Denitrifying Bioreactor

Dentrifying Bioreactors  information, designs, tips, best use  and information.

What is a woodchip bioreactor?

Purdue University

https://engineering.purdue.edu/watersheds/conservationdrainage/bioreactors.html
Bioreactors are essentially subsurface trenches filled with a carbon source, mainly wood chips, through which water is allowed to flow just before leaving the drain to enter a surface water body. The carbon source in the trench serves as a substrate for bacteria that break down the nitrate through denitrification or other biochemical processes. Bioreactors provide many advantages:

• They use proven technology
• They require no modification of current practices
• No land needs to be taken out of production
• There is no decrease in drainage effectiveness
• They require little or no maintenance
• They last for up to 20 years.

How do bioreactors work? Organisms from the soil colonize the woodchips. Some of them break down the woodchips into smaller organic particles. Others “eat” the carbon produced by the woodchips, and “breathe” the nitrate from the water. Just as humans breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide, these microorganisms breathe in nitrate and breathe out nitrogen gas, which exits the bioreactor into the atmosphere. Through this mechanism, nitrate is removed from the tile water before it can enter surface waters.
Understanding Woodchip Bioreactors
Designing and Constructing Bioreactors to Reduce Nitrate Loss from Subsurface Drains (Illinois, tri-fold format)
Woodchip Bioreactors for Nitrate in Agricultural Drainage (Iowa, 4 pages. Click "Download" in blue table.)
"Evaluating Denitrifying Bioreactors" - On the Ground with the Leopold Center (Video from Iowa, 2:35)
Bioreactors: Benefits and Potential Challenges" - Iowa Learning Farms Webinar (Video recording from Iowa)
Design Information
Denitrifying Bioreactor (Code 747)NRCS Interim Conservation Practice Standard in Iowa and Indiana. Iowa Statement of Work
Interactive routine that can be used to determine size, cost and evaluate performance of a bioreactor installed in a field with a specified soil and county in Illinois: 
http://www.wq.illinois.edu/dg/Equations/Bioreactor.exe.
Financial Incentives
Denitrifying Bioreactors are eligible for financial assistance through the NRCS Environmental Quality Incentives Program, Where the conservation practice standard has been accepted, financial assistance is often available through EQIP. In Indiana, the incentive is $5800. Incentives in Iowa

____

2019 R&D ElectroHemp

ElectroHemp is preparing for R&D Projects that will highlight how their system speeds up contamination removal and organically disposes hazardous waste.

• Phytoremediation Assisted Contamination Cleanup
• Organic Hazardous Waste Disposal
• Turning Hazardous Waste into income
• Soil and Water Buffer Zones
• Phytoremediation Rafts for water cleanup and remediation 

If you or your organization would like to join in, partner, sponsor, advertise, or just learn more about the R&D projects use the contact form, subscribe to the blog feed or stay tuned by monitoring the blog.

 ElectroHemp Feed

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.

Phytoremediation Raft Remove Toxic Pollutants Water

The following photos are examples of where ElectroHemp Phytoremediation Raft designs can be designed to remove any number or combination of toxic pollutants found in water sources from Bridgetown and Westlake Landfill this would stop the pollution from entering the Public Water Supply, as pointed out by Alex Cohen.

The above 3 photos courtesy Environmental Activist and Humanitarian Alex Cohen- https://m.faceboAlex Cohen.
ElectroHemp Phytoremediation Rafts Remediation Example for decontamination of water.

ElectroHemp Phytoremediation Rafts

Uranium Water Biofilter Remediation

ElectroHemp blog post on Uranium Reducing Phytoremediation Raft Design

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

Previously ElectroHemp highlighted how Natural biofilters for toxic metals can be used for Pb (Lead) Removal. This same technique can be used for Uranium (U) removal. 
All that needs to be done is substitute the Raft and Plants that will extract Uranium and it's by products.
Example: A phytoremediation raft can be constructed with these biosorbing products: Tree Bark (Pinus, Acacia), Agro Wastes (Tea Leaves, Rice Hulls) Apple Wastes . With these type of hyperaccumulating plant species: Hemp, Kenaf, Sun Flowers, Mustard Grass, Rape, even some Grasses 
To ensure all the Toxic Contamination comes in contact with the Raft and Plant Roots growing on the Phytoremediation Rafts that phytoextract the toxins. ElectroHemps uses Electrokinetics into the Remediation removal process. Electrokinetics draws toxins where directed.

ElectroHemps combines Electrokinetics, Phytoremediation, and Biofilters into the Remediation removal process. Key point: Electrokinetics draws toxins where directed.

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

Phytoremediation Alligator Weed Lead + Mercury

Alligator Weed (Alternanthera philoxeroides) was used for removal of lead and mercury from polluted waters. It is possible to use these species to restore the biosolid and sewage sludge contaminated sites, while exercising caution on human consumption.

Phytoremediation with Alligator Weed to remove Lead and Mercury from water.

Alternanthera philoxeroides, commonly referred to as alligator weed, is a native species to the temperate regions of South America, which includes Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. Argentina alone, hosts around 27 species that fall within the range of the genus Alternanthera. Wikipedia

Article Science paper: Metal hyperaccumulation in plants - Biodiversity prospecting for phytoremediation technologys source Edible plants and vegetables crops plants and vegetables crops

The dominant leaf vegetable producing species viz. Amaranthus spinosus, Alternanthera philoxeroides and A. sessiles growing on the sewage sludge of Musi river located in greater Hyderabad City (close to 17º26' N latitude and 78º27' E longitude), Andhra Pradesh, India was investigated for metal accumulation. 

