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

net/publication/283746120

Phytoremediation: a review

Article · January 2013

CITATIONS READS
61 473

2 authors:

Seyyed Gholamreza Moosavi M.J. Seghatoleslami

Islamic Azad University, Birjand Branch Birjand branch, Islamic Azad University, Birjand, Iran
19 PUBLICATIONS   173 CITATIONS    39 PUBLICATIONS   379 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by M.J. Seghatoleslami on 11 October 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Advance in Agriculture and Biology Adv. Agri. Biol.
www.pscipub.com/AAB 1 (1), 2013: 5-11
© PSCI Publications

Phytoremediation: A review
Seyyed Gholamreza Moosavi and Mohamd Javad Seghatoleslami
Islamic Azad University, Birjand Branch, Birjand, Iran
Corresponding author Email: Ansari.iau1362@yahoo.com

Keywords ABSTRACT
The concentrations of heavy metals increase in the environment from year
heavy metals to year. Therefore decontamination of heavy metal-contaminated soils is
very important for maintenance of environmental health and ecological
hytoremediation restoration. Phytoremediation harnesses natural processes to assist in the
clean-up of pollutants in the environment. The mechanisms by which
pollutants, toxicity plants promote the removal of pollutants are varied, including uptake and
concentration, transformation of pollutants, stabilization, and rhizosphere
degradation, in which plants promote the growth of bacteria underground
in the root zone that in turn break down pollutants. While the use of
phytoremediation is increasing, relatively little attention has been paid to
the ecological characteristics of the plants used. This research investigated
the possibility of achieving soil clean-up using native plants that also
provided aboveground benefits, including wildlife habitat.
Phytoremediation is a relatively new technology that offers clear
advantages over traditional methods for site cleanup. Some of its
applications have only been assayed at the laboratory or greenhouse level,
but others have been field tested sufficiently to allow full scale operation.
Recently, phytoremediation as a cost effective and environmentally
friendly technology has been developed by scientists and engineers in
which biomass/microorganisms or live plants are used to remediate the
polluted areas. It can be categorized into various applications, including
phytofiltration, phytostabilization, phytoextraction, and phytodegradation.

© 2013 PSCI Publisher All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION
The increasing demand for agricultural products has led to extensive cultivation in agricultural lands. Applying
fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides is necessary to protect the quality and quantities of these products. However, the excessive
use of these agro-chemicals creates environmental problems, such as accumulation of these chemical substances in the soil and
plant uptake (Sahibin et al., 2002). For example the application of phosphate fertilizers to the agricultural soil has led to
increase in Cd, Cu, Zn and As (Zarcinas et al., 2004; Mari et al., 2008).
Also, since the beginning of the industrial revolution, heavy metal contamination of the biosphere has increased
considerably and became a serious environmental concern. Contamination by heavy metals can be considered as one of the
most critical threats to soil and water resources as well as to human health (Yoon et al., 2006). During the past decades, the
annual widespread release of heavy metals reached 22000 t (metric ton) for Cd, 939000 t for Cu, 1350000 t for Zn, and 738000
t for Pb (Singh et al., 2003). Soil contamination with toxic metals, such as Cd, Pb, Cr, Zn, Ni and Cu, as a result of worldwide
industrialization has increased noticeably within the past few years (Ahmadpour et al., 2006).
The main factors contributing to soil pollution are the increased growth of industry; nearly 1000 new chemicals are
being synthesized every year (Shukla et al., 2010).
According to Third World Network reports, more than one billion pounds (450 million kilograms) of toxins are
released globally in air and water. Similarly, the excessive uses of pesticides in agriculture, wastes from de-acidifying soils are
other factors leading to soil pollution (Szczygłowska et al., 2011).
Therefore environmental pollution with organic xenobiotics (pesticides, pharmaceuticals, petroleum compounds,
PAHs, PCBs etc.) is a global problem, and the development of inventive remediation technologies for the decontamination of
impacted sites are therefore of paramount important. Physical, chemical and biological methods can all be used for the
remediation of contaminated sites (Wirtz et al., 2000; Kummling et al., 2001; Perrin-Ganier et al., 2001; Matsunaga and
Yashuhara, 2003; Gao et al., in press; Yang et al., 2007), however, phytoremediation has long been recognized as a cost
 Adv. Agri. Biol. 1 (1), 2013: 5-11

effective method for the decontamination of soil and water resources (Macek et al., 2000; Meagher, 2000; Eapen and D'Souza,
2005).

