|
| |
Illinois Urban Manual
Technical Note No. 3
SOIL QUALITY – URBAN TECHNICAL NOTE No. 3
Heavy Metal Soil Contamination
Introduction
Soil is a crucial component of rural and urban
environments, and in both places land management is the key to soil quality.
This series of technical notes examines the urban activities that cause soil
degradation, and the management practices that protect the functions urban
societies demand from soil. This technical note focuses on heavy metal soil
contamination.
Metals in Soil
Mining, manufacturing, and the use of synthetic
products (e.g. pesticides, paints, batteries, industrial waste, and land
application of industrial or domestic sludge) can result in heavy metal
contamination of urban and agricultural soils. Heavy metals also occur
naturally, but rarely at toxic levels. Potentially contaminated soils may occur
at old landfill sites (particularly those that accepted industrial wastes), old
orchards that used insecticides containing arsenic as an active ingredient,
fields that had past applications of waste water or municipal sludge, areas in
or around mining waste piles and tailings, industrial areas where chemicals may
have been dumped on the ground, or in areas downwind from industrial sites.
Excess heavy metal accumulation in soils is toxic
to humans and other animals. Exposure to heavy metals is normally chronic
(exposure over a longer period of time), due to food chain transfer. Acute
(immediate) poisoning from heavy metals is rare through ingestion or dermal
contact, but is possible. Chronic problems associated with long-term heavy metal
exposures are:
- Lead – mental lapse.
- Cadmium – affects kidney, liver, and GI
tract.
- Arsenic – skin poisoning, affects kidneys
and central nervous system.
The most common problem causing cationic
metals (metallic elements whose forms in soil are positively charged cations
e.g., Pb2+) are mercury, cadmium, lead, nickel, copper, zinc,
chromium, and manganese. The most common anionic compounds (elements whose forms
in soil are combined with oxygen and are negatively charged e.g., MoO42-) are arsenic, molybdenum, selenium, and boron.
Prevention of Heavy Metal Contamination
Preventing heavy metal pollution is critical
because cleaning contaminated soils is extremely expensive and difficult.
Applicators of industrial waste or sludge must abide by the regulatory limits
set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in
Table 1.
Table 1. Regulatory limits on heavy metals
applied to soils (Adapted from U.S. EPA, 1993).
Table1
|
Heavy metal |
Maximum concentration in sludge
(mg/kg or ppm) |
Annual pollutant loading rates |
Cumulative pollutant loading rates |
|
(kg/ha/yr) |
(lb/A/yr) |
(kg/ha) |
(lb/A) |
|
Arsenic |
75 |
2 |
1.8 |
41 |
36.6 |
|
Cadmium |
85 |
1.9 |
1.7 |
39 |
34.8 |
|
Chromium |
3000 |
150 |
134 |
3000 |
2,679 |
|
Copper |
4300 |
75 |
67 |
1500 |
1,340 |
|
Lead |
420 |
21 |
14 |
420 |
375 |
|
Mercury |
840 |
15 |
13.4 |
300 |
268 |
|
Molybdenum |
57 |
0.85 |
0.80 |
17 |
15 |
|
Nickel |
75 |
0.90 |
0.80 |
18 |
16 |
|
Selenium |
100 |
5 |
4 |
100 |
89 |
|
Zinc |
7500 |
140 |
125 |
2800 |
2500 |
Prevention is the best method to protect the
environment from contamination by heavy metals. With the above table, a simple
equation is used to show the maximum amount of sludge that can be applied. For
example, suppose city officials want to apply the maximum amount of sludge
(kg/ha) on some agricultural land. The annual pollutant-loading rate for zinc is
140 kg/ha/yr (from Table 1). The lab analysis of the sludge shows a zinc
concentration of 7500 mg/kg (mg/kg is the same as parts per million). How much
can the applicator apply (tons/A) without exceeding the 140 kg/ha/yr?
