Assessing

Phytoremediation’s Progress
DANIËL VAN DER LELIE ,

J E A N - PAU L S C H W I T Z G U É B E L ,

D AV I D J . G L A S S ,

JACO VANGRONSVELD,

AND ALAN BAKER

in the United States
and Europe
Although commercial success stories abound,
an urgent need still exists for more research
hytoremediation—using plants and trees to
P remove or neutralize contaminants—holds
great promise for unobtrusively and cost-
effectively treating soils, groundwater, and
wastewaters contaminated with heavy met-
als, organic xenobiotics, and radionuclides. Although
still an emerging technology, the phytoremediation
market is fast-growing, especially in the United States
and Europe (1).
Like any other new approach, phytoremediation
will only be accepted if its success is demonstrated.
The key factors are low cost (compared to classical re-
mediation techniques) and aesthetic aspects, mak-
ing it suitable for remediating large contaminated
sites in populated areas.
U.S. researchers pioneered phytoremediation
demonstration projects and can be largely credited for
the positive image that phytoremediation has today.
As a result of its more conservative attitude toward
demonstration projects, only a few successful, well-
documented demonstration projects have been per-
formed in Europe (Table 1).
Comparison of recent developments in Europe
and the United States shows that efforts to market
LOEL BARR
the technology are somewhat different on the two
sides of the Atlantic. Despite differences and a grow-
© 2001 American Chemical Society
and demonstration projects.
ing track record of commercial success, more demon-
stration projects will be needed to prove that this new
green technology works, quantify its underlying eco-
nomics, and expand applications.
Scope of applications
Potential obstacles to large-scale application of phy-
toremediation technologies include the time required
for remediation, the pollutant levels tolerated by the
plants used, and the fact that only the bioavailable
fraction of the contaminants will be treated. From eco-
logical, toxicological, and health points of view, the
bioavailable fraction should be the most important
consideration, but present environmental regulations
are mainly based on total pollutant concentrations.
An example application of a current risk-based
phytoremediation concept involves using metal-in-
activating soil additives such as coal fly ash or zeo-
lites combined with revegetation. Using these soil
amendments strongly reduces the availability of met-
als to plant uptake and limits eventual toxicity to
plants, allowing revegetation of contaminated sites.
Establishment of the vegetative cover markedly de-
creases metal leaching to groundwater and prevents
the dispersal of polluted dusts through wind and rain
erosion from formerly bare sites (2, 3).
NOVEMBER 1, 2001 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY I 447 A
 TA B L E 1

European phytoremediation field projects

These projects, successfully carried out in Europe, indicate the range of applications possible for cleanup of sites contaminated with
heavy metals and organic compounds.

Site name, location Institution Plant species Contaminants

Czechowice oil refinery, Phytotech, Florida State Brassica juncea Pb, Cd

Katowice, Poland University, Institute for Ecology
of Industrial Areas

Former landfill, Switzerland Swiss Federal Institute Salix viminalis (willow) Zn, Cd
of Technology
Sewage disposal site,
United Kingdom University of Glasgow Salix species (willow) Ni, Cu, Zn, Cd

Zinc waste landfill, International Graduate School H. annuus, C. sativa, Zn

Hlemyzdi, Czech Republic Zittau Z. mays, C. halleri

Zinc/copper-contaminated site, Several Improved tobacco plants Cu, Cd, Zn

Dornach, Switzerland

Zinc/cadmium-contaminated Limburgs University Grasses for phyto- Zn, Cd, Pb, Cu

playing ground, Overpelt, and zinc stabilization
smelter site, Lommel, Belgium

Zinc/cadmium-contaminated soil, Limburgs University Brassica napus for Zn, Cd, Pb

Balen, Belgium phytoextraction

Oil well blowout, Trecate, Italy Battelle Europe Alfalfa, clover, corn, rye, Petroleum hydrocarbons
sorghum, and soy

BTEX-contaminated groundwater, Limburgs University Populus x canadensis BTEX (benzene, toluene,

Ghent, Belgium (poplar) ethylbenzene, xylene)