What is phytoremediation
Phytoremediation is a word formed from the Greek prefix “phyto” meaning plant, and the Latin suffix “remedium”
meaning to clean or restore (Cunningham et al., 1997). The term actually refers to a diverse collection of plant-based
technologies that use either naturally occurring or genetically engineered plants for cleaning contaminated environments
(Flathman and Lanza, 1998). The idea of using metal-accumulating plants to remove heavy metals and other compounds was
first introduced in 1983, but the concept has actually been implemented for the past 300 years on wastewater discharges
(Blaylock, 2006).
Phytoremediation is the name given to a set of technologies that use different plants as a containment, destruction, or an
extraction technique. This technology has been receiving attention lately as an innovative, cost-effective alternative to the more
established treatment methods used at hazardous waste sites (Pulfor and Watson, 2003; Susarla et al., 2002; Jadia and Fulekar,
2008; Zhang et al., 2010). Phytoremediation is an emerging technology that uses various plants to degrade, extract, contain, or
immobilize contaminants including metals, pesticides, hydrocarbons, and chlorinated solvents from soil and water.
Phytoremediation, also called green remediation, botano-remediation, agroremediation, or vegetative remediation is
considered a publicly appealing (green) remediation technology that uses vegetation and associated microbiota, soil
amendments and agronomic techniques to remove, contain, or render the heavy metals harmless in the soil (Cunningham and
Ow, 1996; Vyslouzilova et al, 2003; Helmisari et al, 2007).
phytoremediation is a novel, less expensive, efficient, environment and eco-friendly remediation strategy with good
public acceptance (Turan and Esringu, 2007; Singh et al., 2009; Saier and Trevors, 2010; Revathi et al., 2011).

Advantages of phytoremediation
The most important of phytoremediation Advantages are:
* Variety of organic and inorganic compounds are amenable to the phytoremediation process.
* Phytoremediation can be used either as an in situ or ex situ application (USEPA, 2000; Raskin and Ensley, 2000). In
situ applications are frequently considered because minimizes disturbance of the soil and surrounding environment and reduce
the spread of contamination via air and waterborne wastes.
* It is a green technology and when properly implemented is both environmentally friendly and aesthetically pleasing
to the public (Raskin and Ensley, 2000). As a green technology, it is applicable for different kinds of organic and inorganic
pollutants and provides aesthetic benefits to the environment by using trees and creating green areas, which is socially and
psychologically beneficial for all (Ghosh and Singh, 2005; Lewis, 2006). This green technology is suitable for large areas in
which other approaches would be expensive and ineffective (Vidali, 2001; Prasad and Freitas, 2003).
* Phytoremediation does not require expensive equipment or highly-specialized personnel, and it is relatively easy to
implement.
* The greatest advantage of phytoremediation is its low cost compared to conventional clean-up technologies
(USEPA, 2000; Raskin and Ensley, 2000). For example, the cost of cleaning up one acre of sandy loam soil with a
contamination depth of 50 cm with plants was estimated at $60,000-$100,000 compared to $400,000 for the conventional
excavation and disposal method (Anonymous, 1997).
* Disposal sites are not needed.
* It is more likely to be accepted by the public as it is more aesthetically pleasing then traditional methods.
* It avoids excavation and transport of polluted media thus reducing the risk of spreading the contamination.
* It has the potential to treat sites polluted with more than one type of pollutant (Hegedus et al., 2009).
* Furthermore, the expan-sion of contaminants to air and water is reduced by preventing leaching and soil erosion that
may result from wind and water activity (Pivetz, 2001; Ghosh and Singh, 2005).

Disadvantages and limitations of phytoremediation

In contrast to its many positive aspects, phytoremediation does have a few disadvantages and limitations that are:
* It is restricted to the rooting depth of remediative plants.
* Remediation with plants is a lengthy process, thus it may take several years or longer to clean up a hazardous waste
site, and the contamination may still not be fully remediated (USEPA, 2000a). Time is the most serious limitation of
phytoremediation, because this approach may require several years for effective remediation (Vidali, 2001; Rajakaruna et al.,
2006).
* The use of invasive, nonnative species can affect biodiversity.
* The consumption of contaminated plants by wildlife is also of concern. Harvested plant biomass produced from the
process of phytoextraction may be classified as a RCRA hazardous waste, therefore subject to proper handling and disposal.

5
 Adv. Agri. Biol. 1 (1), 2013: 5-11

Moreover, preserving the vegetation in extensively contaminated areas is complicated (Vidali, 2001), and human health could
also be threatened by entering the pollutant into the food chain through animals feeding on the contaminated plants (Pivetz,
2001).
*Unfavorable climate is another important consideration because it can limit plant growth and phytomass production,
thus decreasing process efficiency (USEPA, 2000b).

