Vol. 72 | No.

3 | Mar 2016 International Scientific Researches Journal

The Use of Phytoremediation to Combat Contamination of Soil Ecosystems

M. Saber 1, H. Abouziena 2*, E. Hoballah 1, Wafaa M. Haggag 3, Fatma Abd-Elzaher 1,

Soad El-Ashry 4 and A. M. Zaghloul 4
1
Agricultural Microbiology Department, National Research Centre, Cairo, Egypt, 12622
2
Botany Department, National Research Centre, Cairo, Egypt, 12622
3
Plant Pathology Department, National Research Centre, Cairo, Egypt, 12622
4
Soil and Water Use Department, National Research Centre, Cairo, Egypt, 12622
*Corresponding author, Email: hussein_abouziena@yahoo.com

Abstract
Phytoremediation is one of the most recent developments in biotechnology valid in
remediating contaminated soil ecosystems. The concept of successive bioremediation
protocols had been recently highlighted that involves furnishing the contaminated soil with
certain remediative amendments followed by biofortification with varied micro-organisms.
The released PTE and decomposed organic toxins are thereafter removed from the soil using
phytoremediation techniques. The current article covers some phytoremedation processes
such as phytoextraction, phytodegradation, phytostimulation, phytostabilization,
phytovolatilization, phytorestoration, phytotransformation and phytoremediation of multi-
inorganic contaminants.
Keywords: hyperacumulator plants, phytoextraction, phytodegradation, phytostimulation,
phytostabilization, phytovolatilization, phytorestoration, phytotransformation

2. Introduction

Phytoremediation refers to the use of plants to remove contaminants from soil and
groundwater, or to assist in the degradation of contaminants to a less toxic form. It is a
technology bearing great potential, as it is an environment friendly, green technology that is
cost effective and energetically inexpensive.
Before phytoremediation, both benefits and disadvantages should be accessed to
determine whether this type of remediation is the most appropriate for the task.
Phytoremediation had many advantages compared to other remediation techniques such as
soil extraction, incineration, inorganic treatment, and land filling. It could be used to
decontaminate vast areas, could be carried out with little environmental disturbance and is
applicable to a broad range of contaminants. There are many studies [1, 2, 3, 4, 5], reported
that using certain plants in the phytoremedation with or without soil amendments had a

10
Vol. 72 | No. 3 | Mar 2016 International Scientific Researches Journal

significant role in removing the PTEs and Pathogens and some reports concluded that after
the phytoremedation process it can growing the sensitive plants to PTEs without any adverse
impact on the final products [6, 7] and these processes are economic [8]. Using some
integrated measures with corn and sunflower plants to cleanup soil irrigated with sewage
effluent from certain heavy metals. However, there are some reports showed there are some
risks in using the contaminated soil after the phytoremedation for growing the economic crops
[9, 10].
The current article aims at exploring the concepts of phytoremediation biotechnology
and its application in bio-remediating contaminated soil ecosystem.

2.1. Phytoremediation

Phytoremediation is surrounded with some substantial limitations. The first limitation is

the solubility of the contaminants in the soil, which determines the possibility of
phytoremediation. In the case of PTEs, only PTEs found as free PTEs ions, soil soluble PTEs
complexes, or PTEs adsorbed to inorganic soil constituents at ion exchange sites are readily
available for uptake by the plants [11]. On the other hand, PTEs that are bound to soil organic
matter, precipitated (oxides, hydroxides, carbonates), or embedded in the structure of silicate
minerals are not available to the plants. The second limitation is that in situ remediation often
takes many years to accomplish compared to other traditional decontamination approaches to
substantially restore a polluted area [12]. Many phytoremediation plans had multi-year
timetables, but since most soils in need of remediation had been contaminated for many years,
hence bioremediation plan does not seem excessive (Table 1).
Phytoremediation is the name given to a set of technologies that use different plants as
a containment, destruction, or an extraction technique.
The phytoremediation as a remediation technology that had been receiving attention
lately as the results from field trials indicate a cost savings compared to conventional
treatments [13]. While [14] stated that phytoremediation is a long-term, complex biological
process. There is not one single measure of the efficiency of a process such as
phytoremediation and therefore many aspects must be considered separately, and in
conjunction, to reach a conclusion. Efficiency is an arbitrary term unless related to an end
point. Unless the end use is specified then the efficiency of the process could not be
calculated.
The main measurements of efficiency, for example, might be the rate of degradation of
organics, or the stabilization, extraction, or volatilization of PTEs, the duration of the
remediation process or the cost of the process. In the case of contamination with organic

11
Vol. 72 | No. 3 | Mar 2016 International Scientific Researches Journal

inorganic the degradation products and metabolites must be considered as they might be more
toxic than the original inorganic.

Table 1. Phytoremediation applications and demonstrations in the field.

Application Plants Contaminants Performance

Phytoextraction Pb cleaned -up to below

Indian mustard
demonstration 200 fl x 300 ft Pb action level in one season
(Brassica juncea)
plot Brownfield location SITE program

Phytostabilization Pb, Zn. Cd

50% survival after 3 years site was
demonstration one acre test Poplars populus spp. Cones, > 20.000
successfully revegetated
plot abandoned smeller, barren land ppm for Pb and Zn

Phytostabilization 95% of trees died.

demonstration one acre test Poplars populus spp. As, Cd Inclement weather, deer
plot mine wastes browse, toxicity caused die-off

Phytoextraction pilot mine Uptake is rapid but difficult to

Thlaspi caerulesccns Zn, Cd
Wastes decontaminate soil

Pondweed
Phytotransformation created Coontail
TNT, RDX Just beginning
wetland and surrounding soil Arrowroot
Hybrid poplars

Phytotransformation
Only In Second Year SITE
(groundwater and soil) Hybird Poplar BTEX, TPH
Program
petroinorganic wastes 4 acre site

