Next Article in Journal
Development of a Wearable Arm Exoskeleton for Teleoperation Featuring with Model-Data Fusion to Gravity Compensation
Previous Article in Journal
The Effect of Selected Winter Wheat Cultivars and the Growing Season on the Antioxidant Activity, Polyphenol Profile, and Organoleptic Assessment of Beers Produced from Them
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effective Valorization of Anaerobic Digestate—A Sustainable Approach to Circular Economy
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Editorial

Innovations in Environmental Remediation and Sustainable Resource Utilisation

by
Seteno Karabo Ntwampe
1,* and
Boredi Silas Chidi
2,*
1
Green Engineering Research Group, Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment, Durban University of Technology, Durban 4001, South Africa
2
Ecological Biotechnology Research Group, Department of Biotechnology and Consumer Science, Faculty of Applied Sciences, Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Corner of Hanover and Tennant Street, Zonnebloem, Cape Town 8000, South Africa
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2025, 15(23), 12550; https://doi.org/10.3390/app152312550
Submission received: 5 November 2025 / Accepted: 25 November 2025 / Published: 26 November 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Waste Treatment and Sustainable Technologies)

1. Introduction

Environmental sustainability remains a critical global concern, particularly considering the increasing scale of industrialisation, urbanisation, and resource exploitation. Challenges such as acid mine drainage (AMD), food and agricultural waste (FAW), and industrial byproducts necessitate innovative, cost-effective, and ecologically sound remediation strategies [1,2]. This editorial showcases emerging advancements in environmental remediation and sustainable resource utilisation, as exemplified by recent articles in Applied Sciences (MDPI, 2076-3417). Collectively, these studies underscore the integration of ecological engineering, biotechnological innovation, and phytoremediation in addressing complex environmental issues. The key approaches explored include anaerobic co-digestion, ecological engineering, phytoremediation, and industrial waste stabilisation.
The quantity of FAW, a major component of municipal solid waste, is increasing rapidly, posing both environmental risks and resource recovery opportunities [3]. Anaerobic digestion (AD) is an effective method for converting FAW into bioenergy; however, mono-digestion faces limitations such as volatile fatty acid accumulation and nutrient imbalances [4]. Co-digestion with complementary substrates—such as sludge, garden waste, and manure—has been shown to enhance process stability and sustainability [5]. Microalgae (MA), rich in organic matter and non-competitive with food crops, offer a promising co-substrate, though their low carbon-to-nitrogen ratio and resilient cell walls constrain mono-digestion efficacy [6]. While AD supports sustainable development goals and complies with EU directives, challenges persist in digestate management, as untreated by-products may pose environmental and health risks [7]. Indeed, advancements in digestate processing and valorisation are essential for integrating AD within circular bioeconomy initiatives, necessitating further research into current technologies, regulatory alignment, and environmental benefits [8].
Since the 1970s, natural and constructed wetlands have also served as passive treatment systems for AMD, leveraging ecological processes to filter and transform pollutants. These systems facilitate complex biological and chemical interactions that promote metal sequestration and water quality improvement [9]. However, AMD remains a persistent issue due to its high acidity and metal content, posing threats to ecosystems and public health. Passive treatment systems, especially ecologically engineered wetlands, provide sustainable and cost-effective alternatives to chemically intensive active treatments [10,11]. Ecological engineering emphasises ecosystem self-design, enabling adaptive functioning with minimal intervention. Nevertheless, the mechanisms and long-term efficacy of such systems require further elucidation, underscoring the need for performance evaluations and process-level investigations to guide future remediation [12].
Environmental pollution, particularly from mining activities, poses severe risks to ecosystems and public health. Conventional remediation methods are often costly and environmentally unfriendly, prompting a shift toward sustainable, nature-based solutions such as phytoremediation [13]. In this approach, plants are employed to extract, stabilise, degrade, or volatilise contaminants in soil and water, offering a low-impact, in situ alternative. In many countries, mining has resulted in extensive environmental contamination by heavy metals and radioactive elements, particularly in regions such as Johannesburg and the Witwatersrand [14]. Despite these countries’ rich biodiversity and policy alignment with sustainable development, phytoremediation remains underutilised. Recent studies [15] highlight the potential of indigenous plant species in rehabilitating degraded landscapes, though research trends and collaborative networks require further exploration.
Phosphogypsum (PG), a byproduct of phosphoric acid production, is generated in substantial quantities worldwide, with much of it stockpiled or disposed of inadequately, leading to environmental contamination. Although PG has potential applications in construction and agriculture, impurities including heavy metals, acids, and radionuclides present significant risks [16]. Cemented paste backfill (PCPB) offers a promising large-scale disposal route, though fluoride leaching remains a challenge, particularly at low cement ratios. Various pretreatment methods—including chemical additives and solid-waste blending—have shown potential but often entail high costs [16]. Water washing represents a cost-effective alternative yet requires careful optimisation to balance environmental safety and mechanical performance. It is thus imperative to examine how the initial fluoride content of PG influences PCPB behaviour. In this vein, laboratory simulations and advanced material analyses can be employed to establish standardised pretreatment protocols for industrial application [17].
Together, these studies reflect a multidisciplinary approach to environmental remediation, integrating biochemical, ecological, and engineering principles. They emphasise the importance of contextual adaptation, community involvement, and policy support in implementing effective and sustainable solutions. As societies worldwide contend with environmental degradation, such research contributions provide a foundation for resilience, innovation, and ecological stewardship.

