Moms Fight to Clean Up Thousands of Tons of Nuclear Waste in St. Louis (Exclusive)

Moms Fight to Clean Up Thousands of Tons of Nuclear Waste in St. Louis (Exclusive)

Honored to be featured this week in @people magazine! @KarenNickelSTL and I are proud of what we have built and our fight, even though it has cost us and our family/kids/husbands so much! https://t.co/nNWjgDa6KX

— Dawn Chapman (@DawnChapmanSTL) August 15, 2024

The first warning sign was the stench that seemed to fill the air of Dawn Chapman’s suburban St. Louis neighborhood in 2012.

“You could smell burning, but there was something different about it, like jet fuel,” she says in this week's issue of PEOPLE. Her three children started to wake in the night with irritated eyes or bloody noses caused, she believes, by the caustic fumes.

By January 2013 Chapman, then a full-time mom, had discovered the source of the overpowering odor: a fire in an underground quarry at the Bridgeton Landfill about two miles from her home.

A photo taken in 1960 shows deteriorating steel drums containing radioactive residue in the St Louis area. 

State Historical Society of Missouri, Kay Drey Mallinsckodt Collection

The blaze raised fresh alarm about a decades-old issue — how much atomic waste had been stored in the region post-World War II, with some radioactive material mixing with a local creek and, separately, 43,000-plus tons of it piling up at West Lake Landfill, which is next to Bridgeton Landfill.

Article continues:

Dawn Chapman (left) and Karen Nickel wear protective masks at the West Lake Landfill outside St. Louis on June 1, 2017. 

Linda Davidson/The Washington Post via Getty

For more on Dawn Chapman and Karen Nickel's fight to clean up nuclear waste in their St. Louis suburb, pick up this week's issue of PEOPLE, on newsstands Friday, or subscribe.

Their suburban dream was tainted by toxic remnants of the country’s wartime past. After the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941, the U.S. chose St. Louis as one of the places to process the uranium used in the nation’s atomic weapons program the Manhattan Project.

In the decades that followed, the resulting radioactive waste was dumped close to the city airport, and contaminants washed into nearby Coldwater. In the ’70s the waste was moved to the West Lake Landfill, amid single-family homes in Bridgeton. In 1990 the landfill was designated a Superfund site — one of the nation’s most contaminated areas.

Many residents were none the wiser. Nickel grew up in the ’60s and ’70s playing softball in the parks beside Coldwater, where years later scientists would discover Manhattan Project-era radioactive material in the soil.

Nickel and Chapman (center, in Washington, D.C., in May) lobbying for support for what they say are victims of radioactive exposure. 

Just Moms STL

“Fifteen people on my street passed from rare cancer in their 40s and 50s,” she says.

Three of her four adult children, whom she raised with husband Todd in a house less than two miles from the landfill, live with neurodevelopmental challenges, she says. And Nickel has lupus, an autoimmune disease she blames on exposure to radioactivity.

Chapman and her husband, Brian, moved to the Bridgeton area in 2000, unaware of the history. In 2002 her husband learned he had Crohn’s disease.

continues: https://people.com/is-nuclear-waste-poisoning-this-missouri-suburb-how-2-moms-teamed-up-for-answers-even-if-they-die-trying-8695532

Department of Defense Phytoremediation Failure

The readers of this blog have a better understanding of advanced phytoremediation systems than it looks like the Department of Defense has.  

Remediation Terminology Definitions

Frequently used Soil and Water definitions ElectroHemp uses  when sharing the BioRad system and process which organically cleans Water and Soil in the Phyto-Enhanced system.

Phytoremediation is defined by UNEP as the living green plants for in sutu removal, degradtion, and containment in soils, surface waters, and groundwater.

Bioremediation is a process that uses mainly microorganisms, plants, or microbial or plant enzymes to detoxify contaminates in the soil and other environments.

Contamination is defined as any impairment of the quality of the water of the State by sewage or industrial waste to a degree which creates an actual hazard to public health thru poisoning or through the spread of infectious disease.

Heavy Metals are defined as the metals that have an atomic mass greater than 20 and are transition metals, metalloids, actinides, and lanthanides.