There was a consensus that defined and internationally adopted guidelines for
parameters such as monitoring and analytical tools and methods etc. are needed. They added
that these were sorry for international comparability of research and remediation and also
efficiency measures. Accepted and tested models would also be needed both for the terrestrial
and aquatic environments. It was accepted that phytoremediation is not a remediation
technology which could be applied to all contaminated soils, or even the majority of them.
The process was slow and could be PTEs specific.
Phytoremediation was suggested as a viable technique when the following parameters
are satisfied, the site is of low economic value, time constraints do not apply, a low cost
solution is required, the main PTEs contamination was with only one or two PTEs and
confined to the surface layers, the labile pool is the most toxic form of the PTEs, PTEs and
other contaminants are not found at phytotoxic levels, and when there is an infrastructure
present to safely treat and dispose of the contaminated biomass which might be produced.
These parameters apply to phytoremediation as a stand-alone technology. It was not
overlooked that coupling phytoremediation with other techniques such as physical and/or
inorganic treatment could also be viable in many cases. He added that phytoremeddiation by

12
Vol. 72 | No. 3 | Mar 2016 International Scientific Researches Journal

rotation of crops with certain accumulators or hyperaccumulators is a very real option.

Phytoremediation of farmland had met resistance in several countries where it was tried due
to farmers disliking growing a crop simply to throw it away, or preferring the use of inorganic
stabilizers. Many farmers demand to be paid to grow accumulator crops on their land. The
wide use of accumulating and hyperaccumulating crops also faces another pitfall and that is
the issue of the introduction of exotic species to an area or country.
There are several aspects of phytoremediation; the most important ones are
phytoextraction, phytodegradation, Phytostimulation, phytostabilization, phytovolatization,
phytorestoration, phytotransfrmation.
Another limitation is the availability of the contaminants in question to the plants [15].
Areas where contamination is less than 5 m in depth are the best-suited sites for
phytoremediation. The key factors of phytoremediation critical success and conditions are
given in Table (2).

2.1.1. Phytoextraction

The use of plants to remove contaminants from soil and concentrate them in above-
ground plant tissue is known as phytoextraction. At the beginning, it was primarily employed
to recover PTEs and PTEloids however, it is now applicable to different types of
contaminants [16]. Recovery of PTEs from vegetation had centered on incineration and
recovery from ash, or wet extraction techniques. Even if it is not practicable to recover the
PTEs from plant biomass or ash, they will have been concentrated into a much smaller
volume for ultimate disposal.
Plants with high growth rates (>3 tons dry matter/hectare-year) and with the ability to
tolerate high PTEs concentrations in harvestable parts of the plants (>1,000 mg/kg) are
needed for practicable treatment.
Phytoextraction is divided into two types; continuous and induced. Continuous
phytoextraction, which uses of plants that accumulate particularly high levels of contaminants
throughout their lifetime (hyperaccumulators) and induced phytoextraction approaches which
enhance contaminant accumulation at a single time point by addition of accelerants or
chelators to the soil.

2.1.2. Phytodegradation
In phytodegredation, organic contaminants are converted by plant internal or secreted
enzymes into compounds with reduced toxicity [12]. For instance, the major soil contaminant
trichloroethylene (TCE) was found to be taken up by hybrid poplar trees, Populus deltoides x
nigra, which breakdown the contaminant into its metabolic components. Root exudates from
Datura innoxia and Lycopersicon peruvianum containing peroxidase, laccase, and nitrilase

13
Vol. 72 | No. 3 | Mar 2016 International Scientific Researches Journal

could degrade soil contaminants and nitroreductase and laccase together could breakdown
TNT, RDX, and HMX. The plants were able to incorporate the broken ring structures into
new plant material or organic soil components that are thought to be non-hazardous.
Table 2. Summary of phytoremediation critical success factors and conditions.

Critical success Conditions for

Phytoremediation Factors/ Design optimum Data
Basis Vegetation
Process considerations likelihood of needs*
success

Uptake by plant; Moderately

bound residue or hydrophobic
Non-toxic Toxicity, Trees,
Phytotransformation metabolism organics
concentrations fate grasses
volatilization taken-up
required

Degradation by Compounds Dense roots sorbs

Trees,
Rhizosphere microbes; dense amenable to chemicals and Toxicity,
grasses,
Bioremediation root system aerobic enhance microbial fate
legumes
needed biodegradation degradation

Vigorously
Hydraulic Roots hold soil
growing roots; Trees,
control, soil and water, Toxicity,
Phytostabilization hydrophobic or grasses
stabilization immobilize fate
immobile legumes
immobilization metals
chemicals

>3 tons dry matter/ Vigorous plants

Terrestrial
acre-yr; > 1,000 growth provides
Plant productivity plants or
mg/kg metals acceptable uptake
accumulation in Toxicity, aquatic
Phytostabilization lightly rate high ability to
harvestable fate emergent
contaminated soil accumulate
portion of plant plants for
near to clean-up contaminants
sediments
standard desirable

Sorption/
Plant densities
filtration by roots, Aquatic
200-1000 g/m2, Roots sorb and
water in contact Toxicity, emergent of
Rhizofiltration hydraulic immobilize
with roots, fate submerged
detention time of contaminants
hydraulic plants
several days
detention time

2.1.3. Phytostimulation

Phytostimulation referred to as enhanced rhizosphere biodegradation or plant-assisted

bioremediation/degradation, is the breakdown of organic contaminants in the soil via
enhanced microbial activity in the plant root zone (rhizosphere).
Microbial activity might be stimulated in the rhizosphere in several ways, compounds,
such as sugars, carbohydrates, amino acids, acetates, and enzymes exuded by the roots enrich

14
Vol. 72 | No. 3 | Mar 2016 International Scientific Researches Journal

indigenous microbe populations, root systems bring oxygen to the rhizosphere hence ensures
aerobic transformations, fine-root biomass increases available organic carbon, mycorrhizae
fungi which grow within the rhizosphere could degrade organic contaminants that could not
be transformed solely by bacteria because of unique enzymatic pathways, and the habitat for
increased microbial populations and activity is enhanced by plants.

Table 3. Contaminants applicable to phytoremediation technology.

Technology Target Contaminants

Phytoextraction PTEs - Cd, Cu, Ni, Pb, Zn

PTEs - As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Se, Zn

Phytostabilization
Hydrophobic organics - DDT, Dieldrin, Dioxins, Furans, PAH, PCB, PCP

Phytostimulation Organics - aromatics, PAH, pesticides

Phytotransformation
Ammunition wastes - RDX, TNT
Aromatics - BTEX
Chlorinated Aliphatic - TCE
Herbicides - Atrazine, Alachlor
Hydrocarbons - TPH

COD
Organics - BTEX
Biodegradation NAPL
Pesticides
Solvents

Five enzyme systems in soils had been investigated, dehalogenase which is important in
dechlorination reactions of chlorinated hydrocarbons; nitroreductase which is required in the
first step of nitroaromatic degradation; peroxidase which is important in oxidation reactions,
laccase which breaks aromatic ring structures of organic compounds and nitrilase which is
important in oxidation reactions.
Phytostimulation is useful in removing organic contaminants, such as pesticides,
aromatics, and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), from soil. Locations at which
phytostimulation is to be implemented should had low levels of contaminations in shallow
areas. High levels of contaminants could be toxic to plants. Degradation by microorganisms
and dense root systems are needed for a successful design. Toxicity and fate of contaminants
need to be evaluated and understood prior to implementing this technology. Vegetation might
include trees, grasses, and legumes.

2.1.4. Phytostabilization

Phytostabilization involves the reduction of the mobility of PTEs in soil.

Immobilization of PTEs could be accomplished by decreasing wind-blown dust, minimizing
soil erosion, and reducing contaminant solubility or bioavailability to the food chain. The

15
Vol. 72 | No. 3 | Mar 2016 International Scientific Researches Journal

addition of soil amendments, such as organic matter, phosphates, alkalizing agents, and
biosolids could decrease solubility of PTEs in soil and minimize leaching to groundwater. The
mobility of contaminants was reduced by the accumulation of contaminants by plant roots,
absorption onto roots, or precipitation within the root zone. In some instances, hydraulic
control to prevent leachate migration could be achieved because of the large quantity of water
transpired by plants.

2.1.5. Phytovolatilization
The release of volatile contaminants to the atmosphere via plant transpiration is called
phytovolatilization. Although transfer of contaminants to the atmosphere might not achieve
the goal of complete remediation, phytovolatilization might be desirable in that prolonged soil
exposure and the risk of groundwater contamination are reduced. In this process, the soluble
contaminants are taken up with water by the roots, transported to the leaves, and volatized
into the atmosphere through the stomata. The best example of this is the volatilization of
mercury by conversion to the elemental form in transgenic Arabidopsis and yellow poplars
containing bacterial mercuric reductase merA [17].
In a study where the movement of volatile organics was monitored by Fourier
transform infrared spectrometry (FT-IR) in hybrid poplars (Populus deltoides x nigra,
Tamarix parviflora (saltcedar) and Medicago sativa (alfalfa), chlorinated hydrocarbons were
found to move readily through the plants, but less polar compounds like gasoline constituents
did not [18]. Selenium is a special case of PTEs that is taken up by plants and volatilized
following conversion to dimethylse-lenide by microorganisms and algae [19].

2.1.6. Phytorestoration
Phytorestoration involves the complete remediation of contaminated soils to fully
functioning soils. In particular, this subdivision of phytoremediation uses plants that are
native to the particular area, in an attempt to return the land to its natural state. An
examination of phytorestoration compared to the other forms of phytoremediation brings to
light an important issue, what degree of decontamination do phytoremediation projects aim to
achieve? There is a vast difference between removing just enough soil contaminants to reach
legally defined levels of compliance, remediating soils to a level at which they could be used
again, and completely restoring land from its contaminated state to an environmentally
uncontaminated state. The objective of many phytoremediation projects is to restore the land
to a legally acceptable level of contamination. A combination of phytoremediation approaches
could be use for more effective environmental restoration. For example, a remediation system
could include plants that hyperaccumulate PTEs and plants that stimulate the activity of
microorganisms that specialize in organic contaminant degradation.

16
Vol. 72 | No. 3 | Mar 2016 International Scientific Researches Journal

2.1.7. Phytotransformation

Phytotransformation is the breakdown of organic contaminants sequestered by plants

via metabolic processes within the plant, or the effect of compounds, such as enzymes,
produced by the plant. The organic contaminants are degraded into simpler compounds that
are integrated with plant tissue, which in turn, foster plant growth. Remediation of a soil by
phytotransformation is dependent on direct uptake of contaminants from the media and
accumulation in the vegetation. Direct uptake of inorganic into plant tissue via the root system
is dependent on uptake efficiency, transpiration rate, and concentration of the inorganic in soil
water. Uptake efficiency depends on inorganic speciation, physical/inorganic properties, and
plant characteristics, whereas transpiration rate depends on plant type, leaf area, nutrients, soil
moisture, temperature, wind conditions, and relative humidity. Two processes of remediation
could occur after the organic compound had been translocated by the plant, storage of the
inorganic and its fragments into the plant via lignification and complete conversion to carbon
dioxide and water.
Successful implementation of phytotransformation requires that the transformed
compounds that accumulate within the plant be non-toxic or significantly less toxic than the
parent compounds. In some applications, phytotransformation might be use in concert with
other remediation technologies or as a polishing treatment. This technology usually requires
more than one growing season to be efficient. Soil must be less than 3 ft in depth and
groundwater within 10 ft of the surface. Contaminants might still enter the food chain through
animals or insects that eat plant material. Soil amendments might be required, including
chelating agents to facilitate plant uptake by breaking bonds binding contaminants to soil
particles.