Heavy metal toxicity

Heavy metals can be poisonous for macro- and micro-organisms through direct influence on the biochemical and
physiological procedures, reducing growth, deterio-rating cell organelles, and preventing photosynthesis. In other word,
humans and ecosystem may be exposed to chemical hazards such as heavy metals (lead, chromium, arsenic, zinc, cadmium,
copper, mercury and nickel) through the direct ingestion of contaminated soils, consumption of crops and vegetables grown on
the contaminated lands or drinking water that has percolated through such soils (McLaughlin et al., 2000). For example, in
their assessment, Chaney et al. (2005) indicated that subsistence farmers eating rice grain grown on contaminated sites
throughout their lifetime are at risk from dietary exposure to cadmium. Also, Kuzovkina et al. (2004) mentioned that cadmium
is not an essential element for plant metabolism and can be strongly phytotoxic, causing rapid death.
The world's most polluted places threaten the health of more than 10 million people in many countries, according to a
report released by a U.S. environmental action group (Chhotu et al., 2009).
Regarding the role of heavy metals in living systems, they are divided into two classes: Essential and non-
essential.
Essential heavy metals are those, which are needed by living organisms for their growth, development and
physiological functions like Mn, Fe, Ni, Cu and Zn (Gohre and Paszkowski, 2006) while non-essential heavy metals are those,
which are not needed by living organisms for any physiological functions like Cd, Pb, Hg and As (Mertz, 1981; Suzuki and
Sano, 2001; Bidar et al., 2006; Peng et al., 2009).
Regarding the transportation of metals from roots to the aerial parts of the plants, some metals (especially Pb) tend to
be accumulated in roots more than in aerial parts, because of some barriers that prevent their movement. However, other
metals, such as Cd, moves easily in plants (Garbisu and Alkorta, 2001).
Schmidt (2003) reported that elevated heavy metal concentrations in the soil can lead to enhanced crop uptake and
negative effect on plant growth. At higher concentrations, they interfere with metabolic processes and inhibit growth,
sometimes leading to plant death (Schaller and Diez, 1991).
In plants Cd damages the light harvesting complex II and photosystems II, and I, which are active in photosynthesis.
Total chlorophyll content is decreased by Cd treatment, and nonphotochemical quenching is increased in Brassica napus.
Probably Cd also interferes with movement of K+, Ca2+ and abscisic acid in guard cells, while inhibiting stomal opening (Shaw,
1995).
Metal heavy phytotoxicity may be due to changes in physiological processes at the cellular and molecular level as a
result of enzyme deactivation or the blocking of functional groups of metabolically important molecules (1t al., 2012).

Application of plants for phytoremediation

Plants act as solar-driven pumping and filtering systems as they take up contaminants (mainly water soluble) through
their roots and transport/translocate them through various plant tissues where they can be metabolized, sequestered, or
volatilized (Cunningham et al., 1996; Greenberg et al., 2006; Abhilash, 2007; Doty et al., 2007).
Approximately 400 plant species from at least 45 plant families have been so far, reported to hyperaccumulate metals
(Lasat, 2000; Ghosh and Singh, 2005). Some of the families are Brassicaceae, Fabaceae, Euphorbiaceae, Asterraceae,
Lamiaceae and Scrophulariaceae (Salt et al, 1998; Dushekov, 2003). Crops like alpine pennycress (Thlaspi caerulescens),
Ipomea alpine, Haumaniastrum robertii, Astragalus racemosus, Sebertia acuminate have very high bioaccumulation potential
for Cd/Zn, Cu, Co, Se and Ni, respectively (Lasat, 2000). Willow (Salix viminalis L.), maize (Zea mays L.), Indian mustard
(Brassica juncea L.), and sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) have reportedly shown high uptake and tolerance to heavy metals
(Schmidt, 2003).
Among the plants of the Brassica species, the Brassica juneca deserve special attention because its relevance to the
process of phytoexctration of heavy metals from soil was confirmed in many experiments. It has been found that B. juncea
exhibits a high capacity to accumulate Cd- mainly in the shoots, where Cd level was recorded at level of 1450 μg Cd/g dry wt.
This is three times more than reported in Brassica napus (555 μ g/g dry wt). In addition, this plant exhibit a high removal
efficiency of other metals such as Pb (28% reduction) and Se (reduced between 13–48%) (Salt et al., 1998) and this plant is
more effective at removing Zn from soil than Thlaspi caerulescens, a known hyperaccumulator of zinc. This is due to the fact,
that B. juneca produces ten-times more biomass than T. cearullescens (Gisbert et al., 2006).
Some species, such as cabbage (Brassica oleracea L.), lettuce (Latuca sativa L.) and tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum L.),
accumulate high levels of Cd in leaves rather than in roots and increases or decreases the bioavailability of metal ions. The root

6
 Adv. Agri. Biol. 1 (1), 2013: 5-11

of Indian mustard are found to be effective in the removal of Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb, and Zn, and sunflower can remove Pb, U, Cs
and Sr from hydroponic solutions (Lone et al., 2008). Tang et al. (2003) reported the increase in uptake of copper by Indian
mustard and sunflower plant. Nehnevajova et al., (2005) investigated that the highest metal concentration was found in leaves
(shoot) of commercial cultivars of sunflower plants grown on metals-contaminated soil. Among the cultivated crops rape and
sunflower revealed higher cadmium concentrations in their shoots than in the roots.
Nagaraju and Karimulla (2002) described that some species, including Jatropha curcas (from Euphorbiaceae),
Dodonaea viscose (from Sapindaceae) and Cassia auriculata (from Fabaceae), had potential for remediation of soils polluted
with different kinds of trace and major elements. Also, high heavy metal accumulating ability has been reported for cereal
crops such as maize (Zea mays L.), sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) and alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) (Vijayarengan, 2005). Such
plants can be used successfully to clean up heavy metal polluted soils if their biomass and metal content are large enough to
complete remediation within a reasonable period (Ebbs and Kochian, 1998).
The success of phytoremediation depends mainly on the choice of plant, which must obviously possess the ability to
accumulate large amounts of heavy metals (hyperaccumulation). These plants also have to satisfy other criteria:
For phytoremediation, two approaches are used: (1) The application of hyperaccumulators (such as Thlaspi
caerulescens or Alyssum bertolonii) producing a relatively low amount of aboveground biomass but accumulating high
amounts of one or more elements (2) The application of high biomass producing plants characterized by lower ability to
accumulate target elements where total uptake of elements is comparable to that of hyperaccumulators due to high yield of
above-ground biomass (Tlustos et al., 2006). Hyperaccumulators are defined as “plant species whose shoots contain > 100 mg
Cd kg−1, > 1000 mg Ni, Pb and Cu kg−1 or >10000 mg Zn and Mn kg−1 (dry weight) when grown on metal rich soils” (Baker
and Brooks, 1989). As of 2010, more than 400 plant species have been identified as metal hyperaccumulators (Wu et
al., 2010). Grasses have been more preferable in use for phytoaccumulation than shrubs or trees because of high growth rate,
more adaptability to stress environment and high biomass (Malik et al., 2010).