Toxicity is the ability of a substance to cause a living organism to undergo adverse effects upon exposure.

ElectroHemp 2019 Plans

2019 is the year ElectroHemp takes Phytoremediation Assisted Science to the Field in Pilot Study activities.
The Future Phytoremediation Assisted Soil and Water Cleanup Pilot Study Activity will include:

1. Business Partnerships
2. Job openings
3. Science and Scientific collaboration

ElectroHemp Green Remediation Intro

ElectroHemp Pilot Study's will be undertaken to perfect and streamline the organic green remediation system and process of the Team has been fine-tuning.
ElectroHemp Job Opportunity Examples: 9 or More job slots with possible Dual and Tri job responsibilities.

• Volunteers
• College Internships
• Hazmat Equipment Operator / Driver
• Greenhouse / Horticulturalists
• Environmental Scientist Laboratory & Testing Technician
• Mechanical + Equipment Mechanic
• Electronics Equipment Installation + maintenance
• Records and Bookkeeper 
• Attorney Environmental + Patents
• Spokesmen - Advertising 
• Marketing - Sales - Contracts

 If you are interested in joining the ElectroHemp team or have a property in the St.Louis Region you need assistance with we are interested in working with you.

ElectroHemp cleans soil and water with a Phytoremediation assisted process that turns pollution into cash.

Natural biofilters for toxic metals

The following Science Paper highlights how ElectroHemp Phytoremediation Rafts can be used as Biofilters to clean pollution from water sources.

Phytoremediation Raft Infographic- Plants cycle water toxins when grown on Rafts

a wide variety of agricultural and forestry by products have been used as biosorbents of toxic metals in a bid to develop biofilters for specific applications Electronic Journal of Biotechnology: 

The added benefit of how ElectroHemp equips these rafts with Electrokinetics will actually increase the toxic contamination removal because of the forced migration of the toxins is directed towards the rafts and plants roots which growing on the Phytoremediation Rafts.

ElectroHemp Phytoremediation Raft designs can be designed to remove any number or combination of toxic pollutants found in water sources.

 Real Life Example phytoremediation raft design for the removal of Lead (Pb) from Water

A floating phytoremediation raft constructed of: waste tea leaves, Pinus pinaster bark, Olea europea, Acacia nilotica bark. Which has these plant examples growing on it: Kenaf, Water Lettuce, Alligator Weed create a combination of Natural Solutions in the detoxification of Lead (Pb) from water. Scotty, ElectroHemp 

Phytoremediation Science Paper link

• i) Cotton - Hg; Groundnut skins - Cu; 
• Tree Bark (Pinus, Acacia etc.) - variety of metals; 
• Agrowaste - variery of metals; 
• waste tea leaves - Pb, Cd, and Zn; 
• Pinus radiata -U; 
• Apple waste -Variety of metals; 
• Cellulose - Variety of metals; Rice hulls - Variety of metals; 
• Exhausted coffee grounds - Hg; 
• Pinus pinaster bark - Zn, Cu, Pb. Saw mill dust (wood waste)- Cr; 
• Freshwater green algae - variety of metals; 
• Marine algae- Pb, Ni; 
• ii) Sphagnum (moss peat) - Cr(VI); 
• iii) Immobilized Aspergillus niger, A. oryzae - Cd, Cu, Pb, and Ni ; 
• Olive mill waste Olea europea Cr, Ni, Pb, Cd, and Zn, Cu and Ni; 
• Streptomyces rimosus (bacteria); 
• Saccharomyces cerevisiae (yeast); 
• Penicillium chrysogenum (fungi), Fuscus vesiculosus and Ascophyllum nodosum (marine algae) Zn, Cu andNi; Phanerochaete chrysosporium, P. versicolar - Pb, Ni, Cr, Cd, Cu; Pinus radiata - U;
• Immobilized Pseudomonas putida 5-X and Aspergillus niger, Mucor rouxxi - Cu; 
• Actionomycetes, Aspergillus niger, A.oryzae, Rhizopus arrhizus, R. nigricans- Cd; Rhizopus arrhizus - Cr(VI), Pb; Rhizopus nigricans, Phanarochaete chrysogenum -Pb; Aspergillus niger and Rhizopus arrhizus - Ni 

