See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/51000352

An Eco-Sustainable Green Approach for Heavy Metals Management: Two Case

Studies of Developing Industrial Region

Article  in  Environmental Monitoring and Assessment · April 2011

DOI: 10.1007/s10661-011-1978-x · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

61 2,253

1 author:

Prabhat Kumar Rai

Mizoram University
127 PUBLICATIONS   2,560 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Prabhat Kumar Rai on 14 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:421–448
DOI 10.1007/s10661-011-1978-x
An eco-sustainable green approach for heavy metals
management: two case studies of developing
industrial region
Prabhat Kumar Rai
Received: 1 February 2010 / Accepted: 24 February 2011 / Published online: 5 April 2011
© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011
Abstract Multifaceted issues or paradigm of sus-
tainable development should be appropriately
addressed in the discipline of environmental man-
agement. Pollution of the biosphere with toxic
metals has accelerated dramatically since the be-
ginning of the Industrial Revolution. In present
review, comparative assessment of traditional
chemical technologies and phytoremediation has
been reviewed particularly in the context of cost-
effectiveness. The potential of phytoremediation
and green chemicals in heavy metals manage-
ment has been described critically. Further, the
review explores our work on phytoremediation
as green technology during the last 6 years and
hand in hand addresses the various ecological is-
sues, benefits and constraints pertaining to heavy
metal pollution of aquatic ecosystems and its phy-
toremediation as first case study. Second case
study demonstrates the possible health implica-
tions associated with use of metal contaminated
wastewater for irrigation in peri-urban areas of
developing world. Our researches revealed wet-
land plants/macrophytes as ideal bio-system for
P. K. Rai (B)
Department of Environmental Sciences (FEBES),
School of Earth Sciences and Natural Resource
Management, Mizoram University, Tanhril,
Aizawl 796009, India
e-mail: prabhatrai24@yahoo.co.in
heavy metals removal in terms of both ecology
and economy, when compared with chemical
treatments. However, there are several con-
straints or limitations in the use of aquatic plants
for phytoremediation in microcosm as well as
mesocosm conditions. On the basis of our past
researches, an eco-sustainable model has been
proposed in order to resolve the certain con-
straints imposed in two case studies. In relation
to future prospect, phytoremediation technology
for enhanced heavy metal accumulation is still in
embryonic stage and needs more attention in gene
manipulation area. Moreover, harvesting and re-
cycling tools needs more extensive research. A
multidisciplinary research effort that integrates
the work of natural sciences, environmental en-
gineers and policy makers is essential for greater
success of green technologies as a potent tool of
heavy metals management.
Keywords Sustainable development ·
Phytoremediation · Heavy metals ·
Wetland plants · Eco-sustainable technology ·
Green chemicals
Introduction
The larger problems of environmental degrada-
tion caused by excessive and uncontrolled use
of water and chemical substances pose a big
422
challenge to researchers as well as policy makers.
The air, soil, water and biota are all sacred to
the people, and any perturbation in this land-
scape is restricted due to the existing myth that
could invite disaster. The emerging indications
reflecting the current thinking in paradigm shifts
in economics and ecology, leading to possibilities
of developing new conceptual models for ‘sus-
tainable development’, tend to lead us away from
an anthropocentric view of nature and natural
resources (Ramakrishnan et al. 1994; Flint 2003).
In relation to environmental management, con-
cept of sustainable development is undergoing
rapid evolution; however, four general dimen-
sions are applicable to address multifaceted issues
(Fig. 1). Garćıa-Serna et al. (2007) reviewed the
concept of sustainability, its linkage with chemical
industries and inextricably linked philosophies
and disciplines i.e. The Natural Step, Biomimicry,
Cradle to Cradle, Getting to Zero Waste, Re-
silience Engineering, Inherently Safer Design,
Ecological Design, Green Chemistry and Self-
Assembly.
Water is an integral component of the envi-
ronment, responsible for various life processes
and hence persistence of life on this planet
(UNESCO 2003; Rai 2009b). We cannot live for
more than several days without water, shorter
than for any source of sustenance other than fresh
air. Besides being an integral part of the ecosys-
tem, water is a social and economic good (Flint
2004). Demand for water resources of sufficient
quantity and quality for human consumption,
Fig. 1 Sustainable
development: changing
paradigm
Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:421–448
sanitation, agricultural, irrigation and manufac-
turing will continue to intensify as populations
increase and as global urbanization, industrial-
ization and commercial development accelerates
(Flint and Houser 2001). In meeting their demand
for water, societies extract vast quantities from
rivers, lakes, wetlands and underground aquifers
to supply the requirements of cities, farms and
industries. To date, water is the most pressing
resource issue of twenty-first century, and due to
its growing scarcity, water researchers, managers
and policymakers are predicting next world war
for water itself (Rai 2008d, 2010b).
Water is extremely valuable both in terms of
quantity as well as quality, and there are several
examples to justify this statement. As far as quan-
tity is concerned, many countries have conflicts
and others undergone bilateral/multilateral agree-
ments for water sharing and distribution (Flint
2004). Pakistan and India have been in conflict
for centuries over water in the Indus and Ganges
Rivers (Mustikhan 1999; Flint 2004). Likewise,
Israelis and Palestinians have argued for years
over how to share the Mountain Aquifer be-
neath the West Bank (Edie Summaries 2000; Flint
2004). The Nile River in Africa runs through ten
countries; therefore, there is dispute over its eq-
uitable distribution (ENS 1999a, b; Flint 2004).
Along the Missouri River, there is conflict among
navigation, power generation and environmental
concerns (Quaid 2003; Flint 2004). Interestingly,
Malaysia sells water to neighbouring Singapore
and is now demanding an increase in the price
Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:421–448
of this water (ENN 2003). Others have made
provision for integrated management of water
e.g. The Mercosul countries of Brazil, Argentina,
Uruguay and Paraguay launched a project for
preservation of the Guarani Aquifer that fulfils
their requirements (Muggiati 2003; Flint 2004).
Similarly, Canada and the USA signed a treaty
approximately 10 years ago regarding the Great
Lakes basin (ENS 1999a, b; Flint 2004). Likewise,
Mexico and the USA have a longstanding treaty
for maintaining water flow in the Colorado River
(Stevenson 2003; Flint 2004). Briefly, it is crystal
clear that water is a precious and scarce resource
issue at local, regional and global level, and there
should be an agency, which looks after its equi-
table and sustainable use at the global level.
Further, over the last century, human popula-
tion has increased threefold, global water with-
drawal has increased sevenfold, and per capita
water withdrawal has increased fourfold leading
to exacerbation of the gloomy situation, as about
one sixth of the world’s people do not have easy
access to safe water (Rai 2008d). Among different
sectors utilizing water, irrigation sector is the
largest consumer (<85%) of water resources in
developing world followed by domestic, energy
and industrial sector (Rai 2008d).
Moreover, spatial and temporal distribution
of water is very uneven across the landscape.
Restoration activity in India and other develop-
ing countries of central Asia is often constrained
by lack of water outside the monsoon season.
This lack is further exacerbated in hilly terrain
like Himalayas. Uneven distribution of rainfall
interacting with excessive land degradation has
often aggravated the shortage of water (Shah et al.
1991; Ramakrishnan et al. 1994). Moreover, a
huge amount of rainwater received on earth sur-
face is wasted particularly in hilly regions of de-
veloping world like North-East India.
World Health Organization (WHO) recom-
mended that good health and cleanliness require
a total daily supply of 8 gal/person/day (Collier
1999; Flint 2004). Average US household uses
about 50 gal/person/day, nearly triple Europe’s
level and more than seven times the rest of the
world (ENS 1999a, b; Flint 2004). Land irrigation
pumping extracts underground water much faster
than it is recharging, and spray irrigation loses one
423
third of water through evaporation before reach-
ing plant roots (Lazaroff 2000; Flint 2004). China
is draining some of its rivers dry and now mining
ancient aquifers that take thousands of years to
recover (Brown 1999; Flint 2004). Africa’s Lake
Chad has shrunk from a surface area of 25,000 km2
in 1960 to only 2,000 km2 today (GreenBiz.com
2003; Flint 2004). Mexico City is sinking, as resi-
dents pump huge quantity of ground water (Cen-
ter for New American Dream 2000; Flint 2004).
Globally, the world has lost half of its wetlands,
mostly in the last 50 years (Wilson and Yost
2001; Flint 2004). In light of the aforesaid grim
situation, it is predicted that two of every three
persons could live in water-stressed conditions by
the year 2025 (GreenBiz.com 2003; Flint 2004).
The problem is further aggravated by the climate
change leading to various water-borne diseases.
Quality-wise, the scenario of water is very
gloomy in context of both developing and devel-
oped (ENS 2003). In clusters of child across the
globe, leukaemia is occurring in regions where
drinking water has been contaminated by car-
cinogenic volatile organic compounds from in-
dustry (Sutherland 1999; Flint 2004). In 1995, 29
cities and towns in US cornbelt had herbicides
in drinking water that exceeded federal safely
levels (Barker 1997; Grossman 1998). Mass fish
kills and disease outbreaks went from nearly un-
heard of before 1973 to almost 140 events in 1996
(Borenstein 1998). Stranding of whales, dolphins
and porpoises linked to poor oceanic environmen-
tal conditions jumped from nearly zero in 1972
to almost 1,300 in 1994 (Borenstein 1998; Flint
2004). One fifth of the world’s freshwater fish,
2,000 of the 10,000 species identified so far are
endangered, vulnerable or extinct (GreenBiz.com
2003; Flint 2004).
Since less than 1% of fresh water is available
for sustaining various life forms including human
beings, therefore, proper conservation and man-
agement of water quality in terms of quantity as
well as quality is the need of the hour, which
is greatly being altered through the problem of
water pollution from inorganic and organic chemi-
cals. Moreover, Lentic ecosystems are more prone
to the problem of water pollution as compared to
Lotic ecosystems due to low capacity of self pu-
rification and chemical pollutants dispersal (Rai
424
2009b). Therefore, they deserve special attention
which will be reflected in our first case study.
However, before going into the details of the two
case studies, it will be interesting to give a critical
overview of the problem.
Heavy metal pollution in aquatic ecosystems:
an overview
Pollution of surface water with toxic chemicals
and eutrophication of rivers and lakes with ex-
cess nutrients are of great environmental concern
worldwide (Rai 2007a, b, 2008a, b, c, d, 2009a, b, c,
d, 2010a, b; Rai and Tripathi 2007a, b, 2008). Most
of the pollutants and heavy metals discharged in
industrial effluents ultimately find their way to
aquatic ecosystems i.e. rivers, ponds and lakes.
The presence of heavy metal pollutants in wa-
terbodies poses risk to the health of humans and
ecosystems (Kudo and Miyahara 1991; Nies 1999;
Ho et al. 2003; Zietz et al. 2003; Alam et al. 2003;
Miller et al. 2004; Rai 2008a, 2009a). In recent
years, there has been increaed global concern
over the deteriorating state of waterbodies due to
heavy metal pollution (Rai 2008b).
The primary sources of metal pollution are the
burning of fossil fuels, mining and smelting of
metalliferous ores, municipal wastes, fertilizers,
pesticides and sewage (Nriagu 1979, 1996; Pendias
and Pendias 1989; Rai 2009a). Heavy metal
contamination and acid mine drainage are very
important concerns where waste materials con-
taining metal-rich sulphides from mining activity
have been stored or abandoned (Concas et al.
2006; Rai 2008a). Further sources are coal mining
(Finkelman and Gross 1999), and its allied indus-
tries e.g. thermal power plants and also chem-
ical industries e.g. chlor-alkali plants are major
sources of heavy metals in industrial belts in devel-
oping countries like India (Sharma 2003; Rai et al.
2007). Effluents of these industries pose serious
threats to water quality and aquatic biodiversity
of rivers, lakes and reservoirs.
In 1986, a study statistically linked children
with leukemia in Woburn, Massachusetts to con-
taminated drinking water affected by a nearby
waste site (Montague 1998). Heavy metal expo-
Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:421–448
sure of the population may cause neurobehavioral
disorders, such as fatigue, insomnia, decreased
concentration, depression, irritability, sensory and
motor symptoms (Hanninen and Lindstrom 1979).
Exposure to heavy metals has been linked to de-
velopmental retardation, various types of cancers,
kidney damage, autoimmunity and even death in
some instances of exposure to very high concen-
trations (Rai 2009a). More specifically, methyl-
mercury intake through fish and aquatic foods can
have a considerable effect on human health (Rai
2008b). Methyl-mercury may cross the placental
barriers and cause foetal brain damage (Sharma
2003; Rai 2008b). Accumulation of Cd in human
bodies (principally in kidney and liver) can cause
renal dysfunction and bone disease such as Itai-
Itai in Japan (Nordberg 1996). As a consequence,
a major public health concern of cadmium ex-
posure in the general population is the lifetime
accumulation through the food chain and possible
renal damage, which has attracted much atten-
tion worldwide (Syers and Goldfeld 2001). High
concentrations of cadmium have been reported
in sewage, irrigation water and vegetables grown
in the Gangetic plain of eastern Uttar Pradesh
and western Bihar regions of India have resulted
in carcinoma of gallbladder and production of
stones with concentration of cadmium, chromium
and lead concentrations being significantly higher
in carcinoma of gallbladder than in gallstones
(Shukla et al. 1998; Rai 2008a). Lead poisoning
in children causes neurological damage leading to
reduced intelligence, loss of short-term memory,
learning disabilities and coordination problems.
The effects of arsenic (As) include cardiovascular
problems, skin cancer and other skin effects, pe-
ripheral neuropathy and kidney damage (WHO
1997). High arsenic concentrations have been
reported recently from the USA, China, Chile,
Bangladesh, Taiwan, Mexico, Argentina, Poland,
Canada, Hungary, Japan and India (Mohan and
Pittman Jr 2007). As (a semi-metal/metalloid) pol-
lution in ground water is much prevalent in de-
veloping countries like India and Bangladesh (Rai
2009a, b, c) causing skin lesions culminating in to
cancer.
The threat of heavy metals to human and
animal health is aggravated by their long-term
Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:421–448
persistence in the environment (Gisbert et al.
2000). For instance, Pb, one of the more persistent
metals, has been estimated to have a soil retention
time of 150–5,000 years and reported to maintain
high concentration for as long as 150 years after
sludge application to soil (Kumar et al. 1995).
Another reason for toxic heavy metals causing
concern is that they may be transferred and accu-
mulated in the bodies of animals or human beings
through food chain, which will probably cause
DNA damage and carcinogenic effects due to
their mutagenic ability (Knasmuller et al. 1998). In
addition, some metals occur in the environment as
radioactive isotopes (e.g. 238 U, 137 Cs, 239 Pu, 90 Sr),
which can greatly increase the health risk (Pilon-
Smits and Pilon 2002).
In view of aforesaid perturbations caused to
human health, chemicals management of water
resources is one of the most important challenges
the world faces in current scenario.
In spite of plethora of policies and chemical
technologies, the issue of water resource conser-
vation and quality management is inadequately
addressed particularly in developing world. Sev-
eral techniques have been developed to remove
heavy metals from the waterbodies with mixed
success (Rai 2009c). Most techniques proved to be
partially effective and too costly to be adopted in
feasible manner. Most of the modern technologies
used to treat wastewaters have their own impli-
cations, as these technologies are quite costly,
concomitantly, posing threats to aquatic life (Rai
2008b). Researchers are currently searching for
technologies which could be employed to treat
heavy metal contaminated waters in a feasible
manner (Rai 2008a). In this context, there is a
great debate between traditional methods and
phyto-technologies which will be covered in the
forthcoming sections.
Prospect of green and low cost chemicals
in heavy metals management
Green chemistry is the design of chemical prod-
ucts and processes that reduce or eliminate the
use and generation of hazardous substances un-
like conventional chemicals (Warner et al. 2004;
Kirchhoff 2005; Tiwari et al. 2005, 2007, 2008; Lee
425
and Tiwari 2009). The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) defines Green Chemistry as the
use of chemistry for pollution prevention at mole-
cular level (see Garćıa-Serna et al. 2007).
There are three prime focus areas of Green
Chemistry: (1) the use of alternative synthetic
pathways, (2) the use of alternative reaction con-
ditions and (3) the design of safer chemicals that
are less toxic than current alternatives or in-
herently safer with regards to accident potential
(Garćıa-Serna et al. 2007).
The prospect of green chemicals was tested in
attaining eco-management of metals and metal
complexed compounds in water bodies. In this line
of action, Ferrate (VI) showed promising behav-
iour towards the oxidation of several inorganic
and organic impurities (Tiwari et al. 2005; Yngard
et al. 2007; Lee and Tiwari 2009). Green Lead
Project of Denmark, which is the vision of mining,
processing, transporting, treating, manufacturing,
storing, using and recycling lead (Pb) with zero
harm from lead exposure to both people and the
environment (Roche and Toyne 2004). Similarly,
catalysis is a key technology to achieve the objec-
tives of sustainable (green) chemistry (Centi and
Perathoner 2003).
Instead of using commercial-activated carbon,
green chemists have worked on inexpensive ma-
terials, such as chitosan, zeolites and other ad-
sorbents, which have high adsorption capacity
and are cheap as well (Babel and Kurniawan
2003). Adsorption of Cu2+ and Cr3+ onto pumice
(Pmc) and polyacrylonitrile/Pmc composite were
reported in literature (Yavuz et al. 2008).
In conjunction with the green chemistry, efforts
have been made to produce low-cost adsorbents.
Batch experiments showed that the removal of Co
and Zn using steel wool and Mg pellets were the
most effective among many chemical adsorbents
(Fe2 O3 , Fe3 O4 , FeS, Cu pellets, Zn pellets, Al
pellets, Fe pellets, coal and granulated active car-
bon) investigated (Wang et al. 2003); however, it
was not scaled to continuous cultures applicable to
industries. The adsorption of lignite (brown young
coals) to remove copper (Cu2+ ), lead (Pb2+ ) and
nickel (Ni2+ ) from aqueous solutions was demon-
strated under the low concentrations (Pehlivan
and Arslan 2007).
426
Role of chelating chemicals in heavy
metals removal
A chelating reagent’s molecule can form several
coordinative bonds to a certain metal atom, in-
creasing its concentration in soil aqueous phase
and mobility. By adding synthetic chelators such
as ethylenediaminetetracetic acid (EDTA), both
the solubility and bioavailability of heavy metals
are improved (Evangelou et al. 2007).
Why phytoremediation or plant biosystems?
Excessive use of chemical chelates has been
proven to pollute the ground water and nega-
tively affect water quality, for many necessary
ions are also chelated unselectively (Wenzel et al.
2003; Wu et al. 2010). Wenzel et al. (2003) con-
ducted an experiment using canola (Brassica na-
pus L) and reported that leaching losses of Cu,
Pb and Zn (polluting ground water) far exceeded
the amounts of metal taken up by plants af-
ter EDTA was applied, which indicated that un-
der some certain circumstance the disadvantage
of chelating reagent far outweigh its advantage.
Therefore, taking reagent toxicity, unselectivity
and inefficacy into account, a careful consider-
ation concerning ecology, economy and human
health is imperative before chemicals are being
put into practice for heavy metals management in
aquatics.
In forthcoming section, the article attempts to
address the key question that why select a biosys-
tem for the management of metals when industry
already appears to have a comprehensive array
of chemical technologies as partially mentioned
earlier (Eccles 1999). Selected bio-systems have
the ability to accumulate a variety of pollutants,
both organic and inorganic; it is worth to mention
that biosystems cannot destroy metals; however,
they can influence metal’s mobility in the envi-
ronment by modifying their chemical as well as
physical characteristics (Eccles 1999; Rai 2009a).
Chemical processes also work in the same line
of action; however, their long-term application
results in production of certain harmful chemicals
posing severe threat to aquatic ecosystem health
(Rai 2009a). Moreover, comparative account of
cost-effectiveness between conventional chemical
Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:421–448
technologies and phyto-technologies is mentioned
briefly. Finally, outcomes of two case studies
pertaining to my research works during the last
6 years are discussed.
Present section discusses the prospect of bio-
agents in heavy metals management in com-
parison to chemical technologies. Firstly, there
are some basic differences between phyto-
technologies and chemical technologies. In Bio-
systems, there is occurrence of nature chelators
for metals e.g. phytochelatin, metallothionein and
organic acids while in conventional chemical
technologies, synthetic chelators e.g. EDTA,
ethyleneglycoltetraacetic acid and diethylenetri-
aminepentaacetic acid are used frequently (Wu
et al. 2010). In biosystems used for phytoreme-
diation, metabolic machinery is used for metals
detoxification i.e. ZNT protein, encoded by ZIP
gene (Zn2+ and Cd2+ ); Nramp protein (encoded
by AtNramp gene) for Cd2+ and Fe2+ ; Protein en-
coded by NtCBP4 for Pb2+ ; Aquaglyceroprins for
As3+ ; Phosphate transporter As5+ ; IRT1 (iron-
regulated transporter) Fe2+ , Mn2+ and Zn2+ (Wu
et al. 2010), which is not the case with conven-
tional chemical technologies.
Besides some pros and cons, exhaustive lit-
erature survey revealed that conventional tech-
nologies e.g. chemical precipitation, ion exchange,
sedimentation, micro-filtration and reverse osmo-
sis are not eco-friendly as they pose a serious
threat to aquatic life due to various side effects
and concomitantly contaminate the aquatic bodies
(Table 1). Table 1 provides an overview of the
treatability of physicochemical treatments for in-
dustrial effluent with their advantages and disad-
vantages. Also, the huge cost burden of chemicals
has opened a path to the market place for an
innovative technology (Table 2).
Cost effectiveness: chemical
and phyto-technologies
In developing countries, we cannot save the en-
vironment at any cost due to imposed financial
constraints originating from rapid population
growth. Rather, the chemical technologies should
be cost effective and feasible under climatic/
field conditions of particular developing country.
Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:421–448 427

