Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 16, Issue 7, pp 745–764 | Cite as

Phytoremediation as a management option for contaminated sediments in tidal marshes, flood control areas and dredged sediment landfill sites

  • Valérie BertEmail author
  • Piet Seuntjens
  • Winnie Dejonghe
  • Sophie Lacherez
  • Hoang Thi Thanh Thuy
  • Bart Vandecasteele
COST ACTION 859 • PHYTOREMEDIATION • REVIEW ARTICLE

Abstract

Background, aim and scope

Polluted sediments in rivers may be transported by the river to the sea, spread over river banks and tidal marshes or managed, i.e. actively dredged and disposed of on land. Once sedimented on tidal marshes, alluvial areas or control flood areas, the polluted sediments enter semi-terrestrial ecosystems or agro-ecosystems and may pose a risk. Disposal of polluted dredged sediments on land may also lead to certain risks. Up to a few years ago, contaminated dredged sediments were placed in confined disposal facilities. The European policy encourages sediment valorisation and this will be a technological challenge for the near future. Currently, contaminated dredged sediments are often not valorisable due to their high content of contaminants and their consequent hazardous properties. In addition, it is generally admitted that treatment and re-use of heavily contaminated dredged sediments is not a cost-effective alternative to confined disposal. For contaminated sediments and associated disposal facilities used in the past, a realistic, low cost, safe, ecologically sound and sustainable management option is required. In this context, phytoremediation is proposed in the literature as a management option. The aim of this paper is to review the current knowledge on management, (phyto)remediation and associated risks in the particular case of sediments contaminated with organic and inorganic pollutants.

Main features

This paper deals with the following features: (1) management and remediation of contaminated sediments and associated risk assessment; (2) management options for ecosystems on polluted sediments, based on phytoremediation of contaminated sediments with focus on phytoextraction, phytostabilisation and phytoremediation of organic pollutants and (3) microbial and mycorrhizal processes occurring in contaminated sediments during phytoremediation.

Results

In this review, an overview is given of phytoremediation as a management option for semi-terrestrial and terrestrial ecosystems affected by polluted sediments, and the processes affecting pollutant bioavailability in the sediments. Studies that combine contaminated sediment and phytoremediation are relatively recent and are increasing in number since few years. Several papers suggest including phytoremediation in a management scheme for contaminated dredged sediments and state that phytoremediation can contribute to the revaluation of land-disposed contaminated sediments. The status of sediments, i.e. reduced or oxidised, highly influences contaminant mobility, its (eco)toxicity and the success of phytoremediation. Studies are performed either on near-fresh sediment or on sediment-derived soil. Field studies show temporal negative effects on plant growth due to oxidation and subsequent ageing of contaminated sediments disposed on land. The review shows that a large variety of plants and trees are able to colonise or develop on contaminated dredged sediment in particular conditions or events (e.g. high level of organic matter, clay and moisture content, flooding, seasonal hydrological variations). Depending on the studies, trees, high-biomass crop species and graminaceous species could be used to degrade organic pollutants, to extract or to stabilise inorganic pollutants. Water content of sediment is a limiting factor for mycorrhizal development. In sediment, specific bacteria may enhance the mobilisation of inorganic contaminants whereas others may participate in their immobilisation. Bacteria are also able to degrade organic pollutants. Their actions may be increased in the presence of plants.

Discussion

Choice of plants is particularly crucial for phytoremediation success on contaminated sediments. Extremely few studies are long-term field-based studies. Short-term effects and resilience of ecosystems is observed in long-term studies, i.e. due to degradation and stabilisation of pollutants. Terrestrial ecosystems affected by polluted sediments range from riverine tidal marshes with several interacting processes and vegetation development mainly determined by hydrology, over alluvial soils affected by overbank sedimentation (including flood control areas), to dredged sediment disposal facilities where hydrology and vegetation might be affected or managed by human intervention. This gradient is also a gradient of systems with highly variable soil and hydrological conditions in a temporal scale (tidal marshes) versus systems with a distinct soil development over time (dredged sediment landfill sites).

Conclusions

In some circumstances (e.g. to avoid flooding or to ensure navigation) dredging operations are necessary. Management and remediation of contaminated sediments are necessary to reduce the ecological risks and risks associated with food chain contamination and leaching. Besides disposal, classical remediation technologies for contaminated sediment also extract or destroy contaminants. These techniques imply the sediment structure deterioration and prohibitive costs. On the contrary, phytoremediation could be a low-cost option, particularly suited to in situ remediation of large sites and environmentally friendly. However, phytoremediation is rarely included in the management scheme of contaminated sediment and accepted as a viable option.