Acacia nilotica bark serves as an adsorbent of toxic metals. Bark (1 g) when added to 100 ml of aqueous solution containing 10 mg ml-1 metal solution exhibited different metal adsorption values for different metals. The order of metal adsorption being Cr > Ni > Cu > Cd> As > Pb. A similar trend of metal adsorption was observed when the bark is reused (1strecycle) Cr > Ni > Cu > Cd > Pb and also in the column-sorption. In order to verify the metal removal property of A. nilotica bark, toxicity bioassay with Salix viminalis stem cuttings in hydroponic system augmented with Cd, Cr and Pb together with A. nilotica bark powder was carried out. The results of toxicity bioassay confirmed the metal adsorption property of the bark powder. The functions of toxicity studies include leaf area, root length and number of new root primordia produced per stump. The leaf area, root length and number of new root primordia increased considerably in the presence of A. nilotica bark. The order of metal toxicity for leaf area and new root primordial is Cd > Cr > Pb. However, for root length the order of metal toxicity is Cr > Cd > Pb. The metal budgets of the leaf and root confirmed that the bark powder had adsorbed substantial amount of toxic metals and thus, alleviates the toxicity imposed by the various tested elements (Prasad et al. 2001).

Quercus ilex L. phytomass from stem, leaf and root as adsorbent of chromium, nickel, copper, cadmium and lead at ambient temperature was investigated. The metal uptake capacity of the root for different metals was found to be in the order of: Ni > Cd > Pb > Cu > Cr; stem Ni > Pb> Cu > Cd > Cr and leaf Ni > Cd > Cu > Pb > Cr. The highest amount adsorbed was Ni (root > leaf > stem). Data from this laboratory demonstrated that Ni is mostly sequestered in the roots where concentrations can be as high as 7.30 nmol/g dry weight, when one year old seedlings were treated with Ni (2000 mg/l) in pot culture experiments, compared to 0.13 nmol/g dry weight, in the control. This proves that the root biomass of Q. ilex has the capacity for complexing Ni. Chromium exhibited the least adsorption values for all the three types of phytomass compared to other metals. The trend of adsorption of the phytomass was similar for nickel and cadmium i.e. root > leaf > stem. Desorption with 10 mM Na2 EDTA was effective (55-90%). Hence, there exists the possibility of recycling the phytomass. The biosorption results of recycled phytomass suggests, that the selected adsorbents are reusable (Prasad and Freitas, 2000).

Phytoremediation EPA Field Research

Phytoremediation and prior EPA Field demonstrated projects to remediate heavy metals proves Bioremediation is a viable and cost saving option for Radianuclides removal.
The EPA has previously listed about 194 ongoing Phytoremediation / bioremediation field research projects. Yr 2000

194 ongoing phytoremediation field research projects, EPA 

Heavy metals and radionuclides represent about 30% of this activity supporting that bioremediation is a feasible technology to decontaminate the environment. 

Unlike many organic contaminants most:

•  metals and radionuclides cannot be eliminated from the environment by chemical or biological transformation. 
• Although it may be possible to reduce the toxicity of certain metals by influencing their speciation, 
• they do not degrade and are persistent in the environment. 

The conventional remediation technologies that are used to clean heavy metal polluted environments are:

• soil in situ vitrification
• soil incineration
• excavation and landfill
• soil washing
• soil flushing
• solidification
• stabilization with electrokinetic systems 

Source: Electronic Journal of Biotechnology

79 Research Articles on Phytoremediation for Bioenergy

its not Rocket Science its Phyto Science!  79 Research Articles used as a Reference in this Science paper by Helena Gomes.

Phytoremediation for bioenergy: challenges and opportunities

Helena I. Gomes 

Pages 59-66 | Received 23 Oct 2011, Accepted 20 May 2012, Accepted author version posted online: 24 May 2012, Published online: 25 Jun 2012

• Download citation
 
• https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2012.696715
References

• European Environment Agency. 2007. Progress in Management of Contaminated Sites, Copenhagen: European Environment Agency. Report CSI 015
   
  [Google Scholar]
• US Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. Search Superfund Site Information Available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/srchsites.cfm.
   
