Review Article
Phytoremediation Approaches for Heavy Metal Pollution: A Review
Shobhika Parmar* and Vir Singh
Corresponding author: Shobhika Parmar, Department of Environmental Science, College of Basic Sciences andHumanities, GB Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar - 263145, Uttarakhand, India; E-mail: shobikaparmar@gmail.com
Department of Environmental Science, College of Basic Sciences and Humanities, GB Pant University of Agriculture andTechnology, Pantnagar - 263145, Uttarakhand, India
Citation: Parmar S, Singh V. Phytoremediation Approaches for Heavy Metal Pollution: A Review. J Plant Sci Res. 2015;2(2): 139.
Copyright © 2015 Parmar S, et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Journal of Plant Science & Research | ISSN: 2349-2805 | Volume: 2, Issue: 2
Submission: 19/09/2015; Accepted: 21/10/2015; Published: 30/10/2015
Abstract
Soil pollution due to heavy metals derived from anthropogenic activities is a major global concern. Detrimental effects of heavy metals on the environment and human health are now well understood. A major challenge is removal and reduction of heavy metal contamination. Of all the remediation techniques available for metal-contaminated soil, phytoremediation is the most cost-effective, environmentally friendly, and practical approach. Phytoremediationincludes the removal, relocation, or reduction of contaminants using plants that hyperaccumulate these contaminants. On the basis of the mode of action, phytoremediation is subdivided into subclasses such as phytostabilization, phytofiltration, phytovolatilization, and phytoextraction. In this review, we discuss the need for phytoremediation and its approaches with a special context to the heavy metals.
Keywords: Heavy metals; Hyperaccumulation; Phytoextraction; Phytofiltration; Phytostabilization; Phytovolatization
Introduction
Detrimental effects of heavy metals on the environment areevident. Soil contaminated with heavy metals is often deprived ofnutrients and microbial diversity, and the high concentration ofheavy metals cause the plants to accumulate these metals or affectthe growth and development of plants [1,2]. The disposal of thesemetals into the soil aggravates soil health problems [3]. Furthermore,these metals when present in different concentrations can be scarce,optimum, or phytotoxic to the plants [4]. Therefore, removal of theheavy metals from the environment by using remediation techniquesis critical.
In environmental science, remediation is a method for reducingor removing the pollutants by acting on the source of contaminationto protect the environment and humans from the harmful effects ofthe contaminants. Returning the contaminated soil to its natural stateis not always possible but necessary. Remediation activities should always be economical and optimized, and the outcome shouldbe balanced amid the benefits, risks, expenditure, and feasibility.Therefore, any acceptable remediation measures can be aptly plannedby understanding the source and nature of contamination, the site,and remediation technologies to be adopted.
Various techniques are available for remediation. The simplestmethod is to remove the uppermost layer of the contaminated soil bydigging and landfilling or capping the contaminated site. However,this method has disadvantages and risks. There is always a possibilitythat the contaminant can leak out during excavation, handling,transporting, and capping, which might contaminate the ground water.In addition, this method is very expensive and laborious. Differenttechniques are available for the remediation of metal-contaminatedsoil, namely chemical, physical, and biological techniques [5]. Thechemical method involves the use of harsh chemicals for chemicalwash, such as leaching of heavy metals using chelating agents [6].Therefore, researchers developed the bioremediation technique, a process by which organic wastes are biologically degraded undercontrolled conditions to an innocuous state or to levels below theconcentration limits established by regulatory authorities [7].
Chemical and physical remediation techniques are costly.According to Glass et al., the cost of land filling for a contaminated site and chemical recycling of contaminants varies between 100 and 500US$/ton, and the cost for electrokinetic monitoring is approximately20–200 US$/ton, whereas the cost involved in phytoextraction is5-40 US$/ton. Therefore, phytoextraction is an effective low-costtechnique for the enhanced remediation of metal-contaminatedsoil [8]. Phytoremediation provides sustainable measures for theremediation of metal-contaminated soil.
Phytoremediation approaches and hyperaccumulation ofmetals in plants
Phytoremediation is defined as the use of plants to remove,transfer, and degrade contaminants in soil, sediment, and water [9].Phytoremediation uses living organisms, particularly plants andmicroorganisms, to reduce, eliminate, transform, and detoxify benignproducts present in soil, sediments, water, and air. Phytoremediationtechnology, a bioremediation method, uses plants as filters foraccumulating, immobilizing, and transforming contaminants to aless harmful form [3].
The term “phytoremediation†is formed by combining the Greek word “phyto†meaning plant and the Latin word “remedium†meaning to restore or clean.
Phytoremediation includes various remediation techniquesthat involve many treatment strategies leading to contaminantdegradation, removal (through accumulation or dissipation), orimmobilization [10].
These remediation techniques may use genetically engineeredor naturally occurring plants for removing contaminants fromthe surrounding environment [11,12]. Utsunamyia and Chaneyreintroduced and developed the method of using hyperaccumulatingplants for extracting metals from contaminated soil [13,14]. Baker etal. reportedly conducted the first field trial on zinc (Zn) and cadmium(Cd) phytoextraction [15].
Types of phytoremediation
Based on contaminants, field conditions, clean-up levelrequired, and plant type, phytoremediation methods can be usedi.e., phytostabilization/phytoimmobilization for reducing mobility ofcontaminant or phytovolatization/phytoextraction for removal of thecontaminant [16].