Solution:
(1) Convert mg to kg (1,000,000 mg = 1kg) so
all units are the same:
7500 mg X (1 kg/1,000,000 mg) = 0.0075 kg
(2) Divide the amount of zinc that can be
applied by the concentration of zinc
in the sludge:
(140 kg Zn/ha) / (0.0075 kg Zn/kg sludge)
=18,667 kg sludge/ha
(3) Convert to lb/A: 18,667 kg/ha X 0.893 =
16,669 lbs/A
Convert lbs to tons: 16,669 lb/A / 2,000 lb/T =
8.3 T sludge per acre
Traditional Remediation of Contaminated Soil
Once metals are introduced and contaminate the
environment, they will remain. Metals do not degrade like carbon-based (organic)
molecules. The only exceptions are mercury and selenium, which can be
transformed and volatilized by microorganisms. However, in general it is very
difficult to eliminate metals from the environment.
Traditional treatments for metal contamination in
soils are expensive and cost prohibitive when large areas of soil are
contaminated. Treatments can be done in situ (on-site), or ex situ
(removed and treated off-site). Both are extremely expensive. Some treatments
that are available include:
- High temperature treatments (produce a
vitrified, granular, non-leachable material).
- Solidifying agents (produce cement-like
material).
- Washing process (leaches out contaminants).
Management of Contaminated Soil
Soil and crop management methods can help prevent
uptake of pollutants by plants, leaving them in the soil. The soil becomes the
sink, breaking the soil-plant-animal or human cycle through which the toxin
exerts its toxic effects (Brady and Weil, 1999).
The following management practices will not
remove the heavy metal contaminants, but will help to immobilize them in the
soil and reduce the potential for adverse effects from the metals – Note that
the kind of metal (cation or anion) must be considered:
- Increasing the soil pH to 6.5 or higher.
Cationic metals are more soluble at lower pH
levels, so increasing the pH makes them less available to plants and therefore
less likely to be incorporated in their tissues and ingested by humans.
Raising pH has the opposite effect on anionic
elements.
- Draining wet soils.
Drainage improves soil aeration and will allow
metals to oxidize, making them less soluble. Therefore when aerated, these
metals are less available. The opposite is true for chromium, which is more
available in oxidized forms. Active organic matter is effective in reducing
the availability of chromium.
- Applying phosphate.
Heavy phosphate applications reduce the
availability of cationic metals, but have the opposite effect on anionic
compounds like arsenic. Care should be taken with phosphorus applications
because high levels of phosphorus in the soil can result in water pollution.
- Carefully selecting plants for use on
metal-contaminated soils
Plants translocate larger quantities of metals
to their leaves than to their fruits or seeds. The greatest risk of food chain
contamination is in leafy vegetables like lettuce or spinach. Another hazard
is forage eaten by livestock.
Plants for Environmental Cleanup
Research has demonstrated that plants are
effective in cleaning up contaminated soil (Wenzel et al., 1999).
Phytoremediation is a general term for using plants to remove, degrade, or
contain soil pollutants such as heavy metals, pesticides, solvents, crude oil,
polyaromatic hydrocarbons, and landfill leacheates For example, prairie grasses
can stimulate breakdown of petroleum products. Wildflowers were recently used to
degrade hydrocarbons from an oil spill in Kuwait. Hybrid poplars can remove
ammunition compounds such as TNT as well as high nitrates and pesticides (Brady
and Weil, 1999).
Plants for Treating Metal Contaminated Soils
Plants have been used to stabilize or remove
metals from soil and water. The three mechanisms used are phytoextraction,
rhizofiltration, and phytostabilization. This technical note will
define rhizofiltration and phytostabilization but will focus on phytoextraction.
Rhizofiltration is the adsorption onto plant
roots or absorption into plant roots of contaminants that are in solution
surrounding the root zone (rhizosphere). Rhizofiltration is used to
decontaminate groundwater. Plants are grown in greenhouses in water instead of
soil. Contaminated water from the site is used to acclimate the plants to the
environment. The plants are then planted on the site of contaminated ground
water where the roots take up the water and contaminants. Once the roots are
saturated with the contaminant, the plants are harvested including the roots. In
Chernobyl, Ukraine, sunflowers were used in this way to remove radioactive
contaminants from groundwater (EPA, 1998).
