Carbon footprint in contaminated-site remediation: a systematic review of accounting methodologies, influencing factors, and decarbonization strategies

Abstract

The remediation of contaminated sites is essential for environmental protection but often carries a substantial carbon footprint due to energy‑intensive processes, material consumption, and transportation logistics. This review systematically synthesizes current knowledge on carbon-footprint management in contaminated-site remediation, focusing on accounting methodologies, comparative technology assessment, key influencing factors, and decarbonization strategies. Four accounting approaches are critically evaluated, namely life cycle assessment (LCA), input-output analysis, intergovernmental panel on climate change calculation, and hybrid LCA, and their applications across site‑specific, regional, and macro scales are examined. A comparative analysis reveals a conditional carbon-footprint hierarchy: nature‑based solutions < optimized in situ physical and chemical treatments < energy‑intensive thermal and ex situ methods. However, reported footprints vary widely even within the same technology due to differences in contaminant type, site geology, treatment intensity, local energy mix, and regulatory context. Emerging decarbonization strategies such as precision remediation, on‑site renewable energy, biochar‑based amendments, green logistics, and decision‑support tools are evaluated in terms of their evidence base, implementation constraints, and associated trade‑offs. Coupling multiple decarbonization strategies can yield synergistic benefits; however, project‑specific LCA is essential for robust evaluation. Additionally, key methodological challenges, including emission-scope coverage, embodied-carbon accounting, temporal-boundary definition, and uncertainty reporting are identified as barriers to cross‑study comparability. This review provides a critical, evidence‑based foundation for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers to align contaminated-site remediation with global carbon-neutrality goals.

Keywords

Carbon footprint / contaminated sites / sustainable remediation / life cycle assessment / decarbonization / climate change

References

[1] Hou D.,Al-tabbaa A.,O’connor D..et al. Sustainable remediation and redevelopment of brownfield sites Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 2023 4 271 86

[2] Lee H.,Sam K.,Coulon F.,De Gisi S.,Notarnicola M.,Labianca C.. Recent developments and prospects of sustainable remediation treatments for major contaminants in soil: a review Sci. Total Environ. 2024 912 168769

[3] Sarker A.,Shin W. S.,Masud M. A. A.,Nandi R.,Islam T.. A critical review of sustainable pesticide remediation in contaminated sites: research challenges and mechanistic insights Environ. Pollut. 2024 341 122940

[4] Unnithan A.,Bekele D. N.,Chadalavada S.,Naidu R.. Insights into vapour intrusion phenomena: current outlook and preferential pathway scenario Sci. Total Environ. 2021 796 148885

[5] Wu J.,Chen X.,Chen C.,Liu M.,Wang S.,Zhao C.. Multi-indices decision-making incorporating environmental capacity for assessing brownfield sites safety Environ. Geochem. Health 2025 47 250

[6] Pasetto R.,Mattioli B.,Marsili D.. Environmental justice in industrially contaminated sites. A review of scientific evidence in the WHO European region Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019 16 998 PMC6466395

[7] Azuazu I. N.,Sam K.,Campo P.,Coulon F.. Challenges and opportunities for low-carbon remediation in the Niger Delta: Towards sustainable environmental management Sci. Total Environ. 2023 900 165739

[8] Ganie A. S.,Bano S.,Khan N..et al. Nanoremediation technologies for sustainable remediation of contaminated environments: recent advances and challenges Chemosphere 2021 275 130065

[9] Pak T.,Luz L. F. D. L.,Tosco T.,Costa G. S. R.,Rosa P. R. R.,Archilha N. L.. Pore-scale investigation of the use of reactive nanoparticles for in situ remediation of contaminated groundwater source Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2020 117 13366 73 PMC7306790

[10] Khan S.,Naushad M.,Govarthanan M.,Iqbal J.,Alfadul S. M.. Emerging contaminants of high concern for the environment: current trends and future research Environ. Res. 2022 207 112609

[11] Bokade P.,Gaur V. K.,Tripathi V.,Bobate S.,Manickam N.,Bajaj A.. Bacterial remediation of pesticide polluted soils: exploring the feasibility of site restoration J. Hazard. Mater. 2023 441 129906

[12] Li Y.,Zhang Z.. Global systematic review of sustainability assessment for contaminated site remediation: a bibliometric visualization approach J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2026 14 122364

