Many of Ukraine’s wheat fields have been turned into agricultural wasteland over the past five years, polluted by bombs, mines and chemicals. Even once the war ends, scientists predict it could take many years and at least $20 billion to remove the toxic elements and heavy metals that now contaminate the land.
It is a familiar story in Syria and Sudan. Yet war is not the only force poisoning soils. Industries such as mining and agriculture pollute billions of tonnes of soil every year, meaning the challenge is no longer simply about preventing harm, but also repairing damage already done.
A growing global contamination problem
RemePhy, a new start-up from Imperial College London, believes it can help. Founded by two PhD students, the company has used genetic modification (GM) to create plants that it claims can extract heavy metals from soil up to 17 times more efficiently than conventional phytoremediation approaches.
The company even hopes Ukraine could become a future testing ground. While RemePhy has yet to begin commercial sales, it is already in discussions with EU stakeholders about using its technology to help restore contaminated land.
Co-founder Franklin Keck explained the company’s journey so far.
From PhD project to start-up
AN: Where did RemePhy come from?
Franklin Keck: When I started my PhD at Imperial, the lab asked me to work on phytoremediation because it already had a patented process for extracting heavy metals and contaminants from biomass. What was missing was a way to move those heavy metals from contaminated soil into the plant.
I came up with a system that uses a small number of genes to introduce a bacterial endophyte into a plant. It worked well, we secured a patent, and eventually spun the technology out into a company which has recently received funding.
Field trials begin
AN: And the plants were created using GM?
Keck: It’s a GM product but, obviously, the EU has historically been cautious about GM products. That’s why we also have a wild-type version that is non-GM. Within the next couple of weeks we’re taking these non-GM plants to Newcastle for a field trial.
AN: So there’s a GM version and a non-GM version, and this will be the first field trial with the non-GM version?
Keck: It’ll be the first field trial, full stop.
AN: So how do you know it works?
Keck: My PhD data showed we could achieve around 17 times greater uptake of heavy metals compared with the wild type. However, all of that work was conducted in laboratory conditions using contaminated pots.
Now we have to move from laboratory testing to glasshouse studies and then field trials. If those stages are successful, we can move towards commercialisation.
AN: When do you hope to go commercial?
Keck: Hopefully within the next year and a half for both products.
Why mining comes first
AN: What plants are you using? They’re not crops?
Keck: No. Their sole purpose is to remediate contaminated land. Downstream of that, we’ve already spoken to multiple companies that can separate the heavy metals from the harvested biomass.
AN: How do you see it being used in practice?
Keck: The market we’ve decided to focus on first is mining.
There are maps showing both abandoned and active mines worldwide, and it’s quite remarkable. The entire globe lights up. Almost every country has at least one mine that has generated waste that has simply been left behind.
AN: What’s the incentive for mining companies to adopt this technology?
Keck: We’re estimating that we’re around three to five times cheaper than conventional methods.
Typically, mining companies use soil washing or “dig and dump” approaches, where contaminated soil is physically removed and relocated. That can cost hundreds of thousands of pounds per acre.
We haven’t commercialised the technology yet, but based on our techno-economic analysis we believe remediation could cost between £30,000 and £50,000 per acre.
If you establish a mine in the UK, for example, you’re generally required to remediate the land after operations cease. Regulations vary between countries, but the principle remains the same.
A future role in agriculture
AN: And will it be available to farmers as well?
Keck: Ideally, yes.
Phosphates and nitrates can accumulate in soils and, under certain conditions, rainfall can mobilise associated heavy metals into rivers and oceans.
Our field experiment is designed to test whether planting our remediation crops can reduce heavy-metal concentrations to levels considered safe for food production.
Agriculture is more complicated because there are additional regulatory requirements. That’s one reason we’re starting with mining.
AN: So mining applications could be available in late 2027, with agriculture following a few years later?
Keck: Yes, perhaps in 2028 or 2029.
But it’s difficult to be definitive at this stage. The field trial is a major milestone and will determine how quickly we can move forward with commercialisation of the non-GM variety.
The business model
AN: What’s the business model?
Keck: It’s still evolving because the technology isn’t commercially deployed yet.
The first option is a seed-based model. Customers purchase either GM or non-GM seeds, we return to harvest the plants, process the biomass, and separate out the heavy metals.
That means the entire value chain sits within RemePhy, including remediation, recycling and the eventual sale of recovered metals.
The second option is a licensing model, where customers pay a licence fee, receive the seeds, and manage the remediation process themselves.
AN: Why would somebody choose the first route? Presumably the metals themselves have value?
Keck: They do. But many customers don’t have the infrastructure, expertise or commercial relationships needed to recover and sell the metals. In some cases, the concentration of metal is so low that they’re primarily interested in cleaning up the land rather than monetising the recovered material.