Phytoremediation approaches involve different plant-basedtechnologies with different modes of action and mechanism. Figure 1 displays the schematic representation of the phytoremediationmechanism. Some of the widely used phytoremediation approaches are as follows:
1. Phytostabilization is the immobilization or precipitation ofcontaminants from soil, groundwater, and mine tailings byplants, thus decreasing their availability.
2. Phytofiltration uses plant roots and other parts to adsorb orabsorb contaminants from the aqueous environment.
3. Phytovolatilization uses plants that can evapotranspiratecontaminants, such as selenium (Se), mercury (Hg), andvolatile hydrocarbons, from soil and groundwater.
4. Phytoextraction is the uptake and concentration of metalsfrom contaminated soil or water directly into the plant tissueand their subsequent removal from the plants.
5. Phytodegradation includes the microbial degradation ofmetals in rhizosphere soil and groundwater.
6. Phytotransformation is the plant uptake of contaminantsfrom water and their conversion into organic compounds,which are less toxic or nontoxic.
7. Vegetative cap uses plants with a unique property ofevaportranspiration, thus preventing the leaching ofcontaminants.
i. Phytostabilization
Phytostabilization involves the use of plants to eliminate thebioavailability of toxic metals in soil [17]. Contaminants in soil areimmobilized by certain hyperaccumulating plants through absorptionand accumulation by roots, adsorption onto roots or precipitationwithin the root zone, and physical stabilization of soil.
Green vegetation is very helpful in controlling soil erosion as plantroots effectively bind the soil. Furthermore, the roots of vegetationfacilitate holding a considerable amount of rain water that returns tothe atmosphere through transpiration. The roots reduce the amount ofheavy metals entering the water table and other water bodies [18]. Tore-establish vegetation at sites where flora have disappeared or beendestroyed due to the presence of high metal concentrations, metaltolerantplant species can be planted, thereby reducing the effectivemigration of contaminants through soil leaching, groundwatercontamination, wind, and transportation of the exposed surface soil[18,19]. Some plants developed metal tolerance during evolutionwhile others may have this ability inherently [20].
Plants selected for phytostabilization preferably should be tolerantto concerned contaminats, hold them in their roots and should resistheavy metal accumulation in their above-ground exposed parts toprevent the entry of heavy metals into the food web [10,21]. Metalaccumulation in plants is measured and expressed in terms of thebio-concentration factor (BF) or accumulation factor (AF) andtranslocation factor (TF) or shoot:root (S:R) ratio [22,23].
Bioconcentration factor (BF) Total element = concentration in the shoot tissueor accumulation factor (AF) Total element concentration in mine tailings
Translocation factor (TF) = Total element concentration in the shoot tissueor shoot:root (S:R) ratio Total element concentration in the root tissue
In a recent study, Agrostis castellana having root bioaccumulationindices >2 and transfer factor < 1 was reported to be a suitable plantfor the phytostabilization of abandoned mine sites in Spain, whichare heavily polluted with heavy metals, such as Zn, copper (Cu), lead(Pb), Cd, and arsenic (As). However, due to substantial heavy metalaccumulation in the above-ground exposed parts of the plant evenat the low transfer factor obserevd, close monitoring and no huntingor grazing in areas under restoration was recommended to preventthe entry of toxic metals into the food chain [24]. Another studyassessed the growth potential of 36 plants belonging to 17 specieson a contaminated site and reported that plants with a high bioconcentrationfactor and a low translocation factor have the ability ofphytostabilization [25]. Of all the plants studied, Phyla nodiflora wasthe most efficient in accumulating Cu and Zn in its shoots, and thuswas appropriate for phytoextraction, whereas Gentiana pennellianawas most suitable for phytostabilization of sites contaminated withPb, Cu, and Zn [25].
To improve the physical and biological characteristics ofcontaminated soil, natural and synthetic supplements were addedduring phytostabilization processes. Thus, phytostabilization istermed as “aided phytostabilization†or “chemophytostabilization.â€Changing the pH, increasing organic matter content by addingcompost, adding essential growth nutrients, increasing waterholding capacity, and reducing heavy metal bioavailability facilitatephytostabilization.
Five times reduction was observed in Pb and Zn concentrationsin aerial parts and in the roots of Lolium italicum and Festucaarundinacea, whose growth was greatly improved by the addedcompost [26]. Decreased phytotoxicity index was recorded afteradding compost, cyclonic ashes, and steel shots to an industrialcontaminated sandy soil [27]. Complexing agents, such as citricacid and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), were shown toinfluence the phytostabilization capacity [28]. Addition of a synthetic(Calcinit + urea + PK14% + calcium carbonate) or organic (cowslurry) compost had a positive response on soil properties, growth,and remediation potential of L. perenne but decreased root-toshoottranslocation factors compared with the control plants [29].In an aided phytostabilization approach, the soil of an ore dustcontaminatedsite in northern Sweden was amended with alkalinefly ashes and peat for reducing the mobility of trace elements andwas vegetated with a mixture consisting of 6 grass and 13 herbspecies. The results showed that the proposed approach significantlyincreased microbial biomass and respiration, decreased microbialstress, and increased key soil enzyme activities [30]. In addition,plant growth-promoting bacteria (PGPB) improved the revegetationof two native species, quailbush and buffalo grass, of mine tailings,minimizing the requirement for compost amendment; however,the results were plant-specific [31]. In a phytostabilization study ofmine soil in France, a mixture of legume species, such as Anthyllisvulneraria, and nonlegume species increased the biomass of the otherspecies, and consequently increased the biomass production of theplant community [32].
