See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5786715

Using phytoremediation technologies to

upgrade waste water treatment in Europe

Article in Environmental Science and Pollution Research December 2007

DOI: 10.1065/espr2006.12.373 Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

93 1,616

16 authors, including:

Avi Golan (Goldhirsh) Simona Di Gregorio

Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Universit di Pisa
101 PUBLICATIONS 2,030 CITATIONS 36 PUBLICATIONS 660 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Abdul Memon Luca Sebastiani

Usak niversitesi Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna
73 PUBLICATIONS 1,373 CITATIONS 182 PUBLICATIONS 2,556 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Heavy metal induced gene expression in metal accumulator plants View project

Biologically active compounds from plants View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Simona Di Gregorio on 11 July 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
Phytoremediation Technologies Subject Area 5.3

Subject Area 5.3: Phytoremediation and ecosystem restoration

Discussion Article

Using Phytoremediation Technologies to Upgrade Waste Water

Treatment in Europe
Peter Schrder1*, Juan Navarro-Avi2, Hassan Azaizeh3, Avi Golan Goldhirsh4, Simona DiGregorio5,
Tamas Komives6, Gnter Langergraber7, Anton Lenz8, Elena Maestri9, Abdul R. Memon10, Alfonso Ranalli11,
Luca Sebastiani12, Stanislav Smrcek13, Tomas Vanek14, Stephane Vuilleumier15, Frieder Wissing16
1 Department of Microbe-Plant Interactions, GSF National Research Center for Environment and Health, Neuherberg, Germany
2 Department of Stress Biology, Polytechnical University of Valencia, Spain
3 R&D Center the Galilee Society, Shefa-Amr, Israel
4 The Jacob Blaustein Institutes for Desert Research, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Israel
5 Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Natural Sciences, Department of Biology, Pisa, Italy
6 Plant Protection Institute, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, Hungary
7 Institute of Sanitary Engineering and Water Pollution Control, BOKU-University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences,

Vienna, Austria
8 Ingenieurbro Lenz, Ringelai, Germany
9 Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Parma, Italy
10 TUBITAK Research Institute for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, Gebze, Turkey
11 Istituto Sperimentale de l`Elaiotechnica, CNR, Pescara, Italy
12 Scuola Superiore di Studi Universitari e di Perfezionamento Sant'Anna, Pisa, Italy
13 Analytical Chemistry Laboratory, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
14 Department of Plant Cell Tissue Cultures, Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic
15 Department Microorganisms, Genomes, Environnement, UMR 7156 CNRS, Universit Louis Pasteur Strasbourg, France
16 ILKON Engineering Office for Applied Limnology, Bonn, Germany

* Corresponding author: Prof. Dr. Peter Schrder, GSF National Research Center for Environment and Health,
Department of Microbe-Plant Interactions, Ingolstdter Landstrasse 1, 85764 Neuherberg, Germany (peter.schroeder@gsf.de)

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/espr2006.12.373 phytoremediation technologies seem to be most promising to solve

Please cite this paper as: Schrder P, Navarro-Avi J, Azaizeh
H, Goldhirsh AG, DiGregorio S, Komives T, Langergraber G, Lenz
A, Maestri E, Memon AR, Ranalli A, Sebastiani L, Smrcek S,
Vanek T, Vuilleumier S, Wissing F (2007): Using Phytoremedia-
tion Technologies to Upgrade Waste Water Treatment in Eu-
rope. Env Sci Pollut Res 14 (7) 490497
Abstract
Goal, Scope and Background. One of the burning problems of our
industrial society is the high consumption of water and the high de-
mand for clean drinking water. Numerous approaches have been taken
to reduce water consumption, but in the long run it seems only pos-
sible to recycle waste water into high quality water. It seems timely to
discuss alternative water remediation technologies that are fit for in-
dustrial as well as less developed countries to ensure a high quality of
drinking water throughout Europe.
Main Features. The present paper discusses a range of phytore-
mediation technologies to be applied in a modular approach to inte-
grate and improve the performance of existing wastewater treatment,
especially towards the emerging micro pollutants, i.e. organic chemi-
cals and pharmaceuticals. This topic is of global relevance for the EU.
Results. Existing technologies for waste water treatment do not suf-
ficiently address increasing pollution situation, especially with the
growing use of organic pollutants in the private household and health
sector. Although some crude chemical approaches exist, such as ad-
vanced oxidation steps, most waste water treatment plants will not
be able to adopt them. The same is true for membrane technologies.
Discussion. Incredible progress has been made during recent years,
thus providing us with membranes of longevity and stability and, at
the same time, high filtration capacity. However, these systems are
expensive and delicate in operation, so that the majority of commu-
nities will not be able to afford them. Combinations of different
this burning problem.
Conclusions. To quantify the occurrence and the distribution of
micropollutants, to evaluate their effects, and to prevent them from
passing through wastewater collection and treatment systems into
rivers, lakes and ground water bodies represents an urgent task for
applied environmental sciences in the coming years.
Recommendations. Public acceptance of green technologies is gen-
erally higher than that of industrial processes. The EU should stimu-
late research to upgrade existing waste water treatment by imple-
menting phytoremediation modules and demonstrating their
reliability to the public.
Keywords: Aquatic macrophytes; constructed wetlands; helophytes,
personal care products; pharmaceuticals; phytoremediation; recal-
citrant organic xenobiotics
Introduction
Today, more than 100,000 different chemicals are available
on the European market, and one third of them exceed quan-
tities of one tonne per annum. Most of them have been intro-
duced for the benefit of daily life, medicine, food production
and industrial purposes, and a good proportion of these com-
pounds lack natural counterparts. The majority of these com-
pounds have a rather poor biodegradability. Hence, fresh water
resources become more and more contaminated with micro-
quantities of these man-made pollutants. Moreover, some of
these pollutants may possess the undesirable property of ex-
erting estrogenic activity on various higher organisms. Europe
has to face the issue that many of these foreign compounds or

