Why independent research matters more than anything

Warren Nelson

, CEO & Co-Founder

July 21, 2026

Newsletter · Published monthly on LinkedIn

Every remediation contractor will tell you their technology works. I've been one of them for over thirty years. We show up with case studies, references, and performance numbers, and most of the time the work speaks for itself.

A higher standard of evidence

But there's a level of evidence that's harder to earn, and in my view it's the one that matters most when the decisions get difficult. That's independent, peer-reviewed research. Researchers define their methods, report limitations, disclose conflicts, and publish results for scrutiny.

That's a different bar. One this body of work has met.

When a consultant is recommending a remediation approach to their client, or a regulator is signing off on a closure plan, or a procurement team is choosing between three bids that all sound the same on paper, they deserve more than our word for it. Technology selection drives cost, schedule, regulatory approval, long-term liability, and whether the site actually closes. Those are decisions that outlive the project and they deserve evidence that can stand up to real scrutiny.

Over the last decade our industry has been moving in that direction, and I'm glad to see it. Good research makes good technology better. It sharpens the engineering, exposes weak assumptions, and it gives everyone at the table something firm to stand on.

What the record shows on our own soil

What I'm proud of at Nelson is that our work at Tioga became the subject of a sustained, field scale research program, with findings reported across peer reviewed papers and a graduate thesis.

A team of soil scientists at North Dakota State University and collaborating organizations, led by Dr. Thomas DeSutter and Peter O'Brien, spent years studying soil treated by Nelson's thermal desorption systems at the Tioga project. The researchers designed and carried out their studies, reported both benefits and limitations, and submitted the work to peer review. The 2024 synthesis declares no conflicts of interest and acknowledges Nelson for supporting the research - a transparent distinction between supporting a study and controlling its conclusions.

The research program is broader than the four early studies originally highlighted. Those studies examined soil physical and hydraulic properties, wheat productivity and grain safety, cation exchange chemistry, and nitrogen-cycling genes. Bartsch et al. (2022) added a four-year field assessment of plant growth, soil properties, and microbial communities. O'Brien et al. (2024) then synthesized seven years of results from the remediation and reclamation program.

Read together, the evidence is strong but appropriately nuanced. Thermal desorption consistently reduced total petroleum hydrocarbons below the project's 500 mg/kg treatment threshold across more than 1,200,000 metric tons of soil. Earlier crop work found no greater petroleum hydrocarbons in grain grown on treated soil than in grain grown on topsoil.

The longer-term studies show why reclamation matters. Four years after treatment, thermally desorbed soil supported sorghum biomass and did not appear to slow microbial recovery compared with untreated land-farmed subsoil, although neither subsoil treatment had fully returned to the biological condition of disturbed native topsoil. Blending treated soil with noncontaminated topsoil moved many physical, chemical, and biological measures closer to the topsoil control. The 2024 synthesis concluded that soil and plant properties were recovering over time, while identifying continued monitoring, fertility management, and access to topsoil as important to full recovery (Bartsch et al., 2022; O'Brien et al., 2024).

These are not simply claims made by Nelson. They are findings reported through peer-reviewed research led by North Dakota State University.

Why we put it in the Knowledge Centre

We've summarized the research program in plain language in the Knowledge Centre on our website, so consultants, regulators, and clients can see both the performance evidence and the reclamation lessons. The newer papers strengthen the record because they extend beyond immediate contaminant removal and examine what happens to soil function, crop response, and microbial communities over time.

That is a more credible story than a claim of instant or complete recovery. It shows that thermal desorption can reliably meet contaminant-reduction objectives, while successful return to agricultural use depends on planning for soil blending, fertility, organic carbon, and long-term monitoring.

At Nelson we're going to keep leaning into a higher standard of proof because customers deserve it. And because it’s what stands behind our promise of a healthier, safer, cleaner future. We know the work we do today has to hold up long after we've packed up and gone home. Because tomorrow matters.

Subscribe on LinkedIn

Sources and further reading

Peer-reviewed research downloads

Tioga project record

O’Brien et al. 2016: soil physical and hydraulic properties

O’Brien et al. 2017: wheat growth

Ritter et al. 2017: cation exchange chemistry

Ritter 2017: graduate thesis

Bartsch et al. 2022: four-year field assessment

O’Brien et al. 2024: project synthesis

Read the original LinkedIn edition