[13] Chen C.,Zhang X.. Chen. J.; et al. Assessment of site contaminated soil remediation based on an input output life cycle assessment J. Clean. Prod. 2020 263 121422

[14] Favara P. J.,Krieger T. M.,Boughton B.,Fisher A. S.,Bhargava M.. Guidance for performing footprint analyses and life‐cycle assessments for the remediation industry Remediat. J. 2011 21 39 79

[15] Panzarella F.,Cappuyns V.,Abelshausen B.,Turcanu C.. Sustainable environmental remediation: an application of the community capitals framework Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2024 28 5293 315

[16] Huysegoms L.,Cappuyns V.. Critical review of decision support tools for sustainability assessment of site remediation options J. Environ. Manage. 2017 196 278 96

[17] Xiao M.,Liu P.,Meng H..et al. Carbon footprint on remediation of contaminated sites based on concept of green and sustainability: a review Soil. 2023 55 708 17

[18] Cappuyns V.. Carbon footprint calculations in the soil remediation sector: a comparative analysis Sci. Total Environ. 2024 915 170100

[19] Liu H.,Ye P.,Ran C..et al. From traditional methods to digital platforms: technological progress and application progress of carbon footprint accounting tools Chin. J. Environ. Eng. 2025 19 1913 33 (in Chinese)

[20] Ashraf A. I.,Mohareb E.,Vahdati M.,Abbas F.. Environmental life cycle assessments of decentralized municipal solid waste management: a novel waste-to-compost approach Discov. Sustain. 2025 6 138

[21] Matthews H. S.,Hendrickson C. T.,Weber C. L.. The importance of carbon footprint estimation boundaries Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008 42 5839 42

[22] Li A.,Yu B.,Zhang Y..et al. The emission reduction potential and cost-effectiveness of low-GWP refrigerants in electric vehicle air conditionings Carbon Footprints 2024 3 6

[23] Pryshlakivsky J.,Searcy C.. Life cycle assessment as a decision-making tool: practitioner and managerial considerations J. Clean. Prod. 2021 309 127344

[24] Khan M.,Nizami A. S.,Bashir S.,Yasar A.. A carbon footprint accounting framework for sustainable textile manufacturing: Advancing greenhouse gas mitigation and net‐zero strategies Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 2025 45 e70265

[25] Visentin C.,Trentin A. W. D. S.,Braun A. B.,Thomé A.. Life cycle sustainability assessment: a systematic literature review through the application perspective, indicators, and methodologies J. Clean. Prod. 2020 270 122509

[26] Meng X.,Wu J.,Zhang Y.,Ren J.,Yue D.,Manzardo A.. Critical review: a standardized blueprint for green certificate integration in life cycle assessment Carbon Footprints 2025 4 29

[27] Lueddeckens S.,Saling P.,Guenther E.. Temporal issues in life cycle assessment-a systematic review Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2020 25 1385 401

[28] Han J.,Tan Z.,Chen M.,Zhao L.,Yang L.,Chen S.. Carbon footprint research based on input-output model-a global scientometric visualization analysis Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022 19 11343

[29] Zhang Q.,Fang K.,Xu M..et al. Review of carbon footprint research based on input-output analysis J. Nat. Resour. 2018 33 696 708

[30] Semenov S. M.. Intergovernmental panel on climate change: results, problems, and prospects Izv. Atmos. Ocean. Phys. 2025 60 Suppl S323 30

[31] Chen X.,Zhen Y.,Chen Z.. Household carbon footprint characteristics and driving factors: a global comparison based on a dynamic input-output model Energies 2023 16 3884

[32] Šimaitis J.,Butnar I.,Sacchi R.,Lupton R.,Vagg C.,Allen S.. Expanding scenario diversity in prospective LCA: coupling the TIAM-UCL integrated assessment model with premise and ecoinvent Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2025 211 115298

[33] Yang Y.,Heijungs R.,Brandão M.. Hybrid life cycle assessment (LCA) does not necessarily yield more accurate results than process-based LCA J. Clean. Prod. 2017 150 237 42

[34] Spreafico C.. How can patent-based prospective life cycle assessment be used for eco-design? Res. Eng. Design 2025 36 5

