Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:19662–19682

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-25114-x

REVIEW ARTICLE

Treatment of drilling fluid waste during oil and gas drilling: a review
Jie Yang1,2 · Jinsheng Sun1,2 · Ren Wang2 · Yuanzhi Qu2

Received: 23 July 2022 / Accepted: 29 December 2022 / Published online: 17 January 2023
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2023

Abstract
Oil and gas exploration and development provide important energy sources for the world, and drilling fluid is an essential
engineering material for oil and gas exploration and development. During the drilling of oil wells, drilling fluids are eventu-
ally discarded as waste products after many cycles. Abandoned drilling fluid constitutes one of the largest wastes generated
during oil and gas exploration and development. Drilling fluid contains many chemicals, which turn into pollutants during
use. Furthermore, when drilling is carried out to reach reservoir, the drilling fluid becomes contaminated with crude oil. It
may also mix with groundwater containing salts and heavy metals. The resulting pollutants and harmful substances threaten
the environment, humans, animals, and plants. The variety and complexity of drilling fluid waste have increased in recent
years. Various countries and regions are paying more attention to the ecological environment, and effective methods are
urgently needed to solve problems associated with of environmental pollution caused by drilling fluid wastes. At present,
various physical, chemical, and biological methods have been proposed for the treatment of drilling fluid wastes: safe land-
filling, stabilization/solidification treatment, physicochemical treatment, thermal treatment, supercritical fluid treatment,
bioremediation, etc. All of these methods show promising characteristics, and they each have advantages and limitations;
thus, treatment methods need to be selected according to the actual application scenarios. This critical overview is based on
an extensive literature review, and it summarizes and expounds on the current drilling fluid waste treatment technologies
and proposes views future potential and outlook.

Keywords Water-based drilling fluid waste · Oil-based drilling fluid waste · Petroleum pollution · Treatment technology ·
Environmentally friendly · Treatment mechanism · Wastewater treatment

Introduction become a pollutant that cannot be ignored. It is produced in

Drilling fluid serves as “drilling blood” and plays a vital
role in carrying and suspending drill cuttings, stabilizing
wellbores, lubricating and cooling drill bits, and protect-
ing oil and gas reservoirs during drilling-based engineering
(Hamed and Belhadri 2009; Sadiq et al. 2003; Schaanning
et al. 2008). With increasing energy demand, drilling depths
and quantities have been increasing each year, resulting in
increasing drilling fluid waste generation, and this fluid has
Responsible Editor: Ta Yeong Wu
* Jinsheng Sun
sunjsdri@cnpc.com.cn
1
College of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Southwest
Petroleum University, Chengdu 610500, China
2
CNPC Engineering Technology R&D Company Limited,
Beijing 102206, China
large quantities, covers large areas, and is highly hazardous
(Lu 2018).
The environmental impact of drilling fluid waste has
been observed all over the world. Because of its high tox-
icity, corrosiveness, and reactivity, the Brazilian Standard
Organization (Associaçao Brasileira de Normas T’ecnicas
NBR 100,042,004) (Classificação 2004) classified drilling
fluid waste as a Class I waste (hazardous). Norway (Daae
et al. 2019), Iran (Daneshfar and Ardjmand 2020), Malay-
sia (Ismail et al. 2017), Poland (Mikos-Szymańska et al.
2018), and other countries have also shown concern about
the impact of drilling fluid waste. Environmental restrictions
have been increasing, and a growing number of countries
require zero emissions of drilling fluid waste. In addition,
internationally renowned oil and natural gas companies such
as Shell, ExxonMobil, and Petronas have also formulated
standards for managing or treating drilling fluid wastes.