In contrast, phytoextraction requires the avail-
ability of metals to plants. In fact, amending the soil
with chemical chelators that increase metal bioavail-
ability, uptake, and translocation in plants has been
proposed as a way to overcome bioavailability limi-
tations, but this necessitates careful mass balances
to confirm that metals mobilized by chelators are not
leached to groundwater. Using synthetic chelator
chemicals is a questionable practice from an envi-
ronmental standpoint. Natural chelators of plant or
microbial origin seem more promising. Microbial pro-
tection of plants against phytotoxic concentrations,
however, is often based on exclusion of heavy met-
als, and therefore, it is uncertain whether an approach
based on chemical chelators is practical for improv-
ing phytoremediation.
Broadening the technology’s applicability will re-
quire using plants that perform better. This is partic-
ularly true for phytoremediating metals, which
requires plants with high biomass production and
heavy metal uptake and translocation capacities.
Plants phytoremediating organic xenobiotics would
also need increased degradation potential. Use of ge-
netically modified plants and organisms is conceiv-
able, but this approach must consider the safety of
modified plants, potential risks of transferring cont-
aminants to the food chain, and environmental im-
pacts. An alternative phytoremediation enhancement
strategy might rely on improved interactions between
plants, rhizospheric bacteria, and mycorrhizal fungi,
an approach that often assists plants in overcoming
toxicity problems.
The economics of phytoremediation is generally
favorable but can be improved. One option is using
plants that provide added value by producing bio-
mass. For example, oil- or fragrance-producing plants
such as vetiver, lavender, or coriander could be used
and their valuable oil and fragrance products recov-
ered. Alternatively, combustion can reduce the vol-
ume of contaminated biomass, followed by selective
recovery of heavy metals from residual ash.
Depending on the type and concentration of the
metal, this could provide an economically valuable re-
cycled product.
In developing phytoremediation strategies, pre-
harvest parameters (type and degree of pollution,
plant selection, treatability, agronomic techniques,
groundwater capture zone, uptake rate, transpiration
rate, and required cleanup time) and postharvest eval-
uation parameters (collection, residues, waste dis-

448 A I ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NOVEMBER 1, 2001

posal, and contaminated plant material treatment) and was aimed at designing a suitable containment
must be considered. The success of phytoremedia- system for safe application of metal chelators.
tion thus depends on many biological, physical, and • Rhizodegradation investigated an integrated con-
chemical parameters with help from plant physiolo- cept for in situ remediation of hydrocarbons in soil
gists, agronomists, soil scientists, and engineers. through enhanced degradation by rhizospheric mi-
Creating multidisciplinary project teams to accom- croorganisms.
plish these tasks depends on funding opportunities, Over the past few years, however, European re-
and it is in this arena that differences between United search also has stronger involvement of small- and
States and European phytoremediation approaches medium-sized business enterprises. This might reflect
become evident. a general tendency to support more applications-
oriented research. EC-funded phytoremediation re-
Funding search is mostly aimed at heavy metals contamination,
Substantial funding has been allocated to phytore- despite the fact that soil and groundwater pollution by
mediation research in the United States and Europe, organic xenobiotics is a much more serious problem.
although the driving forces behind the type of re- Industrial funding for phytoremediation research
search performed in each of these markets differ. In has been very limited in Europe, and in general, much
Europe, phytoremediation research has been more of the long-term, ongoing research started in Europe
basic research-driven, with applications determined has been very broad-based research, supported by
by research outcomes. In the United States, phytore-
mediation research has always been more applica-
(a)
tion- and experience-driven. This may reflect a
U.S. culture supportive of entrepreneurship and risk
taking in business ventures, thereby accounting for a
larger, more mature phytoremediation industry and
a greater emphasis on applied research, even within
academia. Another explanation could be differences
in the types of funding support.
In Europe, the major opportunities involve basic
and exploratory research, although the increasing ten-
dency is for more applications-driven research, as
demonstrated by several phytoremediation projects
presently supported by the European Commission
(EC) 5th Framework Program (1999–2002):
• The Phytodec project is a decision support system
for quantifying the costs and benefits of using vege-
tation for managing metal-polluted soils and dredged
sediments. (b)
• Another project, Phytoc, evaluates willow planta-
tions for phytorehabilitation of contaminated arable
land and floodplain areas.
• Myrrh considers mycorrhizal fungi for phytostabi-
lizing radionuclide-contaminated environments.
• Mycorem explores whether mycorrhizal fungi oc-
curring at naturally contaminated sites confer toler-
ances to crop plants in soils polluted by heavy metals,
salts, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.
• Endegrade examines the use of endophytic bacte-
ria to improve plant degradation of organic xenobi-
otics.
• Last, Piramid combines artificial wetlands and sub-
surface reactive barriers for passive in situ remedia-
tion of acidic mine and industrial drainage.
Phytoremediation also received some support dur-
ing the previous 4th Framework Program (1995–1998).
These projects, which were more driven by basic re-
search than the projects presently funded by the EC,
included the following undertakings.
• Phytorehab compared strategies for rehabilitating
metal-polluted soils, including in situ phytoremedi-
ation, immobilization, and revegetation.
• Biorenew studies biomass fuel crops for bioremedi-
ating economic renewing degraded industrial lands. Thissite atM aatheide,Belgium ,heavilycontam inated
• Phytorem addressed phytoremediation of metal- w ith Zn,Cd,and Pb,isshow n here (a)before and (b)after
contaminated soil in a controlled land treatment unit phytostabilization using a 5% beringite soiladditive.

