Use of Field-Scale Phytotechnology
for Chlorinated Solvents, Metals, Explosives
and Propellants, and Pesticides
STATUS REPORT
Section
Page
Introduction 1
Project Locations 2
Contaminants 3
Vegetation Types 6
Phytotechnology Mechanisms 8
Number of Phytotechnology Projects
by Planting Year 10
Site Size and Project Scale 10
Phytotechnology Cost and Performance 10
Ongoing EPA Efforts Regarding Use of
Phytotechnology 13
Notice 14
References 14
Appendix A - Summary of Phytotechnology
Projects in the United States and
Canada
Appendix B - Examples of Phytotechnology
Projects in Countries Other Than the
United States and Canada
Introduction
Phytotechnology is an emerging technology that
has the potential to treat a wide range of
contaminants for a lower cost than traditional
technologies. This technology uses various
types of plants to degrade, extract, contain, or
immobilize contaminants in soil and water.
Phytotechnology has been used for remediation
of chlorinated solvents, metals, explosives and
propellants, pesticides, polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons, radionuclides, and petroleum
hydrocarbon compounds (EPA 2000).
Since the 1980s, phytotechnology has been used
by federal, state, and private sector organizations
to treat contaminated soil and groundwater.
Although information is available about the
types of mechanisms that are considered to be
components of phytotechnology, only limited
information is available about project
performance and time frames for project
completion. Where project information is
available, there is a wide variation in how
performance is measured, making it difficult for
decision-makers to interpret project results.
Purpose
For this status report, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has collected
information about 79 field-scale
phytotechnology projects conducted throughout
the United States and Canada that involved
treatment of soil and groundwater contaminated
with chlorinated solvents, metals, explosives and
propellants, and pesticides. The purpose of this
report is to inform readers of the status of these
projects. This document can be used as a
networking tool for federal, state, and industrial
employees to share lessons learned from and
practical experiences with field-scale
applications of phytotechnology. Appendix A
identifies the specific project sites, provides a
reference for each site, and summarizes the
types of information compiled for this status
report.
For Additional Information About
Phytotechnology, visit
http://www. clu-in. org/techfocus.
Topics covered include the following:
Overview
Guidance
Application
Training
Additional Resources
Disclaimer: Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
Standards of ethical conduct do not permit EPA to endorse any private sector product or service.
Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (5102G)
EPA 542-R-05-002
April 2005
http://www.clu-in.org
-------
Use of Field-Scale Phytotechnology for Chlorinated Solvents, Metals, Explosives and Propellants, and Pesticides
Methodology
EPA prepared summaries of available
phytotechnology data and contacted project
managers and researchers to confirm and update
the information. The information was obtained
from technology providers; technical literature;
and Web sites such as the Remediation
Technologies Development Forum
(www.rtdf.org), the Federal Remediation
Technology Roundtable (FRTR) (www.frtr.gov),
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
Reports (www.epa.gov/ORD/SITE), and the
Annual Status Report (www.clu-in.org/asr).
This phytotechnology status report includes data
about projects performed at Superfund sites;
federal and military sites; and other sites in the
United States and Canada that are being
addressed under state, local, or voluntary
cleanup programs. EPA attempted to compile
information that was readily available and
current for each project as of summer and fall
2004 (EPA 2004c). However, EPA was unable
to verify the available information for all
projects. In addition, for many of the projects,
there were gaps in the types of information
available (for example, for some sites,
performance data were not available). Some of
the projects were successful in remediating
contamination, while others were not.
Furthermore, the set of projects may not include
all the field-scale phytotechnology projects that
are ongoing or have been completed at this time.
Based on the time and resources available, EPA
limited this effort to phytotechnology projects
that were reported in the information resources
identified above and that were conducted at the
field scale. Projects using constructed wetlands
or alternative landfill covers (such as
evapotranspiration caps) were not considered
(see the text box for further information about
the phytotechnology projects included in this
report).
The rest of this status report summarizes
information for the 79 field-scale
phytotechnology projects, including the types of
contaminants treated; vegetation used;
phytotechnology mechanisms; planting date; and
project size, location, cost, and performance.
About the phytotechnology projects in this
report:
• Full- and pilot-scale field projects only (no
projects conducted only at a laboratory
research level)
• Sites contaminated with chlorinated
solvents, metals, explosives and propellants,
and pesticides only (no sites with organic,
petroleum, or radiation contamination are
included)
• Projects in the United States and Canada
only
• No projects that used constructed wetlands
• No projects that used alternative landfill
covers (such as evapotranspiration caps) -
for information about these types of
projects, visit
http://clu-in.org/products/altcovers/
Types of information collected for each
phytotechnology project include:
Site name and location
Site characterization
Planting date and description
Media treated
Vegetation types
Contaminants treated
Phytomechanisms used
Project size, scale, and status
Operation and maintenance
Technology cost and performance
Lessons learned
Point(s) of contact
Superfund Sites
Some of the phytotechnology projects addressed
in this report have been performed at Superfund
sites. Table 1 summarizes selected federal
Superfund sites where phytotechnology has been
used or is expected to be used.
Project Locations
The 79 phytotechnology projects have been
performed at sites in 31 states throughout the
United States, as shown in Figure 1. The
following four states have had five or more
phytotechnology projects: Idaho, Illinois,
-------
Use of Field-Scale Phytotechnology for Chlorinated Solvents, Metals, Explosives and Propellants, and Pesticides
Texas, and Wisconsin. As shown in Figure 1,
phytotechnology projects have been performed
in states with both warmer and colder climates
as well as in states with both relatively little
precipitation and extensive precipitation.
Contaminants
For all 79 projects, information was available
about the types of contaminants treated using
phytotechnology. The types of contaminants
covered in this report are chlorinated solvents,
metals, explosives and propellants, and
pesticides.
Chlorinated solvents are manmade organic
compounds that are typically manufactured
using naturally occurring hydrocarbon
constituents and chlorine. These solvents
include tetrachloroethene (PCE); trichloroethene
(TCE); 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA); vinyl
chloride (VC); and other chlorinated methanes,
ethanes, ethenes, and benzenes. The solvents
have many applications, including uses as
degreasers in dry cleaning operations and
manufacturing. As a result of their widespread
historical use, chlorinated solvents are
frequently found in soil and groundwater at
remediation sites. For example, TCE, TCA, and
VC have been identified as 3 of the 12
contaminants most commonly found at
Superfund sites (EPA 2004a).
Metal contamination is the result of
anthropogenic actions such as fossil fuel
combustion, mining and smelting operations,
and sewage and municipal waste discharges.
These activities can cause metals to be found at
elevated concentrations in soil and groundwater.
Metals such as arsenic, cadmium, chromium,
lead, and mercury are often identified as
contaminants of concern at remediation sites.
The sites where metal contaminants have been
found include artillery and small arms impact
areas, burn pits, electroplating and metal
finishing shops, landfills and burial pits, and
vehicle maintenance areas (FRTR 2004).
Explosives are manmade organic substances that
undergo rapid chemical transformations and
produce gases and pressures that can cause
damage to their surroundings (see
http://web.em.doe.gov/idb97/tab85.html). Some
common explosives include 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene
(TNT); dinitrotoluene (DNT); and octohydro-
1,3,5,7-tetranitro-l ,3,5,7-tetrazine (HMX).
Common uses of explosives include military
applications and pyrotechnic displays.
Propellants are inorganic ions such as
perchlorate that have been widely used in the
manufacture of solid propellants and explosives,
including rocket motors, fireworks, and flares.
Contamination of soil by propellants is typically
the result of the manufacture, storage, testing,
and disposal of these chemicals (FRTR 2004).
Pesticides are defined by EPA as any substances
or mixtures of substances that are intended to
prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate any pest.
This definition applies to herbicides, fungicides,
and various other substances used to control
pests. Pesticides are ubiquitous in the
environment because of their worldwide use.
Organochlorine pesticides, including aldrin,
chlordane, DDT, and dieldrin, tend to persist in
soil and groundwater for extended periods of
time (EPA 2004b).
Figure 2 shows a breakdown of the
phytotechnology projects by type of
contaminant. Among the 79 projects,
chlorinated solvents were treated most
frequently (44%), followed by metals (37%),
pesticides (15%), and explosives and propellants
For phytotechnology projects involving
chlorinated solvents, TCE (71%), PCE (49%),
VC (26%), and dichloroethane (DCA) (23%)
were the contaminants most commonly treated.
Exhibit 1 provides an example of a
phytotechnology field demonstration project
involving treatment of chlorinated solvents in
groundwater. The metals that were most
frequently treated using phytotechnology were
lead (40%), arsenic (33%), cadmium (24%), zinc
(15%), and copper (15%). The most commonly
treated pesticides were atrazine (36%), alachlor
(21%), and dieldrin (14%). For explosives and
propellants, DNT (66%), TNT(33%), and
perchlorate (33%) were treated using
phytotechnology.
