Disclaimer: Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. 

Standards of ethical conduct do not permit EPA to endorse any private sector product or service.

 Solid Waste and Emergency EPA 542-R-05-002 

 Response (5102G) April 2005 

 http://www.clu-in.org 

Use of Field-Scale Phytotechnology 

for Chlorinated Solvents, Metals, Explosives 

and Propellants, and Pesticides 

STATUS REPORT 

Introduction 

Phytotechnology is an emerging technology that 

has the potential to treat a wide range of 

contaminants for a lower cost than traditional 

technologies. This technology uses various 

types of plants to degrade, extract, contain, or 

immobilize contaminants in soil and water. 

Phytotechnology has been used for remediation 

of chlorinated solvents, metals, explosives and 

propellants, pesticides, polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons, radionuclides, and petroleum 

hydrocarbon compounds (EPA 2000). 

Since the 1980s, phytotechnology has been used 

by federal, state, and private sector organizations 

to treat contaminated soil and groundwater. 

Although information is available about the 

types of mechanisms that are considered to be 

components of phytotechnology, only limited 

information is available about project 

performance and time frames for project 

completion. Where project information is 

available, there is a wide variation in how 

performance is measured, making it difficult for 

decision-makers to interpret project results. 

Purpose 

For this status report, the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) has collected 

information about 79 field-scale 

phytotechnology projects conducted throughout 

the United States and Canada that involved 

treatment of soil and groundwater contaminated 

with chlorinated solvents, metals, explosives and 

propellants, and pesticides. The purpose of this 

report is to inform readers of the status of these 

projects. This document can be used as a 

networking tool for federal, state, and industrial 

employees to share lessons learned from and 

practical experiences with field-scale 

applications of phytotechnology. Appendix A 

identifies the specific project sites, provides a 

reference for each site, and summarizes the 

types of information compiled for this status 

report. 

Section Page

Introduction.............................................................1 

Project Locations.....................................................2 

Contaminants ..........................................................3 

Vegetation Types ....................................................6 

Phytotechnology Mechanisms.................................8 

Number of Phytotechnology Projects 

by Planting Year .................................................10 

Site Size and Project Scale....................................10 

Phytotechnology Cost and Performance ...............10 

Ongoing EPA Efforts Regarding Use of 

Phytotechnology .................................................13 

Notice....................................................................14 

References.............................................................14 

Appendix A - Summary of Phytotechnology 

Projects in the United States and 

Canada 

Appendix B - Examples of Phytotechnology 

Projects in Countries Other Than the 

United States and Canada 

For Additional Information About 

Phytotechnology, visit 

http://www.clu-in.org/techfocus. 

Topics covered include the following: 

• Overview 

• Guidance 

• Application 

• Training 

• Additional Resources 
Use of Field-Scale Phytotechnology for Chlorinated Solvents, Metals, Explosives and Propellants, and Pesticides

 2 

Methodology 

EPA prepared summaries of available 

phytotechnology data and contacted project 

managers and researchers to confirm and update 

the information. The information was obtained 

from technology providers; technical literature; 

and Web sites such as the Remediation 

Technologies Development Forum 

(www.rtdf.org), the Federal Remediation 

Technology Roundtable (FRTR) (www.frtr.gov), 

Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation 

Reports (www.epa.gov/ORD/SITE), and the 

Annual Status Report (www.clu-in.org/asr). 

This phytotechnology status report includes data 

about projects performed at Superfund sites; 

federal and military sites; and other sites in the 

United States and Canada that are being 

addressed under state, local, or voluntary 

cleanup programs. EPA attempted to compile 

information that was readily available and 

current for each project as of summer and fall 

2004 (EPA 2004c). However, EPA was unable 

to verify the available information for all 

projects. In addition, for many of the projects, 

there were gaps in the types of information 

available (for example, for some sites, 

performance data were not available). Some of 

the projects were successful in remediating 

contamination, while others were not. 

Furthermore, the set of projects may not include 

all the field-scale phytotechnology projects that 

are ongoing or have been completed at this time. 

Based on the time and resources available, EPA 

limited this effort to phytotechnology projects 

that were reported in the information resources 

identified above and that were conducted at the 

field scale. Projects using constructed wetlands 

or alternative landfill covers (such as 

evapotranspiration caps) were not considered 

(see the text box for further information about 

the phytotechnology projects included in this 

report). 

The rest of this status report summarizes 

information for the 79 field-scale 

phytotechnology projects, including the types of 

contaminants treated; vegetation used; 

phytotechnology mechanisms; planting date; and 

project size, location, cost, and performance. 

Superfund Sites 

Some of the phytotechnology projects addressed 

in this report have been performed at Superfund 

sites. Table 1 summarizes selected federal 

Superfund sites where phytotechnology has been 

used or is expected to be used. 

Project Locations 

The 79 phytotechnology projects have been 

performed at sites in 31 states throughout the 

United States, as shown in Figure 1. The 

following four states have had five or more 

phytotechnology projects: Idaho, Illinois, 

About the phytotechnology projects in this 

report: 

• Full- and pilot-scale field projects only (no 

projects conducted only at a laboratory 

research level) 

• Sites contaminated with chlorinated 

solvents, metals, explosives and propellants, 

and pesticides only (no sites with organic, 

petroleum, or radiation contamination are 

included) 

• Projects in the United States and Canada 

only 

• No projects that used constructed wetlands 

• No projects that used alternative landfill 

covers (such as evapotranspiration caps) – 

for information about these types of 

projects, visit 

http://clu-in.org/products/altcovers/

Types of information collected for each 

phytotechnology project include: 

• Site name and location 

• Site characterization 

• Planting date and description 

• Media treated 

• Vegetation types 

• Contaminants treated 

• Phytomechanisms used 

• Project size, scale, and status 

• Operation and maintenance 

• Technology cost and performance 

• Lessons learned 

• Point(s) of contact 
Use of Field-Scale Phytotechnology for Chlorinated Solvents, Metals, Explosives and Propellants, and Pesticides

 3 

Texas, and Wisconsin. As shown in Figure 1, 

phytotechnology projects have been performed 

in states with both warmer and colder climates 

as well as in states with both relatively little 

precipitation and extensive precipitation. 

Contaminants 

For all 79 projects, information was available 

about the types of contaminants treated using 

phytotechnology. The types of contaminants 

covered in this report are chlorinated solvents, 

metals, explosives and propellants, and 

pesticides. 

Chlorinated solvents are manmade organic 

compounds that are typically manufactured 

using naturally occurring hydrocarbon 

constituents and chlorine. These solvents 

include tetrachloroethene (PCE); trichloroethene 

(TCE); 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA); vinyl 

chloride (VC); and other chlorinated methanes, 

ethanes, ethenes, and benzenes. The solvents 

have many applications, including uses as 

degreasers in dry cleaning operations and 

manufacturing. As a result of their widespread 

historical use, chlorinated solvents are 

frequently found in soil and groundwater at 

remediation sites. For example, TCE, TCA, and 

VC have been identified as 3 of the 12 

contaminants most commonly found at 

Superfund sites (EPA 2004a). 

Metal contamination is the result of 

anthropogenic actions such as fossil fuel 

combustion, mining and smelting operations, 

and sewage and municipal waste discharges. 

These activities can cause metals to be found at 

elevated concentrations in soil and groundwater. 

Metals such as arsenic, cadmium, chromium, 

lead, and mercury are often identified as 

contaminants of concern at remediation sites. 

The sites where metal contaminants have been 

found include artillery and small arms impact 

areas, burn pits, electroplating and metal 

finishing shops, landfills and burial pits, and 

vehicle maintenance areas (FRTR 2004). 

Explosives are manmade organic substances that 

undergo rapid chemical transformations and 

produce gases and pressures that can cause 

damage to their surroundings (see 

http://web.em.doe.gov/idb97/tab85.html). Some 

common explosives include 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene 

(TNT); dinitrotoluene (DNT); and octohydro1,3,5,7-tetranitro-1,3,5,7-tetrazine (HMX). 

Common uses of explosives include military 

applications and pyrotechnic displays. 

Propellants are inorganic ions such as 

perchlorate that have been widely used in the 

manufacture of solid propellants and explosives, 

including rocket motors, fireworks, and flares. 

Contamination of soil by propellants is typically 

the result of the manufacture, storage, testing, 

and disposal of these chemicals (FRTR 2004). 

Pesticides are defined by EPA as any substances 

or mixtures of substances that are intended to 

prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate any pest. 

This definition applies to herbicides, fungicides, 

and various other substances used to control 

pests. Pesticides are ubiquitous in the 

environment because of their worldwide use. 

Organochlorine pesticides, including aldrin, 

chlordane, DDT, and dieldrin, tend to persist in 

soil and groundwater for extended periods of 

time (EPA 2004b). 

