“Safe use of metal-contaminated agricultural land by cultivation of energy maize (Zea mays)”. Van Slycken S, Witters N, Meers E, Peene A, Michels E, Adriaensen K, Ruttens A, Vangronsveld J, Du Laing G, Wierinck I, Van Dael M, Van Passel S, Tack FMG, Environmental Pollution 178, 375 (2013). http://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVPOL.2013.03.032
Abstract: Production of food crops on trace element-contaminated agricultural lands in the Campine region (Belgium) can be problematic as legal threshold values for safe use of these crops can be exceeded. Conventional sanitation of vast areas is too expensive and alternatives need to be investigated. Zea mays on a trace element-contaminated soil in the region showed an average yield of 53 ± 10 Mg fresh or 20 ± 3 Mg dry biomass ha−1. Whole plant Cd concentrations complied with legal threshold values for animal feed. Moreover, threshold values for use in anaerobic digestion were met. Biogas production potential did not differ between maize grown on contaminated and non-contaminated soils. Results suggested favorable perspectives for farmers to generate non-food crops profitably, although effective soil cleaning would be very slow. This demonstrates that a valuable and sustainable alternative use can be generated for moderately contaminated soils on which conventional agriculture is impaired.
Keywords: A1 Journal article; Economics
Impact Factor: 5.099
Times cited: 30
DOI: 10.1016/J.ENVPOL.2013.03.032
|
“Phytoremediation, a sustainable remediation technology? 2 : economic assessment of CO2 abatement through the use of phytoremediation crops for renewable energy production”. Witters N, Mendelsohn R, Van Passel S, Van Slycken S, Weyens N, Schreurs E, Meers E, Tack F, Vanheusden B, Vangronsveld J, Biomass &, Bioenergy 39, 470 (2012). http://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIOMBIOE.2011.11.017
Abstract: Phytoremediation could be a sustainable remediation alternative for conventional remediation technologies. However, its implementation on a commercial scale remains disappointing. To emphasize its sustainability, this paper examines whether and how the potential economic benefit of CO2 abatement for different crops used for phytoremediation or sustainable land management purposes could promote phytotechnologies. Our analysis is based on a case study in the Campine region, where agricultural soils are contaminated with mainly cadmium. We use Life Cycle Analysis to show for the most relevant crops (willow (Salix spp), energy maize (Zea mays), and rapeseed (Brassica napus)), that phytoremediation, used for renewable energy production, could abate CO2. Converting this in economic numbers through the Marginal Abatement Cost of CO2 ( 20 ton−1) we can integrate this in the economic analysis to compare phytoremediation crops among each other, and phytoremediation with conventional technologies. The external benefit of CO2 abatement when using phytoremediation crops for land management ranges between 55 and 501 per hectare. The purpose of these calculations is not to calculate a subsidy for phytoremediation. There is no reason why one would prefer phytoremediation crops for renewable energy production over normal biomass. Moreover, subsidies for renewable energy already exist. Therefore, we should not integrate these numbers in the economic analysis again. However, these numbers could contribute to making explicit the competitive advantage of phytoremediation compared to conventional remediation technologies, but also add to a more sustainably funded decision on which crop should be grown on contaminated land.
Keywords: A1 Journal article; Economics; Engineering Management (ENM)
Impact Factor: 3.219
Times cited: 38
DOI: 10.1016/J.BIOMBIOE.2011.11.017
|