[35] Briones-hidrovo A.,Copa Rey J. R.,Cláudia Dias A.,Tarelho L. A.,Beauchet S.. Assessing a bio-energy system with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) through dynamic life cycle assessment and land-water-energy nexus Energy Convers. Manag. 2022 268 116014

[36] Foerster F. C.,Döring J.,Koch M..et al. Comparative life cycle assessment of integrated and organic viticulture based on a long-term field trial in Germany Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2024 52 487 97

[37] Huang W.,Hung W.,Vu C. T.,Chen W.,Lai J.,Lin C.. Green and sustainable remediation (GSR) evaluation: framework, standards, and tool. A case study in Taiwan Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2016 23 21712 25

[38] Khan M. A. A.,Qadir Z.,Asad M.,Kouzani A. Z.,Parvez Mahmud M. A.. Environmental footprint assessment of a cleanup at hypothetical contaminated Site Appl. Sci. 2021 11 4907

[39] Harbottle M.,Al-tabbaa A.,Evans C.. A comparison of the technical sustainability of in situ stabilisation/solidification with disposal to landfill J. Hazard. Mater. 2007 141 430 40

[40] Sparrevik M.,Saloranta T.,Cornelissen G..et al. Use of life cycle assessments to evaluate the environmental footprint of contaminated sediment remediation Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011 45 4235 41

[41] Ferdos F.,Rosén L.. Quantitative environmental footprints and sustainability evaluation of contaminated land remediation alternatives for two case studies Remediat. J. 2013 24 77 98

[42] Hou D.,Gu Q.,Ma F.,O’connell S.. Life cycle assessment comparison of thermal desorption and stabilization/solidification of mercury contaminated soil on agricultural land J. Clean. Prod. 2016 139 949 56

[43] Muñoz-morales M.,Sanchez-ramos D.,Medina-díaz H. L..et al. Are abandoned mine tailings a valuable resource for recovering Rare Earth Elements? Life cycle assessment and cost analysis J. Clean. Prod. 2025 518 145828

[44] Hou D.,Guthrie P.,Rigby M.. Assessing the trend in sustainable remediation: a questionnaire survey of remediation professionals in various countries J. Environ. Manage. 2016 184 18 26

[45] Favaretto L.,Rugani B.,Calfapietra C.,Labra M.,Guidi Nissim W.. Modelling the environmental implications of phytoremediation in urban settings: a review of the integration of life cycle assessment and ecosystem services approaches Urban For. Urban Green. 2025 107 128788

[46] Sampson J.,Biesta M.,Crapper M.,Hall I.,Shepherd A.. Carbon dioxide accounting: 2014 Commonwealth Games Athletes’ Village Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Eng. Sustain. 2013 166 150 60

[47] Guo X.,Luo H.,Liu L.,Liu K.,Ge J.,Nishida K.. Towards green marine engines: a review of methanol fueled internal combustion engine Green Energy Res. 2026 4 100168

[48] Wiedmann T. O.,Chen G.,Barrett J.. The concept of city carbon maps: a case study of Melbourne, Australia J. Ind. Ecol. 2015 20 676 91

[49] Chen G.,Wiedmann T.,Wang Y.,Hadjikakou M.. Transnational city carbon footprint networks - exploring carbon links between Australian and Chinese cities Appl. Energy 2016 184 1082 92

[50] Zabbey N.,Sam K.,Onyebuchi A. T.. Remediation of contaminated lands in the Niger Delta, Nigeria: prospects and challenges Sci. Total Environ. 2017 586 952 65

[51] Alshehri K.,Gao Z.,Harbottle M.,Sapsford D.,Cleall P.. Life cycle assessment and cost-benefit analysis of nature-based solutions for contaminated land remediation: A mini-review Heliyon 2023 9 e20632 PMC10569992

[52] Ivanova D.,Vita G.,Steen-olsen K..et al. Mapping the carbon footprint of EU regions Environ. Res. Lett. 2017 12 054013

[53] Yang Y.,Qu S.,Cai B..et al. Mapping global carbon footprint in China Nat. Commun. 2020 11 2237 PMC7206023

[54] Harclerode M.,Ridsdale D. R.,Darmendrail D..et al. Integrating the social dimension in remediation decision‐making: state of the practice and way forward Remediat. J. 2015 26 11 42