• The transfer factor for metals was calculated Metal content in plant part (dry wt.)/ Metal content in soil (dry.wt).
• Transfer factor and metal content Cd (non-essential), Zn and Fe (essential) in plant parts of these selected species indicate their aility to bioconcentrate in their tissues (Figure 12). 
• The concentration of these metals is invariably high in leaf tissue (Bañuelos and Meek, 1989; Prasad, 2001b). 
• Thus, it is possible to use these species to restore the biosolid and sewage sludge contaminated sites, while exercising caution on human consumption. 
  

 It is also possible to supplement the dietary requirement of human food with Zn and Fe as these being essential nutrients and the plant species are edible. 

[Warning] However, there is a need to monitor the metal transfer factor through food chain (Bañuelos and Meek, 1989; Bañuelos et al. 1993a; Bañuelos et al. 1993b).

Alligator Weed description courtesy of Wikipedia- Alternanthera philoxeroides can thrive in both dry and aquatic environments and is characterized by whitish, papery flowers along its short stalks, irregular, or sprawling hollow stems, and simple and opposite leave pattern sprouting from its nodes. The species is dioecious. It is also considered a herbaceous plant due to its short-lived shoot system. It produces horizontal stems, otherwise known as stolons, that can sprout up to 10 m in length and thanks to its hollow stems, floats easily. This results in large clusters of stem to amass and create dense mats along the surface. The plant flowers from December to April and usually grows around 13 mm in diameter and tend to be papery and ball-shaped. The weed's intricate root system can either allow them to hang free in the water to absorb nutrients or directly penetrate the soil/sediment and pull their nutrients from below.

Hemp PFAS groundwater remediation

Too bad the EPA Scientist weren't interested in Solving the Pollution that is contaminating this earth. https://t.co/Kp1JDyrJKq https://t.co/estfCyq4uY

— systembuster (@stlsystembuster) November 14, 2022

Researcher Dr Brett Turner from Newcastle University and his team have developed a natural and effective solution for removing toxic PFAS chemicals from groundwater.

Episode Notes

Researcher Dr Brett Turner from Newcastle University and his team have developed a natural and effective solution for removing toxic PFAS chemicals from groundwater.

 

He also explains how their research is also looking at how hemp plants can be used to remediate PFAS contaminated soil. 

University of Newcastle researchers are on track to create a solution to per-and poly- fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination, in a project that could benefit the Williamtown community and countless other sites across the world. 

L to R: Research team members Mr Glenn Currell, Dr Brett Turner and Dr Dan Bishop.

Dr Brett Turner and a team from the University’s Priority Research Centre for Geotechnical Science and Engineering, are to continue investigating the use of hemp seed proteins, and the hemp plant itself, to treat water and soil contaminated with PFAS. As announced in the 2019-2020 budget, the Federal Government has awarded $4.7m to the researchers for this work.

The man-made chemicals known as PFASs have been widely used in food wrappers, textile stains, non-stick cooking utensils, carpet and furniture protectants, insecticides, electronics, and in fire-fighting foams, as they are highly effective against hydrocarbon fuel fires.

Within Australia a number of sites have been identified as having groundwater and soil contaminated with PFAS including the Williamtown RAAF base in NSW; Oakey Aviation Centre in QLD, and the Country Fire Authority (CFA) training facility in Fiskville VIC.

Globally, the extent of this problem is even greater, with more than 41,000 airports in the world, many of which are potentially contaminated with PFAS. Considered almost non-degradable in nature, many conventional treatments for PFAS remediation are not effective, yet the costs of PFAS remediation technologies are exorbitant.

Dr Turner said the team’s early findings, supported by an initial $600,000 grant through the NSW Government’s Research Attraction and Acceleration Program, were being further explored, and applied to the more complex challenge of contaminated soil.

“We found that hemp has a remarkable affinity for PFAS chemicals in groundwater, so we expect that this can be applied to remediate contaminated soil – an area where currently there are no options,” Dr Turner said.

Director of the Priority Research Centre and 2015 NSW Scientist of the Year, Laureate Professor Scott Sloan said the next stage of the research would pioneer a more cost-effective way of removing chemical compounds from soil, groundwater and surface waters in a natural way.

“We are excited about the potential benefits for the residents around our local RAAF base at Williamtown, and for other affected communities worldwide,” Laureate Professor Sloan said.

The $4.7m funding has been awarded through the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science over five years. This research is also supported by the University of Newcastle with additional funding of $1.5m.

“We’d like to thank the Government for the funding, as well as Senator Brian Burston for his significant efforts in helping to secure it,” Dr Brett Turner said.

“This critical grant will allow us to increase our team, employing three Doctoral Fellows, four PhD students and a research technician. We look forward to continuing the hard work, and pioneering a local solution to a global problem.”

Here is the audio recording see photos below of the system Scotty with ElectoHemp has been designing and working on.

Reduction of Uranium

...the reduction of uranium was done by quantifying the fraction of uranium in both the soluble and insoluble pools. 

• Uranium in the cultures spiked to 3 μM shifted from ~90% soluble at the T0 time point for all 3 concentrations to 70–97% insoluble by the end of the 24 day incubations (Fig 3). 
• A mass balance indicated that 93–102% of the added uranium could be accounted for in the soluble/insoluble pools. 
• Interestingly, the bacterium also reduced uranium as efficiently at 5 and 10 μM concentration (up to 97%-S2 Fig). 
• However, the percent of soluble uranium at the T0 sampling time point was 78% for the 5 μM and 18% for the 10 μM treatments. Presumably, the bacteria were stimulated by the prior exposure to uranium during transfer and began reducing the radionuclide before the T0 samples could be collected. link
  

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