Figure 1. Phytoremediation Technology (ITRC, 2009).

The specific plant and wild species that are used in this technique are effective at accumulating increasing amounts of
toxic heavy metals (Ghosh and Singh, 2005; Brunet et al., 2008). These plants are known as accumulators. They accumulate
heavy metals at higher concentrations (≥ 100 times) above ground than do non -hyperaccumulators growing in the same
conditions, without showing any observable symptoms in their tissues (Barcelo and Poschenrieder, 2003).
The concentration of heavy metals in the shoots should be 50–100 times greater than in ‘normal’plants (Jabeen et al.,
2009); the bioaccumulation coefficient (the ratio of the concentration of a toxic substance in the tissues of an organism to its
concentration in the living environment of that organism) must have a value greater than 1 (McGrath and Zhao, 2003); metal
concentrations in the shoots should be higher than in the roots (Jabeen et al., 2009); fast growth and high accumulating
biomass; easily grown as an agricultural crop and fully harvestable (Marchiol et al., 2004).

Remediation techniques
Phytoremediation can be classified into different applications, such as phytofiltration or rhizofiltration,
phytostabilization, phytovolatilization, phytodegradation (Long et al., 2002), and phyto-extraction (Jadia and Fulekar, 2009) as
shown in Figure 1.

7
 Adv. Agri. Biol. 1 (1), 2013: 5-11

Phytoextraction
This technology refers that plants absorb metals from soil and translocation them to the harvestable shoots where they
accumulate. The roots and shoots are subsequently harvested to remove the contaminants from the soil. Salt et al. (1995)
reported that the costs involved in phytoextraction would be more than ten times less per hectare compared to conventional soil
remediation techniques. It can be applied in mineral industry to commercially produce metals by cropping (Sheoran et al.,
2009).
Nascimento and Xing (2006) expressed that phytoextraction may be considered as a commercial technology in the
future. Jiang et al. (2004) determined the growth performance and ability for Cu phytoextraction of Elsholtzia splendens.
According to report, in the presence of vegetation, the exchangeable form of Cd was partly removed by plant uptake that
accompanied with the intake of nutrition (Zhang et al., 2009). Zhang et al. (2009) expressed that as Cd phytoextraction is
observed by maize, the percentage of exchangeable form of Cd decreased in the planted soil. Similar finding of decrease in Cd
level in soil planted with maize have also been reported by Mojiri (2011).

Phytostabilization
Phytostabilization referred to as in-place inactivation, is primarily used for the remediation of soil, sediment, and
sludges (United States Protection Agency, 2000). It is the use of plant roots to limit contaminant mobility and bioavailability in
the soil.
In phytostabilization, plants are responsible for reducing the percolation of water within the soil matrix, which may
create a hazardous leach ate, inhibiting direct contact with polluted soil by acting as barrier and interfering with soil erosion,
which results in the spread of toxic metals to the other sites (Raskin and Ensley, 2000). Phytostabilization is a suitable
technique to remediate Cd, Cu, As, Zn and Cr. Alvarenga et al. (2009) investigated the effect of three organic residues, sewage
sludge, municipal solid waste compost, and garden waste compost, on the phytostabilization of an extremely acidic metal-
contaminated soil.
Some of the advantages associated with this technology are that the disposal of hazardous material/biomass is not
required (United States Protection Agency, 2000) and it is very effective when rapid immobilization is needed to preserve
ground and surface waters (Chhotu et al., 2009).

Rhizofiltration
Rhizofiltration is primarily used to remediate extracted groundwater, surface water and wastewater with low
contaminant concentrations (Ensley, 2000). Rhizofiltration involves the use of plants to clean various aquatic environments.
Rhizofiltration can be used for Pb, Cd, Cu, Ni, Zn, and Cr, which are primarily retained within the roots (United States
Protection Agency, 2000). Sunflower, Indian mustard, tobacco, rye, spinach and corn have been studied for their ability to
remove lead from water, with sunflower having the greatest ability (Chhotu et al., 2009). Abhilashet al. (2009) investigated the
potential of Limnocharis flava (L.) Buchenau, grown for phytofiltration of Cd in polluted water with low concentrations of Cd
in a hydroponic experiment.