  [Google Scholar]
• Dull, M. and Wernstedt, K. 2010. Land recycling, community revitalization, and distributive politics: An analysis of EPA Brownfields Program support. Policy Stud. J., 38: 119–141. (doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2009.00347.x)
  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]
• Barceló, J. and Poschenrieder, C. 2003. Phytoremediation: Principles and perspectives. Contrib. Sci., 2: 333–344. 
   
  [Google Scholar]
• Van-Camp, L., Bujarrabal, B., Gentile, A. R., Jones, R. J.A., Montanarella, L., Olazabal, C. and Selvaradjou, S.-K. 2004. Reports of the Technical Working Groups Established under the Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. EUR 21319 EN/4
   
  [Google Scholar]
• United States Government Accountability Office. 2010. EPA's Estimated Costs to Remediate Existing Sites Exceed Current Funding Levels, and More Sites Are Expected to Be Added to the National Priorities List, Washington, DC: United States Government Accountability Office. 
   
  [Google Scholar]
• Cunningham, S. D., Berti, W. R. and Huang, J. W. 1995. Phytoremediation of contaminated soils. Trends Biotechnol., 13: 393–397. (doi:10.1016/S0167-7799(00)88987-8)
  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]
• Kumar, P. B.A.N., Dushenkov, V., Motto, H. and Raskin, I. 1995. Phytoextraction: The use of plants to remove heavy metals from soils. Environ. Sci. Technol., 29: 1232–1238. (doi:10.1021/es00005a014)
  [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]
• US Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. Green Remediation: Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites, Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
   
  [Google Scholar]
• Onwubuya, K., Cundy, A., Puschenreiter, M., Kumpiene, J., Bone, B., Greaves, J., Teasdale, P., Mench, M., Tlustos, P., Mikhalovsky, S., Waite, S., Friesl-Hanl, W., Marschner, B. and Müller, I. 2009. Developing decision support tools for the selection of ‘gentle’ remediation approaches. Sci. Total Environ., 407: 6132–6142. (doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.08.017)
  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]
• Reddy, K. R. and Adams, J. A. 2010. Towards Green and Sustainable Remediation of Contaminated Site, 6th International Congress on Environmental Geotechnics New Delhi, , India
   
  [Google Scholar]
• Raskin, I. I, Smith, R. D. and Salt, D. E. 1997. Phytoremediation of metals: Using plants to remove pollutants from the environment. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol., 8: 221–226. (doi:10.1016/S0958-1669(97)80106-1)
  [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]
• Meagher, R. B. 2000. Phytoremediation of toxic elemental and organic pollutants. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol., 3: 153–162. (doi:10.1016/S1369-5266(99)00054-0)
  [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]
• Rowe, R. L., Street, N. R. and Taylor, G. 2009. Identifying potential environmental impacts of large-scale deployment of dedicated bioenergy crops in the UK. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev., 13: 271–290. (doi:10.1016/j.rser.2007.07.008)
  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]
• Mleczek, M., Rutkowski, P., Rissmann, I., Kaczmarek, Z., Golinski, P., Szentner, K., Strazynska, K. and Stachowiak, A.2010. Biomass productivity and phytoremediation potential of Salix alba and Salix viminalis. Biomass Bioenergy, 34(9): 1410–1418. (doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.04.012)
  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]
• Ericsson, K., Rosenqvis, H. and Nilsson, L. J. 2009. Energy crop production costs in the EU. Biomass Bioenergy, 33(11): 1577–1586. (doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2009.08.002)
  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]
• European Commission. 2006. Biofuels in the European Union – A vision for 2030 and beyond, Brussels: Directorate-General for Research. Final report of the Biofuels Research Advisory Council, EUR 22066, European Commission
   