[55] World Urbanization Prospects, The 2018 Revision, ST/ESA/SER.A/420 (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2019). https://population.un.org/wup/assets/WUP2018-Report.pdf (accessed 2026-06-23)

[56] Office of land and emergency management program benefits. USEPA. https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/office-land-and-emergency-management-program-benefits (accessed 2026-06-23)

[57] Shi P.,Ma Y.,Peng Z..et al. Developing an institutional control framework for contaminated sites in China: an analytical case study Sci. Total Environ. 2024 951 175563

[58] Hou D.,Al-tabbaa A.,Guthrie P.. The adoption of sustainable remediation behaviour in the US and UK: a cross country comparison and determinant analysis Sci. Total Environ. 2014 490 905 13

[59] O’connor D.,Hou D.,Ok Y. S..et al. Sustainable in situ remediation of recalcitrant organic pollutants in groundwater with controlled release materials: a review J. Controlled Release 2018 283 200 13

[60] Amponsah N. Y.,Wang J.,Zhao L.. A review of life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of commonly used ex-situ soil treatment technologies J. Clean. Prod. 2018 186 514 25

[61] Zhao C.,Dong Y.,Feng Y.,Li Y.,Dong Y.. Thermal desorption for remediation of contaminated soil: a review Chemosphere 2019 221 841 55

[62] Deng B.,Carter R. A.,Cheng Y..et al. High-temperature electrothermal remediation of multi-pollutants in soil Nat. Commun. 2023 14 6371 PMC10567823

[63] Ni Z.,Wang Y.,Wang Y..et al. Comparative life-cycle assessment of aquifer thermal energy storage integrated with in situ bioremediation of chlorinated volatile organic compounds Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020 54 3039 49

[64] Ni Z.,Van Gaans P.,Rijnaarts H.,Grotenhuis T.. Combination of aquifer thermal energy storage and enhanced bioremediation: biological and chemical clogging Sci. Total Environ. 2018 613-614 707 13

[65] Schüppler S.,Fleuchaus P.,Blum P.. Techno-economic and environmental analysis of an aquifer thermal energy storage (ATES) in Germany Geotherm. Energy 2019 7 11

[66] Li X.,Sun Y.,Li W..et al. Solidification/stabilization pre-treatment coupled with landfill disposal of heavy metals in MSWI fly ash in China: a systematic review J. Hazard. Mater. 2024 478 135479

[67] Jiang Q.,He Y.,Wu Y..et al. Solidification/stabilization of soil heavy metals by alkaline industrial wastes: a critical review Environ. Pollut. 2022 312 120094

[68] Zhang R.,Zhao H.,Lv G.,Ma X.,Jiang X.. Advanced ex-situ carbon stabilization technology using municipal solid waste incineration fly ash: a review Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2025 218 115763

[69] Kuppan N.,Padman M.,Mahadeva M.,Srinivasan S.,Devarajan R.. A comprehensive review of sustainable bioremediation techniques: eco friendly solutions for waste and pollution management Waste Manag. Bull. 2024 2 154 71

[70] Liu Z.,Liang Y.,Zhu P..et al. Uranium contamination in groundwater: sources, speciation, transformations, migration, and remediation strategies ACS EST. Water 2025 5 4301 21

[71] O’connor D.,Zheng X.,Hou D..et al. Phytoremediation: climate change resilience and sustainability assessment at a coastal brownfield redevelopment Environ. Int. 2019 130 104945

[72] Hou D.,O’connor D.,Igalavithana A. D..et al. Metal contamination and bioremediation of agricultural soils for food safety and sustainability Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 2020 1 366 81

[73] Vocciante M.,Caretta A.,Bua L..et al. Enhancements in phytoremediation technology: environmental assessment including different options of biomass disposal and comparison with a consolidated approach J. Environ. Manage. 2019 237 560 8

[74] Wang Z.,Shi Y.,Wu L.. A Decision-making model for green and sustainable remediation of contaminated sites based on CRITIC-entropy-TOPSIS Appl. Sci. 2026 16 3247

[75] Yu J.,Wang P.,Yuan B.,Wang M.,Shi P.,Li F.. Remediation technologies of contaminated sites in china: application and spatial clustering characteristics Sustainability 2024 16 1703

