Content uploaded by Priyanka Devi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Priyanka Devi on Feb 10, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Concept and Application of Phytoremediation in the Fight
of Heavy Metal Toxicity
Priyanka Devi1, Prasann Kumar1, 2
1Department of Agronomy, School of Agriculture
Lovely Professional University, Jalandhar, Punjab, 144411, India
2 Climate Mitigation and Sustainable Agricultural Laboratory
Divisions of Research and Development
Lovely Professional University, Jalandhar, Punjab, 144411, India
Abstract Due to different activities by the human being like ore extraction and application of different processes causing the heavy
metal mobility which leads to the addition of these elements in the environment. As we all know that nature of heavy metal
is non- biodegradable hence accumulating in the surroundings and enters in food chain causing the impurity. This type of
contamination having environmental risk as well as affecting the health of humans. Heavy metal is mutagenic, endocrine,
carcinogenic and teratogenic which causes neurological problems, especially in children. By considering all these points in
mind remediation of these heavy metals is important to have a safe environment for survival. There are various methods for
heavy metal remediation which are having the many limitations that are alteration of soil properties, high cost, disturbance in
soil microflora and high demand for labour. Among all other remediation, phytoremediation is relatively more competent to
solve this severe problem. Phytoremediation is the technique to reduce the content of heavy metal concentration and its toxic
level of contaminants by the use of plants as well as related microbes of soil. Having the worldwide acceptance of this
technology due to various advantages like effective in cost, new, eco-friendly, efficient. This Technology plays an active
place in the current research. For the usage of phytomining and phytoremediation, the application of new metal
hyperaccumulators is used for the remediation of heavy metal. To understand the mechanism of metal- uptake,
appropriation, translocation and plant tolerance molecular tools are used. In this review article systematically discussed the
concepts, background, prospects in heavy metal phytoremediation.
Keywords: Agriculture, Biotic, Cadmium, Dose, Environment, Heavy metal, Phytomining, Phytoremediation
INTRODUCTION
As we know that environmental pollution nowadays is
increasing day by day and many factors are responsible for
causing pollution but among all other factors heavy metal
becoming a serious issue throughout the world. The
mobility mechanism of heavy metal in the environment
depends upon ores extraction and different processing
application which results in releasing these elements in the
environment. Due to the increase in industrialization and
biological cycle disturbance heavy metal pollution is a
serious problem that needs a great solution to mitigate
heavy metal pollution. These are non-biodegradable
essentially heavy metal which accumulates in the
environment leads to risk in the environment i.e. soil
pollution, water, and affects the health of humans. In a
living organism, these elements accumulate in their body
tissue which is called bioaccumulation and concentration
increase from lower trophic level to higher trophic level as
they pass from it and this phenomenon is known as
biomagnification. There is a decrease of soil-microbes
number in the soil due to the toxic effect of heavy metal
(Khan et al., 2010). Heavy metals are classified as
essential as well as nonessential elements based upon the
biological role in organisms. Heavy metals required by the
living organism in very less concentration in the
physiological as well as biochemical functions are known
as essential metals like Mn, Zn, Fe, Ni and Cu ( Gohre et
al., 2006; Cempel and Nikel, 2006). Metals which are not
required by the living organism for their functions are
termed as nonessential metals like Pb, Hg, Cd, As and Cr
which are often termed as heavy metals ( Karen et al.,
2000; Cobbet 2003, Mertz 1981, Suzuki et al., 2001;
Darbonne et al., 2010). Heavy metal concentration above a
certain limit shows the severe effects in plants as well as
inhuman.
Heavy metal sources in the environment
There are various sources of heavy metal like weathering
of rocks that come under natural processes and a lot of
many anthropogenic activities due to which it enters the
environment. In a natural process like the disintegration of
rocks, erosion as well as volcanic eruptions while human
activities it includes smelting, pesticides use and
phosphatic manures, mining, electroplating, industrial
effluent and sludge and biosolids in agriculture
(Chehregani and Malayeri, 2007; Fulekar et al., 2009;
Wuana et al., 2011 Modaihsh et al., 2004; Sabiha et al.,
2009). Source of arsenic metal is the use of pesticides and
different preservatives of wood (Thangavel and
Subbhuraam 2004). Cadmium source is phosphatic
fertilizers, electroplating, use of stabilizers for plastics and
paint industry (Pulford et al., 2003; Salem et al., 2000).