13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:19662–19682
On August 1, 2016, China’s “National Hazardous Waste
List” listed drilling fluid waste as HW08 (071–002-08) Class
T (toxic) pollutants (Gao et al. 2019). As the components of
drilling fluid waste become increasingly complex, the envi-
ronmental pollution caused by it has become increasingly
severe (Almudhhi 2016). Drilling fluid types vary with the
geographical needs of different regions (Xie et al. 2015).
Moreover, the addition of a large number of chemical treat-
ment agents, such as oil, clay, polymer, cellulose, xanthan
gum, starch, resin, barite, ethylene glycol, and inorganic salts
(Mitchell and Miska 2011), makes the disposal of drilling
fluid waste more difficult. If untreated drilling fluid waste
is discharged, it can cause severe damage to the ecological
environment (Hossain and Wajheeuddin 2016).
The drilling fluid waste studied herein was composed
of drilling waste that did not contain drilling cuttings. A
series of physical, chemical, and biological methods have
been widely used for drilling fluid waste treatment. In recent
years, the focus of this research has been on finding solu-
tions to the environmental pollution caused by drilling fluid
waste through cost-effective and efficient methods to achieve
zero pollution and reduce environmental hazards (Almudhhi
2016). This review summarizes and discusses relevant treat-
ment methods adopted by researchers for the treatment of
drilling fluid waste and serves as a reference for researchers
to take appropriate measures based on actual engineering
scenarios.
Overview of drilling fluid waste
Drilling fluid is a general term for the circulating fluid that
meets the needs of drilling work, and it performs various
functions during oil and gas drilling. It is the “blood” of the
drilling process, and it is also known as drilling mud or mud.
Percentage of composition in WBFDs discharge
0.41 Weighting agents
3.49 2.53 1.6
0.72 Bentonitic agents
Alkaline chemicals
39.67
26.97
Salinity
lignosul fonates
Polymers/viscosifier
21.67
Filtrate reducers
2.94
Emulsifiers/detergent
Other chemical
compounds (a)
Fig. 1  Chemical composition and proportion of WBDF and OBDF
(Data from (Hudgins 1994)). Note: a Lost circulation, lignites, gil-
sonite, defoamers, biocides, corrosion inhibitors, scale inhibitors,
19663
Drilling fluid circulates between oil wells and platforms sev-
eral times during the drilling process. When the drilling is
finally completed, the drilling fluid will become drilling fluid
waste. The resulting residues represent a substantial environ-
mental risk if not handled properly.
Drilling fluid classification and composition
According to the fluid medium, drilling fluids can be divided
into four types: water-based drilling fluid (WBDF), oil-
based drilling fluid (OBDF), gas-based drilling fluids, and
synthetic-based drilling fluid. It is generally composed of a
dispersion medium (continuous phase), a dispersed phase,
and various chemicals. The continuous phase can be one
or more of the following: water (salt water or fresh water),
oil (diesel oil or mineral oil), and emulsion. The dispersed
phase includes a useful solid phase (weighting material, ben-
tonite, etc.) and a useless solid phase (rock cuttings). The
chemicals are mainly divided into organic, inorganic, and
polymer compounds.
As shown in Fig. 1, Hudgins (1994) reported comprehen-
sive data on the types and quantities of specific chemicals
used during company operations. The survey results show
that the total emissions of WBDF are more than three times
that of OBDF. In addition, three chemicals, namely, weight-
ing agents, salts, and bentonite, account for approximately
90% of the total discharge of WBDF. Approximately 53% of
the chemical treatments used in drilling fluid are discharged
as waste, creating a pollutant burden on the environment
(Hudgins 1994; Siddique et al. 2017).
Hazards of drilling fluid waste
­ 3 of drilling fluid
According to statistics, more than 300 m
was discarded after the completion of a single well (Zhang
Percentage of composition in OBFDs discharge
Weighting agents
1.74
11.92 4.6 Alkaline chemicals
Salinity
12.25
lignosul fonates
60.04
4.54 Polymers/viscosifier
1.62
2.13 Emulsifiers/detergent
1.16 Cutting wash
Base oils
Other chemical
compounds (b)
drilling lubricants, oxygen scavengers, shale inhibitors, and thin-
ning agents; b organic clay, lost circulation, filtrate reducers, wetting
agents, and thinning agents
13
19664
2007). Drilling fluid waste is mainly a multiphase colloidal
suspension system composed of clay, weighed materials,
chemicals, sewage, waste oil, and drill cuttings (Sui et al.
2021). It has high chemical oxygen demand (COD), a high
pH value, and a high content of total petroleum hydrocar-
bons (TPHs). The harmful substances present in drilling
fluid waste enter farmland and rivers, seep to the surface,
and pollute soil and water environments. The harmful com-
ponents that cause environmental pollution are oils, salts,
fungicides, certain chemical additives, heavy metals (such
as mercury, copper, chromium, fortune, zinc, and lead), mac-
romolecular organic compounds, and alkaline substances
(Zhang 2007). Its hazards are mainly manifested in the fol-
lowing ways (Bakke et al. 2013; Ismail et al. 2017; Lu 2018;
Nesbitt and Sanders 1981; Sui et al. 2021; Wang et al. 2020;
Xiong and Wang 2021; Zhang 2007):
(1) TPHs affect water and soil. On the one hand, petroleum
floats on the surface of water bodies and affects the
exchange of oxygen between the air and the water bod-
ies. In addition, microorganisms oxidize and decom-
pose TPHs, thereby consuming the dissolved oxygen
in the water bodies, causing the water bodies to lose
their self-purification functions, and water quality dete-
riorates. On the other hand, the polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons present in TPHs are toxic, carcinogenic,
and teratogenic. They reduce environmental quality
and endanger human health when they are enriched
by aquatic organisms. They can also enter mammalian
cells and become metabolically activated into highly
toxic metabolites that can irreversibly damage the DNA
of biological macromolecules (Kuppusamy et al. 2020).
(2) Organic pollutants have the most significant impact
on aquatic organisms and are also the most difficult to
handle. Additionally, standards for pollution indicators
are often not met. They cause severe damage to eco-
systems due to their toxicity and due to a sharp drop in
dissolved oxygen in the water.
(3) Heavy metals in soils generally do not migrate eas-
ily by the action of water but continue to accumulate.
They cannot be degraded by microorganisms and may
be converted into more toxic methyl compounds. The
accumulation of heavy metals in soils can harm soil‒
plant systems to a certain extent. This can not only lead
to soil degradation and reduce crop yield and quality
but also pollute groundwater and surface water through
leaching and runoff, resulting in a deterioration of the
hydrological environment and accumulating in the food
chain, which endangers human life and health.
(4) Inorganic salts lead to soil salinization, which increase
the osmotic pressure of soil systems, reducing soil
aeration and water permeability; the soils harden and
cracked. Furthermore, the availability of soil nutrients
13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:19662–19682
is decreased, hindering respiration and absorption in
plant roots, resulting in root rot and affecting the root
growth of crops. Additionally, the contents of P and N
in the soil are reduced, affecting plant nutrient absorp-
tion, and in severe cases, the soil might even become
uncultivable. Eventually, the ecological environment is
destroyed, resulting in soil resource wastage.
Treatment technologies
In view of the many hazards that drilling fluid waste may
present, various physical, chemical, and biological methods
have been employed for the treatment of drilling fluid waste.
The harmless treatment and reuse technologies for drilling
fluid waste include chemically enhanced solid–liquid sepa-
ration technology, advanced oxidation technology, super-
critical oxidation technology, electrochemical technology,
solidification, Mud to Cement (MTC) technology, solution
extraction method, supercritical fluid extraction (SFE) tech-
nology, and thermal distillation technology (Pereira et al.
2019).
Water‑based drilling fluid waste treatment
technologies
WBDFs are widely used in oil drilling, and the resulting
waste fluids and cuttings are the primary wastes caus-
ing environmental pollution. For WBDFs, the treatment
technologies currently used mainly include the follow-
ing: re-injection safety formation, sealing safety landfill,
MTC technology, stabilization/solidification treatment,
solid–liquid separation technology, adsorption technology,
electrochemical technology, chemical oxidation technology,
microbial treatment, etc. In addition, there are also studies
on injecting drilling fluid waste with profile control agents
into water injection wells for profile control (Qin et al. 2017)
and extracting oil from WBDFs to achieve resource reuse
(Pereira et al. 2019).
Re‑injection safety formation
The injection method involves the injection of the drilling
fluid waste into a formation through a wellbore or keeping
it in a wellbore annulus (Abou-Sayed and Guo 2001; Benel-
kadi et al. 2019; Zhang et al. 2022; Zhang 2007), as shown
in Fig. 2. Select formations with low permeability and no
groundwater or abandoned wellbores, inject drilling fluid
waste into them through the external pressure, and finally
seal them with cement slurry. To prevent contamination of
reservoirs and groundwater, suitably safe formations must
be chosen. The injected layer usually has a low-pressure
gradient and poor formation permeability, so the upper and
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:19662–19682
Fig. 2  Schematic diagram of
a downhole injection (adapted
from Tayab et al. (2018))
lower caprocks must be dense and strong. This method not
only has strict formation requirements but also involves high
equipment and processing costs. In addition, it cannot be
widely used due to formation limitations for injection and
may contaminate groundwater and reservoirs. Generally, an
abandoned well that is suitable for injection is selected.
In 2000, the ADCO company had more than 30 sets of
downhole injection systems for processing 500,000 barrels
of drilling waste, and the maximum injection surface pres-
sure was 400 psi (Mokhalalati et al. 2000). During the first
half of 2003, the ADCO company drilled two 1500-m deep
injection treatment wells, equipped with storage tanks and
injection pumps. By the end of 2003, nearly 100 k­ m3 of
waste liquid had been treated (Tayab et al. 2018). However,
at least four downhole leakage incidents occurred during
the injection in Åsgard, Norway (Saasen et al. 2001), and
the proportion of the injection process dropped to 8% at one
point (Group 2013). Although this method can quickly solve
the waste drilling fluid discharge problem on a large scale,
it cannot completely eliminate the environmental hazards
associated with the fluid.
Sealing safety landfill
Sealing safety landfill is a particular landfilling method
that is mainly used for the disposal of hazardous waste. To
prevent the landfilled drilling fluid waste from coming into
contact with the surrounding environment, particularly to
prevent groundwater pollution, it is necessary to select a
suitable hydrogeological structure and a site that meets the
other conditions of the design. In addition, sufficient anti-
seepage treatment is also needed. First, a layer of organic
soil is laid at the bottom and around the landfill pit, then a
layer of plastic is laid, and finally, the pit is covered with a
layer of organic soil. In addition, a solidified layer can also
be placed at the bottom and around the pit to further prevent
leakage. The almost dry drilling fluid waste is placed in the
landfill, and the surface is covered and sealed with soil to
restore the landscape. This method was widely used in the
Zhongyuan Oilfield to treat drilling fluid waste (Cai et al.
2002). Since the pits must be strictly sealed so they do not
leak, the processing cost is exceptionally high. Moreover, the
19665
method still presented largely hidden environmental risks
and has been gradually discontinued.
MTC technology
MTC technology converts drilling fluid waste into cement-
ing fluid by adding blast furnace slag and other additives
(activators and activation aids) to drilling fluid waste to
reuse the pollutants. It eliminates the pollution caused by the
efflux of drilling fluid waste and provides the drilling fluid
waste with new uses. In addition, MTC cementing fluid has
good compatibility with drilling fluid. The MTC cementing
fluid does not generate large amounts of Ca(OH)2 during
the solidification process, and this improves the interface
cementation quality between the cement stone and mud
cake of the drilling fluid. MTC technology has been studied
since the 1950s. The Portland cement conversion technology
developed by the Wilson company and the slag conversion
technology developed by Cowan company in the early 1990s
made MTC technology applicable to industrial production
through the development and application of suitable dis-
persants and organic accelerators (Marinello et al. 1995).
The MTC technology developed by the CNPC Exploration
and Development Research Institute and the China Univer-
sity of Petroleum has been successfully applied in Jidong,
Shengli, and other oilfields. However, since the scope of its
treatment is limited to the wellbore, drilling fluid waste that
is extracted to the surface has been effectively treated and
utilized.
Stabilization/solidification treatment
Solidification/solidification technology involves solidifica-
tion additives (cement, blast furnace residue, hydrated lime,
etc.) that are added to the drilling fluid waste. Through the
action of gelling, cementation, and curing, the solid com-
ponents react with the binders to form gel-like hydration
products that are typical of calcium silicate hydrate (CSH).
After a certain period, the drilling fluid waste forms a soil-
like solid (pseudosoil) (Al-Ansary and Al-Tabbaa 2007), and
this material is buried in place or used as building paving
materials. According to the toxicity determination of the
13
19666
solidified leachate, it meets the wastewater discharge stand-
ards. Stabilization/solidification technology is more reliable
for drilling fluid waste that has high organic content, pH, and
heavy metal content. Drilling fluid is converted into stable
inactive waste products, which can reduce the release of pol-
lutants to the soil, reduce their impact on the environment,
and allow for the reconversion of the mud pool to farming
after drilling construction (Al-Ansary and Al-Tabbaa 2007).
Liu et al. (2017) studied the solidification of polysulfide
drilling fluid in the Xinjiang Oilfield, and they added materi-
als such as MTH-1, MTH-2, MTH-3, fly ash, and cement for
solidification treatment. Their results showed that the opti-
mal curing agent ratio was 2.5%MTH-1 + 2.5%MTH-2 + 8%
fly ash + 35% cement, and MTH-3 was used to adjust the
pH value during the setting period. The various pollution
indicators for the solidified leachate showed that it reached
the first-class standard for China’s “The National Integrated
Wastewater Discharge Standard” (GB 8978–1996). The cur-
ing formula dramatically improved the treatment of drilling
fluid waste in three well sites in the Xinjiang Oilfield.
Cheng et al. (2019) prepared a new type of cementitious
material, SRCM, using waste drilling fluid, blast furnace
slag, and red mud as the primary raw materials. The test
results for SRCM showed that its compressive strength
reached 16.7 MPa. In addition, the structure of SRCM was
denser than that of a blank sample that did not contain red
mud. Through analysis of the heat of hydration and scanning
electron microscopy, it was found that the SRCM hydra-
tion product contained C-S–H, Aft, and Ca(OH) 2, which
was beneficial for the immobilization of heavy metals. The
pollutant leaching results showed that the material’s heavy
metal ion content met the standard requirements, and the
cementitious material was environmentally friendly.
Huang et al. (2022) realized the use of shale gas drilling
fluid waste as a cement mortar admixture, achieving resource
reuse without causing environmental safety problems. Sta-
bilization/solidification technology has high requirements
for the strength and stability of the solidified product. Oth-
erwise, it might easily cause secondary pollution problems
due to pollutant leaching. If the curing agent and curing
process are further optimized, the use of solidified drilling
fluid waste can even be promoted for other purposes.
Solid‒liquid separation technology
Solid‒liquid separation technology separates the solid and
liquid phases of drilling fluid waste by physical and chemical
methods. The separated liquid phase is recycled or directly
discharged after reprocessing, and the solid phase is dis-
posed. This technology is the basis for most drilling fluid
waste treatment methods, and it can effectively reduce the
treatment volume of drilling waste fluid and improve the
recycling rate of the water phase. Solid‒liquid separation
13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:19662–19682
technology involves the addition of appropriate breakers and
flocculants to the drilling fluid waste to change the physical
and chemical properties of the drilling fluid system. Fur-
thermore, the stable colloidal system of the drilling fluid
is destroyed. Changing the clay particles’ surface proper-
ties (reducing the surface diffusion electric double layer)
induces the particles to coalesce, and solid‒liquid separa-
tion is achieved through gravity or mechanical assistance
(Lu 2018). This technology is mainly suitable for waste sul-
fonated drilling fluids or waste polysulfide drilling fluids. At
the same time, it has a prominent treatment effect on drill-
ing fluids with high COD and chroma values. The treated
wastewater can be discharged or reused after it reaches the
standards.
Solid‒liquid separation mainly depends on the flocculant
chosen. New inorganic‒organic composite solid‒liquid sep-
aration flocculants have become a new research trend. Zou
et al. (2011) prepared a novel inorganic‒organic compos-
ite flocculant CSSAD by using nano-SiO2, corn starch (st),
acrylamide (AM), and (2-methacryloyloxyethyl) trimethyl
ammonium chloride (DMC), and it had a better floccula-
tion capacity for drilling fluids than other flocculants. Zhang
et al. (2015) developed a new cationic flocculant, CAPAM,
formed by the in situ polymerization of AM, DMC, and
Al(OH)3 sol. The amount of Al(OH)3 was 0.025 mol, the
polymerization time was 4 h, and the polymerization tem-
perature was 70℃. The flocculation effect of 0.3% CAPAM
was better than that of cationic polyacrylamide and polyalu-
minium sulphate, and it could control the moisture content
of the solid phase after separation to approximately 21%.
Research on drilling fluid solid‒liquid separation floc-
culants based on natural polymers and modified synthetic
materials has also been progressing. Zou et al. (2014) modi-
fied cationic polyacrylamide with β-cyclodextrin and synthe-
sized a new flocculant P(AM/A-β-CD/DMDAAC). Studies
have shown that a portion of the polymer segment interacts
with the particle surfaces. The remaining portion extends
into solution to interact with other particles, thereby forming
bridges between the particles and promoting flocculation,
as shown in Fig. 3. Jiang et al. (2018) synthesized ampho-
teric starch-based flocculants (CS-g-DC) by grafting diallyl
dimethylammonium chloride (DMDAAC) with different
grafting ratios onto carboxymethyl starch. The isoelectric
points of different CS-g-DC samples increased with the
degree of grafting of DMDAAC (G (DMDAAC)). The floc-
culation performance and mechanism of CS-g-DC on three
clay suspensions (kaolinite, smectite, and illite) were inves-
tigated with turbidity and particle size distribution analysis.
During the charge neutralization process, the clay particles
were first neutralized by the flocculant molecules, which
destroyed the stable dispersion of particles. Then, the macro-
molecules in the flocculant bridged between different parti-
cles and aggregates to form large flocs (Fig. 4a). The results
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:19662–19682
Fig. 3  Flocculation mechanism
of P(AM/A-β-CD/DMDAAC)
(adapted from Zou et al. (2014))
Fig. 4  a Application and
mechanism of amphoteric
starch-based flocculant CS-g-
DC; b particle size distribution
of drilling fluids with different
flocculants (adapted from Jiang
et al. (2018))
of the particle size distribution experiments in Fig. 4b show
that CS-g-DC3 and CS-g-DC6 with G(DMDAAC) higher
than 98% flocculate well in all three clay suspensions.
Solid‒liquid separation technology has contributed sig-
nificantly to a reduction in the amount of drilling fluid waste
and further reduced the difficulty of the subsequent treat-
ment processes. A series of chemical agents for solid‒liquid
separation have been developed, but many lack universality.
Moreover, the solid‒liquid separation technology needs to
be combined with other treatment technologies to achieve
the complete treatment.
Adsorption technology
Adsorption materials have unique morphologies and phys-
icochemical properties and can be used to remove organic
or inorganic pollutants. Many adsorption technologies have
been studied, such as nanomaterial and electrochemical
adsorption. Adsorption technology is mainly carried out by
physical adsorption, chemical adsorption, or ion exchange
19667
adsorption. The contaminant adsorption to the adsorption
material or to the adsorption medium from the drilling fluid
waste is driven by intermolecular forces or by the forma-
tion of adsorption chemical bonds. At present, the adsorp-
tion techniques that have been studied include nanomaterial
adsorption and electrochemical adsorption. The surfaces
of nanomaterials often contain functional groups such as
hydroxyl, amino, and carboxyl groups, which can form che-
lates with heavy metal ions or form ionic bonds and covalent
bonds to achieve adsorption (Mallakpour and Motirasoul
2017). Electrochemical adsorption refers to the process by
which WBDF waste is energized, and organic additives that
have strong anionic functional groups adhere and bridge
the tiny solid-phase particles that move towards the posi-
tive electrode of the electrode plate, and these continue to
capture, adhere to, and bridge suspended particles during
their process of movement (Xie et al. 2018). Compared with
materials used in traditional industrial sewage treatment pro-
cesses, nanoadsorbent materials have better adsorption due
to their large specific surface area and low internal diffusion
13
19668 Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:19662–19682