-------
Use of Field-Scale Phytotechnology for Chlorinated Solvents, Metals, Explosives and Propellants, and Pesticides
Table 1. Phytotechnology Use at Superfund Sites for Chlorinated Solvents, Metals, Explosives and
Propellants, and Pesticides*
Site Name
Aberdeen
Pesticides Dumps
Aberdeen Proving
Ground
Argonne National
Laboratory West 1
AT&SF
Albuquerque
Atlas Tack
Corporation
Boarhead Farm
Bofors-Nobel Inc.
Carswell Naval Air
Station
Combustion, Inc.
Del Monte Corp.
East Palo Alto
FortDix
Fort Wainwright
Naval Undersea
Warfare Station
Sangamo Electric
Dump/Crab
Orchard National
Wildlife Refuge
Tibbetts Road
Site
Location
NC
MD
ID
NM
MA
PA
MI
TX
LA
HI
CA
NJ
AK
WA
IL
NH
ROD Date
06/04/99
09/27/01
09/29/98
06/27/02
03/10/00
11/18/98
ROD
Amendment:
07/16/99
08/96
05/28/04
09/25/03
RCRADrop
Site
Field
Demonstration
06/27/97
09/28/98
ROD
Amendment:
Expected in
2005
09/28/98
Contaminants
Dieldrin, Hexachlorobenzene,
Hexachlorahexane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachlorothane; 1,1,2-
Trichloroethane; 1,1 -DCE; 1,2-
Dichloroethane; 1,2-DCE; PCE; TCE;
VC
Cesium-137, Silver, Mercury, Chromium
2-Methylnaphthalene,
Benzo(a)anthracene,
Benzo(b)fluoranthene,
Benzo(k)fluoranthene,
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, Dibenzofuran,
Ideno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, Naphthalene, Zinc
Benzene, Chromium, Copper, Cyanide,
Mercury, Nickel, Zinc
Benzene, Cadmium, Nickel, TCE
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine; Acetone; Arsenic;
VC; PCE; Aniline; Benzene; Toluene;
Xylene; Zinc
TCE, DCE
DCA, PCB, Benzene, Lead, Mercury,
Nickel, Silver, Toluene, Toluene
Diisocynate, Toluene Diamine
Ethylene Dibromide; l,2-Dibromo-3-
chloropropane; 1,2-Dichloropropane;
1,2,3-Trichloropropane (Pesticides)
Arsenic, Sodium
Lead
Aldrin, ODD, DDT, Dieldrin
TCA, Halogenated Volatiles
1,1 -DCE; PCE; VC
TCE
PbytotechnoloRy
Status
Ongoing (1999 - )
Ongoing (1996 -)
Completed (1999 -
2002)
Predesign
Design (2003 - )
Designed/Not
Installed (2003)
Pilot Completed
(1999 -2002); Design
Phase (2005 -)
Ongoing (1996-
2006)
Ongoing (2002 - )
Ongoing (1 998-)
Ongoing (1981- )
Completed (1997-
2002)
Completed (1997-
2001)
Ongoing (1999-
2009)
Planned (2006 - )
Ongoing (1998 -
2015)
* Includes federal Superfund sites at which phytotechnology was selected and/or used for remediation of one or more of the four
types of contaminants included in this report. This table includes sites for which phytotechnology has been selected in a record
of decision (ROD), has been used in a field demonstration, or is planned for use. Further site-specific information about
Superfund is available at www.epa.gov/superfund.
-------
Use of Field-Scale Phytotechnology for Chlorinated Solvents, Metals, Explosives and Propellants, and Pesticides
Figure 1. Locations of Phytotechnology Projects in the United States
Project Locations
iSlte
'*'.' 2 Sites
Figure 2. Distribution of Contaminants Treated in 79 Phytotechnology Projects
Metals, 29, 37%
Explosives and
Propellants, 3,4%
Pesticides, 12,15%
Chlorinated Solvents, 35,
44%
Note: Some projects may be counted multiple times because they involve more than one type of contaminant
Labels present the contaminant type, number of projects, and percentage of total projects.
-------
Use of Field-Scale Phytotechnology for Chlorinated Solvents, Metals, Explosives and Propellants, and Pesticides
Exhibit 1. Phytodegradation of Chlorinated
Solvents in Groundwatcr at the Edward Sears
Property, New Gretnn, New Jersey
From the mid-1960s to the early 1990s, the
Edward Sears property was used for repackaging
and sale of paints, adhesives, paint thinners, and
various military surplus materials. Groundwater
at the site was contaminated with a variety of
solvents, including methylene chloride,
trimethylbenzene, TCE, and xylenes. Beginning
in 1996, a field demonstration of
phytotechnology was performed that used hybrid
poplars to clean up shallow groundwater at the
site. Substantial reductions in contaminant
concentrations have been reported. For
example, data for the period from 1995 to 2004
show that concentrations of methylene chloride
were reduced from as high as 6,700 micrograms
per liter (ng/L) to below detection levels;
concentrations of trimethylbenzene were
reduced from as high as 1,890 ug/L to 730 ug/L;
and concentrations of TCE were reduced from as
high as 510 ng/L to 46 ug/L. Groundwater
monitoring is ongoing at the site.
Sources:
FRTR. 2002. "Cost and Performance Case
Study, Phytoremediation at Edward Sears Site,
New Gretna, NJ." vrww.frtr.gov.
Prince, George, EPA Emergency Response
Team (ERT). 2004 Email to Ellen Rubin, EPA
Office of Superfund Remediation and
Technology Innovation (OSRTI) regarding
Edward Sears Site Data. November 1.
Vegetation Types
Many types of vegetation have been used in
phytotechnology projects, including tree species
such as hybrid poplars, willows, and
cottonwoods; plants such as sunflowers, Indian
mustard, and ferns; and various types of grasses.
Of the 79 projects, 78 have reported information
about the types of vegetation used in
phytotechnology. Table 2 summarizes the types
of vegetation used in the 78 projects by type of
contaminant treated. A total of 70 different
species were used; however, Table 2
summarizes information only for the vegetation
types used in two or more projects. In general,
hybrid poplars (59%), various grass species
(44%), and willows (19%) were the most
frequently used types of vegetation.
For chlorinated solvents, the most commonly
used vegetation types were hybrid poplars (used
in 83% of the chlorinated solvent projects),
willows (26%), various grass species (26%), and
cottonwoods or native poplars (11%). Diverse
stands of vegetation (that is, stands containing
more than one type of vegetation) were used in
20 of the 35 solvent projects. Of the 15 projects
using monocultures (single types of vegetation),
13 used hybrid poplars and/or willow species for
remediation.
For pesticides, the most commonly used
vegetation types were hybrid poplars (used in
83% of the pesticide projects) and various grass
species (67%). Six of the 12 pesticide projects
used diverse stands of vegetation. Of the six
projects that used monocultures, four used
hybrid poplars, one used willows, and one used
squash. An example of a project that used
hybrid poplars and ground-cover grasses to
degrade pesticides in groundwater is provided in
Exhibit 2.
For explosives and propellants, one of the
projects did not provide information about the
type of vegetation used for remediation. The
other two projects used hybrid poplars. One
project used a monoculture, and the other
combined willows and bald cypress with hybrid
poplars.
At sites contaminated with metals, the types of
vegetation used were different than at sites with
other contaminants. Only six of the 29 metal
projects used hybrid poplars or willows. Most
projects (62%) used one or more grass species.
Other than various grass species, no vegetation
type was used more than 25% of the time, and
only four types - Indian mustard (24%), hybrid
poplars (21%), sunflowers (14%), and willows
(14%) - were used in more than 10% of the
projects. Eleven of the metal projects (38%)
used a monoculture.
-------
Use of Field-Scale Phytotechnology for Chlorinated Solvents, Metals, Explosives and Propellants, and Pesticides
Table 2. Vegetation Types Used in 78 Phytotechnology Projects
Type
Corn
Cottonwood
Eastern Gamagrass
Eucalyptus
Fescue
Grasses
Hybrid Poplar
Hyperaccumulating Fern
Indian Mustard
Legumes
Loblolly Pine
Magnolia
Mulberry
Silver Maple
Sunflower
Sweet Gum
Willow
Chlorinated
Solvents
1
4
1
1
0
9
29
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
0
3
9
Pesticides
1
0
0
0
1
8
11
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
Explosives
and
Propellants
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Metals
2
2
2
2
1
18
5
2
7
0
1
0
1
0
4
0
4
Total
4
6
3
3
2
35
47
2
8
2
2
2
2
3
5
3
15
Exhibit 2. Phytodegradation of Pesticides in Groundwater at Aberdeen Pesticides Dumps Site,
Aberdeen, North Carolina
The Aberdeen Pesticides Dumps site (APDS) consists of five geographically separate areas, one pesticide
formulation plant and four disposal areas, that operated between the mid-1930s and 1987. Soil and
groundwater at the site were contaminated with pesticides such as dieldrin, benzene hexachloride (BHC)
isomers, hexachlorohexane, DDT, and DDE. This site was placed on the National Priorities List (NPL) in
1989. A 1999 ROD selected phytotechnology as a remedy for the Mclver Dump Area (one of the five areas
that constitute APDS). This area was considered to be suitable for implementation of phytotechnology because
of its shallow water table, which would allow tree roots to contact the contaminated groundwater. Hybrid
poplars and ground-cover grasses were planted in the Dump Area in 1999. Quarterly groundwater sampling
results from 2001 indicated that BHC isomer concentrations in all the monitoring wells had either remained
unchanged or decreased. For example, in one monitoring well, the concentration of alpha-BHC decreased from
0.224 ng/L to less than 0.047 ug/L, while in another well, the beta-BHC concentration decreased from 0.243
ug/L to 0.0565 ug/L. A 2001 Mclver Annual Report indicated that the remedy continued to be protective of
potential human and ecological receptors. Groundwater sampling activities are ongoing at the site.