Phytodegradation
Phytodegradation is the use of plants and micro-organisms to uptake, metabolize and degrade the organic
contaminant. In this approach, plant roots are used in association with microorganisms to detoxify soil contaminated with
organic compounds (Garbisu and Alkorta, 2001). It is also known as phytotransformation. Some plants are able to
decontaminate soil, sludge, sediment, and ground and surface water by producing enzymes. This approach involves organic
compounds, including herbicides, insecticides, chlorinated solvents, and inorganic contaminants (Pivetz, 2001).
Phytodegradation is the breakdown of organic contaminants within plant tissue. Plants produce enzymes, such as
dehalogenase and oxygenase that help catalyze degradation. It appears that both the plants and the associated microbial
communities play a significant role in attenuating contaminants. It is referred to the degradation or breakdown of organic
contaminants by internal and external metabolic processes driven by the plant (Prasad and Freitas, 2003).

Phytovolatilization
Phytovolatilization is the use of green plants to extract volatile contaminants, such as Hg and Se, from polluted soils
and to ascend them into the air from their foliage (Karami and Shamsuddin, 2010). In other word, Phytovolatilization involves
the use of plants to take up contaminants from the soil, transforming them into volatile forms and transpiring them into the
atmosphere (United States Protection Agency, 2000).
Banuelos (2000) perceived that some plants were able to transform Se in the form of dimethylselenide and
dimethyldiselenide in high-selenium media. Unlike other remediation techniques, once the contaminants have been removed

8
 Adv. Agri. Biol. 1 (1), 2013: 5-11

via volatilization, one has no control over their migration to other areas. A similar case of volatilization based soil remediation
has also been reported in many recently published reports (Tangahu et al., 2011).

Conclusion
The concentrations of heavy metals increase in the environment from year to year (Govindasamy, 2011). Therefore
decontamination of heavy metal-contaminated soils is very important for maintenance of environmental health and ecological
restoration. Phytoremediation is a new cleanup concept that involves the use of plants to clean or stabilize contaminated
environments. Phytoremediation of metals is the most effective plant-based method to remove pollutants from contaminated
areas. This green technology can be applied to remediate the polluted soils without creating any destructive effect of soil
structure. Some specific plants, such as herbs and woody species, have been proven to have noticeable potential to absorb toxic
metals. These plants are known as hyperaccumulators.

