Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Sarah Cedro
Abstract
Phytoremediation is a new process that cleans heavy metal pollutants from soil and water using
specific plants that sorb and accumulate these elements as biomass. Ever since the industrial
revolution of the 18th century, heavy-metal pollutants have been contaminating soils and water
resources in US and worldwide. Mining sites are the main source of heavy-metal contaminants,
affecting large areas of land, most notably in China as well as in some parts of Europe and the
Americas. In many cases, agriculture has been stunted because of land and soil contamination,
which ultimately affect the populations’ health and livelihood. Many different technologies have
been used to mitigate heavy-metal pollution of the environment, but most have either negative
economical attributions or negative environmental side effects, or both. Phytoremediation, an
emerging remediation technology, has recently been shown to alleviate the heavy-metal
pollutants in soils and groundwater with improved sustainability compared to other commonly
applied technologies. Although, it is a promising technology, phytoremediation has yet to be
confirmed as the most effective and sustainable method to clean up heavy metal pollution in the
environment. Hence, further studies are being conducted both in the laboratory and in the field to
verify the technology potential and develop standardized application procedures. This paper is
an overview of the advancement of phytoremediation technology over the years and a few
selected case studies are presented to showcase particularly its economic feasibility and
sustainability.
1. Introduction
The first limitation is the fact that the plants must be either native to or can be cultivated
at the the polluted site. Even when the adverse factors such as some soil properties, toxicity level
and the effects of climate change may allow the plant growth, the extraction process is still
dependant on the growing conditions required such as climate, geology, altitude and temperature.
Along with this, in order for phytoremediation to be most effective, a lengthy analysis of the site
and the suitability of the plants are required. Specific pollutants are extracted most effectively by
specific plant species. This means success requires the tolerance of the selected plant species to
the specific pollutant. In order to find them, different studies must take place (Rungwa, 2013).
This process may be time consuming and expensive. Time requirements also vary on the process
itself once the studies have been made. Some plants take a couple days to extract a pollutant in
an area, some take months.
Another critical limitation is the plant root depth. The root of the plant must reach the
pool of pollutants in the subsurface in most cases. That limits most of the phytoremediation
processes to shallow ground water areas, near surface soil and sediment layers. Although, this
limitation has some release because the ground could be injected with the plant irrigation.
The bioavailability of the pollutant is another limitation. “If only a fraction of the
pollutant is bioavailable, but the regulatory cleanup standards require that all of the pollutant is
removed, phytoremediation is not applicable by itself” (Smits, 2005). Taking these limitations
into consideration, the most efficient application of phytoremediation may be to augment it with
other technologies.
Another shortcoming is, although using plants to extract pollutants is a “green” solution,
the plants themselves could be harmed by the pollutants. It is possible that animals could
consume these plants if not properly disposed of, causing harm to the animal population.. This
being said, same is true for most other clean-up methods. If the pollutants when concentrated in a
substrate have to be properly recovered, disposed of or made harmless. Meaning, the pollutants
have to go somewhere, and wherever they are or whatever they inhabit, they will still be harmful
pollutants.
Phytoremediation is still an emerging technology with insufficient studies to claim it is
the most e fficient and sustainable. All of the studies that have been done on it claim that it is
efficient and green, but there is still more to be done to confidently confirm those statements.
This being said, all of the studies on it taking its benefits and limitations into consideration and it
appears to be leading in a promising direction.
Table 1, shown below, illustrates the current technology’s goals, locations it can be used
for, the most effective plants identified for the technology and which pollutants each extracts
most effectively.
Table 1.
Rhizofiltration is using plants and their rhizosphere in a hydroponic setup “Trees can be
used a hydraulic barrier to create an upward water flow in the root zone, preventing
contamination to leach down, or to prevent a contaminated groundwater plume from spreading
horizontally” (Smits, 2005).
Phytostabilization is defined as using the plants in order to stabilize the pollutants that are
found in the soil. Plant populations can prevent erosion, leaching, and runoff, or convert
pollutants to their less bioavailable forms (Smits, 2005).