490 Env Sci Pollut Res 14 (7) 490 497 (2007)

2007 ecomed publishers (Verlagsgruppe Hthig Jehle Rehm GmbH), D-86899 Landsberg and Tokyo Mumbai Seoul Melbourne Paris
Subject Area 5.3
xenobiotics will increasingly create environmental problems
in all regions of our continent. Due to steadily improving ca-
pabilities for environmental analysis, we are nowadays able
to detect compounds in very low concentration ranges (e.g.
nanomoles) in water bodies and sediments. Amongst them
are well-known pesticides, plasticizers, fuel additives, flame
retardants, medicaments and fragrances. Industrial activities
are a second source of water pollution. Industrial wastewater
discharged into aquatic ecosystems either directly or because
of inadequate treatment of process water can lower water
quality of a region by increasing concentrations of pollutants
such as organic matter, suspended particulates, micropollut-
ants, nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen) or heavy metals,
thereby causing adverse effects on human health and unde-
sirable changes in the composition of aquatic biota.
It becomes increasingly clear that societal attitude towards
water pollution is associated with rising economic costs be-
cause of the ensuing depletion of water resources for spe-
cific uses. The reduction of pollution in waste water will
depend on what a given community or an industrial area
allows into the effluent stream, and on the efficiency and
effectiveness with which these effluents are treated. The spe-
cial treatment requirements for industrial effluents differ from
those of municipal wastewater. In case of industrial efflu-
ents, where specific pollutants are well defined, targeted treat-
ment at source can be applied. Municipal waste water treat-
ment may require more diverse technologies.
The ETAP (Environmental Technologies Action Plan) of the
European Union claims urgent action for better water qual-
ity and protection of our natural resources. High priority is
also given to environmentally sound water treatment tech-
nologies that will reduce greenhouse gases, recycle materi-
als and provide all partner countries with affordable tech-
nologies. The discussion paper on water issues is very specific
about novel green technologies to be adopted in this respect
(http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/etap/pdfs/etapwater
issuefr.pdf). Hence, it would be timely to target on new, en-
vironmentally benign, biological technologies for the removal
of toxic pollutants from water. This will have the additional
beneficial effects of a reduced health risk to people and eco-
systems, and will exploit available research excellence by
collaboration with industry. Better environmental conditions
as a result of reduced impact of pollution discharges in Eu-
ropean countries will also create favorable conditions for
social development and for overall industrial activity.
The EU Strategy for Sustainable Development (European
Commission 2004) and several EU directives strive to pro-
vide Europe with clean water of high purity and stable qual-
ity. This addresses all types of water use, but especially con-
siders drinking water. Conventional waste water treatment
systems have not provided adequate solutions for the re-
moval of micropollutants, especially pharmaceuticals, per-
sonal health products and heavy metals.
Although high-tech solutions are presently available all over
Europe, their sustainability is usually not achieved, since their
resilience to numerous parameters is questionable, and clear
cut evidence is presented in the ETAP papers that these tech-
nical solutions are too expensive for many communities. It
is also evident that, in order to protect resources for future
Env Sci Pollut Res 14 (7) 2007
Phytoremediation Technologies
generations, approaches have to be adopted which will not
only preserve the ecosystem, but also protect biodiversity.
1 Micropollutants in Urban Waste Water and Sludge
Pharmaceuticals have been detected in surface waters of the
US and Europe at concentrations in the ng/L to g/L range
(Kolpin et al. 2002). A German study reported on the occur-
rence of 55 active pharmaceuticals and 9 metabolites in the
discharge of 49 sewage treatment plants, as well as in receiving
water bodies, at concentrations of up to several g l1 (Ternes
1998). Another study reports that 27 out of 32 pharmaceutical
substances and 4 of 5 metabolites were detected in the effluent
of European wastewater treatment plants, and that surface water
peak values exceeded 1 g l1 (Larsen et al. 2004). American
studies came up with similar values, and pointed out that nu-
merous compounds found in sewage plants will consequently
also be present in potable-water supplies and, hence, represent
a public health problem of increasing concern (Stackelberg et
al. 2004). In other cases, municipal waste water treatment plants
may receive considerable amounts of pre-treated industrial waste
water, polluted ground water, etc., leading to additional pollu-
tion with organic xenobiotics. Reviews on the occurrence, fate
and possible effects of pharmaceuticals or their active me-
tabolites in the environment from sewage and animal hus-
bandry are available and point to the danger of their wide-
spread distribution in ecosystems (Daughton and Ternes
1999, Sweetman 2002). Few recent papers describe also the
occurrence of perfluorinated surfactants in water (Skutlarek
et al. 2006). However, the environmental effects of the pres-
ence of many other compounds and mixtures thereof in waste
water have not been properly addressed with respect to their
biological activity (Richardson and Bowron 1985, Halling-
Sorensen et al. 1998, Daughton 2001, Ternes 2001).
A second problem arises when surplus wastewater sludge is
reused as a fertilizer for agricultural purposes. This sludge
must clearly conform to certain limit values with respect to
xenobiotic substances in order to prevent accumulation in
soil, plant and drainage to surface and ground water. The
latest revision of the statutory order in Denmark, for the
first time, included a list of limit values on organic micro-
pollutants in sludge. Four groups of micropollutants were
included in this list: the Linear Alkylbenzene Sulfonates
(LAS), Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH), Nonyl-
phenols + Ethoxylates (NPE), and Diethylhexyl-Phthalates
(DEHP) (Knudsen et al. 2000). The fate of pharmaceuticals
or personal care products in sludge is rarely addressed. To-
day, up to 50% of the sludge used for agricultural purposes
does not comply with the given standards. Nevertheless, this
sludge is used as an amendment to soils and, hence, delivers
organic pollutants to soil, surface water and crops. It has
been observed that the level of organic micropollutants is
much higher in anaerobically digested sludge than in aero-
bically stabilized sludge. This indicates that the organic
micropollutants in question can be degraded at least in part
under aerobic conditions, but not under anaerobic condi-
tions. These observations suggest an attractive starting point
for the development of a post-aeration process for biologi-
cal degradation of organic micropollutants in anaerobically
digested sludge with the aim of enabling continued reuse of
the sludge for agricultural purposes.
491
Phytoremediation Technologies
2 International Conventions and Agreements
Since the North Sea Conference on Co-operation in dealing
with pollution of the North Sea by oil and other harmful
substances (Bonn Agreement 1983), public awareness in
Europe has been introduced to the topic of water quality.
Still, it took almost a decade until the Hague Declaration on
the future Community ground water policy was agreed on
at the EC Ministerial Meeting on Nov. 2627, 1991. An-
other decade went by until the Agenda 21 formulated the
idea that quantitative and qualitative discharge standards
for municipal and industrial effluents should be established
and applied by the year 2000. Connected to this recommen-
dation was the proposal to revise Directive 76/464/EEC