2.2. Phytoremediation of multi-inorganic contaminants

As far as the PTEs contaminants are considered, plants showed a promising role for
phytoextraction (uptake and recovery of contaminants into aboveground biomass) which is an
emerging technology that should be consider for remediation of contaminated soils irrigated
with sewage soils because of its cost effectiveness, versatility, esthetic advantages, and long-
term applicability.
It is well known that Cd, Ni, Zn, As, Se, and Cu are readily bioavailable PTEs. Co,
Mn and Fe are consider moderately bioavailable PTEs. Pb, Cr, and U are not very
bioavailable, although the addition of EDTA, to soil (0.5 to 10 µg EDTA/kg) could improve
the bioavailability of Pb. Effective extraction of PTEs by hyperaccumulators is limited to
shallow soil depths of up to 24 inches. If contamination is at substantially greater depths (e.g.,
6 to 10 feet), deep-rooted poplar trees could be use, however, there is concern about leaf litter
and associated toxic residues. Despite having amiable PTE-accumulating characteristics,

17
Vol. 72 | No. 3 | Mar 2016 International Scientific Researches Journal

currently available hyperaccumulators lack suitable biomass production, physiological

adaptability to varying climatic conditions, and adaptability to current agronomic techniques.
Research on specific plant species determined that some plants concentrated PTEs of up to
several percent of their dried shoot biomass. These plants (designated as hyperaccumulators)
had toxic element levels in the leaf and stalk biomass of about 100 times those of non-
accumulator plants in the same soil and in some cases more than a thousand times.
The direct uptake of inorganic contaminants into the plant through roots depends on
the uptake efficiency, transpiration rate, and concentration of inorganic contaminant in soil
water [20]. Uptake efficiency, in turn, depends on physical-inorganic properties, inorganic
speciation, and the plant itself. Transpiration is a key variable that determines the rate of
inorganic contaminant uptake for a given phytoremediation design; it depends on the plant
type, leaf area, nutrients, soil moisture, temperature, wind conditions, and relative humidity.
Contamination with PTEs represents one of the most pressing threats to soil resources
and added that phytoremediation could be potentially used to remediate PTE-contaminated
soils [21]. Their study evaluated the potential of 36 plants (17 species) growing on a
contaminated soil in North Florida. Plants and the associated soil samples were collected and
analyzed for total PTEs concentrations. While total soil lead, cupper and zinc concentrations
varied from 90 to 4100, 20 to 990, and 195 to 2200 mg kg−1, those in the plants ranged from
2.0 to 1183, 6.0 to 460, and 17 to 598 mg kg−1, respectively. None of the plants were suitable
for phytoextraction because no hyperaccumulator was identified. However, plants with a high
bioconcentration factor (BCF, PTEs concentration ratio of plant roots to soil) and low
translocation factor (TF, PTEs concentration ratio of plant shoots to roots) had the potential
for phytostabilization. Among the plants, Phyla nodiflora was the most efficient in
accumulating cupper and zinc in its shoots (TF=12 and 6.3), while Gentiana pennelliana was
most suitable for phytostabilization of soils contaminated with lead, cupper and zinc
(BCF=11, 22 and 2.6). Plant uptake of the three PTEs was highly correlated, whereas
translocation of lead was negatively correlated with cupper and zinc though translocation of
cupper and zinc were correlated. They showed that native plant species growing on
contaminated soils might had the potential for phytoremediation. Arsenic a general rule,
readily bioavailable PTEs for plant uptake include cadmium, nickel, zinc, arsenic, selenium,
and copper. Moderately bioavailable PTEs are cobalt, manganese, and iron; while lead,
chromium, and uranium are not very bioavailable. Lead could be made greatly more bioavail-
able by the addition of EDTA to soils. Lead, chromium, and uranium could be removed by
binding to soils and root mass via rhizofiltration. Soluble PTEs could enter into the root
symplast by crossing the plasma membrane of the root endodermal cells or they could enter
the root apoplast through the space between cells. If the PTEs are translocated to aerial
tissues, then it must enter the xylem. To enter the xylem, solutes must cross the casparian
strip, a waxy coating which is impermeable to solutes, unless they pass through the cells of

18
Vol. 72 | No. 3 | Mar 2016 International Scientific Researches Journal

the endodermis probably through the action of a membrane pump or channel. Once loaded
into the xylem, the flow of the xylem sap will transport the PTEs to the leaves, where it must
be loaded into the cells of the leaf, again crossing a membrane. Once in the shoot or leaf
tissues, PTEs could be stored in various cell types, depending on the species and the form of
the PTEs, since it could be converted into less toxic forms to the plant through inorganic
conversion or complexation.
The PTEs could be sequestered in several subcellular compartments (cell wall, cytosol,
and vacuole) or volatilized through the stomata. While many examples in both literature and
patents propose the potential of different plants to remove PTEs from soils, [22] explained
how the bioconcentration factor of many of these plants is not conducive to actual
phytoremediation.
The bioconcentration factor is the ratio of the plants shoot PTEs concentration to the
soil PTEs concentration, which could be interpreted as the ability of a plant to take up the
PTEs and transport it to its shoots. While most plants had a bioconcentration factor for PTEs
and PTEloids of less than one, a much greater value is required for phytoremediation. Even if
one assumed a high biomass production of fifty tones per feddan per crop, a bioconcentration
factor of greater than ten is required to reduce soil PTEs by half in less than ten crops. Thirty
tones per feddan per crop is possible for many agricultural crops, and the bioconcentration
factor would need to be twenty or greater to reduce soil PTEs by half in less than ten crops.
Many of these soils had been contaminated for more than ten years as such a ten years
remediation plan does not seem excessive. They added that successful implementation of
phytoextraction depends on bioavailability of the contaminant in the environmental matrix;
root uptake; internal translocation of the plant; and plant tolerance. Plant productivity (i.e.,
amount of dry matter that is harvestable each season) and the accumulation factor (ratio of
PTEs in plant tissue to that in the soil) are important design parameter.
The rate of PTEs phytoextraction is governed by both soil and plant characteristics [23].
Most effort had focused on identifying appropriate plants for phytoextraction, but the benefits
from this effort will be marginal unless the PTEs are in phytoavailable forms in the
rhizosphere. The concentration of a PTE in the rhizosphere could be estimated using solute
transfer models that incorporate the PTEs concentration in the bulk soil solution, the buffer
power of the soil, diffusion coefficient for the PTEs, water movement, root size and
morphology, and the rate of entry of PTEs into the roots. Such models could be used to
identify constraints to efficient phytoextraction (whether plant or soil) and to determine
whether commercial phytoextraction is feasible.
Phytoextraction could provide an effective in situ technique for removing PTEs from
contaminated soils [24]. They studied the basic potential of phytoextraction of Brassica napus
(canola) and Raphanus sativus (radish) grown on a multi-PTE contaminated soil in a pot

