TranslateTechnology Comparison
Side-by-side comparison of remediation technologies backed by field performance data from nearly 2,000 completed projects
Select Contaminant Type:
Source zones requiring rapid initial treatment with long-term rebound management
Effectiveness
Excellent
Timeframe
6-18 months (active oxidation) + 2+ years (bioremediation)
Cost Range
$$-$$$
Geology
All soil types
Advantages
- Multiple oxidation mechanisms: persulfate radical (2.60V), ferrate (2.20V), persulfate (2.01V)
- Prevents contaminant rebound through sustained secondary bioremediation
- Iron/sulfate as terminal electron acceptors for facultative bacteria
- Redox cycling: Fe³⁺ → Fe²⁺ regenerates persulfate activation
- Pyrite formation (FeS₂) provides long-term reactive sites
- No heat generation - safer than base or peroxide activation
- Works in low permeability zones
- Single component with integrated activator
Considerations
- Requires geochemical assessment for optimization
- May see initial turbidity from iron precipitation
- Performance enhanced in iron-rich aquifers
Dissolved plumes and long-term management
Effectiveness
Good to Excellent
Timeframe
12-36 months
Cost Range
$-$$
Geology
Moderate to high permeability
Advantages
- Cost-effective for large plumes
- Natural and sustainable
- Complete mineralization possible
- Long-lasting treatment
Considerations
- Slower treatment timeframe
- Requires favorable geochemistry
- May produce daughter products initially
- Needs monitoring for completion
Large chlorinated solvent plumes requiring long-term treatment
Effectiveness
Good
Timeframe
18-36 months
Cost Range
$$
Geology
Moderate to high permeability
Advantages
- Long-term reductive dechlorination via hydrogen generation
- Reactive barrier applications
- Cost-effective for large plumes
- Proven technology: Fe⁰ + 2H₂O → Fe²⁺ + H₂ + 2OH⁻
- Generates ferrous iron for additional electron donor
Considerations
- Slower treatment rates than EZVI
- Requires good distribution in aquifer
- Carbonate precipitation can coat ZVI surface (CaCO₃ plating)
- Best in permeable formations
- Methanogenesis competes for hydrogen
DNAPL source zones and low permeability clay/silt formations
Effectiveness
Very Good
Timeframe
12-24 months
Cost Range
$$-$$$
Geology
Low to moderate permeability
Advantages
- NASA-developed technology for rapid DNAPL destruction
- Micro/nano-scale iron in emulsified water droplets in vegetable oil
- CVOCs partition into oil phase, contact ZVI in water micelles
- Dual mechanism: abiotic ZVI reaction + biotic oil fermentation
- Enhanced distribution in tight formations vs conventional ZVI
- Treats PCE/TCE/DCE/VC to ethene effectively
- Lipid coating protects ZVI from carbonate precipitation
Considerations
- Higher cost than conventional ZVI
- Requires specialized emulsification mixing
- Potential for initial turbidity
- Vegetable oil substrate can produce VFAs
Clay soil source zones, building demolition sites
Effectiveness
Excellent
Timeframe
3-12 months
Cost Range
$$$
Geology
Low permeability clay/silt
Advantages
- Uniform reagent distribution
- Works in tight formations
- Immediate contaminant contact
- Effective for source zones
Considerations
- Limited to accessible shallow depths
- Disruptive to site operations
- Requires specialized equipment
$
$25-75 per cubic yard treated
$$
$75-150 per cubic yard treated
$$$
$150-300 per cubic yard treated
$$$$
$300+ per cubic yard treated
* Costs vary significantly based on site conditions, contamination levels, and project scope. Contact IET for detailed cost estimates.