(Dangerous Substances in Water) and the Directive No. 96/
61 EC on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC
1996), as well as Directive 93/793/EEC on environmental
risk from chemicals (testing the ecotoxicity of listed priority
chemicals). Updated European framework legislation pro-
motes the reduction of micropollutants. Substantial politi-
cal concern exists that water pollutants have to be moni-
tored and removed. However, our knowledge of xenobiotics
control or degradation has hardly gone beyond scratching
the surface and confirming the importance of the problem.
In particular, it is not known to which extent the treatment
of waste water in a municipal waste water treatment plant
is feasible with regard to environmental effects and costs.
3 Operation of Wastewater Treatment: Current state of the Art
The state-of-the-art in the design of wastewater treatment
plants has been improved steadily since the middle of the
last century. Their performance is strongly related to the rel-
evant legal framework, i.e. the compounds for which effluent
standards are relevant. According to the EU Urban Wastewa-
ter Directive 91/271/EEC, the relevant parameters for design
are organic matter (expressed as BOD5, COD and TOC) and
nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorous (albeit only in sensi-
tive areas). The increased removal of organic matter and nu-
Activated sludge tank
anaerobic anoxic
Fig. 1: State of the art of wastewater treatment (modified after Siegrist et al. 2004). From left to right: Primary clarifier for sedimentation of solids; Activated
sludge basin for microbial decomposition of nutrients and pollutants; Secondary clarifier for removal of fines and chemicals by absorption processes.
Sludges from clarifiers and from the activated sludge system are treated separately and finally disposed
492
Subject Area 5.3
trients has already resulted in a significant improvement in
the quality of the receiving waters. However, none of the
emerging organic micropollutants (e.g. pharmaceuticals,
personal care compounds, endocrine disrupting substances)
is targeted by conventional treatment plant design.
Kreuzinger et al. (2005) describe an approach to determine
comparable removal rates of endocrine disruptors (EDs) and
pharmaceutically active compounds (PhACs) for different
activated sludge systems, based on mass balance and sludge
retention time, in order to allow comparison and evaluation
of the removal efficiency of different layouts and concepts
in wastewater treatment. Presented results from different
WWTPs (waste water treatment plants) show a close corre-
lation of removal of EDs and PhACs to the sludge retention
time. However, this experience has not been taken into ac-
count into design guidelines up to now.
Hence, another important issue concerns the treatment plant
size. Directive 91/271/EEC only focuses on larger treatment
units, i.e. facilities for more than 2,000 people. However, a
vast majority of WWTPs is of a very small size. In other words,
most single treatment plants, taken alone, contribute only very
little to environmental pollution. However, the large total num-
ber of small WWTPs in operation results in a big overall bur-
den to the environment. Here, solutions that will be adaptable
for different scales, from the very small units to significant
sizes of 10,000 to 50,000 person units, should therefore rep-
resent a major objective in contemporary plant design.
State-of-the art WWTPs combine physical, chemical and
biological treatment steps to remove solids and nutrients,
perform flocculation and sedimentation, and precipitate
phosphates to reduce the danger of eutrophication of sur-
face waters. Eighty percent of European waste waters pass
through such a treatment plant before they are discharged
into the environment (O'Brien and Dietrich 2004). Conven-
tional sewage treatment plants throughout Europe adopt a
system of 3 different steps, a primary clarifier, an activated
sludge basin, and a secondary clarifier (Fig. 1). In the pri-
Secondary clarifier
nitrification
Effluent
containing
micropollutants
Env Sci Pollut Res 14 (7) 2007
Subject Area 5.3
mary clarifier, suspended solids are sedimented and build
up a first sludge fraction. In the activated sludge basin, nu-
trients and pollutants are in part decomposed by nitrifica-
tion / denitrification, biological mineralization, and strip-
ping by aeration. Furthermore, phosphate is retained by
polyphosphate-accumulating bacteria. The secondary clari-
fier removes fines and chemicals by absorption processes
based on hydrophobic interactions, or by adsorption due to
electrostatic interactions of positively charged groups of
chemicals with the negatively charged surfaces of microor-
ganisms. Sludge from the primary clarifier and the surplus
sludge from the activated sludge system are treated in sepa-
rate units and finally disposed (Siegrist et al. 2004).
Despite these developments, wastewater treatment does not
comply with the same standards throughout the EU. The di-
verse technological standards existing in different countries of
the EU aside, legislation of individual countries has addressed
pollution reduction in different ways. Furthermore, factors
governing the selection of municipal and industrial wastewa-
ter treatment technologies are today subject to major changes:
Increasing expectations in European society for clean water
and a healthy environment are now manifested in stricter EU
legislation and control. This clearly calls for new developments
in advanced treatment technologies and is a unique oppor-
tunity to bring new and 'green' processes into focus.
The removal of micropollutants and potential applications
of novel membrane techniques (e.g. Clara et al. 2005) are
amongst the aspects of wastewater treatment that generate
the greatest interest at present. Due to their relatively high
costs and maintenance requirements, they will, however, only
be adopted in larger WWTPs of wealthier communities.
4 Ongoing Research Activities in EU-Funded Programs
As the concern about water pollution has reached a European
Dimension, the EU has fostered research on the topic of water
treatment during FP5 and FP6. So far, research on conven-
tional sewage treatment, on advanced oxidation procedures,
and on membrane technologies have been financed. Success-
ful projects deliver important data to the EU, which can be
retrieved at several websites. Some examples are given here:
http://here.alfalaval.com/
http://www.aquabase.com
http://www.europa.int/comm/research/endocrine/pdf/env4-ct98-
0798.pdf
http://www.cranfield.ac.uk/ecochemistry/eravmis
http://www.cdcs.unina.it/-rmarotta
http://edenresearch.info
http://www.eu-poseidon.com
http://www.iwaponline.com/wio/2002/03/wio200203021.htm
These projects and organizations have achieved significant
progress in wastewater treatment, and their results on
micropollutants indicate removal rates in the range of 70 to
90% (O'Brian and Dietrich 2004). Especially approaches
with membrane technologies, ozonation or with urine sepa-
ration technologies (http://www.novaquatis.eawag.ch) seem
promising with respect to high effluent quality. One of the
reasons for the residual pollution load in effluents seems to
be the short residence time in the system and the inadequate
Env Sci Pollut Res 14 (7) 2007
Phytoremediation Technologies
retention of problem compounds in the sludge or the biotic
compartment of wastewater treatment plants. Moreover,
most sewage treatment plants release more than the origi-
nally proposed effluent to surface water in a ratio of 1:10
into accepting water bodies.
Hence, as promising as these technologies might be, they do
either require an incredibly high standard of wastewater pre-
treatment, inadequately low throughputs, or high input of
energy and resources. Ozonation would, for example, guar-
antee a 90% reduction of micropollutants in sewage treat-
ment plants, although the costs of the installation and of the
operation make this system unattractive for most communi-
