review. Appl Sci. 2021;11(23):11422. doi: 10.3390/app112311422.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

24. Uprety DC, Reddy VR, Mura JD. Climate Change and Agriculture. Singapore: Springer; 2019. doi: 10.1007/978-981-13-2014-9.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

25. Temple PH, Rapp A. Landslides in the Mgeta area, Western Uluguru Mountains, Tanzania. Geografiska Annaler: Series A, Physical Geography. 1972;54(3–4):157-93. doi: 10.1080/04353676.1972.11879864.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

26. Yoro KO, Daramola MO. CO₂ emission sources, greenhouse gases, and the global warming effect. In: Advances in Carbon Capture. Amsterdam, (Netherlands): Elsevier; 2020. p. 3-28. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-819657-1.00001-3.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

27. Lal R. Soil erosion and the global carbon budget. Environ Int. 2003;29(4):437-50. doi: 10.1016/S0160-4120(02)00192-7.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

28. Hussain S, Ulhassan Z, Brestic M, Zivcak M, Zhou W, Allakhverdiev SI, et al. Photosynthesis research under climate change. Photosynth Res. 2021;150(1–3):5-19. doi: 10.1007/s11120-021-00861-z.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

29. Smith P, Calvin K, Nkem J, Campbell D, Cherubini F, Grassi G, et al. Which practices co‐deliver food security, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and combat land degradation and desertification? Glob Chang Biol. 2020;26(3):1532-75. doi: 10.1111/gcb.14878.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

30. Karavolias NG, Horner W, Abugu MN, Evanega SN. Application of gene editing for climate change in agriculture. Front Sustain Food Syst. 2021;5:685801. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2021.685801.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

31. Bibi F, Rahman A. An overview of climate change impacts on agriculture and their mitigation strategies. Agriculture. 2023;13(8):1508. doi: 10.3390/agriculture13081508.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

32. Kopittke PM, Berhe AA, Carrillo Y, Cavagnaro TR, Chen D, Chen QL, et al. Ensuring planetary survival: The centrality of organic carbon in balancing the multifunctional nature of soils. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol. 2022;52(23):4308-24. doi: 10.1080/10643389.2021.2024484.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

33. Keesstra S, Sannigrahi S, López-Vicente M, Pulido M, Novara A, Visser S, et al. The role of soils in regulation and provision of blue and green water. Philos Trans R Soc B: Biol Sci. 2021;376(1834):20200175. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2020.0175.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

34. Lal R, Monger C, Nave L, Smith P. The role of soil in regulation of climate. Philos Trans R Soc B: Biol Sci. 2021;376(1834):20210084. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2021.0084.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

35. Valentine J, Clifton‐Brown J, Hastings A, Robson P, Allison G, Smith P. Food vs. fuel: the use of land for lignocellulosic ‘next generation’ energy crops that minimize competition with primary food production. GCB Bioenergy. 2012;4(1):1-19. doi: 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2011.01111.x.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

36. Sommer R, Bossio D. Dynamics and climate change mitigation potential of soil organic carbon sequestration. J Environ Manage. 2014;144:83-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.05.017.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

37. Prasad S, Malav LC, Choudhary J, Kannojiya S, Kundu M, Kumar S, et al. Soil microbiomes for healthy nutrient recycling. In: Current Trends in Microbial Biotechnology for Sustainable Agriculture. Singapore: Springer; 2020; p. 1-21. doi: 10.1007/978-981-15-6949-4_1.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

38. Iyiola AO, Babafemi OP, Ogundahunsi OE, Ojeleye AE. Food security: A pathway towards improved nutrition and biodiversity conservation. In: Biodiversity in Africa: Potentials, Threats and Conservation. Singapore: Springer Nature; 2022; p. 79-107. doi: 10.1007/978-981-19-3326-4_4.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

39. Pawlak K, Kołodziejczak M. The role of agriculture in ensuring food security in developing countries: Considerations in the context of the problem of sustainable food production. Sustainability. 2020;12(13):5488. doi: 10.3390/su12135488.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

40. Eugenio NR, Nachtergaele F, Biancalani R, Emiliano M, Benedetti F, Li L. Working together for soils: The longstanding collaboration between FAO and the IUSS. In: Soil science in Italy. Cham (Switzerland): Springer International Publishing; 2024. p. 649-53. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-52744-9_35.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

41. Adamsone-Fiskovica A, Grivins M. Understanding the potential of sustainability turn in farming: Review of sociotechnical adoption factors of agri-environmental cropping practices. Renew Agric Food Syst. 2024;39:e16. doi: 10.1017/S1742170524000085.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

42. Lal R. Soil organic matter and water retention. Agron J. 2020;112(5):3265-77. doi: 10.1002/agj2.20282.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

43. Bi X, Chu H, Fu M, Xu D, Zhao W, Zhong Y, et al. Distribution characteristics of organic carbon (nitrogen) content, cation exchange capacity, and specific surface area in different soil particle sizes. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):12242. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-38646-0.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

44. Condron L, Stark C, O’Callaghan M, Clinton P, Huang Z. The role of microbial communities in the formation and decomposition of soil organic matter. In: Soil microbiology and sustainable crop production. Dordrecht (Netherlands): Springer; 2010. p. 81-118. doi: 10.1007/978-90-481-9479-7_4.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

45. Mukhopadhyay R, Sarkar B, Jat HS, Sharma PC, Bolan NS. Soil salinity under climate change: Challenges for sustainable agriculture and food security. J Environ Manage. 2021;280:111736. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111736.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

46. Lampridi M, Sørensen C, Bochtis D. Agricultural sustainability: A review of concepts and methods. Sustainability. 2019;11(18):5120. doi: 10.3390/su11185120.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

47. Gangwar P, Singh R, Trivedi M, Tiwari RK. Sodic soil: Management and reclamation strategies. In: Environmental concerns and sustainable development. Singapore: Springer; 2020. p. 175-90. doi: 10.1007/978-981-13-6358-0_8.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

