Aquatic and Terrestrial Plant Species with Potential to Remove Heavy Metals from Stormwater

1. Aquatic and Terrestrial Plant Species with Potential to Remove Heavy Metals from Stormwater By: Asa Fritioff & Maria Greger Department of Botany Stockholm University Source: International Journal of Phytoremediation Date Published: May 3rd, 2003 Presenter: Gianna Grabowski Hello my name is Gianna Grabowski and today I will be giving a presentation on my article "Aquatic and Terrestrial Plant Species w/ Potential to Remove Heavy Metals from Stormwater". My topic was phytoremediation, and this article comes from the International Journal of Phytoremediation. The research done for this article was completed at Stockholm University.Hello my name is Gianna Grabowski and today I will be giving a presentation on my article "Aquatic and Terrestrial Plant Species w/ Potential to Remove Heavy Metals from Stormwater". My topic was phytoremediation, and this article comes from the International Journal of Phytoremediation. The research done for this article was completed at Stockholm University.

2. Thesis & Importance of Article Percolation systems or wetlands contain plant species that are capable of phtyoremediating stormwater contaminated with heavy metals. The most toxic metals commonly found in stormwater were used in this study, including cadmium, copper, zinc, and lead. Here is the thesis of the article, this study is important due to the very hazardous nature of heavy metals such as cadmium, copper, zinc, and lead, as they can have adverse effects on microbes, plants, and animals. The ability of wetland or percolation system plant species to remove these contaminants is the focus of this article.Here is the thesis of the article, this study is important due to the very hazardous nature of heavy metals such as cadmium, copper, zinc, and lead, as they can have adverse effects on microbes, plants, and animals. The ability of wetland or percolation system plant species to remove these contaminants is the focus of this article.

3. Important Terms Stormwater= is where impervious surfaces, such as roads and roofs, drain rain and snow melt water. It is mostly contaminated by organic pollutants, oil, and heavy metals, Phytoremediation= is a process where contamination is either stabilized, eliminated, removed, or destroyed by plants. Here are a couple of important term definitions, and this photo shows a stormwater drain in Los Angeles, California. You can see the garbage floating along with the water over the cement surface. Here are a couple of important term definitions, and this photo shows a stormwater drain in Los Angeles, California. You can see the garbage floating along with the water over the cement surface.

4. Background Heavy metal concentrations are usually greater in stormwater than in naturally occurring waters. Wetland/percolation area treatment of stormwater is preferable over other methods. Contaminated areas contain a variety of plant species with differing capabilities for heavy metal remediation. Here is some background information, The phytoremediation of stormwater is necessary due to the elevated levels of contaminants found there as opposed to natural water. Some of the other methods used besides this, include retention and detention ponds and mixing with sewage in wastewater treatment plants, unfortunately the latter strategies have negative impacts on the environment and waste water facilities. Previous studies have shown that in polluted areas there are many different species of plants that have various abilities for uptaking heavy metals.Here is some background information, The phytoremediation of stormwater is necessary due to the elevated levels of contaminants found there as opposed to natural water. Some of the other methods used besides this, include retention and detention ponds and mixing with sewage in wastewater treatment plants, unfortunately the latter strategies have negative impacts on the environment and waste water facilities. Previous studies have shown that in polluted areas there are many different species of plants that have various abilities for uptaking heavy metals.

5. Background Continued Terrestrial and emergent plant species exist in percolation areas. Free-floating, submerged, and emergent plants occur in wetlands. The most effective metal remediating plants were needed for this study. To determine this, a metal concentration analysis was done on the most common plants found in the study area. Here is some more background information, first I have the types of plants that naturally occur in percolation and wetland habitats. Next I have state the authors of this articles intention was to use the plant species capable of uptaking the greatest concentration of heavy metals. Here is some more background information, first I have the types of plants that naturally occur in percolation and wetland habitats. Next I have state the authors of this articles intention was to use the plant species capable of uptaking the greatest concentration of heavy metals.

