Você está na página 1de 9

This article was downloaded by: [182.182.107.

134]
On: 04 February 2013, At: 20:43
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Environmental Technology Reviews


Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tetr20

Phytoremediation for bioenergy: challenges and


opportunities
a
Helena I. Gomes
a
CENSE, Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Faculty of Sciences and
Technology, New University of Lisbon, Caparica, Portugal
Accepted author version posted online: 24 May 2012.Version of record first published: 25 Jun
2012.

To cite this article: Helena I. Gomes (2012): Phytoremediation for bioenergy: challenges and opportunities, Environmental
Technology Reviews, 1:1, 59-66

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2012.696715

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should
be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,
proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Environmental Technology Reviews
Vol. 1, No. 1, November 2012, 59–66

Phytoremediation for bioenergy: challenges and opportunities


Helena I. Gomes∗
CENSE, Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Faculty of Sciences and Technology, New University of Lisbon,
Caparica, Portugal
(Received 23 October 2011; final version received 20 May 2012 )

Phytoremediation has been increasingly used as a more sustainable approach for the remediation of contaminated sites. The
costs associated with this remediation method are usually lower than other well-known remediation technologies and some
environmental impacts, like atmospheric emissions and waste generation, are inexistent. The biomass produced in phytoreme-
diation could be economically valorized in the form of bioenergy (biogas, biofuels and combustion for energy production and
heating), representing an important environmental co-benefit, added to others such as erosion control, improving soil quality
and functionality, and providing wildlife habitat. Several case studies are reviewed and some challenges and opportunities
identified.
Downloaded by [182.182.107.134] at 20:43 04 February 2013

Keywords: contaminated soils; phytoremediation; bioenergy; obstacles to implementation; environmental and economic
benefits

1. Introduction (vi) excavation and off-site treatment or storage at a


Soil contamination is a major environmental issue world- more appropriate site (‘dig and dump’); and
wide, as a result of mining, manufacturing and urban (vii) incineration.
activities over the past two centuries. The soils of approxi-
mately three million sites in the European Union (EU) are In contrast to these traditional remediation approaches, a
suspected of being contaminated and 250,000 contaminated number of researchers and organizations have proposed the
sites are known to require clean up [1]. In the United States, adoption of less invasive, alternative remediation options
there are 1302 Superfund sites [2] and there were 4200 (‘gentle’ remediation technologies), the so-called ‘green
applications to the Brownfields programme between 2003 remediation’, based on life cycle analysis (LCA) in order to
and 2007 [3]. The cleanup of contaminated soils contami- conserve resources and minimize environmental impacts
nated is a cost-intensive and technically complex procedure [9–11]. Phytoremediation is widely viewed as an eco-
[4,5]. Since the fiscal year 1981, the annual appropria- logically responsible alternative to the environmentally
tion to the Superfund programme of the US Environmental destructive physical remediation methods currently prac-
Protection Agency (US EPA) has averaged approximately tised, given that it is based on the use of green plants to
US$1.2 billion in non-inflation adjusted (nominal) dollars, extract, sequester and/or detoxify pollutants [12,13]. This
and annual costs to conduct remedial construction for the is not a new concept since constructed wetlands, reed beds
fiscal years 2010–2014 may range from US$335 million to and floating-plant systems are common for the treatment of
US$681 million [6]. Various physical, chemical and bio- different wastewaters for many years.
logical processes are already being used in soil remediation The use of energy crops and especially short rotation
such as [4,7,8]: coppice (SRC) plantations in phytoremediation of contami-
nated soil is a rapidly developing field [14,15]. This biomass
can contribute to the energy supply and can thus play a
(i) soil washing; key role in meeting the targets for use of renewable energy
(ii) solidification/stabilization by either physical sources (RES). In the EU, the following targets are defined
inclusion or chemical interactions between the for 2020 [16]: (i) to increase the proportion of RES in the
stabilizing agent and the pollutant; EU’s final energy consumption to at least 20%; and (ii) to
(iii) vitrification; increase the proportion of biofuels in the road transporta-
(iv) electrokinetic treatment; tion sector to least 10% in each Member State. The Biomass
(v) chemical oxidation or reduction; Action Plan and the EU Strategy for Biofuels give high

∗ Email: hrg@campus.fct.unl.pt

ISSN 2162-2515 print/ISSN 2162-2523 online


© 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2012.696715
http://www.tandfonline.com
60 H.I. Gomes

priority to research and development into biofuels and bio- (solvents, pesticides, explosive compounds and petroleum
fuel technology [17]. An ambitious vision for 2030 is that up hydrocarbons) are given by Newman and Reynolds [27]
to a quarter of the EU’s transport fuel needs could be met and Gerhardt et al. [28].
by clean and CO2 efficient biofuels, with 45–58% result- A SWOT analysis of this remediation technique is pre-
ing from SCR for biofuels production [17]. In the US, the sented in Table 1. This table highlights the internal and
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 established external factors that are favourable and unfavourable to its
a renewable fuel standard totalling 36 billion gallons (1 bil- implementation.
lion gallons biodiesel) by 2022 [18]. After the Fukushima One of the main concerns regarding phytoremediation
nuclear disaster, public pressure has been rising in Japan is the crop disposal after phytoextraction processes. Sas-
to increase the use of bioenergy [19]. Other countries such Nowosielska et al. [29] examined various strategies (com-
as Brazil, Argentina, Indonesia, Malaysia and Canada are posting, compaction, incineration, ashing, pyrolysis, direct
also major actors in the biofuels market and are positioning disposal and liquid extraction) and considered incinera-
to increase production, use and export this bioenergy [20]. tion (smelting) the most feasible, economically acceptable
The promotion of biofuel, however, requires huge amounts and environmentally sound. Other authors have defended
of arable land that are also needed for traditional purposes, the pyrolysis of hyperaccumulator biomass, since char can
such as food production, so the ability to use land that is be considered a rich ‘ore’ or metal concentrate, which
currently set aside or polluted for the production of energy can be processed for possible separation of the metal in
crops is an important consideration [14,21,22]. a conventional ore-processing unit [30–32]. The addition
Downloaded by [182.182.107.134] at 20:43 04 February 2013

In this review, the main mechanisms involved in phy- of biochar (the product of pyrolysis) to soil has been also
toremediation are outlined and a SWOT (Strengths, Weak- suggested as a means to sequester carbon, thereby reduc-
nesses, Opportunities and Threats) analysis of this reme- ing the effects of human-induced climate change caused by
diation method is performed. Some important challenges CO2 emissions [33].
and opportunities for bioenergy production are subse-
quently identified through analysis of phytoremediation
3. Phytoremediation for bioenergy crop production
case studies.
Energy crops are intensive cultivations characterized by
high plant densities and mechanization, short rotation
2. Phytoremediation: main mechanisms and SWOT (1–4 years) and plant cycles (less than 20 years) [34].
analysis Energy crops are divided into two categories: annuals and
Pollutants can be remediated in plants through several natu- perennials. Examples of annuals include sweet sorghum
ral biophysical and biochemical processes (Figure 1). In the (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench), fibre sorghum (S. bicolor
case of heavy metals and radionuclides, plants extract and L. Moench), kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus L.), rapeseed
translocate a toxic cation or oxyanion to above-ground tis- (Brassica napus L.) and Brassica carinata. Examples of
sues for later harvest, converting or not the element to a less perennials include: (i) agricultural: wheat and sugar beet,
toxic chemical species, or at the very least sequestering the cardoon (Cynara cardunculus), reeds (Arundo donax L.),
element in roots to prevent leaching from the site [13,23]. miscanthus (Miscanthus giganteus), switchgrass (Panicum
For organic pollutants, four mechanisms are involved in virgatum), canary reed grass (Phalaris arundinacea); and
phytoremediation [24]: (ii) forest: willows (Salix sp), poplars (Populus sp.), euca-
lyptus (Eucalyptus camalduensis Dehnh. and E. globu-
(i) direct uptake and accumulation of contaminants lus Labill.), black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) [35,36]
and metabolism in plant tissues; (Zabaniotou et al., 2008). Forest is usually grown in short
rotation crops (SRC), a traditional form of woodland man-
(ii) transpiration of volatile organic compounds
agement in which multiple stems are allowed to grow from
(VOCs) through the leaves;
the stump of a felled tree [37].
(iii) release of exudates that stimulate microbial activ- Several short rotation crops can be used in phytore-
ity and biochemical transformations in the soil; mediation. Research on hybrid poplars has demonstrated
(iv) enhancement of mineralization into relatively non- their ability to take up and effectively degrade organic
toxic constituents such as carbon dioxide, nitrate, contaminants including atrazine, 1,4-dioxane, TNT and
chlorine and ammonia at the root–soil interface – trichloroethylene [38]; willow has been extensively used
attributed to mycorrhizal fungi and the microbial for heavy metals [39–41]. The Salicaceae family, which
consortia associated with that surface. includes poplar and willow trees, has been very suc-
cessful in phytoremediation efforts involving chlorinated
The biological mechanisms of phytoextraction and solvents including trichloroethylene (TCE) [42]. Within
phytofiltration of metals were reviewed by Raskin et al. the UK, studies on contaminated brownfield sites found
[12] and more recently by Wu et al. [25] and Maestri et al. that mixed poplar and willow SRC together with Alnus
[26]. Reviews of phytodegradation of organic compounds species were effective in reducing Zn and Cd levels, with
Environmental Technology Reviews 61
Downloaded by [182.182.107.134] at 20:43 04 February 2013

Figure 1. Mechanisms involved in phytoremediation (adapted from ref. [7,8,23,27]).

the authors suggesting that over a 20-year period the crops by different energy recovery techniques (incinera-
most effective variety, Salix calodendron, could reduce Cd tion, gasification, anaerobic digestion and pure plant oil
and Zn levels by 5.6 and 96 mg kg−1 , respectively [14]. production) [45]. Cultivation of energy maize, used for
Bench-scale studies with Cd contaminated soil showed that conversion into biogas through anaerobic digestion, could
other crops that can be used for biodiesel production like result in 33,000–46,000 kWh of renewable energy (electri-
hemp (Cannabis sativa), flax (Linum usitatissimum) and cal and thermal) per hectare per year, which would imply
peanut (Arachis hypogaea) are excellent candidates for a reduction of up to 21 × 103 kg ha−1 year−1 CO2 if used
phytoremediation [43]. to substitute for fossil fuel energy in a coal-fed power
A study in China, based on LCA, showed that intercrop- plant [46]. The authors found that metal concentrations in
ping maize with suitable plants (peanut and soybean) could grains were very low and remained below European ani-
be a convenient and effective approach to phytoremediation mal feed criteria and that metal recovery from the resulting
of fields affected by nitrogen pollution [44]. digestate is a viable technological route [46]. It was esti-
A comprehensive study regarding phytoremediation for mated that the external benefit of CO2 abatement when
bioenergy has been carried out in the Campine region using phytoremediation crops would be ¤ 55–501 per
in the north-of east Belgium and the south-west of the hectare [49].
Netherlands. The region is diffusely contaminated by his- Other data show that the carbon balance of a tradi-
toric smelter activities which contributed to atmospheric tional coppicing system based on indigenous European
deposition of Cd, Zn and Pb, causing economic losses and hardwood species was more favourable than that of short-
food and feed quality and safety [45–48]. Several energy rotation coppiced plantations of Miscanthus or willow due
crops have been applied including rape seed, maize, wheat to lower cultivation inputs in the former. However, if land
and short rotation coppice. The phytoextraction potential surface is used as the functional unit, the energy yield
of the species, the fate of heavy metals in the plants, and from the intensively-managed bioenergy plantations was
the potential of these crops for the sustainable manage- much higher, offsetting almost 13 t CO2e ha−1 year−1 com-
ment of these contaminated soils and the production of pared to the 9.5 t CO2e ha−1 year−1 offset in the traditional
bioenergy were explored as well as the valorization of the system [36].
62 H.I. Gomes

Table 1. SWOT analysis for phytoremediation.

Strengths Weaknesses

• Solar-driven pumping and filtering natural systems.This • Plants ideal for phytoremediation should possess multiple
method has a good image and a high public accep- traits: fast growing, high biomass, deep roots, be easy to
tance [73]. harvest and should tolerate and accumulate a range of heavy
• Creates environmental benefits such as soil erosion control, metals in their aerial and harvestable parts [74].
carbon sequestration and wildlife habitat. It also creates • Phytoremediation is frequently slower than physicochemi-
socio-economic benefits by diversifying regional manufac- cal processes and may need to be considered as a long-term
turing into new products that employs local labour, thus remediation process [7].
building value-added industry [27,61,73]. • The restricted number of target metals that can be extracted
• Cost-effective alternative to physical remediation sys- by phytoremediation, the limited depth that can be assessed
tems [7]. by the roots, the difficulty of producing a high-biomass crop
• Generation of a recyclable metal-rich plant residue; appli- of the desired species and the lack of knowledge on the
cability to a range of toxic metals and radionuclides; agronomic practices and management [75].
elimination of secondary air or water-borne wastes [8]. • The technology is only applicable to more moderately
Some metals can be reclaimed from the biomass, which contaminated land and cannot serve as an equivalent for
further reduces the generation of hazardous waste and conventional soil remediation on more heavily polluted
generates recycling revenues [12]. sites [39,46].
• Minimal site destruction and destabilization, low • Importance of selecting the appropriate plant for the phy-
Downloaded by [182.182.107.134] at 20:43 04 February 2013

environmental impact and favourable aesthetics; advan- toremediation application, whether it is native to the
tages compared with biosorption include continuous ecosystem where the phytoremediation is taking place [61].
in situ regeneration of the biomass and the ability of • Limited practical experience; not applicable for all com-
living plant cells to supplement passive sorption of pounds [73].
metals with metabolic mechanisms of metal uptake and
detoxification [64].

Opportunities Threats

• Can be combined with other methods [73,76]. The coupling • Soil texture, pH, salinity, pollutant concentrations and the
of phytoextraction with other soil treatments (e.g. soil wash- presence of other toxins must be within the limits of plant
ing, soil vapour extraction) in so-called ‘treatment trains’ tolerance [7]. In most contaminated soils, the number of
is gaining interest; this may be especially useful in cases microorganisms is depressed so that there are not enough
where mixed contaminants necessitate the use of more than bacteria either to facilitate contaminant degradation or to
one technique to effectively remediate sites [76]. support plant growth [79].
• Optimization of natural processes through cultivation, aer- • Contaminants that are highly water-soluble may leach out-
ation, drainage, the use of soil additives and ameliorants side the root zone and require containment [7] and must
(e.g. lime, compost, zeolites, phosphates), the encourage- also be addressed the identification of organic contaminants
ment of soil microflora (including mycorrhizae), earthworm metabolites to ensure that there are no toxic products [24].
inoculation and selective planting [77]. • Successful phytodegradation requires organic contami-
• Perspectives on amelioration of the technique like chelant- nants to be biologically available for absorption to, or
enhanced phytoextraction and genetic manipulation [75]. uptake and metabolism by, plant or plant-associated micro-
• Soil bioaugmentation hasa positive impact on metal bial systems. This depends on the relative lipophilicity of
bioavailability by increasing theconcentration of the most the compound, the soil characteristics and the age of the
available fractionsof metals and consequently phytoextrac- contaminant [7].
tion [78]. • Crop disposal after phytoextraction processes [29].
• If produced biomass from phytoremediation projectscould • There is also concern about metal-accumulating plants pro-
be valourized, then the main drawback of phytoextrac- viding an exposure pathway for toxic elements to enter the
tion(the long required remediation time) becomes invalid food chain if local herbivores consume these plants [75].
and slowerworking phytoremediation schemes based on
gradual attenuation of the contaminants rather than short-
term forced extraction may be envisaged [46].

The economic viability of producing electricity and heat of plants used for the phytoremediation of soils polluted
by means of pyrolysis oil through flash pyrolysis of dry wil- with heavy metals, remain unanswered. In their study on
low chips (stemming from short rotation coppice) was also the accumulation and distribution of heavy metals in oil
determined for this area [47]. The authors decided to use crops, Angelova et al. [50] determined the content of the
pyrolysis to avoid volatilization of metals, especially Cd. heavy metals Cd, Cu, and Pb in plant organs and in the oil
The production of oil crops (such as Brassica sp.) and of rape seed (Brassica napus L.), which was grown in a pol-
biodiesel production from the resulting plant oil could also luted area. The distribution of heavy metals in the organs of
be a viable option to generate bioenergy in the Campine crops had a selective character that decreased in the follow-
region [45]. However, some crucial questions about the ing order: leaves > stems > roots > fruit shell > seeds.
content of heavy metals in biodiesel, obtained from the oil Although the concentration effect of heavy metals was the
Environmental Technology Reviews 63

lowest in the seeds (which contain the pure plant oil), the different conditions and different technological processes in
quantities of Pb, Cu and Cd in the rape seed oil were higher order to confident that the end-products of phytoremedia-
than the accepted maximum permissible concentrations for tion can be used for bioenergy with minimal environmental
human consumption. If biodiesel exhaust fumes from such impacts. The achieved knowledge must thereafter be related
rape seed plants (specifically selected for their high heavy to regulations and guideline values, considering also the
metal uptake capacity) will have hazardous metal emissions classification of by-products and residual products such as
is virtually unknown [45]. ash and digestate, and possible utilization or environmental
A LCA approach in Sweden showed that biofuel reme- sound management.
diation with willow caused lower damage to the environ- Another important challenge is that current legislation
ment than the traditional excavation-and-refill remediation and practice in soil remediation are based on the total con-
according to both evaluation methods used (ReCiPe 2008 centrations of the contaminants left in the soil and not on
and environmental product declaration, EPD) [51]. The bio- soil functionality or risk-based land management, which
fuel remediation affected the environment mainly through can be a barrier to the use of phytoremediation which is a
the controller’s journeys, transport of planting stocks, slow remediation process [57].
land use for Salix viminalis cultivation, and harvesting. Regarding the opportunities, there are numerous regions
The impacts of the two remediation alternatives involved in the world where cultivation of food and feed crops is
very different environmental problems. Excavation-and- not possible due to the presence of excessive amounts of
refill remediation showed a primary impact in the traditional plant-available pollutants as a result of non-point source
Downloaded by [182.182.107.134] at 20:43 04 February 2013

categories of global warming, fossil resources, acidifica- contaminations, repeated applications of fertilizers and
tion, ozone formation, etc. whereas biofuel remediation pesticides, along with atmospheric deposition, leading to
demonstrated the major importance of land occupation and economic losses and negative effects for the human food
biodiversity [51]. chain and health. In Germany (1999) alone, about 10,000 ha
of agricultural land has been taken out of food production
because of contamination by heavy metals [58]. In Sweden
4. Challenges and opportunities (2009), 75,000 ha of contaminated land could be suitable
A review of several field-scale applications shows that phy- for phytoremediation with bioenergy crops [22]. In England
toremediation is at least 50% less expensive than excavation (1993), there are some 39,000 ha of ‘derelict land’, defined
and it is also cheaper than bioremediation [52], in accor- as ‘land so damaged by industrial or other development as
dance with other data [7]. Some traditional remediation to be incapable of beneficial use without treatment’ [38].
techniques generally have drawbacks such as generating Increasing attention is being given to the concept of the
atmospheric emissions, large amounts of additional wastes disposal of agricultural and municipal wastes (to remove
that require disposal and not being suited for the treatment of nitrates and other nutrients from municipal waste water –
soils that are to be reused for agricultural or similar purposes ‘polishing’, farmland drainage water and sewage sludge) on
of plant/biomass production [53]. energy crops [59]. This potentially provides organic matter
A number of authors have argued that the commer- and nutrients needed for crop growth at a low cost, whilst
cial success of phytoremediation depends on the generation enabling controlled disposal of wastes on a non-food crop
of valuable biomass on contaminated land rather than [38]. Other authors have argued that the irrigation with
as a pure remediation technique that may not compare leachate from municipal solid waste would have negative
favourably with the costs of inaction or alternative technolo- impacts on soil micro- and meso-fauna, which are known
gies [54,55]. Valuable biomass includes timber, bioenergy, to be essential in healthy ecosystem functioning [60].
feedstock for pyrolysis, biofortified products (enriched in The deep and extensive root systems of SRC have been
Fe, Zn or Se) for dietary supplements, or ecologically used as a filter during treatment of wastewater with an
important species. excessive biological oxygen demand (BOD) and nutrient
The main challenge regarding the use of biomass for content. A wider distribution of SCR in the landscape (par-
bioenergy is the issue of pollution transfer and heavy metal ticularly along watercourses) could reduce non-point source
content in the biomass. Contaminants in the crop may cause contamination of water with plant nutrients [36]. A ripar-
problems in later stages of biofuel production, and the deci- ian buffer is the strategic filter that slows and decreases
sion on whether crop uptake should be encouraged or not runoff flow, depositing sediments, fertilizers, plant debris
must be made on a case-by-case basis. There must be a and humic carbon that would be otherwise deposited in the
risk management of the crops or crop choices, and clones stream flow [36,61].
can be made that prevent take-up of contaminants using Other authors have suggested that phytoremediation is
excluders instead of hyperaccumulators [56]. There is a lack the ideal technology for mitigating landfill environmen-
of knowledge regarding the emissions that may be gener- tal problems including soil and ground water contamina-
ated in the use of plants and wood material for bioenergy. tion, leachate generation and gas emissions (especially if
More research is required about the uptake of various crops, improper post-closure treatment of landfills or deterioration
combustion rests and emissions, content in biofuel under of the conventional clay landfill capping occur) [62].
64 H.I. Gomes

It can also be expected that the cultivation of short rota- [5] L. Van-Camp, B. Bujarrabal, A.R. Gentile, R.J.A. Jones,
tion coppice (SRC) and perennial energy grasses (PEG) L. Montanarella, C. Olazabal, and S.-K. Selvaradjou, Reports
for heat and power generation will become more impor- of the Technical Working Groups Established under the The-
matic Strategy for Soil Protection, EUR 21319 EN/4, Office
tant when new technologies enter the market and bio-heat for Official Publications of the European Communities,
options, even for domestic use, are further developed [15]. Luxembourg, 2004.
Other opportunity worth mentioning is that crops with [6] United States Government Accountability Office, EPA’s Esti-
high levels of contaminants are potentially interesting for mated Costs to Remediate Existing Sites Exceed Current
use as material for metal enrichment [63–65]. One possible Funding Levels, and More Sites Are Expected to Be Added
to the National Priorities List, United States Government
technique for the recovery of these metals is electrokinetics, Accountability Office, Washington, DC, 2010.
which extracts pollutants from the media by the action of an [7] S.D. Cunningham, W.R. Berti, and J.W. Huang, Phytoreme-
electric current and transfers them to electrolyte solutions, diation of contaminated soils, Trends Biotechnol. 13 (1995),
where they are concentrated and treated [66]. Successful pp. 393–397.
heavy metal removal from fly ash from the combustion [8] P.B.A.N. Kumar, V. Dushenkov, H. Motto, and I. Raskin,
Phytoextraction: The use of plants to remove heavy
of municipal solid waste [67] and waste wood [68,69] has metals from soils, Environ. Sci. Technol. 29 (1995),
already been conducted. pp. 1232–1238.
Recent development of transgenic plants and bacteria [9] US Environmental Protection Agency, Green Remediation:
that enhance phytodegradation of contaminants could also Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into
be an exciting opportunity for bioenergy production through Remediation of Contaminated Sites, Office of Solid Waste
Downloaded by [182.182.107.134] at 20:43 04 February 2013

and Emergency Response, US Environmental Protection


phytoremediation [70]. Agency, Washington, DC, 2008.
[10] K. Onwubuya, A. Cundy, M. Puschenreiter, J. Kumpiene,
B. Bone, J. Greaves, P. Teasdale, M. Mench, P. Tlustos,
5. Conclusions S. Mikhalovsky, S. Waite, W. Friesl-Hanl, B. Marschner, and
I. Müller, Developing decision support tools for the selection
Brownfield sites are frequently prohibitively expensive to of ‘gentle’ remediation approaches, Sci. Total Environ. 407
restore, with land owners and developers allowing land to (2009), pp. 6132–6142.
remain abandoned and unsightly [71]. At many of those sites [11] K.R. Reddy and J.A. Adams, Towards Green and Sustain-
the extent of contamination may not be sufficient to trig- able Remediation of Contaminated Site, 6th International
Congress on Environmental Geotechnics, New Delhi, India,
ger remediation under current regulatory conditions (low to
2010.
moderately contaminated soil) and there may be little eco- [12] I.I Raskin, R.D. Smith, and D.E. Salt, Phytoremediation
nomic incentive to the soil regeneration. Phytoremediation of metals: Using plants to remove pollutants from the
may provide the solution, given the low costs involved. environment, Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 8 (1997), pp. 221–226.
Bioenergy crop production on contaminated land could [13] R.B. Meagher, Phytoremediation of toxic elemental and
organic pollutants, Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 3 (2000),
be an economic incentive for phytoremediation of these
pp. 153–162.
sites, simultaneously providing soil that does not compete [14] R.L. Rowe, N.R. Street, and G. Taylor, Identifying potential
for food production, reducing the use of fossil fuel, cre- environmental impacts of large-scale deployment of dedi-
ating employment opportunities and providing low-impact cated bioenergy crops in the UK, Renewable Sustainable
treatment of contaminated sites [61,72,73]. However, the Energy Rev. 13 (2009), pp. 271–290.
[15] M. Mleczek, P. Rutkowski, I. Rissmann, Z. Kaczmarek, P.
use of bioenergy resulting from phytoremediation is con-
Golinski, K. Szentner, K. Strazynska, and A. Stachowiak,
strained by the lack of knowledge regarding the emissions Biomass productivity and phytoremediation potential of
that may be generated and the issues associated with pollu- Salix alba and Salix viminalis, Biomass Bioenergy 34(9)
tion transfer, especially for heavy metals. There is certainly (2010), pp. 1410–1418.
an opportunity for soils contaminated with organics and [16] K. Ericsson, H. Rosenqvis, and L.J. Nilsson, Energy crop
production costs in the EU, Biomass Bioenergy 33(11)
nutrients (N and P) where that problem does not exist.
(2009), pp. 1577–1586.
[17] European Commission, Biofuels in the European Union –
A vision for 2030 and beyond, Final report of the Bio-
References fuels Research Advisory Council, EUR 22066, European
[1] European Environment Agency, Progress in Management of Commission, Directorate-General for Research, Brussels,
Contaminated Sites, Report CSI 015, European Environment 2006.
Agency, Copenhagen, 2007. [18] W.E. Tyner, The US ethanol and biofuels boom: Its ori-
[2] US Environmental Protection Agency, Search Superfund gins, current status, and future prospects, BioScience 58(7)
Site Information, 2012. Available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ (2008), pp. 646–653.
supercpad/cursites/srchsites.cfm. [19] N. Sasaki, T. Owari, and F.E. Putz, Time to substitute wood
[3] M. Dull and K. Wernstedt, Land recycling, community revi- bioenergy for nuclear power in Japan, Energies 4 (2011),
talization, and distributive politics: An analysis of EPA pp. 1051–1057.
Brownfields Program support, Policy Stud. J. 38 (2010), [20] P. Lamers, C. Hamelinck, M. Junginger, and A. Faaijc, Inter-
pp. 119–141. national bioenergy trade – a review of past developments
[4] J. Barceló and C. Poschenrieder, Phytoremediation: Princi- in the liquid biofuel market, Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 32
ples and perspectives, Contrib. Sci. 2 (2003), pp. 333–344. (2011), pp. 2655–2676.
Environmental Technology Reviews 65

[21] S. Nonhebel, Renewable energy and food supply: Will bioremediation – a review, Department for Food, Environ-
there be enough land? Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 9 (2005), ment and Rural Affairs, London, 2002.
pp. 191–201. [39] N.M. Dickinson and I.D. Pulford, Cadmium phytoextrac-
[22] P. Suer, Y. Andersson-Sköld, S. Blom, P. Bardos, T. Track, tion using short-rotation coppice Salix: The evidence trail,
and M. Polland, Environmental impact assessment of biofuel Environ. Int. 31 (2005), pp. 609–613.
production on contaminated land – Swedish case studies, [40] C.J. French, N.M. Dickinson, and P.D. Putwain, Woody
Swedish Geotechnical Institute, Linköping, 2009. biomass phytoremediation of contaminated brownfield land,
[23] S. Trapp and U. Karlson, Aspects of phytoremediation of Environ. Pollut. 141 (2006), pp. 387–395.
organic pollutants, J. Soils Sediments 1 (2001), pp. 1–7. [41] T.A. Volk, L.P. Abrahamson, C.A. Nowak, L.B. Smart,
[24] J.G. Burken and J.L. Schnoor, Uptake and metabolism of P.J. Tharakan, and E.H. White, The development of short-
atrazine by poplar trees, Environ. Sci. Technol. 31 (1997), rotation willow in the northeastern United States for bioen-
pp. 1399–1406. ergy and bioproducts, agroforestry and phytoremediation,
[25] G. Wu, H. Kang, X. Zhang, H. Shao, L. Chu, and C. Biomass Bioenergy 30 (2006), pp. 715–727.
Ruan, A critical review on the bio-removal of hazardous [42] R.S. Miller, Z. Khan, and S.L. Doty, Comparison of
heavy metals from contaminated soils: Issues, progress, eco- trichloroethylene toxicity, removal, and degradation by vari-
environmental concerns and opportunities, J. Hazard. Mater. eties of Populus and Salix for improved phytoremediation
174 (2010), pp. 1–8. applications, J. Bioremed. Biodegrad. (2011), pp. S7:001,
[26] E. Maestri, M. Marmiroli, G. Visioli, and N. Marmiroli, doi: 10.4172/2155-6199.S7-001.
Metal tolerance and hyperaccumulation: Costs and trade- [43] G. Shi and Q. Cai, Cadmium tolerance and accumulation
offs between traits and environment, Environ. Exp. Bot. 68 in eight potential energy crops, Biotechnol. Adv. 27 (2009),
(2010), pp. 1–13. pp. 555–561.
Downloaded by [182.182.107.134] at 20:43 04 February 2013