[76] Mcgachy L.,Sedlak D. L.. From theory to practice: leveraging chemical principles to improve the performance of peroxydisulfate-based in situ chemical oxidation of organic contaminants Environ. Sci. Technol. 2023 58 17 32 PMC10785823

[77] Pradhan B.,Chand S.,Chand S.,Rout P. R.,Naik S. K.. Emerging groundwater contaminants: a comprehensive review on their health hazards and remediation technologies Groundw. Sustain. Dev. 2023 20 100868

[78] Rayaroth M. P.,Oh D.,Lee C.,Kang Y.,Chang Y.. In situ chemical oxidation of contaminated groundwater using a sulfidized nanoscale zerovalent iron-persulfate system: Insights from a box-type study Chemosphere 2020 257 127117

[79] Xiao M.,Zhang H.,Li X..et al. Coupling life cycle assessment with social media-based matrices for multidimensional sustainability assessment of site remediation Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2026 228 108789

[80] Carroll K. C.,Brusseau M. L.,Tick G. R.,Soltanian M. R.. Rethinking pump-and-treat remediation as maximizing contaminated groundwater Sci. Total Environ. 2024 918 170600

[81] Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable. Groundwater pump and treat. https://frtr.gov/matrix/Groundwater-Pump-and-Treat/ (accessed 2026-06-23)

[82] Zeynali M. J.,Pourreza-bilondi M.,Akbarpour A.,Yazdi J.,Zekri S.. Optimizing pump-and-treat method by considering important remediation objectives Appl. Water Sci. 2022 12 268

[83] Bortone I.,Erto A.,Nardo A. D.,Santonastaso G. F.,Chianese S.,Musmarra D.. Pump-and-treat configurations with vertical and horizontal wells to remediate an aquifer contaminated by hexavalent chromium J. Contam. Hydrol. 2020 235 103725

[84] Visentin C.,Braun A. B.,Thomé A.. Environmental, economic, and social viability of nanoscale zero-valent iron for soil and groundwater remediation: a sustainability analysis from a Brazilian perspective Water. Air. Soil Pollut. 2026 237 551

[85] Owsianiak M.,Lemming G.,Hauschild M. Z.,Bjerg P. L.. Assessing environmental sustainability of remediation technologies in a life cycle perspective is not so easy Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013 47 1182 3

[86] Cai Y.,Chen H.,Zhao W..et al. Investigation of greenhouse gas emissions in soil remediation activities based on the integration of machine learning models and life cycle assessment J. Clean. Prod. 2025 487 144630

[87] Grösbacher M.,Eckert D.,Cirpka O. A.,Griebler C.. Contaminant concentration versus flow velocity: drivers of biodegradation and microbial growth in groundwater model systems Biodegradation 2018 29 211 32 PMC5943387

[88] You X.,Liu S.,Dai C.,Guo Y.,Zhong G.,Duan Y.. Contaminant occurrence and migration between high- and low-permeability zones in groundwater systems: a review Sci. Total Environ. 2020 743 140703

[89] Tatti F.,Papini M. P.,Sappa G.,Raboni M.,Arjmand F.,Viotti P.. Contaminant back-diffusion from low-permeability layers as affected by groundwater velocity: a laboratory investigation by box model and image analysis Sci. Total Environ. 2018 622-623 164 71

[90] Community guide to in situ chemical reduction (USEPA, 2021). https://semspub.epa.gov/work/HQ/401603.pdf (accessed 2026-06-23)

[91] Wang Q.,Guo S.,Ali M..et al. Thermally enhanced bioremediation: a review of the fundamentals and applications in soil and groundwater remediation J. Hazard. Mater. 2022 433 128749

[92] Cheng Y.,Deng B.,Scotland P..et al. Electrothermal mineralization of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances for soil remediation Nat. Commun. 2024 15 6117 PMC11271446

[93] Xia Q.,Tian G.,Wu Z.. Examining embodied carbon emission flow relationships among different industrial sectors in China Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2022 29 100 14

[94] Wethasinghe C.,Yuen S.,Kaluarachchi J.,Hughes R.. Uncertainty in biokinetic parameters on bioremediation: health risks and economic implications Environ. Int. 2006 32 312 23

[95] Chang Y.,Liu D.,Chang F..et al. Marine lifecycle carbon footprint toward carbon neutrality: recent progress and prospects Processes 2025 13 3997

