How to manage plant biomass originated from phytotechnologies? Gathering perceptions from end-users.

A questionnaire survey was carried out in four European countries to gather end-user's perceptions of using plants from phytotechnologies in combustion and anaerobic digestion (AD). Nine actors of the wood energy sector from France, Germany, and Sweden, and eleven AD platform operators from France, Germany, and Austria were interviewed. Questions related to installation, input materials, performed analyses, phytostabilization, and phytoextraction were asked. Although the majority of respondents did not know phytotechnologies, results suggested that plant biomass from phytomanaged areas could be used in AD and combustion, under certain conditions. As a potential benefit, phytomanaged plants would not compete with plants grown on agricultural lands, contaminated lands being not suitable for agriculture production. Main limitations would be related to additional controls in process' inputs and end-products and installations that might generate additional costs. In most cases, the price of phytotechnologies biomass was mentioned as a driver to potentially use plants from metal-contaminated soils. Plants used in phytostabilization or phytoexclusion were thought to be less risky and, consequently, benefited from a better theoretical acceptance than those issued from phytoextraction. Results were discussed according to national regulations. One issue was related to the regulatory gap concerning the status of the plant biomass produced on contaminated land.

Brownfields to green fields: Realising wider benefits from practical contaminant phytomanagement strategies.

Gentle remediation options (GROs) are risk management strategies or technologies involving plant (phyto-), fungi (myco-), and/or bacteria-based methods that result in a net gain (or at least no gross reduction) in soil function as well as effective risk management. GRO strategies can be customised along contaminant linkages, and can generate a range of wider economic, environmental and societal benefits in contaminated land management (and in brownfields management more widely). The application of GROs as practical on-site remedial solutions is still limited however, particularly in Europe and at trace element (typically metal and metalloid) contaminated sites. This paper discusses challenges to the practical adoption of GROs in contaminated land management, and outlines the decision support tools and best practice guidance developed in the European Commission FP7-funded GREENLAND project aimed at overcoming these challenges. The GREENLAND guidance promotes a refocus from phytoremediation to wider GROs- or phyto-management based approaches which place realisation of wider benefits at the core of site design, and where gentle remediation technologies can be applied as part of integrated, mixed, site risk management solutions or as part of "holding strategies" for vacant sites. The combination of GROs with renewables, both in terms of biomass generation but also with green technologies such as wind and solar power, can provide a range of economic and other benefits and can potentially support the return of low-level contaminated sites to productive usage, while combining GROs with urban design and landscape architecture, and integrating GRO strategies with sustainable urban drainage systems and community gardens/parkland (particularly for health and leisure benefits), has large potential for triggering GRO application and in realising wider benefits in urban and suburban systems. Quantifying these wider benefits and value (above standard economic returns) will be important in leveraging funding for GRO application and soft site end-use more widely at vacant or underutilized sites.

Developing principles of sustainability and stakeholder engagement for "gentle" remediation approaches: the European context.

Gentle Remediation Options (GRO) are risk management strategies or techniques for contaminated sites that result in no gross reduction in soil functionality (or a net gain) as well as risk management. Intelligently applied GROs can provide: (a) rapid risk management via pathway control, through containment and stabilisation, coupled with a longer term removal or immobilisation/isolation of the contaminant source term; and (b) a range of additional economic (e.g. biomass generation), social (e.g. leisure and recreation) and environmental (e.g. CO2 sequestration) benefits. In order for these benefits to be optimised or indeed realised, effective stakeholder engagement is required. This paper reviews current sector practice in stakeholder engagement and its importance when implementing GRO and other remediation options. From this, knowledge gaps are identified, and strategies to promote more effective stakeholder engagement during GRO application are outlined. Further work is required on integrating stakeholder engagement strategies into decision support systems and tools for GRO (to raise the profile of the benefits of effective stakeholder engagement and participation, particularly with sector professionals), and developing criteria for the identification of different stakeholder profiles/categories. Demonstrator sites can make a significant contribution to stakeholder engagement via providing evidence on the effectiveness of GRO under varying site contexts and conditions. Effective and sustained engagement strategies however will be required to ensure that site risk is effectively managed over the longer-term, and that full potential benefits of GRO (e.g. CO2 sequestration, economic returns from biomass generation and "leverage" of marginal land, amenity and educational value, ecosystem services) are realised and communicated to stakeholders.

Immobilising of Cd, Pb, and Zn contaminated arable soils close to a former Pb/Zn smelter: a field study in Austria over 5 years.

Numerous smelter sites are surrounded by rural land. The entrance of non-essential metals such as lead or cadmium into the food chain is very likely as well as phytotoxicity effects of zinc. Finding a realistic solution for these large-scale contaminations was one aim of this study. Previous results from pot experiments showed a high potential for the reduction of metals entering the food chain via crops grown on smelter-contaminated soils from Arnoldstein, Austria, by the use of amendments for immobilisation. A further aim was to optimise a field experiment for overcoming the gap between pot and field experiments and to look for long-term efficiency of the treatments [lime (CA), red mud (RM), gravel sludge + red mud (GS + RM)]. Field experiment results were obtained for 5 years. Besides soil and soil pore water samples, the following harvests were yielded: spring barley (Hordeum distichon ssp. L.) (2004-2005), narrowleaf plantain (Plantago lanceolata L.) (2006-2007) and velvet grass (Holcus lanatus L.) (2007-2008). The long-term efficiency of GS + RM led us to conclude that their application seems to be a realistic and practical measure for extensively contaminated land, best in combination with metal excluding cultivars.

Microbial community structure and activity in trace element-contaminated soils phytomanaged by Gentle Remediation Options (GRO).

Gentle remediation options (GRO) are based on the combined use of plants, associated microorganisms and soil amendments, which can potentially restore soil functions and quality. We studied the effects of three GRO (aided-phytostabilisation, in situ stabilisation and phytoexclusion, and aided-phytoextraction) on the soil microbial biomass and respiration, the activities of hydrolase enzymes involved in the biogeochemical cycles of C, N, P, and S, and bacterial community structure of trace element contaminated soils (TECS) from six field trials across Europe. Community structure was studied using denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) fingerprinting of Bacteria, α- and ß-Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria and Streptomycetaceae, and sequencing of DGGE bands characteristic of specific treatments. The number of copies of genes involved in ammonia oxidation and denitrification were determined by qPCR. Phytomanagement increased soil microbial biomass at three sites and respiration at the Biogeco site (France). Enzyme activities were consistently higher in treated soils compared to untreated soils at the Biogeco site. At this site, microbial biomass increased from 696 to 2352 mg ATP kg-1 soil, respiration increased from 7.4 to 40.1 mg C-CO2 kg-1 soil d-1, and enzyme activities were 2-11-fold higher in treated soils compared to untreated soil. Phytomanagement induced shifts in the bacterial community structure at both, the total community and functional group levels, and generally increased the number of copies of genes involved in the N cycle (nirK, nirS, nosZ, and amoA). The influence of the main soil physico-chemical properties and trace element availability were assessed and eventual site-specific effects elucidated. Overall, our results demonstrate that phytomanagement of TECS influences soil biological activity in the long term.