Perspectives

Phytoremediation is still an emerging technology that has to prove its sustainability at field scale. Research needs to focus on optimisations to enhance applicability and to address the economic feasibility of phytoremediation.

Keywords

Bioaccumulation Bioavailability Biomass recovery Contaminated sediment Ecosystem Flooding Management option Microorganisms Phytostabilisation Phytoextraction Rhizodegradation Risk assessment Seasonal hydrological variations 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This review was written by members of Working Group 4 (integration and application of phytotechnologies) of COST Action 859 (phytotechnologies to promote sustainable land use and improve food safety). COST is financed by the European Commission, with ESF as implementing agent.

References

  1. Abou-Shanab RA, Ghanem K, Ghanem N, Al-Kolaibe A (2008) The role of bacteria on heavy-metal extraction and uptake by plants growing on multi-metal-contaminated soils. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 24:253–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alkorta I, Garbisu C (2001) Phytoremediation of organic contaminants in soils. Bioresour Technol 79:273–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amon JP, Agrawal A, Shelley ML, Opperman BC, Enright MP, Clemmer ND, Slusser T, Lach J, Sobolewski T, Gruner W, Entingh AC (2007) Development of a wetland constructed for the treatment of groundwater contaminated by chlorinated ethenes. Ecol Engineering 30:51–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Armstrong W (1979) Aeration in higher plants. Adv Bot Res 7:225–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Atlas RM (1981) Microbial degradation of petroleum hydrocarbons: an environmental perspective. Microbiol Rev 45:180–209Google Scholar
  6. Bedard DL (2008) A case study for microbial biodegradation: anaerobic bacterial reductive dechlorination of polychlorinated biphenyls—from sediment to defined medium. Annu Rev Microbiol 62:25–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bert V (2008) Phytostab: Etude de la perennité du traitement de phytostabilisation. Verneuil en Halatte, INERIS-Rapport DRC-09-83432-00296A, 50 ppGoogle Scholar
  8. Bert V, Girondelot B, Quatannens V, Laboudigue A (2005a) A Phytostabilisation of a metal polluted dredged sediment deposit—Mesocosm experiment and field trial. Proceedings of the 9th International FZK/TNO Conference on Soil–Water Systems, Remediation Concepts and Technologies. Uhlmann O, Annokkée GJ, Arendt F (eds) Bordeaux, Fr, pp 1544–1550Google Scholar
  9. Bert V, Quatannens V, Lors Ch, Ponge JF and Laboudigue A (2005b) Assessment of phytostabilisation efficiency using biological and physicochemical tools. Abstract Book of the 1st Scientific Workshop of COST Action 859, Pise, It, pp144–145Google Scholar
  10. Bert V, Caron L, Lors Ch, Biaz A, Ponge JF, Dazy M Masfaraud JF (2007) Is Phytostabilization a sustainable technology for metal contaminated sediment. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on the Biogeochemistry of Trace Elements, special symposium on plant-based technologies to remediate contaminated soils and sediments: processes, bioavailability, sustainability, consequences for ecosystems and human health (Ed. by Y Zhu, N Lepp, R Naidu). ISBN 978-7-302-15627-7. Pékin, Ch, pp 155–156Google Scholar
  11. Bert V, Lors Ch, Laboudigue A, Tack K, Damidot D, Bureau J (2008) Use of phytostabilisation to remediate metal polluted dredged sediment. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Sediment Management (I2SM) (Ed. by NE Abriak, D Damidot, R Zentar). Lille, Fr, pp 275–279Google Scholar
  12. Bortone G, Arevalo E, deibel I, Detzner HD, de Propris L, Elskens F, Giordano A, Hakstege P, Hamer K, Harmsen J, Hauge A, Palumbo L, van Veen J (2004) Sediment and dredged material treatment. J Soils Sediments 4(4):225–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burke DJ, Hamerlynck EP, Hahn D (2003) Interactions between the salt marsh grass Spartina patens, arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and sediment bacteria during the growing season. Soil Biol Biochem 35:501–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cambrollé J, Redondo-Gomez S, Mateos-Naranjo E, Figueroa ME (2008) Comparison of the role of two Spartina species in terms of phytostabilisation and bioaccumulation of metals in the estuarine sediment. Mar Poll Bull 56:2037–2042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cappuyns V, Swennen R (2005) Kinetics of element release during combined oxidation and pH(stat) leaching of anoxic river sediments. Appl Geochem 20:1169–1179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cerniglia CE (1992) Biodegradation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Biodegradation 