ties. Urine separation, on the other hand, would require a
complete alteration in the sewage system of a community.
This seems unrealistic.
All presently available technologies have failed to alleviate
the load of pollutants from our waters. Treatment facilities
across Europe urgently need upgrading to fulfill recently
upgraded water standards, and to keep the end-users healthy.
With view to the ongoing enlargement of the EU, sound
technologies would have to be developed that are sustain-
able and affordable for border countries and adaptable to
existing treatment technologies.
5 Upcoming Solutions
Across Europe, with its climatic gradients, specific pollut-
ant situations and demands for a supply of clean water, an
integration of technologies will be needed. Research has to
begin at end-of pipe-problems, i.e. at the effluent tubes of
sewage treatment plants currently in operation. Here, mix-
tures of recalcitrant pollutants occur in relatively clean wa-
ter. In such an oligotrophic system, a potent microflora ca-
pable of degrading stable pollutants can only exist when
nutrients are added. Amendments of carbon and nitrogen
sources can, of course, be made use of by adding mineral
fertilizer to the system. A much more elegant way to supply
the microflora can be reached by plant canopies in artificial
wetlands. Furthermore, if plants with high transpiration rates
are selected in such a canopy, they will be able to take or-
ganic micropollutants up and distribute them in their tis-
sues, where further metabolism will occur (Coleman et al.
2001, Schrder 1997, 2001, 2003, 2004, Schrder and
Collins 2003, Schrder et al. 2005, Golan-Goldhirsh et al.
2004). This is also true for sludge treatment and drying by
reed beds, as applied in Denmark (Nielsen 2003, 2005). It is
obvious that such plant-microbe associations will have to
be designed specifically for specific environmental condi-
tions, and for the specific pollution / climate interactions of
the region of interest.
Compared to engineering-based technological approaches,
these green bioremediation (phytoremediation) techniques
currently being developed and applied in constructed wet-
lands and barrier systems seem rather poor. However, they
have been demonstrated to be very effective in numerous
cases and especially in small systems, although they might
appear somewhat primitive. Especially in small systems, they
will guarantee a stable effluent quality with low nutrient
content, thus affording high hygienic levels (Vanek and
493
Phytoremediation Technologies
Schwitzguebel 2003). Several techniques can be distinguished
amongst phytoremediation technologies: phyto-extraction,
phyto-degradation, phyto-volatilization; rhizosphere degra-
dation, and constructed wetlands (Schrder and Hartmann
2003). The green technologies proposed in the following
paragraphs have several key features in common; they are
of high sustainability, require a low input in energy and
manpower, and offer possibilities of carbon sequestration in
biomass, as well as the recycling of materials and matter.
Constructed wetlands. Conventional treatment systems that
are based on submerged biomass are not as robust regard-
ing shock loads compared to near-natural treatment systems,
such as constructed wetlands (CWs). CWs are (semi-)artifi-
cial wetlands designed to improve water quality. They are
effective in treating organic matter, nutrients and pathogens
and are used worldwide to treat different qualities of water.
Compared to conventional technical solutions for water
treatment, CWs are relatively easy to maintain and to oper-
ate, resulting in low operating costs (Kadlec et al. 2000,
Langergraber and Haberl 2001, Haberl et al. 2003, Langer-
graber and Haberl 2004). The pioneering work of COST
action 837 has led to the identification of the most promis-
ing helophytes for constructed wetlands, amongst them
Phragmites, Typha and Brassica species, but also fast grow-
ing trees (lbewww.epfl.ch/COST837).
Already through the use of simple horizontal flow CWs, the
pollution load can be reduced significantly due to their high
efficiencies for pollutant removal (e.g. Kadlec et al. 2000).
The very low energy requirement of CWs (Brix 1999) saves
energy resources. CWs perform quite favorably with other
treatment technologies according to their sustainability in a
life-cycle assessment (Dixon et al. 2003, Steer et al. 2003).
Besides water quality improvement and energy savings, CWs
have other features related to the environmental protection
such as promoting biodiversity, providing habitat for wet-
land organisms and wildlife (e.g. birds and reptiles in large
systems), and serving climatic (e.g. less CO2 production,
Dixon et al. 2003) and hydrological functions (Brix 1999)
and heavy metal bioaccumulation and biomethylation
(Azaizeh et al. 1997, 2003). CW technology is emerging rap-
idly, and drawbacks will probably be minimized during fur-
ther development.
Vertical flow beds. The behavior in the environment of se-
lected organic compounds and emerging organic micro-
pollutants has been widely researched in the context of con-
ventional water treatment during the last years (e.g. Bursch
et al. 2004, Chaudry et al. 2001, Frhacker et al. 2003a,
2003b, 2004, Lenz et al. 2005a, 2005b, Mahnik et al. 2004).
CWs have clearly been shown to be effective in treating
wastewaters containing a large number of organic com-
pounds (Haberl et al. 2003). Only recently, the first pioneer-
ing studies on the behavior of organic micropollutants in
the context of CWs have been published (e.g. Kstner et al.
2003, Masi et al. 2004, Matamoros et al. 2005). These stud-
ies show that CWs are generally amenable to remove or-
ganic micropollutants such as endocrine disrupting chemi-
cals, as well as pharmaceuticals and personal care products
(PPCPs), but the degradation of the pollutants depends
strongly on the chemistry within the rhizosphere and the
494
Subject Area 5.3
retention time in the CW. Here, the use of twin-shaped, con-
structed wetlands consisting of one or more vertical flow
chamber and reverse vertical flow chambers seems to offer
the highest removal efficiencies of xenobiotics from polluted
water (Cheng et al. 2002, Schrder et al. 2005a). In connec-
tion with selected plant species that improve the oxygen sup-
ply to the rhizosphere, these systems offer habitats for
rhizobacteria with different requirements and capabilities
of pollutant degradation. Furthermore, they allow for in-
tense contact of the pollutant with the root surfaces.
Hydroponics. Being characterized by their extraordinary root
growth, several helophytes can also be grown in hydroponic
systems without soil. Such specific CWs might be useful when
interactions between pollutants and the soil matrix have to
be excluded due to pollutant chemistry (e.g. high log Kow),
or when the plant material as a whole has to be harvested
and removed after the pollutant has been accumulated in
the tissue. Specifically Phragmites, Iris, Juncus, but also Men-
yanthes and Panicum seem to form extensive reeds under
such growth conditions (Wissing 2003). To stabilize the plant
canopy, porous rubber or woven plastic mats can be used to
provide support and shelter to the growing roots. Periodical
aeration seems to stimulate root growth and biomass devel-
opment. Hydroponic systems underpin the role of the plant
and its metabolism for the uptake and degradation of the
pollutant under consideration. They are highly sustainable,
and might also contribute to diminishing greenhouse gas
emissions (Dixon et al 2003).
Hybrid systems. Depending on the possibilities of the WWTP
and its demands, it might be useful to add phytoremediation
modules that are mixtures of the above examples. Novel
ideas might be the operation of flooded horizontal beds with
floating species (Eichhornia, Pistia, Lemna), or the inclu-
sion of helophytes or terrestrial plant species with different
rooting depths in vertical flow beds. Root surface chemis-
try and aeration of roots might also be of concern, and
have so far not been studied with respect to rhizofiltration.
