Phytoremediation: A Growing Field with Some Concerns

Eric Carmen/ARCADIS Geraghy & Miller Phytoremediation--the use of trees and plants to help clean up toxic waste sites--is not only a growing science; it's also a growth industry. One report estimates that the phytoremediation market in the United States will expand from $16.5-$29.5 million in 1998 to $55-$103 million by 2000 and to $214-$370 million by 2005.1 In addition to offering job opportunities for environment-related physical scientists, the industry also will need life scientists, such as biochemists, to staff its multidisciplinary needs. "For a number of applications where phyto is being used today, such as controlling or removing organic contaminants from groundwater or controlling leachate [runoff fluids from landfills containing potentially hazardous material], the technology will [become] reasonably widely accepted," says David Glass, president of D. Glass Associates Inc., an analyst and author of the self-funded market report. "If it proves cost effective, it will really take off. There are a lot of metal sites out there." Another potential boost to the field is slated to come sometime this year, when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publishes its first introduction to phytoremediation, which should help regulators and owners of toxic sites needing cleanup to see where plants and trees might be effective. The report is likely to be available via Internet (www.rtdf.org/genlatst.htm). Just how realistic are Glass's estimates of the growth in phytoremediation? "I think they're reasonable," says Burt Ensley, CEO of Phytotech of Monmouth Junction, N.J. But Lou Licht, president of Ecolotree of Iowa City, Iowa, comments, "Based on our projections, I would think that's conservative." Licht sees a large untapped market because many people are ignorant about what phytoremediation can do. In his own business, he sees strong growth "based on the interest that we have, the amount of phone traffic, the major consultants that are calling us, and the [number of landfill closures projected]." Licht notes he's working with Ford Motor Co., which has 15 potential worksites. Lee Newman, who heads Verdant Technologies Inc. of Seattle, believes the strong emotional appeal of phytoremediation will propel its growth. "People like the idea of using trees and plants. [They're] natural and [more easily accepted than] some of the more highly engineered solutions," she says. Concomitant with the growth of the field, Newman anticipates job growth in a variety of phyto- and environment-related specialties. She specifically notes that for phyto to be done properly, the skills of biochemists, soil specialists, foresters, engineers, and hydrogeologists are necessary. PHYTOREMEDIATION IN ACTION: Above left, Lou Licht of Ecolotree stands among a section of 4-year-old trees planted to help clean up a landfill site in Oregon. Above is a schematic of how phytoremediation processes work at a site in California managed by GeoSyntec Consultants. According to Glass's report, phytoremediation research is going on at 22 U.S. universities, seven in Canada, and two in the United Kingdom. And Steven Rock, an environmental engineer at the EPA's National Risk Management Research Laboratory in Cincinnati, regards university interest as a means of producing trained people who will go into phytoremediation careers. But Ensley isn't so sure. "It depends on who dominates the services. If small, rapidly growing, technology-oriented companies ... get the business, then there's a significant opportunity for growth with advanced degrees, particularly in plant sciences. But if the technology gets taken over and dominated by engineering redemption companies, then I don't think there's going to be significant growth in opportunity," he says. Licht expects scientists who are already involved in plant and natural resource sciences to "see a phyto component in what they're doing." He remarks, "[These people] are going to be [helpful in getting] regulators to accept permit applications." The phytoremediation companies themselves are likely to join with larger, more engineering-oriented firms to work on toxic site cleanup. For one thing, notes Ensley, there are very few sites that can be handled solely by phytoremediation. "These [phytoremediation firms] are going to learn to team with other technologies and other expertise. [They'll need] to integrate technologies. The companies that are able to do that will be successful. The ones that can't won't be successful," he says. Doing things right seems to be a major concern that could affect the growth of phytoremediation. Though it has been around much of this decade, there still is a great deal of misunderstanding about it. According to both Ensley and Gatliff, at least some site owners who need cleanup regard phytoremediation as simple and cheap. They are shocked at the price, he says, which can be around $200,000 for two acres. Commercial Web sites: D. Glass Associates Inc.www.channel1.com/dglassassoc/INFO/phytrept.htm Ecolotreewww.ecolotree.com PHYTOkinetics Inc.www.phytokinetics.com Phytotechwww.phytotech.com PhytoWorks Inc.www.phytoworks.com Verdant Technologieswww.verdanttech.com Wolverton Environmental Services Inc.www.wolvertonenvironmental.com Government, Organization, and Other Web sites: Phytonet Electronic Newsgroup Networkwww.dsa.unipr.it/phytonetwww.dsa.unipr.it/phytonet U.S. Environmental Protection Agency RTDF Phytoremediation of Organics Actionwww.rtdf.org/phyto.htm Links, Conferences, and Other Informationwww.erols.com/jwcross/phytoremediation.htm Bibliography www.clu-in.org/products/phytobib/biba-b.html or www.rtdf.org/phytobib/biba-b.html "Some people think it's just like going out and gardening," says Gatliff. One veteran phytoremediation researcher also sees the same sort of problem dogging the field. "Things are stalling out a bit. When we turn our work over to the Army [which is cleaning up a variety of contaminated bases and plants], they're having trouble getting people who can master the science and engineering well enough to get it to work in the field. There are a lot of cases where people are simply going out and planting trees. They're getting the benefit of an aesthetically pleasing site. But we don't have anything more than limited validation that those trees are really working," says Steven McCutcheon, a research environmental engineer at EPA's National Exposure Research Laboratory in Athens, Ga. McCutcheon does point to the apparent success of Phytotech's cleanup of a lead-contaminated site in New Jersey. "They cleaned it up in a good, solid way," he says. But such successes can foster illusions, he fears. "A lot of people have jumped on board thinking this is nothing more than planting trees in the right places. It turns out not to be that simple," he notes, echoing the concerns of others in the field. "We have to do a lot of homework to know what the right plants are, to know how they break down and handle the contaminants. We don't want the contaminants to be partially broken down and have more hazardous by-products around. That is at least a possibility with vinyl chloride," he cautions. McCutcheon emphasizes that understanding the basics of contaminant breakdown is crucial for developing phytoremediation, because it helps define the conditions for which the technology can be used. Rock notes that one limitation is climate--plants and trees that do well in say, Florida, may not flourish in North Dakota. And while it may be cheaper than conventionally engineered solutions, growing seasons determine its duration. Another consideration is the depth of the contaminant if, for instance, groundwater is to be cleaned. "If the plant doesn't interact with the contaminant, it's not going to clean it up," maintains Rock. Harvey Black (73773.2227@compuserve.com) is a freelance science writer in Madison, Wis. D.J. Glass, The 1998 United States Market for Phytoremediation, Needham, Mass., D. Glass Associates Inc., April 1998.

Phytoremediation: A Growing Field with Some Concerns

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of