Figure 2 shows a breakdown of the 

phytotechnology projects by type of 

contaminant. Among the 79 projects, 

chlorinated solvents were treated most 

frequently (44%), followed by metals (37%), 

pesticides (15%), and explosives and propellants 

(4%). 

For phytotechnology projects involving 

chlorinated solvents, TCE (71%), PCE (49%), 

VC (26%), and dichloroethane (DCA) (23%) 

were the contaminants most commonly treated. 

Exhibit 1 provides an example of a 

phytotechnology field demonstration project 

involving treatment of chlorinated solvents in 

groundwater. The metals that were most 

frequently treated using phytotechnology were 

lead (40%), arsenic (33%), cadmium (24%), zinc 

(15%), and copper (15%). The most commonly 

treated pesticides were atrazine (36%), alachlor 

(21%), and dieldrin (14%). For explosives and 

propellants, DNT (66%), TNT(33%), and 

perchlorate (33%) were treated using 

phytotechnology. 
Use of Field-Scale Phytotechnology for Chlorinated Solvents, Metals, Explosives and Propellants, and Pesticides

 4 

Table 1. Phytotechnology Use at Superfund Sites for Chlorinated Solvents, Metals, Explosives and 

Propellants, and Pesticides* 

Site Name 

Site 

Location ROD Date Contaminants 

Phytotechnology 

Status 

Aberdeen 

Pesticides Dumps 

NC 06/04/99 Dieldrin, Hexachlorobenzene, 

Hexachlorahexane 

Ongoing (1999 - ) 

Aberdeen Proving 

Ground 

MD 09/27/01 1,1,2,2-Tetrachlorothane; 1,1,2-

Trichloroethane; 1,1-DCE; 1,2-

Dichloroethane; 1,2-DCE; PCE; TCE; 

VC 

Ongoing (1996 - ) 

Argonne National 

Laboratory West 1 

ID 09/29/98 Cesium-137, Silver, Mercury, Chromium Completed (1999 - 

2002) 

AT & SF 

Albuquerque 

NM 06/27/02 2-Methylnaphthalene, 

Benzo(a)anthracene, 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene, 

Benzo(k)fluoranthene, 

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, Dibenzofuran, 

Ideno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, Naphthalene, Zinc 

Predesign 

Atlas Tack 

Corporation 

MA 03/10/00 Benzene, Chromium, Copper, Cyanide, 

Mercury, Nickel, Zinc 

Design (2003 - ) 

Boarhead Farm PA 11/18/98 Benzene, Cadmium, Nickel, TCE Designed/Not 

Installed (2003) 

Bofors-Nobel Inc. MI ROD 

Amendment: 

07/16/99 

3,3-Dichlorobenzidine; Acetone; Arsenic; 

VC; PCE; Aniline; Benzene; Toluene; 

Xylene; Zinc 

Pilot Completed 

(1999 - 2002); Design 

Phase (2005 - ) 

Carswell Naval Air 

Station 

TX 08/96 TCE, DCE Ongoing (1996 - 

2006) 

Combustion, Inc. LA 05/28/04 DCA, PCB, Benzene, Lead, Mercury, 

Nickel, Silver, Toluene, Toluene 

Diisocynate, Toluene Diamine 

Ongoing (2002 - ) 

Del Monte Corp. HI 09/25/03 Ethylene Dibromide; 1,2-Dibromo-3-

chloropropane; 1,2-Dichloropropane; 

1,2,3-Trichloropropane (Pesticides) 

Ongoing (1998 - ) 

East Palo Alto CA RCRA Drop 

Site 

Arsenic, Sodium Ongoing (1981- ) 

Fort Dix NJ Field 

Demonstration 

Lead Completed (1997 -

2002) 

Fort Wainwright AK 06/27/97 Aldrin, DDD, DDT, Dieldrin Completed (1997 -

2001) 

Naval Undersea 

Warfare Station 

WA 09/28/98 TCA, Halogenated Volatiles Ongoing (1999 -

2009) 

Sangamo Electric 

Dump/Crab 

Orchard National 

Wildlife Refuge 

IL ROD 

Amendment: 

Expected in 

2005 

1,1-DCE; PCE; VC Planned (2006 - ) 

Tibbetts Road NH 09/28/98 TCE Ongoing (1998 -

2015) 

* Includes federal Superfund sites at which phytotechnology was selected and/or used for remediation of one or more of the four

types of contaminants included in this report. This table includes sites for which phytotechnology has been selected in a record 

of decision (ROD), has been used in a field demonstration, or is planned for use. Further site-specific information about 

Superfund is available at www.epa.gov/superfund. 
Use of Field-Scale Phytotechnology for Chlorinated Solvents, Metals, Explosives and Propellants, and Pesticides

 5 

Figure 1. Locations of Phytotechnology Projects in the United States

Figure 2. Distribution of Contaminants Treated in 79 Phytotechnology Projects 

Chlorinated Solvents, 35, 

44%

Pesticides, 12, 15%

Metals, 29, 37%

Explosives and 

Propellants, 3, 4%

Note: Some projects may be counted multiple times because they involve more than one type of contaminant.

 Labels present the contaminant type, number of projects, and percentage of total projects.
Use of Field-Scale Phytotechnology for Chlorinated Solvents, Metals, Explosives and Propellants, and Pesticides

 6 

Vegetation Types 

Many types of vegetation have been used in 

phytotechnology projects, including tree species 

such as hybrid poplars, willows, and 

cottonwoods; plants such as sunflowers, Indian 

mustard, and ferns; and various types of grasses. 

Of the 79 projects, 78 have reported information 

about the types of vegetation used in 

phytotechnology. Table 2 summarizes the types 

of vegetation used in the 78 projects by type of 

contaminant treated. A total of 70 different 

species were used; however, Table 2 

summarizes information only for the vegetation 

types used in two or more projects. In general, 

hybrid poplars (59%), various grass species 

(44%), and willows (19%) were the most 

frequently used types of vegetation. 

For chlorinated solvents, the most commonly 

used vegetation types were hybrid poplars (used 

in 83% of the chlorinated solvent projects), 

willows (26%), various grass species (26%), and 

cottonwoods or native poplars (11%). Diverse 

stands of vegetation (that is, stands containing 

more than one type of vegetation) were used in 

20 of the 35 solvent projects. Of the 15 projects 

using monocultures (single types of vegetation), 

13 used hybrid poplars and/or willow species for 

remediation. 

For pesticides, the most commonly used 

vegetation types were hybrid poplars (used in 

83% of the pesticide projects) and various grass 

species (67%). Six of the 12 pesticide projects 

used diverse stands of vegetation. Of the six 

projects that used monocultures, four used 

hybrid poplars, one used willows, and one used 

squash. An example of a project that used 

hybrid poplars and ground-cover grasses to 

degrade pesticides in groundwater is provided in 

Exhibit 2. 

For explosives and propellants, one of the 

projects did not provide information about the 

type of vegetation used for remediation. The 

other two projects used hybrid poplars. One 

project used a monoculture, and the other 

combined willows and bald cypress with hybrid 

poplars. 

At sites contaminated with metals, the types of 

vegetation used were different than at sites with 

other contaminants. Only six of the 29 metal 

projects used hybrid poplars or willows. Most 

projects (62%) used one or more grass species. 

Other than various grass species, no vegetation 

type was used more than 25% of the time, and 

only four types – Indian mustard (24%), hybrid 

poplars (21%), sunflowers (14%), and willows 

(14%) – were used in more than 10% of the 

projects. Eleven of the metal projects (38%) 

used a monoculture. 

Exhibit 1. Phytodegradation of Chlorinated 

Solvents in Groundwater at the Edward Sears 

Property, New Gretna, New Jersey 

From the mid-1960s to the early 1990s, the 

Edward Sears property was used for repackaging 

and sale of paints, adhesives, paint thinners, and 

various military surplus materials. Groundwater 

at the site was contaminated with a variety of 

solvents, including methylene chloride, 

trimethylbenzene, TCE, and xylenes. Beginning 

in 1996, a field demonstration of 

phytotechnology was performed that used hybrid 

poplars to clean up shallow groundwater at the 

site. Substantial reductions in contaminant 

concentrations have been reported. For 

example, data for the period from 1995 to 2004 

show that concentrations of methylene chloride 

were reduced from as high as 6,700 micrograms 

per liter (μg/L) to below detection levels; 

concentrations of trimethylbenzene were 

reduced from as high as 1,890 μg/L to 730 μg/L; 

and concentrations of TCE were reduced from as 

high as 510 μg/L to 46 μg/L. Groundwater 

monitoring is ongoing at the site. 

Sources: 

FRTR. 2002. “Cost and Performance Case 

Study, Phytoremediation at Edward Sears Site, 

New Gretna, NJ.” www.frtr.gov. 