References
Abhilash PC. 2007. Phytoremediation: an innovative technique for ecosystem clean up. Our Earth. 4: 7-12.
Abhilash P, Pandey VC, Srivastava P, Rakesh PS, Chandran S, Singh N, Thomas AP .2009. Phytofiltration of cadmium from water by Limnocharis flava L.
grown in free-floating culture system. J. Hazard. Mater. 170(2-3): 791-797.
Ahmadpour P, Ahmadpour F, Mahmud TMM, Arifin Abdu1 H, Soleimani M, Hosseini Tayefeh F .2012. Phytoremediation of heavy metals: A green
technology. African Journal of Biotechnology.11(76): 14036-14043.
Alvarenga P, Gonçalves AP, Fernandes RM, de Varennes A, Vallini G, Duarte E, Cunha-Queda AC .2009. Organic residues as immobilizing agents in aided
phytostabilization: (I) Effects on soil chemical characteristics. Chemosphere. 74(10): 1292-1300.
Anonymous .1997. Recent developments for in situ treatment of metal contaminated soils. Available Online: http://clu-in.org/techfocus.
Baker AJM, Brooks RR .1989. Terrestrial higher plants which hyper accumulate metallic elements: A review of their distribution, ecology and
phytochemistry. Biorecovery 1: 81-126.
Banuelos GS .2000. Phytoextraction of selenium from soils irrigated with selenium-laden effluent. Plant Soil. 224(2): 251-258.
Barcelo J, Poschenrieder C .2003. Phytoremediation: principles and perspectives. Contrib. Sci. 2(3): 333-344.
Bidar G, Garcon G, Pruvot C, Waterlot C, Douay F, Shirali P .2006. The phytomanagement of soils highly contaminated by metals: Use of Trifolium
repens and Lolium perenne as experimental model. Difpolmine Conference. 12-14 December, Le Corum-Montpellier-France, 1-6.
Blaylock M .2008. Phytoremediation of contaminated soil and water: field demonstration of phytoremediation of lead contaminated soils. Lewis Publishers,
Boca Raton, Fl.
Brunet J, Repellin A, Varrault G, Terryn N, Zuily-Fodil Y .2008. Lead accumulation in the roots of grass pea (Lathyrus sativus L.): a novel plant for
phytoremediation systems? Comptes Rendus Biologies. 331(11): 859-864.
Chaney RL, Reeves PG, Ryan JA, Simmons, RW, Welch RM, Angle JS .2005. An improved understanding of soil Cd risk to humans and low cost methods to
phytoextract Cd from contaminated soils to prevent soil Cd risks. BioMetals. 17: 549–553.
Chhotu D, Jadia D, Fulekar MH .2009. Phytoremediation of heavy metals: Recent techniques. African Journal of Biotechnology. 8(6): 921-928.
Cunningham SD, Ow DW .1996. Promise and prospects of phytoremediation. Plant Physiol. 110: 715–9.
Cunningham SD, Shann JR, Crowley DE, Anderson TA. 1997. Phytoremediation of contaminated water and soil. p. 2-19. In Kruger EL, Anderson TA, Coats
JR (ed.) Phytoremediation of soil and water contaminants. ACS symposium series 664. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC.
Doty SL, Shang QT, Wilson AM, Moore AL, Newman LA, Strand SE. 2007. Enhanced metabolism of halogenated hydrocarbons in transgenic plants contain
mammalian P450 2E1. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 97: 6287–91.
Dushenkov D. 2003. Trends in phytoremediation of radionuclides. Plant Soil. 249: 167–175.
Eapen S, D'Souza SF. 2005. Prospects of genetic engineering of plants for phytoremediation of toxic metals. Biotechnol Adv. 23: 97-114.
Ebbs SD, Brady DJ, Kochian LV. 1998. Role of uranium speciation in the uptake and translocation by plants. J. Exp. Bot. 49: 1183-1190.
Ensley BD. 2000. “Rationale for the use of phytoremediation.” phytoremediation of toxic metals:using plants to clean-up the environment. John Wiley
Publishers: New York.
Flathman PE, Lanza GR. 1998. Phytoremediation: current views on an emerging green technology. J. Soil Contam. 7(4): 415-432.
Garbisu C, Alkorta I. 2001. Phytoextraction: A cost-effective plant-based technology for the removal of metals from the environment. Bioresour. Technol.
77(3): 229-236.
Gisbert C, Clemente R, Navarro-Avino J, Carlos Baixauli C, Giner A, Serrano R, Walker DJ, Pilar Bernal MP. 2006. Tolerance and accumulation of heavy
metals by Brassicaceae species grown in contaminated soils from Mediterranean regions of Spain. Environ. Exp. Bot. 56: 19–26.
Ghosh M, Singh SP. 2005. A review on phytoremediation of heavy metals and utilization of it's by products. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 3(1): 1-18.
Gohre V, Paszkowski U. 2006. Contribution of the arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis to heavy metal phytoremediation. Planta. 223: 1115-1122.
Govindasamy C, Arulpriya M, Ruban P, Francisca LJ, Ilayaraja A . 2011. Concentration of heavy metals in seagrasses tissue of the Palk Strait, Bay of Bengal.
International Journal of Environmental Sci. 2(1): 145-153.
Greenberg BM, Hunag XD, Gurska Y, Gerhardt KE, Wang W, Lampi MA. 2006. Successful field tests of a multi-process phytoremediation system for
decontamination of persistent petroleum and organic contaminants. Proceedings of the twenty-ninth Artic and Marine Oil Spill Program (AMOP).
Technical Seminar Vol. 1. Environment Canada. P: 389–400.
Hegedusova A, Jakabova S, Simon L. 2009. Induced phytoextraction of lead from contaminated soil. Acta Universitatis Sapientiae Agric. Environ. 1: 116 –
122.
Helmisaari HS, Salemaa M, Derome J, Kiikkila O, Uhlig C, Nieminen TM. 2007. Remediation of heavy metal-contaminated forest soil using recycled organic
matter and native woody plants. J. Environ. Qual. 36: 1145–1153.
Jabeen R, Ahmad A, Iqbal M. 2009. Phytoremediation of heavy metals: Physiological and molecular mechanisms. Bot. Rev. 75: 339–364.
Jadia CD, Fulekar MH. 2009. Phytoremediation of heavy metals: Recent techniques. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 8(6): 921-928.
Jiang LY, Yang XE, He ZL. 2004. Growth response and phytoextraction of copper at different levels in soils by Elsholtzia splendens. Chemosphere 55(9):
1179-1187.
Karami A, Shamsuddin ZH. 2010. Phytoremediation of heavy metals with several efficiency enhancer methods. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 9(25): 3689-3698.

