Search

Chemical fractionation of copper in bulk soil and its distribution in the particle-size fractions were analyzed in a Cu-contaminated soil (674±122μgCug−1, up to 1900μgCug−1 in the clay fraction) sampled from a wood preservation site left untreated and subsequently treated with dolomitic limestone (DL, 0.2% w/w) and compost (CM, 5% w/w), singly and in combination (DL+CM). Soil enzymatic activities of leucine aminopeptidase, cellulase, N-acetyl-β-glucosaminidase, arylsulfatase, β-glucosidase, acetate esterase, butyric esterase, and acid phosphatase were determined. Chemical speciation showed that Cu was mostly present in the acid-soluble and reducible fractions in both untreated and treated soils, whereas treatments with DL and CM reduced the soluble and exchangeable Cu fractions, due to Cu precipitation and complexation, and increased Cu bound to soil organic matter. Analysis of the particle-size fractions showed that more than 80% of Cu was in the silt and clay fractions and that treatment with CM increased the concentration of Cu in the sand size fractions. Soil treatment with DL and CM, singly or in combination, increased hydrolase activities, mainly in the clay fraction, with the largest positive effects on N-acetyl-β-glucosaminidase, leucine aminopeptidase, and β-glucosidase activities. Overall, results confirm that (1) Cu in contaminated soils is mainly bound to the silt–clay fraction, (2) CM additions change its allocation in the particle-size fractions, and (3) treatments with DL and CM singly and in combination reduce Cu solubility and its inhibitory effects on soil enzyme activities. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

(Aided) phytostabilisation has been proposed as a suitable technique to decrease the environmental risks associated with metal(loid)-enriched mine tailings. Field scale evaluations are needed for demonstrating their effectiveness in the medium- to long-term. A field trial was implemented in spring 2011 in Cu-rich mine tailings in the NW of Spain. The tailings were amended with composted municipal solid wastes and planted with Salix spp., Populus nigra L. or Agrostis capillaris L. cv. Highland. Plant growth, nutritive status and metal accumulation, and soil physico- and bio-chemical properties, were monitored over three years (four years for plant growth). The total bacterial community, α- and β-Proteobacteria , Actinobacteria and Streptomycetaceae were studied by DGGE of 16s rDNA fragments. Compost amendment improved soil properties such as pH, CEC and fertility, and decreased soil Cu availability, leading to the establishment of a healthy vegetation cover. Both compost-amendment and plant root activity stimulated soil enzyme activities and induced important shifts in the bacterial community structure over time. The woody plant, S. viminalis , and the grassy species, A. capillaris , showed the best results in terms of plant growth and biomass production. The beneficial effects of the phytostabilisation process were maintained at least three years after treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Gentle remediation options (GROs) are risk management strategies or technologies involving plant (phyto-), fungi (myco-), and/or bacteria-based methods that result in a net gain (or at least no gross reduction) in soil function as well as effective risk management. GRO strategies can be customised along contaminant linkages, and can generate a range of wider economic, environmental and societal benefits in contaminated land management (and in brownfields management more widely). The application of GROs as practical on-site remedial solutions is still limited however, particularly in Europe and at trace element (typically metal and metalloid) contaminated sites. This paper discusses challenges to the practical adoption of GROs in contaminated land management, and outlines the decision support tools and best practice guidance developed in the European Commission FP7-funded GREENLAND project aimed at overcoming these challenges. The GREENLAND guidance promotes a refocus from phytoremediation to wider GROs- or phyto-management based approaches which place realisation of wider benefits at the core of site design, and where gentle remediation technologies can be applied as part of integrated, mixed, site risk management solutions or as part of “holding strategies” for vacant sites. The combination of GROs with renewables, both in terms of biomass generation but also with green technologies such as wind and solar power, can provide a range of economic and other benefits and can potentially support the return of low-level contaminated sites to productive usage, while combining GROs with urban design and landscape architecture, and integrating GRO strategies with sustainable urban drainage systems and community gardens/parkland (particularly for health and leisure benefits), has large potential for triggering GRO application and in realising wider benefits in urban and suburban systems. Quantifying these wider benefits and value (above standard economic returns) will be important in leveraging funding for GRO application and soft site end-use more widely at vacant or underutilized sites. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Gentle Remediation Options (GRO) are risk management strategies or techniques for contaminated sites that result in no gross reduction in soil functionality (or a net gain) as well as risk management. Intelligently applied GROs can provide: (a) rapid risk management via pathway control, through containment and stabilisation, coupled with a longer term removal or immobilisation/isolation of the contaminant source term; and (b) a range of additional economic (e.g. biomass generation), social (e.g. leisure and recreation) and environmental (e.g. CO2 sequestration) benefits. In order for these benefits to be optimised or indeed realised, effective stakeholder engagement is required. This paper reviews current sector practice in stakeholder engagement and its importance when implementing GRO and other remediation options. From this, knowledge gaps are identified, and strategies to promote more effective stakeholder engagement during GRO application are outlined. Further work is required on integrating stakeholder engagement strategies into decision support systems and tools for GRO (to raise the profile of the benefits of effective stakeholder engagement and participation, particularly with sector professionals), and developing criteria for the identification of different stakeholder profiles/categories. Demonstrator sites can make a significant contribution to stakeholder engagement via providing evidence on the effectiveness of GRO under varying site contexts and conditions. Effective and sustained engagement strategies however will be required to ensure that site risk is effectively managed over the longer-term, and that full potential benefits of GRO (e.g. CO2 sequestration, economic returns from biomass generation and “leverage” of marginal land, amenity and educational value, ecosystem services) are realised and communicated to stakeholders. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]