[96] Chen G.,Shan Y.,Hu Y..et al. Review on city-level carbon accounting Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019 53 5545 58

[97] Liang T.,Huo M.,Yu L..et al. Life cycle assessment-based decision-making for thermal remediation of contaminated soil in a regional perspective J. Clean. Prod. 2023 392 136260

[98] Xia X.,Li P.,Xia Z.,Wu R.,Cheng Y.. Life cycle carbon footprint of electric vehicles in different countries: a review Sep. Purif. Technol. 2022 301 122063

[99] Marinovich M. J.,Funk W. A.,Kelly S.,Elliott C.,Hansen V. G.. Sustainable remediation and decision analysis practices at an onshore gas well site: sustainable remediation and decision analysis practices Remediation 2016 26 95 115

[100] Niblick B.,Landis A. E.. Assessing renewable energy potential on United States marginal and contaminated sites Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016 60 489 97

[101] Wang L.,Deng J.,Yang X.,Hou R.,Hou D.. Role of biochar toward carbon neutrality Carbon Res. 2023 2 2

[102] Lu H.,Tian P.,He L.. Evaluating the global potential of aquifer thermal energy storage and determining the potential worldwide hotspots driven by socio-economic, geo-hydrologic and climatic conditions Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019 112 788 96

[103] Barns D. G.,Taylor P. G.,E Bale C. S.,Owen A.. Important social and technical factors shaping the prospects for thermal energy storage J. Energy Storage 2021 41 102877

[104] Xiao M.,Li X.,Seuntjens P..et al. Qualitative and quantitative simulation of best management practices (BMPs) for contaminated megasite remediation using the SiteWise^TM tool J. Environ. Manage. 2024 360 121098

[105] Xu H.,Hou D.. Unlocking nature-based solution potential: Life cycle assessment of groundwater remediation at operating industrial sites J. Clean. Prod. 2025 528 146697

[106] Yang Z.,Wei C.,Song X..et al. Thermal conductive heating coupled with in situ chemical oxidation for soil and groundwater remediation: a quantitative assessment for sustainability J. Clean. Prod. 2023 423 138732

[107] Van De Ven D.,Capellan-peréz I.,Arto I..et al. The potential land requirements and related land use change emissions of solar energy Sci. Rep. 2021 11 2907 PMC7859221

[108] Wang L.,Ok Y. S.,Tsang D. C. W..et al. Biochar composites: emerging trends, field successes and sustainability implications Soil Use Manag. 2021 38 14 38

[109] Han Y.,Yan W.. Reductive dechlorination of trichloroethene by zero-valent iron nanoparticles: reactivity enhancement through sulfidation treatment Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016 50 12992 3001

[110] O’connor D.,Hou D.,Liu Q.,Palmer M. R.,Varma R. S.. Nature-inspired and sustainable synthesis of sulfur-bearing Fe-rich nanoparticles ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. 2020 8 15791 808

[111] Hong J.,Wang L.,Lu X.,Deng D.. Peroxide stabilizers remarkably increase the longevity of thermally activated peroxydisulfate for enhanced ISCO remediation Water Res. 2022 224 119046

[112] Loures L.,Vaz E.. Exploring expert perception towards brownfield redevelopment benefits according to their typology Habitat Int. 2018 72 66 76

[113] Prior J.. The norms, rules and motivational values driving sustainable remediation of contaminated environments: a study of implementation Sci. Total Environ. 2016 544 824 36

[114] Yang Z.,Wang Q.,Wei C..et al. Quantitative sustainability assessment of in situ thermally enhanced bioremediation for carbon efficient groundwater remediation Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2026 63 19 33

[115] Singh A.,Shraogi N.,Verma R..et al. Challenges in current pest management practices: navigating problems and a way forward by integrating controlled release system approach Chem. Eng. J. 2024 498 154989

[116] Wang H.,Zhou Y.,Peng H.,Li S.,Gu G.. Carbon accounting and decarbonization pathways in road construction: a systematic review and research agenda Results Eng. 2026 30 110711

[117] Li Z.,Lin K.,Wang Y..et al. Synergistic superiority of AMF and biochar in enhancing rhizosphere microbiomes to support plant growth under Cd stress Biochar 2025 7 105