6. Methods- Field Study Three sampling areas were used for the field experiment, labeled Areas 1, 2, and 3. They were all located 7-15 km south of Stockholm, Sweden. Plants and soil samples were taken from all 3 areas on the same day. Plant samples were collected from the most abundant species in the 3 areas, such as P. natans (submersed), L. gibba (free-floating), A. plantago-aquatica (emergent), and F. ulmaria (terrestrial). Plant samples were divided into root and shoot sections. 12 species total were used in this study. Now for the methods. There were two main experiments in this study the field experiment and the controlled experiment. In the field experiment, Area 1 was a wetland, Area 2 was a ditch, and Area 3 was a percolation area. The three areas location was just south of Stockholm. Only plants and soil were collected from the areas, not any water quality samples. This was due to the variability of stormwater contaminant concentrations during weather events. Only the most dominant species in the 3 areas were chosen for the study, examples of these include P. natans, L. gibba, A. plantago aquatica, and F. ulmaria. Altogether 12 species were used in this experiment.Now for the methods. There were two main experiments in this study the field experiment and the controlled experiment. In the field experiment, Area 1 was a wetland, Area 2 was a ditch, and Area 3 was a percolation area. The three areas location was just south of Stockholm. Only plants and soil were collected from the areas, not any water quality samples. This was due to the variability of stormwater contaminant concentrations during weather events. Only the most dominant species in the 3 areas were chosen for the study, examples of these include P. natans, L. gibba, A. plantago aquatica, and F. ulmaria. Altogether 12 species were used in this experiment.

7. Plant Species Used in This Study Here are some photos of the plants species used in this study. The plant on the top left is known as Floating leaf pondweed or P. natans, the top right is called Duckweed or L. gibba, the bottom left is referred to as the queen of the meadow or Meadowsweet also know as F. ulmaria, and finally the bottom right is known as the great water plantain or A. plantago-aquatica. Only Meadowsweet is a terrestrial plant, the other 3 plants are all aquatic.Here are some photos of the plants species used in this study. The plant on the top left is known as Floating leaf pondweed or P. natans, the top right is called Duckweed or L. gibba, the bottom left is referred to as the queen of the meadow or Meadowsweet also know as F. ulmaria, and finally the bottom right is known as the great water plantain or A. plantago-aquatica. Only Meadowsweet is a terrestrial plant, the other 3 plants are all aquatic.

8. Methods- Controlled Study The plant species F. ulmaria, P. natans, and A. plantago-aquatica were used in this experiment. A heavy metal mixture was added to half of the plant samples, the others were left as controls. All plants were cleaned with water. A flame absorption spectrophotometer determined the metal concentrations. ANOVA was used to statistically analyze the data. In the controlled experiment, only 3 species were used, and they were also collected in only 1 day. The samples were divided up into two categories, control and treated. The treated received a mixture of Cd, Co, Zn, and Pb. The total time for the experiment was 156 hours. All the plant species samples in both experiments were cleaned 4 times w/ distilled water. Concentrations of each heavy metal present in the plants was determined by using a flame/furnace atomic absorption spectrophotometer. Also the data was statistically analyzed by analysis of variance, or ANOVA.In the controlled experiment, only 3 species were used, and they were also collected in only 1 day. The samples were divided up into two categories, control and treated. The treated received a mixture of Cd, Co, Zn, and Pb. The total time for the experiment was 156 hours. All the plant species samples in both experiments were cleaned 4 times w/ distilled water. Concentrations of each heavy metal present in the plants was determined by using a flame/furnace atomic absorption spectrophotometer. Also the data was statistically analyzed by analysis of variance, or ANOVA.

9. Results Zinc concentrations in plants were between 16-451�g 1/g DW. Copper concentrations in plants were between 2.7-94 �g 1/g DW Cadmium concentrations in plants were between 04-48 �g -1 DW Lead concentrations in plants were between 30-26 �g 1/g DW The results of the field experiment showed ranges for the 4 types of heavy metals concentrations found in the plants roots and shoots. DW stands for the dry weight of the contaminant.The results of the field experiment showed ranges for the 4 types of heavy metals concentrations found in the plants roots and shoots. DW stands for the dry weight of the contaminant.