19
Vol. 72 | No. 3 | Mar 2016 International Scientific Researches Journal

experiment. Chlorophyll contents and gas exchanges were measured during the experiment;
the PTEs phytoextraction efficiency of canola and radish were also determined and the
phytoextraction coefficient for each PTE was calculated. Data indicated that both species are
moderately tolerant to PTEs and that radish was more so than canola. These species showed
relatively low phytoremediation potential of multi-contaminated soils. They could possibly be
used with success in marginally contaminated soils where their growth would not be impaired
and the extraction of PTEs could be maintained at satisfying levels.
Concentrations of lead, zinc, copper and cadmium accumulated by 12 emergent-rooted
wetland plant species including different populations of Leersia hexandra, Juncus effusus and
Equisetum ramosisti were investigated [25]. Their results showed that PTEs accumulation by
wetland plants differed among species, populations and tissues. Populations grew in substrata
with elevated PTEs contained significant higher PTEs in plants. PTEs accumulated by
wetland plants were mostly distribute in root tissues, suggesting that an exclusion strategy for
PTEs tolerance widely exists in them. That some species/populations could accumulate
relatively high PTEs concentrations (far above the toxic concentration to plants) in their
shoots indicates that internal detoxification PTEs tolerance mechanism(s) were also included.
They added that the factors affecting PTEs accumulation by wetland plants include PTEs
concentrations, pH, and nutrient status in substrata. Mostly concentrations of lead and
cupper in both aboveground and underground tissues of the plants were significantly
positively related to their total and/or DTPA-extractable fractions in substrata while
negatively to soil nitrogen and phosphorus, respectively.
In the case of PTEs, chelators like EDTA assist in mobilization and subsequent
accumulation of soil contaminants such as lead, cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel, and zinc
in Indian mustard Brassica juncea and sunflower Helianthus anuus [16]. The ability of other
PTEs chelators such as CDTA, DTPA, EGTA, EDDHA, and NTA to enhance PTEs
accumulation had also been assessed in various plant species. However, there might be risks
associated with using certain chelators considering the high water solubility of some chelator-
toxin complexes which could result in movement of the complexes to deeper soil layers.
Phytoremdiation is the most likely technique for marginally contaminated agricultural
soils, where phytoextraction could be used as a polishing technology [27]. They added that an
alternative and more useful practical approach in many situations currently would be to give
more attention to crops selected for phytoexclusion, i.e., selecting crops that do not
translocated high concentrations of PTEs to edible parts. Soils of urban and industrial areas
provide a large-scale opportunity to use phytoremediation, but the focus here should be on the
more realistic possibilities of risk-managed phytostabilization and monitored natural
attenuation. An additional focus on biomass energy, improved biodiversity, watershed

20
Vol. 72 | No. 3 | Mar 2016 International Scientific Researches Journal

management, soil protection, carbon sequestration, and improved soil health is required for
the justification and advancement of phytotechnologies.
The biomass species had relatively low PTEs uptake and hyperaccumulator species had
low biomass yields [14]. There is potential for plant breeding and genetic modification to
create species with high accumulating capabilities and also high biomass. There is also the
possibility of engineering plants that are easy to grow but do not run wild in new habitats.
Further research, and perhaps using genetic modification both the efficiency and the
viability of phytoremediation as a competitive remediation technology would be much
improved. Phytostabilisation was more viable at present than phytoextraction in soils of very
high PTEs due to the very large time scales involved.
The plant biomass and PTEs shoot accumulation were key factors for efficient
phytoextraction [28]. They found that inorganic mutagenesis improved the phytoextraction
potential of sunflowers towards cadmium, zinc and lead. The best sunflower mutants showed
either higher PTEs accumulation in shoots or enhanced PTEs accumulation in roots,
suggesting to transgenic hyperaccumulator plants were frequently use to remove PTEs from
terrestrial as well as aquatic ecosystems [29]. The technique makes use of the intrinsic
capacity of plants to accumulate PTEs and transport them to shoots, ability to form
phytochelatins in roots and sequester the PTEs ions. Harboring the genes, that are considered
as signatures for the tolerance and hyperaccumulation from identified hyperaccumulator plant
species into the transgenic plants, provided a platform to develop the technology with the help
of genetic engineering. This would result in transgenics that might had large biomass and fast
growth a quality essential for removal of PTEs from soil quickly and in large quantities.
Despite so much of a potential, the progress in the field of developing transgenic
phytoremediator plant species is rather slow. This could be attributed to the lack of our
understanding of complex interactions in the soil and indigenous mechanisms in the plants
that allow PTEs translocation, accumulation and removal from a soil. They reviewed the work
carried out in the field of PTEs phytoremediation from contaminated soil and concluded that
there is an urgent need to assesses the current status of technology and to evaluate its future
prospects with emphasis on a combinatorial approach. They added that with the current high
costs of soil remediation, it is important to develop and refine innovative low-cost methods
for cleaning the environment. Advances in soil remediation continue to lead to a better
understanding of the many processes by which plants could have a positive impact on the
decontamination of the environment. Their realization had provided impetus to studies in an
emerging field of interest, which employed certain plants possessing the natural ability to take
up PTEs for an inexpensive means of environmental cleanup. Their method was referred to as
plant-assisted remediation or phytoremediation, and it also had the benefit of contributing to
site restoration when remedial action is ongoing.