Sources:
EPA. 2004. "North Carolina NPL/NPL Caliber Cleanup Site Summaries - Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps."
http://www.epa.gov/region4/waste/npl/nplnc/aberdnnc.htm. Web Site Accessed on November 10.
EPA. 2003. "Close-Out Report for Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps Superfund Site, Aberdeen, Moore County,
North Carolina." http://www.epa.gov/region4/waste/npl/nplnc/aberdnnc.htm.
EPA. 1999. "Record of Decision System (RODS) - Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps (OU5)."
http://cfpub. epa.gov/superrods/srchrods. cfm.
Mann, Thomas, URS Corporation. 2004. Email to Ellen Rubin, EPA OSRTI regarding Mclver Dump Area.
October 27.
-------
Use of Field-Scale Phytotechnologyfor Chlorinated Solvents, Metals, Explosives and Propellants, and Pesticides
Phytotcchnology Mechanisms
Several mechanisms have been used in
phytotechnology projects, including those that
control groundwater hydraulics or degrade,
extract, contain, or immobilize contaminants
(EPA 2000). Of the 79 projects, 75 provided
information about the type of phytotechnology
mechanism that was used. The most commonly
used mechanisms were phytoextraction (used in
53% of the projects) and hydraulic control
(42%). This section describes each mechanism,
and Table 3 summarizes the mechanisms used in
the 75 projects by type of contaminant treated.
Hydraulic control (HC) refers to use of plants
to remove groundwater through uptake and
consumption in order to contain or control
migration of contaminants. For the 75 projects,
hydraulic control was used most frequently at
sites with chlorinated solvent contamination.
When hydraulic control is used in place of or in
addition to an engineered pump-and-treat
system, there are seasonal limitations on
groundwater uptake. The types of contaminants
that hydraulic control is used to contain are
water-soluble organics or inorganics that are not
phytotoxic.
Phytodegradation (PD) involves the
breakdown of contaminants taken up by plants
through metabolic processes within the plants.
Phytodegradation is typically used to remediate
chlorinated solvents such as TCE and pesticides
such as atrazine. Among the 75 projects,
Phytodegradation was used most often for
chlorinated solvents and pesticides.
Phytoextraction (PE), the most commonly used
mechanism for the projects, is the uptake of
contaminants by plant roots and the
translocation of the contaminants within the
plants. This mechanism was most often applied
at sites with metal contamination. Plants used
for phytoextraction, which are typically called
hyperaccumulators, are found in the
Brassicaceae, Euphorbiaceae, Asteraceae,
Lemiaceae, and Scrophulariaceae families.
Hyperaccumulator species include Indian
mustard, ferns, tall fescue, sunflowers, and corn.
The mechanism has been extensively researched
in the laboratory; however, the effectiveness of
its field applications has been limited.
Table 3. Number of Projects Using Phytotechnology Mechanisms
Mechanism
Hydraulic Control
Phytodegradation
Phytoextraction
Phytostabilization
Phytovolatilization
Rhizodegradation
Rhizofiltration
Chlorinated
Solvents
26
14
11
0
7
11
0
Pesticides
4
3
6
3
0
8
1
Explosives
and
Propellnnts
0
1
1
0
0
2
0
Mctnh
3
0
23
9
1
0
0
Total
33
18
41
12
8
21
1
-------
Use of Field-Scale Phytotechnology for Chlorinated Solvents, Metals, Explosives and Propellants, and Pesticides
Phytostabilization (PS) is the immobilization
of a contaminant in soil through absorption and
accumulation by roots, absorption onto roots, or
precipitation within the root zone of plants. The
mechanism involves the use of plants and plant
roots to prevent contaminant migration via wind
and water erosion, leaching, and soil dispersion.
The phytostabilization processes occur through
changes in root zone microbiology and
chemistry. This mechanism was typically used
for metal-contaminated soils. The mechanism
does not require extensive soil excavation;
however, it does require long-term maintenance
because the contamination remains in place.
Plant species that have been used for
phytostabilization include grasses, Indian
mustard, sunflowers, tall fescue, and soybeans.
Phytovolatilization (PV) is the uptake and
transpiration of a contaminant by plants and the
release of the contaminant to the atmosphere.
Phytovolatilization has been used for projects
involving chlorinated solvents in groundwater,
including TCE, TCA, and carbon tetrachloride.
Poplars, willows, and cottonwoods have been
used for phytovolatilization. At one site, eastern
cottonwoods were used for a field demonstration
to evaluate phytovolatilization of mercury from
soil.
Rhizodegradation (RD) is the breakdown of an
organic contaminant in soil through microbial
activity that is enhanced by the presence of a
root zone. In rhizodegradation, plant roots are
used to create an environment that is more
conducive to microbial activity by adding root
exudates, increasing soil aeration, or increasing
soil moisture. Rhizodegradation has been used
for projects involving chlorinated solvents,
pesticides, and explosives and propellants. Plant
species used for rhizodegradation include
poplars, willows, and grasses. Exhibit 3
provides an example of a field demonstration
that examined the use of phytodegradation and
rhizodegradation for perchlorate remediation.
Exhibit 3. Phytodegradation and
Rhizodegradation of Perchlorate in
Groundwater at Longhorn Army
Ammunition Plant, Marshall, Texas
The Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant (LAAP)
has groundwater that is contaminated with
perchlorate. A field demonstration of
phytotechnology was performed using 425
hybrid poplars; the trees were planted in March
2003 on a 0.7-acre demonstration site. In this
demonstration, concentrations of perchlorate
were reduced from 34 to 23 milligrams per liter
(mg/L) as of October 2004. According to the
site researcher, the mass of perchlorate taken up
by the poplar trees and/or degraded within the
rhizosphere was 0.114 kilogram per day (kg/d) ±
0.016 kg/d. Between April 2003 and September
2004,52 kg of perchlorate was removed from
the groundwater by the hybrid poplar trees
and/or the microbes that grow in the root zone.
However, because of a complicated
hydrogeologic setting and trenching, it was
difficult to obtain a water balance and mass
balance for perchlorate in order to prove the
effectiveness of the treatment. In addition, the
site researcher reported that the trees were
growing well and that the phytoremediation
system was functioning well; only 5% of the
trees did not survive the first growing season.
Source:
Schnoor, J.L., et al. 2004. "Demonstration
Project of Phytoremediation and
Rhizodegradation of Perchlorate in Groundwater
at the Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant."
University of Iowa, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering.
Rhizofiltration (RF) is the adsorption or
precipitation of contaminants onto plant roots or
the absorption of contaminants into the roots as
a result of biotic or abiotic processes. One
project used rhizofiltration to treat pesticides,
herbicides, and volatile organic compounds
(VOC) in groundwater and soil. The vegetation
types used were hybrid poplars and grasses.
-------
Use of Field-Scale Phytotechnology for Chlorinated Solvents, Metals, Explosives and Propellants, and Pesticides
Number of Phytotechnology Projects by
Planting Year
Phytotechnology projects often are performed
over several years while species become
established and contact between plants and
contaminants is increased. To provide an
indication of the age of the 79 phytotechnology
projects, Figure 3 shows the number of projects
that were started in particular years. This
information is drawn from the 73 projects that
reported a planting year. Among those projects,
the use of phytotechnology peaked in projects
that were begun between 1996 and 2001. The
use of phytotechnology for metal contamination
has been relatively constant, with one to three
projects started each year except for 1992, when
no metal projects began. There have been no
new pesticide projects begun since 1999. The
earliest phytotechnology project involving
chlorinated solvents began in 1996. Solvent
projects reached their peak phytotechnology use
in 2001, when eight projects were started. Since
2001, only one chlorinated solvent project has
been started each year.
Site Size and Project Scale
Among the 61 projects that reported treatment
site size information, site size ranged from less
than 0.5 acre to more than 1,000 acres, as shown
in Figure 4. Thirty-six sites occupied 1.5 acres
or less, and five were more than 9 acres in size.
