Assessing phytotoxicity of trace element-contaminated soils phytomanaged with gentle remediation options at ten European field trials

Abstract

Gentle remediation options (GRO), i.e. in situ stabilisation, (aided) phytoextraction and (aided) phytostabilisation, were implemented at ten European sites contaminated with trace elements (TE) from various anthropogenic sources: mining, atmospheric fallout, landfill leachates, wood preservatives, dredged-sediments, and dumped wastes. To assess the performance of the GRO options, topsoil was collected from each field trial, potted, and cultivated with lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) for 48days. Shoot dry weight (DW) yield, photosynthesis efficiency and major element and TE concentrations in the soil pore water and lettuce shoots were measured. GRO implementation had a limited effect on TE concentrations in the soil pore water, although use of multivariate Co-inertia Analysis revealed a clear amelioration effect in phytomanaged soils. Phytomanagement increased shoot DW yield at all industrial and mine sites, whereas in agricultural soils improvements were produced in one out of five sites. Photosynthesis efficiency was less sensitive than changes in shoot biomass and did not discriminate changes in soil conditions. Based on lettuce shoot DW yield, compost amendment followed by phytoextraction yielded better results than phytostabilisation; moreover shoot ionome data proved that, depending on initial soil conditions, recurrent compost application may be required to maintain crop production with common shoot nutrient concentrations.

Phytomanagement and Remediation of Cu-Contaminated Soils by High Yielding Crops at a Former Wood Preservation Site: Sunflower Biomass and Ionome

“…Lowest shoot Cu concentrations of the OM2DL plants could be related to (1) soil factors, e.g., low Cu availability, high soil CEC, and higher total N, Ca, organic matter and water contents in the OM2DL soils (Figure 4, Table 3), and (2) plant factors, i.e., Cu dilution into the shoot biomass as for Fe (Table 4) and high shoot K, Zn, and Mn concentrations helping likely to regulate ion cellular homeostasis (Table 4; Figure S8, Malachowska-Jutsz and Gnida, 2015;Printz et al, 2016). For lettuce in year 6, shoot Cu concentration was also lower in the OM2DL plants than in the OMDL and Unt ones (Quintela-Sabarís et al, 2017).…”

“…A number of perceived or actual barriers or impediments related to technical issues and stakeholder perceptions is limiting on site phytomanagement application (Cundy et al, 2015;Bert et al, 2017b;Montpetit and Lachapelle, 2017). For overcoming such barriers, several sets of field trials have been either implemented or developed in Europe, notably for metal(loid)contaminated sites with funding from European projects, i.e., Greenland, PhytoSUDOE, Intense, and Miscomar, and national environment agencies, e.g., Ademe in France (Mench et al, 2010;Kidd et al, 2015;Nsanganwimana et al, 2016;Bert et al, 2017a,b;Friesl-Hanl et al, 2017;Krzyzak et al, 2017;Quintela-Sabarís et al, 2017;ADEME, 2018). Here the purpose was to assess the long-term efficiency and limits of phytomanagement options at a wood preservation site with sandy Cu-contaminated soils.…”

Estimating Arsenic Mobility and Phytotoxicity Using Two Different Phosphorous Fertilizer Release Rates in Soil

“…Gentle soil remediation options (GROs) are risk management strategies and technologies intended for the restoration of metalliferous mine waste-contaminated areas, and these methods have been supported by various scientific networks, including the International Phytotechnology Society, the Society of Environment Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), and the Society for Ecological Restoration (SER). GROs are known to be less invasive to soil structure, functions, and ecosystem services, and their ecological footprint is much lower than that of conventional soil remediation techniques [22,23]. In particular, GROs are based on low-cost and sustainable tools, such as phytotechnologies and ecological restorations using plants for widespread contamination and/or the (phyto) management of brown fields [23][24][25][26].…”

“…GROs are known to be less invasive to soil structure, functions, and ecosystem services, and their ecological footprint is much lower than that of conventional soil remediation techniques [22,23]. In particular, GROs are based on low-cost and sustainable tools, such as phytotechnologies and ecological restorations using plants for widespread contamination and/or the (phyto) management of brown fields [23][24][25][26]. However, high concentrations of heavy metals and low concentrations of macronutrients (N and P) are the main limiting factors inhibiting plant growth in metalliferous mine wastes.…”

A Comparative Study on Poaceae and Leguminosae Forage Crops for Aided Phytostabilization in Trace-Element-Contaminated Soil

“…Gentle soil remediation options (GRO) are new approaches to the effective of restoration of trace-element-contaminated areas and may present viable remedies to overcome previous issues involved with soil remediation. Furthermore, GRO are less invasive to soil structure, functions, and ecosystem services, and have a much lower ecological footprint than conventional soil remediation techniques [10,11]. In particular, GRO are based on low-cost and sustainable tools such as phytotechnologies and ecological restorations using plants for the remediation of widespread contamination and the (phyto)management of brownfields [12][13][14].…”