2. Overview of Published Articles

The study conducted by Pan et al. [18] represents a significant contribution to anaerobic co-digestion, examining the integration of food waste (FW) and microalgae (MA) as co-substrates. Their research elucidates synergistic microbial interactions that enhance biogas production and process stability. Among the five FW/MA mixing ratios tested, the 1:1 ratio proved most effective, yielding a 9.03% increase in biogas potential and the highest microbial diversity. These findings align with circular bioeconomy strategies by demonstrating the valorisation of organic waste streams through optimised co-digestion. Microbial community analysis revealed enrichment of Methanospirillum and Methanomethylovorans, key methanogens associated with improved methane production. Kinetic modelling using the Cone model provided an excellent fit (R2 = 0.99), corroborating the experimental results. This work offers insights into system optimisation for organic waste management and renewable energy generation, highlighting how FW-MA integration improves biodegradability and supports microbial synergy. This study is significant; thus, numerous other author [19,20,21] have recently conducted substantial research in the field of anaerobic co-digestion.
In a related contribution, Jansen van Vuuren et al. [22] evaluate the application of ecological engineering for AMD remediation in South Africa. Their case study of the Zaalklapspruit wetland demonstrates how engineered structures—concrete berms and weirs—significantly improved surface water quality: pH increased from 3.9 to 7.18, and aluminium concentrations decreased by 99.38%. Using a source–pathway–receptor framework, the authors trace the transformation and transport of metals and sulphur compounds within the wetland system. Macrophytes, periphyton, and microbial communities are shown to contribute substantially to contaminant adsorption, sequestration, and biotransformation, enhancing ecological resilience. This study underscores the importance of long-term monitoring and community engagement in sustaining restoration efforts, offering a scalable model for similar contexts in the Global South. Nonetheless, assessing ecological engineering for acid mine drainage restoration is of worldwide interest, as multinational contributions [23,24,25] in this field are already developing.
Akinpelu and Nchu [26] provide a bibliometric analysis of phytoremediation research in South Africa from 1997 to 2022. Despite a modest annual growth rate of 4.49%, their analysis of 39 publications identifies key contributors, influential journals, and collaborative networks that have shaped the field. The study documents growing interest in phytoremediation for rehabilitating mining-affected regions, highlighting successful applications of indigenous species, including Berkheya coddii, Phragmites australis, Vetiveria zizanioides, and Eichhornia crassipes. These species demonstrated notable efficacy in removing heavy metals, nutrients, and organic pollutants; for example, Eichhornia crassipes achieved a 93.8% reduction in phosphate, while Vetiveria zizanioides effectively removed Cr (VI) under hydroponic conditions. The authors advocate for increased investment, institutional collaboration, and integration of phytoremediation into national environmental strategies to fully leverage its potential. The growing body of this research [27,28,29] underscores the strategic importance of phytoremediation, prompting other scholars to explore its applications in mining rehabilitation and environmental restoration.
Zhang et al. [30] investigate the effect of fluoride content in PG on the performance of phosphogypsum-based cemented paste backfill (PCPB). Their research establishes a pretreatment threshold of 0.0093 wt.% fluoride to meet environmental safety standards. Through strength and leaching tests supplemented by SEM and XRD analyses, the authors demonstrate that elevated fluoride levels inhibit cement hydration, compromising structural integrity. Calcium fluoride (CaF2) formation and its adsorption onto hydration products were identified as primary immobilisation mechanisms. This study provides practical guidance for industrial PG pretreatment, supporting safer, more sustainable mining practices by aligning waste reuse with circular-economy objectives. Furthermore, the study of fluoride thresholds and immobilisation mechanisms has sparked broader interest [31,32,33] in optimising PCPB formulations for both structural performance and environmental compliance.
The review by Dincă et al. [34] examines sustainable strategies for valorising anaerobic digestate, a byproduct of biogas production. As anaerobic digestion gains prominence under EU waste treatment legislation, digestate management has become critical for achieving circular economy and carbon neutrality targets. The authors note that untreated digestate poses environmental risks via greenhouse gas emissions, pathogens, heavy metals, and antibiotic resistance genes. Like in previous work [35,36,37], the authors explored various processing technologies, including pyrolysis, gasification, hydrothermal carbonisation, ammonia stripping, and struvite recovery, which can mitigate environmental impacts and transform digestate into valuable products such as biofertilisers. This review contributes to broader circular bioeconomy discourse and identifies priorities for future research and policy development.
Collectively, these studies advance our understanding of sustainable environmental technologies, emphasising the need for interdisciplinary methodologies, robust analytics, and policy integration to achieve long-term ecological resilience.