resistance (Awasthi et al. 2019). Electrochemical adsorp-
tion has unique advantages for the adsorption of solid-phase
particles.
Alimohammadi et al. (2013) used nanoadsorbents to treat
transition metal cadmium ions in WBDF waste for the first
time. The researchers synthesized a new nanoadsorbent
using polyacrylic acid, carbodiimide, diethylenetriamine
(DETA), ammonium hydroxide, ferric chloride hexahydrate,
ferrous chloride tetrahydrate, and hydrogen tetrachloroaurate
(III) trihydrate. The research results showed that compared
with a traditional process at pH 6, the metal ion concen-
tration was low, the adsorption effect was the greatest, and
the adsorption efficiency was highest. In addition, the stir-
ring rate also affected the adsorption of cadmium ions. The
nanoadsorbent had a better adsorption effect and had the fol-
lowing advantages: small equipment footprint, no secondary
pollution, and cost-effective.
Xie et al. (2018) proposed an electroadsorption method to
regenerate WBDF waste. Through laboratory experiments,
they found that the optimal electroadsorption conditions in
a simulated drilling fluid waste containing 5% bentonite and
2 g/L NaCl were an adsorption voltage of 36 V, an adsorp-
tion time of 5 min, an electrode spacing of 5 cm, and a par-
ticle size range of 1 ~ 10 μm. The removal rate for harmful
solids is greater than 90%.The method had a strong effect,
especially for the solid-phase removal of a sulfonated drill-
ing fluid waste. The solid particles in the drilling fluid waste
were removed by adsorption, which reduced the amount of
drilling fluid waste, improved the resource utilization rate,
and reduced the cost of postprocessing, providing a new
method for recycling drilling fluid waste.
Although adsorption technology has many advantages, it
is currently limited to WBDF waste treatment, and the treat-
ment targets are only heavy metal ions and solid particles.
The treatment of other pollutants in drilling fluid waste by
adsorption technology requires further study.
of reducing reaction time and improving removal efficiency
(Jung and Ahn 2016). EO refers to the direct oxidation and
degradation of organic matter by the application of a direct
current to a waste liquid containing organic pollutants; the
organics capture electrons from the anode, and low-valent
metal ions are oxidized to high-valent metal ions by obtain-
ing electrons. Then, the organic matter is indirectly degraded
by high-valent metal ions (Ighilahriz et al. 2014).
Ighilahriz et al. (2014) studied the treatment of waste
drilling filtrate with EC and EO. EO was carried out with
a stainless-steel anode and ruthenium cathode, and EC was
conducted with an aluminium electrode material to study
the effects of electrolyte pH and dosage, current density,
and electrolysis time on the electrolysis effect. The results
showed that EC could reduce processing time without the
use of external chemicals and had a high efficiency for treat-
ing stable colloids. However, the removal of organics during
EC was inferior to that of EO, but the treatment time for
EO was longer, and the specific treatment route is shown
in Fig. 5a. The EC treatment efficiency could reached 95%,
and the EO treatment efficiency reached 78%. Specifically,
when the pH was 8 and the current density was 189 × ­10−4
A/cm2, the organic treatment effect was the best, but with

Electrochemical technology

Electrochemical technology is generally divided into elec-

trocoagulation (EC), electro-oxidation (EO), and microelec-
trolysis (ME) technologies (Santos et al. 2006). Currently,
three technologies are applied for pollution treatment in the
petroleum industry, among which EC and EO are mainly
used to treat drilling fluid waste. EC utilizes an electrode
potential difference to dissolve aluminium or iron on anodes
and generate high-activity polyaluminium or polyiron floc-
culants in situ, which can agglomerate and settle pollutant
particles or separate them by air flotation (Lakshmanan
et al. 2009). In addition, the application of chemical floc-
culants also promoted EC. Alum, polyaluminium chloride
Fig. 5  a Electroadsorption experimental device (adapted from
(PAC), ­Fe2(SO4)3, etc. were used as auxiliary coagulants, Ighilahriz et al. (2014)); b laboratory equipment for the treatment of
which significantly improved the EC performance in terms drilling fluid by the EC (adapted from Elnenay et al. (2017))