NOVEMBER 1, 2001 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY I 449 A

 national funding. Research has only recently been di-
rected to phytoremediation applicability, due to new
funding opportunities.
In Europe, some coordination of phytoremedia-
tion efforts at the level of national research projects
and a successful network have been established under
the framework of COST Action 837 (http://lbewww.
epfl.ch/COST837), a unique European initiative es-
tablished at the end of 1998. Several American pro-
grams foster cooperation of various kinds, but they
often lack the interdisciplinary approach that COST
has assembled. In fact, a common complaint in the
United States among remediation professionals and
researchers alike is that engineers with remediation
expertise and experience do not always communi-
cate with scientists who understand the underlying
basis of the remediation approach. The ability of
COST Action 837 to bring together researchers with
different backgrounds is unique in this respect.
Early research on phytoremediating organic con-
taminants in the United States started in entrepre-
neurial companies like Ecolotree, Phytokinetics, and
Applied Natural Sciences. Some early applications-
oriented research was conducted and funded by the
U.S. EPA. In spite of long years of pioneering basic re-
search on hyperaccumulation, metals phytoremedi-
ation did not reach its current established level in the
United States until the mid-1990s, with the founding
of Phytotech.
Most U.S. phytoremediation research is govern-
ment funded—traditional federal support of acade-
mic research, small business grants to companies for
applied research, and funding of remediation pro-
jects. Basic phytoremediation research is most com-
monly funded by individual competitive grants
awarded by government agencies, including EPA, the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE). Individual research
projects more specific to a given remediation prob-
lem are funded by these agencies, as well as by var-
ious services within the U.S. Department of Defense
(DOD). Several programs within or among agencies,
such as the DOD/DOE/EPA Strategic Environmental
Research and Development Program (SERDP) and
DOD’s Environmental Security Technology
Certification Program have actively funded phytore-
mediation laboratory and field projects. Because the
funding comes from divisions of these agencies de-
voted to solving real-world environmental problems,
the projects by their very nature are more applica-
tions-focused.
A limited number of larger-scale funding programs
in the United States focuses on phytoremediation.
EPA has funded phytoremediation research at the
Great Plains/Rocky Mountain Hazardous Substance
Research Center (HSRC) for about 10 years. Although
this program is based at Kansas State University, funds
have been distributed to 14 U.S. universities. In
September 2000, a competitive phytoremediation
grant program was announced as a joint effort of EPA,
the National Science Foundation, the Office of Naval
Research, and SERDP. Applications were solicited for
field research projects addressing the fundamental
interaction mechanisms among microorganisms,
450 A I ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NOVEMBER 1, 2001
Phytostabilization of heavy
metal-polluted soils, with or
without addition of soil
additives, is a proven
technology.
plants, and contaminants in soils and sediments that
result in the degradation, extraction, volatilization, or
stabilization of waste chemicals. The program en-
courages collaborations of life scientists with engi-
neers, and it is hoped that projects will take place on
existing field sites controlled by the funding agencies.
At this writing, no grants have been awarded.
Industrial and private phytoremediation work in
the United States is also supported. Although it is a
larger effort than in Europe, we are not aware of pub-
lished figures quantifying relative amounts of spend-
ing on phytoremediation research in the American
public and private sectors. Information on amounts
of industrial funding is often confidential and hard to
obtain. Many field phytoremediation projects un-
dertaken in the United States have been conducted
at sites owned by private companies, either as pilot
research projects or as part of actual remediation ef-
forts. Various chemical and petroleum companies
have led these efforts (4, 5), as well as industrial con-
sortia, such as the Petroleum Environmental Research
Forum and the International Lead and Zinc Research