The 39 pilot- and field-scale demonstration
projects account for most of the sites that were
1.5 acres or smaller but include projects at
several larger sites. For example, a field
demonstration was performed at the Naval
Undersea Warfare Station in Washington that
used hybrid poplars on an 8-acre site to treat
TCA and other halogenated VOCs. Project
scale information was provided by 68 of the
projects; of these, 29 were reported to be full-
scale and 39 were reported to be pilot- or field-
scale demonstrations.
Phytotechnology Cost and Performance
The cost and performance of phytotechnology
are highly site-specific as they depend on factors
such as the types of contaminants present,
contaminant concentrations, other site
characteristics (for example, the depth to
groundwater and soil properties), and the type of
vegetation used. Cost information was available
for 40 of the 79 phytotechnology projects.
Performance information was available for 52
projects, including 25 pilot- or field-scale
demonstrations and 27 full-scale remedies.
The cost information included various types of
data and levels of detail. TheFRTRhas
suggested that cost data should be itemized for
each activity performed during a
phytotechnology project. Specifically, data
should be reported for planning and site
preparation; site work; materials (such as trees
or other vegetation); and operation and
maintenance, including labor (FRTR 1998).
For Additional Information about the FRTR
guidelines for reporting technology cost data,
refer to the "Guide to Documenting and
Managing Cost and Performance Information for
Remediation Projects" (October 1998, EPA 542-
B-98-007) located at
http://www.frtr.gov/pd/7guide.pdJ7.
Eight of the 40 projects provided cost
information at the level of detail suggested by
the FRTR. For those eight projects, the costs
ranged from $30,000 for a 1.5-acre site where
hybrid poplars were used to treat pesticides to
$800,000 for a 5-acre site where TCE was
treated using more than 800 trees and for which
research and development activities were
conducted. Collection and reporting of cost data
in the manner suggested by the FRTR would
improve the total body of information available
for phytotechnology evaluation.
The performance information also varied in
terms of the type and specificity of data
reported. Project performance was described in
both qualitative and quantitative terms.
Examples of the qualitative information include
plant growth and plant survival data. Five
projects provided this type of information; in
three projects the vegetation thrived, and in two
projects the vegetation did not.
10
-------
Use of Field-Scale Phytotechnology for Chlorinated Solvents, Metals, Explosives and Propellants, and Pesticides
Figure 3. Number of Phytotechnology Projects by Planting Year - 73 Projects Total
15-
12-
I"
Q.
Number of
o>
3
0-
I
1
•^.
'§'
r^ 1
11:1
NXN
1
£i£
&,
I
:=:
A^
^
[A-VJ
Hi
•^
1
!!*•>
s
??
X>
X>
X?
x>
X>
56
50
X>
X>
X>
X>
1
"S"?
£±L
ntm
1
|
*
5«
8?
X)<
&
80
80
x>
x>
x>
x>
?v
>o<
x>
x><
i
^
•1
B8
0<
-------
Use of Field-Scale Phytotechnologyfor Chlorinated Solvents, Metals, Explosives and Propellants, and Pesticides
Figure 4. Site Size Range for 61 Phytotechnology Projects
9d -
16 -
o
1"
Q.
"S 1? -
O '^
0
A
z
8.
4 -
«
XX
XX
XX
XX
88
88
88
88
X?
£^
3
/
I
i
<
[^
88
vv
XX
88
88
w
XX
88
88
88
88
88
22
Q Chlorinated Solvents
Q Pesticides
O Explosives and Propellants
Q Metals
gX Note: This graph
xx includes both full-
I^8I B88 B85 ^ scale and P'lot"
ww> I^S/N •••*• ^^ oo* «^^»i R93 ^_^ ^^ demonstration
^^j^^^^Q^QQ
O,* t^.' rtj* ^i- <3* ^- ^ • (^3- Q* Oj«
^Q^O^Q^^^Q
\* ^* *^* **)• tn* vj* ^* ^* *2j*
Acreage
Source: Refer to the projects listed in Appendix A.
12
-------
Use of Field-Scale Phytotechnology for Chlorinated Solvents, Metals, Explosives and Propellants, and Pesticides
The quantitative performance information that is
often provided for phytotechnology projects
includes contaminant concentrations in
groundwater, soil, or plant tissue before and
after treatment was performed as well as
information about rooting depth; transpiration
leaf area index; canopy height; plant and core
tissue samples; tree girth; concentrations of
degradation products; rates of groundwater
extraction. Other indicator parameters such as
soil oxygen levels, hydraulic control, and
groundwater depression may also be included.
A total of 31 projects provided information
about changes in contaminant concentrations,
with 26 reporting decreased concentrations and
five indicating no change in concentration. In
addition, five projects provided information
about hydraulic control, with four reporting that
control was achieved using phytotechnology.
Information was not available to fully describe
the contaminant concentrations achieved by
phytotechnology for any of the contaminant
types covered in this report. Additional cost and
performance information for specific
phytotechnology projects is provided in the
references for this report.
An example of the types of performance and
cost information that is available for a
phytotechnology project involving treatment of
metal-contaminated groundwater is provided in
Exhibit 4.
Ongoing EPA Efforts Regarding Use of
Phytotechnology
EPA is continuing its efforts to examine current
trends in the use of phytotechnology. Areas of
particular interest include measurement of
technology performance, ecosystem restoration,
use of phytotechnology in remedial systems, and
the fate and transport of contaminants.
Exhibit4. Phytoextraction of Metal-
Contaminated Groundwater at Texas City
Chemicals, C-H Area, Texas City, Texas
The Plant C site in Texas City, Texas, which is
owned by BP is adjacent to the Tex Tin
Superfund site, a former smelter facility that
operated during World War II. The Area H
portion of the Plant C site has highly saline
groundwater that is contaminated with metals
such as lead, copper, and cadmium that
originated at the Tex Tin site. BP is performing
a phytotechnology field demonstration using
eucalyptus trees in Area H as a contingency to
the voluntary cleanup efforts at the Tex Tin site,
which include capping and barrier wall
installation. In a greenhouse study, BP was able
to grow trees with water having twice the
salinity of seawater, however, the salinity of
Area H groundwater has been measured at three
times that of seawater. In field trials, BP
reported that metals are being phytostabilized in
the tree root zone with some minor uptake into
leaves. BP also reported that saline components
- sodium, calcium, and magnesium - have been
found in the aboveground plant tissues. Water
isotope ratio studies indicated that approximately
35% of the water taken up by trees has been
contaminated groundwater. The pilot-scale
project is a precursor to a potential full-scale
phytoremediation project that could include as
many as 1,000 additional trees should the
voluntary cleanup efforts prove inadequate. The
estimated cost for the full-scale project is
$136,000 for installation plus $18,000 for
operation and maintenance during the first 3
years of the study.
Sources:
Interstate Technology and Regulatory
Cooperation Work Group (ITRC). 2004.
Technologies Workshop.
Tsao, David, BP. Email to Ellen Rubin, EPA
OSRTI regarding Combustion, Inc. Site Data.
October 21.
http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do7cat
egoryld=2011066&contentld=2016238
http://www. bp. com/liveassets/bp_internet/global
bp/STAGING/global_assets/dawnloads/C/cs_US
A_Reducing_NOx_emissions_at_Texas_City_US
A_2003.pdf
13
-------
Use of Field-Scale Phytotechnology for Chlorinated Solvents, Metals, Explosives and Propellants, and Pesticides
Third International Phytotechnology
Conference, Atlanta, Georgia
April 20 through 22,2005
EPA is currently planning the third international
conference on the use of phytotechnology, which
will be conducted in Atlanta, Georgia, in April
2005. Topics of discussion for the conference
include measurement technologies or techniques
for assessing a project's progress; projects that
decrease costs associated with existing,
conventional remediation or containment; use of
phytotechnology in developing economies;
ecological restoration or habitat creation during
remediation; fate and transport of contaminants
through plants and associated ecological risk;
case studies of successful phytotechnology
applications; and case studies that illustrate the
regulatory process for evaluating
phytotechnology projects. The information
collected at the conference will be made
available at www.clu-in.org/phytoconf.
Notice
If you have comments or questions regarding
this report or the Third International
Phytotechnology Conference in April 2005,
please contact Ellen Rubin at EPA's Office of
Superfund Remediation and Technology
Innovation at (703) 603-0141 or
ntbin.ellen@epa.gov.
References
EPA. 2000. "Introduction to
Phytoremediation." Office of Research and
Development. EPA600/R-99/107. February.
EPA. 200la. "Ground Water Issue -
Phytoremediation of Contaminated Soil and
Ground Water at Hazardous Waste Sites."
Office of Research and Development. 540/S-
01/500. February.