Mixed stands of plants will generally be more stress resis-
tant than monocultures, and establish a higher diversity of
rhizobacteria. Furthermore, the combination of plants able
to degrade specific pollutants will increase the efficiency.
For example, Phragmites seem to be a good candidate for
the removal of pesticides (Schrder et al. 2005b), but it will
be subject of further studies to test its ability to degrade
pharmaceuticals. Successful remediation of pollutants has
also been demonstrated in flooded soil systems planted with
trees. Here, the plant's role might be confined to the sup-
port of rhizosphere bacteria, the evaporation of excess wa-
ter and the potential volatilization of pollutant metabolites.
Several wetland trees (poplar, birch, willow) and other plant
species have been described to have a good potential for
rhizostabilization of pollutants for further microbial degra-
dation and treatment of the sludge. Also the volatilization
of xenobiotics has been demonstrated as a possible way to
diminish the pollutant burden in the water body (Burken
and Schnoor 1999, Ma and Burken 2003). In any case, the
selection of suitable soil/sediment systems and residence
times seems crucial for the operation in a WWTP and has
to be tested thoroughly.
Env Sci Pollut Res 14 (7) 2007
Subject Area 5.3
Fenton's Oxidation. Another set of novel but chemistry-based
approaches involves advanced oxidation techniques (AOP)
relying on the generation of hydroxyl radicals through vari-
ous techniques, such as vacuum-UV radiation (V-UVR), elec-
trochemical oxidation, use of ozone and/or hydrogen per-
oxide in combination with UV-radiation (Lenz et al. 2005a).
The reactivity of metals and hydrogen peroxide to yield
highly reactive hydroxyl radicals was first reported by Fenton
in the late nineteenth century. In the presence of a metal
catalyst (usually iron(II) chloride or sulphate), a hydrogen
peroxide solution forms hydroxyl radicals (OH). The mecha-
nism was studied in detail by Haber-Weiss and it is referred
to as the Haber-Weiss reaction, where super oxide ion and
hydrogen peroxide (often in the presence of Fe(III) as cata-
lyst) react to yield a hydroxyl radical, oxygen and a hydroxyl
ion. They can oxidize most organic substances into CO2 and
H2O. If there are not enough radicals, organic compounds
are decomposed to lower organic acids. Addition of a re-
ducing agent, such as ascorbate, leads to a cycle (Haber-
Weiss cycle) which increases damage to organic and bio-
logical molecules. It was shown that copper and ascorbic
acid can preferentially break down histidine in proteins in a
Haber-Weiss type reaction (Shinar et al. 1983, Golan-Gold-
hirsh et al. 1992), which opens a potential for a more tar-
geted approach in organic compound breakdown based on
this reaction. In the use of this reaction in the context of
wastewater treatment, organic substances would decom-
posed in a separate WWTP-module by mixing waste water
with hydrogen peroxide and an iron catalyst, before the waste
water is neutralized. As a practical advantage, the iron cata-
lyst precipitates as iron hydroxide. Fenton's reagent can be
applied in a batch or continuous process and guarantee deg-
radation of residual pollutants.
6 The European Dimension:
Objectives and needs for the future
Directive 91/271/EEC on urban wastewater treatment and
Directive 96/61/EC on Integrated Pollution Prevention Con-
trol illustrate the current and future EU policy to encourage
development of processes and standards to prevent negative
effects on water, using best available technologies. The lim-
iting biodegradative capacity of natural microbial associa-
tions necessitates the development of more integrated water
treatment and management. Research is needed (1) to search
for biotechnological processes capable of removing such
chemicals through engineering of biochemical pathways in
plants and microbial associations, and (2) to find reliable
biosensors able to generate information on residual micro-
pollutants. Recent trends to exploit improved plant cano-
pies and for accurate process control are of major signifi-
cance in this context. However, clear-cut scientific and
political endorsement of the necessity to use reclaimed waste-
water is of prime importance for evolving more sustainable
water management. Protection of the quality and supply of
freshwater, thus, needs integrated approaches to the devel-
opment, management and protection of water resources.
The European wastewater problem will have to be tackled
soon, since the mentioned EU directives require urgent ac-
tion. In order to recommend currently promising technolo-
gies such as phytoremediation, ozonation, membrane filtra-
Env Sci Pollut Res 14 (7) 2007
Phytoremediation Technologies
tion, or the Fenton reaction in existing wastewater treat-
ment facilities, it will be necessary to study in more detail
the prevailing interactions between pollutants and the plant/
bacterial consortia in this context. We propose evaluating
such novel treatment modules by grafting them onto exist-
ing sewage treatment facilities of different types (Fig. 2),
and also along a climatic gradient from humid north Euro-
pean through Mediterranean to harsh desert climates, in
order to gain an insight into the underlying biochemistry
and biology, and to evaluate the resulting effluent quality.
This will allow us to gain a better understanding and evalu-
ation of the specific needs of different types of treatment
plants in different geographical situations, and to better
implement cost-efficient, tailor-made adjustments to specific
pollution problems on a case by case basis. Only thorough
testing of phytoremediation technologies will enable the EU
to set regional conditions for stable effluent quality and con-
sumer security, in concert with high sustainability.
7 Perspectives
The main aim of applied environmental sciences in the field
of wastewater treatment has to be the amelioration of the ef-
fluent quality from WWTPs and the enforcement of reliable
standards of regenerated waters in contact with ground water
resources. Only hereby will Europe be able to increase the
sustainability of drinking water resources and contribute in a
modest way to decrease effects of global change by lowering
energy usage, CO2 emission and waste production during
wastewater treatment. It will be necessary to demonstrate cost
effectiveness, reliability, long-term sustainability, resilience and
reasonable input of resources, especially for border coun-
tries, before local decision-makers can accept such a change
in the water treatment procedure for their region.
Contrary to most technical solutions, the implementation
of phytoremediation would address these demands. Here,
cost effectiveness is achieved by recycling, using energy sav-
ing biological processes, and by producing biomass, poten-
tially biologically active compounds for medicinal use, and
other non-food products for energy production, green ma-
nure and building materials. Furthermore, constructed wet-
lands are low-cost maintenance systems.
Compared to traditional sewage treatment methods, it can
be stated that 'green technologies' are more appropriate for
water clean up for the following reasons:
they decompose organic pollutants to non-toxic low
molecular substances easily degraded by microorganisms,
they do not introduce additional chemical substances into
the environment (solvents, alkali, PEG),
they are relatively easy to manage and they can be easily
adopted to the local needs,
they do not require large investment to be practically
introduced,
they are able to remove several pollutants in combination,
they can be applied at a small as well as at a large scale.
Of special importance is their functionality in a modular
design, i.e. relatively small containments that would be
coupled to existing WWTPs corresponding to the specific
day-to-day requirements of changing wastewater qualities.
Such systems will be reliable because the functioning of the
495
Phytoremediation Technologies Subject Area 5.3