9
 Adv. Agri. Biol. 1 (1), 2013: 5-11

Kummling KE, Gray DJ, Power JP, Woodland SE. 2001. Gas phase chemical reduction of hexachlorocyclohexane and other chlorinated compounds: waste
treatment experience and applications. 6th International HCH and Pesticides Forum, 20–22 March; 2001. Poznan, Poland.
Kuzovkina YA, Knee M, Quigley MF (2004) Cadmium and copper uptake and translocation in five Willow salix L. species. Int. J. Phytoremediation. 6: 269-
287.
Lasat MM.(2002. Phytoextraction of toxic metals: A review of biological mechanisms. J. Environ. Qual. 31: 109–120.
Lewis AC. 2006. Assessment and comparison of two phytoremediation systems treating slow-moving groundwater plumes of TCE. Master thesis. Ohio
University p.158.
Lone MI, Zhen-Li H, Stoffella PJ, Xiao Y. 2008. Phytoremediation of heavy metal polluted soils and water: Progresses and perspectives. Journal of Zhejiang
University Sci B. 9: 210-220.
Long X, Yang X, Ni W. 2002. Current situation and prospect on the remediation of soils contaminated by heavy metals. The journal of applied ecology. 13(6):
757-762.
Macek T, Mackova M, Kas J. 2000. Exploitation of plants for the removal of organics in environmental remediation. Biotechnol Adv.18: 23–34.
Malik RN, Husain SZ, Nazir I. 2010. Heavy metal contamination and accumulation in soil and wild plant species from industrial area of Islamabad,
Pakistan.Pakistan Journal of Botany. 42(1): 291-301.
Marchiol L, Assolari S, Sacco P, Zerbi G. 2004. Phytoextraction of heavy metals by canola (Brassica napus) and radish (Raphanus sativus) grown on
multicontaminated soil. Environ. Pollut. 132: 21–27.
Matsunaga A, Yashuhara A. 2003. Complete dechlorination of 1-chloronaphthalene by electrochemical reduction with naphthalene radical anion as mediator.
Environ Sci Technol. 37: 3435–41.
McGrath SP, Zhao FJ. 2003. Phytoextraction of metals and metalloids from contaminated soils. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 14: 277–282.
McLaughlin MJ, Zarcinas BA, Stevens DP, Cook N. 2000. Soil testing for heavy metals. Commun. Soil. Sci. Plant Anal. 31(11-14): 1661– 1700.
Meagher RB. 2000. Phytoremediation of toxic elemental and organic pollutants. Curr Opin Plant Biol.3: 153–62.
Mertz W. 1981. The essential trace elements. Science. 213: 1332-1338.
Mojiri A. 2011. The Potential of Corn (Zea mays) for Phytoremediation of Soil Contaminated with Cadmium and Lead. J. Biol. Environ. Sci. 5: 17-22.
Nagaraju A, Karimulla S. 2002. Accumulation of elements in plants and soils in and around Nellore mica belt, Andhra Pradesh, India: a biogeochemical study.
Environ. Geol. 41(7): 852-860.
Nascimento CWA, Xing B. 2006. Phytoextraction: A review on enhanced metal availability and plant accumulation. Scientia Agricola. 63: 299-311.
Nehnevajova E, Herzig R, Federer G, Erismann KH, Schwitzguebel JP. 2005. Screening of sunflower cultivars for metal phytoextraction in a contaminated
field prior to mutagenesis, International Journal of Phytoremediation. 7: 337-349.
Nouairi I, Wided Ben Ammar W, Youssef N, Douja Ben Miled Daoud DB, Habib Ghorbal M, Zarrouk M (2006) Comparative study of cadmium effects on
membrane lipid composition of Brassica juncea and Brassica napus leaves. Plant Sci. 170: 511–519.
Peng KJ, Luo CL, Chen YH, Wang GP, Li XD, Shen ZG . 2009. Cadmium and other metal uptake by Lobelia chinensis and Solanum nigrum
from contaminated soils. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 83: 260-264.
Perrin-Ganier C, Schiavon F, Morel JL, Schiavon M. 2001. Effect of sludge-amendment or nutrition addition on the biodegradation of the herbicide
isoproturon in soil. Chemosphere. 44: 887–92.
Piekarska A, Konieczka P, Namiesnik J. 2011. Use of brassica plants in the phytoremediation and biofumigation processes. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 12 : 7760-7771.
Pivetz BE. 2001. Ground Water Issue: Phytoremediation of contaminated soil and ground water at hazardous waste sites pp.1-36.
Prasad MNV, Freitas H. 2003. Metal hyperaccumulation in plants-Biodiversity prospecting for phytoremediation technology. Electron. J. Biotechnol. 6(3):
285-321.
Pulford ID, Watson C. 2003. Phytoremediation of heavy metal-contaminated land by trees: A review. Environ. Int. 29: 529–540.
Rajakaruna N, Tompkins KM, Pavicevic PG. 2006. Phytoremediation: An affordable green technology for the clean-up of metal-contaminated sites in Sri
Lanka. Ceylon J. Sci. (Biological Sciences). 35: 25-39.
Raskin I, Ensley BD. 2000. Phytoremediation of toxic metals: Using plants to clean up the environment. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Publishing, New York. P.
304.
Revathi K, Harbabu TE, Sudha PN. 2011. Phytoremediation of chromium contaminated soil using sorghum plant. International Journal of Environmental
Sciences. 2(2): 417-428.
Saier MH, Trevors JT. 2010. Phytoremediation: water, air and soil pollution. Suppl: S61-S63.
Sahibin AR, Zulfahmi AR, Lai KM, Errol P, Talib ML. 2002. Heavy metals content of soil under vegetables cultivation in Cameron highland In: Proceedings
of the regional symposium on environment and natural resources 10-11th April 2002, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 1: 660-667.
Salt DE, Blaylock M, Kumar NPBA, Dushenkov V, Ensley BD, Chet I, Raskin I. 1995. Phytoremediation: a novel strategy for the removal of toxic metals
from the environment using plants. Biotechnology 13: 468-475.
Salt DE, Smith RD, Raskin I. 1998. Phytoremediation. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol. 49: 643–668.
Schaller A, Diez T. 1991. Plant specific aspects of heavy metal uptake and comparison with quality standards for food and forage crops in German. In:
Sauerbeck D, Lubben S (eds) Der Einflu von festen Abfa llen auf Boden, Pflanzen. KFA, Julich, Germany, pp: 92-125.
Schmidt U. 2003. Enhancing Phytoextraction: The effects of chemical soil manipulation on mobility, plant accumulation, and leaching of heavy metals. J.
Environ. Qual. 32: 1939-1954.
Shaw BP. 1995. Effects of mercury and cadmium on the activities of antioxidative enzymes in the seedlings of Phaseolus aureus. Biologica Plantarum. 37:
587-596.
Sheoran V, Sheoran AS, Poonia P. 2009. Phytomining: A review. Miner. Eng. 22(12): 1007-1019.
Shukla KP, Singh NK, Sharma S. 2010. Bioremediation: Developments, Current Practices and Perspectives. Genet. Eng. Biotechnol. J. 3: 1-20.
Singh OV, Labana S, Pandey G, Budhiraja R, Jain RK. 2003. Phytoremediation: an overview of metallic ion decontamination from soil. Appl. Microbiol.
Biotechnol. 61(5): 405-412.
Singh A, Eapen S, Fulekar MH. 2009. Potential of Medicago sativa for uptake of cadmium from contaminated environment. Romanian Biotechnology
Letters. 14: 4164-4169.
Susarla S, Medina VF, McCutcheon SC. 2002. Phytoremediation: an ecological solution to organic chemical contamination. Ecol. Eng. 18(5): 647-658.
Suzuki N, Sano HKN . 2001. Screening of cadmium-responsive genes in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Cell Environment. 24: 1177-1188.
Szczygłowska M, Piekarska A, Konieczka P, Namiesnik J. 2011. Use of brassica plants in the phytoremediation and biofumigation processes. Int. J. Mol. Sci.
12: 7760-7771.
Tang S, Xi L, Zheng J, Li H. 2003. Response to elevated CO2 of Indian Mustard and Sunflower growing on copper contaminated soil, Bull. Environ. Contam.
Toxicol. 71: 988-997.