Care should be taken so that phytostabilized metals remain inthe soil ecosystem. Because of the change in soil conditions and the degradation of organic matter, a possibility always exists of partialand gradual release and leaching, resulting in the dispersion ofphytostabilized metals to surrounding areas through soil erosion[21]. Therefore, long-term monitoring or “follow-up†programs arerequired in phytostabilization processes to monitor heavy metalmobilization, bioavailability, toxicity, and ecological impact [21].
ii. Phytofiltration
Phytofiltration involves the use of plants for removing pollutantsfrom contaminated surface waters or wastewaters, thus cleaningvarious aquatic environments. When plant roots, seedlings, orexcised plant shoots are used in phytofiltration to adsorb or absorbcontaminants from the aqueous environment, it is termed asrhizofiltration, blastofiltration, and caulofiltration, respectively[33,34]. According to Gardea-Torresdey et al., mechanisms involvedin biosorption include chemisorption, complexation, ion exchange,micro precipitation, hydroxide condensation onto the biosurface,and surface adsorption [35]. Young plants of Berkheya coddii growingin pots on ultramafic soil enriched with Cd, nickel (Ni), Zn, or Pbsubstantially accumulated a considerable amount of these metals,whereas excised shoots in solutions containing the same heavy metalsaccumulated a high amount of these metals in the leaves [34].
In rhizofiltration, terrestrial, rather than aquatic, plants are usedbecause terrestrial plants form extensive fibrous root systems coveredwith root hairs, and therefore have more surface area than the others[10]. Preferably, a plant used for rhizofiltration must accumulateand tolerate high concentrations of metals and should be easy tohandle, have low maintenance cost, and produce minimal secondarywaste requiring disposal. Furthermore, the plants must produce aconsiderable root biomass or have a large root surface area [36].
Various aquatic plants have the potential to remove heavy metalsfrom water, for example, Eichhornia crassipes [37], Hydrocotyleumbellata L. [38], and Lemna minor L. [39]; however, these plantshave limited capacity for rhizofiltration because of their small,slow-growing roots [40]. The high water content in aquatic plantsadds to the problem of drying, composting, and incineration.Despite limitations, E. crassipes (water hyacinth) was effective inremoving trace elements from waste streams [37]. Furthermore,Micranthemum umbrosum is an effective phytofiltrator of As andmoderate accumulator of Cd without any phytotoxic effect [41].The aquatic plants Callitriche stagnalis S., Potamogeton natans L.,and P. pectinatus L. tested in uranium phytofiltration experimentsreduced uranium concentrations in water from 500 to 72.3 μg/L,emphasizing the efficiency of the selected plants in removinguranium from water [42]. The bryophyte Fontinalis antipyreticaand Callitrichaceae members accumulate uranium with preferentialpartitioning in rhizomes/roots, emerging as promising candidates forthe development of phytofiltration [43].
Phytofiltration studies have been conducted on As accumulationby aquatic plants. A study of 18 representative aquatic plantspecies, such as species Ranunculus trichophyllus, R. peltatus subsp.saniculifolius, L. minor, and Azolla caroliniana, and the leaves ofJuncus effusus, reported that these species have a very high potentialfor As phytofiltration when they are introduced into constructedtreatment wetlands or natural water bodies [44].
Terrestrial plants, such as sunflower, Indian mustard, tobacco,rye, spinach, and corn, were studied for their ability to remove Pbfrom effluents, with sunflower exhibiting the greatest ability [45].The roots of Indian mustard (Brassica juncea Czern.) are effectivein removing Cd, chromium (Cr), Cu, Ni, Pb, and Zn [39], whereassunflower (Helianthus annus L.) removes Pb [39], U [46], 137Cs, and90Sr [47] from hydroponic solutions. Cassava (Manihot sculentaCranz) waste biomass was effective in removing two divalent metalions Cd (II) and Zn (II) from aqueous solutions [48].
Sharp dock (Polygonum amphibium), duckweed (L. minor),water hyacinth (E. crassipes), water dropwort (Oenathe javanica),and calamus (Lepironia articulata) are suitable for phytoremediationof polluted water, because sharp dock accumulates N and P in itsshoots, water hyacinth and duckweed are Cd hyperaccumulators,water dropwort is a Hg hyperaccumulator, and calamus is a Pbhyperaccumulator [49].
iii. Phytovolatilization
Phytovolatilization involves the use of plants that uptake metalsfrom soil, biologically convert them in a volatile form, and thenrelease them into the atmosphere by volatilization. Some metalcontaminants, such as As, Hg, and Se, exist naturally in the gaseousform in the environment.
Phytovolatilization can be used for organic pollutants andheavy metals. Furthermore, it has a limitation that it does noteliminate the pollutant completely; it only transfers it from oneform (soil) to another (atmosphere) from where the pollutant canredeposit. Therefore, phytovolatilization is the most controversialphytoremediation technology [33]. Whether the volatilization of theseelements into the atmosphere is safe or harmful remains unknown[50]. Se phytovolatilization has received the most attention to date; therelease of volatile Se compounds from higher plants was first reportedby Lewis et al., who demonstrated that both Se nonaccumulator andaccumulator species volatilize Se [51]. Brassicaceae members canrelease 40 gm Se ha−1 day −1 as various gaseous compounds [52].