3. Conclusions

The articles in this editorial reflect a growing emphasis on interdisciplinary approaches within environmental science. From microbial synergies in waste digestion to ecological engineering in wetland restoration and from bibliometric analysis of phytoremediation to advances in industrial waste management, these studies provide practical solutions to urgent environmental challenges. As South Africa and the global community confront ongoing pollution and resource degradation, such research offers a roadmap for sustainable development grounded in innovation, collaboration, and ecological integrity.

Author Contributions

B.S.C. and S.K.N.: writing—original draft preparation; B.S.C. and S.K.N.: writing—review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Wibowo, Y.G.; Fadhilah, R.; Syarifuddin, H.; Maryani, A.T.; Putri, I.A. A critical review of acid mine drainage treatment. J. Presipitasi Media Komun. Pengemb. Tek. Lingkung. 2021, 18, 524–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Mngadi, S.Z.; Tetteh, E.K.; Khumalo, S.M.; Rathilal, S. Advancements in Food Waste Recycling Technologies in South Africa: Novel Approaches for Biofertilizer and Bioenergy Production—A Review. Energies 2025, 18, 5396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Iqbal, A.; Liu, X.; Chen, G.-H. Municipal solid waste: Review of best practices in application of life cycle assessment and sustainable management techniques. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 729, 138622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. He, K.; Liu, Y.; Tian, L.; He, W.; Cheng, Q. Review in anaerobic digestion of food waste. Heliyon 2024, 10, e28200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Chow, W.L.; Chong, S.; Lim, J.W.; Chan, Y.J.; Chong, M.F.; Tiong, T.J.; Chin, J.K.; Pan, G.-T. Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Wastewater Sludge: A Review of Potential Co-Substrates and Operating Factors for Improved Methane Yield. Processes 2020, 8, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Magdalena, J.A.; Ballesteros, M.; González-Fernandez, C. Efficient anaerobic digestion of microalgae biomass: Proteins as a key macromolecule. Molecules 2018, 23, 1098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Chojnacka, K.; Moustakas, K. Anaerobic digestate management for carbon neutrality and fertilizer use: A review of current practices and future opportunities. Biomass Bioenergy 2023, 180, 106991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Mancuso, G.; Habchi, S.; Maraldi, M.; Valenti, F.; Bari, H.E. Comprehensive review of technologies for separate digestate treatment and agricultural valorisation within circular and green economy. Bioresour. Technol. 2024, 409, 131252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Zipper, C.; Skousen, J. Passive treatment of acid mine drainage. In Acid Mine Drainage, Rock Drainage, and Acid Sulphate Soils: Causes, Assessment, Prediction, Prevention, and Remediation; Jacobs, J.A., Lehr, J.H., Testa, S.M., Eds.; Virginia State University: Petersburg, VA, USA, 2014; pp. 339–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Skousen, J.; Zipper, C.E.; Rose, A.; Ziemkiewicz, P.F.; Nairn, R.; McDonald, L.M.; Kleinmann, R.L. Review of passive systems for acid mine drainage treatment. Mine Water Environ. 2017, 36, 133–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Orden, S.; Macías, F.; Cánovas, C.R.; Nieto, J.M.; Pérez-López, R.; Ayora, C. Eco-sustainable passive treatment for mine waters: Full-scale and long-term demonstration. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 280, 111699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ghazian, N.; Lortie, C.J. A Review of the Roots of Ecological Engineering and its Principles. J. Ecol. Eng. 2023, 25, 345–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Dehkordi, M.M.; Nodeh, Z.P.; Dehkordi, K.S.; Salmanvandi, H.; Khorjestan, R.R.; Ghaffarzadeh, M. Soil, air, and water pollution from mining and industrial activities: Sources of pollution, environmental impacts, and prevention and control methods. Results Eng. 2024, 23, 102729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Mlalazi, N.; Mbohwa, C.; Ramuhaheli, S.; Chimwani, N. Towards Circularity and Sustainability: Phytoremediation Approaches, Legislative Challenges, and Bioenergy Potential in South African Mine Tailings Remediation. Processes 2025, 13, 3400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Buthelezi, M.N.M.; Lottering, R.T.; Peerbhay, K.Y.; Mutanga, O. Exploring forest rehabilitation and restoration: A brief systematic review. Trees For. People 2025, 20, 100898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Tayibi, H.; Choura, M.; López, F.A.; Alguacil, F.J.; López-Delgado, A. Environmental impact and management of phosphogypsum. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 2377–2386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Liu, Y.; Zhang, Q.; Chen, Q.; Qi, C.; Su, Z.; Huang, Z. Utilisation of Water-Washing Pre-Treated phosphogypsum for cemented paste backfill. Minerals 2019, 9, 175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Pan, Z.; Sun, X.; Huang, Y.; Liang, T.; Lu, J.; Zhang, L.; Qi, C. Anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and microalgae at variable mixing ratios: Enhanced performance, kinetic analysis, and microbial community dynamics investigation. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 4387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Da Cunha, A.P.; Cammarota, M.C.; Volschan, I., Jr. Anaerobic co-digestion of sewage sludge and food waste: Effect of pre-fermentation of food waste in bench- and pilot-scale digesters. Bioresour. Technol. Rep. 2021, 15, 100707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Shrestha, S.; Pandey, R.; Aryal, N.; Lohani, S.P. Recent advances in co-digestion conjugates for anaerobic digestion of food waste. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 345, 118785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. De Castro, I.M.P.; De Alencar Neves, T.; Rosa, A.P.; Da Cunha, F.F.; Passos, F. Long-term assessment of anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and microalgae: Process stabilization, methane yield and agronomic properties of digestate. Algal Res. 2025, 86, 103947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Jansen van Vuuren, M.; Schoeman, Y.; Botha, A.M.; Oberholster, P.J. Revealing the Protective Dynamics of an Ecologically Engineered Wetland against Acid Mine Drainage: A Case Study in South Africa. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 7441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Nguegang, B.; Masindi, V.; Msagati, T.A.M.; Tekere, M. The Treatment of Acid Mine Drainage Using Vertically Flowing Wetland: Insights into the Fate of Chemical Species. Minerals 2021, 11, 477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Lin, H.; Tang, Y.; Dong, Y. Construction and carbon source optimization of a microbial-plant coupled reactor for treating acid mine drainage. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 78862–78873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Zhong, X.; Teng, X.; Tang, B.; Lin, X.; Chen, J.; Zhao, R.; Wu, Q.; Huang, X. Constructed wetland treating mine drainage wastewater: Performance and microbial mechanisms. J. Water Process Eng. 2024, 60, 105244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Akinpelu, E.A.; Nchu, F. Advancements in Phytoremediation Research in South Africa (1997–2022). Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 7660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Zhao, X.; Lei, M.; Gu, R. Knowledge Mapping of the Phytoremediation of Cadmium-Contaminated Soil: A Bibliometric Analysis from 1994 to 2021. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 6987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Vaz, L.R.L.; Conesa, J.A.; Borges, A.C. A mini review on phytoremediation of fluoride-contaminated waters: A bibliometric analysis. Front. Environ. Sci. 2023, 11, 1278411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Chaverra, L.M.; Cuervo, D.P.; Gutiérrez, A.L.; Arias, C.A.; Carvalho, P.N. Phytoremediation of mercury contamination: Bibliometric analysis. Sustainability 2024, 16, 9408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Zhang, Q.; Yang, Y.; Wang, D.; Liu, B.; Feng, Y.; Song, Z.; Chen, Q. Assessing Fluoride Impact in Phosphogypsum: Strength and Leaching Behavior of Cemented Paste Backfill. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 10952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Chen, Q.-S.; Sun, S.-Y.; Liu, Y.-K.; Qi, C.-C.; Zhou, H.-B.; Zhang, Q.-L. Immobilization and leaching characteristics of fluoride from phosphogypsum-based cemented paste backfill. Int. J. Miner. Metall. Mater. 2021, 28, 1440–1452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Zhou, Y.; Shi, Y.; Zhu, Q. Control of fluoride pollution in cemented phosphogypsum backfill by citric acid pretreatment. Materials 2023, 16, 6493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Wang, D.; Tao, Y.; Feng, Y.; Zhu, D.; Zhang, Q.; Chen, Q. Enhanced solidification/stabilization (S/S) of fluoride in smelting solid waste-based phosphogypsum cemented paste backfill utilizing biochar: Mechanisms and performance assessment. J. Environ. Manag. 2024, 367, 122088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Dincă, M.N.; Ferdeș, M.; Zăbavă, B.Ș.; Ionescu, M.; Moiceanu, G.; Paraschiv, G. Effective Valorization of Anaerobic Digestate—A Sustainable Approach to Circular Economy. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 8939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Beggio, G.; Peng, W.; Lü, F.; Cerasaro, A.; Bonato, T.; Pivato, A. Chemically Enhanced Solid–Liquid separation of digestate: Suspended solids removal and effects on environmental quality of separated fractions. Waste Biomass Valoriz. 2021, 13, 1029–1041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Sfetsas, T.; Patsatzis, S.; Chioti, A.; Kopteropoulos, A.; Dimitropoulou, G.; Tsioni, V.; Kotsopoulos, T. A review of advances in valorization and post-treatment of anaerobic digestion liquid fraction effluent. Waste Manag. Res. J. Sustain. Circ. Econ. 2022, 40, 1093–1109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Romio, C.; Ward, A.J.; Møller, H.B. Characterization and valorization of biogas digestate and derived organic fertilizer products from separation processes. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2024, 8, 1415508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ntwampe, S.K.; Chidi, B.S. Innovations in Environmental Remediation and Sustainable Resource Utilisation. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 12550. https://doi.org/10.3390/app152312550

AMA Style

Ntwampe SK, Chidi BS. Innovations in Environmental Remediation and Sustainable Resource Utilisation. Applied Sciences. 2025; 15(23):12550. https://doi.org/10.3390/app152312550

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ntwampe, Seteno Karabo, and Boredi Silas Chidi. 2025. "Innovations in Environmental Remediation and Sustainable Resource Utilisation" Applied Sciences 15, no. 23: 12550. https://doi.org/10.3390/app152312550

APA Style

Ntwampe, S. K., & Chidi, B. S. (2025). Innovations in Environmental Remediation and Sustainable Resource Utilisation. Applied Sciences, 15(23), 12550. https://doi.org/10.3390/app152312550

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop