Trees in Phytoremediation Grete Gansauer BZ 572 November 29, 2012 Outline Why trees make good phytoremediators Species currently used in phytoremediation Pollutant clean up and methods Organic Remediation Inorganic Remediation Some Case Studies Capturing Economic Value from projects Why trees are awesome They *can* grow fast And use a lot of water (high transpiration rates) They are large Their root systems are also large and deep Large, microbially diverse rhizosphere Potential for ecological restoration They are woody They grow in bad places They are perennials Their products have economic value Tree species used for remediation Riparian tree species are Poplar common Willow Genipa americana Mulberry Legumes Eucalyptus Evergreens? High transpiration and water uptake rates Fastest growers Clean up pollution in water Not used for merchantable timber Species of Acacia accumulate Cadmium Ornamental Mulberry Methods of Tree-remediation Stabilization Rhizofiltration* Riparian Buffer Strips Extraction* Volatilization* Stimulation Degradation Detoxification Riparian Buffer Strip in Wisconsin Historical and Current Uses of Trees in Phytoremdiation Use of trees in Phytoremediation since the early 1990’s Organic pollutant clean up: TCE, TNT, PAH, MTBE Inorganic pollutant clean up: Cr, Cd, Pb, Zn Phytoremediation in conjunction with Biomass Fuels production Willow being grown on contaminated land for biomass production Trees and Organic Remediation TCE Poplar volatilization, stabilization, stimulation Naphthalene Eucalyptus rhizodegradation MTBE Poplar hybrids Pines PAH Mulberry Using Eucalyptus to remediate Naphthalene Trees and Metal Remediation Potential for accumulation & phytoextraction Cadmium Willow Legumes (Acacia, Mimosa, Anadenantera) Genipa americana Lead Eucalyptus Legumes Mangrove Chromium Genipa americana Genipa americana and Cr South American Rainforest Species Phytostabilization and Rhizofiltration of two harmful Cr ions Chromium in action Rhizofiltration of Cr3+ on roots Phytostabilization of Cr6+ Cr6+ converted to Cr3+ in plant Adsorbed Cr on roots, but did not translocate Cr to the shoot Cr lowered PS rate Lower K concentration in leaves w/ Cr Riparian Buffer potential? Rhizofiltration of Zn and Cd as well Genipa americana Meanwhile, in Europe… Phytoextraction and Biomass Fuels Production Short-Rotation Coppice Willow plantations Biomass plantations on former agricultural land (contaminated?) Irrigated with waste water Trees are harvested every 3-5 years Willows being irrigated with industrial wastewater Willow coppice regeneration. Phytoextraction with Salix viminalis Concentration of Cd in willow-planted soil was 12% lower than control soil (field study) Willow-planted soils had “significantly higher Carbon” Microbial stimulation potential? Negligible difference in soil pH Willows in alkaline soils accumulated the most Cd Willows planted on former agricultural land near a wastewater treatment plant. High irrigation rates…even with waste water! High accumulation of Zn and Cd in willow leaves Removed 5% Zn and 20% Cd from the soil (greenhouse study) Biomass Biproducts Metals accumulated in shoot, shoot harvested for fuel Burned in a Fluidized Bed Reactor Metals not combusted, still found in ash Don’t re-scatter contaminated ashes onsite for fertilizer! Questions! What are two reasons that trees good candidates for phytoremediation? Name one Tree species I mentioned and how it can be used for phytoremediation. References 1. Arnold, C.W. 2007. Phytovolatilization of oxygenatied compounds from gasoline-impacted groundwater at an underground storage tank site via conifers. International Journal of Phytoremediation. Vol. 9, iss. 1. pp. 53-69. 2. Aronsson, P. & Perttu, K. 2001. Willow vegetation filters for wastewater treatment and soil remediation combined with biomass production. Forestry Chronicle, Vol. 77 iss. 2. pp 293–299 3. Barbosa, Rena Mirian T. et al. 2007. A physiological analysis of Genipa americana: a potenital phytoremediator tree for chromium-polluted watersheds. Environmental and Experimental Botany. Vol. 61, iss. 3. pp. 264-271. 4. Burken, J.G. 1996. Hybrid poplar tree phytoremediation of volatile organic compounds. Americal Chemical Society. Vol. 212. pp. 106-110. 5. Dimitriou and Ioannis et al. 2012. Changes in organic carbon and trace elements in the soil of willow short-rotation coppice plantations. Bioenergy Res. Vol. 5. pp 563-572. 6. Hong, M.S. 2001. Phytoremediation of MTBE from a groundwater plume. Environmental Science. Vol. 35 iss. 6. pp. 1231-1239. 7. Klang-Westin, E. & Eriksson, J. 2003. Potential of Salix as phytoextractor for Cd on moderately contaminated soils. Plant and Soil, Vol. 249, iss. 1. pp 127– 137. 8. Ma, X.X. 2004. Phytoremediation of MTBE with hybrid poplar trees. International Journal of Phytoremediation Vol 6., iss. 2. pp 157-167. 9. Peng, X.C. 2012. Lead tolerance and accumulation in three cultivars of Eucalyptus urophyllaXEgrandis: implication for phytoremediation” Environmental Earth Studies. Vol. 67, iss. 5. pp. 1515-1520. 10. Pereira, A.C.C. 2012. Heavy metals concentration in tree species used for revegetation of contaminated area”. Revista 43, iss. 4. pp. 641-647. 11. Santana, Kaline B. et al. 2012. Physiological analyses of Genipa americana reveals a tree with ability as phytostabilizer and rhizofilter of chromium ions for phytoremediation of polluted watersheds. Environmental and Experimental Botany. Vol. 80. pp 35-42. 12. Souza, V.L. et. al. 2010. Morphophysiological responses and programmed cell death induced by cadmium in Genipa americana (Rubiaceae). Biometals. Vol. 24. pp: 59-71 13. Stomp, A.M. et al. 1993. Genetic improvement of tree species for remediation of hazardous wastes. Tissue Culture Association, In Vitro Cell Division of Biology. Vol. 29. pp 227-232. 14. Syc, Michael et al. 2012. Willow trees from heavy metals phytoextraction as energy crops. Academy of Sciences of Czech Republic Journal of Biomass and Bioenergy. Vol. 37. pp 106-113. 15. Xingmao, M. et al. 2004. Phytoremediation of MTBE with hybrid poplar trees. International Journal of Phytoremediation. Vol. 6, iss. 2. pp 157-167 Ciencia Agronomica. Vol.
© Copyright 2024 Paperzz