Table 1 Summary of the treatability of physicochemical treatments for industrial effluent (type of treatment, advantages,
disadvantages and references) [After Rai 2009c]
Number Conventional methods Advantages
1 Chemical precipitation Low capital cost, simple operation
2 Coagulation–flocculation Shorter time to settle out suspended
solids, improved sludge settling
3 Dissolved air flotation Low cost, shorter hydraulic
retention time
4 Ion exchange No sludge generation, less
time consuming
5 Ultrafiltration Smaller space requirement
6 Nanofiltration Lower pressure than RO (7–30 bar)
7 Reverse osmosis High rejection rate, able to
withstand high temperature
Disadvantages
Sludge generation, extra operational
cost for sludge disposal
Sludge production, extra operational
cost for sludge disposal
Subsequent treatments are required to
improve the removal efficiency
of heavy metal
Not all ion exchange resin is suitable for
metal removal, high capital cost
High operational cost, prone to
membrane fouling
Costly, prone to membrane fouling
High energy consumption due to high
pressure required (20–100 bar),
susceptible to membrane fouling

Environmental management is a big investment, the conventional technologies. The expansion of

currently with a current world market value of
US$640 billion (Press Notice 1998; Eccles 1999).
Table 2 specifically mentions the operating costs
of traditional chemical technologies.
Economic consideration also favors the need
for an alternative cost-effective technology, as
the cleanup of hazardous wastes by conven-
tional technology is projected to cost at least
US$400 billion in the USA alone, based on es-
timates obtained from various institutions (Salt
et al. 1995; Eccles 1999; Rai 2009a). Drawbacks
of traditional chemical technologies have made
phytoremediation (use of plants for pollution
management) a promising alternative for removal
of metals from contaminated water. Also, the
huge cost burden of chemicals has opened a path
to the market place for an innovative technology
(Table 3). Eccles (1999) through cost–benefit
analysis proved that biological processes for heavy
metals removal are cheaper, when compared to
this research work has promoted the eco-friendly
as well as cost-effective and hence sustainable
technology in the form of phytoremediation (Rai
and Tripathi 2007a; Rai 2008a, 2009a). The use of
plants for remediation of metals offers an attrac-
tive alternative, because it is solar driven and can
be carried out in situ, minimizing cost and human
exposure (Salt et al. 1995, 1998).
The removal performance and cost-
effectiveness of various low-cost adsorbents
derived from agricultural waste, industrial by-
product or natural material are evaluated and
compared to those of activated carbon for
the removal of heavy metals (Cd(II), Cr(III),
Cr(VI), Cu(II), Ni(II) and Zn(II)) from metal-
contaminated wastewater (Kurniawan et al. 2006).
Their study supported the technical applicability
and cost-effectiveness bio-adsorbent to treat
inorganic effluent in comparison to conventional
chemicals.

Table 2 Evaluated Chemical technology Costs (US$ m−3 )