Prince, George, EPA Emergency Response 

Team (ERT). 2004 Email to Ellen Rubin, EPA 

Office of Superfund Remediation and 

Technology Innovation (OSRTI) regarding 

Edward Sears Site Data. November 1. 
Use of Field-Scale Phytotechnology for Chlorinated Solvents, Metals, Explosives and Propellants, and Pesticides

 7 

Table 2. Vegetation Types Used in 78 Phytotechnology Projects 

Type 

Chlorinated 

Solvents Pesticides 

Explosives 

and 

Propellants Metals Total 

Corn 1 1 0 2 4 

Cottonwood 4 0 0 2 6 

Eastern Gamagrass 1 0 0 2 3 

Eucalyptus 1 0 0 2 3 

Fescue 0 1 0 1 2 

Grasses 9 8 0 18 35 

Hybrid Poplar 29 11 2 5 47 

Hyperaccumulating Fern 0 0 0 2 2 

Indian Mustard 1 0 0 7 8 

Legumes 1 1 0 0 2 

Loblolly Pine 1 0 0 1 2 

Magnolia 2 0 0 0 2 

Mulberry 1 0 0 1 2 

Silver Maple 3 0 0 0 3 

Sunflower 0 1 0 4 5 

Sweet Gum 3 0 0 0 3 

Willow 9 1 1 4 15 

Exhibit 2. Phytodegradation of Pesticides in Groundwater at Aberdeen Pesticides Dumps Site, 

Aberdeen, North Carolina 

The Aberdeen Pesticides Dumps site (APDS) consists of five geographically separate areas, one pesticide 

formulation plant and four disposal areas, that operated between the mid-1930s and 1987. Soil and 

groundwater at the site were contaminated with pesticides such as dieldrin, benzene hexachloride (BHC) 

isomers, hexachlorohexane, DDT, and DDE. This site was placed on the National Priorities List (NPL) in 

1989. A 1999 ROD selected phytotechnology as a remedy for the McIver Dump Area (one of the five areas 

that constitute APDS). This area was considered to be suitable for implementation of phytotechnology because 

of its shallow water table, which would allow tree roots to contact the contaminated groundwater. Hybrid 

poplars and ground-cover grasses were planted in the Dump Area in 1999. Quarterly groundwater sampling 

results from 2001 indicated that BHC isomer concentrations in all the monitoring wells had either remained 

unchanged or decreased. For example, in one monitoring well, the concentration of alpha-BHC decreased from 

0.224 μg/L to less than 0.047 μg/L, while in another well, the beta-BHC concentration decreased from 0.243 

μg/L to 0.0565 μg/L. A 2001 McIver Annual Report indicated that the remedy continued to be protective of 

potential human and ecological receptors. Groundwater sampling activities are ongoing at the site. 

Sources: 

EPA. 2004. “North Carolina NPL/NPL Caliber Cleanup Site Summaries – Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps.” 

http://www.epa.gov/region4/waste/npl/nplnc/aberdnnc.htm. Web Site Accessed on November 10. 

EPA. 2003. “Close-Out Report for Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps Superfund Site, Aberdeen, Moore County, 

North Carolina.” http://www.epa.gov/region4/waste/npl/nplnc/aberdnnc.htm. 

EPA. 1999. “Record of Decision System (RODS) – Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps (OU5).” 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/superrods/srchrods.cfm. 

Mann, Thomas, URS Corporation. 2004. Email to Ellen Rubin, EPA OSRTI regarding McIver Dump Area. 

October 27. 
Use of Field-Scale Phytotechnology for Chlorinated Solvents, Metals, Explosives and Propellants, and Pesticides

 8 

Phytotechnology Mechanisms 

Several mechanisms have been used in 

phytotechnology projects, including those that 

control groundwater hydraulics or degrade, 

extract, contain, or immobilize contaminants 

(EPA 2000). Of the 79 projects, 75 provided 

information about the type of phytotechnology 

mechanism that was used. The most commonly 

used mechanisms were phytoextraction (used in 

53% of the projects) and hydraulic control 

(42%). This section describes each mechanism, 

and Table 3 summarizes the mechanisms used in 

the 75 projects by type of contaminant treated. 

Hydraulic control (HC) refers to use of plants 

to remove groundwater through uptake and 

consumption in order to contain or control 

migration of contaminants. For the 75 projects, 

hydraulic control was used most frequently at 

sites with chlorinated solvent contamination. 

When hydraulic control is used in place of or in 

addition to an engineered pump-and-treat 

system, there are seasonal limitations on 

groundwater uptake. The types of contaminants 

that hydraulic control is used to contain are 

water-soluble organics or inorganics that are not 

phytotoxic. 

Phytodegradation (PD) involves the 

breakdown of contaminants taken up by plants 

through metabolic processes within the plants. 

Phytodegradation is typically used to remediate 

chlorinated solvents such as TCE and pesticides 

such as atrazine. Among the 75 projects, 

phytodegradation was used most often for 

chlorinated solvents and pesticides. 

Phytoextraction (PE), the most commonly used 

mechanism for the projects, is the uptake of 

contaminants by plant roots and the 

translocation of the contaminants within the 

plants. This mechanism was most often applied 

at sites with metal contamination. Plants used 

for phytoextraction, which are typically called 

hyperaccumulators, are found in the 

Brassicaceae, Euphorbiaceae, Asteraceae, 

Lemiaceae, and Scrophulariaceae families. 

Hyperaccumulator species include Indian 

mustard, ferns, tall fescue, sunflowers, and corn. 

The mechanism has been extensively researched 

in the laboratory; however, the effectiveness of 

its field applications has been limited. 

Table 3. Number of Projects Using Phytotechnology Mechanisms

Mechanism 

Chlorinated 

Solvents Pesticides 

Explosives 

and 

Propellants Metals Total 

Hydraulic Control 26 4 0 3 33 

Phytodegradation 14 3 1 0 18 

Phytoextraction 11 6 1 23 41 

Phytostabilization 0 3 0 9 12 

Phytovolatilization 7 0 0 1 8 

Rhizodegradation 11 8 2 0 21 

Rhizofiltration 0 1 0 0 1 
Use of Field-Scale Phytotechnology for Chlorinated Solvents, Metals, Explosives and Propellants, and Pesticides

 9 

Phytostabilization (PS) is the immobilization 

of a contaminant in soil through absorption and 

accumulation by roots, absorption onto roots, or 

precipitation within the root zone of plants. The 

mechanism involves the use of plants and plant 

roots to prevent contaminant migration via wind 

and water erosion, leaching, and soil dispersion. 

The phytostabilization processes occur through 

changes in root zone microbiology and 

chemistry. This mechanism was typically used 

for metal-contaminated soils. The mechanism 

does not require extensive soil excavation; 

however, it does require long-term maintenance 

because the contamination remains in place. 

Plant species that have been used for 

phytostabilization include grasses, Indian 

mustard, sunflowers, tall fescue, and soybeans. 

Phytovolatilization (PV) is the uptake and 

transpiration of a contaminant by plants and the 

release of the contaminant to the atmosphere. 

Phytovolatilization has been used for projects 

involving chlorinated solvents in groundwater, 

including TCE, TCA, and carbon tetrachloride. 

Poplars, willows, and cottonwoods have been 

used for phytovolatilization. At one site, eastern 

cottonwoods were used for a field demonstration 

to evaluate phytovolatilization of mercury from 

soil. 

Rhizodegradation (RD) is the breakdown of an 

organic contaminant in soil through microbial 

activity that is enhanced by the presence of a 

root zone. In rhizodegradation, plant roots are 

used to create an environment that is more 

conducive to microbial activity by adding root 

exudates, increasing soil aeration, or increasing 

soil moisture. Rhizodegradation has been used 

for projects involving chlorinated solvents, 

pesticides, and explosives and propellants. Plant 

species used for rhizodegradation include 

poplars, willows, and grasses. Exhibit 3 

provides an example of a field demonstration 

that examined the use of phytodegradation and 

rhizodegradation for perchlorate remediation. 

Rhizofiltration (RF) is the adsorption or 

precipitation of contaminants onto plant roots or 

the absorption of contaminants into the roots as 

a result of biotic or abiotic processes. One 

project used rhizofiltration to treat pesticides, 

herbicides, and volatile organic compounds 

(VOC) in groundwater and soil. The vegetation 

types used were hybrid poplars and grasses. 

Exhibit 3. Phytodegradation and 

Rhizodegradation of Perchlorate in 

Groundwater at Longhorn Army 

Ammunition Plant, Marshall, Texas 

The Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant (LAAP) 

has groundwater that is contaminated with 

perchlorate. A field demonstration of 

phytotechnology was performed using 425 

hybrid poplars; the trees were planted in March 

2003 on a 0.7-acre demonstration site. In this 

demonstration, concentrations of perchlorate 

were reduced from 34 to 23 milligrams per liter 

(mg/L) as of October 2004. According to the 

site researcher, the mass of perchlorate taken up 

by the poplar trees and/or degraded within the 

rhizosphere was 0.114 kilogram per day (kg/d) ± 

0.016 kg/d. Between April 2003 and September 

2004, 52 kg of perchlorate was removed from 

the groundwater by the hybrid poplar trees 

and/or the microbes that grow in the root zone. 