Phytoextraction is defined as using plants to extract the pollutants and gather them in
their tissues. The plants material is then harvested above ground. Post phytoextraction, the plants
can either be recycled or disposed of in a landfill.
Rhizodegradation is defined as using the plants to facilitate, with their rhizospheres,
biodegradation of organic pollutants by bacteria.
Phytodegradation is similar to rhizodegradation, except it is when the plants degrade the
pollutants with their own enzymatic activities.
Phytovolatilization is defined as using the plant tissue to convert the pollutant to its
volatile form because certain pollutants can leave the plant in a volatile form after uptake (Smits,
2005).
These phytoremediation technologies are not used exclusively. Many pollutants require
multiple stages of phytoremediation. For example, in wetland environment, the benefits of
accumulation, stabilization and volatilization can occur simultaneously (Smits, 2005). That being
said, different phytoremediation technologies are used for different classes of pollutants.
Additionally, certain plants respond better to specific phytoremediation process. Therefore, site
specific studies are necessary prior to technology application to find the most suitable plant
species, technology and pollutant. In these studies the question being answered should be: which
plant cleans this pollutant up most effectively with which technology?
Methods
In situ phytoremediation is the physical act of putting a live plant in the contaminated
area. The downside is that the plant must be able to reach the contaminant, and the upside is that
it is known as the least expensive method. In-vivo phytoremediation is where the contaminant is
removed from the site and exposed to the plants that remove the contaminant most productively.
In vitro phytoremediation is the most expensive and method where components such as enzymes
are extracted from the plants and then exposed to the contaminants (Susarla, 1999).
Mechanisms of Phytoremediation
Phytoextraction is the act of plants extracting the contaminant from its location.
Phytoaccumulation is when the contaminant bleeds into the plants. The two mechanisms used to
reduce migration of contaminants are phytopumping and phytostabilization. Phytopumping is the
act of plants ‘pumping’ the contaminants out of its location. Phytostabilization uses the plant
roots to alter soil moisture content (Susarla, 1999). Phytotransformation and phytodegradation
are when the contaminants are deteriorated by components of plants such as enzymes.
Phytovolatilization is when the plants convert the contaminant into a volatile form, after which it
is extracted from its location. Rhizodegradation takes advantage of the biological factors of the
plants by enhancing their bacterial and fungal activity within the rhizosphere zone.
Application of Phytoremediation
Munition is the plants ability to transform the contaminants such as trinitrotoluene (TNT)
from its location without any microbial action (susarla). According to Susarla’s case study,
wetlands can effectively remove TNT within 12 days for streams with high concentrations of
TNT. TNT is the most widely studied munition for plants. Chlorinated solvents such as
trichloroethylene (TCE) and tetrachloroethylene (PCE) are widely used chemical and as a result,
are some of the the most common contaminants in water throughout the country.
Phytoremediation has been a successful application for removing/oxidizing TCE in the
rhizosphere in certain types of plants (Susarla, 1999).
Pollutant Bioavailability
This is one of the limitations explained. Pion-Smits studied this limitation and realized
that “amendments may be added to soil that make metal cations more bioavailable for plant
uptake”. Manipulation soil pH and optimizing water supply may also affect the mobility of the
plant, which increases the bioavailability.
Rhizosphere Processes and Remediation
This limitation has to do with the difficulty of telling the difference between the effects
from the plant of the rhizosphere microbes. In order to relieve this limitation, sterile plants and
microbial isolates were used in lab studies. The two ways to optimize the process is to choose
certain vegetation, and grow the microbial isolates in large quantities.
Plant Uptake
Plant uptake is different organic and inorganic pollutants. There are no transporters for the
compounds in pollutants that are manmade (organic). The transporters occur naturally in
inorganic pollutants because the pollutants are either nutrients themselves or have similar
chemical properties. In order to improve plant uptake is to introduce rhizosphere microbes.