48. Abdolvand Y, Sadeghiamirshahidi M. Soil stabilization with gypsum: A review. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng. 2024;16(12):5278-96. doi: 10.1016/j.jrmge.2024.02.007.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

49. Shruthi, Prakash NB, Dhumgond P, Goiba PK, Laxmanarayanan M. The benefits of gypsum for sustainable management and utilization of acid soils. Plant Soil. 2024;504(1–2):5-28. doi: 10.1007/s11104-024-06907-0.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

50. Singh YP, Arora S, Mishra VK, Bhardwaj AK. Regaining the agricultural potential of sodic soils and improved smallholder food security through integration of gypsum, pressmud and salt tolerant varieties. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems. 2022;46(3):410-31. doi: 10.1080/21683565.2021.2015735.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

51. Wakeel A, Ishfaq M. Potash Use and Dynamics in Agriculture. Berlin Heidelberg (Germany): Springer; 2021. doi: 10.1007/978-981-16-6883-8.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

52. Zhang W, Zhang W, Wang S, Sun Z, Liu J, Li Y, et al. A quantitative assessment of the dynamic process and potential capacity of using gypsum to reclaim sodic soil. J Soils Sediments. 2023;23(8):3082-95. doi: 10.1007/s11368-023-03535-6.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

53. Akansha J, Thakur S, Chaithanya MS, Gupta BS, Das S, Das B, et al. Technological and economic analysis of electrokinetic remediation of contaminated soil: A global perspective and its application in Indian scenario. Heliyon. 2024;10(2):e24293. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24293.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

54. El-Mehalmey WA, Alkordi MH. Electrokinetic remediation technique for soil contaminants. In: Nanoremediation. Amsterdam (Netherlands): Elsevier; 2023. p. 229-58. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-823874-5.00005-X.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

55. Abou-Shady A, Yu W. Recent advances in electrokinetic methods for soil remediation. A critical review of selected data for the period 2021–2022. Int J Electrochem Sci. 2023;18(8):100234. doi: 10.1016/j.ijoes.2023.100234.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

56. Panizza M, Cerisola G. Direct and mediated anodic oxidation of organic pollutants. Chem Rev. 2009;109(12):6541-69. doi: 10.1021/cr9001319.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

57. Tang K, Bo Z, Li Z, Da Wang Y, McClure J, Su H, et al. Controlled ion transport in the subsurface: A coupled advection–diffusion–electromigration system. Phys Fluids. 2024;36(6):067137. doi: 10.1063/5.0213161.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

58. Mao X, Jiang R, Xiao W, Yu J. Use of surfactants for the remediation of contaminated soils: A review. J Hazard Mater. 2015;285:419-35. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2014.12.009.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

59. Rasheed T, Shafi S, Bilal M, Hussain T, Sher F, Rizwan K. Surfactants-based remediation as an effective approach for removal of environmental pollutants—A review. J Mol Liq. 2020;318:113960. doi: 10.1016/j.molliq.2020.113960.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

60. Bolan S, Padhye LP, Mulligan CN, Alonso ER, Saint-Fort R, Jasemizad T, et al. Surfactant-enhanced mobilization of persistent organic pollutants: Potential for soil and sediment remediation and unintended consequences. J Hazard Mater. 2023;443:130189. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.130189.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

61. Wołowicz A, Staszak K, Hubicki Z. Effect of anionic surfactants on the heavy metal ions removal by adsorption onto ion exchangers—batch and column studies. J Water Process Eng. 2023;53:103792. doi: 10.1016/j.jwpe.2023.103792.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

62. Cheng M, Zeng G, Huang D, Yang C, Lai C, Zhang C, et al. Advantages and challenges of Tween 80 surfactant-enhanced technologies for the remediation of soils contaminated with hydrophobic organic compounds. Chem Eng J. 2017;314:98-113. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2016.12.135.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

63. Koundal M, Singh AK, Sharma C. Study on the effect of imidazolium ionic liquid as a modulator of corrosion inhibition of anionic surfactant sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) on mild steel in sodium chloride solution. J Mol Liq. 2022;350:118561. doi: 10.1016/j.molliq.2022.118561.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

64. Zhao Y, Sun Y, Sun H, Zuo F, Kuang S, Zhang S, et al. Surfactant-based chemical washing to remediate oil-contaminated soil: The state of knowledge. Toxics. 2024;12(9):648. doi: 10.3390/toxics12090648.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

65. Mukherjee J, Lodh BK, Sharma R, Mahata N, Shah MP, Mandal S, et al. Advanced oxidation process for the treatment of industrial wastewater: A review on strategies, mechanisms, bottlenecks and prospects. Chemosphere. 2023;345:140473. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.140473.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

66. Ndibewu PP, Mramba AS, Makgopa K, Sibali LL. Nanoelectrocatalysts-Enhanced methods for removal of volatile organic compounds in wastewater. In: Nanoelectrocatalysts for Energy and Water Treatment. Cham (Switzerland): Springer Nature; 2024. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-55329-5_13.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

67. Ayoub K, van Hullebusch ED, Cassir M, Bermond A. Application of advanced oxidation processes for TNT removal: A review. J Hazard Mater. 2010;178(1–3):10-28. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.02.042.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

68. Dai M, Niu Q, Wu S, Lin Y, Biswas JK, Yang C. Hydroxyl radicals in ozone-based advanced oxidation of organic contaminants: A review. Environ Chem Lett. 2024;22(6):3059-106. doi: 10.1007/s10311-024-01772-w.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

69. Tijani JO, Fatoba OO, Madzivire G, Petrik LF. A review of combined advanced oxidation technologies for the removal of organic pollutants from water. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2014;225(9):2102. doi: 10.1007/s11270-014-2102-y.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

70. Mahbub P, Duke M. Scalability of advanced oxidation processes (AOPs) in industrial applications: A review. J Environ Manage. 2023;345:118861. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118861.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