Organization.
Applications and needs
Phytostabilization of heavy metal-polluted soils, with
or without addition of soil additives, is a proven tech-
nology, as indicated by the many successful studies
in both Europe and the United States. In Europe, one
of the most successful examples was the use of berin-
gite for treating a site heavily contaminated with Zn
and Cd at Maatheide, Belgium (see photos on pre-
vious page). Beringite is a modified aluminosilicate
that originates from the fluidized bed burning of coal
refuse from the former coal mine of Beringen
(Belgium). The high metal immobilizing capacity of
beringite is based on chemical precipitation, ion ex-
change, and crystal growth. Unfortunately, this ad-
ditive is no longer available. Several studies are
seeking alternatives. Although these initiatives are
strongly supported by regional and national gov-
ernments, indicating their willingness to accept in
situ immobilization as a remediation strategy, most
recognize a need for cost-effective systems to mon-
itor the sustainability of phytostabilization (3).
Because physical, chemical, and ecological parame-
ters were all evaluated at the Maatheide site during
the past decade, it provides an excellent example of
the sustainability of heavy metal immobilization
combined with revegetation (2). Similar experiments
have been performed near a copper rod plant in
Prescot, United Kingdom (6).
 Phytoextraction of heavy metals has been success-
fully applied, mostly in the United States. The most
publicized example was Phytotech’s (now part of
Edenspace Corp.) phytoextraction of lead at a
Superfund site in New Jersey—a facility formerly oper-
ated by a battery manufacturer (7 ). Phytotech has also
phytoremediated a lead-contaminated site in Bayonne,
NJ, and at a residential site in Dorchester, MA.
Phytomining of nickel is newer. Its primary aim is
cost-efficient nickel mining instead of decontamina-
tion. Nickel has a high value on the world market,
compared with other heavy metal contaminants, such
as cadmium, zinc, and lead. Moreover, several high
biomass-producing natural nickel-hyperaccumula-
tor plants such as the South African Berckheya rod-
dii are available. Recently, a hyperaccumulator fern
(Pteris vittata) was discovered for arsenic, which could
also lead to interesting applications (8).
An ideal plant for metal phytoextraction is toler-
ant to accumulated metal concentrations and accu-
mulates metal(s) in aboveground leaves and stems.
It should also have fast-growing biomass that is high-
ly metal-accumulating and easily harvested (9). In
addition, genetic engineering of plants opens up new
possibilities for phytoremediating metal-polluted
soils. Several metal transporter genes from small hy-
peraccumulator plants have been characterized, and
these may be a potential source of genes for high bio-
mass-producing hyperaccumulators. Another strate-
gy for remediating metals involves introducing
gene-encoding enzymes (often bacterial) that detox-
ify metals by changing their redox state or by chem-
ically converting them into less hazardous
compounds.
Phytoremediating organic xenobiotics is becom-
ing increasingly popular as an unobtrusive, cost-
effective remediation strategy and is enjoying con-
siderable commercial use and success in the United
States. Several European and U.S. academic research
teams are working to unravel the mechanisms un-
derlying uptake, transformation, and accumulation of
organic pollutants, such as pesticides, chlorinated
solvents, and sulfonated aromatic compounds re-
leased by dye and textile industries.
It is becoming increasingly clear that plants con-
tain a complex array of enzymes that can detoxify
herbicides and other xenobiotics (10–12). Plants read-
ily take up moderately hydrophobic soil contami-
nants having log Kow values between 0.5 and 3.5, and
rhizospheric microorganisms can degrade more hy-
drophobic pollutants. More research is required to
better understand and exploit the interactions be-
tween plants, microorganisms, and organic xenobi-
Phytoremediating organic
xenobiotics is becoming
increasingly popular as an
unobtrusive, cost-effective
remediation strategy.
otics and to use this information to improve phy-
toremediation efficiency in the field.
Although many organic pollutants are metabolized
in plants, some xenobiotics can be toxic, limiting the
applicability of phytoremediation. Moreover, in phy-
toremediating volatile organic chlorinated compounds,
BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene), and