However, because of a complicated 

hydrogeologic setting and trenching, it was 

difficult to obtain a water balance and mass 

balance for perchlorate in order to prove the 

effectiveness of the treatment. In addition, the 

site researcher reported that the trees were 

growing well and that the phytoremediation 

system was functioning well; only 5% of the 

trees did not survive the first growing season. 

Source: 

Schnoor, J.L., et al. 2004. “Demonstration 

Project of Phytoremediation and 

Rhizodegradation of Perchlorate in Groundwater 

at the Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant.” 

University of Iowa, Department of Civil and 

Environmental Engineering. 
Use of Field-Scale Phytotechnology for Chlorinated Solvents, Metals, Explosives and Propellants, and Pesticides

 10 

Number of Phytotechnology Projects by 

Planting Year 

Phytotechnology projects often are performed 

over several years while species become 

established and contact between plants and 

contaminants is increased. To provide an 

indication of the age of the 79 phytotechnology 

projects, Figure 3 shows the number of projects 

that were started in particular years. This 

information is drawn from the 73 projects that 

reported a planting year. Among those projects, 

the use of phytotechnology peaked in projects 

that were begun between 1996 and 2001. The 

use of phytotechnology for metal contamination 

has been relatively constant, with one to three 

projects started each year except for 1992, when 

no metal projects began. There have been no 

new pesticide projects begun since 1999. The 

earliest phytotechnology project involving 

chlorinated solvents began in 1996. Solvent 

projects reached their peak phytotechnology use 

in 2001, when eight projects were started. Since 

2001, only one chlorinated solvent project has 

been started each year. 

Site Size and Project Scale 

Among the 61 projects that reported treatment 

site size information, site size ranged from less 

than 0.5 acre to more than 1,000 acres, as shown 

in Figure 4. Thirty-six sites occupied 1.5 acres 

or less, and five were more than 9 acres in size. 

The 39 pilot- and field-scale demonstration 

projects account for most of the sites that were 

1.5 acres or smaller but include projects at 

several larger sites. For example, a field 

demonstration was performed at the Naval 

Undersea Warfare Station in Washington that 

used hybrid poplars on an 8-acre site to treat 

TCA and other halogenated VOCs. Project 

scale information was provided by 68 of the 

projects; of these, 29 were reported to be fullscale and 39 were reported to be pilot- or fieldscale demonstrations. 

Phytotechnology Cost and Performance 

The cost and performance of phytotechnology 

are highly site-specific as they depend on factors 

such as the types of contaminants present, 

contaminant concentrations, other site 

characteristics (for example, the depth to 

groundwater and soil properties), and the type of 

vegetation used. Cost information was available 

for 40 of the 79 phytotechnology projects. 

Performance information was available for 52 

projects, including 25 pilot- or field-scale 

demonstrations and 27 full-scale remedies. 

The cost information included various types of 

data and levels of detail. The FRTR has 

suggested that cost data should be itemized for 

each activity performed during a 

phytotechnology project. Specifically, data 

should be reported for planning and site 

preparation; site work; materials (such as trees 

or other vegetation); and operation and 

maintenance, including labor (FRTR 1998). 

Eight of the 40 projects provided cost 

information at the level of detail suggested by 

the FRTR. For those eight projects, the costs 

ranged from $30,000 for a 1.5-acre site where 

hybrid poplars were used to treat pesticides to 

$800,000 for a 5-acre site where TCE was 

treated using more than 800 trees and for which 

research and development activities were 

conducted. Collection and reporting of cost data 

in the manner suggested by the FRTR would 

improve the total body of information available 

for phytotechnology evaluation. 

The performance information also varied in 

terms of the type and specificity of data 

reported. Project performance was described in 

both qualitative and quantitative terms. 

Examples of the qualitative information include 

plant growth and plant survival data. Five 

projects provided this type of information; in 

three projects the vegetation thrived, and in two 

projects the vegetation did not. 

For Additional Information about the FRTR 

guidelines for reporting technology cost data, 

refer to the “Guide to Documenting and 

Managing Cost and Performance Information for 

Remediation Projects” (October 1998, EPA 542-

B-98-007) located at

http://www.frtr.gov/pdf/guide.pdf/. 
Use of Field-Scale Phytotechnology for Chlorinated Solvents, Metals, Explosives and Propellants, and Pesticides

Figure 3. Number of Phytotechnology Projects by Planting Year – 73 Projects Total  11 

9630

1512

<1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Planting Year

Number of Projects Chlorinated Solvents Pesticides Explosives and Propellants Metals

Source: Refer to the projects listed in Appendix A. 
Use of Field-Scale Phytotechnology for Chlorinated Solvents, Metals, Explosives and Propellants, and Pesticides

Figure 4. Site Size Range for 61 Phytotechnology Projects  12 

840

24201612

<0.5

0.5 - 1.0

1.0 - 1.5

1.5 - 2.0

2.0 - 2.5

2.5 - 3.0

3 0. - 4.0

4 0. - 5.0

5.0 - 6.0

6.0 - 7.0

7.0 - 8.0

8.0 - 9.0

>9.0

Acreage

Number of Projects Chlorinated Solvents Pesticides Explosives and Propellants Metals

Note: This graph includes both fullscale and pilotand field-scale demonstration projects.

Source: Refer to the projects listed in Appendix A. 
Use of Field-Scale Phytotechnology for Chlorinated Solvents, Metals, Explosives and Propellants, and Pesticides

 13 

The quantitative performance information that is 

often provided for phytotechnology projects 

includes contaminant concentrations in 

groundwater, soil, or plant tissue before and 

after treatment was performed as well as 

information about rooting depth; transpiration 

leaf area index; canopy height; plant and core 

tissue samples; tree girth; concentrations of 

degradation products; rates of groundwater 

extraction. Other indicator parameters such as 

soil oxygen levels, hydraulic control, and 

groundwater depression may also be included. 

A total of 31 projects provided information 

about changes in contaminant concentrations, 

with 26 reporting decreased concentrations and 

five indicating no change in concentration. In 

addition, five projects provided information 

about hydraulic control, with four reporting that 

control was achieved using phytotechnology. 

Information was not available to fully describe 

the contaminant concentrations achieved by 

phytotechnology for any of the contaminant 

types covered in this report. Additional cost and 

performance information for specific 

phytotechnology projects is provided in the 

references for this report. 

An example of the types of performance and 

cost information that is available for a 

phytotechnology project involving treatment of 

metal-contaminated groundwater is provided in 

Exhibit 4. 

Ongoing EPA Efforts Regarding Use of 

Phytotechnology 

EPA is continuing its efforts to examine current 

trends in the use of phytotechnology. Areas of 

particular interest include measurement of 

technology performance, ecosystem restoration, 

use of phytotechnology in remedial systems, and 

the fate and transport of contaminants. 

Exhibit 4. Phytoextraction of MetalContaminated Groundwater at Texas City 

Chemicals, C-H Area, Texas City, Texas 

The Plant C site in Texas City, Texas, which is 

owned by BP is adjacent to the Tex Tin 

Superfund site, a former smelter facility that 

operated during World War II. The Area H 

portion of the Plant C site has highly saline 

groundwater that is contaminated with metals 

such as lead, copper, and cadmium that 

originated at the Tex Tin site. BP is performing 

a phytotechnology field demonstration using 

eucalyptus trees in Area H as a contingency to 

the voluntary cleanup efforts at the Tex Tin site, 

which include capping and barrier wall 

installation. In a greenhouse study, BP was able 

to grow trees with water having twice the 

salinity of seawater; however, the salinity of 

Area H groundwater has been measured at three 

times that of seawater. In field trials, BP 

reported that metals are being phytostabilized in 

the tree root zone with some minor uptake into 

leaves. BP also reported that saline components 

– sodium, calcium, and magnesium – have been 

found in the aboveground plant tissues. Water 

isotope ratio studies indicated that approximately 

35% of the water taken up by trees has been 

contaminated groundwater. The pilot-scale 

project is a precursor to a potential full-scale 

phytoremediation project that could include as 

many as 1,000 additional trees should the 

voluntary cleanup efforts prove inadequate. The 

estimated cost for the full-scale project is 

$136,000 for installation plus $18,000 for 

operation and maintenance during the first 3 

years of the study. 

Sources: 

Interstate Technology and Regulatory 

Cooperation Work Group (ITRC). 2004. 

Technologies Workshop. 

Tsao, David, BP. Email to Ellen Rubin, EPA 

OSRTI regarding Combustion, Inc. Site Data. 

