JAN 30

Auto maker Chrysler is pairing with Purdue University researchers to clean up pollutants at a former oil storage site in Kokomo, Indiana. They are turning not merely to technology but to nature. Specially bred transgenic poplar trees are being planted by the researchers, funded by Chrysler.

These trees have proven capable of absorbing trichloroethylene, or TCE, and other pollutants including leukemia-causing benzene. The pollutants are then metabolized into harmless products. They remove pollutants 100 times faster than non-genetically modified poplars.

The research is funded by a $1.3 million-grant as exploring ways to alter the trees to absorb even more pollution. Richard Meilan, a Purdue associate professor, is leading the study. The duration of the study is relatively short term and is designed to minimize genetic impact via breeding with natural trees; Meilan explains, "Three years should be enough time for them to grow up, send down roots to suck the pollutants up and break them down, then we'll cut them down before they have the chance to pass on their genes to the environment."

The burgeoning field of using plants to remove pollution is known as phytoremediation. If the study succeeds, poplars may become one of the field's biggest tools, as they are relatively hardy and grow over a broad range of climates.

Via Purdue University

Comments (6)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Yes, but...
written by Scott, January 30, 2008

I know people think that phytoremediation is a great thing (round the clock cleanup with minimal effort and no heavy equipment) but I keep feeling like everyone overlooks the fact that you're essentially pulling up toxins higher into the food chain. How do you prevent insects from dining on the trees? How do you prevent birds from eating said insects? And on and on up the chain.

While I applaud the idea, this is the same kind of thinking that brought us invasive plants and animals under the guise that it would help with a different problem.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

"metabolized into harmless products"
written by Scott T., January 30, 2008

I'm very much not qualified to really answer your question, but if I understand "metabolized into harmless products" correctly, this means the pollutants are not just absorbed, but also transformed by the plants into non-harmful compounds. The goes beyond sequestration into plant matter and also moves the "processing" of the pollutants into the plants, which is very appealing if it works like I think it does.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Phytoremediation Expert
written by gmoke, January 30, 2008

John Todd has been a pioneer in phytoremediation. It might be good to ask him what he thinks.

My suspicion, based upon my talks with John, is that there are probably a lot of existing plants which can perform phytoremediation without the need of producing transgenic strains. I would venture to say that the natural remediators have not been completely studied. The move to transgenics is more likely to be based upon profit than science.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Snark, January 31, 2008

I'm leery of transgenics; I'm a former employee of the EPA who helped prepare the agency's comments on the USDA GMO crop environmental impact statement, and my research at the time demonstrated a slew of possible impacts that current policy does not address or anticipate. I'm not intrinsically against the idea of GMOs, the possibility of unintended metabolic and phenotypic changes arising from the process of genetic modification concerns me greatly. A slight change to the incredibly complicated plant genome-metabolism complex could have significant ecological effects, and I'm unconvinced that testing procedure is stringent enough to assure us that those effects are negligible.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Mr
written by Richard Davine, January 31, 2008

Frankenstein's trees whoopee! Something unnatural fixing something polluting. Let's invent new ways of staying with old and polluting technologies.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Snark, February 01, 2008

"Something unnatural fixing something polluting."

What I can't get behind are superstitious, poorly informed arguments like this. "Unnatural" doesn't cut the mustard, guys. There are legitimate arguments against GMOs, and illegitimate ones - and all this emo crap about unnatural and frankenfoods doesn't convince anyone who matters.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (registered users only)

Add Comment