capital and operational
Capital Operating
costs for chemicals
management in industries A B
(modified after Eccles Precipitation (includes neutralization, 12.5 8 0.003–0.013
1999) coagulation, flocculation and separation)
Adsorption (through granulated 500 250 0.020–0.050
activated carbon)
Membrane filtration 12.5 11 0.013–0.050
Ion exchange 100 75 0.050–0.250
428
Table 3 Physicochemical Parameter
factors known to affect
the heavy metal uptake, Temperature
accumulation and toxicity Light
of ions pH
Salinity
Sulphur (amino acids)/extracellular products
Organic acids
Polyphenols
Polysachharides
Polypeptides
Sediment fraction
Suspended solids
Suspended colloids
Heavy metals
Modified after
Rai (2009a) Esterase variation pattern
Unfortunately, in literatures, there is paucity of
empirical data on comparative cost-effectiveness
of conventional and phytoremediation technology
due to certain constraints (Mohan and Pittman
Jr 2007). The cost of individual adsorbents de-
pends on local availability, processing required
and treatment conditions which is quite non-
uniform in developing countries like India. Costs
will vary when the adsorbents are made for de-
veloped countries, developing countries or un-
derdeveloped countries. Further, low harvesting
costs are also required for a cost-effective pollu-
tant removal from aquatic systems (Olguín 2002).
The study by Lewandowski et al. (2006) showed
that the phytoremediation function generates an
economic benefit provided the cleaned site further
generates potential income. In aquatic ecosystems
and wetlands, eco-tourism at cleaned site will be
extremely sustainable option. Demir and Arisoy
(2007) did cost and benefit analysis of biological
and chemical removal of hexavalent chromium
[Cr (VI)] ions and cost per unit in chemical re-
moval was calculated C 0.24 and the ratio of
chrome removal was 99.68%, whereas those of
biological removal were C 0.14 and 59.3%. There-
fore, it was seen that cost per unit in chemical
removal and chrome removal ratio were higher
than those of biological removal method.
Biosystems used in phytoremediation are pre-
pared from the naturally abundant or waste bio-
mass of algae, moss, fungi or bacteria which are
obviously very cheap (Kratochvil and Volesky
1998). Critical reviews by Bailey et al. (1999)
Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:421–448
Effects
More uptake/toxicity at higher temperatures
Uptake is light dependent in some cases
Lower pH generally increases uptake/capacity
Lower salinity increases content/toxicity
Chelate metals, reduce uptake/toxicity
Reduce uptake/toxicity by complexation
Bind metals,reduce uptake/toxicity
Complex metals, reduce uptake/toxicity
Reduce uptake/toxicity by binding metals
Complex metals, reduce uptake/toxicity
Zn/Cd; Ni; Cu combinations are antagonistic.
Fe can stimulate Cu accumulation
Interrelated with metal concentration
and Volesky (2003) assessed the performance of
different biosorbents for the removal of different
heavy metals under various experimental condi-
tions. In his review, Ngah and Hanafiah (2008)
mentioned an extensive list of plant wastes as
adsorbents for Cd, Cu, Pb, Zn and Ni includ-
ing rice husks, spent grain, sawdust, sugarcane
bagasse, fruit wastes, weeds and others. In one
study on low-cost biosorbents (Demrbaş 2003),
maximum levels of As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb and
Hg were 4.118 mg kg−1 in beech trunk wood
ash, 3.926 mg kg−1 in Cladonia rangiformis (a
Lichen), 15.057 mg kg−1 in Lactarius piper-
atus, 92.488 mg kg−1 in Amanita muscaria,
40.832 mg kg−1 in beech trunk bark ash and
0.718 mg kg−1 in C. rangiformis, respectively, in
all the samples.
Yadav et al. (2009) conducted pot experiments
of Jatropha curcas having different concentra-
tions of arsenic, chromium and zinc and concomi-
tantly studied beneficial impact of dairy sludge
and biofertilizer on their accumulation. Cochrane
et al. (2006) selected three biosorbents, crab cara-
pace, the macroalgae Fucus vesiculosus and peat
which were compared with two commercial ma-
terials, an activated carbon and an ion-exchange
resin for the removal of copper from aqueous
media and concluded that both crab carapace and
F. vesiculosus were efficient, effective and cost-
effective biosorbent materials for the removal
of copper from aqueous solutions and may be
considered viable alternatives to activated-carbon
and ion-exchange resin.
Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:421–448
Phytoremediation: a green technology
The removal of heavy metals using living organ-
isms has recently been attracting a lot of public
attention and research and development spend-
ing. Eccles (1999) through cost–benefit analysis
proved that biological processes for heavy metals
removal are cheaper, when compared to the con-
ventional technologies. The expansion of this re-
search work has promoted the eco-friendly as well
as cost-effective and hence sustainable technology
in the form of phytoremediation (Rai and Tripathi
2007a; Rai 2008a, 2009a). The use of plants for
remediation of metals offers an attractive alterna-
tive, because it is solar driven and can be carried
out in situ, minimizing cost and human exposure
(Salt et al. 1995, 1998). Therefore, phytoremedi-
ation technology promotes the use of plants for
environmental cleanup through the physiologi-
cal mechanisms of phytoextraction (Kumar et al.
1995), rhizofiltration (Salt et al. 1995; Rai 2008a),
phytostablization (Salt et al. 1995) or phytotrans-
formation/phytodegradation (Rai 2009a).
Rai (2009a) in his extensive review mentioned
some of the factors affecting chemical uptake and
distribution within living plants (Table 3) which
specifically include:
1. Physical and chemical properties of the com-
pound (e.g. water solubility, vapor pressure,
molecular weight and octanol–water partition
coefficient, Kow )
2. Environmental characteristics (e.g. tempera-
ture, pH, organic matter and soil moisture
content)
3. Plant characteristics (e.g. type of root system
and type of enzymes)
Hyperaccumulation has been hypothesized to
perform several functions in hyperaccumulator
species (Boyd and Martens 1998; Rai 2009a).
Hanson et al. (2004) made important contribu-
tions to our understanding of the ecology of
Se hyperaccumulation. An early review (Boyd
and Martens 1992) summarized four postulated
benefits of metal hyperaccumulation in plants (see
Rai 2009a):
429
Wetland plants: novel biosystems
for phytoremediation
Wetland plants are important tools for heavy met-
als removal from aquatic ecosystems (Rai 2008a).
The Ramsar convention, one of the earlier mod-
ern global conservation treaties, was adopted in
1971 at Ramsar, Iran and entered into force in
1975 emphasized the wise use of wetlands and
their resources (see Rai 2009a).
Wetland plants are preferred over other bio-
agents due to low cost, frequent abundance in
aquatic ecosystems and easy handling (Rai 2008a,
2009a). The extensive rhizosphere of wetland
plants provides an enriched culture zone for
microbes involved in degradation (Rai 2008a).
The wetland sediment zone provides reduc-
ing condition conducive to metal removal path-
way. Constructed wetlands proved effective in
abatement of heavy metal pollution. Physico-
chemical properties of wetlands provide many
positive attributes for remediating heavy metals.
Typha, Phragmites, Eichhornia, Azolla, Lemna
and other aquatic macrophytes are some potent
wetland plants for heavy metals removal (Rai
2008a). Table 4 specifically lists the potent wet-
land plants fruitful for metal phytoremediation.
Water hyacinth/Jalkumbhi (Eichhornia cras-
sipes) is one of the most commonly used plants
in constructed wetlands because of its fast growth
rate and large uptake of nutrients and contam-
inants (Rai 2008a, 2009a). However, application
of water hyacinth poses problem in functioning
of constructed wetlands due to its exotic invasive
nature and rapid multiplication. Therefore, its use
is recommended in artificial and high-rate algal
ponds (HRAP) through which industrial effluent
is allowed to pass for metals filtration before join-
ing the nearby reservoir (Fig. 5).
Further, there is also a need to improve our
understanding of the mechanisms involved in
transfer and mobilization of trace elements by
rhizosphere microbiota and to conduct research
on selection of microbial isolates from rhizosphere
of plants growing on heavy metal contaminated
soils for specific restoration programmes (Khan
2005). Wetland plants can absorb pollutants in
their tissue and provide a surface and an environ-
ment for microorganisms to grow (Vymazal 2002;
430 Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:421–448

Table 4 List of wetland Common name Scientific name Source

plants used for heavy
metal phytoremediation Reed Phragmites australis, Rai 2009a
with their common names Phragmites karka
Water fern, water velvet Azolla caroliniana,Azolla pinnata Rai 2007b, 2008c,
2010a, b
Water bloom/algal bloom Microcystis sp. Rai and Tripathi 2007a
Balrush/cattail Typha latifolia, Typha angustata, Rai 2008a, 2009a
Typha domingensis
Poplar trees Populus deltoids Rai 2008a
Pond weed/curly leaf Potamogeton natans, Rai 2008a
pond weed Potamogeton crispus
Parrot’s feather Myriophyllum spicatum Rai 2008a
Umbrella plant Cyperus alternifolius Rai 2009b
Duckweed Lemna minor Rai 2007a
Water hyacinth Eichhornia crassipes Rai 2008a
Smart weed Polygonum hydropiper Rai 2008a
Smooth cordgrass Spartina alternif lora Rai 2008a
Water zinnia Wedelia trilobata Rai 2008a
Water lettuce Pistia stratiotes Rai 2008a
Irish-leaved rush Juncus xihoides Rai 2009a
Fuzzy water clover Marsilea dromondii Rai 2009a
Reed canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea Rai 2009a
Salt marsh bulrush Scirpus robustus Rai 2009a
Rabbitfoot grass Polypogon monspeliensis Rai 2008a
Zebra rush Scirpus tabernaemontani Rai 2009a

Vymazal et al. 2007; Rai 2009a). This stimulates
both aerobic decomposition of organic matter and
the growth of nitrifying bacteria (Reddy et al.
1989; Brix 1997; Scholz 2006; Rai 2008a). How-
ever, when compared to microorganisms, wet-
land plants only play a secondary role in the
degradation of organic matters in wetland sys-
tems (Stottmeister et al. 2003). Organic matter
accumulates in wetlands over time through the
annual turnover of wetland plants/macrophytes in
terms of leaves and shoots. Organic matter binds
heavy metals directly and provides a carbon and
energy source for microbial metabolism. Thus,
wetland plants can be an indispensable part in
the long-term functioning of wetlands (Gladden
et al. 2002; Batty 2003; Scholz 2006). Numer-
ous comprehensive treatments of natural aquatic
ecosystem structure and function exist (Rai 2008a,
2009c). Rhizosphere bacteria in microcosm inves-
tigation facilitated the uptake of Se and Hg in salt
marsh bulrush (Scirpus robustus) and rabbitfoot
grass (Polypogon monspeliensis), thus enhancing
phytoremediation tests (Rai 2008a).
In non-agricultural conditions, the natural role
of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria, P solu-
bilising bacteria, mycorrhizal-helping bacteria and
arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in maintaining soil
fertility is more important than in conventional
agriculture, horticulture and forestry where higher
use of agrochemicals minimize their significance
(Khan 2005).
Having discussed an introductory overview of
the problem pertaining to heavy metals and a
comprehensive account of phytoremediation as
green technology, I will now confine myself to-
wards the couple of case studies in India which are
of equal concern in other developing world like
Bangladesh, Zambia, Nepal and other countries of
Southeast Asia.
Case study I: heavy metals pollution of a tropical
impoundment in singrauli industrial region
and its management through wetland plants
Energy production technologies (e.g. thermal
power plants fueled by coal) and environmental
pollution are intimately linked with each other.
Energy intensive industries are the industries
which are specifically established for power or
Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:421–448
electricity production e.g. thermal power plants
and coal mines (Rai 2009b). Energy intensive in-
dustries and chlor-alkali industries for the man-
ufacture of agrochemicals deteriorate the water
quality of lakes and reservoirs due to discharge
of different pollutants, especially a range of heavy
metals (Rai et al. 2007). Coal combustion is one
of the most important anthropogenic emission
sources of trace elements and an important source
of a number of metals (Wagner and Boman 2003;
Rai 2009b). Occurrence of toxic heavy metals in
lakes, reservoir and river water affects the lives
of local people that depend upon these water
sources for their daily requirements (Rai et al.
2002). Consumption of such aquatic food stuff en-
riched with toxic metals may cause serious health
hazards through food-chain magnification (Khan
et al. 2000; Rai and Tripathi 2008).
Study area and sampling sites
Study area
The Singrauli region (lies in 24◦ 15 E to 82◦ 40.9
N) lying between the states of Madhya Pradesh
and Uttar Pradesh (UP) in Northern India is now
one of the India’s most important energy centres,
also called as ‘Energy capital’. Eleven open-cast
mining sites, occupying nearly 200 km2 , fuel six
thermal power stations that generate 6800 MW
or about 10% of India’s installed generation ca-
pacity (Rai et al. 2007). A chlor-alkali industry,
Kannoria chemicals, thermal power plants and
coal mines are responsible for discharge of various
metals into Govind Ballabh Pant Sagar (G.B. Pant
Sagar). G.B. Pant Sagar is one of Asia’s largest
man-made reservoirs developed at Rihand dam,
and the area of submergence is 46,600 ha (Rai
et al. 2007; Rai 2009b, c). G.B. Pant Sagar is of
great importance to the people of the area not
only to the Singrauli but also to the entire eastern
Uttar Pradesh, one of the most populated states of
India.
The water of G.B. Pant Sagar is used for drink-
ing, irrigation, fish farming, bathing, generation of
300 MW hydroelectricity and industrial purposes.
The rapid pace of industrialization and urban-
ization has given birth to the problem of water
pollution of the reservoir (Rai et al. 2007; Rai
431
2009b). Singrauli region lies in the close vicinity
of G.B. Pant Sagar; the industries of the area reg-
ularly discharge their effluents into the reservoir.
Coal fly ash and ash slurry released from thermal
power plants and coal mines pose a serious threat
to aquatic ecosystem due to presence of various
pollutants particularly heavy metals. Chlor-alkali
industry, Kannoria chemicals is responsible for
discharge of various metals, especially mercury
into G.B. Pant Sagar.
All the above-mentioned factors in totality en-
couraged us to investigate its pollution science and
management in an eco-sustainable manner. Be-
fore going for detailed investigation, I conducted
spot testing of effluents at different disposal sites
and found three sites to be intensely polluted as
far as metals concentration were concerned.
Sampling sites
Figure 2 represents the location of sampling sites
in the surrounding of G.B. Pant Sagar.
Belwadah Belwadah is a rural area located near
the bank of G.B. Pant Sagar and receives the in-
dustrial effluents of Anpara thermal power plant.
It is located at a distance of about 20 km from
Anpara.
Dongia nala Industrial effluent from Kannoria
Chemicals mixed with domestic effluent is finally
discharged into Dongia nala, a portion of G.B.
Pant Sagar. The main products of the company are
caustic soda lye, chlorine, hydrochloric acid, hy-
drogen, caustic soda flakes, stable bleaching pow-
der, lindane (Tech.), lindane 1.3% dust, lindane
6.5% WDP, lindane 20% EC, lindane 6% gran-
ules, aluminium chloride and electric power.
Ash pond (Bina coal mine) Ash pond of G.B.
Pant Sagar receives the effluent of Bina coal mine.
There may be various sources of pollution in an
open-cast coal mine area. Mine excavations usu-
ally have water influx, either due to rainfall or to
interception of ground water flows. Other major
source of pollution is run-off after rain which
may give rise to serious pollution problems (Rai
2009b). The disturbed land or active overburden
(OB) dumps piled up near the mine is usually
432
Fig. 2 Study area and location of different sampling sites
very susceptive to erosion and silting is thus a
wide spread results. In OB dumps, some rainfall
is likely to permeate into them and may dissolve
some toxic metals from the heap and may conta-
minate the water course (Rai 2009b, c).
Rihand dam (reference site) Rihand dam is sit-
uated near Pipri location of Singrauli region.
Rihand dam connects the Rihand River and G.B.
Pant Sagar. In close vicinity of this dam, there
is no industrial establishment. All environmental
parameters were similar to polluted sites except
the presence of point source of pollution. Spot
testing also revealed very low metals concentra-
tion at Rihand dam among ten spots investigated
(Rai 2009b). Therefore, it was selected as the ref-
erence site in order to compare the data recorded
from polluted sites. Sampling location was 3 km
distance away from Rihand dam.
Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:421–448
Methodology: case study I
Heavy metal analysis in water
and wetland plants
A total of nine metals (Cu, Cr, Fe, Mn, Ni, Pb, Zn,
Hg and Cd) were investigated during the present
study (January 2005 to December 2005). Samples
for heavy metals analysis were collected quarterly
(in triplicate) during the month of March, June,
September and December. Filtered water sam-
ples from all sampling sites were wet digested in
HNO3 /HClO4 (3:1, v/v) mixtures at 80◦ C from all
sites were wet digested in HNO3 /HClO4 (3:1, v/v)
mixtures at 80◦ C. The concentrations of heavy
metals in filtrate of water and wetland plants were
determined with atomic absorption spectropho-
tometer as well as Particle (protons) induced
X-ray emission-PIXE (Murozono et al. 1999;
Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:421–448 433