October 21. 

http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?cat

egoryId=2011066&contentId=2016238 

http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/global

bp/STAGING/global_assets/downloads/C/cs_US

A_Reducing_NOx_emissions_at_Texas_City_US

A_2003.pdf 
Use of Field-Scale Phytotechnology for Chlorinated Solvents, Metals, Explosives and Propellants, and Pesticides

 14 

Notice 

If you have comments or questions regarding 

this report or the Third International 

Phytotechnology Conference in April 2005, 

please contact Ellen Rubin at EPA’s Office of 

Superfund Remediation and Technology 

Innovation at (703) 603-0141 or 

rubin.ellen@epa.gov. 

References 

EPA. 2000. “Introduction to 

Phytoremediation.” Office of Research and 

Development. EPA 600/R-99/107. February. 

EPA. 2001a. “Ground Water Issue – 

Phytoremediation of Contaminated Soil and 

Ground Water at Hazardous Waste Sites.” 

Office of Research and Development. 540/S01/500. February. 

EPA. 2001b. “Brownfields Technology Primer: 

Selecting and Using Phytoremediation for Site 

Cleanup.” Brownfields Technology Support 

Center. EPA 542-R-01-006. 

EPA. 2004a. “In Situ Thermal Treatment of 

Chlorinated Solvents: Fundamentals and Field 

Applications.” Office of Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response. EPA 542-R-04-010. 

March. www.clu-in.org. 

EPA. 2004b. Pesticides Web Site at 

www.epa.gov/pesticides/about. Information 

Downloaded on October 19. 

EPA. 2004c. “Phytoremediation Field Studies 

Database for Chlorinated Solvents, Pesticides, 

Explosives, and Metals.” Compiled by Ana 

Hoffnagle and Cynthia Green (Summer Interns). 

http://www.clu-in.org/studentpapers/. 

EPA. 2004d. “Treatment Technologies for Site 

Cleanup: Annual Status Report.” Eleventh 

Edition. EPA 542-R-03-009. 

FRTR. 1998. “Guide to Documenting and 

Managing Cost and Performance Information for 

Remediation Projects.” Revised Version. EPA 

542-B-98-007. October. www.frtr.gov. 

FRTR. 2004. Remediation Technologies 

Screening Matrix – Version 4.0 at 

http://www.frtr.gov/matrix2/top_page.html. 

Information Downloaded on October 19. 

ITRC. 2001. “Technical and Regulatory 

Guidance Document: Phytotechnology.” 

Phytotechnologies Work Team Document No: 

PHYTO-2. April. 

Newman, Lee A., and Charles M. Reynolds. 

2004. “Phytodegradation of Organic 

Compounds.” Current Opinion in 

Biotechnology. Volume 15. Pages 225 through 

230. www.sciencedirect.com. 

Acknowledgements 

EPA would like to thank their Summer Interns 

Ana Hoffnagle and Cynthia Green for gathering 

the information used in this Status Report. 

Third International Phytotechnology 

Conference, Atlanta, Georgia 

April 20 through 22, 2005 

EPA is currently planning the third international 

conference on the use of phytotechnology, which 

will be conducted in Atlanta, Georgia, in April 

2005. Topics of discussion for the conference 

include measurement technologies or techniques 

for assessing a project’s progress; projects that 

decrease costs associated with existing, 

conventional remediation or containment; use of 

phytotechnology in developing economies; 

ecological restoration or habitat creation during 

remediation; fate and transport of contaminants 

through plants and associated ecological risk; 

case studies of successful phytotechnology 

applications; and case studies that illustrate the 

regulatory process for evaluating 

phytotechnology projects. The information 

collected at the conference will be made 

available at www.clu-in.org/phytoconf. 
APPENDIX A 

Summary of Phytotechnology Projects in the 

United States and Canada 
 Use of Field-Scale Phytotechnology for Chlorinated Solvents, Metals, Explosives and Propellants, and Pesticides 

Note: Some of these projects were successful in remediating contamination, while others were not. More detailed information, including points of contact, for these projects can be found in “Phytoremediation Field Studies Database for Chlorinated Solvents, Pesticides, Explosives, and Metals” (EPA 2004) 

GW=Groundwater; NA=Not Available; HC=Hydraulic Control; PD=Phytodegradation; PE=Phytoextraction; PS=Phytostabilization; PV=Phytovolatilization; RD=Rhizodegradation; RF=Rhizofiltration; 

*=Superfund; o=Federal or Military Site; x=All Other Sites 

A-1 

APPENDIX A 

SUMMARY OF PHYTOTECHNOLOGY PROJECTS IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA

Phytomechanisms Site Size and Project Scale 

Site Name State 

Planting 

Date 

End 

Date Medium Vegetation Type Contaminants Treated HC PD PE PS PV RD RF Acreage

FullScale Pilot/Field Scale 

Chlorinated Solvents 

Aberdeen Proving Ground 

MD 1996 NA GW, 

Soil 

Hybrid Poplar, Sweet Gum, Silver Maple, Magnolia 

PCA, TCA, PCE, TCE, DCE, DCA, VC 

x x 1 x 

http://web.ead.anl.gov/jfield/phyto/index.cfm Altus Air Force Base 

OK 1999 NA NA Hybrid Poplar TCE, DCE, PCE o 0.3 o 

http://www.afcee.brooks.af.mil/products/techtrans/phytorem.asp or http://www.afcee.brooks.af.mil/products/techtrans/monitorednaturalattenuation/nastatus.xls (Overall Status Tab) Amboer Road OR NA NA GW, 

Soil 

Hybrid Poplar, Sweet Gum, Silver Maple, Magnolia 

PCE, Degradation Products x x 5 x 

http://www.rtdf.org/public/phyto/siteprof/usersearch/phyto_detail.cfm?TrackID=203 Anonymous WA 1996 NA Soil Hybrid Poplar TCE, PCE, Carbon 

Tetrachloride 

 x 0.25 x 

http://myprofile.cos.com/gordonm15 or http://clu-in.org/download/studentpapers/hoffnagle-phytoremediation.pdf (Page A32) Argonne National Laboratory: 317/319 Area 

IL 1999 NA GW, 

Soil 

Eastern Gamagrass, Hybrid Poplar, Golden Weeping Willow, Hybrid Prairie Cascade Willow, LaurelLeaved Willow 

PCE, TCE, Arsenic, Chloroform, Carbon Tetrachloride, Lead, Tritium, Zinc 

o o o o o 4 o 

http://web.ead.anl.gov/phyto/ Ashland Inc. WI 2000 NA GW, 

Soil 

Hybrid Poplar, Understory Grasses 

DCA, PCE, TCE, BTEX, Gasoline, DRO 

x x x 0.4 x 

http://www.ecolotree.com/apps2.html 
 Use of Field-Scale Phytotechnology for Chlorinated Solvents, Metals, Explosives and Propellants, and Pesticides 

Note: Some of these projects were successful in remediating contamination, while others were not. More detailed information, including points of contact, for these projects can be found in “Phytoremediation Field Studies Database for Chlorinated Solvents, Pesticides, Explosives, and Metals” (EPA 2004) 

GW=Groundwater; NA=Not Available; HC=Hydraulic Control; PD=Phytodegradation; PE=Phytoextraction; PS=Phytostabilization; PV=Phytovolatilization; RD=Rhizodegradation; RF=Rhizofiltration; 

*=Superfund; o=Federal or Military Site; x=All Other Sites 

A-2 

Phytomechanisms Site Size and Project Scale 

Site Name State 

Planting 

Date 

End 

Date Medium Vegetation Type Contaminants Treated HC PD PE PS PV RD RF Acreage

FullScale Pilot/Field Scale 

Bofors-Nobel Superfund Site 

MI 1999 2002 GW, 

Soil 

Norway Maple, Hackberry, Honey Locust, Eastern Red Cedar, Black Hills Spruce, Jack Pine, Hybrid Poplar, Bur Oak, White Willow 

3,3-Dichlorobenzene, VC, PCE, Aniline, Azobenzene, Benzidine, Toluene 

 * * * 20 * 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0502372 Carswell Naval Air Station 

TX 1996 2006 GW, 

Soil 

Eastern Cottonwood TCE, DCE o o o o 0.5 o 

http://www.clu-in.org/PRODUCTS/NEWSLTRS/tnandt/view.cfm?issue=0903.cfm#4 Combustion, Inc. Superfund 

LA 2002 NA GW Eucalyptus, Poplar, 

Native Willows 

DCA, PCB, Benzene, Lead, Mercury, Nickel, Silver, Toluene, Toluenediisocynate, Toluene Diamine 

* * * NA * 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0600472 Edward Sears Property 

NJ 1996 2004 GW, 

Soil 

Hybrid Poplar PCE, TCE, DCM o o 1 o 

http://www.epa.gov/tio/download/partner/98annual.pdf (Page 41) or http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/lrpcd/rcb/phytohaz.htmEllsworth Air Force Base 