71. Pandis PK, Kalogirou C, Kanellou E, Vaitsis C, Savvidou MG, Sourkouni G, et al. Key points of advanced oxidation processes (AOPs) for wastewater, organic pollutants and pharmaceutical waste treatment: A mini review. ChemEngineering. 2022;6(1):8. doi: 10.3390/chemengineering6010008.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

72. Magalhães VM, Aranha RM, Mendes GP, Soares LC, Yoshikawa NK, Nascimento CA, et al. Homogeneous and heterogeneous advanced oxidation processes: Treatability studies on artificially contaminated soils with creosote. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2022;233(1):29. doi: 10.1007/s11270-022-05498-9.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

73. Calenciuc C, Fdez-Sanromán A, Lama G, Annamalai S, Sanromán A, Pazos M. Recent developments in advanced oxidation processes for organics-polluted soil reclamation. Catalysts. 2022;12(1):64. doi: 10.3390/catal12010064.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

74. Bhat SA, Bashir O, Haq SA, Amin T, Rafiq A, Ali M, et al. Phytoremediation of heavy metals in soil and water: An eco-friendly, sustainable and multidisciplinary approach. Chemosphere. 2022;303:134788. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.134788.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

75. Evangelou MWH, Papazoglou EG, Robinson BH, Schulin R. Phytomanagement: Phytoremediation and the production of biomass for economic revenue on contaminated land. In: Phytoremediation. Cham (Switzerland): Springer International Publishing; 2015. p. 115-32. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-10395-2_9.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

76. Nemati B, Baneshi MM, Akbari H, Dehghani R, Mostafaii G. Phytoremediation of pollutants in oil-contaminated soils by Alhagi camelorum: Evaluation and modeling. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):5502. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-56214-y.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

77. Bolan NS, Park JH, Robinson B, Naidu R, Huh KY. Phytostabilization: A green approach to contaminant containment. Adv Agron. 2011;112:145-204. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-385538-1.00004-4.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

78. Barwise Y, Kumar P. Designing vegetation barriers for urban air pollution abatement: A practical review for appropriate plant species selection. NPJ Clim Atmos Sci. 2020;3(1):12. doi: 10.1038/s41612-020-0115-3.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

79. Eapen S, D’Souza SF. Prospects of genetic engineering of plants for phytoremediation of toxic metals. Biotechnol Adv. 2005;23(2):97-114. doi: 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2004.10.001.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

80. Dushenkov S, Mikheev A, Prokhnevsky A, Ruchko M, Sorochinsky B. Phytoremediation of radiocesium-contaminated soil in the vicinity of Chernobyl, Ukraine. Environ Sci Technol. 1999;33(3):469-75. doi: 10.1021/es980788.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

81. Jiang L, Xia H, Wang W, Zhang Y, Li Z. Applications of microbially induced calcium carbonate precipitation in civil engineering practice: A state-of-the-art review. Constr Build Mater. 2023;404:133227. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.133227.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

82. Wong PY, Mal J, Sandak A, Luo L, Jian J, Pradhan N. Advances in microbial self-healing concrete: A critical review of mechanisms, developments, and future directions. Sci Total Environ. 2024;947:174553. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.174553.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

83. Konstantinou C, Wang Y. Unlocking the potential of microbially induced calcium carbonate precipitation (MICP) for hydrological applications: A review of opportunities, challenges, and environmental considerations. Hydrology. 2023;10(9):178. doi: 10.3390/hydrology10090178.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

84. Mujah D, Shahin MA, Cheng L. State-of-the-art review of biocementation by microbially induced calcite precipitation (MICP) for soil stabilization. Geomicrobiol J. 2017;34(6):524-37. doi: 10.1080/01490451.2016.1225866.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

85. Wang Y-N, Li S-K, Li Z-Y, Garg A. Exploring the application of the MICP technique for the suppression of erosion in granite residual soil in Shantou using a rainfall erosion simulator. Acta Geotech. 2023;18(6):3273-85. doi: 10.1007/s11440-022-01791-3.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

86. Omoregie AI, Palombo EA, Nissom PM. Bioprecipitation of calcium carbonate mediated by ureolysis: A review. Environ Eng Res. 2020;26(6):200379. doi: 10.4491/eer.2020.379.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

87. Cycoń M, Mrozik A, Piotrowska-Seget Z. Bioaugmentation as a strategy for the remediation of pesticide-polluted soil: A review. Chemosphere. 2017;172:52-71. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.12.129.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

88. Lebeau T. Bioaugmentation for in situ soil remediation: How to ensure the success of such a process. In: Bioaugmentation, Biostimulation and Biocontrol. Berlin, Heidelberg (Germany): Springer; 2011; p. 129-86. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-19769-7_7.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

89. Tyagi M, da Fonseca MMR, de Carvalho CCCR. Bioaugmentation and biostimulation strategies to improve the effectiveness of bioremediation processes. Biodegradation. 2011;22(2):231-41. doi: 10.1007/s10532-010-9394-4.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

90. Megharaj M, Ramakrishnan B, Venkateswarlu K, Sethunathan N, Naidu R. Bioremediation approaches for organic pollutants: A critical perspective. Environ Int. 2011;37(8):1362-75. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2011.06.003.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

91. Juwarkar AA, Singh SK, Mudhoo A. A comprehensive overview of elements in bioremediation. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol. 2010;9(3):215-88. doi: 10.1007/s11157-010-9215-6.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

92. Kumar A, Yadav AN, Mondal R, Kour D, Subrahmanyam G, Shabnam AA, et al. Myco-remediation: A mechanistic understanding of contaminants alleviation from natural environment and future prospect. Chemosphere. 2021;284:131325. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.131325.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

93. Dinakarkumar Y, Ramakrishnan G, Gujjula KR, Vasu V, Balamurugan P, Murali G. Fungal bioremediation: An overview of the mechanisms, applications and future perspectives. Environ Chem Ecotoxicol. 2024;6:293-302. doi: 10.1016/j.enceco.2024.07.002.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

