Phytoremediation as a management option for contaminated sediments in tidal marshes, flood control areas and dredged sediment landfill sites
- 2k Downloads
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
KeywordsBioaccumulation Bioavailability Biomass recovery Contaminated sediment Ecosystem Flooding Management option Microorganisms Phytostabilisation Phytoextraction Rhizodegradation Risk assessment Seasonal hydrological variations
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.
- Atlas RM (1981) Microbial degradation of petroleum hydrocarbons: an environmental perspective. Microbiol Rev 45:180–209Google Scholar
- Bert V (2008) Phytostab: Etude de la perennité du traitement de phytostabilisation. Verneuil en Halatte, INERIS-Rapport DRC-09-83432-00296A, 50 ppGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Jacob DL, Otte ML (2003) Conflicting processes in the wetland plant rhizosphere: metal retention or mobilization? Water Air Soil Pollut 3:91–104Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Krumholz LR, Sharp R, Fishbain SS (1996) A freshwater anaerobe coupling acetate oxidation to tetrachloroethylene dehalogenation. Appl Environ Microbiol 62:4108–4113Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Quatannens V (2004) Phytostabilisation de sédiments contaminés par les métaux: avantages et effets secondaires potentiels. Douai, CNRSSP-Rapport DESS GRNR 84 ppGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Schnoor JL (1998) Phytoremediation. Technology Evaluation Report TE-98-01. Prepared for Ground-Water Remediation Technology Analysis CenterGoogle Scholar
- Schüürmann G, Markert B (1998) Ecotoxicology—ecological fundamentals, chemical exposure and biological effects. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- USACE (2008) Upland Dredged Material Environmental Effects (UDMEED) databaseGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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