MTBE (methyl tert-butyl ether) plants can release the
compounds and their metabolites to the atmosphere,
which udermines the merits of phytoremediation for
these applications. This problem has prompted sever-
al researchers to examine alternative strategies, in-
cluding the use of improved rhizodegradation.
However, although rhizospheric microorganisms can
improve phytoremediation of hydrophobic com-
pounds, such as hydrocarbons, recent results suggest
that numerous compounds enter the plant faster than
soil microflora can degrade them (13).
A study of phytoremediation of hydrocarbon-pol-
luted agricultural soils that was successfully con-
ducted in Trecate, Italy, is instructive (14). Soil
contaminated following a blowout of a land-based
oil well underwent treatment in a biopile before
being replaced in its original location. During three
growing seasons, the ability of 11 agricultural plants
to stimulate hydrocarbon removal via microbial
degradation and plant uptake was compared with
land farming and natural attenuation. Total petrole-
um hydrocarbon reduction during the third season
ranged from 0.21 to 0.57 kg/m2 in planted parcels,
whereas the average reduction in land-farmed
parcels was only 0.01 kg/m2. Maize and sorghum
were very efficient for such applications. Other hy-
drocarbon phytoremediation projects are under way
in Europe (13).
A special phytoremediation application is con-
structed wetlands for cleanup of effluents and
drainage waters. For example, a constructed wetland
near Aveiro in Portugal has successfully treated in-
dustrial effluents containing nitrogenous aromatic
compounds from an aniline and nitrobenzene pro-
duction plant for several years (project Reciclam). Up
to 100% reductions in aromatic compounds are ob-
tained using reed beds on a total planted area of
10,000 m2. The reduction efficiency depends on the
acclimatization period for inlet effluent compositions
of 10–300 mg/L aniline, 10–100 mg/L nitrobenzene,
and 10–30 mg/L nitrophenols.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways
Experiment Station in Vicksburg, MS, is developing a
wetlands system to treat groundwater contaminated
with 1 mg/L TNT (2,4,6-trinitrotoluene) and up to 13
mg/L RDX (hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine).
Laboratory studies led to the selection of three aquat-
ic species: coon-tail (Ceratophyllum demersum),
pondweed (Potamogeton nodosus), and emergent ar-
rowhead (Sagittaria latifolia), which all reduced TNT
levels by 95%, and RDX by 80%. It is believed that re-
mediation using these species involves endogenous
enzyme systems (nitroreductase, dioxygenases, and
laccase). A full-scale trial has been initiated (15, 16).
Radionuclide phytoremediation is less well docu-
mented, but some trials have been performed.
Laboratory and greenhouse studies have determined
NOVEMBER 1, 2001 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY I 451 A
 Radionuclide
phytoremediation is less
well documented,
but some trials have been
performed.
the phytoremediation potential for removing low lev-
els of Cs-137 at a former waste disposal site at
Argonne National Laboratory’s facility in Idaho.
Willow, Kochia scoparia (a weedy plant) and Brassica
napus (colza) were tested on spiked soil and found ca-
pable of 40–60% removal of Cs-137 under greenhouse
conditions. The results suggest that four to seven years
would be needed for field remediation at this partic-
ular site. MSE, Phytotech, and the Cornell–
USDA group have also conducted laboratory and ini-
tial field studies on removal of Cs-137 from contami-
nated soils. Studies in pots identified species from the
mustard (Brassicaceae) and amaranth (Amaranthaceae)
families that could accumulate threefold more
Cs-137 in leaf and stem biomass than concentrations
present in test soils. In field trials, redroot pigweed
(A. retroflexus L.) showed the best performance, ac-
cumulating ⬎900 pCi/g, well over the goal of 300
pCi/g.
Phytotech also conducted a field trial of rhizofil-
tration, using sunflowers in a greenhouse-based
hydroponic reactor, and found that uranium-
contaminated water at concentrations ≤350 µg/L
could be reduced 95% within 24 hours. Con-
centrations of uranium in roots were 5000–10,000
times greater than water. Using sunflowers grown on
rafts in a contaminated pond, Phytotech conducted
a field trial on surface water contaminated with
Cs-137 and Sr-90 from the Chernobyl, Ukraine, nu-
clear accident and showed a dramatic reduction in