Translocation
This process requires a membrane to transport from the root implant into the xylem
apoplast. Although, “the impermeable suberin layer in the cell wall of the root endodermis
prevents solutes from flowing straight from the soil solution into the root xylem”. In order to
make this process more efficient, having it take place in higher temperatures, with moderate
wind, low relative air humidity and high light exposure.
As researchers and scientists learn more about this process of phytoremediation, a
growing acceptance has been spread through the past ten years. It is a more sustainable process
than many other technologies used to clean heavy metal pollutants. Research has proven that it is
cost effective, and this particular study shows that its limitations have ways to get around them.
5. Phytoremediation Case Studies
This study highlighted the fact that relieving soil heavy-metal pollution is very important,
but it can get expensive. Phytoremediation is one of the ways of addressing this problem, but
there has been very little study on the cost analysis of the procedure. This study focused to
determine if phytoremediation or other technologies were more expensive, “favoring work on
reducing costs”, which can help select the right technology to use.
The study took place in Huanjiang County in southwest China where Pb-Zn mines are
distributed and nonferrous mineral resources are rich. These mines spilled in a river during a
massive flood, polluting the water and about 700ha of soil in the vicinity. This either destroyed
or badly damaged crop growth at nearby farms. The soils were tested with quality control before
and after remediation to determine the change in contamination levels.
The costs were split up between initial capital, including the pollution investigation,
establishment of remediation strategy, soil preparation, construction or purchase of nursery
equipment, temporary store, irrigation system, incineration equipment; and the operational costs,
including the cost of labor, cost of large machines, other direct/indirect costs.
Before remediation, the results showed how the average concentrations of As and Pb in
the soil were all higher than the national standards, but the Cd concentration were lower than the
standard. Along with that, certain soils downstream showed concentrations of heavy-metals
higher than the national maximum in food products.
Post remediation, all of the levels decreased during the two year study period
significantly. All of them met national standards which allowed farmers to start growing and
selling crops once again. The resulting cost of phytoremediation was $75,375.2/(hm)^2, or
$37/m^3, as shown in Table 1. This cost was lower than most technologies used to remediate
HM pollution and has a projected benefit to offset the projects within seven years. This
long-term study showed clearly that phytoremediation is the more cost efficient way to
decontaminate soils.
The different types of phytoremediation are discussed earlier in this review, and this
article mainly focuses on phytoextraction, which is a safe way of removing heavy metals from
contaminated sites. This article reported on the effectiveness of sunflower stems for
phytoextraction of Pb and Cd from impacted soils.
Pots were filled with soil with different concentrations of the heavy metals (Pb and Cd).
Sunflower plant stems were then sown on perlite sand soil mixture in plastic pots and irrigated
with distilled water for two weeks. After eight weeks, the pots were gently removed and
prepared for measurement. Pots with very high metal concentrations resulted in the death of the
plant. Pots with moderate levels resulted in the browning/yellowing of the plant. Lower
concentrations of Pb and Cd in soil resulted growth of the plant. The most growth was that of the
control plant with no metal concentrations.
Sunflowers are used in phytoremediation because of the high tolerance they have to
heavy metals that contaminate other plants. When measuring plants ability to uptake metal ions,
bioaccumulation and translocation factors have been useful. The study showed, also illustrated in
Table 2, how the Sunflower stems have the ability to accumulate Pb and Cd. Important to note
that Cd was favorable to Pb, as the sunflower stems removed Cd from the contaminated soils
more effectively.
Potential of enhanced phytotechnologies by Nazare Couto, Paula Guedes, Dong-Mei Zhou and
Alexandra B. Ribeiro
Papua New Guinea has been home to many mining sites since 1888, 22 of which are
currently operating. This has caused an uprise in concern ever since the realization that the Ok
Tedi mining company and the Lihir gold mining company are both depositing waste that end up
in the Pacific Ocean. For the past 70 years of operation, all of these mining companies have been
creating a large amount of heavy metals such as Cd, Cu, Fe, Hg, Pb, Zn, which severely impact
the rich biodiversity in Papua New Guinea.