94. Saravanan A, Kumar PS, Vo DVN, Jeevanantham S, Karishma S, Yaashikaa PR. A review on catalytic-enzyme degradation of toxic environmental pollutants: Microbial enzymes. J Hazard Mater. 2021;419:126451. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.126451.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

95. Gupta G, Maurya S, Jha PN, Chauhan PS. Valorization of spent mushroom substrate (SMS) as a sustainable approach to remediation of xenobiotic compounds in groundwater—A comprehensive review. Groundw Sustain Dev. 2024;26:101290. doi: 10.1016/j.gsd.2024.101290.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

96. Noman E, Al-Gheethi A, Mohamed RMSR, Talip BA. Myco-remediation of xenobiotic organic compounds for a sustainable environment: A critical review. Top Curr Chem. 2019;377(3):17. doi: 10.1007/s41061-019-0241-8.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

97. Navina BK, Velmurugan NK, Kumar PS, Rangasamy G, Palanivelu J, Thamarai P, et al. Fungal bioremediation approaches for the removal of toxic pollutants: Mechanistic understanding for biorefinery applications. Chemosphere. 2024;350:141123. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2024.141123.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

98. Baghel P, Sakhiya AK, Kaushal P. Influence of temperature on slow pyrolysis of Prosopis Juliflora: An experimental and thermodynamic approach. Renew Energy. 2022;185:538-51. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2021.12.053.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

99. Hassan A, Pariatamby A, Ossai IC, Hamid FS. Bioaugmentation assisted mycoremediation of heavy metal and/metalloid landfill contaminated soil using consortia of filamentous fungi. Biochem Eng J. 2020;157:107550. doi: 10.1016/j.bej.2020.107550.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

100. He P, Guo J, Zhang S. Investigating the potential of microbially induced carbonate precipitation combined with modified biochar for remediation of lead-contaminated loess. Sustainability. 2024;16(17):7550. doi: 10.3390/su16177550.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

101. Ghorbani Y, Franzidis JP, Petersen J. Heap leaching technology – current state, innovations and future directions: A review. Miner Process Extr Metall Rev. 2015. doi: 10.1080/08827508.2015.1115990.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

102. Kwon JH, Ji MK, Kumar R, Islam MM, Khan MA, Park YK, et al. Recent advancement in enhanced soil flushing for remediation of petroleum hydrocarbon-contaminated soil: A state-of-the-art review. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol. 2023;22(3):679-714. doi: 10.1007/s11157-023-09657-0.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

103. Baldissarelli DP, Vargas GDLP, Korf EP, Galon L, Kaufmann C, Santos JB. Remediation of soils contaminated by pesticides using physicochemical processes: A brief review. Planta Daninha. 2019;37:e019184975. doi: 10.1590/s0100-83582019370100054.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

104. Klik B, Gusiatin ZM, Kulikowska D. Quality of heavy metal-contaminated soil before and after column flushing with washing agents derived from municipal sewage sludge. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):15773. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-95441-5.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

105. Guo X, Chen C, Wu QT, Wei Z. Field experiments to assess the remediation efficiency of metal-contaminated soil by flushing with ferric chloride followed by applying amendments. Sci Total Environ. 2023;868:161592. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.161592.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

106. Zhao C, Dong Y, Feng Y, Li Y, Dong Y. Thermal desorption for remediation of contaminated soil: A review. Chemosphere. 2019;221:841-55. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.01.079.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

107. Liu H, Ma S, Zhang X, Yu Y. Application of thermal desorption methods for airborne polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon measurement: A critical review. Environ Pollut. 2019;254:113018. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113018.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

108. Zhu L, Shen D, Luo KH. A critical review on VOCs adsorption by different porous materials: Species, mechanisms and modification methods. J Hazard Mater. 2020;389:122102. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.122102.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

109. Sörengård M, Lindh A-S, Ahrens L. Thermal desorption as a high removal remediation technique for soils contaminated with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs). PLoS ONE. 2020;15(6):e0234476. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234476.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

110. Risco C, López-Vizcaíno R, Sáez C, Yustres A, Cañizares P, Navarro V, et al. Remediation of soils polluted with 2,4-D by electrokinetic soil flushing with facing rows of electrodes: A case study in a pilot plant. Chem Eng J. 2016;285:128-36. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2015.10.011.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

111. Biabani R, Ferrari P, Vaccari M. Best management practices for minimizing undesired effects of thermal remediation and soil washing on soil properties. A review. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2023;30(47):103480-95. doi: 10.1007/s11356-023-29656-6.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

112. Lee SH, Kim SO, Lee SW, Kim MS, Park H. Application of soil washing and thermal desorption for sustainable remediation and reuse of remediated soil. Sustainability. 2021;13(22):12523. doi: 10.3390/su132212523.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

113. Wang B, Wu A, Li X, Ji L, Sun C, Shen Z, et al. Progress in fundamental research on thermal desorption remediation of organic compound-contaminated soil. Waste Dispos Sustain Energy. 2021;3(2):83-95. doi: 10.1007/s42768-021-00071-2.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

114. Hameed R, Abbas A, Khan I, Balooch S, Iqbal B, Nazir MM, et al. Biochar-assisted remediation of contaminated soils under changing climate. In: Biochar-Assisted Remediation of Contaminated Soils under Changing Climate. Amsterdam (Netherlands): Elsevier; 2024. p. 377-420. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-443-21562-9.00015-3.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

115. Chen ZS, Liu T, Dong JF, Chen G, Li Z, Zhou JL, et al. Sustainable application for agriculture using biochar-based slow-release fertilizers: A review. ACS Sustain Chem Eng. 2022;11(1):1-12. doi: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.2c05691.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

116. Kumar P, Singhania RR, Sumathi Y, Kurrey NK, Chen CW, Patel AK, et al. Investigating innovative techniques for biochar modification to enhance the removal of heavy metals from aqueous environments: A comprehensive review. Clean Technol Environ Policy. 2024:1-23. doi: 10.1007/s10098-024-02962-4.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

