4.5 Article

Nanosized iron based permeable reactive barriers for nitrate removal - Systematic review

Journal

PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY OF THE EARTH
Volume 94, Issue -, Pages 29-34

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pce.2015.11.007

Keywords

Nanoparticle; Zero-valent iron; Denitrification; Permeable reactive barrier; PRISMA; Systematic review

Ask authors/readers for more resources

It is unquestionable that an effective decision concerning the usage of a certain environmental clean-up technology should be conveniently supported. Significant amount of scientific work focussing on the reduction of nitrate concentration in drinking water by both metallic iron and nanomaterials and their usage in permeable reactive barriers has been worldwide published over the last two decades. This work aims to present in a systematic review of the most relevant research done on the removal of nitrate from groundwater using nanosized iron based permeable reactive barriers. The research was based on scientific papers published between 2004 and June 2014. It was performed using 16 combinations of keywords in 34 databases, according to PRISMA statement guidelines. Independent reviewers validated the selection criteria. From the 4161 records filtered, 45 met the selection criteria and were selected to be included in this review. This study's outcomes show that the permeable reactive barriers are, indeed, a suitable technology for denitrification and with good performance record but the long-term impact of the use of nanosized zero valent iron in this remediation process, in both on the environment and on the human health, is far to be conveniently known. As a consequence, further work is required on this matter, so that nanosized iron based permeable reactive barriers for the removal of nitrate from drinking water can be genuinely considered an eco-efficient technology. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available