  [Google Scholar]
• Tyner, W. E. 2008. The US ethanol and biofuels boom: Its origins, current status, and future prospects. BioScience, 58(7): 646–653. (doi:10.1641/B580718)
  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]
• Sasaki, N., Owari, T. and Putz, F. E. 2011. Time to substitute wood bioenergy for nuclear power in Japan. Energies, 4: 1051–1057. (doi:10.3390/en4071051)
  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]
• Lamers, P., Hamelinck, C., Junginger, M. and Faaijc, A. 2011. International bioenergy trade – a review of past developments in the liquid biofuel market. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev., 32: 2655–2676. (doi:10.1016/j.rser.2011.01.022)
  [Crossref]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]
• Nonhebel, S. 2005. Renewable energy and food supply: Will there be enough land?. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev., 9: 191–201. (doi:10.1016/j.rser.2004.02.003)
  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]
• Suer, P., Andersson-Sköld, Y., Blom, S., Bardos, P., Track, T. and Polland, M. 2009. Environmental impact assessment of biofuel production on contaminated land – Swedish case studies, Linköping: Swedish Geotechnical Institute. 
   
  [Google Scholar]
• Trapp, S. and Karlson, U. 2001. Aspects of phytoremediation of organic pollutants. J. Soils Sediments, 1: 1–7. (doi:10.1007/BF02986461)
  [Crossref]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]
• Burken, J. G. and Schnoor, J. L. 1997. Uptake and metabolism of atrazine by poplar trees. Environ. Sci. Technol., 31: 1399–1406. (doi:10.1021/es960629v)
  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]
• Wu, G., Kang, H., Zhang, X., Shao, H., Chu, L. and Ruan, C. 2010. A critical review on the bio-removal of hazardous heavy metals from contaminated soils: Issues, progress, eco-environmental concerns and opportunities. J. Hazard. Mater., 174: 1–8. (doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.09.113)
  [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]
• Maestri, E., Marmiroli, M., Visioli, G. and Marmiroli, N. 2010. Metal tolerance and hyperaccumulation: Costs and trade-offs between traits and environment. Environ. Exp. Bot., 68: 1–13. (doi:10.1016/j.envexpbot.2009.10.011)
  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]
• Newman, L. A. and Reynolds, C. M. 2004. Phytodegradation of organic compounds. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol., 15: 225–230. (doi:10.1016/j.copbio.2004.04.006)
  [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]
• Gerhardt, K. E., Huang, X.-D., Glick, B. R. and Greenberg, B. M. 2009. Phytoremediation and rhizoremediation of organic soil contaminants: Potential and challenges. Plant Sci., 176: 20–30. (doi:10.1016/j.plantsci.2008.09.014)
  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]
• Sas-Nowosielska, A., Kucharski, R., Malkowski, E., Pogrzeba, M., Kuperberg, J. M. and Krynski, K. 2004. Phytoextraction crop disposal – an unsolved problem. Environ. Pollut., 128: 373–379. (doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2003.09.012)
  [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]
• Koppolu, L., Agblevor, F. A. and Clements, L. D. 2003. Pyrolysis as a technique for separating heavy metals from hyperaccumulators. Part II: Lab-scale pyrolysis of synthetic hyperaccumulator biomass. Biomass Bioenergy, 25: 651–663. (doi:10.1016/S0961-9534(03)00057-6)
  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]
• Koppolu, L. and Clements, L. D. 2003. Pyrolysis as a technique for separating heavy metals from hyperaccumulators. Part I: Preparation of synthetic hyperaccumulator biomass. Biomass Bioenergy, 24: 69–79. (doi:10.1016/S0961-9534(02)00074-0)
  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]
• Koppolu, L., Prasad, R. and Clements, L. D. 2004. Pyrolysis as a technique for separating heavy metals from hyperaccumulators. Part III: Pilot-scale pyrolysis of synthetic hyperaccumulator biomass. Biomass Bioenergy, : 463–472. (doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2003.08.010)
  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]
• Lehmann, J. 2007. Bioenergy in the black. Front. Ecol. Environ., 5(7): 381–387. (doi:10.1890/1540-9295(2007)5[381:BITB]2.0.CO;2)
  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]
• Fiorese, G. and Guariso, G. 2010. A GIS-based approach to evaluate biomass potential from energy crops at regional scale. Environ. Model. Softw., 25: 702–711. (doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2009.11.008)
  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]
• Zabaniotou, A. A., Kantarelis, E. K. and Theodoropoulos, D. C. 2008. Sunflower shells utilization for energetic purposes in an integrated approach of energy crops: Laboratory study pyrolysis and kinetics. Bioresour. Technol., 99: 3174–3181. (doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2007.05.060)
  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]
• Simpson, J. A., Picchi, G., Gordon, A. M., Thevathasan, N. V., Stanturf, J. and Nicholas, I. Task 30 Short rotation crops for bioenergy systems. Environmental benefits associated with short-rotation woody crops Technical Review No. 3, IEA Bioenergy, 2009. Available at http://www.shortrotationcrops.org/taskreports.htm.
   