117. Sakhiya AK, Anand A, Kaushal P. Production, activation, and applications of biochar in recent times. Biochar. 2020;2(3):253-85. doi: 10.1007/s42773-020-00047-1.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

118. Atkinson CJ. How good is the evidence that soil‐applied biochar improves water‐holding capacity? Soil Use Manag. 2018;34(2):177-86. doi: 10.1111/sum.12413.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

119. Gorovtsov AV, Minkina TM, Mandzhieva SS, Perelomov LV, Soja G, Zamulina IV, et al. The mechanisms of biochar interactions with microorganisms in soil. Environ Geochem Health. 2020;42(8):2495-518. doi: 10.1007/s10653-019-00412-5.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

120. Fu Q, Zhao H, Li H, Li T, Hou R, Liu D, et al. Effects of biochar application during different periods on soil structures and water retention in seasonally frozen soil areas. Sci Total Environ. 2019;694:133732. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.133732.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

121. Beesley L, Moreno-Jiménez E, Gomez-Eyles JL, Harris E, Robinson B, Sizmur T. A review of biochars’ potential role in the remediation, revegetation and restoration of contaminated soils. Environ Pollut. 2011;159(12):3269-82. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2011.07.023.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

122. Zama EF, Reid BJ, Arp HPH, Sun GX, Yuan HY, Zhu YG. Advances in research on the use of biochar in soil for remediation: A review. J Soils Sediments. 2018;18(7):2433-50. doi: 10.1007/s11368-018-2000-9.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

123. Murtaza G, Ahmed Z, Eldin SM, Ali I, Usman M, Iqbal R, et al. Biochar as a green sorbent for remediation of polluted soils and associated toxicity risks: A critical review. Separations. 2023;10(3):197. doi: 10.3390/separations10030197.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

124. Ge Q, Dong C, Wang G, Zhang J, Hou R. Production, characterization and environmental remediation application of emerging phosphorus-rich biochar/hydrochar: A comprehensive review. RSC Adv. 2024;14(45):33649-65. doi: 10.1039/D4RA03333G.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

125. Chandra S, Medha I, Tiwari AK. The role of modified biochar for the remediation of coal mining-impacted contaminated soil: A review. Sustainability. 2023;15(5):3973. doi: 10.3390/su15053973.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

126. El-Shafey SE, Obada MK, El-Shamy AM, Mohamed WS. Silica/klucel nanocomposite as promising durable adsorbent for lead removal from industrial effluents. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):26095. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-74680-2.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

127. Nicomel NR, Otero-Gonzalez L, Williamson A, Ok YS, Van Der Voort P, Hennebel T, et al. Selective copper recovery from ammoniacal waste streams using a systematic biosorption process. Chemosphere. 2022;286:131935. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.131935.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

128. Hassan I, Mohamedelhassan E, Yanful EK, Yuan Z-C. A review article: Electrokinetic bioremediation current knowledge and new prospects. Adv Microbiol. 2016;06(01):57-72. doi: 10.4236/aim.2016.61006.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

129. Wick LY, Shi L, Harms H. Electro-bioremediation of hydrophobic organic soil-contaminants: A review of fundamental interactions. Electrochim Acta. 2007;52(10):3441-8. doi: 10.1016/j.electacta.2006.03.117.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

130. Moghadam MJ, Moayedi H, Sadeghi MM, Hajiannia A. A review of combinations of electrokinetic applications. Environ Geochem Health. 2016;38(6):1217-27. doi: 10.1007/s10653-016-9795-3.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

131. Li WW, Yu HQ. Electro-assisted groundwater bioremediation: Fundamentals, challenges and future perspectives. Bioresour Technol. 2015;196:677-84. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2015.07.074.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

132. Barba S, Villaseñor J, Rodrigo MA, Cañizares P. Biostimulation versus bioaugmentation for the electro-bioremediation of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid polluted soils. J Environ Manage. 2021;277:111424. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111424.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

133. Saxena G, Thakur IS, Kumar V, Shah MP. Electrobioremediation of contaminants: Concepts, mechanisms, applications and challenges. In: Combined Application of Physico-Chemical & Microbiological Processes for Industrial Effluent Treatment Plant. Singapore: Springer; 2020. p. 291-313. doi: 10.1007/978-981-15-0497-6_14.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

134. Ceballos-Escalera A, Pous N, Chiluiza-Ramos P, Korth B, Harnisch F, Bañeras L, et al. Electro-bioremediation of nitrate and arsenite polluted groundwater. Water Res. 2021;190:116748. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2020.116748.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

135. Annamalai S, Sundaram M. Electro-bioremediation: An advanced remediation technology for the treatment and management of contaminated soil. In: Bioremediation of Industrial Waste for Environmental Safety. Singapore: Springer; 2020. p. 183-214. doi: 10.1007/978-981-13-3426-9_8.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

136. Yuan Y, Guo S, Li F, Wu B, Yang X, Li X. Coupling electrokinetics with microbial biodegradation enhances the removal of cycloparaffinic hydrocarbons in soils. J Hazard Mater. 2016;320:591-601. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2016.07.043.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

137. Yang SY, Lai CY, Zhao HP. Trichloroethylene detoxification in low-permeability soil via electrokinetic-enhanced bioremediation technology: Long-term feasibility and spatial-temporal patterns. J Hazard Mater. 2025;484:136743. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2024.136743.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

138. Carrick J. Technology Based Academic Entrepreneurship: How Little We Know. 2016. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305400456. Accessed on 15 Jun 2025.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

139. Wang D, He JM, Knuteson JA. Concentration–time exposure index for modeling soil fumigation under various management scenarios. J Environ Qual. 2004;33(2):685-94. doi: 10.2134/jeq2004.6850.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

140. Zeng Y, Hung Y, Chen M, Peng C, Tzen JTC, Liu J. Simultaneous refolding, purification, and immobilization of recombinant Fibrobacter succinogenes 1,3-1,4-β-D-glucanase on artificial oil bodies. J Chem Technol Biotechnol. 2009;84(10):1480-5. doi: 10.1002/jctb.2205.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