Table 5 Macrophytes recorded at different sampling sites

Rihand dam
Aponogeton natans,
L. Engl. & Krause
Ceratophyllum demersum, L.
Cyperus rotundus, L.
Hydrilla verticillata,
(L.f.) Royle
Ipomoea aquatica, Forssk.
Marsilea quadrifolia, L.
Potamogeton pectinatus, L.
Potamogeton crispus, L.
Belwadah Dongia Nala
Eichhornia crassipes, Azolla piñata, R.Br.
(Mart.) Solms Monogr.
Lemna minor, L. Eichhornia crassipes,
(Mart.) Solms Monogr.
Spirodela polyrhiza Lemna minor, L.
(L.) Schleid. Linnaea
Vallisneria spiralis, L.
Polygonum amphibium, L.
Ash pond
Azolla pinnata, R.Br.
Lemna minor, L.
Spirodela polyrhiza
(L.) Schleid. Linnaea
Vallisneria spiralis, L.

Mireles et al. 2004) in some cases. Specimens of
the aquatic wetland plants (at least three repli-
cates) were collected from all sampling sites in
different seasons of the year depending on their
growth stages (Table 5). All the samples were
thoroughly washed with tap water. The plants
were oven dried at 80◦ C for 24 h before analysis.
This treatment removes the surface mineral en-
crustations and thus gives a measure of accurate
element concentration. The dried plant parts were
weighed and ground into water for metal concen-
tration analysis.
SPSS 10 statistical package was used for sta-
tistical analysis. Statistical comparisons of means
were examined with one-way ANOVA. Correla-
tion coefficients were calculated between metals
in effluent and water and effluents and sediments.
Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated
to examine the relationships between the con-
centrations of elements in water and in aquatic
macrophytes.
Results and discussion: case study I
Physicochemical parameters
For analysis of physicochemical characteristics of
effluent, water samples from different sampling
points were collected (in triplicate) at monthly
intervals every second week of each month from
January 2005 to December 2005. Triplicates (2 L),
were collected at a time in plastic bottles from
various effluent generation points. Samples were
stored with ice and brought to the laboratory
for the analysis of the different physicochemical
characteristics (APHA 2000). Table 6 represents
different physicochemical parameters of effluents
recorded at different sites. The study revealed
that most of the parameters were above the per-
missible limits prescribed by Bueareu of Indian
Standards (BIS) particularly at polluted sites.
Heavy metals in reservoir water and wetland
plants
Table 7 represents the metals concentrations
recorded in effluents and at different sampling
sites of the reservoir (Table 8). The present evi-
denced that the heavy metals in industrial effluent
and reservoir water were above permissible limit
prescribed by Bureau of Indian Standards (1983),
CPCB (1998) and US EPA (2002).
Most developing countries like India may not
be able to afford the huge expenditure required
to treat the heavy metal pollution by modern
technologies (Rai and Tripathi 2007b; Rai 2008a).
In the recent past, utilization of aquatic plants for
the wastewater treatment has been reported as
an economical device for the treatment of heavy
metal contaminated wastewater. Several research
works demonstrated heavy metal removal under
artificial conditions (Rai et al. 1995, 2007a, b,
2008a, b, c; Rai and Tripathi 2007a, b, 2009).
There is still a paucity of data on the comparative
efficiency of different aquatic plants for heavy
metal removal under natural conditions, espe-
cially in tropical regions.
434 Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:421–448

Table 6 Physicochemical Physicochemical parameters Anpara Kannoria Bina

characteristics of effluents
Lowest value Lowest value Lowest value
discharged into G.B. Pant
Highest value Highest value Highest value
Sagar
Temperature (◦ C) 27 ± 1.2 25 ± 1.1 26 ± 1.4
41 ± 1.4 39 ± 1.4 36 ± 1.3
TSS (mg L−1 ) 995 ± 22.8 98 ± 2.8 199 ± 2.2
2750 ± 144 329 ± 3.1 570 ± 4.1
TDS (mg L−1 ) 510 ± 17.4 390 ± 20.4 760 ± 8.9
850 ± 26.2 725 ± 34 1430 ± 101
pH 7.53 ± 0.3 2.9 ± 0.12 5.8 ± 0.11
8.55 ± 0.2 4.3 ± 0.2 7.5 ± 2.0
Electrical conductivity 210 ± 4.8 810 ± 41 193 ± 5.2
(micro mho cm−1 )
630 ± 9.3 1990 ± 105 550 ± 3.9
BOD 138 ± 4.8 74 ± 6.9 129 ± 7.9
175 ± 7.3 98 ± 7.6 158 ± 8.3
Total acidity (mg L−1 ) 21 ± 1.2 121 ± 11.7 19.9 ± 1.9
40 ± 1.4 489 ± 14.0 37.9 ± 2.6
Alkalinity (mg L−1 ) 110 ± 8.1 63 ± 8.0 87.5 ± 1.6
330 ± 4.3 117 ± 1.9 290 ± 1.4
Chloride (mg L−1 ) 370 ± 11.1 990 ± 33 269 ± 6.4
593 ± 10.3 2500 ± 99.3 430 ± 9.2
Hardness (mg L−1 CaCO3 ) 354 ± 21.6 690 ± 3.9 290 ± 7.1
633 ± 23.7 980 ± 47 489 ± 12.3
Nitrate (mg L−1 ) 43 ± 9.6 37.8 ± 1.8 149 ± 1.9
159 ± 11.3 68.4 ± 1.3 391 ± 18.7
Phosphate (mg L−1 ) 3.3 ± 0.3 2.2 ± 0.3 4.1 ± 0.7
9.2 ± 0.7 7.3 ± 0.7 10.4 ± 0.9

The metals accumulations inside biomass were
investigated in all the macrophytes collected from
different sampling sites. The results revealed that
E. crassipes, Lemna minor and Azolla pinnata
were leading hyper-accumulators of wide range
of metals from sites receiving diverse nature of
effluents (Fig. 3a–d). Detailed results recorded
from all the wetland plants are mentioned else-
where (Rai 2009d). Our findings proved that
wetland plants are potentially valuable as in-
dicators of heavy metals in river, lake and
ponds, as revealed by a positive and significant

Table 7 Metals concentration in effluent before being discharged into G.B. Pant Sagar
Metals Anpara Kannoria Bina Standard Standard
examined (CPCB 1998) (US EPA 2002)
Cu 39 ± 3.1 5.9 ± 1.0 17.5 ± 1.4 3.0 5.0
Cr 44 ± 4.6 7.9 ± 1.1 3.9 ± 0.7 0.10 2.0
Fe 94 ± 9.5 16.5 ± 1.4 18 ± 1.3 3.0 100
Mn 98 ± 11.0 18.9 ± 1.6 15 ± 1.7 5.0 5.0
Ni 54 ± 8.9 3.7 ± 0.8 8.6 ± 1.4 3.0 5.0
Pb 19.8 ± 3.4 5.9 ± 0.7 3.0 ± 0.4 0.10 0.10
Zn 38 ± 8.4 4.9 ± 0.5 12.0 ± 1.0 5.0 5.0
Hg 6.5 ± 1.4 9.8 ± 2.5 0.4 ± 0.01 0.01 0.01
Cd 6.0 ± 1.0 3.1 ± 0.3 3.0 ± 0.7 2.0 1.0
All values in mg L−1
CPCB Central Pollution Control Board, Government of India, New Delhi (1998); EPA Environmental Protection Agency
(USA)
Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:421–448 435

Table 8 Metal concentrations in G.B. Pant Sagar water

Month Cu Cr Fe Mn Ni Pb Zn Hg Cd
Belwadah
March 22 ± 2.1 29 ± 2.7 33 ± 2.4 18 ± 1.4 26 ± 1.9 13 ± 0.9 13 ± .01 1.8 ± 0.1 4.1 ± 0.6
June 27 ± 1.4 34 ± 4.1 41 ± 2.9 22 ± 1.9 36 ± 3.1 17 ± 1.7 21 ± 1.1 2.0 ± 0.3 4.5 ± 0.9
Sept. 16 ± 1.4 19 ± 1.6 22 ± 2.2 11 ± 1.1 16 ± 1.2 8 ± 0.79 11 ± 0.9 1.1 ± 0.3 2.9 ± 0.4
Dec. 24 ± 1.8 32 ± 1.8 37 ± 2.7 19 ± 1.0 29 ± 1.8 15 ± 1.2 14 ± 1.1 1.7 ± 0.3 3.7 ± 0.8
Dongia Nala
March 0.9 ± 0.1 0.7 ± 0.2 4.6 ± .06 2.9 ± 0.7 0.9 ± 0.1 0.7 ± 0.1 3.0 ± 0.1 3.9 ± 0.3 0.7 ± .09
June 1.2 ± 0.2 0.8 ± 0.2 5.1 ± 0.4 3.1 ± 0.9 1.3 ± 0.2 1.1 ± 0.2 3.2 ± 0.3 4.1 ± 0.4 0.9 ± 0.1
Sept. 0.6 ± 0.1 0.3 ± .01 1.2 ± 0.1 1.8 ± 0.2 0.4 ± .09 0.3 ± .01 1.9 ± .09 2.7 ± 0.1 0.3 ± .05
Dec. 0.8 ± 0.2 0.5 ± .09 3.9 ± 0.9 2.6 ± 0.1 0.6 ± .07 0.4 ± .09 1.7 ± 0.1 2.9 ± 0.1 0.5 ± .03
Ash Pond
March 5.4 ± 1.3 0.18 ± .01 41.3 ± 1.7 0.2 ± .01 3.2 ± 0.6 0.9 ± 0.1 4.2 ± 0.90 .17 ± .01 1.0 ± 0.3
June 6.8 ± 1.1 0.2 ± .01 38 ± 3.1 0.4 ± .09 3.7 ± .7 1.1 ± 0.2 5.1 ± 0.8 .19 ± .01 1.2 ± 0.2
Sept. 4.3 ± 1.2 .09 ± .01 27.5 ± 1.4 .02 ± 0.0 1.9 ± 0.4 0.3 ± .09 2.9 ± 0.30 .01 ± 0.0 0.6 ± 0.01
Dec. 4.9 ± 0.9 0.1 ± .04 34 ± 2.7 0.3 ± .04 2.1 ± 0.9 0.4 ± 0.1 3.2 ± 0.4 0.1 ± .01 0.8 ± 0.1
Rihand dam
March 0.01 ± .01 .02 ± .021 1.1 ± 0.2 1.3 ± 0.4 .07 ± .01 .06 ± .01 1.0 ± 0.2 – 0.01 ± 0.0
June 0.02 ± .02 .03 ± .031 1.2 ± 0.4 1.5 ± 0.2 .09 ± .01 .08 ± .01 1.2 ± 0.3 – 0.02 ± 0.0
Sept. 0.01 ± 0.0 – 0.9 ± 0.1 1.1 ± 0.2 .01 ± 0.0 .02 ± 0.0 0.8 ± 0.1 – .01 ± 0.00
Dec. 0.1 ± 0.03 0.01 ± .01 1.1 ± 0.2 1.4 ± 0.3 .08 ± .01 .09 ± .01 0.9 ± 0.1 – 0.01 ± 0.01
All values in mg L−1

correlation between metals in reservoir’s en-
vironment and metals in wetland plants. Fur-
ther, during microcosm phytoremediation experi-
ments (May to June), metal concentrations were
recorded in reservoir water three times at al-
ternate 20-day periods, and their average value
was calculated (see Rai 2009c). Marked percent-
age reduction in metal concentrations of reser-
voir water was recorded. The percentage decrease
for different metals was in the range of 25% to
67.90% at Belwadah, 25% to 77.14% at Dongia
nala and 25% to 71.42% at Ash pond site of G.B.
Pant Sagar (see Rai 2009c). Moreover, aforesaid
results suggested that field experiments appear
to be a prerequisite for improved microcosm de-
sign and for the systematic extrapolation of infor-
mation from experimental ecosystems to natural
ecosystems (Rai 2009c).
Case study II: heavy metal contamination in
vegetable crops
Second case study was to assess heavy metal con-
tamination of vegetables in Varanasi and implica-
tions for health and livelihoods (Rai et al. 2010).
The case study further investigated relationships
between crop contamination, wastewater irriga-
tion and industrial pollution sources.
Heavy metals can accumulate in the soil at toxic
levels due to the long-term application of waste-
water (Bohn et al. 1985). One important dietary
uptake pathway could be through vegetable crops
irrigated with contaminated wastewater (Rai and
Tripathi 2008; Rai et al. 2010). Soils irrigated by
wastewater accumulate heavy metals such as Cd,
Zn, Cr, Ni, Pb and Mn in surface soil. When
the capacity of the soil to retain heavy metals is
reduced due to repeated use of wastewater, soil
can release heavy metals into ground water or soil
solution available for plant uptake.
Inappropriate treatment of industrial and mu-
nicipal wastewater is the key source of heavy
metals. In spite of polluting the rivers and aquatic
reservoirs when partially treated/recycled, waste-
water is used for irrigation; it contaminates the
farmlands, and hand in hand, it poses serious
health hazard to human beings and animals when
such vegetables are eaten. In peri-urban areas,
non-point sources and the use of industrial or mu-
nicipal wastewater are common practice in many
parts of the developing world (Feigin et al. 1991;
Urie 1986; Duda 1993; Rai and Tripathi 2008; Rai
436 Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:421–448

