Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T10:58:23.815Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Testing the potential of enhanced phytoextraction to clean up NORM and heavy metal contaminated soils

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 June 2009

H. Vandenhove
Affiliation:
Belgian Nuclear Research Centre (SCKCEN), Biosphere Impact Studies, 2400 Mol, Belgium
L. Duquène
Affiliation:
Belgian Nuclear Research Centre (SCKCEN), Biosphere Impact Studies, 2400 Mol, Belgium
F. Tack
Affiliation:
Ghent University, Laboratory for Analytical Chemistry and Applied Ecochemistry, 9000 Gent, Belgium
J. Baeten
Affiliation:
Katholieke Hogeschool Kempen, Department of Health-Care and Chemistry, 2440 Geel, Belgium
J. Wannijn
Affiliation:
Belgian Nuclear Research Centre (SCKCEN), Biosphere Impact Studies, 2400 Mol, Belgium
Get access

Abstract

A greenhouse experiment was set up to evaluate the potential of enhanced phytoextraction to clean up U and heavy metal contaminated soils. One soil had a naturally high U concentration; the other soil was impacted by the radium extraction industry. Enhancement of solubility and uptake by plants (ryegrass and Indian mustard) was monitored after addition of 5 chemical amendments: citric acid, ammonium citrate-citric acid mixture, oxalic acid, EDDS and NTA. Solubilisation and uptake were highly influenced by the amendment applied and soil-plant combinations. For U, citric acid, the ammonium citrate-citric acid mixture or EDDS were most effective in increasing U uptake. EDDS was most effective in increasing Cu in mustard and ryegrass and Pb in ryegrass shoots. For other metals, increase in uptake was limited to at most a factor 5. Percentages annually removed with biomass ranged from 0.0002% to 1.52%., and were lowest for U, Cr and Pb and highest for Cd. A targeted 10% reduction in soil contaminant would require 7 years for Cd, 35 and 52 years for Cu and Zn, 203 and 384 years for U and Pb and 9433 years for Cr. Phytoextraction is hence not a feasible technique to decontaminate historically contaminated soils.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© EDP Sciences, 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ebbs S.D., Norvell W.A. and Kochian L.V., J. Environ. Qual. 27 (1998) 1486–1494. CrossRef
Huang J.W., Blaylock M.J., Kapulnik Y. and Ensley B.D., Environ. Sci. Technol. 32 (1998) 2004–2008.
Vandenhove H., Van Hees M., and Van Winckel S., Int. J. Phytorem. 3 (2001) 301–320.
Shahandeh H., and Hossner L.R., Soil Sci. 167 (2002) 269–280.
Grěman H., Vodnik D., Velikonja-Bolta S. and Lestan D., J. Environ. Qual. 32 (2003) 500–506. CrossRef
Luo, C., Shen, Z. and Li X., Chemosphere 59 (2005) 1–11. CrossRef
Quartacci M.F., Argilla A., Baker A.J.M. and Navari-Izzo F., Chemosphere 63 (2006) 918–925. CrossRef
Shen Z.G., Li X.D., Wang C.C., Chen H.M. and Chua H., J. Environ. Qual. 31 (2002) 1893–1900.
Meers E., Hopgood M., Lesage E., Vervaeke, P., Tack F.M.G. and Verloo M., Int. J. Phytorem. 6 (2004) 95–109. CrossRef