141. Taherian A, Yazdi M, Danaei I, Zad A. The effect of Triton X100 and Tween 80 surfactants on diesel removal from soil using electrokinetic remediation. Int J Environ Sci Technol. 2025;22(3):1577-90. doi: 10.1007/s13762-024-05895-z.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

142. Chair K, Bedoui A, Bensalah N, Saez C, Fernandez-Morales FJ, Cotillas S, et al. Treatment of soil-washing effluents polluted with herbicide oxyfluorfen by combined biosorption–electrolysis. Ind Eng Chem Res. 2017;56(8):1903-10. doi: 10.1021/acs.iecr.6b04977.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

143. Suni S, Malinen E, Kosonen J, Silvennoinen H, Romantschuk M. Electrokinetically enhanced bioremediation of creosote-contaminated soil: Laboratory and field studies. J Environ Sci Health, Part A. 2007;42(3):277-87. doi: 10.1080/10934520601134213.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

144. Xu DM, Fu RB, Wang JX, Shi YX, Guo XP. Chemical stabilization remediation for heavy metals in contaminated soils on the latest decade: Available stabilizing materials and associated evaluation methods－A critical review. J Clean Prod. 2021;321:128730. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128730.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

145. Lavanya MB, Viswanath DS, Sivapullaiah PV. Phytoremediation: An eco-friendly approach for remediation of heavy metal-contaminated soils-A comprehensive review. Environ Nanotechnol Monit Manag. 2024;22:100975. doi: 10.1016/j.enmm.2024.100975.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

146. Latifi N, Horpibulsuk S, Meehan CL, Abd Majid MZ, Tahir MM, Mohamad ET. Improvement of problematic soils with biopolymer—An environmentally friendly soil stabilizer. J Mater Civ Eng. 2017;29(2):04016204. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001706.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

147. Olaniran A, Balgobind A, Pillay B. Bioavailability of heavy metals in soil: Impact on microbial biodegradation of organic compounds and possible improvement strategies. Int J Mol Sci. 2013;14(5):10197-228. doi: 10.3390/ijms140510197.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

148. Seshadri B, Bolan NS, Naidu R. Rhizosphere-induced heavy metal(loid) transformation in relation to bioavailability and remediation. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr. 2015;15(2):524-48. doi: 10.4067/S0718-95162015005000043.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

149. Reddy KR, Chirakkara RA. Green and sustainable remedial strategy for contaminated site: Case study. Geotech Geol Eng. 2013;31(6):1653-61. doi: 10.1007/s10706-013-9688-5.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

150. Hossain MU, Wang L, Chen L, Tsang DC, Ng ST, Poon CS, et al. Evaluating the environmental impacts of stabilization and solidification technologies for managing hazardous wastes through life cycle assessment: A case study of Hong Kong. Environ Int. 2020;145:106139. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2020.106139.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

151. Sang Y, Wang F, Shao X, Zhu L, Yan Z, Guo G. Comprehensive study on green and sustainable remediation in the USA: Policy system and case experiences. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2022;29(55):83526-35. doi: 10.1007/s11356-022-21242-6.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

152. Zhao X, Liu W, Cai Z, Han B, Qian T, Zhao D. An overview of preparation and applications of stabilized zero-valent iron nanoparticles for soil and groundwater remediation. Water Res. 2016;100:245-66. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2016.05.019.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

153. Ahmad S, Liu X, Tang J, Zhang S. Biochar-supported nanosized zero-valent iron (nZVI/BC) composites for removal of nitro and chlorinated contaminants. Chem Eng J. 2022;431:133187. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2021.133187.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

154. Latif A, Sheng D, Sun K, Si Y, Azeem M, Abbas A, et al. Remediation of heavy metals polluted environment using Fe-based nanoparticles: Mechanisms, influencing factors, and environmental implications. Environ Pollut. 2020;264:114728. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114728.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

155. Stefaniuk M, Oleszczuk P, Ok YS. Review on nano zerovalent iron (nZVI): From synthesis to environmental applications. Chem Eng J. 2016;287:618-32. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2015.11.046.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

156. Liu Y, Wang J. Reduction of nitrate by zero valent iron (ZVI)-based materials: A review. Sci Total Environ. 2019;671:388-403. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.317.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

157. Komárek M. Perspectives of soil nanoremediation: the case of nano zerovalent iron and metal(loid) contaminants. NPJ Mater Sustain. 2024;2(1):8. doi: 10.1038/s44296-024-00013-z.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

158. Zhang T, Wang W, Zhao Y, Bai H, Wen T, Kang S, et al. Removal of heavy metals and dyes by clay-based adsorbents: From natural clays to 1D and 2D nano-composites. Chem Eng J. 2021;420:127574. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2020.127574.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

159. Nazir MS, Mohamad Kassim MH, Mohapatra L, Gilani MA, Raza MR, Majeed K. Characteristic properties of nanoclays and characterization of nanoparticulates and nanocomposites. In: Nanoclay Reinforced Polymer Composites: Nanocomposites and Bionanocomposites. Singapore: Springer; 2016. p. 35-55. doi: 10.1007/978-981-10-1953-1_2.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

160. Awasthi A, Jadhao P, Kumari K. Clay nano-adsorbent: structures, applications and mechanism for water treatment. SN Appl Sci. 2019;1(9):1076. doi: 10.1007/s42452-019-0858-9.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

161. Iravani R, An C, Adamian Y, Mohammadi M. A review on the use of nanoclay adsorbents in environmental pollution control. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2022;233(4):109. doi: 10.1007/s11270-022-05580-2.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

162. Nagaraju K, Prasad TNVK, Munaswamy V, Ramu YR. Nanoclay and its importance. Curr J Appl Sci Technol. 2021;40(13):71-81. doi: 10.9734/cjast/2021/v40i1331395.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