For chromium mainly steel industry, leather, cement
industry and tanneries (Khan et al., 2007). Cupper source
is the use of fertilizer in excess amounts and pesticides
(Khan et al., 2007). Coal combustion, mining, and waste
of medical is the source for mercury metal in the
environment (Memon et al., 2011; Rodrigues et al., 2012;
Wuana et al., 2011). The anthropogenic source for nickel
is effluents of various industries, instruments used for
surgical, alloys of steels, batteries of vehicles and kitchen
appliances (Tariq et al., 2006). The use of herbicides and
Priyanka Devi et al /J. Pharm. Sci. & Res. Vol. 12(6), 2020, 795-804
795
insecticides, petrol combustion and manufacturing of
batteries are the source for lead (Wuana et al., 2011;
Thangavel et al., 2004).
Heavy metal effects on human
The heavy metal having severe harmful effects on human
health and also contaminate the food chain so it required a
great need and attention. Even at very low concentration
sone metals are toxic and causing severe problems in
human health (Kara 2005; Memon et al., 2009; Arora et
al., 2008). Oxidative stress is formed free radicals by
heavy metal (Mudipalli et al., 2008) which leads to the
formation of reactive oxygen species ROS. The formation
of ROS damage the cell membrane and metal which are
essential in enzymes in addition to pigments are replaced
which disrupts the function ultimately leads to cell death
(Sanchez Chardi et al., 2009; Das et al., 2008; Krystofova
et al., 2009). Based upon their toxic level most
problematic metal are Pd, Cu, Hg, Zn, Cr and Sn (Ghosh,
2010; Wright et al., 2007). Among this cadmium, mercury,
arsenic, and lead are considered as non -essential metals
whereas zinc and copper are essential metal (trace
elements). Depending upon its concentration level and
oxidative state causes different health issues.
Harmful effect on human by different heavy metals
Arsenic as arsenate acts as a phosphate analogue and
hence inhibits cellular processes which are essential like
ATP synthesis and oxidative phosphorylation (Tripathi et
al., 2007). Chromium is also very carcinogenic which
causes ulcers, respiratory problems, skin cancer and hair
loss (Salem et al., 2000). Moreover, Cadmium act as
mutagenic, teratogenic, carcinogenic which inhibits by
regulation of calcium in the biological system causing the
failure in renal, anaemia (Sale et al., 2000; Awofolo 2005;
Degraeve 1981). Different levels of copper cause the
damage in kidney and brain, cirrhosis in liver and irritation
in the stomach as well as in intestinal (Wuana et al., 2011;
Salem et al., 2000). Besides, Mercury is responsible to
cause depression, diseases of autoimmune, fatigue, hair
loss, drowsiness, short memory, ulcers, brain damage and
kidney problem (Aniza et al., 2010; Gulati et al., 2010;
Neustadt and Pieczenik 2007). Besides, Nickel cause
dermatitis allergic termed as nickel itch, lung cancer, nose
and sinuses, throat cancer (Salem et al., 2000; Khan et al.,
2007 and Das et al., 2008). It is also worth to highlight
that Lead poisoning to cause the problems like impaired
development, short memory loss, intelligence reduction,
create problems in coordination, failure of renal in
children(Salem et al., 2000; Wuana et al., 2011;
Padmavathiamma and Li 2007; Iqbal 2012). Zinc also
causes fatigue and dizziness when its dose is high than that
of its threshold level(Hess et al., 2002).
Removal of heavy metal
In the environment, heavy metal concentration is
increasing every year (Govindasamy et al., 2011). The
deposition of cadmium, lead, and zinc in the atmosphere in
the region of combine in the Netherlands with 700 km area
was contaminated (Meers et al., 2010). The area in china
is destroyed due to the activities of mining of 46700 ha
annually. Due to severe pollution and soil erosion as well
as off-site pollution, there is no vegetation on that
destroyed land (Xia 2007). To minimize their impact on
the environment it is necessary to remove the heavy metal
from contaminated soils but there are so many challenges
in terms of cost and complex technical skills (Barcel et al.,
2003). A different method to achieve the purpose of heavy
metal removal by chemical, biological as well as physical
methods. The various conventional remediation ways
include incineration of soil, in situ vitrification, landfill,
washing off soil and solidification (Sheoran et al., 2011
and Wuana et al., 2011). Due to the high cost, more
labour, the microflora of soil disturbed and properties of
soil changes are the limitations of chemical and physical
methods. Secondary pollutants are formed due to chemical
methods. By considering these limitations it is needed to
develop the remediation to remove the soil pollutants in
such a way that are effective in cost, more efficient as well
as eco-friendly. Phytoremediation is such a new approach
in which plants or green substitute solutions are used to
mitigate the effect of heavy metal in soil (Fig.1).