Fig. 3 a–d Metals

removal by selected
a Eichhornia(shoot) belwadah
250
naturally occurring
wetland plants at
different sampling sites
(Rai 2008b; Rai 2009d) 200

metal mgKg-1 inbiomass

150

100

50

0
Cu Cr Fe Mn Ni Pb Zn Hg Cd
metals

b Eichhornia(root) belwadah
1600

1400
metals (mgKg-1) in biomass

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0
Cu Cr Fe Mn Ni Pb Zn Hg Cd
metals

et al. 2010), including India (Singh et al. 2004; Rai
and Tripathi 2008).
As mentioned in the beginning, irrigation be-
ing the largest consumer of water resources in
developing countries, access to adequate water
for irrigation is a matter of increasing concern in
India. To face the growing demand for irrigation
water, nonconventional resources are often used.
Important sources of heavy metals in wastewater
are urban and industrial effluents, deterioration
of sewerage pipe and treatment works and the
wear of household plumbing fixtures. Wastewater
irrigation is known to contribute significantly to
the heavy metal content of soils (Mapanda et al.
2005; Nan et al. 2002; Nyamangara and Mzezewa
1999; Singh et al. 2004; Rai and Tripathi 2008; Rai
et al. 2010). Other sources of heavy metal contam-
ination of agricultural soil are sewage sludge, fer-
tilizers and pesticides (Alloway and Ayres 1993;
Ross 1994).
The biomonitoring potential of various vegeta-
bles has been used for the health risk assessment
(Queirlo et al. 2000; Cobb et al. 2000; Millis et al.
2004; Rai and Tripathi 2008; Rai et al. 2010) as
these vegetables form an integral component of
staple food and hence sustaining the livelihood
of people living in peri-urban areas. A number of
previous studies from developing countries have
reported heavy metal contamination in waste-
water (Cao and Hu 2000; Mapanda et al. 2005;
Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:421–448 437

Fig. 3 (continued)
c Azolla (ashpond)
1200

1000

metal (mgKg-1) in biomass

800

600

400

200

0
Cu Cr Fe Mn Ni Pb Zn Hg Cd
metals
d Eichhornia(shoot) belwadah
250
metal mgKg-1 in biomass

200

150

100

50

0
Cu Cr Fe Mn Ni Pb Zn Hg Cd
metals

Nyamangara and Mzezewa 1999; Singh et al. 2004)
and wastewater irrigated soil (Stalikas et al. 1997;
Cao and Hu 2000; Mapanda et al. 2005; Nan
et al. 2002; Nyamangara and Mzezewa 1999; Singh
et al. 2004; Sridhara et al. 2008). However, there
are very few systematic studies from India for
heavy metal contamination of soil and irrigation
water and its transfer to vegetable crops (Rai and
Tripathi 2008; Rai et al. 2010).
Henceforth, present case study was based on
hypothesis that partially treated industrial and
sewage wastewater contain heavy metals which
get bio-accumulated inside vegetables (Table 9)
and may pose serious health hazards particularly
in peri-urban areas of developing world (EPA
2002; Rupert et al. 2004; Wang et al. 2005; Rai and
Tripathi 2008; Sridhara et al. 2008; Borah et al.
2009; Zhuang et al. 2009). Peri-urban areas are the
regions adjoining the core urban regions, and they
are actually the prime victims of developmental
activities of urban areas. Henceforth, the case
study focused on wastewater use for irrigation and
food safety implications in a peri-urban area of
Varanasi, India.
Since ancient times, the natural and cultural
landscapes of the Varanasi city, India have
438
Table 9 List of Local name English name
vegetables recorded at
Lohta Village Alu Potato
Baigun Brinjal
Pyaj Onion
Phool Gobhi Cabbage
Gajar Carrot
Tamatar Tomato
Palak Spinach
Shaljum Turnip
Rai and Tripathi 2008 Mooli Radish
retained an active social role in contemporary
society closely associated with the traditional way
of life. The city is a place of pilgrimage and a holy
site for sacred baths in the Ganga River, to have
a good death, to get relief from transmigration,
to learn and receive spiritual merit, etc. In spite
of several downfalls and upheavals, traditions are
fully alive even today (Singh 2005). The renowned
American novelist Mark Twain once wrote,
“Banaras is older than history, older than tradi-
tion, older even than legend and looks twice as old
as all of them put together”.
Study area
Varanasi town lies between the 25◦ 15 to 25◦ 22
North latitude and 82◦ 57 to 83◦ 01 East longi-
tude. The River Ganga only here flows south
to north having the world famous ghats on the
left bank of the river. The highest flood level of
river Ganga was 73.90 m (1978) and the lowest
river water level is approximately 58 m. It is at
an elevation of 80.71 m above mean sea level.
Diesel Locomotive Works (DLW) continues to be
a major industry in the city. Over a period of time,
with the inclusion of a large number of villages
and urban settlement, the city development has
resulted in irregularly shaped built up areas along
peripheries of the central areas of the city. The
city’s infrastructure, however, is not keeping pace
with the ever increasing inflow of tourists, ex-
panding trade and the ever increasing population.
Along this, there is huge number of industries
located in and around the city of Varanasi. Ma-
jority of these industries has no treatment plants
for their own wastewater; therefore, these waste-
Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:421–448
Scientific name Family
Solanum tuberosum Solanaceae
Solanum melongena Solanaceae
Allium cepa Liliaceae
Brassica oleracea Crucifereae
Daucas carrota Apiaceae
Lycoprsicon esculentum Solanaceae
Spinacea oleracea Chenopodiaceae
Brassica compestris Crucifereae
Raphanus sativus Crucifereae
waters are disposed off in to municipal sewers.
General survey of study area revealed that huge
quantity of city sewage i.e. 175 million liters per
day (MLD) is also generated everyday and thus
the Municipal Corporation is unable to treat the
total sewage generated. There are three sewerage
treatment plants (STPs) in Varanasi viz. Dinapur,
Bhagwanpur and DLW STP. Capacities of these
STPs are 80, 9.8 and 12 MLD, respectively (Rai
2007b; Rai and Tripathi 2008). Dinapur and
Bhagwanpur STPs are under direct control of UP
Jal Nigam for operation and maintenance pur-
pose, whereas DLW is operated and maintained
by railway authority.
It is also observed that only 122 MLD of sewage
is treated at three treatment plants i.e. 12 MLD
at DLW, about 10 MLD at Bhagwanpur and
100 MLD at Dinapur. Thus about 53 MLD un-
treated sewage is directly released in to the river
Ganga causing serious threat to aquatic life and
human beings. The recycled water from all three
sewage treatment plant is used for agriculture by
nearby villages (Rai et al. 2010).
DLW is a production unit under the admin-
istrative control of Railway Board, Ministry of
Railways. It is located 3.5 km west side of Banaras
Hindu University. The DLW produces diesel
electric locomotives, mainly for use of Indian
Railways. The project was founded in 1961 in
collaboration with M/s. American Locomotive
Company, USA. As DLW manufactures the vari-
ous spare parts of locomotives, therefore, industry
discharges the effluents and as there is a colony
for the employees of DLW, so there is also a
discharge of domestic wastewater. Henceforth,
separate treatment plants were commissioned—
sewage treatment plant (domestic wastewater),
Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:421–448 439

Table 10 Heavy metal concentrations (mg/L) in wastewa-

ter used for irrigation in Lohta region of Varanasi, India various vegetables were collected monthly during
the summer and winter seasons. Heavy metals
Subsites at Lohta Zn Cu Cd Pb Cr
present in wastewater used for irrigation and or-
A 0.23 0.11 0.03 0.12 BDL
ganic matter, electrical conductivity, pH, NO3 –N
B 0.17 0.05 0.02 0.09 0.001
C 0.08 0.04 0.01 0.09 BDL of soil were analysed (Tables 10; 11). Vegetable
D 0.10 0.06 0.01 0.08 BDL samples were analyzed only once during January
WQ criteria 2.0 0.2 0.01 0.5 0.1 due to availability of both seasonal and common
for irrigationa vegetables. Vegetable plants are capable to ac-
Rai and Tripathi 2008 cumulate heavy metals and are, therefore, im-
a Source Pescod (1992)
portant tool for investigation. Various vegetables
were sampled in Lohta Village (Table 10) and
industrial treatment plant and chrome plating screened for Cd, Cr, Cu and Zn by inductively
effluent treatment plant (industrial wastewater). coupled plasma emission spectrometry and induc-
Lohta Village receiving wastewater from DLW tively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (Rai and
sewage treatment plant has been selected for im- Tripathi 2008).
pact assessment due to sampling convenience and
reduced labour charges. Four microsites, A, B,
C and D, were identified in Lohta area (see Rai Results and discussion: case study II
and Tripathi 2008). Water and soil samples were
collected from all the sites, whereas vegetable Results of this case study demonstrated that met-
samples were collected from the A site only once als concentration was below permissible limit in
during the month of January. water which further concentrated in irrigated soils
and finally maximum bio-concentration in se-
Methodology: case study II lected vegetables growing in Lohta Village receiv-
ing discharge from DLW sewage treatment plant
The study was conducted at Lohta Village, the (see Tables 10, 11; Figs. 4, 5). Metals analysis in
receiving area of DLW sewage treatment plant of vegetable crops showed that all the heavy metals
Varanasi City. A field study was conducted at four except Cr were above permissible limit as per
major sites that were irrigated by either treated BIS (1983; Figs. 4, 5). Therefore, case study II
or untreated wastewater in the Lohta Village of concludes that irrigation by treated or untreated
Varanasi, India receiving the discharged water wastewater has increased the heavy metal concen-
from DLW (Diesel Locomotive Works) sewage trations in soil and plants of receiving area.
treatment plant and chrome plating effluent treat- In India, vegetable crops are the extremely im-
ment plant (see Rai and Tripathi 2008). Samples portant life-supporting materials for human be-
of irrigation water, soil and the edible portion of ings and other animal species since vegetables

Table 11 Heavy metal concentration (mg/kg dry weight) in wastewater irrigated soil of three major vegetable production
areas at Lohta region of Varanasi, India
Subsites at Lohta Zn Cu Cd Pb Cr
A 92.59 42.16 2.50 19.68 1.20
B 90.08 40.08 2.33 19.07 1.40
C 89.12 41.81 2.19 18.66 1.06
D 88.89 40.60 2.24 18.43 1.20
Permissible limit of Indian Standardsa 300–600 135–270 3–6 250–500 n/a
Range of heavy metal concentration 10–300 2–100 0.01–0.7 2–200 5–3,000
in uncontaminated soilb
Rai and Tripathi 2008
n/a not available
a Awashthi (2000)
b Rai and Tripathi (2008)
440 Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:421–448

Fig. 4 Concentration of Concentration of Zn in different vegetables

Zn in different vegetables
1000

900 Zn
800

700

Metal conc.
600

500

400

300

200

100

0
Potato Brinjal Onion Cabbage Carrot Tomato Spinach Turnip Radish
Vegetables

contain essential components of the diet by the
contribution of protein, vitamin, iron, calcium and
other nutrients (Thompson and Kelly 1990; Rai
and Tripathi 2008; Borah et al. 2009; Bean et al.
2009). These local food products are the basis of
human nutrition in this region and of great rele-
vance to human health due to presence of various
antioxidants (WHO 1993, 1996; Bean et al. 2009).
The result of this case study revealed that
members of Brassicaceae e.g. turnip, cabbage
and radish can efficiently accumulate the heavy
metals; henceforth, assessment of health risk
may be explored (Rai and Tripathi 2008). The
study confirmed the hypothesis that partially/
improperly treated water from sewage treat-
ment plant or effluent treatment plant should
not be used for irrigation purpose (Rai and
Tripathi (Rai and Tripathi 2008)). Only primary
treatment method is followed in DLW and
Dinapur treatment plant and advanced or biolo-
gical treatments are completely lacking/non-
functional. Priority should be given to biological
and advanced treatment in order to ameliorate
metals concentration in treated wastewater used
for irrigation. There is an urgent need to engage
with institutional and policy processes to identify
opportunities towards alternative (more sustain-
able) management approaches of this problem