EPA. 200 Ib. "Brownfields Technology Primer:
Selecting and Using Phytoremediation for Site
Cleanup." Brownfields Technology Support
Center. EPA 542-R-01-006.
EPA. 2004a. "In Situ Thermal Treatment of
Chlorinated Solvents: Fundamentals and Field
Applications." Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response. EPA 542-R-04-010.
March, www.clu-in.org.
EPA. 2004b. Pesticides Web Site at
www. epa.gov/pesticides/about. Information
Downloaded on October 19.
EPA. 2004c. "Phytoremediation Field Studies
Database for Chlorinated Solvents, Pesticides,
Explosives, and Metals." Compiled by Ana
Hoffhagle and Cynthia Green (Summer Interns).
http://www. clu-in. org/studentpapers/.
EPA. 2004d. "Treatment Technologies for Site
Cleanup: Annual Status Report." Eleventh
Edition. EPA 542-R-03-009.
FRTR. 1998. "Guide to Documenting and
Managing Cost and Performance Information for
Remediation Projects." Revised Version. EPA
542-B-98-007. October, www.frtr.gov.
FRTR. 2004. Remediation Technologies
Screening Matrix - Version 4.0 at
http:/Avww.frtr.gov/matrix2/top_page.html.
Information Downloaded on October 19.
ITRC. 2001. "Technical and Regulatory
Guidance Document: Phytotechnology."
Phytotechnologies Work Team Document No:
PHYTO-2. April.
Newman, Lee A., and Charles M. Reynolds.
2004. "Phytodegradation of Organic
Compounds." Current Opinion in
Biotechnology. Volume 15. Pages 225 through
230. www.sciencedirect.com.
Acknowledgements
EPA would like to thank their Summer Interns
Ana Hoffnagle and Cynthia Green for gathering
the information used in this Status Report.
14
-------
APPENDIX A
Summary of Phytotechnology Projects in the
United States and Canada
-------
Use of Field-Scale Phytotechnology for Chlorinated Solvents, Metals, Explosives and Propellants, and Pesticides
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF PHYTOTECHNOLOGY PROJECTS IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA
Site Name
State
Planting
Date
End
Date
Medium
-
Vegetation Type
Contaminants Treated
Phytocechanistns || Site Size and Project Scak
HC
PD
PE
PS
PV
RD
1
RF|| Acreage
fall-
Seals
Pilot/Field
Sccle
Chlorinated Solvents
Aberdeen Proving
Ground
MD
1996
NA
GW,
Soil
Hybrid Poplar, Sweet
Gum, Silver Maple,
Magnolia
PCA, TCA, PCE, TCE, DCE,
DCA, VC
X
X
1
X
http://web. ead. anl.gov/jfleld/phyto/index. cfm
Altus Air Force
Base
OK
1999
NA
NA
Hybrid Poplar
TCE, DCE, PCE 1 o
1 °'3
0
0
http://www.afcee.brooks.af.mil/products/techtrans/phytorem.asp or http://www.afcee.brooks.af.mil/products/techtrans/monitorednaturalattenuation/nastatus.xls (Overall Status Tab)
Amboer Road
OR
NA
NA
GW,
Soil
Hybrid Poplar, Sweet
Gum, Silver Maple,
Magnolia
PCE, Degradation Products
X
X
5
X
http://wmv.rtdf.org/public/phyto/siteproJ7usersearch/phyto detail.cfm?TrackID=203
Anonymous
WA
1996
NA
Soil
Hybrid Poplar
TCE, PCE, Carbon
Tetrachloride
X
0.25
X
http://myprofile. cos. com/gordonm 15 or http://clu-in. org/download/studentpapers/hoffnagle-phytoremediation.pdf(Page A32)
Argonne National
Laboratory:
3 17/3 19 Area
IL
1999
NA
GW,
Soil
Eastern Gamagrass,
Hybrid Poplar,
Golden Weeping
Willow, Hybrid
Prairie Cascade
Willow, Laurel-
Leaved Willow
PCE, TCE, Arsenic,
Chloroform, Carbon
Tetrachloride, Lead, Tritium,
Zinc
0
o
0
o
o
4
0
http://web. ead. anl.gov/phyto/
Ashland Inc.
WI
2000
NA
GW,
Soil
Hybrid Poplar,
Understory Grasses
DCA, PCE, TCE, BTEX, 1 x
Gasoline, DRO 1
X
X
I °'4
X
http:/Avww. ecolotree. com/apps2. html
Note: Some of these projects were successful in remediating contamination, while others were not.
More detailed information, including points of contact, for these projects can be found in "Phytoremediation Field Studies Database for Chlorinated Solvents, Pesticides, Explosives, and Metals" (EPA 2004)
GW=Groundwater; NA=Not Available; HC=Hydraulic Control; PD=Phytodegradation; PE=Phytoextraction; PS=Phytostabilization; PV=PhytovoIatilization; RD=Rhizodegradation; RF=Rhizofiltration;
*=Superfund; o=Federal or Military Site; x=All Other Sites
A-l
-------
Use of Field-Scale Phytotechnology for Chlorinated Solvents, Metals, Explosives and Propellants, and Pesticides
••"••' \
Site Name
Bofors-Nobel
Superfund Site
State
MI
Planting
Date
1999
End
Date
2002
Medium
GW,
Soil
Vegetation Type
Norway Maple,
Hackberry, Honey
Locust, Eastern Red
Cedar, Black Hills
Spruce, Jack Pine,
Hybrid Poplar, Bur
Oak, White Willow
Contaminants Treated
3,3-Dichlorobenzene, VC,
PCE, Aniline, Azobenzene,
Benzidine, Toluene
Phytoraecbanisms
HC
PD
*
PE
*
PS
PV
RD
*
RF
Site Size and Project Scale
Acreage
20
FuIl-
Scale
Pilot/Field
Scale
*
http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0502372
Carswell Naval Air
Station
http://www. clu-in. or$
Combustion, Inc.
Superfund
TX
1996
2006
GW,
Soil
Eastern Cottonwood
TCE.DCE | o
o
o
o
0.5
0
fPRODUCTS/NEWSLTRS/tnandt/view.cfm?issue=0903.cfm#4
LA
2002
NA
GW
Eucalyptus, Poplar,
Native Willows
DCA, PCS, Benzene, Lead,
Mercury, Nickel, Silver,
Toluene, Toluenediisocynate,
Toluene Diamine
*
*
*
NA
*
http://cfpub.epa. gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0600472
Edward Sears
Property
NJ
1996
2004
GW,
Soil
Hybrid Poplar
PCE,TCE,DCM | o
0
1
0
http://www. epa.gov/tio/download/partner/98anmtal.pdf '(Page 4 1 ) or http://www. epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/lrpcd/rcb/phytohaz. htm
Ellsworth Air Force
Base
SD
2001
NA
Hybrid Poplar
TCE, DCE | o
1
0
http://www.afcee.brooks.af.mil/products/techtrans/monitorednaturalattenuation/nastatus.xls (Overall Status Tab)
ERP Site 17, Beale
Air Force Base
CA
2000
NA
GW
Native Cottonwood,
Live Oak, Deer
Grass, Meadow
Barley, Clustered
Field Sage, Narrow-
Leaved Willow
TCE, DCM
0
5
http://clu-in.org/downloaaystudentpapers/hoffnagle-phytoremediation.pdf '(Page A43)
Fairchild Air Force
Base
WA
2001
NA
NA
Hybrid Poplar
TCE, DCM | o
1 '
0
http://www.afcee.brooks.af.mil/products/techtrans/phytorem.asp or http://www.afcee.brooks.af.mil/products/techtrans/monitorednaturalattenuation/nastatus.xls (Overall Status Tab)
Note: Some of these projects were successful in remediating contamination, while others were not.