Phytostabilization is the use of perennial,
non-harvested plants to stabilize or immobilize contaminants in the soil and
groundwater. Metals are absorbed and accumulated by roots, adsorbed onto roots,
or precipitated within the rhizosphere. Metal-tolerant plants can be used to
restore vegetation where natural vegetation is lacking, thus reducing the risk
of water and wind erosion and leaching. Phytostabilization reduces the mobility
of the contaminant and prevents further movement of the contaminant into
groundwater or the air and reduces the bioavailability for entry into the food
chain.
Phytoextraction
Phytoextraction is the process of growing plants
in metal contaminated soil . Plant roots then translocate the metals into
aboveground portions of the plant. After plants have grown for some time, they
are harvested and incinerated or composted to recycle the metals. Several crop
growth cycles may be needed to decrease contaminant levels to allowable limits.
If the plants are incinerated, the ash must be disposed of in a hazardous waste
landfill, but the volume of the ash is much smaller than the volume of
contaminated soil if dug out and removed for treatment. (See box.)
Example of Disposal
Excavating and landfilling a 10-acre
contaminated site to a depth of 1 foot requires handling roughly 20,000 tons
of soil. Phytoextraction of the same site would result in the need to handle
about 500 tons of biomass, which is about 1/40 of the mass of the contaminated
soil. In this example, if we assume the soil was contaminated with a lead
concentration of 400 ppm, six to eight crops would be needed, growing four
crops per season (Phytotech, 2000).
Phytoextraction is done with plants called
hyperaccumulators, which absorb unusually large amounts of metals in comparison
to other plants. Hyperaccumulators contain more than 1,000 milligrams per
kilogram of cobalt, copper, chromium, lead, or nickel; or 10,000 milligrams per
kilogram (1 %) of manganese or zinc in dry matter (Baker and Brooks, 1989). One
or more of these plant types are planted at a particular site based on the kinds
of metals present and site conditions. Tables 2 and 3 demonstrate the importance
of using hyperaccumulators.
Table 2. Percentage decrease in water-extractable
zinc and cadmium in three soils after growth of Alpine pennycress (Thlaspi
caerulescens) (McGrath, 1998).
Table 2
|
Site Sampled |
Zn |
Cd |
|
Farm |
28 |
10 |
|
Garden |
17 |
22 |
|
Mountain |
64 |
70 |
Table 3. Removal of zinc in a hypothetical 4.5
T/A (dry matter) crop growing in soil contaminated with 1000 (ppm) zinc with a
target of 50 ppm, showing the importance of hyperaccumulation (>10,000 ppm
zinc) (McGrath, 1998).
Table 3
ppm
Zn
in plant |
Lbs.
of Zn removed |
%
of soil total in one crop |
years
to target |
| 100 |
0.9 |
0.04 |
2470.0 |
| 1000 |
9 |
0.38 |
247.0 |
| 10,000 |
90 |
3.85 |
24.7 |
| 20,000 |
179 |
7.69 |
12.4 |
| 30,000 |
268 |
11.54 |
8.2 |
Phytoextraction is easiest with metals such as
nickel, zinc, and copper because these metals are preferred by a majority of the
400 hyperaccumlator plants. Several plants in the genus Thlaspi
(pennycress) have been known to take up more than 30,000 ppm (3%)of zinc
in their tissues. These plants can be used as ore because of the high metal
concentration (Brady and Weil, 1999).
Of all the metals, lead is the most common soil
contaminant (EPA, 1993). Unfortunately, plants do not accumulate lead under
natural conditions. A chelator such as EDTA (ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid)
has to be added to the soil as an amendment. The EDTA makes the lead available
to the plant. The most common plant used for lead extraction is Indian mustard (Brassisa
juncea). Phytotech (a private research company) has reported that they have
cleaned up lead-contaminated sites in New Jersey to below the industrial
standards in 1 to 2 summers using Indian mustard (Wantanabe, 1997).