21
Vol. 72 | No. 3 | Mar 2016 International Scientific Researches Journal

The plants were selected in bioremediation procceses according to the needs of the
application and the contaminants of concern [16]. Grasses are often planted in tandem with
trees as the primary remediation method. They provide a tremendous amount of fine roots in
the face soil which is effective at binding and transforming hydrophobic contaminants such as
TPH, BTEX, and PAHs. In phytoextraction, one is seeking to concentrate them in the above-
ground portion of the biomass, and to harvest and recover PTEs from the biomass, if
practicable. Plants used to date in phytoextraction remedies include sunflowers and Indian
mustard plants for lead; Thlaspi spp for zinc, cadmium and nickel, Sunflowers and aquatic
plants for radionuclides (Table 4).
Table 4. Phytoremediation applications and demonstrations in the field.

Contaminants Performance
Application Plants

Pb cleaned -up to below

Phytoextraction Indian mustard Pb
action level in one season
plot Brownfield location Brassica juncea
SITE program
Selenium is partly taken-up and
Phylovolatilization agricultural
Brassica sp. Se volatilized, but difficult to
soils
decontaminate soil
Elodeia
Phytotransformation
Bullrush TNT, RDO > 90% removal
engineered wetland
Canary Grass

Pondweed
Phytotransformation created Coontail
TNT, RDX Just beginning
wetland and surrounding soil Arrowroot
Hybrid poplars

Phytotransformation of
Hybird Poplar BTEX, TPH Only in second year site program
groundwater and soil

In a pot culture experiment, grew five different species of Brassica (Brassica juncea,
Brassica campestris, Brassica carinata, Brassica napus, and Brassica nigra) for screening
possible accumulators of PTE, viz. zinc, cupper, nickel, and lead [30]. The plants were grown
to maturity in a soil irrigated with sewage effluent for more than two decades in West Delhi,
India. The soil analyses showed enhanced accumulation of zinc, cupper, nickel, and lead in
this sewage-irrigated soil. Among all species, B. carinata showed the highest concentration
(mg/kg) as well as uptake (g/pot) of nickel and lead at maturity. Although B. campestris
showed a higher concentration of zinc in its shoots (stem plus leaf), B. carinata extracted the
largest amount of this PTE due to greater biomass production. On the other hand, B. juncea
extracted the largest amounts of copper from the soil. In general, the highest concentration
and uptake of PTEs was observed in shoots compared to roots or seeds of the different

22
Vol. 72 | No. 3 | Mar 2016 International Scientific Researches Journal

species. Among the Brassica spp., B. carinata cv. DLSC1 emerged as the most promising,
showing greater uptake of zinc, nickel, and lead, while B. juncea cv. Pusa Bold showed the
highest uptake of cupper. The B. napus also showed promise, as it ranked second with respect
to total uptake of lead, zinc, and nickel, and third for cupper. Total uptake of PTEs by
Brassica spp. correlated negatively with available as well as the total soil PTE concentrations.
Among the root parameters, root length emerged as the powerful parameter to dictate the
uptake of PTEs by Brassica spp. They concluded that probably for the first time, B. carinata
was reported as a promising phytoextractor for Zinc, Ni, and Pb, which performed better than
B. juncea.
The practical capability of five common crop plants, i.e. maize (Zea mights), sunflower
(Helianthus annuus), canola (Brassica napus), barley (Hordeum vulgare) and white lupine
(Lupinus albus) for their absorption and accumulation of lead, zinc, and cupper in six
contaminated soil samples taken from pasture and arable soils around an old lead-zinc -mine
in Spain were studied [31]. With the exception of the highest polluted sample, soil total PTEs
concentration did not influence significantly biomass yields of each crop for the different
growth substrates. The order found for the total PTEs accumulation rate (TMAR) in the crops
was Zn>>Pb > Cu, with maize reaching the highest PTEs concentrations.
Lead root concentrations were markedly higher than those of shoots for all the crops,
while zinc and cupper were translocated to shoots more efficiently. Concentrations of PTEs
extracted by EDTA and BCR sequential extraction were well correlated, in general, with both
root PTEs content and TMAR. CaCl2-extracted zinc was well correlated with root
concentrations, TMAR and, in some cases, with shoot contents.
There are very few practical demonstrations of the phytoextraction of PTEs and
PTEloids from soils and sediments beyond small-scale and short-term trials [32]. The two
approaches used had been based on using hyperaccumulator species, such as Thlaspi
caerulescens (lead, zinc, cadmium, nickel), Alyssum spp. (nickel, cupper), and Pteris vittata
(arsenic) or fast-growing plants, such as Salix and Populus spp. that accumulate above-
average concentrations of only a smaller number of the more mobile trace elements
(cadmium, zinc, boron). There is a high risk in marketing either approach as a technology or
stand-alone solution to clean up contaminated soil. They added that there are particular
uncertainties over the longer-term effectiveness of phytoextraction and associated
environmental issues. Marginally contaminated agricultural soils provide the most likely land
use where phytoextraction could be used as a polishing technology. An alternative and more
useful practical approach in many situations currently would be to give more attention to
crops selected for phytoexclusion, selecting crops that do not translocate high concentrations
of PTEs to edible parts. They added that the wider practical applications of phytoremediation
are too often overlooked. There was huge scope for cross-cutting other environmental agenda,
with synergies that involve the recovery and provision of services from degraded landscapes