B. juncea is effective in removing up to 95% Hg from contaminatedsolutions through volatilization and plant accumulation(phytofiltration) [53]. Most Hg volatilization occurs from the roots,which may have unforeseen environmental effects [53]. Hg uptakeand evaporation are achieved by some bacteria. Researchers areattempting to develop a transgenic plant by transferring the requiredgenes using rDNA technology for environmental restoration.Methylmercury is a strong neurotoxic agent, which is biosynthesizedin Hg-contaminated soil. Bacterial genes, such as merA (for mercuricreductase) and merB (for organomercurial lyase), were transformedinto Arabidopsis thaliana to produce genetically engineered plantscapable of detoxifying organic Hg. Furthermore, these genes, whichare necessary for plants to detoxify organic Hg by converting it tovolatile and less toxic elemental Hg, were expressed in the newlytransformed plants [54]. Bacterial genes, such as those for Hgreductase, have already been successfully transferred into Brassica,tobacco, and yellow poplar trees [55].
iv. Phytoextraction
Phytoextraction, the most commonly recognized phytoremediation technology, is also known as phytoaccumulation,phytoabsorption, or phytosequestration. It involves the use of plantsthat absorb metals from soil and translocate them to harvestableshoots where they accumulate.
Phytoextraction, a specific clean-up technology, cannot beconfused with phytoremediation, which is a concept [33]. Severalplants that may belong to distantly related families, but have thecommon ability to grow on metalliferous soil and accumulateextremely higher levels of heavy metals in the aerial organs thanother plants, without deleterious effects from phytotoxins, aretermed as “hyperaccumulator†[56]. These hyperaccumulator plantsform the basis of phytoextraction. Baker and Brooks reportedthat hyperaccumulators should have a metal accumulation valueexceeding the threshold value of the shoot metal concentration of 1%(Zn and Mn), 0.1% [Ni, cobalt (Co), Cr, Cu, Pb, and aluminium (Al)],0.01% (Cd and Se), or 0.001% (Hg) of the dry weight shoot biomass[15].
Based on its methodology, phytoextraction is generallygrouped into two categories. The first method called continuousphytoextraction involves the use of hyperaccumulating plants,whereas the second method called chelate-induced phytoextractioninvolves the use of high-biomass crop plants and chelating agents[10,21].
In continuous phytoextraction, metal-accumulating plantsare seeded or transplanted into metal-contaminated soil and arecultivated using established agricultural practices. The roots ofgrowing plants absorb metal elements from the soil and translocatethem to the aerial shoots where they accumulate. According to aprevious study, approximately 450 angiosperm species belonging tothe families Asteraceae, Brassicaceae, Caryophyllaceae, Cyperaceae,Cunouniaceae, Fabaceae, Flacourtiaceae, Lamiaceae, Poaceae,Violaceae, and Euphobiaceae [10] have been identified as heavy metal(As, Cd, Co, Cu, Mn, Ni, Pb, Sb, Se, Tl, and Zn) hyperaccumulators todate, accounting for less than 0.2% of all known species [56].
Researchers are continuously searching to find newhyperaccumulators in nature, which remain unidentified,and new reports on these plants continue to accrue [57]. Fewhyperaccumulators (only five species to date) are available for Cd,which is one of the most toxic heavy metals [56]. A study recentlydiscovered a new Cd hyperaccumulator plant Youngia erythrocarpa, afarmland weed [57]. Ni is hyperaccumulated by most taxa (more than75%), and approximately 25% of the discovered hyperaccumulatorsbelong to the family Brassicaceae, and particularly to Thlaspi andAlyssum [56].
Planting and harvesting of hyperaccumulators must be repeatedfor reducing the contamination at a particular site. Furthermore, thetime required depends on the target metal, plant selected, and itsefficacy; the duration of the process can vary from 1 to 20 years [58,59].The success of phytoextraction depends on the ability to produce highbiomass yields and to accumulate high quantities of environmentallycritical metals in the shoot tissue [33,58,60]. For example, Ebbs etal. reported that B. juncea to be more effective in removing Zn andCd from soil than Thlaspi caerulescens (a known hyperaccumulator of Zn), although T. caerulescens accumulated 10 and 2.5 times moreCd and Zn concentration, respectively, in its shoot than B. juncea[61]. B. juncea exhibited this property because it produces 10 timesmore shoot biomass than T. caerulescens. In addition to the highbiomass production capability, the plant must have high toleranceto the targeted metal(s) and be efficient in translocating them fromroots to the harvestable aerial parts of the plant [59]. Recently, therole of symbiotic bacterial species in facilitating plant growth inpoor soil with metal accumulation was observed. A novel species ofRhizobium metallidurans sp. nov., a symbiotic heavy metal-resistantbacterium, was isolated from a Zn-hyperaccumulating A. vulnerarialegume [62]. When these bacteria were inoculated in A. vulneraria,Zn concentration in the shoots increased up to 36% [63].