Activated sludge tank

Secondary clarifier

anaerobic anoxic nitrification

Effluent
containing
micropollutants

00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
00 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00000000000000000
Test y/n Test y/n Test y/n Test y/n Test y/n
Clean effluent
Optional phytoremediation and AOP modules
Fig. 2: Optimizing existing waste water treatment plants. Innovative green or AOP technologies are used to upgrade existing wastewater treatment plants
that have increasing problems of removing recalcitrant micropollutants. The additional modules (e.g. oxygenation, constructed wetlands, aquatic macro-
phytes, hydroponics/reed beds, swamp system with trees, hybrid systems with mixed stands, AOP) are introduced facultatively into the system. Thorough
testing for water quality is performed after each module to ensure water quality standards. Polluted water is retained or pumped back into the module

single modules has been demonstrated in several existing
pilot studies. A combination of these eco-techniques is a novel
approach that will further improve the reliability. Long-term
sustainability is achieved by integration of biological pro-
cesses and the use of environmentally friendly materials and
agents to the process.
Hence, such systems will operate with reasonable input of
resources, as they represent microcosms that stabilize them-
selves. Plant harvest, maintenance, and de-clogging are low
input activities that require no specifically educated person-
nel. Public acceptance of green technologies is generally higher
than that of industrial processes. The expected, excellent wa-
ter quality will lead to additional consumer satisfaction,
sustainability for future generations, contribute to recreation
and ecoesthetics, and it will contribute to the protection of the
vulnerable parts of society, women, children, and the elderly,
from pharmaceuticals and dangerous micropollutants.
References
Azaizeh H, Gowthaman S, Terry N (1997): Microbial selenium volatiliza-
tion in rhizosphere and bulk soils isolated from a constructed wetland.
J Env Qual 26, 666672
Azaizeh H, Salhani N, Sebesvari Z, Emons H (2003): The potential of rhizo-
sphere microbes isolated from a constructed wetland to biomethylate
selenium. J Env Qual 32, 5562
Bonn Agreement (1983): Agreement for cooperation in dealing with pollu-
tion of the North Sea by oil and other harmful substances. As updated
on March 3, 1999. <http://www.bonnagreement.org/>
Brix H (1999): How 'green' are aquaculture, constructed wetlands and con-
ventional wastewater treatment systems? Water Sci Tech 40 (3) 4550
Burken JG, Schnoor GL (1999): Distribution and volatilization of organic
compounds following uptake by hybrid poplar trees. Int J Phytorem 1,
139151
Bursch W, Frhacker M Gemeiner M, Grillitsch B, Jungbauer A, Kreuzinger
N, Moestl E, Scharf S, Schmid E, Skutan S, Walter I (2004): Endocrine
disrupters in the aquatic environment: The Austrian approach ARCEM.
Water Sci Tech 50 (5) 293300
Chaudhry Q, Schroeder P, Werck-Reichhart D, Grajek W, Marecik R (2001):
Prospects and Limitations of Phytoremediation for the Removal of Per-
sistent Pesticides in the Environment. Env Sci Pollut Res 9 (1) 417
Cheng S, Vidakovic-Cifrek Z, Grosse W, Knarrenbrock F (2002): Xeno-
biotics removal from polluted water by a multifunctional constructed
wetland. Chemosphere 48, 415418
Clara M, Strenn B, Ausserleitner M, Kreuzinger N (2005): Comparison of
the behaviour of selected micropollutants in a membrane bioreactor and
a conventional wastewater treatment plant. Water Sci Tech 50 (5) 2936
Coleman JOD, Frova C, Schrder P, Tissut M (2001): Exploiting plant
metabolism for the phytoremediation of persistent herbicides. Env Sci
Pollut Res 9 (1) 1828
Daughton CG (2001): Pharmaceuticals and personal care products in the
environment: Overarching issues and overview. In: Daughton CG, Jones-
Lepp TL (eds), Pharmaceuticals and personal care products in the envi-
ronment: Scientific and regulatory issues. ACS Symp Ser 791, Washing-
ton, DC, pp 238
Daughton CG, Ternes TA (1999): Pharmaceuticals and personal care prod-
ucts in the environment: Agents of subtle change?' Environ Health
Perspect 107 (Suppl 6) 907938
Dixon A, Simon M, Burkitt T (2003): Assessing the environmental impact
of two options for smallscale wastewater treatment: Comparing a reed