Phytoremediation was introduced in this review as a possible solution. This review
focuses on what phytoremediation is, the different classes of phytoremediation, the advantages
and disadvantages or phytoremediation, the applications of phytoremediation and how it applies
to the case study done in Papua New Guinea. Phytoremediation is most effective when using the
plant that cleans the heavy-metals from the contaminated site most efficiently is used, and this
study suggests which plants could be used in the studied sites throughout Papua New Guinea.
The case study was done in the WauNamie mining site that has been since closed. It was
broken into two different phases: 1) basic research on the environment of the rehabilitation site
along with data collection and 2) identify suggestions for which plants species could clean up the
heavy metals. After nineteen years of closure, randoms samples were taken throughout the study
site and separated into three components: water, soil, garden food.
Mercury was analysed using the cold vapour atomic absorption spectrophotometer
(CVAAS) technique while all other samples were analysed using the inductive coupling plasma
(ICP) technique. Table 4 illustrates the data that was collected. Incredibly high amounts of
heavy metals were found in soils while less were found in creeks, ponds and garden foods.
Table 4. Results of Average HEavy Metals Concentrations in Namie rehabilitated mine site.
The potential plant species identified are Piper anduncum, Brachiariareptans and
Phragmites Karka. These were chosen because of the close vicinity to the sites and also their
ability to undergo harsh conditions the heavy-metals create. This case study did not conduct the
further investigation of whether or not these plants effectively clean these heavy metals. A
further study needs to take place in order to confirm these plant species effectiveness.
The actual study uses 0.4 hectares (1 acre) of the study site. Prior to the study, the soil
was tilled and homogenized with the organic amendments added to the soil. The soil and ground
were mixed uniformly to a depth of 0.3 meters and then the plants and organic amendments were
planted. After planting, the site was irrigated once. Based on the previous study, the Panicum
virgatum and Andropogon scoparius plant species were selected. The results were collected and
plotted into graphs and tables shown below.
Table 5. Material quantities and the distance of materials to the field site
Table 7. Environmental impacts from production of required quantity of each amendment and its
transportation to field site.
6. Conclusion
Couto, Nazaré, Guedes, Paula, Zhou, Dong-Mei, B. Ribeiro, Alexandra (2014). “Integrated
perspectives of a greenhouse study to upgrade an antimony and arsenic mine soil - Potential of
enhanced phytotechnologies.” Chemical Engineering Journal, ELSEVIER.
Reddy, Krishna R., Amaya-Santos, Gema, Kumar, Girish, (2017). “Environmental Sustainability
Assessment of Soil Amendments for Enhanced Phytoremediation.” Urbanization Challenges in
SCE.
Emerging Economies, A
Rungwa, Stanley, Arpa, Gabriel, Sakulas, harry, Harakuwe, Anthony, Timi’a (2013).
“Phytoremediation - An Eco-Friendly and Sustainable Method of Heavy Metal Removal from
Closed Mine Environments in Papua New Guinea.” Procedia Earth and Planetary Science,
ELSEVIER.
Thewys, T., Witters, N., Meers, E., Vangronsveld, J. (2010). “Economic viability of
phytoremediation of a cadmium contaminated agricultural area using energy maize. Part II:
Economics of anaerobic digestion of metal contaminated maize in Belgium.” International
AYLOR & FRANCIS.
Journal of Phytoremediation, T
Wan, Xiaoming, Lei, Mei, Chen, Tongbin (2015). “Cost-benefit calculation of phytoremediation
technology for heavy-metal-contaminated soil.” Science of the Total Environment, ELSEVIER.
Witters, N., Mendelsohn, R.O., Van Slycken, S. Van, Weyens, N., Schreurs, E., Meers, E., Tack,
F., Carleer, R., Vangronsveld, J. (2011). “Phytoremediation, a sustaiable remediation
technology? Conclusions from a case study. I: Energy production and carbon dioxide
abatement.” Biomass and Bioenergy, ELSEVIER.