Chelate-induced phytoextraction is used when metals do notexist in the available form in the soil for sufficient plant uptake;adding chelates or acidifying agents to the metals facilitates theirliberation in the soil solution, thus improving the metal accumulationcapacity and uptake speed of nonhyperaccumulating plants [64]. Inthe past decades, the use of persistent aminopolycarboxylic acids(APCAs), such as EDTA, biodegradable APCAs, ethylene diaminedisuccinate (EDDS), and nitrilo triacetic acid as an alternative toEDTA, and low-molecular-weight organic acids (LMWOA) havebeen used in various phytoextraction experiments [64]. The degreeof chelate-induced extraction depends on several factors, such as thegeochemical fractions of metal in soil, and type and concentration ofchelating agents used [65]. The added chelating agents, however, aretoxic to the plants and have a negative effect on soil microbial growthduring the chelate-induced phytoextraction process [66]. Thereis always a potential risk of leaching of metals to groundwater andthe presence of nondegradable metal-chelating agent complexes incontaminated soil for a long period [67,68]. EDTA, a strong chelatingagent possessing strong complex-forming ability, has been mostextensively studied; however, the interest is now shifted on the usageof biodegradable chelating agents, such as EDDS, a biodegradableisomer of EDTA [65]. EDDS, a naturally occurring substance in soil,is easily decomposed into less detrimental byproducts. EDDS is lessharmful to the environment, can readily solubilize metals from soil,and is highly efficient in inducing metal accumulation in Brachiariadecumbens shoots [69,65].
v. Phytodegradation and phytotransformation
Phytodegradation also known as phytotransformation involvesthe breakdown of contaminants taken up by plants through metabolicprocesses within the plant or the breakdown of contaminantsexternally to the plant through the effect of compounds produced bythe plants [70]. It also includes plant-assisted microbial degradation ofthe contaminants in the rhizosphere region [3,71]. Phytodegradationof organic compounds by plants is reported by many workers [72,73].Caçador and Duarte, reported phytoconversion of Cr (VI) toxic formto the less toxic Cr (III) by halophytes [74]. Various bacterial andfungal microorganisms can facilitate transformation of toxic metalsto their less toxic states. Pseudomonas maltophilia strain, isolatedfrom soil at a toxic waste site in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, was reportedto catalyze the transformation and precipitation various toxicmetal cations and oxyanions [75]. Citric and oxalic acid producing Aspergillus niger, was reported to transform insoluble inorganicmetal compounds ZnO, Zn3(PO4)2 and Co3(PO4)2.to their respectiveorganic insoluble metal oxalates [76].
Pteridophytes as metal hyperaccumulators
Pteris vittata, also known as brake fern, is a perennial, evergreenfern native to China and was the first discovered As hyperaccumulatoras well as the first fern hyperaccumulator [77]. Furthermore, thisfern possesses a remarkable ability for As hyperaccumulation (upto 22,600 mg As kg−1 in its fronds) [77], which is markedly greaterthan most plant species (< 10 mg As kg−1) [78]. Although at a reducedrate, P. vittata is effective in As uptake in the presence of other metals(Ni, Zn, Pb, and Cd); however, its ability to take up other metals islimited [79]. Approximately a dozen of ferns belonging to Pteris andfew from others, such as Pityrogramma calomelanos, were reportedas As hyperaccumulators; however, not all members of Pteris areAs hyperaccumulators [80]. Plasma membranes of the root cells ofP. vittata have a higher density of phosphate/arsenate transportersthan the nonhyperaccumulator P. tremula, which may be a resultof constitutive gene overexpression [81]. As hyperaccumulation byfern depends on the high affinity of the phosphate/arsenate transportsystems to arsenate [82] and the plant’s capability to increase Asbioavailability in the rhizosphere by reducing pH through the rootexudation of high amounts of dissolved organic carbon [83]. Thedecrease in pH increases the amount of water-soluble As that can bereadily taken up by the roots [83,84].
Conclusion and Future Prospective
Phytoremediation techniques are suitable tools for the effectiveheavy metal remediation of soil, water, and sediments. Special careshould be taken while selecting a suitable approach depending onthe health attributes of the contamination site, target contaminant,and efficacy of the plant selected. Various biomonitoring toolsare available for assessing the effectiveness of heavy metalphytoremediation processes. In the future, additional studies arerequired to understand the mechanism of action of the plants. Despitefew disadvantages of phytoremediation technologies, it is an efficientmethod for environmental cleaning. With the advancement in thefield of genetic recombination technology, genetically engineeredplants can be instrumental in the phytoremediation approaches formaking environment clean. Future studies should be focused on thecombined use of more than one phytoremediation approach for thesuccessful remediation of the polluted area under field conditions.
Acknowledgement
The authors are thankful to the Head of the EnvironmentalSciences, Dean, College of Basic Sciences and Humanities and DeanPost Graduate Studies of GB Pant University of Agriculture andTechnology, Pantnagar for providing the necessary facilities leadingto the execution of the study.
References
- Carlson CL, Adriano DC, Sajwan KS, Abels SL, Thoma DP, et al. (1991) Effects of selected trace metals on germinating seeds of six plant species. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 59: 231-240.
- White PM, Wolf DC, Thoma GJ, Reynolds CM (2006) Phytoremediation of alkylated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in a crude oil-contaminated soil. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 169: 207-220.
- Vidali M (2001) Bioremediation. an overview. Pure Appl Chem 73: 1163-1172.
- Pugh RE, Dick DG, Fredeen AL (2002) Heavy metal (Pb, Zn, Cd, Fe and Cu) contents of plant foliage near the Anvil range lead/zinc mine, Faro, Yukon Territory. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 52: 273-279.