SD 2001 NA Hybrid Poplar TCE, DCE o 1 o 

http://www.afcee.brooks.af.mil/products/techtrans/monitorednaturalattenuation/nastatus.xls (Overall Status Tab) ERP Site 17, Beale Air Force Base 

CA 2000 NA GW Native Cottonwood, 

Live Oak, Deer Grass, Meadow Barley, Clustered Field Sage, NarrowLeaved Willow 

TCE, DCM o 5 

http://clu-in.org/download/studentpapers/hoffnagle-phytoremediation.pdf (Page A43) Fairchild Air Force Base 

WA 2001 NA NA Hybrid Poplar TCE, DCM o 1 o 

http://www.afcee.brooks.af.mil/products/techtrans/phytorem.asp or http://www.afcee.brooks.af.mil/products/techtrans/monitorednaturalattenuation/nastatus.xls (Overall Status Tab) 
 Use of Field-Scale Phytotechnology for Chlorinated Solvents, Metals, Explosives and Propellants, and Pesticides 

Note: Some of these projects were successful in remediating contamination, while others were not. More detailed information, including points of contact, for these projects can be found in “Phytoremediation Field Studies Database for Chlorinated Solvents, Pesticides, Explosives, and Metals” (EPA 2004) 

GW=Groundwater; NA=Not Available; HC=Hydraulic Control; PD=Phytodegradation; PE=Phytoextraction; PS=Phytostabilization; PV=Phytovolatilization; RD=Rhizodegradation; RF=Rhizofiltration; 

*=Superfund; o=Federal or Military Site; x=All Other Sites 

A-3 

Phytomechanisms Site Size and Project Scale 

Site Name State 

Planting 

Date 

End 

Date Medium Vegetation Type Contaminants Treated HC PD PE PS PV RD RF Acreage

FullScale Pilot/Field Scale 

Fringe Drain Area IL 1999 NA GW, 

Soil 

Hybrid Poplar, Willow 

TCE o o 5 o 

http://www.treemediation.com/ or http://clu-in.org/download/studentpapers/hoffnagle-phytoremediation.pdf (Page A46) Grand Forks Air Force Base 

ND 2001 NA GW, 

Soil 

Eastern Cottonwood, Hybrid Poplar, Russian Olive 

TCE, DCM o o o o 0.7 o 

http://www.afcee.brooks.af.mil/ms/msp/center/summer2002/treegrandforks.asp Hill Air Force Base: OU 4 

UT NA NA GW, 

Soil 

Hybrid Poplar DCA, DCE, PCE, TCA, 

TCE, Chromium, Cadmium, Manganese, Arsenic 

o o NA o 

http://www.afcee.brooks.af.mil/products/techtrans/phytorem.asp or http://www.afcee.brooks.af.mil/products/techtrans/monitorednaturalattenuation/nastatus.xls (Overall Status Tab) Jones Island Confined Disposal Facility 

WI 2001 NA Soil Clover, Corn, 

Willow 

PCBs, PAH, DRO, Metals o NA o 

http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/pubs/540r04508/540r04508a.pdf Kauffman & Minteer 

NJ 1998 NA GW, 

Soil 

Hybrid Poplar, Black Willow 

DCA, TCE, PCE, DDT, Endosulfan Sulfate, Ethyl Benzene, 2-Methylnapthalene, Styrene, Toluene 

 x 5 

http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/lrpcd/rcb/phytohaz.htm Metal Plating Facility 

OH 1997 NA Soil Hybrid Poplar, Rye 

Grass, Indian Mustard 

TCE x x 0.23 x 

http://clu-in.org/products/site/ongoing/demoong/phytotec.htm Montezuma West OR 1997 NA GW, 

Soil 

Hybrid Poplar TCA x x 1 x 

http://www.deq.state.or.us/wmc/ECSI/ecsidetail.asp?seqnbr=79 NASA Kennedy Space Center: Hydrocarbon Burn Facility 

FL 1998 NA GW, 

Soil 

Hybrid Poplar, Understory Grasses 

DCE, TCE, VC, Chromium, TPH 

o o o o 3 o 

http://www.rtdf.org/public/phyto/siteprof/usersearch/phyto_detail.cfm?TrackID=186 
 Use of Field-Scale Phytotechnology for Chlorinated Solvents, Metals, Explosives and Propellants, and Pesticides 

Note: Some of these projects were successful in remediating contamination, while others were not. More detailed information, including points of contact, for these projects can be found in “Phytoremediation Field Studies Database for Chlorinated Solvents, Pesticides, Explosives, and Metals” (EPA 2004) 

GW=Groundwater; NA=Not Available; HC=Hydraulic Control; PD=Phytodegradation; PE=Phytoextraction; PS=Phytostabilization; PV=Phytovolatilization; RD=Rhizodegradation; RF=Rhizofiltration; 

*=Superfund; o=Federal or Military Site; x=All Other Sites 

A-4 

Phytomechanisms Site Size and Project Scale 

Site Name State 

Planting 

Date 

End 

Date Medium Vegetation Type Contaminants Treated HC PD PE PS PV RD RF Acreage

FullScale Pilot/Field Scale 

Naval Undersea Warfare Station 

WA 2001 2009 GW Hybrid Poplar TCA, Halogenated VOCs * * 8 * 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=1001102 Northern Iowa Chlorinated Solvent Plume 

IA 2001 NA GW, 

Soil 

Hybrid Poplar, Understory Grasses 

DCE, PCE, TCE x x x 1 x 

http://clu-in.org/download/studentpapers/hoffnagle-phytoremediation.pdf (Page A59) Oregon Poplar OR 1997 NA Soil Hybrid Poplar, 

Cottonwoods 

DCA, DCE, DCE, PCE, TCE, VC, BTEX 

x x x NA NA NA 

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/phyto.htm Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant: X-740 TCE Plume 

OH 1999 NA GW, 

Soil 

Hybrid Poplar TCE, PCE, DCE, VC o 2.6 o 

http://www.epa.state.oh.us/sedo/portsmouth/us_doe_portsmouth.htm Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant: X-749/X-120 TCE Plume 

OH 2003 NA GW Hybrid Poplar TCE, PCE, DCE, VC x 41 x 

http://www.epa.state.oh.us/sedo/portsmouth/us_doe_portsmouth.htm Savannah River Site 

SC 2001 2004 GW, 

Soil 

Grass, Legume, Herb, Loblolly Pine, Hybrid Poplar 

PCE, DCE, TCE, Chloroform x x x 4 x 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0403485 or http://sti.srs.gov/fulltext/ms2000897/ms2000897.htmlSolvent Recovery Service New England 

CT 1998 2030 GW, 

Soil 

Hybrid Poplar, White Willow, Pin Oak, River Birch, Sweet Gum, Silver Maple, Tulip Tree, Eastern Red Bud, Eastern White Pine 

TCA, DCA, DCE, VC, PCB x x x 0.8 x 

http://www.phytokinetics.com/publications.php?id=27 
 Use of Field-Scale Phytotechnology for Chlorinated Solvents, Metals, Explosives and Propellants, and Pesticides 

Note: Some of these projects were successful in remediating contamination, while others were not. More detailed information, including points of contact, for these projects can be found in “Phytoremediation Field Studies Database for Chlorinated Solvents, Pesticides, Explosives, and Metals” (EPA 2004) 

GW=Groundwater; NA=Not Available; HC=Hydraulic Control; PD=Phytodegradation; PE=Phytoextraction; PS=Phytostabilization; PV=Phytovolatilization; RD=Rhizodegradation; RF=Rhizofiltration; 

*=Superfund; o=Federal or Military Site; x=All Other Sites 

A-5 

Phytomechanisms Site Size and Project Scale 

Site Name State 

Planting 

Date 

End 

Date Medium Vegetation Type Contaminants Treated HC PD PE PS PV RD RF Acreage

FullScale Pilot/Field Scale 

Tibbetts Road NH 1998 2015 GW, 

Soil 

Hybrid Poplar, Understory Grasses 

TCE, PCBs, Arsenic, Benzene, Toluene 

* * 2 * 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/r1/npl_pad.nsf/8b160ae5c647980585256bba0066f907/c875c2d48055e87a8525691f0063f6fe!OpenDocument Travis Air Force Base 

CA 1998 NA GW Red Ironbark TCE o 2.5 o 

http://www.afcee.brooks.af.mil/products/techtrans/phytorem.asp or http://www.afcee.brooks.af.mil/products/techtrans/monitorednaturalattenuation/nastatus.xls (Overall Status Tab) Union Carbide Corporation 

TX NA NA GW, 

Soil 

Poplar and Mulberry DCA, BCEE x NA x 

http://clu-in.org/download/studentpapers/hoffnagle-phytoremediation.pdf (Page A69) Unspecified Chemical Manufacturing Facility 

IL 2000 NA NA Hybrid Poplar, 

Willow 

TCE x x NA NA NA 

http://www.treemediation.com/ or http://clu-in.org/download/studentpapers/hoffnagle-phytoremediation.pdf (Page A71) Vandenberg Air Force Base 