3:351–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chen SY, Lin JG (2004) Bioleaching of heavy metals from contaminated sediments by indigenous sulfur-oxidizing bacteria in an air-lift bioreactor: effects of sulfur concentration. Water Res 38:3205–3214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chen SY, Lin JG (2009) Enhancement of metal bioleaching from contaminated sediment using silver ion. J Hazard Mat 161:893–899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Conant B, Cherry JA, Gillham RW (2004) A PCE groundwater plume discharging into a river: influence of the streambed and near-river zone on contaminant distributions. J Contam Hydrol 73:249–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cornelis C, Bierkens J, Joris I, Nielsen P, Pensaert S (2006) Quality criteria for re-use of organotin-containing sediments on land. J Soils Sediments 6:156–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Coulon F, McKew BA, Osborn AM, McGenity TJ, Timmis KN (2007) Effects of temperature and biostimulation on oil-degrading microbial communities in temperate estuarine waters. Environ Microbiol 9:177–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cutter LA, Watts JEM, Sowers KR, May HD (2001) Identification of a microorganism that links its growth to the reductive dechlorination of 2, 3, 5, 6-chlorobiphenyl. Environ Microbiol 3:699–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Di Nanno MP, Curutchet G, Ratto S (2007) Anaerobic sediment potential acidification and metal release risk assessment by chemical characterization and batch resuspension experiments. J Soils Sediments 7(3):187–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Driscoll SBK, Wickwire WT, Cura JJ, Vorhees DJ, Butler CL, Moore DW, Bridges TS (2002) A comparative screening-level ecological and human health risk assessment for dredged material management alternatives in New York/New Jersey Harbor. Human Ecol Risk Assess 8:603–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Du Laing G, Van Ryckegem G, Tack FMG, Verloo MG (2006) Metal accumulation in intertidal litter through decomposing leaf blades, sheats and stems of Phragmites australis. Chemosphere 63:1815–1823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Du Laing G, Bontinck A, Samson R, Vandecasteele B, Vanthuyne DRJ, Meers E, Lesage E, Tack FMG, Verloo MG (2008) Effect of decomposing litter on the mobility and availability of metals in the soil of a recently created floodplain. Geoderma 147:34–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Du Laing G, Rinklebe J, Vandecasteele B, Meers E, Tack FMG (2009) Trace metal behaviour in estuarine and riverine floodplain soils and sediments: a review. Sci Tot Environ 407(13):3972–85. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.07.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. El Fantroussi S, Naveau H, Agathos SN (1998) Anaerobic dechlorinating bacteria. Biotechnol Prog 14:167–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ellis LBM, Hou BK, Kang W, Wackett LP (2003) The University of Minnesota biocatalysis/biodegradation database: postgenomic datamining. Nucleic Acids Res 31:262–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Euliss K, Ho CH, Schwab AP, Rock S, Katherine Banks M (2008) Greenhouse and field assessment of phytoremediation for petroleum contaminants in a riparian zone. Bioresour Technol 99:1961–1971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fagervold SK, May HD, Sowers KR (2007) Microbial reductive dechlorination of Aroclor 1260 in Baltimore Harbor sediment microcosms is catalyzed by three phylotypes within the phylum Chloroflexi. Appl Environ Microbiol 73:3009–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Field JA, Sierra-Alvarez R (2008) Microbial transformation and degradation of polychlorinated biphenyls. Environ Pollut 155:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Foerstner U, Apitz S (2007) Sediment remediation: US focus on capping and monitored natural recovery—Fourth international Battelle Conference on remediation of contaminated sediments. J Soils Sediments 7:351–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gambrell RP, Collard V, Patrick WH Jr (1980) Cadmium uptake by marsh plants as affected by sediment physicochemical conditions. In: Baker RA (ed) Contaminants and sediments Vol. 2. Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, pp 425–443Google Scholar
  35. Garbisu C, Alkorta I (2001) Phytoextraction: a cost-effective plant-based technology for the removal of metals from the environment. Bioresource Technol 77:229–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Guo CL, Zhou HW, Wong YS, Tam NFY (2005) Isolation of PAH-degrading bacteria from mangrove sediments and their biodegradation potential. Mar pollut bull 51:1054–1061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. de Haan W, Otten KJ, Heynen JJM, Folkerts H, Elsman M (1998) Field monitoring of ripening of dredged material at three sites in the Netherlands (preliminary results). Water Sci Technol 36:371–378Google Scholar