496 Env Sci Pollut Res 14 (7) 2007

Subject Area 5.3
bed and an aerated biological filter using a life cycle approach. Ecol
Eng 20, 297308
European Commission (2004): Stimulating technologies for sustainable de-
velopment: An environmental technologies action plan for the Euro-
pean Union. Communication from the Commission to the Council and
the European Parliament, Brussels, Belgium, 1/28/2004
Frhacker M (2002): Bisphenol A emission factors from industrial sources
and elimination rates in a sewage treatment plant. Water Sci Tech 47
(10) 117122
Frhacker M, Lorbeer G, Haberl R (2003b): Emission factors and sources
of ethylene-diaminetetraacetic acid in waste water A case study. Chemo-
sphere 52, 253257
Frhacker M, Pressl A, Allabashi R (2003a): Aerobic biodegradability of
methyldiethanolamine (MDEA) used in natural gas sweetening plants in
batch tests and continuous flow experiments. Chemosphere 52, 17431748
Golan-Goldhirsh A, Barazani O, Nepovim A, Soudek P, Smrcek S, Dufkova
L, Krenkova S, Yrjala K, Schrder P, Vanek T (2004): Plant response to
heavy metals and organic pollutants in cell culture and at whole plant
level. J Soils Sediments 4 (2) 133140
Golan-Goldhirsh A, Osuga DT, Chen AO, Whitaker JR (1992): Effect of
ascorbic acid and copper on proteins. In: D'Souza VT, Feder J (eds),
The Bioorganic Chemistry of Enzymatic Catalysis: An homage to Myron
L. Bender. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Ann Arbor, London, pp 6176
Haberl R, Grego S, Langergraber G, Kadlec RH, Cicalini AR, Martins Dias
S, Novais JM, Aubert S, Gerth A, Hartmut T, Hebner A (2003): Con-
structed wetlands for the treatment of organic pollutants. J Soils Sedi-
ments 3 (2) 109124
Halling-Sorensen B, Nielsen SN, Lanzky PF, Ingerslev F, Lutzhoft HCH,
Jorgensen SE (1998): Occurrence, fate and effects of pharmaceutical sub-
stances in the environment A review. Chemosphere 36 (2) 357367
Kadlec RH, Knight RL, Vymazal J, Brix H, Cooper P, Haberl R (eds) (2000):
Constructed wetlands for pollution control Processes, performance,
design and operation. IWA Scientific and Technical Report No 8. IWA
Publishing, London, UK
Kstner M, Mller J, Kappelmeyer U, Richnow H, Vacca G, Kuschk P
(2003): Microbial degradation of bisphenol A and nonylphenol in the
rhizosphere of constructed wetlands. In: Haberl R, Langergraber G (eds),
COST Action 837 Final Workshop and Management Committee Meet-
ing Book of Abstracts. October 1618, 2003, Vienna, Austria, p 4
Knudsen L, Kristensen GL, Jrgensen PE, Jepsen SE (2000): Reduction of
the content of organic micropollutants in digested sludge by a post-aera-
tion process A full-scale demonstration. Water Sci Tech 42 (9) 111118
Kolpin DK, Furlong ET, Meyer MT, Thurman ME, Zaugg SD, Barber LB,
Buxton HT (2002): Pharmaceuticals, hormones, and other organic
wastewater contaminants in US streams, 19992000: A national re-
connaissance. Env Sci Tech 36, 12021211
Kreuzinger N, Clara M, Strenn B, Kroiss H (2005): Relevance of the sludge
retention time (SRT) as design criteria for wastewater treatment plants
for the removal of endocrine disruptors and pharmaceuticals from waste-
water. Water Sci Tech 50 (5) 149156
Langergraber G, Haberl R (2001): Constructed wetlands for water treat-
ment. Minerva Biotech 13 (2) 123134
Langergraber G, Haberl R (2004): Application of Constructed Wetland
Technology in EcoSan Systems. In: IWA (ed), Proceedings of the 4th
IWA World Water Congress, September 1924, 2004, Marrakech, Mo-
rocco (CD-ROM, paper no 116541)
Larsen TA, Lienert J, Joss A, Siegrist H (2004): How to avoid pharmaceu-
ticals in the aquatic environment. J Biotech 113, 295304
Lenz K, Beck V, Frhacker M (2005a): Behaviour of bisphenol A (BPA), 4-
nonylphenol (4-NP) and 4-nonylphenol ethoxylates (4-NP1EO, 4-NP2EO)
in oxidative water treatment processes. Water Sci Tech 50 (5) 141147
Lenz K, Hann S, Koellensperger G, Stefanka Z, Stingeder G, Weissenbacher
N, Mahnik S, Frhacker M (2005b): Presence of cancerostatic plati-
num compounds in hospital wastewater and possible elimination by
adsorption to activated sludge. Sci Total Environ 345, 141152
Ma X, Burken JG (2003): Modelling of TCE diffusion to the atmosphere
and distribution in plant stems. EST 38, 45804586
Mahnik S, Rizovski B, Frhacker M, Mader R (2004): Determination of 5-