- McEldowney S, Hardman DJ, Waite S (1993) Treatment technologies. in S McEldowney, DJ Hardman, S Waite (ed.), Pollution, Ecology and Biotreatment, Longman Singapore Publishers Pvt. Ltd. Singapore: 48-58.
- Sun B, Zhao FJ, Lombi E, Mcgrath SP (2001) Leaching of heavy metals from contaminated soils using EDTA. Environ pollut 113: 111-120.
- Mueller JG, Cerniglia CE, Pritchard PH (1996) Bioremediation of environments contaminated by polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Biotechnology Research Series 6: 125-194.
- Glass DJ (1989) U.S. and International Markets for Phytoremediation, 1999-2000 Needham, MA: D. Glass Associates: 266.
- Hughes JB, Shanks J, Vanderford M, Lauritzen J, Bhadra R (1997) Transformation of TNT by aquatic plants and plant tissue cultures. Environmental Science &Technology 31: 266-271.
- Padmavathiamma PK, Li LY (2007) Phytoremediation technology: hyper-accumulation metals in plants. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 184: 105-126.
- Cunningham SD, Shann JR, Crowley DE, Anderson TA (1997) Phytoremediation of contaminated water and soil. in EL Kruger, TA Anderson, JR Coats (ed.), Phytoremediation of Soil and Water Contaminants. ACS Symposium series 664 American Chemical Society, Washington DC: 2-19.
- Flathman PE, Lanza GR (1998) Phytoremediation: Current views on an emerging green technology. Journal of Soil Contamination, 7: 415-432.
- Utsunamyia T (1980) Japanese patent application no. 55-72959.
- Utsunamyia T (1980) Japanese patent application no. 55-72959.
- Baker AJM, Brooks RR (1989) Terrestrial higher plants which hyper accumulate metallic elements – Review of their distribution, ecology and phytochemistry. Biorecovery 1: 81-126.
- Thangavel P, Subbhuraam CV (2004) Phytoextraction: Role of Hyperaccumulators in Metal Contaminated Soils. Proc Indian Natn Sci Acad B 70: 109-130.
- Salt DE, Blaylock M, Kumar NP, Dushenkov V, Ensley BD, et al. (1995) Phytoremediation: a novel strategy for the removal of toxic metals from the environment using plants. Nat Biotechnol 13: 468-474.
- Tordoff GM, Baker AJM, Willis AJ (2000) Current approaches to the revegetation and reclamation of metalliferous mine wastes. Chemosphere 41: 219-228.
- >Stoltz E, Greger M (2002) Accumulation properties of As, Cd, Cu, Pb and Zn by four wetland plant species growing on submerged mine tailings. Environ Exp Bot 47: 271-280.
- Wu L, Shaw AJ (1990) Colonization and establishment of plants in contaminated sites. Heavy Metal Tolerance in Plants: Evolutionary Aspects 1990: 269-284.
- Gómez-Sagasti MT, Alkorta I, Becerril JM, Epelde L, Anza M, et al. (2012) Microbial monitoring of the recovery of soil quality during heavy metal phytoremediation. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution 223: 3249-3262.
- Mendez MO, Maier RM (2008) Phytostabilization of mine tailings in arid and semiarid environments-an emerging remediation technology. Environ Health Perspect 116: 278-283.
- Brooks RR (1998) Plants that hyperaccumulate heavy metals: their role in phytoremediation, microbiology, archaeology, mineral exploration and phytomining. CAB international.
- Pastor J, Gutiérrez-Ginés MJ, Hernández AJ (2015) Heavy-metal phytostabilizing potential of Agrostis castellana Boiss. & Reuter. Int J Phytoremediation 17: 988-998.
- Yoon J, Cao X, Zhou Q, Ma LQ (2006) Accumulation of Pb, Cu, and Zn in native plants growing on a contaminated Florida site. Sci Total Environ 368: 456-464.
- Rizzi L, Petruzzelli G, Poggio G, Guidi GV (2004) Soil physical changes and plant availability of Zn and Pb in a treatability test of phytostabilization. Chemosphere 57: 1039-1046.
- Ruttens A, Mench M, Colpaert JV, Boisson J, Carleer R, et al. (2006) Phytostabilization of a metal contaminated sandy soil. I: Influence of compost and/or inorganic metal immobilizing soil amendments on phytotoxicity and plant availability of metals. Environ Pollut 144: 524-532.
- Vázquez S, Agha R, Granado A, Sarro MJ, Esteban E, et al. (2006) Use of white lupin plant for phytostabilization of Cd and as polluted acid soil. Water, Air and Soil Pollution 177: 349-365.
- Epelde L, Becerril JM, Mijangos I, Garbisu C (2009) Evaluation of the efficiency of a phytostabilization process with biological indicators of soil health. J Environ Qual 38: 2041-2049.
- Kumpiene J, Guerri G, Landi L, Pietramellara G, Nannipieri P, et al. (2009) Microbial biomass, respiration and enzyme activities after in situ aided phytostabilization of a Pb-and Cu-contaminated soil. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 72: 115-119.
- Grandlic CJ, Mendez MO, Chorover J, Machado B, Maier RM (2008) Plant growth-promoting bacteria for phytostabilization of mine tailings. Environmental Science & Technology 42: 2079-2084.
- Frérot H, Lefebvre C, Gruber W, Collin C, Dos Santos A, et al. (2006) Specific interactions between local metallicolous plants improve the phytostabilization of mine soils. Plant and Soil 282: 53-65.