CA 2001 NA NA Hybrid Poplar DCE, PCE, VC o 1 NA NA 

http://www.vandenberg.af.mil/30sw/30_msg/30_ces/IRP/pdf/irpclnup.pdf Wayne County MI 1997 2002 GW, 

Soil 

Hybrid Poplar DCE, PCE, VC x NA x 

http://www.treemediation.com/ or http://clu-in.org/download/studentpapers/hoffnagle-phytoremediation.pdf (Page A73) Wisconsin WI 2004 NA GW, 

Soil 

Hybrid Poplar TCE NA NA NA 

http://www.ecolotree.com or http://clu-in.org/download/studentpapers/hoffnagle-phytoremediation.pdf (Page A75) 

Pesticides 

Aberdeen Pesticides Dumps 

NC 1999 NA GW, 

Soil 

Hybrid Poplar; Ground-Cover Grasses 

Dieldrin, Hexachlorobenzene, Hexachlorahexane 

* * * NA * 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0403099 Amana #1 and #2 IA NA NA GW, 

Soil 

Corn, Fescue, Hybrid Poplar, Sunflower 

Atrazine, Alachlor x x NA x 

http://clu-in.org/download/studentpapers/hoffnagle-phytoremediation.pdf (Page A78) 
 Use of Field-Scale Phytotechnology for Chlorinated Solvents, Metals, Explosives and Propellants, and Pesticides 

Note: Some of these projects were successful in remediating contamination, while others were not. More detailed information, including points of contact, for these projects can be found in “Phytoremediation Field Studies Database for Chlorinated Solvents, Pesticides, Explosives, and Metals” (EPA 2004) 

GW=Groundwater; NA=Not Available; HC=Hydraulic Control; PD=Phytodegradation; PE=Phytoextraction; PS=Phytostabilization; PV=Phytovolatilization; RD=Rhizodegradation; RF=Rhizofiltration; 

*=Superfund; o=Federal or Military Site; x=All Other Sites 

A-6 

Phytomechanisms Site Size and Project Scale 

Site Name State 

Planting 

Date 

End 

Date Medium Vegetation Type Contaminants Treated HC PD PE PS PV RD RF Acreage

FullScale Pilot/Field Scale 

Bofors-Nobel Superfund Site 

MI 1999 NA GW, 

Soil 

Hybrid Poplar 3,3-Dichlorobenzene, VC, 

PCE, Aniline, Azobenzene, Benzidine, Toluene 

 * * * NA * 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0502372 Cantrall IL 1992 NA GW, 

Soil 

Hybrid Poplar Nitrate, 

Herbicides/Insecticides, Atrazine, Alachlor 

 x x x 2 x 

http://www.thomasconsultants.com/cantrall.html Clarence Coop Martelle Plant 

IA 1993 NA GW, 

Soil 

Hybrid Poplar, Grasses 

Atrazine, Herbicides, Nitrate, Ammonia 

 x x x 0.3 x 

http://www.rtdf.org/public/phyto/siteprof/usersearch/phyto_detail.cfm?TrackID=43 Fort Wainwright AK 1997 2002 Soil Felt Leaf Willow Aldrin, DDD, DDT, Dieldrin, 

Petroleum Hydrocarbons 

 o o 0.18 o 

http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/lrpcd/rcb/phytohaz.htm Illinois Fertilizer/Herbicide Spill Site 

IL 1999 NA GW, 

Soil 

Hybrid Poplar, Grasses 

Nitrogen, Herbicides x x x NA x 

http://www.ecolotree.com/apps4.html Lockwood Farm CT NA 2002 Soil Cucurbita pepo p-p'-DDE NA NA NA http://www.caes.state.ct.us/Biographies/WhiteJ.htm MidLakes Farm Service Cooperative 

WI 1996 NA GW, 

Soil 

Hybrid Poplar, Grasses 

Pesticides, Herbicides, VOC x x x x x 0.3 x 

http://www.rtdf.org/public/phyto/siteprof/usersearch/phyto_detail.cfm?TrackID=194 Oconee IL 1988 NA GW, 

Soil 

Hybrid Poplar Alachlor, Atrazine, 

Metoachlor, Metribuzin 

 x 1.5 x 

http://www.treemediation.com/Oconee.htm Whitewater WI 1990 NA GW, 

Soil 

Grasses, Hybrid Poplar, Legumes 

Nitrate, Herbicides, Insecticides, Atrazine, Silvex 

x 10 x 

http://www.treemediation.com/Business/Projects.htm Wilmington NC 1992 2002 GW, 

Soil 

Hybrid Poplar Nitrate, Pesticides, 

Ammonium 

x 6 x 

http://www.treemediation.com/ or http://clu-in.org/download/studentpapers/hoffnagle-phytoremediation.pdf (Page A95) 
 Use of Field-Scale Phytotechnology for Chlorinated Solvents, Metals, Explosives and Propellants, and Pesticides 

Note: Some of these projects were successful in remediating contamination, while others were not. More detailed information, including points of contact, for these projects can be found in “Phytoremediation Field Studies Database for Chlorinated Solvents, Pesticides, Explosives, and Metals” (EPA 2004) 

GW=Groundwater; NA=Not Available; HC=Hydraulic Control; PD=Phytodegradation; PE=Phytoextraction; PS=Phytostabilization; PV=Phytovolatilization; RD=Rhizodegradation; RF=Rhizofiltration; 

*=Superfund; o=Federal or Military Site; x=All Other Sites 

A-7 

Phytomechanisms Site Size and Project Scale 

Site Name State 

Planting 

Date 

End 

Date Medium Vegetation Type Contaminants Treated HC PD PE PS PV RD RF Acreage

FullScale Pilot/Field Scale 

Explosives and Propellants 

ICI Explosives Americas Engineering 

MO 1996 NA GW, 

Soil 

Bald Cypress, Hybrid Poplar, Ninebark, Willow 

Ammonium Nitrate, DNT x x 3.2 x 

http://www.rtdf.org/public/phyto/siteprof/usersearch/phyto_detail.cfm?TrackID=198 Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant: Burning Ground #3 

TX 2003 2004 GW Hybrid Poplar Perchlorate o o 0.7 o 

http://clu-in.org/download/contaminantfocus/perchlorate/LHAAPfinalSchnoor.pdf Weldon Spring Former Army Ordnance Works 

MO 1993 NA Soil NA TNT, DNT, Lead NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA o 

http://www.epa.gov/ORD/SITE/reports/540r95529a.pdf 

Metals 

Anaconda Smelter Site 

MT 1995 NA Soil Grasses Arsenic, Cadmium, Copper, 

Zinc 

 x 1.5 x 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0800403 Anderson SC 1993 NA GW, 

Soil 

Grasses, Hybrid Poplar 

Lead, Cadmium, Sulfate, Nitrate 

 x 17 x 

http://clu-in.org/download/studentpapers/hoffnagle-phytoremediation.pdf (Page A111) Argonne National Laboratory: 317/319 Area 

IL 1999 NA GW, 

Soil 

Eastern Gamagrass, Hybrid Poplar, Golden Weeping Willow, Hybrid Prairie Cascade Willow, LaurelLeaved Willow 

PCE, TCE, Carbon Tetrachloride, Chloroform, Zinc, Lead, Arsenic, Tritium 

o o o 4 o 

http://web.ead.anl.gov/phyto/Argonne National Laboratory West 

ID 1999 2002 Soil Koshia scoparia, 

Hybrid Willow 

Cesium-137, Silver, Mercury, Chromium 

 * 0.61 * 

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r1098061.pdf Austin Residential Site 

TX 2003 2003 Soil Hyperaccumulating 

Fern 

Arsenic x 0.01 x 
 Use of Field-Scale Phytotechnology for Chlorinated Solvents, Metals, Explosives and Propellants, and Pesticides 

Note: Some of these projects were successful in remediating contamination, while others were not. More detailed information, including points of contact, for these projects can be found in “Phytoremediation Field Studies Database for Chlorinated Solvents, Pesticides, Explosives, and Metals” (EPA 2004) 

GW=Groundwater; NA=Not Available; HC=Hydraulic Control; PD=Phytodegradation; PE=Phytoextraction; PS=Phytostabilization; PV=Phytovolatilization; RD=Rhizodegradation; RF=Rhizofiltration; 

*=Superfund; o=Federal or Military Site; x=All Other Sites 

A-8 

Phytomechanisms Site Size and Project Scale 

Site Name State 

Planting 

Date 

End 

Date Medium Vegetation Type Contaminants Treated HC PD PE PS PV RD RF Acreage

FullScale Pilot/Field Scale 

http://www.edenspace.com/ or http://clu-in.org/download/studentpapers/hoffnagle-phytoremediation.pdf (Page A118) Bayonne NJ 1996 NA Soil Indian Mustard Lead x 0.02 x http://www.edenspace.com/qualification.html Central Louisiana Wood Treatment Facility 