10. Zinc Conc. (�g 1/g DW) in Plants and Soil During Field Test Here is Table 3 showing the zinc concentrations found in the soil and plants during the field experiment. There are 3 other graphs for the Cd, Cu, and Pb results but overall they showed lower concentrations present in the plants as compared to zinc, with the lead concentrations being the lowest, as several of the different areas and plants showed no lead uptake at all.Here is Table 3 showing the zinc concentrations found in the soil and plants during the field experiment. There are 3 other graphs for the Cd, Cu, and Pb results but overall they showed lower concentrations present in the plants as compared to zinc, with the lead concentrations being the lowest, as several of the different areas and plants showed no lead uptake at all.

11. Conc. of Metals in Plants During Controlled Experiment Here is Table 8 displaying the results of the controlled experiment, it shows the concentration of heavy metals found in the plants sampled as controls and the treated plants which were given extra quantities of Zn, Cu, Cd, and Pb. The table shows that P. natans and A. plantago-aquatica treated samples had higher concentrations than the field samples for the metals Zn, Cu, and Pb. F. ulmaria contained more Pb and Cadmium than the field samples as well.Here is Table 8 displaying the results of the controlled experiment, it shows the concentration of heavy metals found in the plants sampled as controls and the treated plants which were given extra quantities of Zn, Cu, Cd, and Pb. The table shows that P. natans and A. plantago-aquatica treated samples had higher concentrations than the field samples for the metals Zn, Cu, and Pb. F. ulmaria contained more Pb and Cadmium than the field samples as well.

12. Discussion The submersed plant species removed more metal contaminants (e.g. P. natans). The three areas showed that different plant species contain various levels of metal concentrations. The plants showed an ability to intake more contaminants at higher metal concentration periods. (e.g. heavy rains). The majority of the terrestrial and aquatic plants used in this study were effective at removing heavy metal contamination from stormwater. In Conclusion, the submersed plants had higher concentrations of heavy metals than the other types. Free floating plants were also very effective metal remediators. The plants all had different levels of contaminants in them, the authors claim this is due to various uptake sites and capacities of the plants. Finally the authors found that most of the plants were very good phytoremediators when it comes to heavy metal contamination, hopefully this study will help wetland managers clean up some pollution in the world.In Conclusion, the submersed plants had higher concentrations of heavy metals than the other types. Free floating plants were also very effective metal remediators. The plants all had different levels of contaminants in them, the authors claim this is due to various uptake sites and capacities of the plants. Finally the authors found that most of the plants were very good phytoremediators when it comes to heavy metal contamination, hopefully this study will help wetland managers clean up some pollution in the world.

13. Critique Good and important study. Needed more plant species in the controlled study. Lack of data from other types of stormwater contamination studies. Plant and soil collection occurred on only 1 day in both the field and controlled experiments. For my critique, overall I felt the authors did a good and an important study, however, I thought the authors could of used more than 3 plant species in their controlled experiment, as they used 12 different species in their field experiment. I also felt that a comparison of the results from this study to other types of contaminants (e.g. oil) study data would have been helpful in the overall emphasis of how effective phytoremediation is. The other fault I found with this study was that the authors only collected plants and soil on one day for both experiments, I feel that a multiple collection study involving different seasons of the year would of produced more accurate results.For my critique, overall I felt the authors did a good and an important study, however, I thought the authors could of used more than 3 plant species in their controlled experiment, as they used 12 different species in their field experiment. I also felt that a comparison of the results from this study to other types of contaminants (e.g. oil) study data would have been helpful in the overall emphasis of how effective phytoremediation is. The other fault I found with this study was that the authors only collected plants and soil on one day for both experiments, I feel that a multiple collection study involving different seasons of the year would of produced more accurate results.

14. Contact Information For more information please contact: Gianna M. Grabowski (586) 773-0723 gg_galaxy2002@yahoo.com Questions??? If anyone would like more information on this article, feel free to contact me. Thankyou all very much for your time, now are there any questions?If anyone would like more information on this article, feel free to contact me. Thankyou all very much for your time, now are there any questions?