radionuclide levels in the water in a four- to eight-
week period. In 12 days, plant roots had Cs and Sr
concentrations 8000- and 2000-fold higher than
groundwater, respectively.
Outreach
Initiatives have been undertaken to improve the dis-
semination of results to the general public and the sci-
ence community. The most significant are the
Phytonet discussion group (www.dsa.unipr.it/
phytonet), the EPA’s Citizen’s Guide to Phytoreme-
diation (http://cluin.org/products/citguide/phyto2.
htm), and a forthcoming publication by the Interstate
Technology and Regulatory Cooperation Working
Group, which explains phytoremediation and its ap-
plications primarily for state and local regulators. In
addition, the Kansas State University HSRC program
sponsors the Phytoremediation Discussion Group
(www.engg.ksu.edu/HSRC/phytorem).
These undertakings primarily target the scientif-
ic community rather than the general public and are
aimed at creating discussions among scientists from
different disciplines. Overall, the message is that there
452 A I ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NOVEMBER 1, 2001
is an urgent need for research aimed at fundamen-
tal understanding of mechanisms involved in soil
and plant compartments and demonstration pro-
jects to optimize the phytoremediation process and
convince regulators and the general public of the
technique’s applicability.
Acknowledgment
D.v.d.L. is supported by Laboratory Directed Research
and Development funds at the Brookhaven National
Laboratory under contract with the U.S. Department
of Energy.
References
(1) Glass, D. J. U.S. and International Markets for
Phytoremediation, 1999–2000; D. Glass Associates, Inc.:
Needham, MA, 1999.
(2) Vangronsveld, J.; Colpaert, J.; van Tichelen, K. Environ.
Pollut. 1996, 94, 131–140.
(3) Tibazarwa, C.; Corbisier, P.; Mench, M.; Bossus, A.; Solda,
P.; Mergeay, M.; Wyns, L.; van der Lelie, D. Environ. Pollut.
2001, 113, 19–26.
(4) Huang, J. W.; Chen, J.; Cunningham, S. D. Phytoextraction
of lead from contaminated soils. In Phytoremediation of
Soil and Water Contaminants; Kruger, E. L., Anderson, T.
A., Coats, J. R., Eds.; ACS Symposium Series No. 664.;
American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1997; pp.
283–298.
(5) Tsao, D. The industrialist’s perspective—Can phytoreme-
diation really deliver what industry needs? In IBC’s 4th
Annual International Conference on Phytoremediation,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada; June 23–25, 1999; International
Business Communications: Southborough, MA, 1999.
(6) Rebedea, I. Ph.D. Thesis, John Moores University,
Liverpool, United Kingdom, 1997.
(7) Blaylock, M. J. Phytoremediation of lead-contaminated
soil at a brownfield site in New Jersey—A cost-effective
alternative. In IBC’s 2nd Annual International Conference
on Phytoremediation, Seattle, WA, June 18–19, 1997;
International Business Communications: Southborough,
MA, 1997.
(8) Ma, L. Q.; Komar, K. M.; Tu, C.; Zhang, W.; Cai, Y.; Kennelley,
E. D. Nature 2001, 409, 579.
(9) Reeves, R. D.; Baker, A. J. M. Metal-accumulating plants.
In Phytoremediation of toxic metals—Using plants to clean
up the environment; Raskin, I., Ensley, B. D., Eds.; Wiley
and Sons: New York, 2000; pp. 193–229.
(10) Coleman, J. O. D.; Blake-Kalff, M. M. A.; Davies, T. G. E.
Trends Plant Sci. 1997, 2, 144–151.
(11) Edwards, R.; Dixon, D. P.; Walbot, V. Trends Plant Sci. 2000,
5, 193–198.
(12) Werck-Reichhart, D.; Hehn, A.; Didierjean, L. Trends Plant
Sci. 2000, 5, 116–123.
(13) Trapp, S.; Karlson, U. J. Soils Sed. 2001, 1, 1–7.
(14) Plata, N. Ph.D. Thesis Nr 2306, EPFL, Lausanne,
Switzerland, 2000.
(15) Hughes, J. B.; Shanks, J.; Vanderford, M.; Lauritzen, J.;
Bhadra, R. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1997, 31, 266–271.
(16) Thompson, P. L.; Ramer, L. A.; Schnoor, J. L. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 1998, 32, 975–980.
Daniël van der Lelie is a senior scientist at Brookhaven
National Laboratory, Upton, NY. Jean-Paul Schwitzguébel
is senior scientist at the Swiss Federal Institute of
Technology Lausanne, Laboratory for Environmental
Biotechnology, Lausanne, Switzerland and the chair of
COST Action 837. David J. Glass is the chief executive of-
ficer at Applied PhytoGenetics, Inc., Athens, GA, and head
of D. Glass Associates, Inc., Needham, MA. Jaco
Vangronsveld is a professor at Limburgs Universitair
Centrum, Centre for Environmental Sciences, Diepenbeek,
Belgium. Alan Baker is professor at the University of
Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.