LA NA NA GW, 

Soil 

Loblolly Pines Arsenic, Chromium, PAH, 

CCA, Creosote 

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

http://premiercorp-usa.com/index.htm or http://clu-in.org/download/studentpapers/hoffnagle-phytoremediation.pdf (Page A124) Firing Range, Chilliwack 

BC 1999 2001 Soil Garden Pea, Indian 

Mustard 

Lead, Copper x NA x 

http://www.rmc.ca/academic/gradrech/environment9_e.html Abandoned Hat Factory 

CT 2003 NA Soil Eastern Cottonwood Mercury x 0.33 x 

http://clu-in.org/download/studentpapers/hoffnagle-phytoremediation.pdf (Page A130) Dearing Phytostabilization Demonstration 

KS 1994 1998 Soil Hybrid Poplar Lead, Zinc, Cadmium x x 1 x 

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PPHMF8000006000003000177000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes Dorchester MA 1996 1998 Soil Indian Mustard, 

Hybrid Poplar 

Lead x 0.03 x 

http://www.edenspace.com/qualification.html East Palo Alto CA 1981 NA Soil Eucalyptus, Tamarisk Arsenic, Sodium x 1 x http://clu-in.org/download/studentpapers/hoffnagle-phytoremediation.pdf (Page A134) Ensign-Bickford Company 

CT 1998 1998 Soil Indian Mustard, 

Sunflower 

Lead x x 2.35 x 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/R1/npl_pad.nsf/0/7e6c98dcbb2aa65d85256c29006e78c4?OpenDocument Fort Dix NJ 1997 2002 Soil Indian Mustard, 

Sunflower, Grasses 

Lead o 1.25 o 

http://aec.army.mil/usaec/technology/fes48.html#Fort or http://www.dix.army.mil/ENVIRONMENT/greenrange090399.htmGalena Field Study KS 1995 2000 Soil Tall Fescue Cadmium, Lead, Zinc x x NA x http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PPHMF8000006000004000212000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes Unnamed Gary Site IN 2002 NA Soil Bullrush, Sedges, 

Cattails 

Arsenic, Lead x x 3 x 

http://www.wtamu.edu/~crobinson/Soils/forphytremd.htm or http://clu-in.org/download/studentpapers/hoffnagle-phytoremediation.pdf (Page A139) 
 Use of Field-Scale Phytotechnology for Chlorinated Solvents, Metals, Explosives and Propellants, and Pesticides 

Note: Some of these projects were successful in remediating contamination, while others were not. More detailed information, including points of contact, for these projects can be found in “Phytoremediation Field Studies Database for Chlorinated Solvents, Pesticides, Explosives, and Metals” (EPA 2004) 

GW=Groundwater; NA=Not Available; HC=Hydraulic Control; PD=Phytodegradation; PE=Phytoextraction; PS=Phytostabilization; PV=Phytovolatilization; RD=Rhizodegradation; RF=Rhizofiltration; 

*=Superfund; o=Federal or Military Site; x=All Other Sites 

A-9 

Phytomechanisms Site Size and Project Scale 

Site Name State 

Planting 

Date 

End 

Date Medium Vegetation Type Contaminants Treated HC PD PE PS PV RD RF Acreage

FullScale Pilot/Field Scale 

Jones Island Confined Disposal Facility 

WI 2002 NA Soil Eastern Cottonwood, 

Eastern Gamagrass, Coffee Weed, Ovalhead Sedge, Big Bluestem, Common Rush, Sunflower, Red Mulberry, White Mulberry 

Anthracene, PCBs, Heavy Metals 

 x 0.06 x 

http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/pubs/540r04508/540r04508a.pdf Magic Marker NJ 1996 NA Soil Indian Mustard, 

Sunflower 

Lead x 1.35 x 

http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/lrpcd/rcb/phytlead.htm or http://www.edenspace.com/qualification.htmlMetal Plating Facility 

OH 1996 1997 Soil Hybrid Poplar, 

Ryegrass, Indian Mustard 

Cadmium, Zinc x x 0.23 x 

http://clu-in.org/products/site/ongoing/demoong/phytotec.htm Former Orchard Site 

NJ 2001 NA Soil Brake Fern Arsenic o 0.23 o 

http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/isd/PUBS/DIGEST/PWDigest_may_june_02.pdf (Page 21) or http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33716-2004Aug25.htmlPort Colborne ON 2001 2003 Soil Corn, Soybeans, 

Radish, Oats, Alyssum 

Arsenic, Cobalt, Copper, Nickel 

 x 0.37 x 

http://www.inco.com/portcolborne/ Savannah River Site 

SC 1987 1992 Soil Bush Beans Cadmium, Thallium, 

Vanadium 

 x NA x 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0403485 or http://sti.srs.gov/fulltext/ms2000897/ms2000897.htmlSpring Valley DC 2004 NA Soil Hyperaccumulating 

Fern 

Arsenic o 0.06 o 

http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/cepa/pubs/oct04/STORY12.HTM or http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33716-2004Aug25.htmlC-H Plant Area: Texas City Chemicals 

TX NA NA GW Eucalyptus, Salt 

Cedar 

Cadmium, Copper, Lead, High Salinity 

x x x 27 x 

http://clu-in.org/download/studentpapers/hoffnagle-phytoremediation.pdf (Page A125) and Exhibit 4 
 Use of Field-Scale Phytotechnology for Chlorinated Solvents, Metals, Explosives and Propellants, and Pesticides 

Note: Some of these projects were successful in remediating contamination, while others were not. More detailed information, including points of contact, for these projects can be found in “Phytoremediation Field Studies Database for Chlorinated Solvents, Pesticides, Explosives, and Metals” (EPA 2004) 

GW=Groundwater; NA=Not Available; HC=Hydraulic Control; PD=Phytodegradation; PE=Phytoextraction; PS=Phytostabilization; PV=Phytovolatilization; RD=Rhizodegradation; RF=Rhizofiltration; 

*=Superfund; o=Federal or Military Site; x=All Other Sites 

A-10 

Phytomechanisms Site Size and Project Scale 

Site Name State 

Planting 

Date 

End 

Date Medium Vegetation Type Contaminants Treated HC PD PE PS PV RD RF Acreage

FullScale Pilot/Field Scale 

Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant 

MN 1998 1999 Soil Corn, White Mustard Antimony, Arsenic, Barium, 

Beryllium, Chromium, Lead, Thallium 

 o 0.2 o 

http://aec.army.mil/usaec/technology/cleanup04b.html Whitewood Creek SD 1991 1998 Soil Hybrid Poplar Arsenic, Cadmium, Copper x x 1 x http://clu-in.org/download/studentpapers/hoffnagle-phytoremediation.pdf (Page A153) 
APPENDIX B 

Examples of Phytotechnology Projects in Countries 

Other Than the United States and Canada 
Use of Field-Scale Phytotechnology for Chlorinated Solvents, Metals, Explosives and Propellants, and Pesticides 

 B-1 

APPENDIX B 

EXAMPLES OF PHYTOTECHNOLOGY PROJECTS 

IN COUNTRIES OTHER THAN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA 

Site Size and Project Scale 

Site Name Location 

Contaminants 

Treated Size 

FullScale Pilot/Field 

Scale Status 

Contaminated Paint 

Factory 

Czech Republic PCBs NA x Unknown 

Eka Chemicals Site Gothenberg, 

Sweden 

PCDFs, Chloralkalis NA NA NA Unknown 

Werk Tanne Harz, Germany TNT 25 by 20 

square 

meters 

NA NA Planted in 

May 1999 

Cooperative Farm Bytom, Poland Cadmium, Lead, 

Zinc 

0.5 

hectares 

x Ongoing 

(Planted in 

Spring 1997) 

Caslano Caslano, 

Switzerland 

Cadmium, 

Copper, Zinc 

Four 1 

by 1 

square 

meter 

plots 

 x Completed 

(1997-2001) 

Dornach Dornach, 

Switzerland 

Cadmium, 

Copper, Zinc 

Four 1 

by 1 

square 

meter 

plots 

 x Completed 

(1997-2001) 

Ecological 

Experimental Station 

of Red Soil 

Yingtan, Jangxi 

Province, China 

Cadmium, Lead, 

Zinc 

NA x Completed 

Lechang Lead and 

Zinc Mine Tailings 

Lechang City, 

Guangdong 

Province, China 

Cadmium, 

Copper, Lead, 

Zinc 

NA x Completed 

* This table contains examples of international phytotechnology projects and is not intended to be comprehensive. 

For more information regarding international phytotechnology research, refer to European Cooperation in the Field 

of Scientific and Technical Research (COST) Action 859: “Phytotechnologies to Promote Sustainable Land Use 

and Improve Food Safety” (http://cost.cordis.lu/src/pdf/859-e.pdf).