In-situ chemical reduction (ISCR) versus emulsified oils: how to decide?


Courtesy of

Many industry practitioners, such as environmental consulting and engineering firms, are seeking topical decision-making criteria for their options when remediating impacted groundwater.  'Few, if any, of us are experts in the myriad fields of science associated with applied environmental biotechnology. As such, technology end-users, and vendors alike, are often confused and frustrated with apparently conflicting messages offered by the providers of various remedial technologies,' commented Jim Mueller, Ph.D, President of Adventus Americas Inc. 'As part of  an ongoing commitment to scientific excellence and technical support, we seek to provide direct, comparative analyses of our technologies with seemingly similar offerings in a factual manner. This summary compares and contrasts EHC® ISCR technology with carbon-only substrates consisting of emulsified vegetable oils. While the latter can be effective, there exist a number of fundamental differences.'

The Potential Significance of ISCR

Many chlorinated hydrocarbon compounds (CHCs) can be degraded via oxidative or reductive processes. Accordingly, various in situ chemical oxidation (ISCO) technologies using oxidizing agents such as Fenton's chemistry, permanganate and persulfate have been developed to remediate impacted environments. Each of these oxidants and their activators offer seemingly unique features and they can be very effective on a varying range of CHCs. However, an equally or perhaps more effective remedial strategy, especially for plume treatment, entails in situ chemical reduction (ISCR) using EHC® or granular iron (zero-valent metal) as the reductant.

Customer comments

No comments were found for In-situ chemical reduction (ISCR) versus emulsified oils: how to decide?. Be the first to comment!