|
Freshwater Management
Series No. 7
Phytotechnologies
A Technical
Approach in Environmental Management
III. Examples
of Environmental Applications of Phytotechnology >
H. Phytoremediation
Phytoremediation is the term that refers to the use of plants for cleaning
up contaminants in soil, groundwater, surface water and air. The use of phytoremediation
can be a non-polluting and costeffective way to remove or stabilize toxic chemicals
that might otherwise be leached out of the soil by rain to contaminate nearby
watercourses. It is also a way of concentrating and harvesting valuable metals
that are thinly dispersed in the ground, and offers an attractive option for
the remediation of brownfield sites. Phytoremediation encompasses several methodologies,
including:
 |
• |
phytoextraction or phytoconcentration, where the contaminant
is concentrated in the roots,stem and foliage of the plant, |
 |
• |
phytodegradation, where plant enzymes help catalyze breakdown
of the contaminantmolecule, |
 |
• |
rhizosphere biodegradation, where plant roots release nutrients to microorganisms
which are active in biodegradation of the contaminant molecule, |
| |
• |
volatilization, where transpiration of organics, selenium and mercury
run through leaves of the plant, |
 |
• |
stabilization, where the plant converts the contaminant into a form which
is not bioavailable, or the plant prevents the spreading of a contaminant
plume. |
The principal application of phytoremediation is for lightly contaminated
soils, sludges and waters where the material to be treated is at a shallow
or medium depth and the area to be treated is large, so that agronomic techniques
are economical and applicable for both planting and harvesting. In addition,
the site owner must be prepared to accept a longer remediation period.
Plants used to decontaminate soils must do one or more of the following:
 |
• |
take up contaminants from soil particles and/or soil liquid
into their roots, |
 |
• |
bind the contaminant into their root tissue, physically and/or
chemically, |
 |
• |
transport the contaminant from their roots into growing shoots, |
 |
• |
prevent or inhibit the contaminant from leaching out of the
soil. |
 |
The plants should not only accumulate, degrade or volatilize the contaminants,
but should also grow quickly in a range of different conditions and lend themselves
to easy harvesting. If the plants are left to die in situ, the contaminants
will return to the soil. For complete removal of contaminants from an area,
the plants must be cut and disposed of elsewhere in a nonpolluting way. Some
examples of plants used in phyoremediation practices are water hyacinths (Eichhornia
crassipes), poplar tress (Papulus spp), forage kochia (Kochia
spp), alfalfa
(Medicago sativa), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), Scirpus
spp, coontail (Ceratophyllum demersvm L.), American pondweed (Potamogeton
nodosus) and the
emergent common arrowhead (Sagittaria latifolia) amongst others.
Typically, researchers look for suitable phytoremediation properties among
both cultivated and wild varieties of plants. If suitable wild species are
not available, researchers can try to improve the effectiveness of phytoremediation
by introducing different genetic varieties. One way this is done is by soaking
seeds in a mutation-producing chemical, then screening the germinated seedlings
for contaminant tolerance in artificial solutions containing various concentrations
of the particular contaminant(s) of concern. Testing is carried out in batches
of at least 50,000 seedlings at a time. The most tolerant and vigorously growing
plants are analyzed for their contaminant content and the best of them are
bred to produce a line of improved plants.
Although phytoremediation has not been used extensively, it has many advantages:
 |
• |
It is low cost in comparison to current “mechanical” methods
for soil remediation. |
 |
• |
It is passive and solar. |
 |
• |
It is faster than natural attenuation. |
| |
• |
The amount of contaminated material going to landfills can be greatly
reduced. |
| |
• |
Energy can be recovered from the controlled combustion of the harvested
biomass. |
| |
• |
It is low impact and public acceptance of phytoremediation
is expected to be high. |
A major barrier to the implementation of phytoremediation is that it is new
and not fully developed. There is little regulatory experience with phytoremediation
and it has to be considered on a site by site basis. Furthermore, the intrinsic
characteristics of phytoremediation limit the size of the niche that it occupies
in the site remediation market.
Some of the other limitations to phytoremediation are as follows:
| |
• |
It is generally slower than most other treatment methods
and is climate dependent. |
| |
• |
In most cases, the contamination to be treated must be shallow. |
| |
• |
It usually requires nutrient addition, and mass transfer
is limited. |
| |
• |
High metal and other contaminant concentrations can be toxic to the plants,
although some plants have greater adaptation to toxicity than others. |
| |
• |
Access to the site must be controlled, as the plants may be harmful to
livestock and the general public. |
| |
• |
The contaminants being treated by phytoremediation may be transferre
d across media (i.e., they may enter groundwater or may bioaccumulate in
animals). |
| |
• |
For mixed contaminant sites (i.e., organic and inorganic) more than one
phytoremediation methodology may be required. |
| |
• |
The site must be large enough to utilize agricultural machinery for planting
and harvesting. |
Momentum for the use of phytoremediation as a cleanup technique is building,
particularly in application niches where other technologies are less suitable
or do not exist. There will also likely be combined applications of bioremediation and phytoremediation. Table 7 illustrates how other remediation techniques
compare to phytoremediation.
Table 7: Comparing Other Remediation Techniques to Phytoremediation
| Treatment Name |
Advantages Compared
to Phytoremediation |
Disadvantages Compared
to Phytoremediation |
| Solidification /
Stabilization |
Not seasonally dependent;
well established; rapid; applicable to most metals and organics; simple
to operate during treatment. |
Site is not restored
to original form; leaching of the contaminant is a risk; can result in
a significant volume increase. |
| Soil Flushing / Soil
Washing |
Not seasonally dependent,
except in cold climates; methods well established for several types of
sites and contamination. |
Removal of metals
using water flushing requires pH change;additional treatment steps and
chemical handling add complexity and cost; possible lengthy
period of treatment. |
| Bioremediation |
Established and accepted;
a bioreactor can be utilized for exsiting work; may be faster than phytoremediation. |
Requires nutrient
addition at a much greater level than phytoremediation; applicable to
organics only. |
| Electrokinetics |
Not seasonally dependent;
can be used in conjunction with phytoremediation to enhance rhizosphere
biodegradation. |
Useful for soil only,
not wetlands;
uniformity of soil conditions is required. |
| Chemical Reduction
/ Oxidation |
Not seasonally dependent; relatively short treatment time frame; usually
off site. |
Requires excavation; uses chemical additives; fertility of the soil after
treatment may be damaged. |
| Excavation / Disposal |
Rapid, immediate solution for site owner. |
Transfers contaminants to landfill; does not treat. |
|