- Prasad MNV, Freitas HMO (2003) Metal hyperaccumulation in plants: biodiversity prospecting for phytoremediation technology. Electron J Biotechnol 6: 285-321.
- Mesjasz-Przybyłowicz J, Nakonieczny M, Migula P, Augustyniak M, Tarnawska M, et al. (2004) Uptake of cadmium, lead nickel and zinc from soil and water solutions by the nickel hyperaccumulator Berkheya coddii. Acta Biologica Cracoviensia Series Botanica 46: 75-85.
- Gardea-Torresdey JL, de la Rosa G, Peralta-Videa JR (2004) Use of phytofiltration technologies in the removal of heavy metals: A review. Pure Appl Chem 76: 801-813.
- Dushenkov S, Kapulnik Y (2000) Phytofiltration of metals in I Raskin, BD Ensley (ed.), Phytoremediation of Toxic Metals, Using Plants to Clean Up the Environment, Willey, New York: 89-106.
- Zhu YL, Zayed AM, Quian JH, De Souza M, Terry N (1999) Phytoaccumulation of trace elements by wetland plants: II. Water hyacinth. J Environ Qual 28: 339-344.
- Dierberg FE, Débuts TA, Goulet JRNA (1987) Removal of copper and lead using a thin-film technique. in KR Reddy, WH Smith (ed.), Aquatic Plants for Water Treatment and Resource Recovery, Magnolia: 497-504.
- Mo SC, Choi DS, Robinson JW (1989) Uptake of mercury from aqueous solution by duckweed: The effect of pH, copper, and humic acid. J Environ Health 24: 135-146.
- Dushenkov V, Kumar PBAN, Motto H, Raskin I (1995) Rhizofiltration: the use of plants to remove heavy metals from aqueous streams. Environ Sci Techno 29: 1239-1245.
- Islam MS, Ueno Y, Sikder MT, Kurasaki M (2015) Phytofiltration of arsenic and cadmium from the water environment using Micranthemum umbrosum. Int J Phytoremediation 15: 1010-1021.
- >Pratas J, Paulo C, Favas PJ, Venkatachalam P (2014) Potential of aquatic plants for phytofiltration of uranium contaminated waters in laboratory conditions. Ecological Engineering 69: 170-176.
- Favas PJ, Pratas J, Varun M, D'Souza R, Paul MS (2014) Accumulation of uranium by aquatic plants in field conditions: prospects for phytoremediation. Sci Total Environ 470: 993-1002.
- Favas PJ, Pratas J, Prasad MNV (2012) Accumulation of arsenic by aquatic plants in large-scale field conditions: opportunities for phytoremediation and bioindication. Sci Total Environ 433: 390-397.
- Raskin I, Ensley BD (2000) Phytoremediation of Toxic Metals: Using Plants to Clean Up the Environment. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, New York: 50-70.
- 46. Dushenkov S, Vasudev D, Kapulnik Y, Gleba D, Fleisher D, et al. (1997) Removal of uranium from water using terrestrial plants. Environ Sci Technol 31: 3468-3474.
- Dushenkov S, Vasudev D, Kapulnik Y, Gleba D, Fleisher D, Ting KC, et al. (1997) Phytoremediation: A novel approach to an old problem. in DL Wise (ed.), Global Environmental Biotechnology. Elsevier, Amsterdam: 563-572.
- Horsfall M, Abia AA (2003) Sorption of cadmium (II) and zinc (II) ions from aqueous solutions by cassava waste biomass (Manihot sculenta Cranz). Water Research 37: 4913-4923.
- Wang Q, Cui Y, Dong Y (2002) Phytoremediation of polluted waters potentials and prospects of wetland plants. Acta Biotechnologica 22: 199-208.
- Watanabe ME (1997) Phytoremediation on the brink of commercialization. Environ Sci Technol 31: 182-186.
- Lewis BG, Johnson CM, Delwiche CC (1966) Release of volatile selenium compounds by plants: Collection procedures and preliminary observations. J Agric Food Chem 14: 638-640.
- Terry N, Carlson C, Raab TK, Zayed A (1992) Rates of selenium volatilization among crop species. J Environ Qual 21: 341-344.
- Moreno FN, Anderson CW, Stewart RB, Robinson BH (2008) Phytofiltration of mercury-contaminated water: volatilisation and plant-accumulation aspects. Environ Exp Bot 62: 78-85.
- Bizily SP, Rugh CL, Meagher RB (2000) Phytodetoxification of hazardous organomercurials by genetically engineered plants. Nat Biotechnol 18: 213-217.
- Meagher RB (2000) Phytoremediation of toxic elemental and organic pollutants. Curr Opin Plant Biol 3: 153-162.
- Rascio N, Navari-Izzo F (2011) Heavy metal hyperaccumulating plants: how and why do they do it? And what makes them so interesting? Plant Science 180: 169-181.
- Lin L, Ning B, Liao MA, Ren Y, Wang Z, et al. (2015) Youngia erythrocarpa, a newly discovered cadmium hyperaccumulator plant. Environ Monit Assess 187: 4205.
- Kumar PBAN, Dushenkov V, Motto H, Raskin I (1995) Phytoextraction: the use of plants to remove heavy metals from soils. Environ Sci Technol 29: 1232-1238.