13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:19662–19682
increasing pH and current density, the organic treatment
effect decreased.
Elnenay et al. (2017) studied the treatment of drilling
fluid wastewater in EC cells. As shown in Fig. 5b, the elec-
trolytic cell was composed of a plexiglass container with
different numbers of parallel meshed aluminium anodes
and stainless-steel cathodes. The researchers investigated
the effect of changing electrolysis time, current density, the
number of aluminium anodes, and electrolyte concentration
on COD removal. When the electrolysis time was 45 min,
the current density was 0.013 A/cm2, the number of alu-
minium anodes was two, and the concentration of NaCl was
14 g/L, the COD removal rate was close to 100%. The mech-
anism consisted of the formation of metal hydroxides in the
waste liquid by the electrodissolution of soluble anodes to
flocculate pollutants. The new anode design for EC cells
had higher efficiency and lower energy consumption than
standard cell designs.
Electrochemical technology can flocculate and oxida-
tively degrade pollutants in WBDF. It is simple to operate
and has high treatment efficiency, but problems associated
with high energy consumption and advanced equipment
requirements exist. The universal application of electro-
chemical technology to WBDF waste treatment remains to
be studied.
Chemical oxidation technology
Chemical oxidation technologies include essential oxidation
and advanced oxidation technologies such as NaClO, ­H2O2
(Wei et al. 2019), ­O3 (Wu et al. 2014), Fenton (Babupon-
nusami and Muthukumar 2014), and photocatalysis (Ameta
et al. 2018), which use oxidants or external energy to oxi-
dize and remove organics. Advanced oxidation technology
mainly involve the production of highly active free radicals
(•OH and S ­ O4−•, etc.) by different means (high tempera-
ture and high pressure, electricity, sound, light irradiation,
catalyst, etc.). Through addition, substitution, and electron
transfer reactions between free radicals and pollutants, a
series of free radical chain reactions are induced, and all
pollutants are mineralized. NaClO, ­O3, and Fenton technolo-
gies are currently applied for treating drilling fluid waste.
However, the high energy consumption and high equipment
maintenance costs of ­O3 treatment have led to fewer appli-
cations. The oxidation efficiency of NaClO is low, and the
addition of a catalyst easily causes the loss of catalyst metal
ions and C­ l− pollution. H ­ e2+ constitute the Fenton
­ 2O2 and F
reagent, producing •OH, which has high redox potential,
strong oxidizing ability, and a fast rate and can effectively
treat organics in waste drilling fluid.
Li et al. (2021a) synthesized B ­ iOBr0.5Cl0.5 by a hydro-
thermal method as a photocatalyst for the degradation of
drilling fluid waste. The organic matter in the drilling fluid
19669
absorbs near ultraviolet light and undergoes a strong photo-
chemical reaction under the action of ­BiOBr0.5Cl0.5, which
leads to the degradation of organic matter. Characterization
showed that ­BiOBr0.5Cl0.5 was not a simple mechanical mix-
ture; the photocatalyst had a high specific surface area and
pore width, so its practical components were beneficial to
the improvement of photocatalytic activity. The photocata-
lytic activity of ­BiOBr0.5Cl0.5 was enhanced due to efficient
separation between photogenerated carriers and due to the
generation of the active species •O2− and •H promoted by
Br and Cl. The evaluation results showed that ­BiOBr+0.5Cl0.5
could degrade both coloured materials and high-molecular-
weight organic polymers and had an excellent degradation
effect on drilling fluid filtrate, while in Fig. 6, Jing et al.
(2022) studied the mechanism of using ­K2S2O8 to treat
drilling fluid waste under subcritical conditions. On the one
hand, it could produce sulphate radical ­(SO4−•)-induced oxi-
dation to degrade organics and ­TPHS. On the other hand,
the sulphate ions produced by K ­ 2S2O8 could form stable
metal salts with lead and barium, which was conducive for
immobilizing heavy metals.
Single chemical oxidation may not be ideal for treating
drilling fluid waste. According to the action mechanism of
sonochemistry and ozone action, Zhang et al. (2012) stud-
ied the sonochemical destabilization and sonochemical-O3
oxidation treatment of drilling fluid waste and found that the
solid particles in the drilling fluid were very loose. There
were no organics present between the particles. This was
because ultrasound not only destroyed the colloidal stabiliza-
tion system but also degraded organics. Deng (2018) adopted
the process combination shown in Fig. 7. First, drilling fluid
waste was pretreated by coagulation, and then the pretreated
drilling fluid wastewater was further treated by high-voltage
pulse discharge combined with two advanced oxidation tech-
nologies, ­O3 and Fenton. The pH of the effluent water quality
was 7.53, the COD was 62.3 mg/L, and the suspended solids
(SS) was 21.5 mg/L, all of which met the first-class standard
Fig. 6  Possible mechanisms for disposal of drilling fluid waste under
subcritical conditions (adapted from Jing et al. (2022))
13
19670
Fig. 7  High-voltage pulse-
O3-Fenton combined oxidation
process (adapted from Deng
(2018))
for China’s “The National Integrated Wastewater Discharge
Standard” (GB 8978–1996). Combined oxidation processes
can achieve the best treatment effect.
Chemical oxidation technologies are highly efficient
and simple, and they thoroughly treat organic pollutants in
drilling fluid waste. However, there are limitations to the
harsh medium conditions of the photocatalytic technology,
the high energy consumption of the ­O3 technology, and the
high cost of the new oxidant. General chemical oxidation
technology is limited and has not yet achieved large-scale
industrial application.
Microbial treatment
Microbial treatment technology involves the use of micro-
organisms to treat and remediate waste drilling fluid. By
introducing engineered bacteria or by domesticating and
cultivating native bacteria, TPHs and organics in drilling
fluid waste are converted into small molecules and are finally
degraded into ­CO2 and H ­ 2O (Imam et al. 2019). Microbial
degradation mainly includes two categories: aerobic deg-
radation and anaerobic degradation. Aerobic degradation
converts alkanes, alkenes, and aromatics into ­CO2, ­H2O,
and ­NH3 through aerobic and facultative microorganisms
that use molecular oxygen as a hydrogen acceptor (Varjani
2017). Anaerobic degradation means that under anaerobic
conditions, some anaerobic microorganisms use nitrate,
sulphate, etc., as electron acceptors and organic matter as
electron donors to degrade THPs and organic matter (Var-
jani 2017). This method has several advantages: complete
treatment of pollutants, no secondary pollution, and low cost
(Fan et al. 2012). However, it requires large site areas and
long treatment times and is affected by multiple factors such
as temperature, oxygen, pH, nutrients, humidity, and light.
Some studies have also reported on the treatment of drilling
13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:19662–19682
fluid waste through a combination of microorganisms and
phytoremediation (Fan et al. 2014; Rusjanto et al. 2011) and
earthworm remediation (Du et al. 2020; Paulsen et al. 2004).
Liu et al. (2018) used modified wheat straw-immobilized
microorganisms to treat drilling fluid waste. The effects of
modification time, modifier concentration, and modifier
ratio on the adsorption effect of straw on microorganisms
and the treatment effect of modified wheat straw-immobi-
lized microorganisms on drilling fluid waste were explored.
Their research results showed that the adsorption capacity
of microorganisms increased by 200.77% under optimal
modification conditions. When the amount of drilling fluid
waste was 1 kg, the amount of soil was 1 kg, the amount of
modified straw-immobilized microorganisms was 2 g, the
treatment time was 15 days, the removal rate of COD in
drilling waste fluid was 84.9%, the removal rate of soluble
salts was 71.6%, and the removal rate of TPHs was 90.1%.
These were the optimal results.
Gao et al. (2019) treated drilling fluid waste by domes-
ticating complex microbial flora. An active microbial flora
was obtained by enrichment in a waste drilling fluid, and
it mainly included Pseudomonas, Rhizobium, Rhodobacter,
and Dethiobacter alkaliphilus. After 22 generations of con-
tinuous domestication, the bacterial community structure
and activity tended to be stable. After 5 days of drilling fluid
waste treatment with the domesticated bacteria, the deoil-
ing efficiency was 99.67%, and the TPH degradation rate
was 68.9%. The results verified that the bacterial flora had
stable activity and high salt tolerance after domestication
and had strong industrial application potential for treating
waste drilling fluid.
Microbial treatment produces no secondary pollution and
achieves complete treatment. However, due to the long treat-
ment times, large areas, complicated culturing processes,
and long time periods, its application for drilling fluid waste
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:19662–19682
treatment is limited. Microbial treatment can enhance the
treatment capacity of pollutants by cultivating bacteria,
reducing treatment time, and promoting application.
Oil‑based drilling fluid waste treatment
technologies
OBDF are drilling fluids with oil as the continuous phase,
mainly including all-oil-based drilling fluids and water-in-
oil emulsion drilling fluids, which have the advantages of
high temperature and high salt resistance, wellbore stability,
and good lubricity. However, the OBDF waste has a worse
impact on the ecological environment due to the oil content.
The current research methods for the treatment of OBDF
include chemical demulsification, solvent extraction, thermal
distillation technology, gas stripping technology, supercriti-
cal fluid extraction, electrokinetic remediation, and biologi-
cal treatment or other technologies (Sui et al. 2021).
Chemical demulsification
Chemical demulsification reduces the strength of an inter-
facial film by adsorbing demulsifiers on the interface film,
the film ruptures under the action of an external force, and
oil or water droplets are released from the film and coalesce.
Chemical agents such as demulsifiers and flocculants are
added to OBDF waste to destroy the stability of the system.
After demulsification, flocculation, and liquid separation,
the OBDF waste is divided into three phases: oil, water,
and solid. The oil phase is recovered. The OBDF is pre-
pared again or used as a fuel; the water phase is treated and
discharged or recycled, and the bottom sludge is treated in
an environmentally friendly manner. Traditional chemical
demulsification can also be combined with physical treat-
ment processes such as magnetic fields, ultrasound (Tian
and Zhao 2014), and heating (Tang 2015).
Tang and Xie (2017) used physicochemical synergistic
demulsification technology to treat oil-in-water drilling
fluid. After the oil–water–solid three-phase separation, the
oil phase recovery rate reached 90%, and the recovered oil
could be used to prepare new drilling fluid. At the same time,
the oily sludge in the drilling wastewater could be treated.
The results showed that the quality of the treated wastewater
was good, the COD decreased from 993 to 89 mg/L, and the
oil content decreased from 21,800 to 3.6 mg/L; therefore, the
treated water could meet the first-class standard for China’s
“The National Integrated Wastewater Discharge Standard”
(GB 8978–1996) to achieve resource recovery and the harm-
less treatment of oil-in-water drilling fluid.
Zhu et al. (2011) formulated a cleaning agent ELO-1
system and a harmless treatment formulation for solid‒
liquid separation and immobilization of OBDF waste.
The cleaner ELO-1 comprised composite emulsifier
19671
FPR-1, coagulant CC, and coagulation accelerator PAM.
The harmless treatment formula was composed of a gel
breaker, adsorbent, coagulant, and coagulation accelera-
tor. Through demulsification treatment, the recovery rate
of OBDF waste reached more than 85%, and the water
and solid content in the recovered oil was less than 0.1%.
This technology has been widely used in the China Daqing
Oilfield and Liaohe Oilfield.
Chemical demulsification technology employs simple
equipment and mild conditions for treating OBDF waste,
and the product oil and water can be recycled and reused;
thus, it has good economic benefits. However, current
demulsifiers are targeted, and research on universal demul-
sifiers is ongoing to improve the application of chemical
demulsification technology.
Solvent extraction
Solvent extraction is one of the primary technical means
to separate oil–water mixtures or other liquid mixtures
(Kislik 2012). Solvent extraction dissolves the oil compo-
nents in OBDF waste in low-boiling organic solvents (such
as hexane, ethyl acetate, and chlorinated hydrocarbons)
(Poyai et al. 2020). Then, the oil is extracted according
to the difference in mass density and solubility of the oil
phase and the water phase in the extractant. The oil is
recovered by evaporating the extractant via flashing the
extract, and the flashed organic solvent can be recycled
after being used (Trowbridge and Holcombe 1995). The
solvent extraction method is simple to operate, easy to
implement, and suitable for treating oil-bearing drill
cuttings.
Liu and Tian (2016) explored the optimal operating
parameters for this technology using response surface meth-
odology to optimize the extraction of OBDF waste. They
used petroleum ether (boiling range is 60–90 ℃) as the
extraction agent and investigated the ratio of liquid to mate-
rial (the mass ratio of extraction agent and OBDF waste,
g/g), extraction temperature, and extraction time. A centre
combination for the response surface was designed with
three factors and five levels, and a mathematical model was
established and verified. The research results showed that the
optimal extraction conditions included a 1.5:1 ratio of liquid
to material, an extraction time of 25 min, and an extraction
temperature of 36.5 ℃. The predicted value of the extraction
