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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 SiteWiseTM 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.
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.