  38. Hamonts K, Ryngaert A, Maesen M, Bastiaens L, Kuhn T, Meckenstock R, Sturme M, Smidt H, Peters NH, Kalka H, Dijk J, Springael D, Dejonghe W (2006) Sediment biobarriers for chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons in groundwater reaching surface water. In: Proceedings of the fifth International Conference on remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds, Battelle Press, Columbus, OhioGoogle Scholar
  39. Harmsen J (2004) Landfarming of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and mineral oil contaminated sediments. PhD-Thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 344 pp. ISBN 90-8504-112-0, http://library.wur.nl/wda/dissertations/dis3662.pdf
  40. Harmsen J, Rulkens WH, Sims RC, Rijtema PE, Zweers AJ (2007a) Theory and application of landfarming to remediate polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and mineral oil-contaminated sediments; beneficial reuse. J Env Qual 36:1112–1122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Harmsen J, van den Toorn A, Vermeulen B, Ma W, van der Waarde J, Duijn R, Kampf R (1999) Growing biomass to stimulate bioremediation: technical and economical perspective. Proc. 1999 Batelle Conference, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  42. Hasselgren K (1994) Landfill leachate treatment in energy forest plantations. In: Aronsson P, Perttu K (eds) Willow vegetation filters for municipal wastewater and sludges. Swedish university of agricultural sciences, Uppsala, pp 215–217Google Scholar
  43. Heise S, Apitz SE, Babut M, Bergmann H, den Besten P, Ellen GJ, Joziasse J, Katsiri A, Maab V, Oen A, Slob A, White S (2004) Sediment risk management and communication. J Soils Sediments 4(4):233–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Jacob DL, Otte ML (2003) Conflicting processes in the wetland plant rhizosphere: metal retention or mobilization? Water Air Soil Pollut 3:91–104Google Scholar
  45. Jacob DL, Otte ML (2004) Long-term effects of submergence and wetland vegetation on metals in a 90-year old abandoned Pb-Zn mine tailings pond. Environ Pollut 130:337–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Harmsen J, Rulkens WH, Sims RC, Rijtema PE, Zweers AJ (2007b) Theory and application of landfarming to remediate polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and mineral oil-contaminated sediments; beneficial reuse. J Environ Quality 36(4):1112–1122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Holliger C, Wohlfarth G, Diekert G (1999) Reductive dechlorination in the energy metabolism of anaerobic bacteria. FEMS Microbiol Rev 22:383–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Huguet S, Lacherez S, Laboudigue A, Sarret G, Bert V (2007) Phytoextraction and hyperaccumulating plant: is it possible? Abstract Book of workshop of WG2 ang WG4 of COST Action 859. ISBN 978-9955-28-123-8. Vilnius, Lt, pp 202–203Google Scholar
  49. Juhasz AL, Naidu R (2000) Bioremediation of high molecular weight polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: a review of the microbial degradation of benzo[a ]pyrene International. Biodeterior Biodegrad 45:57–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ke L, Wang WQ, Wong TWY, Wong YS, Tam NFY (2003) Removal of pyrene from contaminated sediments by mangrove microcosms. Chemosphere 51:25–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kelly J, Champagne P, Michel F (2006) Mitigation of alkaline mine drainage in a natural wetland system. Proceedings of the 2nd international Geo-Environment and Landscape Evolution II. (ed. by Martin-Duque JF, Brebbia CA, Emmanouloudis DE, Mander U). Rhodes, GR, pp 115–124Google Scholar
  52. King RF, Royle A, Putwain PD, Dickinson NM (2006) Changing contaminant mobility in a dredged canal sediment during a three-year phytoremediation trial. Environ Poll 143:318–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kittelmann S, Friedrich MW (2008) Identification of novel perchloroethene-respiring microorganisms in anoxic river sediment by RNA-based stable isotope probing. Environ Microbiol 10:31–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Krumholz LR, Sharp R, Fishbain SS (1996) A freshwater anaerobe coupling acetate oxidation to tetrachloroethylene dehalogenation. Appl Environ Microbiol 62:4108–4113Google Scholar