163. Tang J, Tang L, Feng H, Zeng G, Dong H, Zhang C, et al. pH-dependent degradation of p-nitrophenol by sulfidated nanoscale zerovalent iron under aerobic or anoxic conditions. J Hazard Mater. 2016;320:581-90. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2016.07.042.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

164. Punetha VD, Rana S, Yoo HJ, Chaurasia A, McLeskey Jr JT, Ramasamy MS, et al. Functionalization of carbon nanomaterials for advanced polymer nanocomposites: A comparison study between CNT and graphene. Prog Polym Sci. 2017;67:1-47. doi: 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2016.12.010.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

165. Khan ZU, Kausar A, Ullah H. A review on composite papers of graphene oxide, carbon nanotube, polymer/GO, and polymer/CNT: Processing strategies, properties, and relevance. Polym Plast Technol Eng. 2016;55(6):559-81. doi: 10.1080/03602559.2015.1098693.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

166. Chen X, Oh WD, Lim TT. Graphene- and CNTs-based carbocatalysts in persulfates activation: Material design and catalytic mechanisms. Chem Eng J. 2018;354:941-76. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2018.08.049.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

167. Li G, Du R, Cao Z, Li C, Xue J, Ma X, et al. Research progress in graphene-based adsorbents for wastewater treatment: Preparation, adsorption properties and mechanisms for inorganic and organic pollutants. C (Basel). 2024;10(3):78. doi: 10.3390/c10030078.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

168. Kurian M. Advanced oxidation processes and nanomaterials-A review. Clean Eng Technol. 2021;2:100090. doi: 10.1016/j.clet.2021.100090.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

169. Asghar N, Hussain A, Nguyen DA, Ali S, Hussain I, Junejo A, et al. Advancement in nanomaterials for environmental pollutants remediation: A systematic review on bibliometrics analysis, material types, synthesis pathways, and related mechanisms. J Nanobiotechnology. 2024;22(1):26. doi: 10.1186/s12951-023-02151-3.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

170. Thangadurai D, Chakrabarty M, Sangeetha J. Nanoremediation of polluted environment: Current scenario and case studies. In: Handbook of Nanomaterials and Nanocomposites for Energy and Environmental Applications. Cham (Switzerland): Springer International Publishing; 2020. p. 1-16. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-11155-7_72-1.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

171. Khan F, Shekhar C, Mondal T, Sabapathy M. Rapid removal of methylene blue and tetracycline by rough particles decorated with Pt nanoparticles. J Nanopart Res. 2024;26(1):4. doi: 10.1007/s11051-023-05904-1.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

172. Xing G-W, Gao J, Wang H, Liu Y-C. New fluorophore and its applications in visualizing polystyrene nanoplastics in bean sprouts and HeLa cells. Molecules. 2023;28(20):7102. doi: 10.3390/molecules28207102.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

173. Han D, Wu X, Li R, Tang X, Xiao S, Scholz M. Critical review of electro-kinetic remediation of contaminated soils and sediments: Mechanisms, performances and technologies. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2021;232(8):335. doi: 10.1007/s11270-021-05182-4.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

174. Khan NT, Jameel N, Khan MJ. A Brief Overview of Contaminated Soil Remediation Methods. 2018. Available from: www.tsijournals.com. Accessed on 15 Jun 2025.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

175. Verma S, Verma P, Bag AG, Changade NM. Reviewing soil contaminant remediation techniques. Int J Environ Clim Change. 2024;14(5):115-34. doi: 10.9734/ijecc/2024/v14i54175.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

176. Kafle A, Timilsina A, Gautam A, Adhikari K, Bhattarai A, Aryal N. Phytoremediation: Mechanisms, plant selection and enhancement by natural and synthetic agents. Environ Advances. 2022;8:100203. doi: 10.1016/j.envadv.2022.100203.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

177. Lacalle RG, Becerril JM, Garbisu C. Biological methods of polluted soil remediation for an effective economically-optimal recovery of soil health and ecosystem services. J Environ Sci Public Health. 2020;4(2):112-33. doi: 10.26502/jesph.96120089.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

178. Zhang C, Wu D, Ren H. Bioremediation of oil contaminated soil using agricultural wastes via microbial consortium. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):9188. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-66169-5.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

179. Taher AM, Saeed IO. Bioremediation of contaminated soil with crude oil using two different bacteria. AIP Conf Proc. 2022;2398:040027. doi: 10.1063/5.0094117.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

180. Nagy KK, Takács K, Németh I, Varga B, Grolmusz V, Molnár M, et al. Novel enzymes for biodegradation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons identified by metagenomics and functional analysis in short-term soil microcosm experiments. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):11608. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-61566-6.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

181. Ayilara MS, Babalola OO. Bioremediation of environmental wastes: The role of microorganisms. Front Agronomy. 2023;5:1183691. doi: 10.3389/fagro.2023.1183691.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

182. Zhou Q, Sun F, Liu R. Joint chemical flushing of soils contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons. Environ Int. 2005;31(6):835-9. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2005.05.039.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

183. Zhang H, Xu Y, Kanyerere T, Wang Y, Sun M. Washing reagents for remediating heavy-metal-contaminated soil: A review. Front Earth Sci (Lausanne). 2022;10:901570. doi: 10.3389/feart.2022.901570.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

184. Aparicio JD, Raimondo EE, Saez JM, Costa-Gutierrez SB, Alvarez A, Benimeli CS, et al. The current approach to soil remediation: A review of physicochemical and biological technologies, and the potential of their strategic combination. J Environ Chem Eng. 2022;10(2):107141. doi: 10.1016/j.jece.2022.107141.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

185. Wang M, Kong D, Liu L, Wen G, Zhang F. In situ conductive heating for thermal desorption of volatile organic-contaminated soil based on solar energy. Sustainability. 2024;16(19):8565. doi: 10.3390/su16198565.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