Fig. 5 Concentration of Concentration of Cu and Cd in different vegetables

Cu and Cd in different
vegetables (after Rai and 18
Tripathi 2008; Rai et al. 16
2010) Cu
14 Cd

12
Metal conc.

10

0
Potato Brinjal Onion Cabbage Carrot Tomato Spinach Turnip Radish
Vegetables
Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:421–448
prevailing in many developing countries inextrica-
bly linked with human health.
Development of an eco-sustainable model for
phytoremediation with wetland plants
The model (model shown in Fig. 6), based on my
previous researches, comprises two broad cate-
gories of effluents discussed in the first and second
case studies. First category comprises effluents of
thermal power plants, acidic mine effluent (from
energy intensive industrial region) and chlor-
alkali effluent which were of prime concern in
first case study, while second includes primarily
treated municipal effluent which may be used
for irrigation, as discussed in second case study.
Effluent of first case study comprising of ther-
mal power, coal mine and chlor-alkali industry
which is allowed to pass through constructed wet-
lands or HRAP consisting of diverse wetland
plants. Treated water coming out of the aforesaid
Fig. 6 Model developed
for treatment of industrial
effluents, municipal
wastewater and
eco-sustainable utilization
of biomass using wetland
plants (Rai 2007a, b,
2008a, b, c, d, 2009a, b, c,
d; Rai and Tripathi 2007a,
2008, 2009; Rai et al.
2010)
441
structures may be discharged to aquatic ecosys-
tems. The first category of effluents (case study
I) is generally more intense in relation to heavy
metal pollution level particularly in comparison to
primary/secondary treated municipal effluent
(case study II). Therefore, after harvesting of
aquatic macrophytes, the only option for reuse
lies in the production of biogas. Due to high
metal retention in biomass, they cannot be used
as bio-fertilizer or animal feed whereas, in par-
tially treated municipal effluent after bio-filtration
of heavy metals from wetland macrophytes pro-
vide an additional reuse option in agriculture,
thus aiding in water resource conservation. Also,
like first category, biomass may be used for bio-
gas production. Henceforth, our model attempts
to address the sustainable use of biomass in-
volved in phytoremediation which was earlier a
major constraint of this technology. Earlier, Rai
(2007b) used macrophytes like A. pinnata (com-
mon biofertilizer in India having symbiotic asso-
ciation with cyanobacteria Anabena azollae) as
442
experimental tool in order to filter sewage water
coming out from Bhagwanpur STP of Varanasi
and demonstrated reuse opportunities of Azolla
as a biofertilizer after metal release through mild
chemical treatment, thus, assisting in eco-friendly
agriculture. Further, Rai and Tripathi (2007a)
demonstrated an eco-sustainable technology for
metals treatment through the use of Microcystis, a
cyanobacterium. Moreover, most of the algae and
wetland plants demonstrated in metals treatment
were of invasive nature, hampering the aquatic
ecology. Therefore, using them as potent tool for
phytoremediation is the case which may be cited
as an example of turning the waste into resource.
The overall integrated process thus follows an
eco-sustainable approach and provides an eco-
technological innovation (Rai 2009a).
Successful phytoremediation requires an inte-
grated approach for each specific site, which must
consider plant selection, genetic engineering, soil
and water management, soil amendments, mi-
croflora activity, economics, product utilization,
social acceptance and time available to bring con-
taminant to desired level. Genetic engineering in
macrophytes for enhanced heavy metal accumula-
tion is still in an embryonic stage and needs more
attention in this area. A multidisciplinary research
effort that integrates the work of plant biologists,
soil chemists, microbiologists and environmental
engineers is essential for greater success of phy-
toremediation as a viable water cleanup technique
(Rai 2009a). Therefore, it is clear that the utiliza-
tion of the remarkable potential of green plants
to accumulate environmental pollutants and to
perform biochemical transformation is becoming
a new frontier in chemicals management.
Conclusions
Our first case study revealed that thermal power
pants relying on coal mines are one of the prime
contributors of inorganic chemicals particularly
heavy metals and utility of wetland plants in reha-
bilitation of an aquatic ecosystem. Since the water
resources are finite in nature, achieving sustain-
ability in energy sector e.g. coal-based thermal
power plants is a must for integrated environmen-
tal management (Omer 2008; Serrano et al. 2009).
Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:421–448
Moreover, there should be well-defined tools and
methodologies used for incorporating sustainabil-
ity considerations into the design of metal process-
ing operations (McLellan et al. 2009). Sustainable
product design and waste management in thermal
power plants can counter ecosystems degradation
(Fuller and Ottman 2004; Bruner et al. 2004).
The implementation of green chemistry, the
design of chemical products and processes that
reduce or eliminate the use and generation of
hazardous substances, is extremely essential in
order to promote sustainability (Kirchhoff 2005).
The collaborative efforts of academia, industry
and government are needed to advance sustain-
ability through the adoption of green chemistry
(Kirchhoff 2005).
In concert with examining the feasibility
of chemicals management technology at re-
gional scale, sustainable development requires a
framework for integrating environmental policies
and development strategies in a global context
(Gavrilescua and Chisti 2005).
Increasingly, sustainability considerations in
environmental management will shape future
technological, socio-economic, political and cul-
tural change to define the boundaries of what is
acceptable (Gavrilescua and Chisti 2005). Efforts
should be made for turning waste into resource
(Wang et al. 2006; Kurniawan et al. 2006; Pandey
et al. 2009). Moreover, there is need of clean
technology transfer to industries at local, regional
and global scale for metals treatment (Koefoed
and Buckley 2008). Also, the applications of the
concepts of industrial ecology offer a contribution
to sustainable indicators of strategic sustainable
development (Korhonen 2004).
Modern chemicals management technology
e.g. nanotechnology might be treated as future
prospect; however, it should be implanted in a sus-
tainable manner (Fleischer and Grunwald 2008).
Nanotechnology may be the frontier technology
for the twenty-first century that will contribute to
economic prosperity and sustainable development
by a broad alliance of policy-makers, scientists
and industry representatives pertaining to diverse
fields (Fleischer and Grunwald 2008). Further,
genetic engineering of biological systems in par-
ticular may also be treated as potential future
prospect due to screening of more genes related
Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:421–448
to heavy metal metabolism, strongly facilitated by
the genome sequencing projects; hence, new vistas
will be opened up for development of efficient
transgenic plants for phytoremediation (Eapen
and D’Souza 2005; Rai 2009a).
Sustainable development indicators for sludge
handling and wastewater treatment systems
should be constructed (Palme et al. 2005)
in order to prevent metals contamination in
irrigated crops grown in nearby areas. In India,
vegetable crops are the extremely important life-
supporting materials for human beings and other
animal species since vegetables contain essential
components of the diet by the contribution
of protein, vitamin, iron, calcium and other
nutrients (Rai and Tripathi 2008; Borah et al.
2009; Bean et al. 2009). These local food products
are the basis of human nutrition in this region
and of great relevance to human health due to
presence of various antioxidants (Bean et al.
2009). Priority should be given to biological
and advanced treatment in order to ameliorate
metals concentration in treated wastewater
used for irrigation. There is an urgent need to
engage with institutional and policy processes to
identify opportunities towards alternative (more
sustainable) management approaches of this
problem prevailing in many developing countries
inextricably linked with human health.
Indicators of sustainable development
(Ramakrishnan 1993) are varied, and this may re-
quire that a diverse set of measures and para-
meters are used in the monitoring and evaluation
of rehabilitation: (a) ecological parameters (land-
use changes, biomass quality and quantity, wa-
ter quality and quantity, soil fertility, energy
efficiency), (b) economic parameters (monetary
output/input analysis, capital savings or asset
accumulation, dependency ratio) and (c) social
parameters (quality of life with more easily
measurable indicators such as health and hygiene,
nutrition, food security, morbidity symptoms, the
difficult-to-quantify measures such as societal
empowerment and the less tangible ones in the
area of social and cultural values; Ramakrishnan
et al. 1994. Henceforth, there should be an indica-
tor which integrates the sustainable water re-
source development with other natural resources.
Further, institutional arrangements have to
443
ensure people’s participation, through a bottom–
up approach which ensures that each household
takes part in the decision making process at
the lowest level in the hierarchy, and with spe-
cial dispensations for the weaker and more
vulnerable sections of the society. In order that
rehabilitation work is sustainable, surface water
and groundwater resources and their exploitation
should be monitored and appropriately regulated
through institutional mechanisms. Finally, with-
out realisation of individual’s responsibility to-
wards conservation of water quantity and quality
is prerequisite for success of sustainable water
management.
Acknowledgements The author is extremely thankful to
J.N.B. Bell, Professor of Environmental Pollution and
Director of MSc in Environmental Technology affiliated
with Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College
London, for valuable suggestions. The author is thankful
to the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, New
Delhi, India, for the financial assistance to Prabhat Kumar
Rai in the form of Junior Research Fellowship and Senior
Research Fellowship. The author also extends his regard to
Professor A.N. Rai, Vice Chancellor Mizoram University,
for his kind co-operation and support.
References
Alam, M. G. M., Snow, E. T., & Tanaka, A. (2003). Arsenic
and heavy metal contamination of vegetables grown in
Samta village, Bangladesh. Science of the Total Envi-
ronment, 308, 83–96.
Alloway, B. J., & Ayres, D. C. (1993). Chemical principles
of environmental pollution. Oxford: Blackie. An im-
print of Chapman and Hall.
APHA (2000). Standard methods for the examination of
water and wastewater, (10th ed.). Washington, D.C.:
APHA.
Awashthi, S. K. (2000). Prevention of food adulteration act
no 37 of 1954. Central and state rules as amended for
1999, (3rd edn.). New Delhi: Ashoka Law House.
Babel, S., & Kurniawan, T. A. (2003). Low-cost adsorbents
for heavy metals uptake from contaminated water: a
review. Journal of Hazardous Materials, B97, 219–243.
Bailey, S. E., Olin, T. J., Bricka, R. M., & Adrian, D. D.
(1999). A review of potentially low-cost sorbents for
heavy metals. Water Research, 33, 2469–2479.
Barker, R. (1997). And the waters turned to blood. New
York: Simon and Schuster.
Batty, L. C. (2003). Wetland plants—more than just a
pretty face? Land Contamination & Reclamation, 112,
173–180.
Bean, H., Schuler, C., Leggett, R. E., & Levin, R. M.
(2009). Last update 2010. Antioxidant levels of com-
mon fruits, vegetables, and juices versus protective
444
activity against in vitro ischemia/reperfusion. Inter-
national Urology and Nephrology, 42(2), 409–415,
doi:10.1007/s11255-009-9639-5.
Bohn, H. L., McNeal, B. L., & O’Connor, A. G. (1985). Soil
chemistry, 2nd (ed.). New York: Wiley.
Borah, S., Baruah, A. M., Das, A. K., & Borah, J. (2009).
Determination of mineral content in commonly con-
sumed leafy vegetables. Food Anayitical Methods, 2,
226–230.
Borenstein, S. (1998). Coastal waters have big problems,
Harvard study says. The Buffalo News, 25 August.
Boyd, R. S., & Martens, S. N. (1992). The raison d’etre for
metal hyperaccumulation in plants. In A. J. M. Baker,
J. Proctor, & R. D. Reeves (Eds.), The vegetation of
ultramaf ic (Serpentine) soils (pp. 279–289). Andover:
Intercept.
Boyd, R. S., & Martens, S. N. (1998). The significance
of metal hyperaccumulation for biotic interactions.
Chemoecology, 8, 1–7.
Brix, H. (1997). Do macrophytes play a role in constructed
treatment wetlands? Water Science and Technology,
35, 11–17.
Brown, L. (1999). China’s water crisis linked to global se-
curity. Population Press, 5(5), 5.
Bruner, A. J., Gullison, R. E., & Balmford, A. (2004). Fi-
nancial costs and shortfalls of managing and expand-
ing protected-area systems in developing countries.
BioScience, 54(12), 1119–1126.
Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS; 1983). General standards
for discharge of environment pollutants ef f luents. IS:
10500–1983 (http://hppcb.nic.in/standard.htm).
Cao, Z. H., & Hu, Z. Y. (2000). Copper contamination in
paddy soils irrigated with wastewater. Chemosphere,
41(1–2), 3–6.
Center for New American Dream (2000). [Online]
http://www.newdream.org/monthly/aug00.html.
Centi, G., & Perathoner, S. (2003). Catalysis and sustain-
able (green) chemistry. Catalysis Today, 77, 287–297.
Cobb, G. P., Sands, K., Waters, M., Wixson, B. J., &
Dorward-King, E. (2000). Accumulation of heavy
metals by vegetables grown in mine wastes. Environ-
mental Toxicology and Chemistry, 19(3), 600–607.
Cochrane, E. L., Lua, S., Gibb, S. W., & Villaescusa, I.
(2006). A comparison of low-cost biosorbents and
commercial sorbents for the removal of copper from
aqueous media. Journal of Hazardous Materials, B137,
198–206.
Collier, C. (1999). Save some for tomorrow. Environ-
ment News Service. Available at http://ens.lycos.com/
ewire/July99/20july9903.html.
Concas, A., Ardau, C., Cristini, A., Zuddas, P., & Cao,
G. (2006). Mobility of heavy metals from tailings to
stream waters in a mining activity contaminated site.
Chemosphere, 63, 244–253.
CPCB (1998). Permissible limit for the discharge of In-
dustrial ef f luents (inland water surface). New Delhi:
CPCB.
Demir, A., & Arisoy, M. (2007). Biological and chemical
removal of Cr (VI) from waste water: cost and benefit
analysis. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 147, 275–
280.
Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:421–448
Demrbaş, A. (2003). Trace metal concentrations in ashes
from various types of biomass species. Energy Sources,
Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental
Ef fects, 25(7), 743–751.
Duda, A. M. (1993). Addressing non-point sources of water
pollution must become an international priority. Water
Research, 28(3–5), 1–11.
E.N.N. (2003). Malaysian leader defends government’s
campaign against Singapore over water use. Available
at http://www.enn.com/news/2003-07-18?s_6707.asp.
Eapen, S., & D’Souza, S. F. (2005). Prospects of genetic
engineering of plants for phytoremediation of toxic
metals. Biotechnology Advances, 23, 97–114.
Eccles, H. (1999). Treatment of metal-contaminated
wastes: why select a biological process? Trends in
Biotechnology, 17, 462–465.
Edie Summaries (2000). Israel: Water not land is key
to shepherdstown talks. Available at http://www.edie.
net/news/Archive/2223.html.
ENS (Environment News Service) (1999a). Canada, U.S.
Consider great lakes water export ban. Available at
http://ens.lycos.com/ens/aug99/1999L-08-24-06.html.
ENS (1999b). Growing population faces shrinking water
supply. Available at http://ens.lycos.com/ ens/jul99/
1999L-07-20-01.html.
ENS (2003). Threats rising for U.S. Public water sup-
plies. Available at http://ens-news.com/ens/ jun2003/
2003-06-11-10.asp.
EPA US (2002). Integrated risk information system. Avail-
able at http:www.epa.govyirisygloss8.htm.
Evangelou, M. W. H., 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.
Feigin, A., Ravina, I., & Shalhevet, J. (1991). Irrigation with
treated sewage ef f luent. Berlin: Springer.
Finkelman, R. B., & Gross Peggy, M. K. (1999). The types
of data needed for assessing the environmental and
human health impacts of coal. International Journal of
Coal Geology, 40, 91–101.
Fleischer, T., & Grunwald, A. (2008). Making nanotechnol-
ogy developments sustainable. A role for technology
assessment? Journal of Cleaner Production, 16, 889–
898.
Flint, R. W. (2003). Sustainable development: What does
sustainability mean to the individual in the conduct
of their life and business. In G. M. Mudacumura
(Ed.), Handbook of development policy strategies.
New York: Marcel Dekker.
Flint, R. W. (2004). The sustainable development of water
resources. Water Resources Update, 127, 41–51.
Flint, R. W., & Houser, W. L. (2001). Living a sustain-
able lifestyle for our children’s children. Campbell:
IUniverse.
Fuller, D. A., & Ottman, J. A. (2004). Moderating unin-
tended pollution: the role of sustainable product de-
sign. Journal of Business Research, 57, 1231–1238.
Garćıa-Serna, J., Pérez-Barriǵon, L., & Cocero, M. J.
(2007). New trends for design towards sustainability
in chemical engineering: green engineering. Chemical
Engineering Journal, 133, 7–30.
Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:421–448
Gavrilescua, M., & Chisti, Y. (2005). Biotechnology—A
sustainable alternative for chemical industry. Biotech-
nology Advances, 23, 471–499.
Gisbert, C., Ros, R., De, H. A., Walker, D. J., Bernal, M. P.,
Serrano, R., et al. (2000). A plant genetically modified
that accumulates Pb is especially promising for phy-
toremediation. Biochemical and Biophysical Research
Communications, 303, 440–445.
Gladden, J. B., Specht, W. L., & Nelson, E. A. (2002).
Comparison of constructed Wetland Mesocosms de-
signed for treatment of copper-contaminated wastewa-
ter. Aiken: Westinghouse Savannah River Company
(Contract no. DE-AC09-96SR18500 with the U.S.
Department of Energy).
GreenBiz.com (2003). Humanity wages war with nature
for water. Environmental News Network, New York.
Available at http://www.enn.com/news/2003-02-05/s_
2417.asp.
Grossman, R. (1998). Can corporations be held account-
able? Part I. Rachel’s Environment and Health
Weekly, 609. Available at http://www.rachel.org.
Hanninen, H., & Lindstrom, H. (1979). Behavioral test bat-
tery for toxic psychological studies used at the institute
of occupational health in Helsinki. Helsinki: Institute
of Occupational Health.
Hanson, B., Lindbom, S. D., Loeffler, M. L., & Pilon-Smits,
E. A. H. (2004). Selenium protects plants from phloem
feeding aphids due to both deterrence and toxicity.
The New Phytologist, 162, 655–662.
Ho, K. C., Chow, Y. L., & Yau, J. T. S. (2003). Chem-
ical and microbiological qualities of The East River
(Dongjiang) water, with particular reference to drink-
ing water supply in Hong Kong. Chemosphere, 52,
1441–1450.
Khan, A. G. (2005). Role of soil microbes in the rhi-
zospheres of plants growing on trace metal conta-
minated soils in phytoremediation. Journal of Trace
Elements in Medicine and Biology, 18, 355–364.
Khan, G., Kuek, C., Chaudhary, T., Fhoo, C., & Hayes,
W. (2000). Role of mycorrhizae and phytochela-
tors in heavy metal contaminated land remediation.
Chemosphere, 41, 197–207.
Kirchhoff, M. M. (2005). Promoting sustainability through
green chemistry. Resources, Conservation and Recy-
cling, 44, 237–243.
Knasmuller, S., Gottmann, E., Steinkellner, H., Fomin, A.,
Pickl, C., Paschke, A., et al. (1998). Detection of geno-
toxic effects of heavy metal contaminated soils with
plant bioassay. Mutation Research, 420, 37–48.
Koefoed, M., & Buckley, C. (2008). Clean technology
transfer. A case study from the South African metal
finishing industry 2000–2004. Journal of Cleaner Pro-
duction, 16, 78–84.
Korhonen, J. (2004). Industrial ecology in the strategic sus-
tainable development model: strategic applications of
industrial ecology. Journal of Cleaner Production, 12,
809–823.
Kratochvil, D., & Volesky, B. (1998). Advances in the
biosorption of heavy metals. TIBTECH, 16, 291–300.
Kudo, A., & Miyahara, S. (1991). A case history—
Minamata mercury pollution in Japan-from loss of
445
human lives to decontamination. Water Science and
Technology, 23, 283.
Kumar, P. B. A. N., Dushenkov, V., Motto, H., & Raskin,
I. (1995). Phytoextraction—the use of plants to re-
move heavy metals from soils. Environmental Science
& Technology, 29, 1232–1238.
Kurniawan, T. A., Chan, G. Y. S., Lo, W.-H., & Babel, S.
(2006). Comparisons of low-cost adsorbents for treat-
ing wastewaters laden with heavy metals. The Science
of the Total Environment, 366, 409–426.
Lazaroff, C. (2000). Growing population faces diminishing
resources. In Environment news service. Available at
http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jan2000/2000L-01-18-06.html.
Lee, S. M., & Tiwari, D. (2009). Application of ferrate
(VI) in the treatment of industrial wastes containing
metal complexed cyanides: a green treatment. Journal
of Environmental Sciences, 2, 1347–1352.
Lewandowski, I., Schmidt, U., Londo, M., & Faaij, A.
(2006). The economic value of the phytoremediation
function—Assessed by the example of cadmium reme-
diation by willow (Salix ssp). Agricultural Systems, 89,
68–89.
Mapanda, F., Mangwayana, E. N., Nyamangara, J., &
Giller, K. E. (2005). The effect of long-term irriga-
tion using wastewater on heavy metal contents of soils
under vegetables in Harare. Zimbabwe Agriculture,
Ecosystems & Environment, 107, 151–165.
McLellan, B. C., Corder, G. D., Giurco, D., & Green,
S. (2009). Incorporating sustainable development in
the design of mineral processing operations—Review
and analysis of current approaches. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 17, 1414–1425.
Miller, J. R., Hudson-Edwards, K. A., Lechler, P. J.,
Preston, D., & Macklin, M. G. (2004). Heavy metal
contamination of water, soil and produce with in river-
ine communities of the Rıo Pilcomayo basin. Bolivia
Science Total Environment, 320, 189–209.
Millis, P. R., Ramsey, M. H., & John, E. A. (2004). Hetero-
geneity of cadmium concentration in soil as a source
of uncertainity in plant uptake and its implication for
human health risk assessment. The Science of the Total
Environment, 326, 49–53.
Mireles, A., Solis, C., Andrade, E., Lagunas-Solar, M.,
Pina, C., & Flocchini, R. G. (2004). Heavy metal accu-
mulation in plants and soil irrigated with wastewater
from Mexico City. Nuclear Instruments & Methods in
Physics Research, B, 1(219–220), 187–190.
Mohan, D., & Pittman, C. U., Jr. (2007). Arsenic re-
moval from water/wastewater using adsorbents-A crit-
ical review. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 142, 1–
53.
Montague, P. (1998). Landfills are dangerous. Rachel’s
environment and health weekly, #617, p. 2. [Online]
http://www.rachel.org.
Muggiati, A. (2003). Four nations guard giant South
American aquifer. In Environment news service.
Available at http://ens-news.com/ens/may2003/2003-
05-29-03.asp.
Murozono, K., Ishii, K., Yamazaki, H., Matsuyama, S.,
& Iwasaki, S. (1999). PIXE spectrum analysis taking
into account bremsstrahlung spectra. Nuclear Instru-
446
ments & Methods in Physics Research, B., 150, 76–
82.
Mustikhan, A. (1999). Pakistan provinces feud over water.
In Environment news service (ENS), 7/28/99. Avail-
able at http://www.ens.lycos.com/ens/jul99/1999L-07-
28-02.html.
Nan, Z., Li, J., Zhang, J., & Cheng, G. (2002). Cadmium
and zinc interaction and their transfer in soil–crop sys-
tem under actual field conditions. The Science of the
Total Environment, 285, 187–195.
Ngah, W. S. W., & Hanafiah, M. A. K. M. (2008). Removal
of heavy metal ions from wastewater by chemically
modified plant wastes as adsorbents: a review. Biore-
source Technology, 99, 3935–3948.
Nies, D. H. (1999). Microbial heavy-metal resistance.
Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 51, 730–
750.
Nordberg, G. F. (1996). Current issues in low-dose cad-
mium toxicology: nephrotoxicity and carcinogenicity.
Environmental Sciences, 4(3), 133–147.
Nriagu, J. O. (1979). Global inventory of natural and
anthropogenic emission of trace metals to the at-
mosphere. Nature, 279, 409–411.
Nriagu, J. O. (1996). A history of global metal pollution.
Science, 272, 273–274.
Nyamangara, J., & Mzezewa, J. (1999). The effects of long-
term sewage sludge application on Zn, Cu, Ni and
Pb levels in clay loam soil under pasture grass in
Zimbabwe. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment,
73, 199–204.
Olguín, E. J. (2002). Phycoremediation: Key issues for cost-
effective nutrient removal processes. Biotechnology
Advances, 22, 81–91.
Omer, A. M. (2008). Energy, environment and sustain-
able development. Renewable & Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 12, 2265–2300.
Palme, U., Lundin, M., Tillman, A. M., & Molander, S.
(2005). Sustainable development indicators for waste-
water systems—Researchers and indicator users in a
co-operative case study. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, 43, 293–311.
Pandey, V. C., Abhilash, P. C., & Singh, N. (2009). The
Indian perspective of utilizing fly ash in phytore-
mediation, phytomanagement and biomass produc-
tion. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 2943–
2958.
Pehlivan, E., & Arslan, G. (2007). Removal of metal ions
using lignite in aqueous solution—Low cost biosor-
bents. Fuel Processing Technology, 88, 99–106.
Pendias, H., & Pendias, K. (1989). Trace elements in soil
and plants. Florida: CRC.
Pescod, M. B. (1992). Wastewater treatment and use in agri-
culture (p 125). Rome: Food and Agriculture Orga-
nization of the United Nations, FAO irrigation and
drainage paper 47.
Pilon-Smits, E., & Pilon, M. (2002). Phytoremediation of
metals using transgenic plants. Critical Reviews in
Plant Sciences, 21(5), 439–456.
Press Notice (1998). Government launches f irst ever busi-
ness plan for environment industries. Joint Environ-
mental Markets Unit, P/98/212, 18 March.
Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:421–448
Quaid, L. (2003). Missouri river ruling could hinder water