23
Vol. 72 | No. 3 | Mar 2016 International Scientific Researches Journal

and contaminated soils. An additional focus on biomass energy, improved biodiversity,

watershed management, soil protection, carbon sequestration, and improved soil health is
required for the justification and advancement of phytotechnologies.
The plant biomass and PTEs shoot accumulation are key factors for efficient
phytoextraction [33]. They found that inorganic mutagenesis improved the phytoextraction
potential of sunflowers to cadmium, zinc and lead. The main goal of their present study was
to assess the stability of sunflower mutants with improved biomass and PTEs accumulation
properties in the 3rd and 4th generations. As compared to control plants, the best mutants
showed the following improvement of PTEs extraction: Cd 3-5-fold, Zinc 4-5-fold, and Pb 3-
5-fold. The best sunflower mutants showed either higher PTEs accumulation in shoots or
enhanced PTEs accumulation in roots, suggesting to improved phytoextraction or
rhizofiltration efficiency, respectively.
Soil turnover and dilution methods was used to reduce the total concentration of PTEs
in soil, but this technique might be not suitable for shallow soil depths less than 60 cm [34]. A
1.3-ha area contaminated by multiple PTEs (arsenic, chromium, nickel, cupper, and zinc)
located in central Taiwan was selected for this large-area phytoremediation experiment.
According to the Taiwan Environmental Protection Administration project contract, in-
situ selection experiments were conducted to select 12 potential species from 33 tested species
for further large area experiment. After in-situ planting of 33 species of plants in the
contaminated soil for 33 d, bougainvillea and cockscomb showed yellow-colored leaves and
withered as the result of the toxicity of PTEs. Herbaceous plants could accumulate higher
concentration of PTEs and had higher bioconcentration factor in relative to woody plants.
Three weighting models of growth condition and the PTE-accumulated concentration of
plants growing in the soil were evaluated and compared.
There are very few practical demonstrations of the phytoextraction of PTEs and
PTEloids from soils beyond small-scale and short-term trials [35]. They used two approaches
based on using hyperaccumulator species, such as Thlaspi caerulescens (lead, zinc, cadmium,
nickel), Alyssum spp. (nickel, cobalt), and Pteris vittata (arsenic) or fast-growing plants, such
as Salix and Populus spp. that accumulate above-average concentrations of only a smaller
number of the more mobile trace elements (cadmium, zinc, boron). Until they had advanced
much more along the pathway of genetic isolation and transfer of hyperaccumulator traits into
productive plants, there was a high risk in marketing either approach as a technology or stand-
alone solution to clean up contaminated soil.
There were particular uncertainties over the longer-term effectiveness of
phytoextraction and associated environmental issues. Marginally contaminated agricultural
soils provided the most likely land use where phytoextraction could be used as a polishing
technology. An alternative and more useful practical approach in many situations currently

24
Vol. 72 | No. 3 | Mar 2016 International Scientific Researches Journal

would be to give more attention to crops selected for phytoexclusion, selecting crops that do
not translocate high concentrations of PTEs to edible parts. They argued that the wider
practical applications of phytoremediation are too often overlooked. There was huge scope for
cross-cutting other environmental agenda, with synergies that involve the recovery and
provision of services from degraded landscapes and contaminated soils. An additional focus
on biomass energy, improved biodiversity, watershed management, soil protection, carbon
sequestration, and improved soil health was required for the justification and advancement of
phytotechnologies.

3. References

[1] Lone MI, He Z, Stoffella PJ, Yang X. Phytoremediation of heavy metal polluted soils and water:
Progresses and perspectives. J Zhejiang Univ Sc. B, 2008, 9 (3), 210–220.
[2] Njoku KL, Akinola MO, Oboh BO. Phytoremediation of crude oil contaminated soil: The effect of
growth of glycine max on the physico-chemistry and crude oil contents of soil. Nature and Sci, 2009: 22-
30.
[3] Abouziena HF, Saber M, Hoballa EM, El-Ashry A, Zaghloul, A. Phytoremediation of potential toxic
elements in contaminated sewaged soils by canola (Brassica napus) or Indian mustard (Brassica juncea
Czern.) plants in association with mycorrhiza. J App Sci Res, 2012, 8 (4): 2286-2300.
[4] Abouziena H, Hoballah E, Abd El Zaher F, Turky A, El-Ashery S, Saber M, Zaghloul AM. Use of
sesame and sorghum crops to verify the remediation of contaminated sewaged soils. J App Botany and
Food Quality, 2014, 87, 196 – 205.
[5] Saber M, Haggag Wafaa M, Abuouziena HF, Hoballah E, El-Ashry S, Zaghloul A. Using some
integrated measures with corn and sunflower plants to cleanup soil irrigated with sewage effluent from
certain heavy metals. Jokull J, 2016, 66 (1), 24-40.
[6] Abouziena HF, Saber M, Hoballah E, El-Ashry Soad, Zaghloul AM. Yield attributes and oil safety in the
hyperaccumulator canola plant grown in a bioremediated sewaged soil. J Agric Sci and Technol, A 3
(2013) 1010-1016.
[7] Khalifa R Kh M, Abouziena HF, El-Mergawi RA, Youssef AA. Nutritional status of some aromatic
plants grown to produce volatile oils under treated municipal wastewater irrigation. Aust J Basic and App
Sci, 2011, 5(12): 2999-3007.
[8] Frag A, Abouziena HF, Saber M, Hoballah H, Zaghloul A. Economic feasibility study on the use of
certain amendments in the bioremediation of sewaged soil. Intr J Plant and Soil Sci, 2014, 3 (10) 1182-
1199.
[9] United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Electrokinetic and Phytoremediation In Situ
Treatment of Metal-Contaminated Soil: State-of-the-Practice. Draft for Final Review. EPA/542/R-
00/XXX. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office, Washington, DC, 2000.
[10] Saber M., Abuouziena HF, Hoballah E, Abd-Elzaher F, Turkey A, Zaghloul A. Risk assessment and
mitigation measures for certain amendments used in the bioremediation of sewaged soils. J ChemTech
Res, 2015, 8 (6) 423-440.
[11] Lasat M, Pence S, Garvin F, Ebbs D, Kochian V. Molecular physiology of zinc transport in the zinc
hyperaccumulator Thlaspi caerulescens. J Exp Bot, 2000, 51:71-79.