More detailed information, including points of contact, for these projects can be found in "Phytoremediation Field Studies Database for Chlorinated Solvents, Pesticides, Explosives, and Metals" (EPA 2004)
GW=Groundwater; NA=Not Available; HC=Hydraulic Control; PD=Phytodegradation; PE=Phytoextraction; PS=Phytostabilization; PV=Phytovolatilization; RD=Rhizodegradation; RF=Rhizofiltration;
*=Superfund; o=Federal or Military Site; x=All Other Sites
A-2
-------
Use of Field-Scale Phytotechnology for Chlorinated Solvents, Metals, Explosives and Propellants, and Pesticides
Site Name
Fringe Drain Area
State
IL
Planting
Date
1999
End
Date
NA
Medintn
GW,
Soil
Vegetation Type
Hybrid Poplar,
Willow
Contaminants Treated
TCE
Phytorsecbanisns
HC
o
PD
o
PE
PS
PV
RD
RF
Site Size and Project Scale
Acreage
5
FnB-
Scafe
0
Pilot/Field
Scale
http://www. treemediation. com/ or http://clu-in. org/download/studentpapers/hoffhagle-phytoremediation.pdf(Page A46)
Grand Forks Air
Force Base
ND
2001
NA
GW,
Soil
Eastern Cottonwood,
Hybrid Poplar,
Russian Olive
TCE, DCM
0
o
0
0
0.7
0
http://www. ctfcee. brooks, of.mil/ms/msp/center/summer2002/treegrandforks. asp
Hill Air Force
Base: OU 4
UT
NA
NA
GW,
Soil
Hybrid Poplar
DCA, DCE, PCE, TCA,
TCE, Chromium, Cadmium,
Manganese, Arsenic
0
0
NA
0
http://www.afcee.brooks.af.mil/products/techtrans/phytorem.asp or http://www.afcee.brooks.af.mil/products/techtrans/monitorednaturalattenuation/nastatus.xls (Overall Status Tab)
Jones Island
Confined Disposal
Facility
WI
2001
NA
Soil
Clover, Corn,
Willow
PCBs, PAH, DRO, Metals
o
NA
0
http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/pubs/540r04508/540r04508a.pdf
Kaufrman &
Minteer
NJ
1998
NA
GW,
Soil
Hybrid Poplar, Black
Willow
DCA, TCE, PCE, DDT,
Endosulfan Sulfate, Ethyl
Benzene, 2-
Methylnapthalene, Styrene,
Toluene
X
5
http://ww\v.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/lrpcd/rcb/phytohaz.htm
Metal Plating
Facility
OH
1997
NA
Soil
Hybrid Poplar, Rye
Grass, Indian
Mustard
TCE
X
X
0.23
X
http://clu-in. org/products/site/ongoing/demoong/phytotec.htm
Montezoma West
OR
1997
NA
GW,
Soil
Hybrid Poplar
TCA |
X
X
1
X
http://www.deq.state.or.us/wmc/ECSI/ecsidetail.asp?seqnbr=79
NASA Kennedy
Space Center:
Hydrocarbon Burn
Facility
FL
1998
NA
GW,
Soil
Hybrid Poplar,
Understory Grasses
DCE, TCE, VC, Chromium,
TPH
0
0
o
0
3
0
http://\vw\v. rtdf.org/public/phyto/siteprof/usersearch/phyto detail.cfm?TrackID=186
Note: Some of these projects were successful in remediating contamination, while others were not.
More detailed information, including points of contact, for these projects can be found in "Phytoremediation Field Studies Database for Chlorinated Solvents, Pesticides, Explosives, and Metals" (EPA 2004)
GW=Groundwater; NA=Not Available; HC=Hydraulic Control; PD=Phytodegradation; PE=Phytoextraction; PS=Phytostabilization; PV=PhytovoIatilization; RD=Rhizodegradation; RF=RhizofiItration;
*=Superfund; o=Federal or Military Site; x=All Other Sites
A-3
-------
Use of Field-Scale Phytotechnology for Chlorinated Solvents, Metals, Explosives and Propellants, and Pesticides
Site Name
Naval Undersea
Warfare Station
State
WA
Planting
Date
2001
End
Date
2009
!
Medium
GW
Vegetation Type
Hybrid Poplar
Contaminants Treated
TCA, Halogenated VOCs
Phytomechanisms
HC
PD
*
PE
*
PS
PV
RD
RF
Site Size and Project Scale
Acreage
8
FoH-
Scale
Pilot/FieM
Scale
*
http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=1001102
Northern Iowa
Chlorinated Solvent
Plume
IA
2001
NA
GW,
Soil
Hybrid Poplar,
Understory Grasses
DCE, PCE, TCE
X
X
X
1
X
http://clu-in.org/download/studentpapers/hoffhagle-phytoremediation.pdf '(Page A59)
Oregon Poplar
OR
1997
NA
Soil
Hybrid Poplar,
Cottonwoods
DCA, DCE, DCE, PCE,
TCE, VC, BTEX
X
X
X
II NA
NA
NA
http://www.epa.gov/superfimd/phyto.htm
Portsmouth
Gaseous Diffusion
Plant: X-740 TCE
Plume
OH
1999
NA
GW,
Soil
Hybrid Poplar
TCE, PCE, DCE, VC
o
2.6
o
http://www.epa.state.oh.us/sedo/portsmouth/us doej)ortsmouth.htm
Portsmouth
Gaseous Diffusion
Plant: X-749/X-120
TCE Plume
OH
2003
NA
GW
Hybrid Poplar
TCE, PCE, DCE, VC
X
41
X
http://www. epa.state. oh, us/sedo/portsmouth/us doe_portsmouth. htm
Savannah River
Site
SC
2001
2004
GW,
Soil
Grass, Legume,
Herb, Loblolly Pine,
Hybrid Poplar
PCE, DCE, TCE, Chloroform
X
X
X
4
X
http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0403485orhttp://sti.srs.g^
Solvent Recovery
Service New
England
CT
1998
2030
GW,
Soil
Hybrid Poplar,
White Willow, Pin
Oak, River Birch,
Sweet Gum, Silver
Maple, Tulip Tree,
Eastern Red Bud,
Eastern White Pine
TCA, DCA, DCE, VC, PCB
X
X
X
0.8
X
http://www.phytokinetics.com/publications.php?id=27
Note: Some of these projects were successful in remediating contamination, while others were not
More detailed information, including points of contact, for these projects can be found in "Phytoremediation Field Studies Database for Chlorinated Solvents, Pesticides, Explosives, and Metals" (EPA 2004)
GW=Groundwater; NA=Not Available; HC=Hydraulic Control; PD=Phytodegradation; PE=Phytoextraction; PS=Phytostabilization; PV=Phytovolatilization; RD=Rhizodegradation; RF=Rhizofiltration;
*=Superfund; o=Federal or Military Site; x=All Other Sites
A-4
-------
Use of Field-Scale Phytotechnotogy for Chlorinated Solvents, Metals, Explosives and Propellants, and Pesticides
Site Name
Tibbetts Road
State
NH
Planting
Date
1998
End
Date
2015
Media tn
GW,
Soil
Vegetation Type
Hybrid Poplar,
Understory Grasses
Contaminants Treated
TCE, PCBs, Arsenic,
Benzene, Toluene
Phytoroecbaniscw
HC
*
PD
PE
*
PS
PV
RD
RF
Site Size and Project Scafe
Acresge
2
Full-
Scale
*
PSot/FisId
Seals
http://yosemite.epa.Kov/rl/npljjad.nsJ78bl60ae5c647980585256bba0066J907/c875c2d48055e87a8525691J0063f5felOpenDocument
Travis Air Force
Base
CA
1998
NA
GW
Red Ironbark
TCE | o
"
o
http://wmv.afcee.brooks.af.mil/products/techtrans/phytorem.asp or http://www.afcee.brooks.af.mil/products/techtrans/monitorednaturalattenuation/nastatus.xls (Overall Status Tab)
Union Carbide
Corporation
TX
NA
NA
GW,
Soil
Poplar and Mulberry
DCA.BCEE | x
NA
X
http://clu-in.org/download/studentpapers/hoffnaKle-phytoremediation.pdJ {Page A69)
Unspecified
Chemical
Manufacturing
Facility
IL
2000
NA
NA
Hybrid Poplar,
Willow
TCE
X
X
NA
NA
NA
http:/Avww. treemediation. com/ or http://clu-in. org/download/studentpapers/hoffnagle-phytoremediation.pdf(PzgQ A7 1 )
Vandenberg Air
Force Base
CA
2001
NA
NA
Hybrid Poplar
DCE.PCE.VC | o
1
NA
NA
http://w\vw.vandenberg.af.mil/30sw/30 msg/30 ces/IRP/pdf/irpclnup.pdf
Wayne County
MI
1997
2002
GW,
Soil
Hybrid Poplar
DCE, PCE, VC |
X
I! NA
X
http://wmv. treemediation. com/ or http://clu-in. org/download/studentpapers/hoffhagIe-phytoremediation.pdf(Page A73)
Wisconsin
WI
2004
NA
GW,
Soil
Hybrid Poplar
TCE 1
I NA
NA
NA
http://w\vw.ecolotree.com or http://clu-in.org/download/studentpapers/hojfnagle-phytoremediation.pdf '(Page A75)
Pesticides
Aberdeen
Pesticides Dumps
NC
1999
NA
GW,
Soil
Hybrid Poplar;
Ground-Cover
Grasses
Dieldrin, Hexachlorobenzene,
Hexachlorahexane
*
*
*
NA
*
http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0403099
Amana#l and #2
IA
NA
NA
GW,
Soil
Com, Fescue, Hybrid
Poplar, Sunflower
Atrazine, Alachlor
X
X
II NA
II
X
http://clii-in.org/download/studentpapers/hoffnagle-phytoremediation.pdf (Page A1S)
Note: Some of these projects were successful in remediating contamination, while others were not.
