Phytoremediation phytoextraction

These maximum depths are not likely to occur in most cases. The effective depth for phytoremediation using most nonwoody plant species is likely to be only 30 or 61 cm (1 or 2 ft). Most accumulators have root zones limited to the top foot of soil, which restricts the use of phytoextraction to shallow soils. The effective depth of tree roots is likely to be in the few tens of feet or less, with one optimistic estimate that trees will be useful for extraction of groundwater up to 9 m (30 ft) deep.41-58... 

Blaylock M.J., Huang J.W. Phytoextraction of metals. In Phytoremediation of Toxic Metals Using Plants to Clean Up the Environment, Raskin I., Ensley B.D., eds. New York, NY John Wiley Sons, Inc., 2000. 

Cost estimates for phytoremediation vary widely. One estimate for phytoextraction included 10,000 per acre for planting, with total remediation costs estimated at 60,000 to 100,000 per acre. Total costs included expenses associated with maintenance, monitoring, and verification testing. Another estimate placed phytoremediation costs at 80/yd of contaminated soil (D131431). Cleanup costs for an acre of metal-contaminated soil were estimated to range from 60,000 to 100,000. This estimate assumes remediation to a depth of 50 cm. In contrast, excavation and disposal storage without treatment for a comparable site would cost at least 400,000 (D16482T). 

Lombi, E., Zhao, E.J., Dunham, S.J., and McGrath, S.P. 2001. Phytoremediation of heavy metal-contaminated soils Natural hyperaccumulation versus chemically enhanced phytoextraction. Journal of Environmental Quality, 30 1919-26. 

Wongkongkatep, J., Parkpian, P., Polprasert, C., Supaibulwatana, K., lida, T., and Fukushi, K. 2004. Phytoremediation of arsenic by Pityrogramma calomelanos Do synthetic chelating agents increase or decrease arsenic phytoextraction efficiency Annual Report of Interdisciplinary Research Institute of Environmental Sciences, 22 61-72. 

Phytoremediation Use of plants for remediation of toxic chemicals. This can be separated into phytoremediation/rhizofiltration, which describes the removal of toxic materials from water, and phytoextraction, which describes the removal of toxic materials from soil by plants. See Arthur, E.L., Rice, P.J., Rice, PJ. et al.. Phytoremediation — an overview, Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 24, 109-122, 2005. 

Huang, J. W. W., Chen, J. J., Berti, W. R., and Cunningham, S. D. (1997). Phytoremediation of lead-contaminated soils role of synthetic chelates in lead phytoextraction. Environ. Sci. Technol. 31, 800-805. 

Pytoremediation is an intriguing process for the biologically promoted removal of heavy metals from both polluted soils and wastewater. Phytoremediation is broadly defined as the use of living green plants to remove, contain, or render harmless environmental contaminants. Phytoremediation processes are capable of removing heavy metals directly from soil or water. Phytoextraction is the use of plants to remove heavy metals from aqueous streams. 

Phytoremediation here, the phytoextraction technique involves growing reasonable yields of plants that hyperaccumulate metals. The method shows promise in practical terms, but the technology needs to be developed. It is a relatively low cost method, however. 

The problem of concern in soil remediation actions is the cost. Phytoremediation techniques are likely to be less costly than those based on conventional technologies. At present, a real demand for phytoextraction is to increase the yield of plants that hyperaccumulate metals from soils, and to develop adequate technologies for the utilization of plant materials. 

Cunningham SD and Berti WR (2000) Phytoextraction and phytoremediation technical, economic, and regulatory consideration of the soil-lead issue. In Terry N and Banuelos G, eds. Phytoremediation of contaminated soils and water, pp. 359-376. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 

Gonnelli, C., Marsili-Libelh, S., Baker, A., Gabbrielli, R., 2000. Assessing plant phytoextraction potential trough mathematical modeling, hit J. Phytoremediation 2, 343-351. 

However, phytoremediation does have certain disadvantages and limitations. This technology is limited by depth (roots) and also by the solubility and the availability of the pollutant. Although it is faster than natural attenuation, phytoremediation requires long time periods and is restricted to sites with low contaminant concentrations. The plant biomass obtained from phytoextraction requires proper disposal as hazardous waste. Phytoremediation depends on the climate and season. It can also lose its effectiveness when damage occurs to vegetation from disease or pests. The introduction of inappropriate or invasive plant species should be avoided (non-native species may affect biodiversity). Contaminants may be transferred to another medium, the environment, and/or the food chain. Amendments and cultivation practices may have negative consequences on contaminant mobiUty. 

Depending on the contaminants, the site conditions, the level of cleanup required, and the types of plants, phytoremediation technology can be used for containment (phytoimmobilization and phytostabilization) or removal (phytoextraction and phy-tovolatiUzation) purposes (Padmavathiamma and Li, 2007). 

Phytoextraction Phytoextraction, also called phytoaccumulation, is the use of plants for the uptake and transport of metals or organic contaminants from the soil into the roots and aboveground plant biomass, which can subsequently be harvested with conventional agricultural methods. Phytoextraction can be used instead of phytoremediation, but phytoremediation is a concept, whereas phytoextraction is a specific cleanup technology. Most plants that grow from metal-... 

Angle JS, Linacre NA. (2005). Metal phytoextraction A survey of potential risks. International Journal of Phytoremediation 7 241-257. 

---