  55. Kuzovkina YA, Quigley MF (2005) Willows beyond wetlands: uses of Salix L. species for environmental projects. Water Air Soil Pollut 162:183–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kwon SH, Hong HM, Choi JH, Whang KS, Lee HS, So JS, Koh SC (2008) Bioremediation of Aroclor 1242 by a consortium culture in marine sediment microcosm. Biotech Bioproc Engin 13:730–737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lacherez S (2007) Tolérance et accumulation du cadmium chez des populations métallicoles et non métallicoles d’Arabidopsis halleri. Verneuil en Halatte, INERIS-Rapport Master 1, pp 30Google Scholar
  58. Lee CR, Folsom BL Jr, Engler RM (1982) Availability and plant uptake of heavy metals from contaminated dredged material placed in flooded and upland disposal environments. Environ Int 7:65–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lee CR, Peddicord RK, Folsom BL Jr, Skogerboe JG (1987) The use of bioassay and associated tests in dredged material and disposal management. Hydrobiologia 149:81–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lejeune K, Galbraith H, Lipton J, Kapustka LA (1996) Effects of metals and arsenic on riparian communities in southwest Montana. Ecotoxicology 5:297–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Lepp NW, Madejón P (2007) Cadmium and zinc in vegetation and litter of a voluntary woodland that has developed on contaminated sediment-derived soil. J Environ Qual 36:1123–1131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Lin Q, Mendelssohn IA (1998) The combined effects of phytoremediation and biostimulation in enhancing habitat restoration and oil degradation of petroleum contaminated wetlands. Ecol Eng 10:263–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Lin Q, Mendelssohn IA (2008) Potential of restoration and phytoremediation with Juncus roemerianus for diesel-contaminated coastal wetlands. Ecol Eng . doi: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2008.09.010 Google Scholar
  64. Linkov I, Satterstrom FK, Kiker G, Seager TP, Bridges T, Gardner KH, Rogers SH, Belluck DA, Meyer A (2006) Multicriteria decision analysis: a comprehensive decision approach for management of contaminated sediments. Risk Anal 26:61–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Lions J, van der Lee J, Guerin V, Bataillard P, Laboudigue A (2007) Zinc and cadmium mobility in a 5-year-old dredged sediment deposit: experiments and modelling. J Soils Sediments 7(4):207–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Lors C, Tiffreau C, Laboudigue A (2004) Effects of bacterial activities on the release of heavy metals from contaminated dredged sediments. Chemosphere 56:619–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Luyssaert S, Mertens J, Vervaeke P, de Vos B, Lust N (2001) Preliminary results of afforestation of brackish sludge mounds. Ecol Eng 16:567–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Marseille F, Tiffreau C, Laboudigue A, Lecomte P (2000) Impact of vegetation on the mobility and bioavailability of trace elements in a dredged sediment deposit: a greenhouse study. Agronomie 20:547–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Master ER, Lai VWM, Kuipers B, Cullen WR, Mohn WM (2002) Sequential anaerobic-aerobic treatment of soil contaminated with weathered aroclor 1260. Environ Sci Technol 36:100–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. McCarty PL (1997) Breathing with chlorinated solvents. Science 276:1521–1522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. McKew BA, Coulon F, Osborn AM, Timmis KN, McGenity TJ (2007) Determining the identity and roles of oil-metabolizing marine bacteria from the Thames estuary, UK. Environ Microbiol 9:165–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Meagher RB (2000) Phytoremediation of toxic elemental and organic pollutants. Current Opinion Plant Biol 3:153–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Meers E, Vervaeke P, Tack FMG, Lust N, Verloo M, Lesage E (2003) Field trial experiment: phytoremediation with Salix sp. on a dredged sediment disposal site in Flanders, Belgium. Remediation J 13:87–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Meers E, Ruttens A, Hopgood M, Lesage E, Tack FMG (2005a) Potential of Brassica rapa, Cannabis sativa, Helianthus annuus and Zea mays for phytoextraction of heavy metals from calcareous dredged sediment derived soils. Chemosphere 61:561–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Meers E, Ruttens A, Hopgood M, Samson D, Tack FMG (2005b) Comparison of EDTA and EDDS as potential soil amendments for enhanced phytoextraction of heavy metals. Chemosphere 58:1011–1022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Meers E, Vandecasteele B, Ruttens A, Vangronsveld J, Tack FMG (2007) Potential of five willow species (Salix spp.) for phytoextraction of heavy metals. Environ Exp Bot 60:57–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Mertens J, Vervaeke P, De Schrijver A, Luyssaert S (2004) Metal uptake by young trees from dredged brackish sediment: limitations and possibilities for