How to manage plant biomass originated from phytotechnologies? Gathering perceptions from end-users

Abstract

A questionnaire survey was carried out in four European countries to gather end-user's perceptions of using plants from phytotechnologies in combustion and anaerobic digestion (AD). Nine actors of the wood energy sector from France, Germany, and Sweden, and eleven AD platform operators from France, Germany, and Austria were interviewed. Questions related to installation, input materials, performed analyses, phytostabilization, and phytoextraction were asked. Although the majority of respondents did not know phytotechnologies, results suggested that plant biomass from phytomanaged areas could be used in AD and combustion, under certain conditions. As a potential benefit, phytomanaged plants would not compete with plants grown on agricultural lands, contaminated lands being not suitable for agriculture production. Main limitations would be related to additional controls in process' inputs and end-products and installations that might generate additional costs. In most cases, the price of phytotechnologies biomass was mentioned as a driver to potentially use plants from metal-contaminated soils. Plants used in phytostabilization or phytoexclusion were thought to be less risky and, consequently, benefited from a better theoretical acceptance than those issued from phytoextraction. Results were discussed according to national regulations. One issue was related to the regulatory gap concerning the status of the plant biomass produced on contaminated land.

Ecosystem Services, Physiology, and Biofuels Recalcitrance of Poplars Grown for Landfill Phytoremediation

“…However, combining these services with phytoremediation potential is useful for developing stand-level silvicultural prescriptions that relate to landscape-level phytomanagement of ecosystem services [ 21 , 45 ]. In addition to long-term phytoremediation effectiveness and the provision of ecosystem services throughout poplar rotations, data are also lacking for the identification and post-processing of the wood for specific applications once the trees have reached their phytoremediation life span [ 5 , 36 ]. More often than not, end uses of the feedstocks are not identified during project planning nor implementation.…”

“…In addition to measuring the efficiency and performance of ecosystem services and physiological traits, quantifying biofuels recalcitrance incorporates an aspect of phytoremediation that is not often considered: end use of the biomass feedstock [ 5 , 36 ]. Converting poplar biomass into biofuels, bioenergy, and bioproducts has been the focus of much research [ 3 , 37 , 38 ], and promising pretreatment methods have been developed and tested on poplars during the last decade [ 38 , 39 , 40 ].…”

“…Overall, these data are important for resource managers, researchers, and regulators that are designing, implementing, and monitoring phytoremediation and associated phytotechnologies at landfills and similar liability sites. In addition, biofuel conversion information is useful for evaluating potential biomass feedstock sources from non-traditional applications, thus reducing pressure on purpose-grown plantations and natural forests [ 36 ].…”

Assessment for combined phytoremediation and biomass production on a moderately contaminated soil

“…Phytomanagement thus uses phytoremediation strategies to secure brownfield sites through revegetation, but also has the ambition to develop economic activities generating value chains in areas that were previously deprived of them (French et al 2006;Gerhardt et al 2009;Gomes 2012;Bert et al 2017;Dudai et al 2018). This has been a well-documented technique since the 1990s (Anderson and Walter 1992) and many studies have been conducted to identify suitable plant species that can both meet the requirement of risk management and be valorized through biomass production (e.g.…”

Phytomanagement and Remediation of Cu-Contaminated Soils by High Yielding Crops at a Former Wood Preservation Site: Sunflower Biomass and Ionome

“…A number of perceived or actual barriers or impediments related to technical issues and stakeholder perceptions is limiting on site phytomanagement application (Cundy et al, 2015;Bert et al, 2017b;Montpetit and Lachapelle, 2017). For overcoming such barriers, several sets of field trials have been either implemented or developed in Europe, notably for metal(loid)contaminated sites with funding from European projects, i.e., Greenland, PhytoSUDOE, Intense, and Miscomar, and national environment agencies, e.g., Ademe in France (Mench et al, 2010;Kidd et al, 2015;Nsanganwimana et al, 2016;Bert et al, 2017a,b;Friesl-Hanl et al, 2017;Krzyzak et al, 2017;Quintela-Sabarís et al, 2017;ADEME, 2018).…”