fluorouracil in hospital effluents. Anal Bioanal Chem 380, 3135
Env Sci Pollut Res 14 (7) 2007
View publication stats
Phytoremediation Technologies
Masi F, Conte G, Lepri L, Martellini T, Del Bubba M (2004): Endocrine
Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs) and Pathogens removal in an hybrid CW
system for a tourist facility wastewater treatment and reuse. In: Lienard
A, Burnett H (eds), Proceedings of the 9th IWA Specialized Group Con-
ference on 'Wetland systems for Water Pollution Control' Vol. 2, Sep-
tember 2630, 2004, Avignon, France, pp 461468
Matamoros V, Garca J, Bayona JM (2005): Elimination of PPCPs in sub-
surface and surface flow constructed wetlands. In: De Pauw N, Tack F
(eds), International Symposium on 'Wetland Pollutant Dynamics and
Control WETPOL' Book of Abstracts, September 48, 2005, Ghent,
Belgium, pp 107108
Nielsen S (2003): Sludge drying reed beds. Water Science and Technology
48 (5) 101109
Nielsen S (2005): Mineralization of hazardous organic compounds in a
sludge reed bed and sludge storage. Water Sci Tech 51 (9) 109117
O'Brien E, Dietrich DR, (2004): Hindsight rather than foresight: Reality
versus the EU draft guideline on pharmaceuticals in the environment.
Trends in Biotech 22 (7) 326330
Ran N, Agami M, Oron G (2004): A pilot study of constructed wetlands
using duckweed (Lemna gibba L.) for treatment of domestic primary
effluent in Israel. Water Res 38 (9) 22402247
Richardson ML, Bowron JM (1985): Review The fate of pharmaceutical
chemicals in the aquatic environment. J Pharm Pharmacol 37, 111
Schrder P (1997): Fate of glutathione S-conjugates in plants: Cleavage of
the glutathione moiety. In: Hatzios KK (ed), Regulation of enzymatic
systems detoxifying xenobiotics in plants. NATO ASI Series Vol 37.
Kluwer Acad Publ Dordrecht, NL, pp 233244
Schrder P (2001): The role of glutathione and glutathione S-transferases
in the adaptations of plants to xenobiotics. In: Grill D, Tausz M DeKok
LJ (eds), Significance of Glutathione in Plant Adaptation to the Envi-
ronment. Handbook Series of Plant Ecophysiology, Kluwer Acad Publ,
Dordrecht, NL, pp 157182
Schrder P, Collins CJ (2002): Conjugating enzymes involved in xenobiotic
metabolism of organic xenobiotics in plants. Int J Phytorem 4 (4) 247265
Schrder P, Hartmann A (2003): Global Soils: Germany New develop-
ments in rhizosphere research. J Soils Sediments 3 (4) 227228
Schrder P, Gschlssl T, Grosse W (2005a): Phytoremediation Mglich-
keiten zur Entfernung von Mikroschadstoffen mit Verfahren der natur-
nahen Wasserreinigung. In: Frnzle S, Markert B, Wnschmann S (eds),
Technische Umweltchemie. ecomed, Landsberg, pp 227239
Schrder P, Meier H, Debus R (2005b): Detoxification of herbicides in Phrag-
mites australis. Z Naturforsch 60c, 317324
Shinar E, Navok T, Chevion M (1983): The analogous mechanisms of en-
zymatic inactivation induced by ascorbate and superoxide in the pres-
ence of copper. J Biol Chem 258, 14778 4783
Siegrist H, Joss A, Adler A, McArdell-Brgisser C, Gbel A, Keller E, Ternes
T (2004): Micropollutants New challenge in wastewater disposal?
EAWAG-News 57, 710
Skutlarek D, Exner M, Frber H (2006): Perfluorinated surfactants in sur-
face and drinking waters. Env Sci Pollut Res 13 (5) 299307
Stackelberg PE, Furlong ET, Meyer MT, Zaugg SD, Henderson AK,
Reissman DB (2004): Persistence of pharmaceutical compounds and
other organic wastewater contaminants in a conventional drinking-water
treatment plant. Sci Total Environ 329, 99113
Sweetman SC (2002): Martindale the Complete Drug Reference, Third Ed.
Pharmaceutical Press, London, UK
Ternes T (2001): Pharmaceuticals and metabolites as contaminants of the
aquatic environment. In: Daughton CG, Jones-Lepp TL (eds), Pharma-
ceuticals and personal care products in the environment: Scientific and
regulatory issues. ACS Symp Ser 791, Washington, DC, pp 3954
Ternes T (1998): Occurrence of drugs in German sewage treatment plants
and rivers. Water Res 32, 32453260
Vanek T, Schwitzguebel JP (2003): Phytoremediation inventory. Report of
COST Action 837. UOCHB AVCR, Praque
Wissing F (2003): Phytoremediation with wetland plants growing without
soil. In: Vanek T, Schwitzguebel JP (eds), Phytoremediation inventory.
UOCHB AVCR, Praque, p 54
Received: August 16th, 2006
Accepted: December 21st, 2006
OnlineFirst: December 22nd, 2006
497