Electrokinetic remediation methods for removal of heavy metals from polluted soils have been subjected for quite intense research during the past years since these methods are well suitable for fine-grained soils where other remediation methods fail. Electrodialytic remediation is an electrokinetic remediation method which is based on applying an electric dc field and the use of ion exchange membranes that ensures the main transport of heavy metals to be out of the pollutes soil. An experimental investigation was made with electrodialytic removal of Cu from spiked kaolinite, spiked soil and industrially polluted soil under the same operational conditions (constant current density 0.2 mA/cm(2) and duration 28 days). The results of the present paper show that caution must be taken when generalising results obtained in spiked kaolinite to remediation of industrially polluted soils, as it was shown that the removal rate was higher in kaolinite than in both spiked soil and industrial polluted soil. The duration of spiking was found to be an important factor too, when attempting to relate remediation of spiked soil or kaolinite to remediation of industrially polluted soils. Spiking for 2 days was too short. However, spiking for 30 days resulted in a pattern that was more similar to that of industrially polluted soils with similar compositions both regarding sequential extraction and electrodialytic remediation result, though the remediation still progressed slightly faster in the spiked soil. Generalisation of remediation results to a variety of soil types must on the other hand be done with caution since the remediation results of different industrially polluted soils were very different. In one soil a total of 76% Cu was removed and in another soil no Cu was removed only redistributed within the soil. The factor with the highest influence on removal success was soil pH, which must be low in order to mobilize Cu, and thus the buffering capacity against acidification was the key soil characteristics determining the Cu removal rate. (c) 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.