186. Filler DM, Van Stempvoort DR, Leigh MB. Remediation of frozen ground contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons: Feasibility and limits. In: Permafrost Soils. Berlin, Heidelberg (Geymany): Springer; 2009; p. 279-301. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-69371-0_19.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

187. Camenzuli D, Freidman BL. On-site and in situ remediation technologies applicable to petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated sites in the Antarctic and Arctic. Polar Res. 2015;34(1):24492. doi: 10.3402/polar.v34.24492.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

188. Chaudhary DK, Kim J. New insights into bioremediation strategies for oil-contaminated soil in cold environments. Int Biodeterior Biodegradation. 2019;142:58-72. doi: 10.1016/j.ibiod.2019.05.001.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

189. Li H, Yang L, Mao Q, Zhou H, Guo P, Agathokleous E, et al. Modified biochar enhances soil fertility and nutrient uptake and yield of rice in mercury-contaminated soil. Environ Technol Innov. 2023;32:103435. doi: 10.1016/j.eti.2023.103435.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

190. Li F, Li J, Tong M, Xi K, Guo S. Effect of electric fields strength on soil factors and microorganisms during electro-bioremediation of benzo[a]pyrene-contaminated soil. Chemosphere. 2023;341:139845. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.139845.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

191. Islam MM, Saxena N, Sharma D. Phytoremediation as a green and sustainable prospective method for heavy metal contamination: A review. RSC Sustain. 2024;2(5):1269-88. doi: 10.1039/D3SU00440F.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

192. Li S, Wang W, Liang F, Zhang W. Heavy metal removal using nanoscale zero-valent iron (nZVI): Theory and application. J Hazard Mater. 2017;322:163-71. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2016.01.032.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

193. Da Silva Neto LD, Maged A, Gabriel R, Lins PV, Haneklaus NH, Hlawitschka MW, et al. Nanoclays in water treatment: Core concepts, modifications, and application insights. J Water Process Eng. 2024;67:106180. doi: 10.1016/j.jwpe.2024.106180.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

194. Wang Y, Pan C, Chu W, Vipin AK, Sun L. Environmental remediation applications of carbon nanotubes and graphene oxide: Adsorption and catalysis. Nanomaterials. 2019;9(3):439. doi: 10.3390/nano9030439.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

195. Zhang W, Zeng Z, Liu Z, Huang J, Xiao R, Shao B, et al. Effects of carbon nanotubes on biodegradation of pollutants: Positive or negative? Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2020;189:109914. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2019.109914.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

196. Rana K, Kaur H, Singh N, Sithole T, Siwal SS. Graphene-based materials: Unravelling its impact in wastewater treatment for sustainable environments. Next Mater. 2024;3:100107. doi: 10.1016/j.nxmate.2024.100107.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

197. Anegbe B, Ifijen IH, Maliki M, Uwidia IE, Aigbodion AI. Graphene oxide synthesis and applications in emerging contaminant removal: A comprehensive review. Environ Sci Eur. 2024;36(1):15. doi: 10.1186/s12302-023-00814-4.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

198. Smith P, Martino D, Cai Z, Gwary D, Janzen H, Kumar P, et al. Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture. Philos Trans R Soc B: Biol Sci. 2008;363(1492):789-813. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2007.2184.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

199. Arnold SM, Hickey WJ, Harris RF, Talaat RE. Integrated chemical and biological remediation of atrazine-contaminated aqueous wastes. ACS Symp Ser. 1998;683(16):177-88. doi: 10.1021/bk-1998-0683.ch016.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

200. Tyagi P, Agate S, Velev OD, Lucia L, Pal L. A critical review of the performance and soil biodegradability profiles of biobased natural and chemically synthesized polymers in industrial applications. Environ Sci Technol. 2022;56(4):2071-95. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.1c04710.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

201. Diaz AM, Baragaño D, Menéndez-Aguado JM, Norén A, Fedje KK, Espín E, et al. Enhanced remediation of organotin compounds and metal(loid)s in polluted sediments: Chemical stabilization with mining-wastes and nZVI versus physical soil washing. J Environ Manage. 2025;373:123602. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.123602.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

202. Ji M, AL-Huqail AA, Majdi A, Liu H, Ali I, Marzouki R. Remediation of mine polluted soil with nano-enhanced materials: Development of extreme learning machine approaches. Chemosphere. 2022;307:135772. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.135772.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

203. Li H, Muhammad F, Yan Y, Zhang M, Jiao B, Yu L, et al. Electrokinetic remediation of heavy metals from municipal solid waste incineration fly ash pretreated by nitric acid. R Soc Open Sci. 2018;5(8):180372. doi: 10.1098/rsos.180372.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

204. Sikiru S, Abioye KJ, Adedayo HB, Adebukola SY, Soleimani H, Anar M. Technology projection in biofuel production using agricultural waste materials as a source of energy sustainability: A comprehensive review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2024;200:114535. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2024.114535.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

205. Souza MC, Cruz JC, Cesila CA, Gonzalez N, Rocha BA, Adeyemi JA, et al. Recent trends in pesticides in crops: A critical review of the duality of risks-benefits and the Brazilian legislation issue. Environ Res. 2023;228:115811. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2023.115811.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

206. Kumar M, Ambika S, Hassani A, Nidheesh PV. Waste to catalyst: Role of agricultural waste in water and wastewater treatment. Sci Total Environ. 2023;858:159762. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.159762.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

207. Chormare R, Moradeeya PG, Sahoo TP, Seenuvasan M, Baskar G, Saravaia HT, et al. Conversion of solid wastes and natural biomass for deciphering the valorization of biochar in pollution abatement: A review on the thermo-chemical processes. Chemosphere. 2023;339:139760. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.139760.
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar

How to Cite This Article

Keshyagol K, Prabhu US, Hiremath P, Gurumurthy BM, Shivaprakash YM, Deepak GD, et al. Advances in sustainable soil health restoration through chemical biological physical integrated and nano remediation techniques. J Sustain Res. 2025;7(3):e250056. https://doi.org/10.20900/jsr20250056.