25
Vol. 72 | No. 3 | Mar 2016 International Scientific Researches Journal

[12] Suresh B, Ravishankar G. Phytoremediation - A novel and promising approach for environmental clean-
up. Crit Rev Biotech, 2004, 24:97-124.
[13] Oppelt E. Introduction to Phytoremediation, National Risk Management. Research Laboratory Office of
Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2002.
[14] Royle, A., Working group discussion: The efficiency and viability of phytoremediation. Phytoremediation
of PTE-Contaminated Soils, 2006, 343–345.
[15] Fawzi M, Phytoremediation, Technology and Operations. Egyptian Map Bulletin, 1:27-82. Environ. Sci.
Dept., Faculty of Science, University of Alexandria, 2008.
[16] Lombi E, Zhao J, Dunham J, McGrath P, Phytoremediation of heavy metal- contaminated soils: natural
hyperaccumulation versus chemically enhanced phytoextraction. J Environ Qual, 2001, 30:1919-1926.
[17] Rugh L, Senecoff F, Meagher B, Merkle A. Development of transgenic yellow poplar for mercury
phytoremediation. Nat Biotechnol, 1998, 16:925-928.
[18] Davis C, Vanderhoof S, Dana J, Selk K, Smith K, Goplen B, Erickson E. Movement of chlorinated
solvents and other volatile organics through plants monitored by fourier transform infrared (FT- IR)
spectrometry. J Hazardous Subst Res, 1998, 1:4-1, 4-26
[19] Neumann P, De Souza M, Pickering I, Terry N. Rapid microalgal metabolism of selenate to volatile
dimethylselenide. Plant Cell Environ, 2003, 26:897-905.
[20] Burken J, Schnoor J. Phytoremediation: Plant uptake of atrazine and role of root exudates. J Eliviron
Eng., ASCE, 1996, 122(11) 963-963
[21] Yoon, M., Oh, T., Just, L., and Schnoor, L., Uptake and leaching of octahydro-1, 3, 5, 7-tetranitro-1, 3, 5,
7- tetrazocine by hybrid poplar trees. Environ. Sci. Tech., 2002, 36:4649-4655.
[22] McGrath P, Zhao J. Phytoextraction of PTEs and PTEloids from contaminated soils. Curr Opin
Biothechnol, 2003, 14:277-282.
[23] Whiting S, Broadley M, White P. Applying a solute transfer model to phytoextraction: Zinc acquisition
by Thlaspi caerulescens. Plant and Soil, 2003, 249: 45–56.
[24] Marchiol L, Assolari S, Sacco P, Zerbi G. Phytoextraction of PTE by canola (Brassica napus) and radish
(Raphanus sativus) grown on multicontaminated soil. Environ Pollution, 2004, 132: 21-27.
[25] Deng H, Ye Z, Wong M. Accumulation of lead, zinc, copper and cadmium by 12-wetland plant species
thriving in PTE-contaminated sites in China. Environ Pollution, 2004, 132: 29-40
[26] Turgut C, Pepe M, Cutright T. The effect of EDTA and citric acid on phytoremediation of Cd, Cr, and Ni
from soil using Helianthus annuus. Environ Pollution, 2004, 131: 147-154.
[27] Abou-Seeda, M., Zaghloul, A. and Mahmoud, S., Phytoremediation effects of some turfgrass species in
different contaminated conditions. Egypt. J. Agric. Sci., 2005, 30: 4321-4335.
[28] Nehnevajova N, Rolf F, Karl-Hans G, Jean-Paul S. A promising technique to increase PTE concentration
and extraction in sunflowers. Intr J Phytoremediation, 2007, 9: 149-165
[29] Saha K, Nongkynrih J. PTE hyperaccumulation and bioremediation. Biologia Plantarum, 2007, 51 (4):
618-634.
[30] Purakayastha T, Viswanath T, Bhadraray S, Chhonkar P. et al., Phytoextraction of zinc, copper, nickel
and lead from a contaminated soil by different species of Brasslea. Intr J Phytoremediation, 2008, 10 (1)
p. 61.
[31] Rodriguez L, Ruiz E, Alonso-Azcarate J, Rincon J. PTE distribution and inorganic speciation in tailings
and soils around a Pb-Zinc mine in Spain, J Environ Management, 2009, 90: 1106-1116.

26
Vol. 72 | No. 3 | Mar 2016 International Scientific Researches Journal

[32] Nicholas M, Dickinson N, Baker A, Doronila A, Laidlaw S, Reeves R. Phytoremediation of inorganics:

Realism and synergies. Intr J Phytoremediation, 2009, 11(2) pg. 97.
[33] Nehnevajova E, Herzig R, Bourigault C, Bangerter S, Jean-Paul Schwitzguébel J. Stability of enhanced
yield and PTE uptake by sunflower mutants for improved phytoremediation. Environ, 2009, 368: 456–
464.
[34] Lai H, Chen Z. In-situe selection of suitable plants for the phytoremediation of mutli-PTEs- contaminated
sites in central Taiwan. Intr J Phytoremediation Boca Raton, 2009, 11 (3): pg. 235.
[35] Dickinson N, Baker A, Doronila A, Laidlaw S, Reeves R. Phytoremediatin of unorganics: realism and
synergies. Intr J Phytoremediation, 2009, 11(2) pg. 97.

27