  [Google Scholar]
• Clair, S. S., Hillier, J. and Smith, P. 2008. Estimating the pre-harvest greenhouse gas costs of energy crop production. Biomass Bioenergy, 32: 442–452. (doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2007.11.001)
  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]
• Britt, C., Bullard, M., Hickman, G., Johnson, P., King, J., Nicholson, F., Nixon, P. and Smith, N. 2002. Bioenergy crops and bioremediation – a review, London: Department for Food, Environment and Rural Affairs. 
   
  [Google Scholar]
• Dickinson, N. M. and Pulford, I. D. 2005. Cadmium phytoextraction using short-rotation coppice Salix: The evidence trail. Environ. Int., 31: 609–613. (doi:10.1016/j.envint.2004.10.013)
  [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]
• French, C. J., Dickinson, N. M. and Putwain, P. D. 2006. Woody biomass phytoremediation of contaminated brownfield land. Environ. Pollut., 141: 387–395. (doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2005.08.065)
  [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]
• Volk, T. A., Abrahamson, L. P., Nowak, C. A., Smart, L. B., Tharakan, P. J. and White, E. H. 2006. The development of short-rotation willow in the northeastern United States for bioenergy and bioproducts, agroforestry and phytoremediation. Biomass Bioenergy, 30: 715–727. (doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2006.03.001)
  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]
• Miller, R. S., Khan, Z. and Doty, S. L. 2011. Comparison of trichloroethylene toxicity, removal, and degradation by varieties of Populus and Salix for improved phytoremediation applications. J. Bioremed. Biodegrad., pp. S7:001, doi: 10.4172/2155-6199.S7-001
   
  [Google Scholar]
• Shi, G. and Cai, Q. 2009. Cadmium tolerance and accumulation in eight potential energy crops. Biotechnol. Adv., 27: 555–561. (doi:10.1016/j.biotechadv.2009.04.006)
  [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]
• Nie, S.-W., Gao, W.-S., Chen, Y.-Q., Sui, P. and Eneji, A. E. 2010. Use of life cycle assessment methodology for determining phytoremediation potentials of maize-based cropping systems in fields with nitrogen fertilizer over-dose. J. Cleaner Prod., 18: 1530–1534. (doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.06.007)
  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]
• Ginneken, L. V., Meers, E., Guisson, R., Ruttens, A., Elst, K., Tack, F. M.G., Vangronsveld, J., Diels, L. and Dejonghe, W.2007. Phytoremediation for heavy metal-contaminated soils combined with bioenergy production. J. Environ. Eng. Landscape Manage, XV: 227–236. 
   