[27] L.A. Newman and C.M. Reynolds, Phytodegradation of [44] S.-W. Nie, W.-S. Gao, Y.-Q. Chen, P. Sui, and A.E. Eneji,
organic compounds, Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 15 (2004), Use of life cycle assessment methodology for determining
pp. 225–230. phytoremediation potentials of maize-based cropping sys-
[28] K.E. Gerhardt, X.-D. Huang, B.R. Glick, and B.M. Green- tems in fields with nitrogen fertilizer over-dose, J. Cleaner
berg, Phytoremediation and rhizoremediation of organic Prod. 18 (2010), pp. 1530–1534.
soil contaminants: Potential and challenges, Plant Sci. 176 [45] L.V. Ginneken, E. Meers, R. Guisson, A. Ruttens, K. Elst,
(2009), pp. 20–30. F.M.G. Tack, J. Vangronsveld, L. Diels, and W. Dejonghe,
[29] A. Sas-Nowosielska, R. Kucharski, E. Malkowski, Phytoremediation for heavy metal-contaminated soils com-
M. Pogrzeba, J.M. Kuperberg, and K. Krynski, Phytoextrac- bined with bioenergy production, J. Environ. Eng. Landscape
tion crop disposal – an unsolved problem, Environ. Pollut. Manage. XV (2007), pp. 227–236.
128 (2004), pp. 373–379. [46] E. Meers, S.V. Slycken, K. Adriaensen, A. Ruttens, J. Van-
[30] L. Koppolu, F.A. Agblevor, and L.D. Clements, Pyrolysis gronsveld, G.D. Laing, N. Witters, T. Thewys, and F.M.G.
as a technique for separating heavy metals from hyper- Tack, The use of bioenergy crops (Zea mays) for ‘phytoatten-
accumulators. Part II: Lab-scale pyrolysis of synthetic uation’ of heavy metals on moderately contaminated soils:
hyperaccumulator biomass, Biomass Bioenergy 25 (2003), A field experiment, Chemosphere 78 (2010), pp. 35–41.
pp. 651–663. [47] T. Thewys and T. Kuppens, Economics of willow pyrolysis
[31] L. Koppolu and L.D. Clements, Pyrolysis as a technique after phytoextraction, Int. J. Phytorem. 10 (2008), pp. 561–
for separating heavy metals from hyperaccumulators. Part 583.
I: Preparation of synthetic hyperaccumulator biomass, [48] T. Thewys, N. Witters, E. Meers, and J. Vangronsveld,
Biomass Bioenergy 24 (2003), pp. 69–79. Economic viability of phytoremediation of a cadmium con-
[32] L. Koppolu, R. Prasad, and L.D. Clements, Pyrolysis as a taminated agricultural area using energy maize. Part II:
technique for separating heavy metals from hyperaccumula- Economics of anaerobic digestion of metal contaminated
tors. Part III: Pilot-scale pyrolysis of synthetic hyperaccu- maize in Belgium, Int. J. Phytorem. 12 (2008), pp. 663–679.
mulator biomass, Biomass Bioenergy (2004), pp. 463–472. [49] N. Witters, R. Mendelsohn, S. Van Passel, S. Van Sly-
[33] J. Lehmann, Bioenergy in the black, Front. Ecol. Environ. cken, N. Weyens, E. Schreurs, E. Meers, F. Tack, B.
5(7) (2007), pp. 381–387. Vanheusden, and J. Vangronsveld, Phytoremediation, a sus-
[34] G. Fiorese and G. Guariso, A GIS-based approach to eval- tainable remediation technology? II: Economic assessment
uate biomass potential from energy crops at regional scale, of CO2 abatement through the use of phytoremediation crops
Environ. Model. Softw. 25 (2010), pp. 702–711. for renewable energy production, Biomass Bioenergy 39
[35] A.A. Zabaniotou, E.K. Kantarelis, and D.C. Theodoropou- (2012), pp. 470–477.
los, Sunflower shells utilization for energetic purposes [50] V. Angelova, R. Ivanov, and K. Ivanov, Heavy metal accu-
in an integrated approach of energy crops: Laboratory mulation and distribution in oil crops, Commun. Soil Sci.
study pyrolysis and kinetics, Bioresour. Technol. 99 (2008), Plant Anal. 35 (2005), pp. 2551–2566.
pp. 3174–3181. [51] P. Suer and Y. Andersson-Sköld, Biofuel or excavation? Life
[36] J.A. Simpson, G. Picchi, A.M. Gordon, N.V. The- cycle assessment (LCA) of soil remediation options, Biomass
vathasan, J. Stanturf, and I. Nicholas, Task 30 Short Bioenergy 35 (2011), pp. 969–981.
rotation crops for bioenergy systems. Environmental ben- [52] J. Vangronsveld, R. Herzig, N. Weyens, J. Boulet, K. Adri-
efits associated with short-rotation woody crops, Tech- aensen, A. Ruttens, T. Thewys, A. Vassilev, E. Meers,
nical Review No. 3, IEA Bioenergy, 2009. Available at E. Nehnevajova, D. van der Lelie, and M. Mench, Phy-
http://www.shortrotationcrops.org/taskreports.htm. toremediation of contaminated soils and groundwater:
[37] S.S. Clair, J. Hillier, and P. Smith, Estimating the pre-harvest Lessons from the field, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 16 (2009),
greenhouse gas costs of energy crop production, Biomass pp. 765–794.
Bioenergy 32 (2008), pp. 442–452. [53] D.M. Hamby, Site remediation techniques supporting envi-
[38] C. Britt, M. Bullard, G. Hickman, P. Johnson, J. King, F. ronmental restoration activities – a review, Sci. Total
Nicholson, P. Nixon, and N. Smith, Bioenergy crops and Environ. 191 (1991), pp. 203–224.
66 H.I. Gomes