phytoextraction and phytostabilisation. Sci Tot Environ 326:209–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Mertens J, Van Nevel L, De Schrijver A, Piesschaert F, Oosterbaan A, Tack FMG, Verheyen K (2007) Tree species effect on the redistribution of soil metals. Environ Poll 149:173–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Miskewitz RJ, Hires RI, Korfiatis GP, Sidhoum M, Douglas WS, Su TL (2008) Laboratory measurements of the volatilization of PCBs from amended dredged material. Env Res 106:319–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Mulligan CN, Yong RN, Gibbs BF (2001) Remediation technologies for metal-contaminated soils and groundwater: an evaluation. Engineer Geol 60:193–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Olin-Estes TJ, Palermo MR (2001) Recovery of dredged material for beneficial use: the future role of physical separation processes. J Haz Mat 85:39–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Oliveira RS, Dodd JC, Castro PML (2001) The mycorrhizal status of Phragmites australis in several polluted soils and sediments of an industrialised region of Northern Portugal. Mycorrhiza 10:241–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Olson GJ, Brierley JA, Brierley CL (2003) Bioleaching review part B: progress in bioleaching: applications of microbial processes by the minerals industries. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 63:249–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Overesch M, Rinklebe J, Broll G, Neue HU (2007) Metals and arsenic in soils and corresponding vegetation at Central Elbe river floodplains (Germany). Environ Pollut 145:800–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Owens PN (2005) Conceptual models and budgets for sediment management at the river basin scale. J Soils Sediments 5(3):201–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Paisse S, Coulon F, Goni-Urriza M, Peperzak L, McGenity TJ, Duran R (2008) Structure of bacterial communities along a hydrocarbon contamination gradient in coastal sediment. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 66:295–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Panfili F, Manceau A, Sarret G, Spadini L, Kirpichtchikova T, Bert V, Laboudigue A, Marcus MA, Ahamdach N, Libert MF (2005) The effects of phytostabilization of Zn speciation in a dredged contaminated sediment using scanning electron microscopy, X-ray fluorescence, EXAFS spectroscopy and principal component analysis. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 69:2265–2284Google Scholar
  88. Peng JF, Song YH, Yuan P, Cui XY, Qiu GL (2009) The remediation of heavy metals contaminated sediment. J Haz Mat 161:633–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Perrodin Y, Babut M, Bedell JP, Bray M, Clement B, Delolme C, Devaux A, Durrieu C, Garric J, Montuelle B (2006) Assessment of ecotoxicological risks related to depositing dredged materials from canals in northern France on soil. Env Int 32:804–814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Piesschaert F, Mertens J, Huybrechts W, Rache PD (2005) Early vegetation succession and management options on a brackish sediment dike. Ecol Eng 25:349–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Porteous Moore F, Barac T, Borremans B, Oeyen L, Vangronsveld J, van der Lelie D, Campbell CD, Moore ERB (2006) Endophytic bacterial diversity in poplar trees growing on a BTEX-contaminated site: the characterisation of isolates with potential to enhance phytoremediation. Syst Appl Microbiol 29:559–556Google Scholar
  92. Prevost O (2008) Destination des sédiments fluviaux contaminés retirés des canaux: optimisation des filières et possibilités de valorisation. Tech Sci Méthodes 9:71–79Google Scholar
  93. Quatannens V (2004) Phytostabilisation de sédiments contaminés par les métaux: avantages et effets secondaires potentiels. Douai, CNRSSP-Rapport DESS GRNR 84 ppGoogle Scholar
  94. Ravit B, Ehrenfeld JG, Häggblom MM (2005) Salt marsh rhizosphere affects microbial biotransformation of the widespread halogenated contaminant tetrabromobisphenol-A (TBBPA). Soil Biol Biochem 37:1049–1057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Rohwerder T, Gehrke T, Kinzler K, Sand W (2003) Bioleaching review part A: progress in bioleaching: fundamentals and mechanisms of bacterial metal sulfide oxidation. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 63:239–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Röling WFM, Milner MG, Jones DM, Lee K, Daniel F, Swannell RJP, Head IM (2002) Robust hydrocarbon degradation and dynamics of bacterial communities during nutrient enhanced oil spill bioremediation. Appl Environ Microbiol 68:5537–5548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Ruttens A, Mench M, Colpaert JV, Boisson J, Carleer R, Vangronsveld J (2006) Phytostabilization of a metal contaminated sandy soil. I: influence of compost and/or inorganic metal immobilizing soil amendments on phytotoxicity and plant availability of metals. Environ Pollut 144:524–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Saeki K, Nabeshima A, Kunito T, Oshima Y (2007) The stability of butyltin compounds in a dredged heavily-contaminated sediment. Chemosphere 68:1114–1119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Schnoor JL (1998) Phytoremediation. Technology Evaluation Report TE-98-01. Prepared for Ground-Water Remediation Technology Analysis CenterGoogle Scholar