Plants are available to remove zinc, cadmium,
lead, selenium, and nickel from soils at rates that are medium to long-term, but
rapid enough to be useful. Many of the plants that hyperaccumulate metals
produce low biomass, and need to be bred for much higher biomass production.
Current genetic engineering efforts at USDA in
Beltsville, MD, are aimed toward developing pennycress (Thlaspi) that is
extremely zinc tolerant. These taller-than-normal plants would have more
biomass, thereby taking up larger quantities of contaminating metals (Watanabe,
1997).
Traditional cleanup in situ may cost
between $10.00 and $100.00 per cubic meter (m3), whereas removal of
contaminated material (ex situ) may cost as high $30.00 to $300/ m3.
In comparison, phytoremediation may only cost $0.05/
m3 (Watanabe, 1997).
Future Prospects
Phytoremediation has been studied extensively in
research and small-scale demonstrations, but in only a few full-scale
applications. Phytoremediation is moving into the realm of commercialization
(Watanabe, 1997). It is predicted that the phytoremediation market will reach
$214 to $370 million by the year 2005 (Environmental Science & Technology,
1998).
Given the current effectiveness, phytoremediation
is best suited for cleanup over a wide area in which contaminants are present at
low to medium concentrations. Before phytoremediation is fully commercialized,
further research is needed to assure that tissues of plants used for
phytoremediation do not have adverse environmental effects if eaten by wildlife
or used by humans for things such as mulch or firewood (EPA, 1998). Research is
also needed to find more efficient bioaccumulators, hyperaccumulators that
produce more biomass, and to further monitor current field trials to ensure a
thorough understanding. There is the need for a commercialized smelting method
to extract the metals from plant biomass so they can be recycled.
Phytoremediation is slower than traditional
methods of removing heavy metals from soil but much less costly. Prevention of
soil contamination is far less expensive than any kind of remediation and much
better for the environment.
References
Baker, A.J.M., and R.R. Brooks. 1989.
Terrestrial plants which hyperaccumulate metallic elements – a review of
their distribution, ecology, and phytochemistry. Biorecovery 1:81:126.
Brady, N.C., and R.R. Weil. 1999. The nature
and properties of soils. 12th ed. Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Environmental Science & Technology. 1998.
Phytoremediation; forecasting. Environmental Science & Technology. Vol.
32, issue 17, p.399A.
McGrath, S.P. 1998. Phytoextraction for soil
remediation. p. 261-287. In R. Brooks (ed.) Plants that
hyperaccumulate heavy metals their role in phytoremediation, microbiology,
archaeology, mineral exploration and phytomining. CAB International, New
York, NY.
Phytotech. 2000. Phytoremediation technology.
http://clu-in.org/PRODUCTS/SITE/ongoing/demoong/phytotec.htm
U.S. EPA. 1993. Clean Water Act, sec. 503,
vol. 58, no. 32. (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C.).
U.S. EPA. 1998. A citizen’s guide to
phytoremediation. http://clu- in.org/PRODUCTS/CITGUIDE/Phyto2.htm
Watanabe, M.E. 1997. Phytoremediation on the
brink of commercialization. Environmental Science & Technology/News.
31:182-186.
Wenzel, W.W., Adriano, D.C., Salt, D., and
Smith, R. 1999. Phytoremediation: A plant-microbe based remediation system.
p. 457-508. In D.C. Adriano et al. (ed.) Bioremediation of
contaminated soils. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI.
Disclaimer
Trade names are used solely to
provide specific information. Mention of a trade name does not constitute a
guarantee of the product by the U.S. Department of Agriculture nor does it imply
endorsement by the Department or the Natural Resources Conservation Service over
comparable products that are not named.
Table of Contents
< Back to Table of Contents
| |
|