More detailed information, including points of contact, for these projects can be found in "Phytoremediation Field Studies Database for Chlorinated Solvents, Pesticides, Explosives, and Metals" (EPA 2004)
GW=Groundwater; NA=Not Available; HC=Hydraulic Control; PD=Phytodegradation; PE=Phytoextraction; PS=Phytostabilization; PV=Phytovolatilization; RD=Rhizodegradation; RF=Rhizofiltration;
*=Superfund; o=Federal or Military Site; x=All Other Sites
A-5
-------
Use of Field-Scale Phytotechnology for Chlorinated Solvents, Metals, Explosives and Propellants, and Pesticides
Site Name
Bofors-Nobel
Superfund Site
State
MI
Planting
Date
1999
End
Date
NA
Medium
GW,
Soil
Vegetation Type
Hybrid Poplar
Contaminants Treated
3,3-Dichlorobenzene, VC,
PCE, Aniline, Azobenzene,
Benzidine, Toluene
Phytoraechanisms
HC
PD
*
PE
*
PS
PV
RD
*
RF
Site Size and Project Scale
Acreage
NA
Fun-
Scale
Pilot/Field
Scale
*
http://cfpub. epa.gov/siipercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=05023 72
Cantrall
IL
1992
NA
GW,
Soil
Hybrid Poplar
Nitrate,
Herbicides/Insecticides,
Atrazine, Alachlor
X
X
X
2
X
http://www. thomasconsitltants. com/cantrall. html
Clarence Coop
Martelle Plant
IA
1993
NA
GW,
Soil
Hybrid Poplar,
Grasses
Atrazine, Herbicides, Nitrate,
Ammonia
X
X
X
I °'3
X
http://www.rtdf.orK/public/phyto/siteproffiisersearch/phyto detail.cfm?TrackID=43
Fort Wainwright
AK
1997
2002
Soil
Felt Leaf Willow
Aldrin, DDD, DDT, Dieldrin, |
Petroleum Hydrocarbons |
o
o
II 0.18
o
http://www. epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/lrpcd/rcb/phytohaz. htm
Illinois
Fertilizer/Herbicide
Spill Site
IL
1999
NA
GW,
Soil
Hybrid Poplar,
Grasses
Nitrogen, Herbicides
X
X
X
NA
X
http://www. ecolotree. com/apps4. html
Lockwood Farm
CT
NA
2002
Soil
Cucurbita pepo
p-p'-DDE |
II NA
NA
NA
http://www. cues, state, ct. us/Biographies/WhiteJ. htm
MidLakes Farm
Service
Cooperative
WI
1996
NA
GW,
Soil
Hybrid Poplar,
Grasses
Pesticides, Herbicides, VOC
X
X
X
X
X
0.3
X
http://www.rtdf.org/public/phyto/siteprof/usersearch/phyto detail.cfm?TrackID=194
Oconee
IL
1988
NA
GW,
Soil
Hybrid Poplar
Alachlor, Atrazine,
Metoachlor, Metribuzin
X
1 L5
X
http://www. treemediation. com/Oconee. htm
Whitewater
WI
1990
NA
GW,
Soil
Grasses, Hybrid
Poplar, Legumes
Nitrate, Herbicides,
Insecticides, Atrazine, Silvex
X
,0
X
http://www.treemediation.com/Business/Projects.htm
Wilmington
NC
1992
2002
GW,
Soil
Hybrid Poplar
Nitrate, Pesticides,
Ammonium
X
6
X
http://www. treemediation. com/ or http://clu-in. org/download/studentpapers/hoffnagle-phytoremediation.pdf(Pagp A95)
Note: Some of these projects were successful in remediating contamination, while others were not.
More detailed information, including points of contact, for these projects can be found in "Phytoremediation Field Studies Database for Chlorinated Solvents, Pesticides, Explosives, and Metals" (EPA 2004)
GW=Groundwater; NA=Not Available; HC=Hydraulic Control; PD=Phytodegradation; PE=Phytoextraction; PS=Phytostabilization; PV=Phytovolatilization; RD=Rhizodegradation; RF=Rhizofiltration;
*=Superfund; o=Federal or Military Site; x=A!I Other Sites
A-6
-------
Use of Field-Scale Phytotechnology for Chlorinated Solvents, Metals, Explosives and Propellants, and Pesticides
Site Name
State
Planting
Date
End
Date
Medium
Vegetation Type
Contaminants Treated
Phytomecbenisns
HC
PD
PE
PS
PV
RD
RF
Site Size and Project Scale
Acreage
FaB-
Scals
Pilot/Field
Scale
Explosives and Propellants
ICI Explosives
Americas
Engineering
MO
1996
NA
GW,
Soil
Bald Cypress, Hybrid
Poplar, Ninebark,
Willow
Ammonium Nitrate, DNT
X
X
3.2
X
http://\vww.rtdf.org/public/phyto/siteprof/usersearch/phyto detail.cfm?TrackID=l98
Longhorn Army
Ammunition Plant:
Burning Ground #3
TX
2003
2004
GW
Hybrid Poplar
Perchlorate
o
0
0.7
o
http://clu-in.org/dcfwnload/contaminantfocus/perchlorate/LHAAPfmalSchnoor.pdf
Weldon Spring
Former Army
Ordnance Works
MO
1993
NA
Soil
NA
TNT, DNT, Lead
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
o
http://w\vw. epa.gov/ORD/SITE/reporls/540r95529a.pdf
Metals
Anaconda Smelter
Site
MT
1995
NA
Soil
Grasses
Arsenic, Cadmium, Copper, |
Zinc I
X
1 1>5
X
http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0800403
Anderson
SC
1993
NA
GW,
Soil
Grasses, Hybrid
Poplar
Lead, Cadmium, Sulfate,
Nitrate
X
"
X
http://clu-in. org/dovmload/studentpapers/hoffnagle-phytoremediation.pdf (Page A 1 1 1 )
Argonne National
Laboratory:
317/319 Area
IL
1999
NA
GW,
Soil
Eastern Gamagrass,
Hybrid Poplar,
Golden Weeping
Willow, Hybrid
Prairie Cascade
Willow, Laurel-
Leaved Willow
PCE, TCE, Carbon
Tetrachloride, Chloroform,
Zinc, Lead, Arsenic, Tritium
o
O
o
4
o
http://web. ead. anl.gov/phyto/
Argonne National
Laboratory West
ID
1999
2002
Soil
Koshia scoparia,
Hybrid Willow
Cesium-137, Silver, Mercury, |
Chromium |
*
10.61
*
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/rl09806I.pdf
Austin Residential
Site
TX
2003
2003
Soil 1 Hyperaccumulating
|Fem
Arsenic Q
1
X
0.01
X
Note: Some of these projects were successful in remediating contamination, while others were not
More detailed information, including points of contact, for these projects can be found in "Phytoremediation Field Studies Database for Chlorinated Solvents, Pesticides, Explosives, and Metals" (EPA 2004)
GW=Groundwater; NA=Not Available; HC=Hydraulic Control; PD=Phytodegradation; PE=Phytoextraction; PS=Phytostabilization; PV=Phytovolatilization; RD=Rhizodegradation; RF=Rhizofiltration;
*=Superfund; o=Federal or Military Site; x=All Other Sites
A-7
-------
Use of Field-Scale Phytotechnology for Chlorinated Solvents, Metals, Explosives and Propellants, and Pesticides
Site Name
State
Planting
Date
End
Date
Medium
Vegetation Type
http://www. edenspace. com/ or http://clu-in. org/download/studentpapers/hqffhagle-}
Bayonne
NJ
1996
NA
Soil
Indian Mustard
Contaminants Treated
Phytomecbanisms S'rte Size and Project Scale
HC
PD
PE
PS
PV
RD
RF Acreage
Full-
Scale
Pilot/Field
Scale
ahytoremediation.pdf (Page A 1 1 8)
Lead 1
X
fl 0.02
x .