- Blaylock MJ, Huang JW (2000) Phytoextraction of metals. in I Raskin, BD Ensley (ed.), Phytoremediation of Toxic Metals: Using Plants to Clean-up the Environment, Wiley, New York: 53-70.
- Blaylock MJ, Salt DE, Dushenkov S, Zakharova O, Gussman C, et al. (1997) Enhanced accumulation of Pb in Indian mustard by soil-applied chelating agents. Environ Sci Technol 31: 860-865.
- Ebbs SD, Lasat MM, Brady DJ, Cornish J, Gordon R, et al. (1997) Phytoextraction of cadmium and zinc from a contaminated soil. J Environ Qual 26: 1424-1430.
- Grison C, Jackson S, Merlot S, Dobson A, Grison C (2015) Rhizobium metallidurans sp. nov, a symbiotic heavy metal resistant bacterium isolated from the Anthyllis vulneraria Zn-hyperaccumulator. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 65: 1525-1530.
- Grison CM, Mazel M, Sellini A, Escande V, Biton J, et al. (2014) The leguminous species Anthyllis vulneraria as a Zn-hyperaccumulator and eco-Zn catalyst resources. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 22: 5667-5676.
- Evangelou MW, Ebel M, Schaeffer A (2007) Chelate assisted phytoextraction of heavy metals from soil. Effect, mechanism, toxicity, and fate of chelating agents. Chemosphere 68: 989-1003.
- >Yeh TY, Pan CT (2012) Effect of Chelating Agents on Copper, Zinc, and Lead Uptake by Sunflower, Chinese Cabbage, Cattail, and Reed for Different Organic Contents of Soils. J Environ Anal Toxicol 2: 2161-0525.
- Mühlbachová G (2011) Soil microbial activities and heavy metal mobility in long-term contaminated soils after addition of EDTA and EDDS. Ecological Engineering 37: 1064-1071.
- Lombi E, Zhao FJ, Dunham SJ, MacGrath SP (2001) Phytoremediation of heavy metal-contaminated soils: natural hyperaccumulation versus chemically enhanced phytoextraction. J Environ Qual 30: 1919-1926.
- Lombi E, Zhao FJ, Dunham SJ, McGrath SP (2001) Cadmium accumulation in populations of Thlaspi caerulescens and Thlaspi geosingense. New Phytologist 145: 11-20.
- Santos FS, Hernández-Allica J, Becerril JM, Amaral-Sobrinho N, Mazur N, et al. (2006) Chelate-induced phytoextraction of metal polluted soils with Brachiaria decumbens. Chemosphere 65: 43-50.s
- Tangahu BV, Sheikh Abdullah SR, Basri H, Idris M, Anuar N, et al. (2011) A review on heavy metals (As, Pb, and Hg) uptake by plants through phytoremediation. International Journal of Chemical Engineering 2011: 31.
- Yang X, Feng Y, He Z, Stoffella PJ (2005) Molecular mechanisms of heavy metal hyperaccumulation and phytoremediation. J Trace Elem Med Biol 18: 339-353.
- Newman LA, Reynolds CM (2004) Phytodegradation of organic compounds. Curr Opin Biotechnol 15: 225-230.
- Reichenauer TG, Germida JJ (2008) Phytoremediation of organic contaminants in soil and groundwater. ChemSusChem 1: 708-717.
- Caçador I, Duarte B (2015) Chromium Phyto-transformation in Salt Marshes: The Role of Halophytes. Phytoremediation: 211-217.
- Blake RC, Choate DM, Bardhan S, Revis N, Barton LL, et al. (1993) Chemical transformation of toxic metals by a Pseudomonas strain from a toxic waste site. Environ Toxicol Chem 12: 1365-1376.
- Sayer JA, Gadd GM (1997) Solubilization and transformation of insoluble inorganic metal compounds to insoluble metal oxalates by Aspergillus niger. Mycological Research 101: 653-661.
- Ma LQ, Komar KM, Tu C, Zhang WH, Cai Y, et al. (2001) A fern that hyperaccumulates arsenic. Nature 409: 579.
- Matschullat J (2000) Arsenic in the geosphere-a review. Sci Total Environ 249: 297-312.
- Fayiga AO, Ma LQ, Cao X, Rathinasabapathi B (2004) Effects of heavy metals on growth and arsenic accumulation in the arsenic hyperaccumulator Pteris vittata L. Environmental Pollution 132: 289-296.
- Xie QE, Yan XL, Liao XY, Li X (2009) The arsenic hyperaccumulator fern Pteris vittata L. Environ Sci Technol 43: 8488-8495.
- Caille N, Zhao FJ, McGrath SP (2005) Comparison of root absorption, translocation and tolerance of arsenic in the hyperaccumulator Pteris vittata and the nonhyperaccumulator Pteris tremula. New Phytol 165: 755-761.
- Poynton CY, Huang JW, Blaylock MJ, Kochian LV, Elless MP (2004) Mechanisms of arsenic hyperaccumulation in Pteris species: root As influx and translocation. Planta 219: 1080-1088.
- Gonzaga MIS, Ma LQ, Santos JAG, Matias MIS (2009) Rhizosphere characteristics of two arsenic hyperaccumulating Pteris ferns. Sci Total Environ 407: 4711-4716.
- Fitz WJ, Wenzel WW (2002) Arsenic transformations in the soil-rhizosphere–plant system: fundamentals and potential application to phytoremediation. J Biotechnol 99: 259-278.