  [Google Scholar]
• Meers, E., Slycken, S. V., Adriaensen, K., Ruttens, A., Vangronsveld, J., Laing, G. D., Witters, N., Thewys, T. and Tack, F. M.G. 2010. The use of bioenergy crops (Zea mays) for ‘phytoattenuation’ of heavy metals on moderately contaminated soils: A field experiment. Chemosphere, 78: 35–41. (doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2009.08.015)
  [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]
• Thewys, T. and Kuppens, T. 2008. Economics of willow pyrolysis after phytoextraction. Int. J. Phytorem., 10: 561–583. (doi:10.1080/15226510802115141)
  [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]
• Thewys, T., Witters, N., Meers, E. and Vangronsveld, J. 2008. Economic viability of phytoremediation of a cadmium contaminated agricultural area using energy maize. Part II: Economics of anaerobic digestion of metal contaminated maize in Belgium. Int. J. Phytorem., 12: 663–679. (doi:10.1080/15226514.2010.493188)
  [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]
• Witters, N., Mendelsohn, R., Van Passel, S., Van Slycken, S., Weyens, N., Schreurs, E., Meers, E., Tack, F., Vanheusden, B. and Vangronsveld, J. 2012. Phytoremediation, a sustainable remediation technology? II: Economic assessment of CO2 abatement through the use of phytoremediation crops for renewable energy production. Biomass Bioenergy, 39: 470–477. (doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.11.017)
  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]
• Angelova, V., Ivanov, R. and Ivanov, K. 2005. Heavy metal accumulation and distribution in oil crops. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal., 35: 2551–2566. (doi:10.1081/CSS-200030368)
  [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]
• Suer, P. and Andersson-Sköld, Y. 2011. Biofuel or excavation? Life cycle assessment (LCA) of soil remediation options. Biomass Bioenergy, 35: 969–981. (doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.11.022)
  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]
• Vangronsveld, J., Herzig, R., Weyens, N., Boulet, J., Adriaensen, K., Ruttens, A., Thewys, T., Vassilev, A., Meers, E., Nehnevajova, E., van der Lelie, D. and Mench, M. 2009. Phytoremediation of contaminated soils and groundwater: Lessons from the field. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., 16: 765–794. (doi:10.1007/s11356-009-0213-6)
  [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]
• Hamby, D. M. 1991. Site remediation techniques supporting environmental restoration activities – a review. Sci. Total Environ., 191: 203–224. (doi:10.1016/S0048-9697(96)05264-3)
  [Crossref]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]
• van der Lelie, D., Schwitzguébel, J.-P., Glass, D. J., Gronsveld, J. V. and Baker, A. 2001. Assessing phytoremediation's progress. Environ. Sci. Technol., 35(21): 447–452. 
   
  [Google Scholar]
• H.M. Conesa, M.W.H. Evangelou, B.H. Robinson, and R. Schulin, A critical view of current state of phytotechnologies to remediate soils: Still a promising tool? TheScientificWorldJournal, 2012, doi:10.1100/2012/173829. 
   
  [Google Scholar]
• P. Bardos, Y. Andersson-Sköld, S. Keuning, M. Polland, P. Suer, and T. Track, REJUVENATE. Cro-based systems for sustainable risk based land management for economically marginal degraded land, SNOWMAN Project No. SN-01/20 Final research report, 2009. Available at http://www.snowman-era.net/downloads/REJUVENATE_final_report.pdf. 
   
  [Google Scholar]
• Andersson-Sköld, Y., Enell, A., Blom, S., Rihm, T., Angelbratt, A., Haglund, K., Wik, O., Bardos, P., Track, T. and Keuning, S. 2009. Biofuel and other biomass based products from contaminated sites – potentials and barriers from Swedish perspectives, Linköping: Swedish Geotechnical Institute. 
   