rate was 82.97%, the measured value was 82.18%, and the
relative error was only 0.95%. Norway’s drilling waste treat-
ment plant used organic solvent extraction to treat OBDF
waste (Daae et al. 2019). The oil phase recovery rate was as
high as 94.56%. Due to problems such as high cost, intense
volatility of the organic solvents, and potential safety haz-
ards, this technology was discontinued.
13
19672
Thermal distillation technology
Thermal distillation technology involves the addition of
OBDF waste into a closed decompression system. By
heating the OBDF waste above the steam point (Tayab
et al. 2018), the oil and hydrocarbon components in it are
volatilized, and the volatile substances are condensed and
recovered (Guo 2020). The recovered oil can be reused
as base oil or as fuel after it achieves reaching the stand-
ards. After solidification, the solid residue can be used in
construction, paving, etc. (Stephenson et al. 2004). How-
ever, thermal distillation technology exhibits high energy
consumption and advanced equipment requirements (Hou
et al. 2013). In recent years, well-known international
oil drilling companies such as Thermtech, TWMA, MI-
SWACO (Murray et al. 2008), Halliburton (Ayapbergenov
et al. 2017), and others have developed an improved ther-
momechanical cutting cleaner system (TCC). This was
done by heating the material to a temperature above the
boiling point to separate the volatile species. This heating
can be accomplished indirectly through the use of external
and internal burners (Charles and Sayle 2010). The operat-
ing principle of the TCC is as follows: the kinetic energy
of the motor is converted into heat energy through thermal
desorption. Thus, the waste stream (water, liquid, and cut-
tings) can be separated without destroying the waste com-
position (Thermtech 2012). This technology represents a
developing trend.
The British North Sea Oilfield applied thermal distillation
technology to treat OBDF (Pierce et al. 2006). After sepa-
ration, the solid-phase oil content was less than 1%, which
met international environmental protection requirements and
could be directly discharged into the ocean. This technol-
ogy solves the problematic treatment of offshore OBDF and
drilling cuttings. Shell Venezuela company’s Delgado and
Sorensen (1998) explored a low-temperature thermal distil-
lation technology and fabricated equipment to treat OBDF.
They were able to efficiently recover mineral oil from drill-
ing fluids, and the base oil content after treatment was less
than 0.5 wt%.
American authors Murray et al. (2008) proposed a fric-
tion-based thermal desorption system. The oil and water
phases were volatilized at a temperature between 260 and
300 ℃ and then condensed and recovered, leaving the des-
orbed solid. The friction process significantly reduced the
residual oil content in the solid phase. This new technology
maximized the recovery of hydrocarbons in OBDF waste
and reduced the amount of outsourced disposal. However,
this method has certain defects. When the OBDF waste is
heated, it generates a large amount of flammable gas. If air
or other oxidizing gases enter the equipment and make con-
tact with the high-temperature oil vapour, explosions might
occur.
13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:19662–19682
Thermal distillation is a current large-scale and commer-
cial treatment technology for OBDF waste. It can achieve a
high oil recovery rate and energy reuse but also has disad-
vantages such as high energy consumption and the genera-
tion of hazardous conditions.
Gas stripping technology
Gas stripping is a physical treatment method. The principle
is to introduce high-temperature and high-pressure steam
into the OBDF waste. Due to a reduction in the vapour pres-
sure of the oil in the gas phase, the oil phase is continuously
gasified from OBDF into oil vapour, which is mixed with
water vapour. The oil vapor is drawn out with the water
vapour, then the mixed vapour is condensed, oil and water
are separated, and the oil phase is recovered (Ball et al.
2012). The gas stripping method cleans the oil more thor-
oughly and does not cause secondary environmental pol-
lution. However, such methods are rarely used due to their
high energy consumption and potential safety hazards.
Hao et al. (2012) used air stripping to gasify the oil in
drilling fluid sludge in the Jidong Oilfield and then con-
densed and recovered the oil. The crude oil recovery rate
could reached more than 99%, and the treatment effect was
good. Li et al. (2014) used superheated steam jet technology
to generate steam at 500–600 ℃ to gasify the petroleum sub-
stances in the sludge, separate the oil and moisture from the
particles, condense the mixed steam, and recover the oil. The
treated residue was a fine powder; the oil content could be
reduced to less than 0.3%, and the treatment effect was very
good. In addition, a preheating heat exchanger was added
to the technological process, and the recovered process gas
was used to heat the boiler inlet water and preheat the reac-
tion raw materials, thereby improving system efficiency and
reducing energy consumption.
Supercritical fluid extraction
Supercritical fluid extraction (SFE) is an extraction tech-
nology that uses ­H2O, ­CO2, propane, freon, and other sub-
stances as solvents at or above critical pressure and tempera-
ture. Near the critical point, these substances are between
gas and liquid states and have the high diffusivity, viscosity,
and low surface tension of the gas phase (Brunner 2013;
McHugh and Krukonis 2013) and the density and solubil-
ity of the liquid phase (Street et al. 2009). These properties
facilitate the transfer of soluble components in waste liquids
into supercritical fluids (Street and Guigard 2009). When the
supercritical fluid is mixed with the OBDF waste, the oil in
the drilling waste is extracted into the selected solvent. The
resulting mixture is reseparated under reduced pressure, and
the extracted oil and solvent can be recovered and reused.
­CO2, which is the main extraction fluid of OBDF waste, has
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:19662–19682
some advantages: it is nonflammable, nontoxic, nonflamma-
ble, and odourless. When the critical condition is reached,
the ­CO2 fluid is in a nongas‒liquid state and has low surface
tension and high diffusion coefficient, viscosity, density, and
liquid solubility. It is a high-quality and efficient extractant
(Guo 2020).
Khanpour et al. (2014) used supercritical carbon dioxide
(SC-CO2) extraction equipment (Fig. 8a) to remove pollut-
ants from OBDF waste. A single-factor experimental design
was used to investigate the effect of different parameters,
including removal temperature (313–338 K) and pressure
(100–200 bar), ­CO2 flow rate (0.05–0.36 ­cm3/s), and static
time (20 − 130 min), on the removal of waste oil-based drill-
ing effects of contaminants in liquids. The research results
showed that the optimal operating conditions for the highest
pollutant removal rate were a temperature and pressure of
333 K and 180 bar, respectively, a flow rate below 0.1 ­cm3/s,
and a static time of 110 min. In addition, the successful
removal of contaminants from OBDF waste was confirmed
by X-ray diffraction and scanning electron microscopy anal-
ysis, and SC-CO2 extraction did not significantly alter the
structure of drilling liquid crystals.
Ma et al. (2019) conducted SC-CO2 extraction experi-
ments to extract hydrocarbons from drilling fluid and evalu-
ated various SC-CO2 extraction operating parameters,
including extraction pressure (10–30 MPa), extraction tem-
perature (20–65 ℃), extraction time (20–150 min), and the
mass ratio of SC-CO2 to OBDF waste (1–12), as shown in
Fig. 8b. The results showed that the extraction efficiency
reached 98% when the temperature was 35 ℃, the pressure
was 20 MPa, and the extraction time was 60 min. In addi-
tion, the extraction product was analysed by gas chromatog-
raphy, and it was found that SC-CO2 extraction could extract
all hydrocarbons ranging from C ­ 10 to C
­ 26, but the lighter car-
bon atoms ranging from ­C10 to C ­ 14 were relatively difficult
to extract. Among them, n-alkanes had higher removability
Fig. 8  a Schematic diagram of SC-CO2 extraction equipment (adapted from Khanpour et al. (2014)); b flow chart of SC-CO2 extraction (adapted
from Ma et al. (2019))
19673
under the experimental conditions. What is more, it was
found that the properties of the hydrocarbons recovered
during the extraction process did not change and could be
recycled in the preparation of drilling fluids. Previously,
Jones and Guigard (2009) also studied the effect of water
content in drilling fluid waste on SC-CO2 extraction. They
suggested that the water and drilling waste ratio should be
1:1 during extraction.
Currently, SC-CO2 uses C ­ O2, which is inexpensive,; it
does not use toxic and harmful solvents, and it does not pro-
duce by-products. Therefore, SC-CO2 extraction research on
OBDF waste is favoured because it improves oil recovery
efficiency. Extraction efficiency can be further improved by
reducing equipment clogging and solid carry-over.
Electrokinetic remediation
Electrokinetic (EK) remediation is an environmental reme-
diation technology applied to organic and inorganic pollut-
ants in soil, sludge, and sediments (Ferreira et al. 2017). Its
remediation principle for OBDF waste is similar to that of
primary batteries. Direct current enters the OBDF waste to
be treated through electrodes. Under a direct current electric
field, the OBDF waste begins to demulsify, and the pollut-
ants leave the treatment area and continue to migrate and
enrich the electrode area. The migration methods known
from current research mainly include electromigration
(Yeung 2006), electroosmosis (Park and Lee 2008), and
electrophoresis (Acar et al. 1995). Pollutants directionally
migrating to the electrode area are treated by electroplating,
electrodeposition, ion exchange resin, electro-oxidation, and
chemical oxidation (Gomes et al. 2012).
Adhami et al. (2021) used an EK-Fenton combined
process for OBDF waste. The use of Fenton technology
was used to strengthen electrokinetic remediation tech-
nology, and the TPHs in the OBDF waste were removed
13
19674
synergistically. The initial concentration of TPHs in the
drilling fluid waste was reduced from 316,000 to 72,680 mg/
kg, and the removal efficiency was increased by 136.73%
and reached 77%. As shown in Fig. 9, copper and iron were
used as anodes, and hydroxyl radicals could be generated in
the drilling fluid to promote the Fenton reaction, and the two
could produce synergistic effects.
Boulakradeche et al. (2015) selected n-hexadecane and
anthracene as the target degradation substances for OBDF
waste. They studied the effects of three surfactants, sodium
dodecyl sulphate (SDS), Tween 80, and Triton X100, on
enhancing the treatment effect of EK remediation. It was
concluded that the influence on the treatment effect from
high to low was in the order SDS, Tween 80, and Triton
X100. Furthermore, it was found that adding Tween 80 to
the anolyte and adding SDS to the catholyte could achieve
the best treatment of the target degradation products, and the
removal rates of n-hexadecane and anthracene reached 69%
and 59%, respectively. This research result indicated that in
addition to inducing high electroosmotic flow, SDS has the
ability to form micelles to capture contaminants.
As an in situ remediation technology, EK remediation
can simultaneously treat TPHs, heavy metals, and organic
pollutants in drilling fluid waste. This technology is still in
the laboratory research stage, and the treatment effect can
be improved by combining it with biological and redox
methods.
Biological treatment
Biological treatment includes biodegradation and biofloc-
culation. Biodegradation uses microorganisms and enzymes
to hydrolyse, oxidize, or degrade long-chain hydrocarbons,
naphthenic substances, and organic high molecular weight
compounds in OBDF waste into low molecular weight
Fig. 9  Electrokinetic-Fenton
combined restoration technol-
ogy (adapted from Adhami et al.
(2021))
13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:19662–19682
compounds or even C ­ O2 and ­H2O (Okparanma et al. 2009).
Bioflocculation involves the use of surface-active poly-
mer compounds produced by microorganisms during their
metabolic processes, and these compounds mainly include
polysaccharides, glycoproteins, fats, cellulose, and DNA.
Through the effects of electrical neutralization and chemi-
cal bridging, the OBDF waste is demulsified, and solid par-
ticles and oily substances are flocculated and precipitated
(Yan et al. 2011). The advantages of this technology are
through treatment, safety, convenience, no secondary pollu-
tion generation, and low cost (Guerra et al. 2018; Paladino
et al. 2016). Therefore, biological treatment technology has
excellent development potential.
Li et al. (2015) explored the treatment of OBDF waste by
microorganisms. After they collected, isolated, purified, cul-
tured, and domesticated petroleum-degrading bacteria, they
obtained three strains that could effectively degrade petro-
leum hydrocarbons. After optimizing biochemical treat-
ment conditions, the strain was grown at 50 ℃ and pH 6.0,
and ammonium nitrate and a small amount of yeast powder
were added. When the strain amount was 2%, the rotating
speed of the vibrator was 180 rpm, the oil removal effect was
excellent, and the oil degradation ability of the mixed strain
was better than that of a single strain. At the same time, the
authors also designed a biochemical treatment process and
a laboratory-simulated treatment device for the treatment of
oily waste sludge.
Alavi et al. (2014) first used a drilling fluid waste bio-
reactor (Fig. 10) to treat OBDF and OBDF-contaminated
soil. In this study, related bacterial species were isolated and
screened from OBDF waste, enriched, and domesticated for
more than 15 months. Under a C/N/P ratio of 100:5:1, the
degradation rate of TPHs reached 90.5%. When the amount
of nitrogen and phosphorus was increased, the degradation
rate of total TPHs increased to 92.5% when the C/N/P ratio
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:19662–19682 19675