  100. Schroeder P, Harvey PJ, Schwitzguébel JP (2002) Prospects for the phytoremediation of organic pollutants in Europe. Environ Sci Pollut Res 9:1–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Schüürmann G, Markert B (1998) Ecotoxicology—ecological fundamentals, chemical exposure and biological effects. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  102. Schwitzguébel JP, van der Lelie D, Baker A, Glass DJ, Vangronsveld J (2002) Phytoremediation: European and American trends. J Soils Sediments 2(2):91–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Seidel H, Wennrich R, Hoffmann P, Loser C (2006) Effect of different types of elemental sulfur on bioleaching of heavy metals from contaminated sediments. Chemosphere 62:1444–1453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Seuntjens P, Vangheluwe, M, Ruttens A, Goeteyn F, Lock K, Janssen C, Vangronsveld J, Benijts F, Vanweesenbeeck V (2003) Chemical and ecotoxicological effects of sediments disposed on river banks of Flemish watercourses. Proceedings of Consoil 2003, 11–16 May 2003, Ghent, Belgium, pp 686–691Google Scholar
  105. Singh SP, Tack FM, Verloo MG (1998) Heavy metal fractionation and extractability in dredged sediment derived surface soils. Water, Air Soil Pollut 102:312–328Google Scholar
  106. Singh SP, Tack FMG, Gabriels D, Verloo MG (2000) Heavy mental transport from dredged sediment derived surface soils in a laboratory reinfall simulation experiment. Water, Air Soil Pollut 118:73–86Google Scholar
  107. Smidt H, de Vos WM (2004) Anaerobic microbial dehalogenation. Annu Rev Microbiol 58:43–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Smirnoff N, Crawford RMM (1983) Variation in the structure and response to flooding of root aerenchyma in some wetland plants. Ann Bot 51:237–249Google Scholar
  109. Smith KE, Schwab AP, Banks MK (2007) Phytoremediation of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)-contaminated sediment: a greenhouse feasibility study. J Environ Qual 36:239–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Smith KE, Schwab AP, Banks MK (2008) Dissipation of PAHs in saturated, dredged sediments: a field trial. Chemosphere 72:1614–1619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Smolders AJP, Moonen M, Zwaga K, Lucassen ECHET, Lamers LPM, Roelofs JGM (2006) Changes in pore water chemistry of desiccating freshwater sediments with different sulphur contents. Geoderma 132:372–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Stephens SR, Alloway BJ, Parker A, Carter JE, Hodson ME (2001) Changes in the leachability of metals from dredged canal sediments during drying and oxidation. Env Pollut 114:407–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Sung Y, Ritalahti KM, Sanford RA, Urbance JW, Flynn SJ, Tiedje JM, Löffler FE (2003) Characterization of two tetrachloroethene-reducing, acetate-oxidizing anaerobic bacteria and their description as Desulfuromonas michiganensis sp. nov. Appl Environ Microbiol 69:2964–2974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Tack FMG, Vandecasteele B (2008) Cycling and ecosystem impact of metals in contaminated calcareous dredged sediment-derived soils (Flanders, Belgium). Sci Tot Environ 400:283–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Tack FMG, Singh SP, Verloo MG (1999) Leaching behaviour of Cd, Cu, Pb and Zn in surface soils derived from dredged sediments. Env Pollut 106:107–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Tam NFY, Wong YS (2008) Effectiveness of bacterial inoculum and mangrove plants on remediation of sediment contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Mar Poll Bull 57:716–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Teal JM, Kanwisher JW (1966) Gas transport in the marsh grass Spartina alterniflora. J Exp Bot 17:355–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. USACE (2008) Upland Dredged Material Environmental Effects (UDMEED) databaseGoogle Scholar
  119. USEPA (2004) Phytoremediation Field Studies Database for Chlorinated Solvents, Pesticides, Explosives, and Metals. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation,Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  120. Valsaraj KT, Ravikrishna R, Choy B, Reible DD, Thibodeaux LJ, Price CB, Yost S, Brannon JM, Myers TE (1999) Air emissions from exposed contaminated sediments and dredged material. Environ Sci Technol 33:142–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Vandecasteele B, Quataert P, Tack FMG (2007) Uptake of Cd, Zn, and Mn by willow increases during terrestrialisation of initially ponded polluted sediments. Sci Tot Environ 380:133–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Vandecasteele B, Samyn J, De Vos B, Muys B (2008) Effect of tree species choice and mineral capping in a woodland phytostabilisation system: a case-study for calcareous dredged sediment landfills with oxidised topsoil. Ecol Eng 32:263–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Vassilev A, Schwitguebel JP, Thewys T, van der Lelie D, Vangronsveld J (2004) The use of plants for remediation of metal-contaminated soils. Scientific World J 4:9–34Google Scholar
  124. Vermeulen J, van Dijk SG, Grotenhuis JTC, Rulkens WH (2005) Quantification of physical properties of dredged sediments during physical ripening. Geoderma 129:147–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Vermeulen J, van Gool MPM, Dorleijn AS, Joziasse J, Bruning H, Rulkens WH, Grotenhuis JTT (2007a) Biochemical ripening of dredged sediments. Part 1. Kinetics of biological organic matter mineralization and chemical sulfur oxidation. Env Tox Chem 26:2530–2539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Vermeulen J, van Gool MPM, Mentink GH, Joziasse J, Bruning H, Rulkens WH, Grotenhuis JTT (2007b) Biochemical ripening of dredged sediments. Part 2. Degradation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and total petroleum hydrocarbons in slurried and consolidated sediments. Env Tox Chem 26:2540–2549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Vervaeke P, Luyssaert S, Mertens J, De Vos B, Speleers L, Lust N (2001) Dredged sediment as a substrate for biomass production of willow trees established using the SALIMAT technique. Biomass Bioenerg 21:81–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Vervaeke P, Luyssaert S, Mertens J, Meers E, Tack FMG, Lust N (2003) Phytoremediation prospects of willow stands on contaminated sediment: a field trial. Environ Poll 126:275–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Vervaeke P, Tack FMG, Lust N, Verloo M (2004) Short- and longer-term effects of the willow root system on metal extractability in contaminated dredged sediment. J Environ Qual 33:976–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Watling HR (2006) The bioleaching of sulphide minerals with emphasis on copper sulphides—a review. Hydrometallurgy 84:81–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Weinstein MP, Weishar L (2002) Beneficial use of dredged material to enhance the restoration trajectories of formerly diked lands. Ecol Eng 19:187–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Wu QZ, Watts JEM, Sowers KR, May HD (2002) Identification of a bacterium that specifically catalyzes the reductive dechlorination of polychlorinated biphenyls with doubly flanked chlorines. Appl Environ Microbiol 68:807–812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Yan T, LaPara TM, Novak PJ (2006) The reductive dechlorination of 2, 3, 4, 5-tetrachlorobiphenyl in three different sediment cultures: evidence for the involvement of phylogenetically similar Dehalococcoides-like bacterial populations. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 55:248–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Zawislanski PT, Mountford HS, Gabet EJ, McGrath AE, Wong HC (2001) Selenium distribution and fluxes in intertidal wetlands, San Francisco Bay, California. J Environ Qual 30:1080–1091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Zhang C, Bennett GN (2005) Biodegradation of xenobiotics by anaerobic bacteria. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 65:600–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Valérie Bert
    • 1
    Email author
  • Piet Seuntjens
    • 2
    • 3
  • Winnie Dejonghe
    • 4
  • Sophie Lacherez
    • 1
  • Hoang Thi Thanh Thuy
    • 5
  • Bart Vandecasteele
    • 6
  1. 1.Unité Technologies et Procédés Propres et Durables, INERISParc Technologique ALATAVerneuil en HalatteFrance
  2. 2.Environmental Modelling UnitVITO, Flemish Institute for Technological ResearchMolBelgium
  3. 3.Fac. Bioscience Engineering, Department of Soil ManagementGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  4. 4.Separation and Conversion TechnologyVITO, Flemish Institute for Technological ResearchMolBelgium
  5. 5.Institute for Environment and ResourcesHochiminhVietnam
  6. 6.Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries ResearchPLANT, Research Area Crop Husbandry and EnvironmentMerelbekeBelgium

Personalised recommendations