## 3 Results
### Assessment of the Classified Remediation Technologies
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Contaminant C1**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Stratography and Lithology C2**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Target Strata C3**} & \\ \cline{2-13}
**Technology** & **Technology** & **Technology** & **Technology** & **Technology** & **Technology** & **Technology** & **Technology** & **Technology** & **Technology** & **Technology** & **Technology** & **Technology** & **Technology** & **Technology** & **Technology** & **Technology** & **Technology** & **Technology** & **Technology** & **Technology** \\ \hline Institutional control & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 \\ \hline Risk monitoring & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 \\ \hline Emergency response & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 \\ \hline Natural source zone depletion & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 \\ \hline Soil gas phase extraction & 3 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 0 & 2 & 2 & 3 & 3 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 0 & 3 & 1 & 0 & 0 & Generally, requires water \\  & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline Multiphase extraction & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 2 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 2 & 2 & 3 & 3 & 0 & \\ \hline Pump and treat & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 2 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 2 & 1 & 0 & 2 & 3 & 0 & \\ \hline Enhanced soil stabilization & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 2 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 2 & 1 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 0 & \\ \hline In situ thermal desorption & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 2 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 2 & 2 & 0 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 \\ \hline Vitrification immobilization & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 2 & 0 & 0 & \\ \hline Containment barrier & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 2 & 2 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 2 \\ \hline Interception ditch & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 \\ \hline Permeble reactive barrier & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 2 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 3 & 0 & Generally, has a depth of \(<\)15 m, installed between the source and the plume zone \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Scoring standards for petrochemical site contamination control technologies. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{10}{c}{**Contaminant C1**} & \multicolumn{10}{c}{**Stratisfraphy and Lithology C2**} & \multicolumn{10}{c}{**Target Strata C3**} \\ \cline{2-13}
**T  
From the table, institutional control, risk source monitoring, and emergency response all gained the full mark. That is because the site is located in an in-production plan, and all the site contamination source control procedures should be carried out. Assisting technologies gained scores of zero, for the remediation work condition was good and no additional assisting technologies were needed. For other types of technologies, many factors affected the final scores. For example, for process blocking, the upper (phreatic) aquifer, both interception ditch and hydrodynamic control gained higher scores. In environmental factors, they obtained the same score, 2.85 (See Table S1). In social factors, the interception ditch obtained a lower score (2.40) than hydrodynamic control (2.53), for the lower development status of the interception ditch (See Table S2). In technical factors, the interception ditch obtained a higher score (2.50) than the hydrodynamic control (2.25), for the hydrodynamic control is hardly used in clay stratum (See Table S3).