http://www.edenspace.com/qualification.html
Central Louisiana
Wood Treatment
Facility
LA
NA
NA
GW,
Soil
Loblolly Pines
Arsenic, Chromium, PAH,
CCA, Creosote
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA NA
NA
NA
http://premiercorp-usa. com/index, htm or http://clu-in. org/download/studentpapers/hqffhagle-phytoremediation.pdf(Page A 1 24)
Firing Range,
Chilliwack
BC
1999
2001
Soil
Garden Pea, Indian
Mustard
Lead, Copper II
1
X
PA
X
http://www.rmc. co/academic/gradrech/environment9 e.html
Abandoned Hat
Factory
CT
2003
NA
Soil
Eastern Cottonwood
Mercury II
X
I! 0.33
X
http://clu-in.org/download/studentpapers/hqffhagle-phytoremediation.pdf (Page A130)
Bearing
Phytostabilization
Demonstration
KS
1994
1998
Soil
Hybrid Poplar
Lead, Zinc, Cadmium
X
X
1
X
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servIet/GetabsServ!et?prog=normal&id=PPHMF8000006000003000177000001&^
Dorchester
MA
http://www. edenspace. com/q
East Palo Alto
CA
1996
1998
Soil
Indian Mustard,
Hybrid Poplar
Lead |
X
I! 0.03
X
ualification.html
1981
NA
Soil
Eucalyptus, Tamarisk
Arsenic, Sodium ||
X
1
X
http://clu-in.org/download/studentpapers/hqffhagle-phytoremediation.pdf '(Page A134)
Ensign-Bickford
Company
CT
1998
1998
Soil
Indian Mustard,
Sunflower
Lead
X
X
I! 2.35
X
http://yosemite.epa.gOV/Rl/npljjad.ns/0/7e6c98dcbb2aa65d85256c29006e78c47OpenDoctiment
Fort Dix
NJ 1 1997
2002
Soil
Indian Mustard,
Sunflower, Grasses
Lead II
o
r25
0
http://aec.army.mil/usaec/technology/fes48.htmHtFort or http://www.dix.army.mil/ENyiRONMENT/greenrange090399.htm
Galena Field Study
KS
1995
2000
Soil
Tall Fescue
Cadmium, Lead, Zinc ||
X
X
II NA
X
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PPHMF8000006000004000212000001&idty^^
Unnamed Gary Site
IN
2002
NA
Soil
Bullrush, Sedges,
Cattails
Arsenic, Lead
X
X
3
X
http://www. wtamu. edu/~crobinson/Soils/forphytremd. htm or http://clu-in. org/download/studentpapers/hqffhagle-phytoremediation.pdf(Page A 1 39)
Note: Some of these projects were successful in remediating contamination, while others were not.
More detailed information, including points of contact, for these projects can be found in "Phytoremediation Field Studies Database for Chlorinated Solvents, Pesticides, Explosives, and Metals" (EPA 2004)
GW=Groundwater; NA=Not Available; HC=Hydraulic Control; PEHPhytodegradation; PE=Phytoextraction; PS=Phytostabilization; PV=Phytovolatilization; RD=Rhizodegradation; RF=Rhizofiltration;
*=Superfund; o=Federal or Military Site; x=AH Other Sites
A-8
-------
Use of Field-Scale Phytotechnology for Chlorinated Solvents, Metals, Explosives and Propellants, and Pesticides
Site Name
Jones Island
Confined Disposal
Facility
State
WI
Planting
Date
2002
End
Date
NA
Mediant
Soil
Vegetation Type
Eastern Cottonwood,
Eastern Gamagrass,
Coffee Weed,
Ovalhead Sedge, Big
Bluestem, Common
Rush, Sunflower,
Red Mulberry, White
Mulberry
Contaminants Treated
Anthracene, PCBs, Heavy
Metals
Phytomecbanisns
HC
PD
PE
X
PS
PV
RD
RF
Site Size and Project Seals
Acreage
0.06
FuO-
Scsle
POot/Ffefd
Seals
X
http.VAvww. epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/pubs/540r04508/540r04508a.pdf
Magic Marker
NJ
1996
NA
Soil
Indian Mustard,
Sunflower
Lead 9
1
X
I 135
X
http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/lrpcd/rcb/phytlead.htm or http://vfww.edenspace.com/qualiflcation.html
Metal Plating
Facility
OH
1996
1997
Soil
Hybrid Poplar,
Ryegrass, Indian
Mustard
Cadmium, Zinc
X
X
0.23
X
http://clu-in. org/products/site/ongoing/demoong/phytotec. htm
Former Orchard
Site
NJ
2001
NA
Soil
Brake Fern
http:/Av\vw. hq. usace. army. mil/isd/P UBS/DIGEST/P WDigest may June 02.pdf (Pa
Port Colborne
ON
2001
2003
Soil
Com, Soybeans,
Radish, Oats,
Alyssum
Arsenic II
o
| 0.23
o
ge 21) or http://www.~washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33716-2004Aug25.html
Arsenic, Cobalt, Copper,
Nickel
X
0.37
X
http://-wvnv.inco.com/portcolborne/
Savannah River
Site
SC
1987
1992
Soil
Bush Beans
Cadmium, Thallium, |
Vanadium ||
X
NA
X
http://cfpub. epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo. cfm?id=0403485 or http://sti.srs.gov/fulltext/ms2000897/ms2000897.html
Spring Valley
DC
2004
NA
Soil
Hyperaccumulating
Fern
Arsenic
0
0.06
1
o
http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/cepa/pubs/oct04/STORY12.HTMor http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33716-2004Aug25.html
C-H Plant Area:
Texas City
Chemicals
TX
NA
NA
GW
Eucalyptus, Salt
Cedar
Cadmium, Copper, Lead,
High Salinity
X
X
X
27
X
http://clu-in.org/download/studentpapers/hojffnagle-phytoremediation.pdf (Page A 125) and Exhibit 4
Note: Some of these projects were successful in remediating contamination, while others were not
More detailed information, including points of contact, for these projects can be found in "Phytoremediation Field Studies Database for Chlorinated Solvents, Pesticides, Explosives, and Metals" (EPA 2004)
GW=Groundwater; NA=Not Available; HC=Hydraulic Control; PD=Phytodegradation; PE=Phytoextraction; PS=Phytostabilization; PV=Phytovolatilization; RD=Rhizodegradation; RF=Rhizofiltration;
*=Superfund; o=Federal or Military Site; x=All Other Sites
A-9
-------
Use of Field-Scale Phytotechnology for Chlorinated Solvents, Metals, Explosives and Propellants, and Pesticides
Site Name
Twin Cities Army
Ammunition Plant
State
MN
Planting
Date
1998
End
Date
1999
Medium
Soil
Vegetation Type
Corn, White Mustard
Contaminants Treated
Antimony, Arsenic, Barium,
Beryllium, Chromium, Lead,
Thallium
Phytomechanisms
HC
PD
PE
o
PS
PV
RB
RF
Site Size and Project Scale
Acreage
0.2
Fun-
Scale
Pilot/Field
Scale
0
http://aec. army. mil/nsaec/technology/cleanup04b. html
Whitewood Creek | SD | 1991 | 1998 | Soil
Hybrid Poplar
Arsenic, Cadmium, Copper
1
X
x 1
1 II 1
1 x
http://clu-in. org/download/studentpapers/hqffhagle-phytoremediation.pdf(Pag6 A 1 53)
Note: Some of these projects were successful in remediating contamination, while others were not.
More detailed information, including points of contact, for these projects can be found in "Phytoremediation Field Studies Database for Chlorinated Solvents, Pesticides, Explosives, and Metals" (EPA 2004)
GW=Groundwater; NA=Not Available; HC=Hydraulic Control; PD=Phytodegradation; PE=Phytoextraction; PS=Phytostabilization; PV=Phytovolatilization; RD=Rhizodegradation; RF=Rhizofiltration;
*=Superfund; o=Federal or Military Site; x=All Other Sites
A-10
-------
APPENDIX B
Examples of Phytotechnology Projects in Countries
Other Than the United States and Canada
-------
Use of Field-Scale Phytotechnology for Chlorinated Solvents, Metals, Explosives and Propellants, and Pesticides
APPENDIX B
EXAMPLES OF PHYTOTECHNOLOGY PROJECTS
IN COUNTRIES OTHER THAN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA
Site Name
Contaminated Paint
Factory
Eka Chemicals Site
Werk Tanne
Cooperative Farm
Caslano
Dornach
Ecological
Experimental Station
of Red Soil
Lechang Lead and
Zinc Mine Tailings
Location
Czech Republic
Gothenberg,
Sweden
Harz, Germany
Bytom, Poland
Caslano,
Switzerland
Dornach,
Switzerland
Yingtan, Jangxi
Province, China
Lechang City,
Guangdong
Province, China
*
Contaminants
Treated
PCBs
PCDFs, Chlor-
alkalis
TNT
Cadmium, Lead,
Zinc
Cadmium,
Copper, Zinc
Cadmium,
Copper, Zinc
Cadmium, Lead,
Zinc
Cadmium,
Copper, Lead,
Zinc
Site Size and Project Scale
Size
NA
NA
25 by 20
square
meters
0.5
hectares
Four 1
byl
square
meter
plots
Four 1
byl
square
meter
plots
NA
NA
Full-
Scale
NA
NA
X
Pilot/Field
Scale
X
NA
NA
X
X
X
X
Status
Unknown
Unknown
Planted in
May 1999
Ongoing
(Planted in
Spring 1997)
Completed
(1997-2001)
Completed
(1997-2001)
Completed
Completed
* This table contains examples of international phytotechnology projects and is not intended to be comprehensive.
For more information regarding international phytotechnology research, refer to European Cooperation in the Field
of Scientific and Technical Research (COST) Action 859: "Phytotechnologies to Promote Sustainable Land Use
and Improve Food Safety" (http://cost.cordis.lit/src/pdJ7859-e.pdf).
B-l
------- |