Phytoremediation
The plants and related microbes of soil are used to
diminish the toxicity and concentration of contaminants
from the soil in the process of phytoremediation
(Greipsson 2011). Heavy metals, organic pollutants like
polynuclear, biphenyls, pesticides, hydrocarbon, and
radionuclides can be removed by using this technique. It
is such new approach in which plants or green substitute
solution are used to mitigate the heavy metal effect in soil
(Suresh et al., 2004; Chehregani and Malayeri 2007; Lone
et al., 2008; Kalve et al., 2011; Vithanage et al., 2012).
This method helps in removing the soil contaminants
without harming the fertility of soil as well as topsoil. By
adding the organic matter into the soil it improves the
fertility of the soil (Mench et al., 2009). Phytoremediation
word comes from Greek and Latin i.e ‘Phyto’ greek means
plant and medium Latin means the removal of evil. There
is the various mechanism under which plants goes to
remove the pollutants by taking from the environment and
their detoxification. During the decades of the last two
years conducted research and studied that
phytoremediation is recent technology. Phytoremediation
concepts were first given by Chaney in 1983 and now it is
accepted as good pleasant among the public (Reference
please). A very large field is one of the best methods
which is suitable for remediation where other methods are
not effective in cost as well as practically feasible (arbisu
and Alkorta 2003). As compared to the other remediation
it has a very low cost for the initial instalment (Van Aken,
2009) and its cost is less than other remediation by 5 %
(Prasad, 2003). When on polluted soil the vegetation is
grown which also helps in metal leaching and prevents
erosion of soil (Chaudhry et al., 1998). In this method
plants with high biomass, fast-growing like poplar,
jatropha, and willow are used for the production of energy
as well as phytoremediation (Abhilash et al., 2012).
Phytoremediation is popular nowadays among the public
as ‘green clean’ which are alternate to chemicals (Pilon-
Smits, 2005).
Priyanka Devi et al /J. Pharm. Sci. & Res. Vol. 12(6), 2020, 795-804
796
Fig1. Removal of heavy metal and their different techniques
Fig 2. Different techniques of phytoremediation
Priyanka Devi et al /J. Pharm. Sci. & Res. Vol. 12(6), 2020, 795-804
797
Phytoremediation techniques
There are various techniques which are used for the
remediation of heavy metals from contaminated soils are
shown in fig 1 (Alkorta et al., 2004).
Phytoextraction
Another name of the phytoextraction is photoabsorption
and phytoaccumulation which helps in uptaking the soil
contaminates as well as from water through their roots and
accumulates in the above plant parts as biomass by the
process of translocation (Sekara et al., 2005; Rafati et al.,
2011; Yoon et al., 2006). The translocation of metal from
soil to roots than roots to the shooting part of plants
involves the vital biochemical function is required in
phytoextraction but the harvesting is not feasible in
biomass of roots (Zacchini et al., 2009) (Fig. 2).
Phytofiltration
The wastewater and surface water which is contaminated
from pollutants is removed by the use of plants
(Mukhopadhyay and Maiti 2010). Phytofiltration is of the
different type named as caulofiltration in which plant
shoots are used; rhizofiltration in this roots of plants are
used and last is blastofiltration in which seedlings are used
for phytoremediation (Mesjasz et al., 2004).
Phytofiltration works on the principle of absorption and
adsorption which help in minimizing the underground
movement of water.
Phytostabilization
Phytostabilization is also known as phytoimmobilization
where particular plants are used for the contaminants
stabilization in contaminated soils (Singh 2012). The
mobility in addition to bioavailability contaminants is
condensed which helps in preventing the entry of
pollutants into the food chain as well as in restricting the
groundwater migration (Erakrumen 2007). There is a
various mechanism under which plants goes to immobilize
the metals in the soil like precipitation, valency of metal,
rhizosphere reduction and roots sorption (Barcelo et al.,
2003; Ghosh and Singh, 2005; Wuana et al., 2011; Yoon
et al., 2006). The toxicity of different metals depends upon
their valency. Plants excrete many enzymes that help in
converting the harmful metals into less toxic metals results
in decreasing the heavy metal stress. For example the
conversion of hexavalent chromium to trivalent chromium
results in less toxic after reduction (Wu et al., 2010). This
technique is not long-lasting remediation because it only
restricts their movement and inactivating the contaminants
present in soil (Vangronsveld et al., 2009).