was 100:10:2, and the total amount of microorganisms did

not increase significantly. A drilling fluid bioreactor accel-
erated the degradation efficiency of TPHs and reduced the
remediation time for OBDF.
Biological treatment is one of the current research hot-
spots, and it employs simple equipment and has low invest-
ment costs. However, the degradation of pollutants takes a
long time via bioremediation, and the technology requires
large areas and is sensitive to climatic conditions. Compara-
tively speaking, it is more suitable for treating OBDF waste
with low oil content.

Comparison of treatment technologies: advantages

and disadvantages

The above methods are currently the primary treatment and

Fig. 10  Schematic of the drilling fluid waste bioreactor (adapted from
Alavi et al. (2014))
disposal technologies for drilling fluid waste. Tables 1 and
2 summarize these technologies’ advantages, disadvantages,
and influencing factors. In the application process, select-
ing the most appropriate treatment technology is necessary
according to the careful consideration of drilling fluid waste

Table 1  Comparison of waste WBDF treatment technologies

Treatment/disposal technology Advantages Disadvantages References

Re-injection safety formation
Sealing safety landfill
MTC technology
Solidification technology
Solid–liquid separation technol-
ogy
Adsorption technology
Electrochemical technology
Chemical oxidation technology
Microbial treatment
• Simple process
• Efficient
• No need to consider final dis-
posal issues
• Simple process
• Easy to operate
• High mechanical strength of
the gel
• Low turbulent displacement
• Resource utilization
• Simple and easy
• Solidified waste can be reused
• Low cost
• Classified processing
• Reduce
• Reduce the difficulty of subse-
quent processing
• Simple equipment
• Low energy consumption
• High processing efficiency
• Good reaction selectivity
• No secondary pollution
• High processing efficiency
• Convenient application
• High throughput
• No secondary pollution
• Low cost
• High formation requirements
• High equipment requirements
• High cost
• Small scope
• High risk
• High cost
• The treatment object is limited
to the wellbore
• Small processing requirements
• Hard to guarantee the stability
and strength of the cured product
• Pollutant leaching risk
• Poor drug universality
• Need to be combined with other
processes
• Single processing object
• Difficult to apply at scale
• High energy consumption
• High equipment requirements
• Reaction conditions are more
restrictive
• Long processing cycle
• A lot of environmental influ-
ences
Mokhalalati et al. (2000);
Tayab et al. (2018)
Cai et al. (2002)
Marinello et al. (1995)
Cheng et al. (2019);
Liu et al. (2017)
Jiang et al. (2018); Lu (2018);
Zhang et al. (2015);
Zou et al. (2014); Zou et al. (2011)
Alimohammadi et al. (2013);
Xie et al. (2018)
Elnenay et al. (2017); Ighilahriz
et al. (2014)
Deng (2018); Jing et al. (2022);
Li et al. (2021a); Zhang et al.
(2012)
Du et al. (2020); Fan et al. (2014);
Gao et al. (2019); Liu et al.
(2018); Paulsen et al. (2004);
Rusjanto et al. (2011)

13
19676 Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:19662–19682

Table 2  Comparison of waste OBDF treatment technologies

Treatment/disposal technology Advantages Disadvantages References

Chemical demulsification
Solvent extraction
Thermal distillation technology • Significantly reduced residue
Gas stripping technology
Supercritical fluid extraction
Electrokinetic remediation
Biological treatment
• Simple equipment
• Mild conditions
• High oil recovery
• Simple operation
• High oil recovery
volume
• Energy reuse
• No secondary pollution
• High oil recovery
• Minor damage to active ingredi-
ents
• Low cost
• High TPHs removal efficiency
• No by-products
• Safe and convenient
• The high oil degradation rate
• Low cost
• Poor universality of chemicals Tang and Xie (2017); Tang (2015);
• Requires secondary processing
• Solvents are volatile
• Harm to the human body
• High energy consumption
• High equipment requirements
and poor security
• High energy consumption
• High equipment requirements
and poor operational safety
• Severe operating conditions
• Higher energy consumption
• Poor operational security
• Difficult to operate
• Small throughput
• long degradation time
• Inefficient on-site processing
• By-product formation
Tian and Zhao (2014); Zhu et al.
(2011)
Daae et al. (2019); Liu and Tian
(2016); Poyai et al. (2020)
Delgado and Sorensen (1998);
Murray et al. (2008); Pierce et al.
(2006); Tayab et al. (2018)
Hao et al. 2012; Li et al. (2014)
Khanpour et al. (2014); Ma et al.
(2019); Street and Guigard (2009);
Street et al. (2009)
Adhami et al. (2021); Boulakradeche
et al. (2015)
Alavi et al. (2014); Li et al. (2015);
Yan et al. (2011)

components, environmental factors, discharge standards, and
product requirements.
In general, each treatment technology has advantages that
realize the environmentally friendly disposal and resource
utilization of drilling fluid waste to a certain extent. How-
ever, there are also many limitations, mainly due to the com-
plex components of drilling fluid waste and the objective
factors of various treatment technologies. Some treatment
technologies are incomplete. For example, re-injection into
strata and safe landfills only seals up pollutants without
remediating them. Solidification technology has problems
related to pollutant leaching. The chemical demulsification
method produces secondary sewage and other pollutants.
Although bioremediation technology can completely treat
pollutants, it is greatly affected by environmental conditions,
such as temperature, oxygen, pH, nutrients, and humidity,
and the treatment times are long.
Regulations and practices for treatment
The regulations and standards for the treatment and dis-
posal of drilling fluid waste vary from country to country,
which will further affect the choice of treatment technol-
ogy. The 2006 Mining Waste Directive (MWD) 2006/21/
EC was adopted at the European level to regulate drilling
waste (including drilling fluids, cuttings, and completion
fluids) in the drilling industry in EU Member States. MWD
requires oil and gas exploration and production operations
to safely dispose the large amounts of wastes they gener-
ate (Žibret et al. 2020). Therefore, over the years, the EU
has developed modern disposal and recycling technologies
in this field, including sealed safe landfills and incineration
and recycling of waste oil, to meet environmental protection
requirements. With the increasing emphasis on environmen-
tal protection, priority should be given to the management
of drilling fluid waste, as well as to waste recovery and recy-
cling, and disposal has become the least ideal choice. Royal
Shell is required to allow WBDF waste to be discharged
directly into the ocean. According to decisions 92/2 and
2000/3 of the OSPAR, OBDF waste must be reduced to less
than 1% through heat treatment and assessed before it can
be discharged. Following the example of Europe, countries
such as Angola, Ghana, and Nigerian in Africa have adopted
stricter regulations (Zero Discharge Policy, Marine Pollution
(MARPOL) Convention, and Basel Convention) to regulate
the discharge of drilling fluid waste (Njuguna et al. 2022).
In China, government agencies have attached great impor-
tance to drilling fluid waste-related environmental protec-
tion. Although no unified regulations and standards have
been promulgated, all pollutant discharges must follow the
Integrated Wastewater Discharge Standard (GB8978-1996).
Article 51 of the “Marine Environmental Protection Law of
the People’s Republic of China” requires that oily sewage
and oily compounds from offshore oil drilling can only be
discharged under the conditions stipulated by the state (Sui
et al. 2021). After drilling fluid waste is disposed of in envi-
ronmentally sensitive areas, the disposal of solid waste must
meet the “Criteria for the general industrial solid waste stor-
age and pollution control of disposal sites (GB18599-2001)”
(Sui et al. 2021). Thus, China has very strict requirements
for the discharge of drilling fluid waste. Methods such as re-
injection into formations, direct landfilling, and incineration