[54] D. van der Lelie, J.-P. Schwitzguébel, D.J. Glass, and phytomining technologies, J. Environ. Qual. 36 (2007),
J.V. Gronsveld, and A. Baker, Assessing phytoremediation’s pp. 1429–1443.
progress, Environ. Sci. Technol. 35(21) (2001), pp. 447–452. [66] Y.B. Acar and A.N. Alshawabkeh, Principles of elec-
[55] H.M. Conesa, M.W.H. Evangelou, B.H. Robinson, and trokinetic remediation, Environ. Sci. Technol. 27 (1993),
R. Schulin, A critical view of current state of phytotech- pp. 2638–2647.
nologies to remediate soils: Still a promising tool? TheSci- [67] C. Ferreira, A. Ribeiro, and L. Ottosen, Effect of major con-
entificWorldJournal, 2012, doi:10.1100/2012/173829. stituents of MSW fly ash during electrodialytic remediation of
[56] P. Bardos, Y. Andersson-Sköld, S. Keuning, M. Polland, heavy metals, Separ. Sci. Technol. 40 (2005), pp. 2007–2019.
P. Suer, and T. Track, REJUVENATE. Cro-based sys- [68] A.B. Ribeiro, E.P. Mateus, L. Ottosen, and G. Bech-Nielsem,
tems for sustainable risk based land management for eco- Electrodialytic removal of Cu, Cr and As from chromated
nomically marginal degraded land, SNOWMAN Project copper arsenate-treated timber waste, Environ. Sci. Tech-
No. SN-01/20 Final research report, 2009. Available at nol. 34 (2000), pp. 784–788.
http://www.snowman-era.net/downloads/REJUVENATE_ [69] I.V. Christensen, A.J. Pedersen, L.M. Ottosen, and
final_report.pdf. A. Ribeiro, Electrodyalitic remediation of CCA-treated
[57] Y. Andersson-Sköld, A. Enell, S. Blom, T. Rihm, A. waste wood in a 2m2 pilot plant, Sci. Total Environ. 364
Angelbratt, K. Haglund, O. Wik, P. Bardos, T. Track, and (2006), pp. 45–54.
S. Keuning, Biofuel and other biomass based products from [70] B.V. Aken, Transgenic plants for phytoremediation: Help-
contaminated sites – potentials and barriers from Swedish ing nature to clean up environmental pollution, Trends
perspectives, Swedish Geotechnical Institute, Linköping, Biotechnol. 26 (2008), pp. 225–227.
2009. [71] N.M. Dickinson, J.M. Mackay, A. Goodman, and P. Putwain,
[58] I. Lewandowski, U. Schmidt, M. Londo, and Planting trees on contaminated soils: Issues and guidelines,
Downloaded by [182.182.107.134] at 20:43 04 February 2013

A. Faaij, The economic value of the phytoremediation Land Contam. Recl. 41 (2000), pp. 87–101.
function – assessed by the example of cadmium remediation [72] P. Borjesson, Environmental effects of energy crop cultiva-
by willow (Salix ssp), Agric. Syst. 89 (2006), pp. 68–89. tion in Sweden. I: Identification and quantification, Biomass
[59] M.Z. Justin, N. Pajk, V. Zupanc, and M. Zupančič, Phy- Bioenergy 16 (1999), pp. 137–154.
toremediation of landfill leachate and compost wastew- [73] US Environmental Protection Agency, Introduction to Phy-
ater by irrigation of Populus and Salix: Biomass and toremediation, National Risk Management Research Labo-
growth response, Waste Manage. 30 (2010), pp. 1032– ratory, Office of Research and Development, US Environ-
1042. mental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, 2000.
[60] D.R. Coyle, J.A. Zalesny, R.S.Z. Jr., and A.H. Wiese, Irrigat- [74] S. Clemens, M.G. Palmgren, and U. Krämer, A long way
ing poplar energy crops with landfill leache negatively affects ahead: Understanding and engineering plant metal accu-
soil micro- and meso-fauna, Int. J. Phytorem. 13 (2011), mulation, Trends Plant Sci. 7 (2002), pp. 309–315.
pp. 845–858. [75] L.V. Nevel, J. Mertens, K. Oorts, and K. Verheyen, Phy-
[61] L.A. Licht and J.G. Isebrands, Linking phytoremediated pol- toextraction of metals from soils: How far from practice?
lutant removal to biomass economic opportunities, Biomass Environ. Pollut. 150 (2007), pp. 34–40.
Bioenergy 28 (2005), pp. 203–218. [76] L. Marchiol, S. Assolari, P. Sacco, and G. Zerbi, Phytoex-
[62] K.-R. Kim and G. Owens, Potential for enhanced phytore- traction of heavy metals by canola (Brassica napus) and
mediation of landfills using biosolids: A review, J. Environ. radish (Raphanus sativus) grown on multicontaminated soil,
Manage. 91 (2010), pp. 791–797. Environ. Pollut. 132 (2004), pp. 21–27.
[63] R.R. Brooks, M.F. Chambers, L.J. Nicks, and B.H. Robinson, [77] N.M. Dickinson, Strategies for sustainable woodland on
Phytomining, Trends Plant Sci. 3 (1998), pp. 359–362. contaminated soils, Chemosphere 41 (2000), pp. 259–263.
[64] T.V. Nedelkoska and P.M. Doran, Characteristics of heavy [78] T. Lebeau, A. Braud, and K. Jézéquel, Performance of
metal uptake by plant species with potential for phy- bioaugmentation-assisted phytoextraction applied to metal
toremediation and phytomining, Miner. Eng. 13 (2000), contaminated soils: A review, Environ. Pollut. 153 (2008),
pp. 549–556. pp. 497–522.
[65] R.L. Chaney, J.S. Angle, C.L. Broadhurst, C.A. Peters, [79] B.R. Glick, Phytoremediation: Synergistic use of plants and
R.V. Tappero, and D.L. Sparks, Improved understanding bacteria to clean up the environment, Biotechnol. Adv. 21
of hyperaccumulation yields commercial phytoextraction (2003), pp. 383–393.

Você também pode gostar