Phytovolatilization
In this technique, pollutants are extracted by the plants in
contaminated soil which later converts into the form of
volatile and later release into the environment. For the
organic pollutants and metals like Se and Hg can be
removed by this particular technique but having some
limitations like pollutants are not removed completely, it
only transferred the toxins from soil to the air from where
it can be deposited again in soil (Padmavathiama and Li
2007).
Phytodegradation
In this technique, the remediation of metals by the process
in which organic pollutants are degraded by the enzymes
like oxygenase as well as dehalogenase is independent of
the microorganism rhizosphere (Vishnoi and Srivastava
2008). Through their metabolic activities, plants
accumulate organic pollutants and then detoxify the
contaminants. As we know that heavy metals are
nonbiodegradable which limits the organic pollutants
removal by phytodegradation. Recently studies reported
the use of plants that are genetically modified like
transgenic poplars in biodegradation (Doty et al., 2007).
Rhizodegradation
In this technique, organic pollutants are degraded in the
soil around the rhizosphere with the help of different
microorganisms (Mukhopadhyay and Maiti 2010). The 1
mm rhizosphere area around the root zone and plants are
under influence by this particular technique (Pilon-Smits
2005). The mechanism behind this method is increasing in
the microbes population which increases the metabolic
activities result in enhancing the degradation of the
pollutant in the rhizosphere. Due to the carbohydrates,
flavonoids, amino acid exudates are secreted in the
rhizosphere which increases the 10-100 times activities of
microbes. The microbe’s activity is stimulated by getting
the rich nutrient environment through the exudation from
plant roots which provides the nitrogen as well as the
carbon sources to microbes. Along with the secretion of
organic exudates from roots of plants in rhizosphere plants
also release some enzyme which also degrades the
pollutants in soil (Kuiper et al., 2004; Yadav et al., 2010).
Phytodesalination
Phytoremediation is a highly reported and globally
accepted technique (Zorrrig et al., 2012). It refers to the
removal of salt from the affected soils by the use of
halophytic plants which helps in providing the normal
growth to the plants (Manouski and Kalogerakis 2011;
Sakai et al., 2012). As compared to the glycophytic plants
they were suggested to be better in heavy metals
conditions (Manousaki et al., 2011). From 1 ha salt-
affected field the two species of halophytic plants like
Suaeda maritima as well as Sesuvium portulacastrum are
capable to remove 504 and 474 kg of salt respectively in
four-month. These halophytes can accumulate sodium
chloride from highly saline soils which help to have better
crop production and harvest (Ravindran et al., 2007). This
technique helps in reducing the salinity stress which helps
the plant to grow normally for the glycophytic test culture
crop Hordeum vulgare (Rabhi et al., 2010).
Heavy metal phytoextraction
For the removal of heavy metals from the contaminated
soils, it is the best technique used for phytoremediation
(Cluis, 2004; Milic et al., 2012; Cherian and Oliveira
2005) and it is commercial adapted throughout the world
Priyanka Devi et al /J. Pharm. Sci. & Res. Vol. 12(6), 2020, 795-804
798
(Sun et al., 2011). The efficiency of this technique
depends upon factors like heavy metal bioavailability in
soil, properties of soil, heavy metal speciation and
different plant species. The plants should have the
following characteristics which are used in
phytoextraction (Mejare et al., 2001; Adesodun et al.,
2010; Shabani et al., 2012). The plant should have a high
rate of growth. Above the ground biomass production is
high and should have a well-developed root system.
Accumulated heavy metal should be translocated from the
roots of plants to shoots. Plants should have the tolerance
capacity to the toxic effects of heavy metal and have a
better adaptation to variation of climatic conditions. Plants
should have the character to resist against the pathogens
and pests. The main two key factors of plants for the
phytoextraction potential is the concentration of metal in
shoots as well as the biomass of shoots (Li et al., 2010).
For phytoextraction the two different approaches in which
use of hyperaccumulators helps in producing the less
biomass aboveground but the accumulation of heavy metal
target is high and another approach the use of indian
mustard helps in producing the high biomass production
aboveground but the accumulation of target heavy metal is
less (Robinson et al., 1998). In phytoremediation, it is
more important to have high accumulation and
hypertolerance rather than that of biomass production
(Chaney et al., 1997). For the phytoextraction, those plants
are more suitable which have multiple harvesting cuts in a
single period growth like Trifolium spp. (Ali et al., 2012).