13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:19662–19682
are being gradually eliminated. Solidification technology
supplemented by solid‒liquid separation technology has
become the mainstream technology for WBDF waste treat-
ment in China. Drilling fluid wastes in the Bohai Oilfield
(Wang et al. 2021) and Changqing Oilfield (Zhou et al. 2021)
have been discharged or reused after liquid phase treatment,
and the solid phases have been solidified or fired into bricks.
OBDF waste is generally separated into oil, water, and solid
using nonland equipment, the oil phase is recovered through
demulsification, and the solid phase is used for construction
materials (Zhu et al. 2011). At present, thermal distillation
technology is gradually developing trend.
WBDF waste is generally discharged directly in Europe,
America, Africa, and other countries, and OBDF waste is
treated by relevant heat-treatment technology, including
thermal distillation, to meet the discharge standards. How-
ever, in China, both water-based and OBDF wastes need to
be reused, replaced, or discharged after a combination of
multiple treatment technologies are used to meet the stand-
ards. Due to the differences in the geographical and geologi-
cal conditions of different regions and the variations in the
complexity of drilling fluid waste, treatment technology is
not unified.
Outlook
At present, with increases in drilling depth, improvements
in drilling technology, and research and development into
new drilling fluids, the treatment of drilling fluid waste is
becoming increasingly difficult. Traditional treatment pro-
cesses, chemicals, and treatment devices all present greater
challenges. In the future, it is necessary to explore more
systematic treatment technologies to develop more complete,
universal, efficient, and harmless treatment systems. It is
also necessary to control the root causes of this pollution and
strengthen processes to thoroughly address the environmen-
tal hazards associated with drilling fluid waste. In view of
this situation, it is suggested that the following research be
carried out in the future:
(1) Develop new environmentally friendly drilling
fluid additives and systems. The pollution should be
addressed starting at the source to meet the needs of the
drilling process and prevent environmental pollution.
Environmentally friendly drilling fluid additives must
be developed to replace existing refractory additives,
and new ideas must be put forth to develop environ-
mentally friendly drilling fluid additives and systems
that reduce the difficulty of controlling drilling fluid
waste pollution at the source. Natural materials and
their derivatives, such as starch (Dankwa et al. 2018),
cellulose (Liu et al. 2020), pericarp (Medved et al.
19677
2022), and other materials, are biomass resources that
are abundant, inexpensive, and nontoxic and are eas-
ily biodegraded. Such additives and systems (Ali et al.
2022) are easily decomposed by microorganisms and
their enzymes, greatly reducing the difficulty of treat-
ment and achieving environmental friendliness.
(2) Develop new and efficient targeted treatment chemi-
cals for drilling fluid waste. Most of the existing treat-
ment agents are chemicals used for the treatment of
other pollutants. Highly efficient and targeted treatment
chemicals can be developed to treat drilling fluids with
high chromaticity, high suspended solids, and high
COD. Agarwal and Saini (2022) used Moringa oleifera
and Benincasa hispida as flocculants to achieve efficient
solid‒liquid separation of drilling fluids. Their effects
were equivalent to that of alum, but they are more envi-
ronmentally friendly. CYJ-1, a biodegradable and envi-
ronmentally friendly degreasing agent (Li et al. 2021b)
based on the wetting reversal effect and emulsification,
has good degreasing properties for oil-based drilling
fluids and can achieve efficient recovery of waste oil.
(3) Construct new and efficient drilling fluid waste treat-
ment processes. Drilling fluid waste is a complex sys-
tem that contains many harmful components, such as
organic matter, inorganic salts, petroleum hydrocar-
bons, and heavy metals. Monomer technology can only
address one component at a time, traditional treatment
processes are relatively simple, and they cannot be
universally applied for drilling fluid waste treatment.
While giving priority to a certain technology, other
treatment technologies can be considered to develop
multivariate combination treatment technologies to
improve the treatment effect and quality and reduce
economic costs. For example, advanced oxidation
technology is used to degrade high-molecular weight
organic matter in drilling fluid waste (Liu et al. 2021a;
Ran et al. 2021), which enhances electronegativity,
flocculation, hydrophobicity, and its porous structure,
which improves dehydration and realizes pretreatment
in the form of solid‒liquid separation in drilling fluid
waste. Then, solid‒liquid separation and reduction
treatments can be carried out.
(4) From environmentally friendly reduction to resource
transformation. At present, most of the treatment meth-
ods and technologies, including solid‒liquid separation
and solidification landfills, aim to treat drilling fluid
waste with the goal of reducing its volume and produc-
ing an environmentally benign product. Drilling fluid
waste can be used as a resource and turned into a value-
added product. Clay, drilling cuttings, barite, and oil
in drilling fluid all have value as reusable resources,
and reuse can reduce treatment costs and improve eco-
nomic value through related technologies. Recovered
13
19678
clay can be used to fill polymer materials to improve
their mechanical properties (Siddique et al. 2021), and
separated drilling cuttings can be used for the prepara-
tion of cement admixtures (Wang et al. 2017), sintered
bricks (Liu et al. 2021b), etc. The recovered barite and
oil phases can be used for the secondary preparation of
drilling fluid.
(5) Introduce computer big data to optimize drilling fluid
waste treatment. According to the characteristics and
properties of different drilling fluid wastes, existing
computer technology can be used to conduct in-depth
research and analysis on the treatment of drilling fluid
wastes, the results can be simulated and analysed
through computer simulation optimization algorithms,
and the simulation models can be developed (Shu and
Zhang 2021). At present, with the rapid development
of the internet and artificial intelligence, computer big
data can be used to promote research on the dynamic
mechanisms involved in the technological innovations
associated with drilling fluid waste disposal, ensuring
the reliability of the science, improving technology
selection, and further enhancing the efficiency of drill-
ing fluid waste treatment.
Conclusion
Drilling fluid wastes have complex compositions, high sus-
pended solid contents, high concentrations of organic pol-
lutants, high viscosity, and high chromaticity, and a large
number of researchers have tested treatment technologies
for WBDF waste and OBDF waste to realize the environ-
mentally friendly disposal and resource utilization of drilling
fluid waste. In this review, 9 treatment methods for WBDF
wastes and 7 treatment technologies for OBDF wastes were
proposed and discussed. All technical methods have cer-
tain favourable characteristics. However, it should be noted
that most methods are difficult to promote and apply since
they are highly targeted and have high costs. Specifically,
each treatment technology has its advantages and disadvan-
tages, and it is difficult to use a single technology to solve
the problems associated with drilling fluid wastes, particu-
larly for oily drilling fluid wastes. Therefore, in response
to these problems, the researchers propose to develop new
environmentally friendly drilling fluid additives and systems
to reduce pollution at the source, develop new and efficient
targeted chemicals for remediating drilling fluid waste, and
select appropriate combined treatment processes according
to local conditions to realize drilling fluid waste treatment
that yields an environmentally friendly product, reduces
waste volume, and achieves resource utilization. Through
further in-depth research and exploration, relevant technical
and equipment problems can be overcome, environmental
13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:19662–19682
management of the entire process can be strengthened, the
hazards and potential risks to the environment can be thor-
oughly addressed, and strong support for the green develop-
ment of oil and gas can be provided.
Author contribution All authors contributed to the study’s concep-
tion and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis
were performed by Jie Yang, Jinsheng Sun, Ren Wang, and Yuanzhi
Qu. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Jie Yang, and all
authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. The final
editing, revising, and corrections are done by Ren Wang and Yuanzhi
Qu. Finally, Prof. Jinsheng Sun approved this review to be published.
All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding The work was supported by the Key Core Technology Project
of CNPC (Grant number 2020A-3913).
Data availability Not applicable.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate Not applicable.
Consent for publication Not applicable.
Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests.
References
Abou-Sayed AS, Guo Q (2001) Design considerations in drill cuttings
re-injection through downhole fracturing. SPE/IADC Middle
East Drilling Technol Conf. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2118/​72308-​MS
Acar YB, Gale RJ, Alshawabkeh AN, Marks RE, Puppala S, Bricka M,
Parker R (1995) Electrokinetic remediation: basics and technol-
ogy status. J Hazard Mater 40:117–137. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​
0304-​3894(94)​00066-P
Adhami S, Jamshidi-Zanjani A, Darban AK (2021) Remediation of
oil-based drilling waste using the electrokinetic-Fenton method.
Process Saf Environ Prot 149:432–441. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.​
psep.​2020.​11.​018
Agarwal P, Saini G (2022) Use of natural coagulants (Moringa oleifera
and Benincasa hispida) for volume reduction of waste drilling
slurries. Mater Today: Proc 49:3274–3278. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​matpr.​2020.​12.​924
Al-Ansary MS, Al-Tabbaa A (2007) Stabilisation/solidification of
synthetic petroleum drill cuttings. J Hazard Mater 141:410–421.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jhazm​at.​2006.​05.​079
Alavi N, Mesdaghinia A-R, Naddafi K, Mohebali G, Daraei H, Maleki
A, Alaei L (2014) Biodegradation of petroleum hydrocarbons in
a soil polluted sample by oil-based drilling cuttings. Soil Sedi-
ment Contam: Int J 23:586–597. https://d​ oi.​org/​10.​1080/​15320​
383.​2014.​847900
Ali JA, Ahmed RN, Abdullah AD, Ali NH, Kalhury AM, Sabir AN,
Khaksar Manshad A, Keshavarz A, Mohammadi AH (2022)
Development of a nanobiodegradable drilling fluid using pros-
opis farcta plant and pomegranate peel powders with metal oxide
nanoparticles. ACS Omega 7:31327–31337. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1021/​acsom​ega.​2c034​92
Alimohammadi N, Shadizadeh SR, Kazeminezhad I (2013) Removal
of cadmium from drilling fluid using nano-adsorbent. Fuel
111:505–509. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​fuel.​2013.​03.​023
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:19662–19682
Almudhhi SM (2016) Environmental impact of disposal of oil-based
mud waste in Kuwait. Pet Sci Technol 34:91–96. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1080/​10916​466.​2015.​11226​30
Ameta R, Solanki MS, Benjamin S, Ameta SC (2018) Photocatalysis,
Advanced oxidation processes for waste water treatment. Else-
vier, pp 135–175.https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​B978-0-​12-​810499-​6.​
00006-1
Awasthi A, Jadhao P, Kumari K (2019) Clay nano-adsorbent: struc-
tures, applications and mechanism for water treatment. SN
Appl Sci 1:1–21. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s42452-​019-​0858-9
Ayapbergenov Y, Harvey TN, Abbott IGD (2017) Methods and pro-
cesses to recycle base oil fluids from spent invert emulsion
drilling fluids. U.S. Patent pp 9,677,354
Babuponnusami A, Muthukumar K (2014) A review on Fenton and
improvements to the Fenton process for wastewater treatment.
J Environ Chem Eng 2:557–572. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jece.​
2013.​10.​011
Bakke T, Klungsøyr J, Sanni S (2013) Environmental impacts of pro-
duced water and drilling waste discharges from the Norwegian
offshore petroleum industry. Mar Environ Res 92:154–169.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​maren​vres.​2013.​09.​012
Ball AS, Stewart RJ, Schliephake K (2012) A review of the current
options for the treatment and safe disposal of drill cuttings.
Waste Manage Res 30:457–473. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​07342​
42X11​419892
Benelkadi S, Bianco EV, Burton P, Motta MD (2019) Subsurface
drilling waste injection: challenges, recent advances and cases
studies. Offshore Technol Conf Brasil. https://​doi.​org/​10.​4043/​
29920-​MS
Boulakradeche MO, Akretche DE, Cameselle C, Hamidi N (2015)
Enhanced electrokinetic remediation of hydrophobic organics
contaminated soils by the combination of non-ionic and ionic
surfactants. Electrochim Acta 174:1057–1066. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​elect​acta.​2015.​06.​091
Brunner G (2013) Gas extraction: an introduction to fundamentals of
supercritical fluids and the application to separation processes.
In: Topics in Physical Chemistry, 4. Springer Science & Busi-
ness Media, New York, pp1
Cai L, Liu S, Guo C (2002) Review on Environmental Protection
Technology of Oil Drilling West-China Exploration. Engineer-
ing 14:3 (in Chinese)
Charles M, Sayle S (2010) Offshore drill cuttings treatment tech-
nology evaluation. SPE Int Conf Health Saf Environ Oil Gas
Explor Prod. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2118/​126333-​MS
Cheng X, Long D, Zhang C, Gao X, Yu Y, Mei K, Zhang C, Guo X,
Chen Z (2019) Utilization of red mud, slag and waste drilling
fluid for the synthesis of slag-red mud cementitious material.
J Cleaner Prod 238:117902. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​
2019.​117902
Classificação RSO (2004) Brazil: Associação Brasileira de Normas
Técnicas. NBR 10004:2004
Daae HL, Heldal KK, Madsen AM, Olsen R, Skaugset NP, Graff
P (2019) Occupational exposure during treatment of offshore
drilling waste and characterization of microbiological diver-
sity. Sci Total Environ 681:533–540
Daneshfar MA, Ardjmand M (2020) Selecting a suitable model for
collecting, transferring, and recycling drilling wastes produced
in the operational areas of the Iranian offshore oil company
(IOOC) using analytical hierarchy process (AHP). J Environ
Manage 259:109791. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jenvm​an.​2019.​
109791
Dankwa OK, Appau PO, Tampuri M (2018) Performance evaluation
of local cassava starch flour as a secondary viscosifier and fluid
loss agent in water based drilling mud. Ghana Mining Journal
18:68–76. https://​doi.​org/​10.​4314/​gm.​v18i2.9
19679
Delgado AJ, Sorensen P (1998) Low temperature distillation technol-
ogy. SPE Int Conf Health Saf Environ Oil Gas Explor Prod.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​2118/​46601-​MS
Deng L (2018) Study on high voltage pulse-ozone-fenton combined
oxidation process for drilling fluid wastewater treatment. Chong-
qing University of Science and Technology, Chongqing (in
Chinese)
Du G, Zheng H, Guo X, Jiang X, Chen Z (2020) Study on the syner-
gistic soilization of solid-phase material of abandoned water}
based drilling fluid with the vermicompost. Environ Pollut Con-
trol 42:12–16. https://​doi.​org/​10.​15985/j.​cnki.​1001-​3865.​2020.​
01.​003. (in Chinese)
Elnenay AMH, Nassef E, Malash GF, Magid MHA (2017) Treatment
of drilling fluids wastewater by electrocoagulation. Egypt J Pet
26:203–208. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ejpe.​2016.​03.​005
Fan Y-Y, Wang G-C, Fu J-H, Zheng X-H (2012) Bioremediation of
waste drilling fluid: comparison of biostimulation and bioaug-
mentation. Desalin Water Treat 48:329–334. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1080/​19443​994.​2012.​698838
Fan Y-Y, Wang G-C, Fu J-H, Zheng X-H (2014) The remediation of
waste drilling muds by a combined plant-microbe system. Pet
Sci Technol 32:2086–2092. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​10916​466.​
2011.​645101
Ferreira AR, Guedes P, Mateus EP, Couto N, Ribeiro AB (2017) Influ-
ence of the cell design in the electroremoval of PPCPs from soil
slurry. Chem Eng J 326:162–168. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​cej.​
2017.​05.​148
Gao X, Chang Y, Shi L, Li X, Zhao J, Sha B, Huang Z, Wang X
(2019) Treatment of waste drilling mud by domesticated complex
microbial flora. Acta Microbiol Sin 1:134–144. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​13343/j.​cnki.​wsxb.​20180​093. (in Chinese)
Gomes HI, Dias-Ferreira C, Ribeiro AB (2012) Electrokinetic reme-
diation of organochlorines in soil: enhancement techniques and
integration with other remediation technologies. Chemosphere
87:1077–1090. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​chemo​sphere.​2012.​02.​
037
Group S (2013) Drilling waste management opportunities for mur-
mansk, A.S. Sigra Group, Sigra Group AS
Guerra AB, Oliveira JS, Silva-Portela RC, Araújo W, Carlos AC,
Vasconcelos ATR, Freitas AT, Domingos YS, de Farias MF,
Fernandes GJT (2018) Metagenome enrichment approach used
for selection of oil-degrading bacteria consortia for drill cutting
residue bioremediation. Environ Pollut 235:869–880. https://d​ oi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​envpol.​2018.​01.​014
Guo C-P (2020) Current status and prospects of waste oil-based drill-
ing fluid treatment methods in China. Int Pet Petrochem Technol
Conference 94-104. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 007/9​ 78-9​ 81-1​ 6-1​ 123-0_​
10
Hamed SB, Belhadri M (2009) Rheological properties of biopolymers
drilling fluids. J Pet Sci Eng 67:84–90. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
petrol.​2009.​04.​001
Hao CL, Wang TG, Wang ZS, Shen H, Jia JL (2012) Analysis of oily
sludge treatment process at Liuyi United Station. Environ Prot
Oil Gas Fields 22:18–20+61
Hossain ME, Wajheeuddin M (2016) The use of grass as an environ-
mentally friendly additive in water-based drilling fluids. Pet Sci
13:292–303. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s12182-​016-​0083-8
Hou B, Chen M, Liu M, Xiong Q (2013) Safe disposal technology of
waste oil-based drilling fluids. J Jpn Pet Inst 56:221–229. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1627/​jpi.​56.​221
Huang Q, Liu Y, Peng J, Xu Z, Xia X, Deng H, Li H (2022) Utilizing
shale gas drilling cuttings as admixture in cement mortars: a
case study in Fuling, Chongqing, China. Environ Sci Pollut Res
29:24362–24369. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11356-​022-​18873-0
Hudgins CM (1994) Chemical use in North Sea oil and gas E&P. J Pet
Technol 46:67–74. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2118/​24106-​PA
13
19680
Ighilahriz K, Ahmed MT, Djelal H, Maachi R (2014) Electrocoagula-
tion and electro-oxidation treatment for the leachate of oil-drill-
ing mud. Desalin Water Treat 52:5833–5839. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1080/​19443​994.​2013.​811113
Imam A, Suman SK, Ghosh D, Kanaujia PK (2019) Analytical