quality. In Environmental news network. Available at
http://www.enn.com/news/2003-07-15/s_6555.asp.
Queirlo, F., Stegen, S., Restovic, M., Paz, M., Ostapczuk,
P., Schwuger, M. J., et al. (2000). Total arsenic, lead,
and cadmium levels in vegetables cultivated at the
Andean villages of Northern Chile. The Science of the
Total Environment, 255, 75–84.
Rai, P. K. (2007a). Phytoremediation of Pb and Ni from
industrial effluents using Lemna minor: An eco-
sustainable approach. Bullettin Bioscience, 5(1), 67–73.
Rai, P. K. (2007b). Wastewater management through bio-
mass of Azolla pinnata: An eco-sustainable approach.
Ambio, 36(5), 426–428.
Rai, P. K. (2008a). Heavy-metal pollution in aquatic
ecosystems and its phytoremediation using wetland
plants: An eco-sustainable approach. International
Journal Phytoremediation, 10(2), 133–160.
Rai, P. K. (2008b). Mercury pollution from chlor-alkali
industry in a tropical lake and its biomagnification in
aquatic biota: Link between chemical pollution, bio-
markers and human health concern. Human and Eco-
logical Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 14,
1318–1329.
Rai, P. K. (2008c). Phytoremediation of Hg and Cd from
industrial effluents using an aquatic free floating
macrophyte Azolla pinnata. International Journal
Phytoremediation, 10(5), 430–439.
Rai, P. K. (2008d). Ecological investigation on heavy metal
pollution of G.B. Pant Sagar and its phytoremediation.
PhD Dissertation. Varanasi, India: Banaras Hindu
University.
Rai, P. K. (2009a). Heavy metal phytoremediation from
aquatic ecosystems with special reference to macro-
phytes. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and
Technology, 39(9), 697–753.
Rai, P. K. (2009b). Last update 2010. Phytoremediation
of heavy metals in a tropical impoundment of indus-
trial region. Environmental Monitoring and Assess-
ment, 165, 529–537, doi:10.1007/S10661-009-0964-2.
Rai, P. K. (2009c). Last update 2010. Seasonal monitoring
of heavy metals and physico-chemical characteristics
in a lentic ecosystem of sub-tropical industrial region,
India. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 165,
407–433. doi:10.1007/S10661-009-0956-2.
Rai, P. K. (2009d). Heavy metals in water, sedi-
ments and wetland plants in an aquatic ecosys-
tem of tropical industrial region, India. Environ-
mental Monitoring and Assessment, 158, 433–457.
doi:10.1007/s10661-008-0595-9.
Rai, P. K. (2010a). Microcosm investigation on Phytore-
mediation of Cr using Azolla pinnata. International
Journal of Phytoremediation, 12, 96–104.
Rai, P. K. (2010b). Heavy metal pollution in lentic
ecosystem of sub-tropical industrial region and its
phytoremediation. International Journal of Phytore-
mediation, 12(3), 226–242.
Rai, P. K., Mishra, A., & Tripathi, B. D. (2010). Heavy
metals and microbial pollution of river Ganga: A case
study on water quality at Varanasi. Aquatic Ecosystem
Health & Management, 13(4), 352–361.
Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:421–448
Rai, P. K., Sharma, A. P., & Tripathi, B. D. (2007). Ur-
ban environment status in singrauli industrial region
and its eco-sustainable management: A case study on
heavy metal pollution. In V. Lakshmi (Ed.) Urban
planing and environment, strategies and challenges (pp.
213–217). London: McMillan.
Rai, P. K., & Tripathi, B. D. (2007a). Heavy metals removal
using nuisance blue green alga Microcystis in continu-
ous culture experiment. Environmental Sciences, 4(1),
53–59.
Rai, P. K., & Tripathi, B. D. (2007b). Microbial contam-
ination in vegetables due to irrigation with partially
treated municipal wastewater in a tropical city. Inter-
national Journal of Environmental Health Research,
17(5), 389–395.
Rai, P. K., & Tripathi, B. D. (2008). Heavy metals in
industrial wastewater, soil and vegetables in Lohta
Village, India. Toxicological and Environmental
Chemistry, 90(2), 247–257.
Rai, P. K., & Tripathi, B. D. (2009). Comparative assess-
ment of Azolla pinnata and Vallisneria spiralis in Hg
removal from G.B. Pant Sagar of Singrauli Industrial
region, India. Environmental Monitoring and Assess-
ment, 148, 75–84.
Rai, U. N., Sinha, S., Tripathi, P., & Chandra, P. (1995).
Wastewater treatability potential of some aquatic
macrophytes: Removal of heavy metals. Ecological
Engineering, 5, 5–12.
Rai, U. N., Tripathi, R. D., Vajpayee, P., Vidyanath, Jha.,
& Ali, M. B. (2002). Bioaccumulation of toxic metals
(Cr, Cd, Pb and Cu) by seeds of Euryale ferox Salisb
(Makhana). Chemosphere, 46, 267–272.
Ramakrishnan, P. S. (1993). Evaluating sustainable de-
velopment with peoples’ participation. In F. Moser
(Ed.), Sustainability—where do we stand? Proc. Intl.
Symposium (pp. 165–182). Graz, Austria: Technische
Universität.
Ramakrishnan et al. (1994). In M. Hadley (Ed.), Ecosystem
rehabilitation of the rural landscape in south and cen-
tral Asia: An analysis of issues (pp. 1–33). MAB series
UNESCO.
Reddy, K. R., Patrick, W. H., & Lindau, C. W. (1989).
Nitrification–denitrification at the plant root-sediment
interface in wetlands. Limnology and Oceanography,
34, 1004–1013.
Roche, M., & Toyne, P. (2004). Green lead—oxymoron
or sustainable development for the lead–acid bat-
tery industry? Journal of Power Sources, 133,
3–7.
Ross, S. M. (1994). Sources and forms of potentially toxic
metals in soil–plant systems. In S. M. Ross (Ed.),
Toxic metals in soil–plant systems (pp. 3–26). England:
Wiley.
Rupert, L. H., Neil, B., Scott, D. Y., Neil, M. J. C.,
Andrew, M. T., Ann, M. M., et al. (2004). Assess-
ing potential risk of heavy metal exposure from
consumption of home-produced vegetables by urban
populations. Environmental Health Perspective, 112,
215–221.
Salt, D. E., Blaylock, M., Kumar, P. B. A. N., Dushenkov,
V., Ensley, D., Chet, I., et al. (1995). Phytore-
447
mediation: A novel strategy for the removal of
toxic elements from the environment using plants.
Bio/Technology, 13, 468–474.
Salt, D. E., Smith, R. D., & Raskin, I. (1998). Phytoreme-
dietion. Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant
Molecular Biology, 49, 643–648.
Scholz, M. (2006). Wetland systems to control urban runof f.
Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Serrano, E., Rus, G., & García-Martínez, J. (2009). Nan-
otechnology for sustainable energy. Renewable &
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13, 2373–2384.
Shah, P. B., Schreier, H., Brown, S. J., & Riley, K. W.
(1991). Soil fertility and erosion issues in the middle
mountains of Nepal: Workshop proceedings (p 285).
Jhiku Khola Watershed. Integrated Survey Section,
HMG, Kathmandu.
Sharma, D. C. (2003). Concern over mercury pollution in
India. Lancet, 362, 1030.
Shukla, V. K., Prakash, A., Tripathi, B. D., & Reddy,
D. C. S. (1998). Biliary heavy metal concentration
in carcinoma of the gall bladder: case-control study.
BMJ, 317, 1288–1289.
Singh, K. P., Mohan, D., Sinha, S., & Dalwani, R. (2004).
Impact assessment of treated/untreated wastewater
toxicants discharged by sewage treatment plants on
health, agricultural, and environmental quality in
the wastewater disposal area. Chemosphere, 55, 227–
255.
Singh, R. P. B. (2005). Life in historic urban landscape of
Varanasi, a heritage city of India. Varanasi: Geography
Department, Banaras Hindu University.
Sridhara, C. N., Kamala, C. T., & Samuel, S. R. D. (2008).
Assessing risk of heavy metals from consuming food
grown on sewage irrigated soils and food chain trans-
fer. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 69, 513–
524.
Stalikas, C. D., Mantalovas, A. C., & Pilidis, G. A. (1997).
Multielement concentrations in vegetable species
grown in two typical agricultural areas of Greece. The
Science of the Total Environment, 206, 17–24.
Stevenson, M. (2003). The “Other” gulf war, dispute over
water rights threatens environment. In Environmental
news network (ENN) (Online).
Stottmeister, U., Wiesner, A., Kuschk, P., Kappelmeyer,
M., & Kaster, M. (2003). Effects of plants and
microorganisms in constructed wetlands for waste-
water treatment. Biotechnology Advances, 22, 93–
117.
Sutherland, D. (1999). Tug-o-War: Cancer kids vs. water
pollution. Environment News Service. Available at
http://ens.lycos.com/ens/sep99/1999L-09-27-01.html.
Syers, J. K., & Goldfeld, M. (2001). Introduction. In:
J. K. Syers & M. Goldfeld (Eds.) Environmental
cadmium in the food chain: Source, pathways and
risks (pp. iv–v). Proceeding of the SCOPE work-
shop. Scientific committee on problems of the en-
vironment/international council of scientific unions
(SCOPE/ICSU). Sep. 13–16, 2000. Brussels, Belgium.
Paris’ SCOPE.
Thompson, H. C., & Kelly, E. C. (1990). Vegetable crops
(5th ed). New Delhi: McGraw Hill.
448
Tiwari, D., Yang, J. K., & Lee, S. M. (2005). Applications
of ferrate (VI) in the treatment of wastewaters. Envi-
ronmental Engineering Research, 10, 269–282.
Tiwari, D., Kim, H. U., Choi, B. J., Lee, S. M., Kwon,
O. H., Choi, K. M., et al. (2007). Ferrate (VI): A green
chemical for the oxidation of cyanide in aque-
ous/waste solutions. Journal of Environmental Science
and Health, A4, 803–810.
Tiwari, D., Yang, J. K., Chang, Y. Y., & Lee, S. M. (2008).
Application of ferrate (VI) on the decomplexation of
Cu(II)-EDTA. Environmental Engineering Research,
13, 131–135.
UNESCO (2003). Water for people, water for life: The
world water development report. World Water As-
sessment Programme, United Nations, NY. [On-
line]. Available at http://ens-news.com/ens/mar2003/
2003-03-05-02.asp.
Urie, D. H. (1986). The status of wastewater irrigation of
forest. In D. W. Cole, C. L. Henry, & W. L. Nutter
(Eds.), The forest alternative for treatment and utiliza-
tion of municipal and industrial wastes (pp. 26–40).
Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Volesky, B. (2003). Potential of biosorption. In: B. Volesky
(Ed.), Sorption and biosorption. Montreal: BVSorbex.
Vymazal, C., Jaroslav, S., Lenka, K., & Vladislav, C.
(2007). Trace metals in Phragmites australis and
Phalaris arundinacea growing in constructed and nat-
ural wetlands. Ecological Engineering, 30(4), 320–
325.
Vymazal, J. (2002). The use of sub-surface constructed wet-
lands for wastewater treatment in the Czech Republic:
10 years experience. Ecological Engineering, 18, 633–
646.
Wagner, A., & Boman, J. (2003). Biomonitoring of trace
elements in muscle and liver tissue of freshwater fish.
Spectrochimica Acta Part B, 58, 2215–2226.
Wang, S., Soudi, M., Lib, L., & Zhu, Z. H. (2006). Coal
ash conversion into effective adsorbents for removal
of heavy metals and dyes from wastewater. Journal of
Hazardous Materials, B133, 243–251.
Wang, W. H., Lin, S. H., & Juang, R. S. (2003). Removal of
heavy metal ions from aqueous solutions using various
low-cost adsorbents. Journal of Hazardous Materials,
B102, 291–302.
Wang, X., Sato, T., Xing, B., & Tao, S. (2005). Health risks
of heavy metals to the general public in Tianjin, China
via consumption of vegetables and fish. The Science of
the Total Environment, 350, 28–37.
View publication stats
Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:421–448
Warner, J. C., Cannon, A. S., & Dye, K. M. (2004). Green
chemistry. Environmental Impact Assessment Review,
24, 775–799.
Wenzel, W. W., et al. (2003). Chelate-assisted phytoex-
traction using canola (Brassica napus L) in outdoors
pot and lysismeter experiments. Plant and Soil, 249,
83–96.
WHO (1993). Evaluation of certain food additives and con-
taminants. Forty-f irst report of the joint FAO/WHO
expert committee on food additives, WHO Technical
series no. 837. Geneva: World Health Organization
(WHO).
WHO (1996). Trace elements in human nutrition and
health. Geneva: World Health Organization (WHO).
WHO (1997). Health and environment in sustainable devel-
opment. Geneva: WHO.
Wilson, A., & Yost, P. (2001). Buildings and the environ-
ment: The numbers. Environmental Building News, 1
May.
Wu, G., Kanga, H., Zhang, X., Shaob, H., Chuc, L., &
Ruan, C. (2010). A critical review on the bio-removal
of hazardous heavy metals from contaminated soils:
issues, progress, eco-environmental concerns and op-
portunities. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 174, 1–8.
Yadav, S. K., Juwarkar, A. A., Kumar, G. P., Thawale,
P. R., Singh, S. K., & Chakrabarti, T. (2009).
Bioaccumulation and phyto-translocation of arsenic,
chromium and zinc by Jatropha curcas L.: Impact of
dairy sludge and biofertilizer. Bioresource Technol-
ogy, 100, 4616–4622.
Yavuz, M., Godea, F., Pehlivan, E., Ozmert, S., & Sharma,
Y. C. (2008). An economic removal of Cu2+ and
Cr3+ on the new adsorbents: pumice and poly-
acrylonitrile/pumice composite. Chemical Engineering
Journal, 137, 453–461.
Yngard, R. A., Damrongsiri, S., Osathaphan, K., &
Sharma, V. K. (2007). Ferrate (VI) oxidation of zinc-
cyanide complex. Chemosphere, 69, 729–735.
Zhuang, P., McBride, M. B., Xia, H., Li, N., & Li, Z.
(2009). Health risk from heavy metals via consump-
tion of food crops in the vicinity of Dabaoshan mine,
South China. The Science of the Total Environment,
407, 1551–1651.
Zietz, B. P., Dieter, H., Lakomek, M., Schneider, H.,
Gaedtke, K. B., & Dunkelberg, H. (2003). Epidemio-
logical investigation on chronic copper toxicity to chil-
dren exposed via the public drinking water supply. The
Science of the Total Environment, 302, 127–144.