  [Google Scholar]
• Lewandowski, I., Schmidt, U., Londo, M. and Faaij, A. 2006. The economic value of the phytoremediation function – assessed by the example of cadmium remediation by willow (Salix ssp). Agric. Syst., 89: 68–89. (doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2005.08.004)
  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]
• Justin, M. Z., Pajk, N., Zupanc, V. and Zupančič, M. 2010. Phytoremediation of landfill leachate and compost wastewater by irrigation of Populus and Salix: Biomass and growth response. Waste Manage., 30: 1032– 1042. (doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2010.02.013)
  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]
• Coyle, D. R., Zalesny, J. A. and Wiese, A. H. 2011. Irrigating poplar energy crops with landfill leache negatively affects soil micro- and meso-fauna. Int. J. Phytorem., 13: 845–858. R.S.Z. Jr. (doi:10.1080/15226514.2011.552927)
  [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]
• Licht, L. A. and Isebrands, J. G. 2005. Linking phytoremediated pollutant removal to biomass economic opportunities. Biomass Bioenergy, 28: 203–218. (doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2004.08.015)
  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]
• Kim, K.-R. and Owens, G. 2010. Potential for enhanced phytoremediation of landfills using biosolids: A review. J. Environ. Manage., 91: 791–797. (doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.10.017)
  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]
• Brooks, R. R., Chambers, M. F., Nicks, L. J. and Robinson, B. H. 1998. Phytomining. Trends Plant Sci., 3: 359–362. (doi:10.1016/S1360-1385(98)01283-7)
  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]
• Nedelkoska, T. V. and Doran, P. M. 2000. Characteristics of heavy metal uptake by plant species with potential for phytoremediation and phytomining. Miner. Eng., 13: 549–556. (doi:10.1016/S0892-6875(00)00035-2)
  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]
• Chaney, R. L., Angle, J. S., Broadhurst, C. L., Peters, C. A., Tappero, R. V. and Sparks, D. L. 2007. Improved understanding of hyperaccumulation yields commercial phytoextraction and phytomining technologies. J. Environ. Qual., 36: 1429–1443. (doi:10.2134/jeq2006.0514)
  [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]
• Acar, Y. B. and Alshawabkeh, A. N. 1993. Principles of electrokinetic remediation. Environ. Sci. Technol., 27: 2638–2647. (doi:10.1021/es00049a002)
  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]
• Ferreira, C., Ribeiro, A. and Ottosen, L. 2005. Effect of major constituents of MSW fly ash during electrodialytic remediation of heavy metals. Separ. Sci. Technol., 40: 2007–2019. (doi:10.1081/SS-200068412)
  [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]
• Ribeiro, A. B., Mateus, E. P., Ottosen, L. and Bech-Nielsem, G. 2000. Electrodialytic removal of Cu, Cr and As from chromated copper arsenate-treated timber waste. Environ. Sci. Technol., 34: 784–788. (doi:10.1021/es990442e)
  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]
• Christensen, I. V., Pedersen, A. J., Ottosen, L. M. and Ribeiro, A. 2006. Electrodyalitic remediation of CCA-treated waste wood in a 2m2 pilot plant. Sci. Total Environ., 364: 45–54. (doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2005.11.018)
  [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]
• Aken, B. V. 2008. Transgenic plants for phytoremediation: Helping nature to clean up environmental pollution. Trends Biotechnol., 26: 225–227. (doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2008.02.001)
  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]
• Dickinson, N. M., Mackay, J. M., Goodman, A. and Putwain, P. 2000. Planting trees on contaminated soils: Issues and guidelines. Land Contam. Recl., 41: 87–101. 
   
  [Google Scholar]
• Borjesson, P. 1999. Environmental effects of energy crop cultivation in Sweden. I: Identification and quantification. Biomass Bioenergy, 16: 137–154. (doi:10.1016/S0961-9534(98)00080-4)
  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]
• US Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Introduction to Phytoremediation, Cincinnati, OH: National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency. 
   
  [Google Scholar]
• Clemens, S., Palmgren, M. G. and Krämer, U. 2002. A long way ahead: Understanding and engineering plant metal accumulation. Trends Plant Sci., 7: 309–315. (doi:10.1016/S1360-1385(02)02295-1)
  [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]
• Nevel, L. V., Mertens, J., Oorts, K. and Verheyen, K. 2007. Phytoextraction of metals from soils: How far from practice?. Environ. Pollut., 150: 34–40. (doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2007.05.024)
  [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]
• Marchiol, L., Assolari, S., Sacco, P. and Zerbi, G. 2004. Phytoextraction of heavy metals by canola (Brassica napus) and radish (Raphanus sativus) grown on multicontaminated soil. Environ. Pollut., 132: 21–27. (doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2004.04.001)
  [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]
• Dickinson, N. M. 2000. Strategies for sustainable woodland on contaminated soils. Chemosphere, 41: 259–263. (doi:10.1016/S0045-6535(99)00419-1)
  [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]
• Lebeau, T., Braud, A. and Jézéquel, K. 2008. Performance of bioaugmentation-assisted phytoextraction applied to metal contaminated soils: A review. Environ. Pollut., 153: 497–522. (doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2007.09.015)
  [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]
• Glick, B. R. 2003. Phytoremediation: Synergistic use of plants and bacteria to clean up the environment. Biotechnol. Adv., 21: 383–393. (doi:10.1016/S0734-9750(03)00055-7)
  [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®]
  , 
  [Google Scholar]

• 

  Electro Hemp Organic Remediation