approaches used in monitoring the bioremediation of hydrocar-
bons in petroleum-contaminated soil and sludge. TrAC Trends
Anal Chem 118:50–64. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​trac.​2019.​05.​
023
Ismail AR, Alias AH, Sulaiman WRW, Jaafar MZ, Ismail I (2017)
Drilling fluid waste management in drilling for oil and gas wells.
Chem Eng Trans 56:1351–1356. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3303/​CET17​
56226
Jiang G, Peng S, Li X, Yang L, Soares JB, Li G (2018) Preparation
of amphoteric starch-based flocculants by reactive extrusion for
removing useless solids from water-based drilling fluids. Col-
loids Surf Physicochem Eng Aspects 558:343–350. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​colsu​rfa.​2018.​08.​077
Jing Y, Wang P, Yang Q, Wang Q (2022) Study on feasibility and
mechanism of the subcritical oxidation of waste drilling mud.
Colloids Surf Physicochem Eng Aspects 640:128424. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​colsu​rfa.​2022.​128424
Jones CR, Guigard SE (2009) Effect of water content on the supercriti-
cal fluid extraction of hydrocarbons from drilling waste. Proc
IASTED Int Conf 650:072
Jung K-W, Ahn K-H (2016) Dual purpose recovered coagulant from
drinking water treatment residuals for adjustment of initial pH
and coagulation aid in electrocoagulation process. Environ
Technol 37:1605–1617. https://​doi.o​ rg/1​ 0.​1080/0​ 9593​330.2​ 015.​
11220​96
Khanpour R, Sheikhi-Kouhsar MR, Esmaeilzadeh F, Mowla D (2014)
Removal of contaminants from polluted drilling mud using
supercritical carbon dioxide extraction. J Supercrit Fluids 88:1–7.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​supflu.​2014.​01.​004
Kislik VS (2012) Solvent extraction: classical and novel approaches.
Elsevier
Kuppusamy S, Maddela NR, Megharaj M, Venkateswarlu K (2020)
Impact of total petroleum hydrocarbons on human health, Total
Petroleum Hydrocarbons. Springer, pp 139–165. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1007/​978-3-​030-​24035-6_6
Lakshmanan D, Clifford DA, Samanta G (2009) Ferrous and ferric ion
generation during iron electrocoagulation. Environ Sci Technol
43:3853–3859. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1021/​es803​6669
Li Y, Wang Z, Li C, Li X, Man C, Zhang C (2014) Energy conservation
optimization analysis of steam jet device sludge treatment. Envi-
ron Protect Oil Gas Fields 24:31–34. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3969/j.​
issn.​1005-​3158.​2014.​04.​011. (in Chinese)
Li Y, Jiang G, Dong T, Li X, Yang L (2021) Construction of BiOBr.
0 5Cl0. 5 heterojunctions for photocatalytic treatment of waste
drilling fluid in oilfield. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci
814:012007. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1088/​1755-​1315/​814/1/​012007
Li Z, Xie S, Jiang G, Bao M, Wang Z, Huang X, Xu F (2015) Bioreme-
diation of offshore oily drilling fluids. Energy Sour A 37:1680–
1687. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​15567​036.​2011.​633968
Li Z, Zhou Y, Meng X, Wang S (2021b) Harmless and efficient treat-
ment of oily drilling cuttings. J Pet Sci Eng 202:108542. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​petrol.​2021.​108542
Liu C, Li M, Mei C, Chen W, Han J, Yue Y, Ren S, French AD, Aita
GM, Eggleston G (2020) Cellulose nanofibers from rapidly
microwave-delignified energy cane bagasse and their application
in drilling fluids as rheology and filtration modifiers. Ind Crops
Prod 150:112378. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.i​ ndcro​ p.2​ 020.1​ 12378
Liu L, Ran B, Hua C (2021a) Improved dewaterability of drilling waste
sludge by ultrasonic and potassium permanganate co-treatment.
J Environ Chem Eng 9:106356. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jece.​
2021.​106356
13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:19662–19682
Liu W, Yuan H, Fan Z, Li J, Sun L (2021b) Using water-based drill-
ing cuttings from shale gas development to manufacture sintered
bricks: a case study in the southern Sichuan Basin, China. Envi-
ron Sci Pollut Res 28:29379–29393. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s11356-​021-​12847-4
Liu Y, Tian F (2016) Extraction method of waste oil based drilling fluid
by response surface methodology. Chin J Environ Eng 10:2621–
2626. https://​doi.​org/​10.​12030/j.​cjee.​20141​2174. (in Chinese)
Liu Y, Liu Q, Wu D, Lu Z, Chen J (2017) Solidification treatment tech-
nology of waste polysulfide drilling fluid in Xinjiang Oilfield.
Chem Eng Oil Gas 46:106–112. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3969/j.​issn.​
1007-​3426.​2017.​05.​021. (in Chinese)
Liu Y, Lu Z, Liu Q, Zhu M, Liang J (2018) Preparation of immobilized
microorganisms by modified straw and treatment of drilling mud.
Environ Prot Chem Indus 38:343–348. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3969/j.​
issn.​1006-​1878.​2018.​03.​017. (in Chinese)
Lu J (2018) Study on solid liquid separation and treatment of waste
polysulfonate drilling fluid, Southwest Petroleum University
Chengdu, pp 15–17 (in Chinese)
Ma B, Wang R, Ni H, Wang K (2019) Experimental study on harm-
less disposal of waste oil based mud using supercritical carbon
dioxide extraction. Fuel 252:722–729. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
fuel.​2019.​04.​111
Mallakpour S, Motirasoul F (2017) Use of PVA/α-MnO2-stearic acid
nanocomposite films prepared by sonochemical method as a
potential sorbent for adsorption of Cd (II) ion from aqueous solu-
tion. Ultrason Sonochem 37:623–633. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
ultso​nch.​2017.​02.​025
Marinello S, Herbert B, Lillo H, Curtice S, Stark C, Redweick R,
Mohrbacher J, Rubin M (1995) Beneficial reuse of oilfield waste
outside of the oil and gas industry. SPE Annual Technical Conf
Exhibition 125–130. https://doi.org/10.2118/30688-MS
McHugh M, Krukonis V (2013) Supercritical fluid extraction: princi-
ples and practice. Elsevier, Boston, pp17–45
Medved I, Gaurina-Međimurec N, Novak Mavar K, Mijić P (2022)
Waste mandarin peel as an eco-friendly water-based drilling fluid
additive. Energies 15:2591. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​en150​72591
Mikos-Szymańska M, Rusek P, Borowik K, Rolewicz M, Bogusz
P, Gluzińska J (2018) Characterization of drilling waste from
shale gas exploration in Central and Eastern Poland. Envi-
ron Sci Pollut Res 25:35990–36001. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s11356-​018-​2365-8
Mitchell R, Miska S (2011) Fundamentals of drilling engineering. Soc
Pet Eng. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2118/​97815​55632​076
Mokhalalati T, Al-Suwaidi A, Hendi AE-F (2000) Managing onshore
drilling wastes-Abu Dhabi experience. Abu Dhabi Int Pet Exhibi-
tion Conf. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2118/​87270-​MS
Murray AJ, Kapila M, Ferrari G, Degouy D, Espagne BJ-L, Hand-
graaf P (2008) Friction-based thermal desorption technology:
Kashagan development project meets environmental compliance
in drill-cuttings treatment and disposal. SPE Annual Technical
Conf Exhibition. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2118/​116169-​MS
Nesbitt LE, Sanders JA (1981) Drilling fluid disposal. J Pet Technol
33:2377–2381. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2118/​10098-​PA
Njuguna J, Siddique S, Kwroffie LB, Piromrat S, Addae-Afoakwa K,
Ekeh-Adegbotolu U, Oluyemi G, Yates K, Mishra AK, Moller L
(2022) The fate of waste drilling fluids from oil & gas industry
activities in the exploration and production operations. Waste
Manage 139:362–380. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​wasman.​2021.​
12.​025
Okparanma RN, Ayotamuno JM, Araka PP (2009) Bioremediation of
hydrocarbon contaminated-oil field drill-cuttings with bacterial
isolates. Afr J Environ Sci Technol 3:131–140. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​biort​ech.​2011.​08.​074
Paladino G, Arrigoni JP, Satti P, Morelli I, Mora V, Laos F (2016)
Bioremediation of heavily hydrocarbon-contaminated
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:19662–19682
drilling wastes by composting. Int J Environ Sci Technol (teh-
ran) 13:2227–2238. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s13762-​016-​1057-5
Park H, Lee W (2008) Helmholtz-Smoluchowski velocity for viscoe-
lastic electroosmotic flows. J Colloid Interface Sci 317:631–
636. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jcis.​2007.​09.​027
Paulsen JE, Getliff J, Sørheim R (2004) Vermicomposting and best
available technique for oily drilling waste management in envi-
ronmentally sensitive areas. SPE Int Conf Health Saf Environ
Oil Gas Explor Prod. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2118/​86730-​MS
Pereira LB, Sad CM, da Silva M, Corona RR, dos Santos FD, Gon-
calves GR, Castro EV, Filgueiras PR, Lacerda V Jr (2019) Oil
recovery from water-based drilling fluid waste. Fuel 237:335–
343. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​fuel.​2018.​10.​007
Pierce DA, Wood B, Gaddis C (2006) Lessons learned from treat-
ing 500,000 tons of oil-based drill cuttings on five continents.
IADC/SPE Drilling Conf. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2118/​99027-​MS
Poyai T, Getwech C, Dhanasin P, Punyapalakul P, Painmanakul
P, Chawaloesphonsiya N (2020) Solvent-based washing as a
treatment alternative for onshore petroleum drill cuttings in
Thailand. Sci Total Environ 718:137384. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​scito​tenv.​2020.​137384
Qin X, Lu H, Li Y, Peng T, Xing L, Xue H, Xu J (2017) Preparation
and evaluation of a profile control agent base on waste drilling
fluid. J Chem 2017:1–7. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1155/2​ 017/​37375​10
Ran B, Liu L, Hua C (2021) Comprehensive investigation and mech-
anisms of drilling waste sludge dewaterability by Fe (II)/per-
sulfate pretreatment. J Environ Chem Eng 9:106751. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jece.​2021.​106751
Rusjanto J, Asmaradewi G, Safitri D, Jatnika A (2011) Enhancing
bioremediation of oily waste by bioaugmentation method. Int
Pet Technol Conf. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2523/​IPTC-​15316-​MS
Saasen A, Tran T, Jøranson H, Meyer E, Gabrielsen G, Tronstad
A (2001) Subsea re-injection of drilled cuttings-operational
experience. SPE/IADC Drilling Conf. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2118/​
67733-​MS
Sadiq R, Husain T, Veitch B, Bose N (2003) Marine water qual-
ity assessment of synthetic-based drilling waste discharges.
Int J Environ Stud 60:313–323. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​00207​
23030​4729
Santos MR, Goulart MO, Tonholo J, Zanta CL (2006) The applica-
tion of electrochemical technology to the remediation of oily
wastewater. Chemosphere 64:393–399. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​
1016/j.​chemo​sphere.​2005.​12.​036
Schaanning MT, Trannum HC, Øxnevad S, Carroll J, Bakke T (2008)
Effects of drill cuttings on biogeochemical fluxes and macrob-
enthos of marine sediments. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 361:49–57.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jembe.​2008.​04.​014
Shu C, Zhang J (2021) Application of computer simulation optimi-
zation algorithm in waste treatment of drilling engineering.
Complexity. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1155/​2021/​99274​38
Siddique S, Kwoffie L, Addae-Afoakwa K, Yates K, Njuguna J
(2017) Oil based drilling fluid waste: an overview on environ-
mentally persistent pollutants. IOP Conf Ser: Mater Sci Eng
195:012008. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1088/​1757-​899X/​195/1/​012008
Siddique S, Leung PS, Njuguna J (2021) Drilling oil-based mud
waste as a resource for raw materials: a case study on clays
reclamation and their application as fillers in polyamide 6 com-
posites. Upstream Oil Gas Technol 7:100036. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​upstre.​2021.​100036
Stephenson RL, Seaton S, McCharen R, Hernandez E, Pair RB
(2004) Thermal desorption of oil from oil-based drilling fluids
cuttings: processes and technologies. SPE Asia Pacific Oil Gas
Conf Exhibition. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2118/​88486-​MS
Street C, Guigard S (2009) Treatment of oil-based drilling waste
using supercritical carbon dioxide. J Can Pet Technol 48:26–
29. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2118/​09-​06-​26-​TN
19681
Street CG, Tesche C, Guigard S (2009) Treatment of hydrocarbon-
based drilling waste using supercritical carbon dioxide. SPE Drill
Complet 24:413–417. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2118/​106829-​PA
Sui D, Zhan M, Sui D, Zhao F (2021) Regulations and methods for
disposal of waste drilling fluid. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci
631:012045. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1088/​1755-​1315/​631/1/​012045
Tang C, Xie SX (2017) Resource recovery and harmless treatment of
waste oil-in-water drilling fluid. Environ Eng Res 22:277–280.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​4491/​eer.​2016.​151
Tang X (2015) Experimental study on the treatment of waste oil-based
drilling fluid by thermochemical demulsification. Inner Mongolia
Petrochemical 30–31. (in Chinese)
Tayab MR, Kashwani G, Sandra DN, Ali EA, Mohammed TH, Alham-
mami MA (2018) An integrated approach to manage drilling
waste to minimise environmental impacts. SPE Int Conf Exhibi-
tion Health Saf Sec Environ Soc Responsib. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
2118/​190609-​MS
Thermtech A (2012) Thermomechanical Cuttings Cleaner (TCC): set-
ting the global standard for the treatment of oily drill cuttings.
2006. Avaiable at: http://w ​ ww.t​ hermt​ ech.n​ o. Accessed in: oct 31
Tian H, Zhao H (2014) Waste oil-based mud treatment technology and
research. Environ Eng Sci 32:310–313 (in Chinese)
Trowbridge TD, Holcombe TC (1995) Refinery sludge treatment/haz-
ardous waste minimization via dehydration and solvent extrac-
tion. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 45:782–788. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1080/​10473​289.​1995.​10467​407
Varjani SJ (2017) Microbial degradation of petroleum hydrocarbons.
Bioresour Technol 223:277–286. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​biort​
ech.​2016.​10.​037
Wang C-q, Jin J-z, Lin X-y, Xiong D-m, Mei X-d (2017) A study on
the oil-based drilling cutting pyrolysis residue resource utili-
zation by the exploration and development of shale gas. Envi-
ron Sci Pollut Res 24:17816–17828. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s11356-​017-​9199-7
Wang K, Liu P, Hou X, Wang P, Zhu P, Hao M, Li D, Tang Q, Wang
Q, Ge W (2021) Drilling and completion waste reutilization and
zero discharge technology used in China Bohai Bay. SPE/IATMI
Asia Pacific Oil Gas Conf Exhibition. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2118/​
205633-​MS
Wang Y, Wang T, Yan X (2020) Discussion on harmless treatment
technologies of drilling fluid waste in oil and gas fields. IOP
Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci 446:052037. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1088/​1755-​1315/​446/5/​052037
Wei H, Tang Y, Shoeib T, Li A, Yang H (2019) Evaluating the effects
of the preoxidation of H2O2, NaClO, and KMnO4 and refloc-
culation on the dewaterability of sewage sludge. Chemosphere
234:942–952. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​chemo​sphere.​2019.​06.​
131
Wu L, Sitamraju S, Xiao J, Liu B, Li Z, Janik MJ, Song C (2014) Effect
of liquid-phase O3 oxidation of activated carbon on the adsorp-
tion of thiophene. Chem Eng J 242:211–219. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​cej.​2013.​12.​077
Xie S, Jiang G, Chen M, Li Z, Mao H, Zhang M, Li Y-Y (2015) Treat-
ment technology for waste drilling fluids in environmental sensi-
tivity areas. Energy Sour A 37:817–824. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 080/​
15567​036.​2011.​594858
Xie S, Ren W, Qiao C, Tong K, Sun J, Zhang M, Liu X, Zhang Z (2018)
An electrochemical adsorption method for the reuse of waste
water-based drilling fluids. Nat Gas Ind B 5:508–512. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ngib.​2018.​03.​005
Xiong D, Wang C (2021) Risk assessment of human exposure to heavy
metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and radionuclides in
oil-based drilling cutting residues used for roadbed materials in
Chongqing, China. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28:48171–48183.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11356-​021-​13871-0
13
19682
Yan P, Lu M, Guan Y, Zhang W, Zhang Z (2011) Remediation of
oil-based drill cuttings through a biosurfactant-based washing
followed by a biodegradation treatment. Bioresour Technol
102:10252–10259. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​biort​ech.​2011.​08.​
074
Yeung AT (2006) Contaminant extractability by electrokinetics. Envi-
ron Eng Sci 23:202–224. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1089/​ees.​2006.​23.​
202
Zhang S, Feng Y, Li B, Deng J, Geng T, Zhang J (2022) Fracture
development during disposal of hazardous drilling cuttings by
deep underground injection: a review. J Rock Mech Geotechn
Eng 14:1652–1670. https://​doi.o​ rg/1​ 0.​1016/j.​jrmge.​2022.​05.0​ 01
Zhang T, Li N, Zhao D, Su L (2012) An experimental study of waste
drilling fluids treated by the combination of sonication and ozo-
nation. Nat Gas Ind 32:108–112. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3787/j.​issn.​
1000-​0976.​2012.​08.​024. (in Chinese)
Zhang Y (2007) Study on solid liquid separation and treatment of waste
polysulfonate drilling fluid. China University of petroleum, Qing-
dao (in Chinese)
Zhang Y, Miao Z, Zou J (2015) A new cation-modified A l-polyacryla-
mide flocculant for solid–liquid separation in waste drilling fluid.
J Appl Polym Sci 132:41641. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​app.​41641
Zhou B, Lei B, Hou L, Huang L, Lian X (2021) Research on the harm-
less and recycling treatment technology of drilling waste mud
based on changqing oilfield. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci
804:022106. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1088/​1755-​1315/​804/2/​022106
13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:19662–19682
Zhu Z, Li J, Xie S, Yuan G (2011) Research and application on resource
utilization technology of oily waste drilling fluid. Pet Sci Technol
29:1470–1481. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​10916​466.​2010.​490818
Žibret G, Lemiere B, Mendez A-M, Cormio C, Sinnett D, Cleall P,
Szabó K, Carvalho MT (2020) National mineral waste databases
as an information source for assessing material recovery poten-
tial from mine waste, tailings and metallurgical waste. Minerals
10:446. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​min10​050446
Zou C, Liang M, Chen X, Yan X (2014) β-Cyclodextrin modified cati-
onic acrylamide polymers for flocculating waste drilling fluids.
J Appl Polym Sci 131:40197. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​app.​40197
Zou J, Zhu H, Wang F, Sui H, Fan J (2011) Preparation of a new inor-
ganic–organic composite flocculant used in solid–liquid separa-
tion for waste drilling fluid. Chem Eng J 171:350–356. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​cej.​2011.​03.​100
Publisher's note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds
exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the
author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of
such publishing agreement and applicable law.