10
 Adv. Agri. Biol. 1 (1), 2013: 5-11

Tangahu BV, Abdullah SRS, Basri H, Idris M, Anuar N, Mukhlisin M. 2011. A review on heavymetals (As, Pb, and Hg) uptake by plants through
phytoremediation. Int. J. Chem. Eng. 21: 1- 31.
Tlustos P, Szakova J, Hruby J, Hartman I, Najmanova J, Nedelnik J, Pavlikova D, Batysta M. 2006. Removal of As, Cd, Pb and Zn from contaminated soil
by high biomass producing plants. Plant Soil Environment. 52 (9): 413-423.
Turan M, Esringu A . 2007. Phytoremediation based on canola (Brassica napus L.) and Indian mustard (Brassica juncea L.) planted on spiked soil by
aliquot amount of Cd, Cu, Pb and Zn. Plant Soil Environment. 53: 7-15.
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2000a. Electrokinetic and Phytoremediation In Situ Treatment of Metal-Contaminated Soil: State-
of-the-Practice. Draft for Final Review. EPA/542/R-00/XXX. US Environmental Protection Agency,Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office, Washington, DC.
USEPA (United States Protection Agency). 2000b. Introduction to Phytoremediation. EPA 600/R-99/107. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH.
Vidali M. 2001. Bioremediation. An overview. Pure Appl. Chem. 73(7): 1163-1172.
Vijayarengan P. 2005. Nitrogen and potassium status of greengram (Vigna radiata) cultivars under nickel stress. Nature Environ. Pollut. Tech. 4: 65–69.
Vyslouzilova M, Tlustos P, Szakova J, Pavlikova D. 2003. As, Cd, Pb and Zn uptake by Salix spp. Clones grown in soils enriched by high loads of these
elements. Plant Soil Environ. 49: 191–196.
Wirtz M, Klucik J, Rivera MJ. 2000. Ferredoxin-mediated electrocatalytic dechlorination of haloalkanes by cytochrome P450 cam. J Am Chem Soc. 122:
1047–56.
Yoon J, CaoX, Zhou Q, Ma LQ. 2006. Accumulation of Pb, Cu, and Zn in native plants growing on a contaminated Florida site. Sci. Total Environ. 368(2-3):
456-464.
Zarcinas BA, Ishak CF, McLaughlin MJ, Cozens G.2004. Heavy metals in soils and crops in Southeast Asia. Environ. Geochem. Health. 26(3): 343-357.
Zhang H, Dang Z, Zheng LC, Yi XY. 2009. Remediation of soil co-contaminated with pyrene and cadmium by growing maize (Zea mays L.). Int. J. Environ.
Sci. Tech. 6: 249-258.
Zhang BY, Zheng JS, Sharp RG.(2010. Phytoremediation in engineered wetlands: Mechanisms and applications. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2: 1315-1325.

11

View publication stats