## 1 Introduction  
Petroleum represents one of the most important energy resources and raw materials of the chemical industry. Nevertheless, oil spills during exploration, transportation, and refining can cause serious environmental problems. This is mainly due to leaking underground and aboveground storage tanks, inappropriate disposal of petroleum wastes, and accidental spills [1; 2]. Unfortunately, the dynamic movements of hydrological transport cycles to groundwater aquifers could lead to wide hazardous contamination. The liquid petroleum, once released into the ground, generally partitions into dissolved, liquid, and gas phases [3], spreading out in all ecosystems and posing a serious threat to human health and the environment. Common remediation technologies employ a range of physical, chemical, biological treatments, and thermal approaches [4; 5; 6]. Among the in-situ technologies, soil vapor extraction (SVE) has gained in efficiency and popularity for volatile (VOC) and semi-volatile organic compound (SVOC) removal [7]. However, heavier fuels, such as mid-weight petroleum products like diesel fuel, heating oils, and kerosene, are not always completely removed by SVE, which performs better with light hydrocarbons [8]. SVE treatment involves the installation of vertical and/or horizontal wells in the vadose zone, pumping air to strip the contaminants from the soil matrix [9]. Extracted vapors are then treated using sorbent materials (commonly activated carbon) before being released into the atmosphere [10]. SVE performs better in highly permeable and homogeneous soils [11], and it is recommended to cover the site surface with an impermeable layer to minimize airflow short-circuiting and infiltration [12; 13]. Although SVE is a conventional technology, the literature review has shown limited full-scale case studies documenting its application to soils and subsoils contaminated by petroleum hydrocarbons. [PERSON] et al. [14] reached respectable efficiencies (above 92%) with an SVE process performed in column experiments with sandy soils and different soil water contents (SWCs) with benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, trichloroethylene, and perchloroethylene as targets. An increase of the SWC led to a more time-consuming remediation procedure with longer periods for contaminants with lower vapor pressures and lower water solubilities. The most efficient airflow rate was identified within the range of 0.50 and 5.3 cm\({}^{3}\)/s at standard temperature and pressure [8]. Additionally, [PERSON] et al. [15] conducted a series of one-dimensional column experiments to analyze the factors influencing the SVE as a remedial technique. The outcomes showed that the higher the vapor flow rate was, the higher the contaminant removal efficiency was as well. Furthermore, the soil grain size was found to influence chlorobenzene removal efficiency in that the coarser the sand was, the higher the removal rate was. Additionally, organic and water content in the soil had impacts on the process, with a decrease in the removal efficiency with high organic content. [PERSON] et al. [16] presented the results from a calibrated flow and transport model to simulate 1,1,1-trichloroethane concentrations for the Los Alamos National Laboratory liquid waste disposal facility. Simulations showed that SVE can be started three years following drum failure and remain a viable remediation tool. However, if high levels of removal need to be reached (efficiency > 95%), a pilot study is recommended to evaluate the appropriateness of integrating bioventing (BV) at that site or if another technology should be considered [17; 18]. The critical problem of tailing during SVE operation could be addressed with a conversion to a properly designed BV system [18]. Based on pilot trials, [PERSON] et al. [19] concluded that contaminants with high concentration can be initially treated using SVE and then with a BV process as soon as the volatilization rate becomes smaller than the biodegradation rate.