Ex Situ Bioremediation Treatment (Landfarming)

  • Maria Nikolopoulou
  • Nicolas KalogerakisEmail author
Part of the Springer Protocols Handbooks book series (SPH)


Landfarming provides a platform where soil conditions (pH, nutrient, moisture, and tilling) can be optimized to promote microbial activities and thus the desired degradation of soil pollutants can be achieved. The factors under which landfarming is applicable and leads to increased effectiveness are reviewed and design parameters for successful landfarming applications are provided.


Biochemical processes Landfarming design Land treatment unit Soil bioremediation 



This work was funded by FP-7 PROJECT No. 312139 “Integrated Biotechnological Solutions for Combating marine Oil Spills” – KILL•SPILL.


  1. 1.
    Nikolopoulou M, Kalogerakis N (2011) Petroleum spill control with biological means. In: Moo-Young M (ed) Comprehensive biotechnology. Elsevier B.V., Amsterdam, pp 263–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    US EPA (2004) Chapter V (landfarming) of OUST’s publication: how to evaluate alternative cleanup technologies for underground storage tank sites: a guide for corrective action plan reviewers (EPA 510-B-95-007).
  3. 3.
    Khan FI, Husain T, Hejazi R (2004) An overview and analysis of site remediation technologies. J Environ Manage 71:95–122CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Besaltatpour A, Hajabbasi M, Khoshgoftarmanesh A, Dorostkar V (2011) Landfarming process effects on biochemical properties of petroleum contaminated soils. Soil Sediment Contam Int J 20:234–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Maila MP, Cloete TE (2004) Bioremediation of petroleum hydrocarbons through landfarming: are simplicity and cost-effectiveness the only advantages? Rev Environ Sci Bio Technol 3:349–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nikolopoulou M, Pasadakis N, Norf H, Kalogerakis N (2013) Enhanced ex situ bioremediation of crude oil contaminated beach sand by supplementation with nutrients and rhamnolipids. Mar Pollut Bull 77:37–44CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kalogerakis N (2005) Ex-situ bioremediation of contaminated soils. In: Liens P, Grotenhuis T, Tabak H (eds) Soil and sediment remediation. IWA Publishing, London, pp 151–175Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zhu X, Venosa AD, Suidan MT, Lee K (2001) Guidelines for the bioremediation of marine shorelines and freshwater wetlands. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Land Remediation and Pollution Control Division, Cincinnati, OHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    US EPA (2003) Aerobic biodegradation of oily wastes: a field guidance book for federal on-scene coordinators, version 1.0. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6 South Central Response and Prevention Branch, Washington DC, available at
  10. 10.
    NSW EPA (2014) Best practice note: landfarming. Environment Protection Authority, Australia, available at
  11. 11.
    Pope DF, Matthews JE (1993) Environmental regulations and technology: bioremediation using the land treatment concept. EPA/600/R-93/164, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, OKGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dupont RR, Bruell CJ, Downey DC, Huling SG, Marley MC, Norris RD, Pivetz B (1998) Innovative site remediation technology: design and application, v. 1: bioremediation. EPA 542-B-97-004, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Eweis JB, Ergas S, Chang PDY, Schroeder D (1998) Bioremediation principles. McGraw-Hill, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Environment Canada (2013) Federal guidelines for landfarming petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated soils. Available at A8-4780-9124-07650F3A68EA/Landfarming_en.pdf
  15. 15.
    Cookson JT (1995) Bioremediation engineering design and application. McGraw-Hill, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sims JL, Sims RC, Matthews JE (1989) Bioremediation of contaminated surface soils. EPA/600/9-89/073, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, OKGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Forster JC (1995) Determination of the gravimetric water content and soil dry mass. In: Alef K, Nannipieri P (eds) Methods in applied soil microbiology and biochemistry. Academic, London, pp 105–106Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wilke BM (2005) Determination of chemical and physical soil properties. In: Margesin R, Schinner F (eds) Soil biology, volume 5 manual for soil analysis. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 44–95Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kuo J (1999) Practical design calculations for groundwater and soil remediation. CRC Press LLC, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Speight JG (2014) The chemistry and technology of petroleum, 5th edn. CRC Press LLC, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chow VT, Maidment DR, Mays LW (1988) Applied hydrology. Tata McGraw-Hill Education, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Xu CY, Singh VP (2002) Cross comparison of empirical equations for calculating potential evapotranspiration with data from Switzerland. Water Resour Manage 16:197–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ponce VM (1994) Engineering hydrology, principles and practices. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Matzarakis AP, Katsoulis VD (2006) Sunshine duration hours over the Greek region. Theor Appl Climatol 83:107–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bengtson H (2011) Rational method hydrologic calculations with excel.
  26. 26.
    Brown SA, Schall JD, Morris JL, Doherty CL, Stein SM, Warner JC (2009) Urban drainage design manual, 3rd edn. Report No FHWA-NHI-10-009, US Dept. of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Washington, DC. Available at
  27. 27.
    Hayes DC, Young RL (2006) Comparison of peak discharge and runoff characteristic estimates from the rational method to field observations for small basins in Central Virginia. USGS Virginia Water Science Center, Reston, VA, Available at Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Knox County, TN (2008) Stormwater management manual. Available at
  29. 29.
    Akan AO (1993) Urban stormwater hydrology: a guide to engineering calculations. Technomic Publishing, LancasterGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Singh A, Ward OP, Kuhad RC (2005) Feasibility studies for microbial remediation hydrocarbon-contaminated soil. In: Margesin R, Schinner F (eds) Manual for soil analysis – monitoring and assessing soil bioremediation. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 131–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Environmental Engineering, Technical University of CreteChaniaGreece

Personalised recommendations