Due to the higher adaptability to stresses, higher biomass
production and high rate of growth grasses are more
suitable for the phytoextraction of heavy metal rather than
trees and shrubs (Malik et al.,2010). Recent studies
reported that maize and barley are used for the
phytoextraction of heavy metal. The plants and crops
which are used for the phytoextraction have to face the
food chain contamination considered one of the
disadvantages. The field crops which are used for the
extraction of heavy metals should not be used for the feed
of animals and consumption of human directly (Vamerali
et al., 2010).
Metallophytes
The soil which is highly contaminated by the heavy metal
in that particular soil metallophytes plants are used (Bothe
2011; Sheoran et al., 2011). Under the local condition of
the environment over thousand-year the evolution of metal
which results in resistance in metallophytes. Due to the
activities of mining, there is subsequently change in the
metallophytes function by diminishing the habitat if
enriched metals (Ernst 2000). Metallophytes are
considered as the botanical inquisitiveness (Alford et al.,
2010). Metallophytes are the plants that come under the
family of Brassicaceae. The best attractive idea for the
phytoextraction of the heavy metal is when the
metallophytes are used in combination with another
microorganism (Bothe, 2011). There different categories
of metallophytes named metal excluders, metal
hyperaccumulators, and metal indicators (Fig.3).
Metal excluders
In this type of metallophytes, heavy metal is accumulated
in the roots from the particular contaminated soil but
there’s restriction in the transportation of the metal into the
aerial plant's parts (Sheoran et al., 2011; Malik et al.,
2012). These metal excluders are efficient in purpose to
phytostabilization but have the low potential for extraction
of metals (Lasat 2002; Barcelo et al., 2003).
Metal indicators
The name itself indicates that there is a selection of a
concentration of heavy metal from the substrate and
accumulation of heavy metals in the aerial plant parts
(Sheoran et al., 2011).
Metal Hyperaccumulators
Plants that can accumulate the heavy metal in the above-
ground plant's parts with the high concentration as that of
the present in that contaminated soil (Memon et al., 2001;
Memon and Schroder 2009). They come under the broader
category of accumulators which are viewed as special
hyperaccumulators (Pollard et al., 2002).
Hperaccumulators are considered as the high tolerant
against the heavy metal which accumulates in the shoot
parts of plants (Mcgrath et al., 2001). Scientifically the
standard for hyperaccumulators is not well defined (Nazir
et al., 2011). It is used for the phytoremediation for toxic
heavy metal and also for the phytomining processes like
Pd and Au. The concentration of metal in tissue is
multiplied by the produced quantity of biomass is the
amount of the metal which is extracted from
hyperaccumulators (Macek et al., 2008). There are some
plants which are having the natural ability to extract heavy
metals from the contaminated soils and act as
hyperaccumulation.
Fig 3. Different categories of Metallophytes
Categories of
Metallophytes
Metal Indicators
Metal
Hyperaccumulators
Metal Excluders
Priyanka Devi et al /J. Pharm. Sci. & Res. Vol. 12(6), 2020, 795-804
799
Fig 4. Post-harvest treatment of phytoremediation plant
Plant fate in phytoextraction
There is a big question in phytoextraction that fate of
plants after used in the extraction of heavy metals.
Burning the plants after phytoextraction may also cause
the harmful waste leads to the hazardous issue but safely it
should be dump in the specialized area if feasible
economically and also for the recovery of the valuable and
semiprecious metals and this process is known as the
phytomining (Salt et al., 1998; Prasad 2003; lone et al.,
2008; Sheoran et al., 2011)(Fig. 4.).
Phytomining
After the extraction of heavy metal from the contaminated
soil the metal which is accumulated in plant biomass can
be converted to energy by combustion and leftover ash is
considered as “bio-ore” and this further used for the metal
extraction. From the combustion of the plant biomass,
there is the production of sale energy which is considered
as its main advantage (Anderson et al., 1999). This
technique is the best as it is eco-friendly and
environmentally safe as compared to the other traditional
extraction methods. Phytomining viability depends
commercial on processed metal value and phytoextraction
efficiency. This technique is commercially used for the
extraction of nickel metal and found that it is cost-
effective. Recent research was conducted and reported that
the phytomining of nickel in agriculture has a high profit
(Chaney et al., 2009).
Wetland use for phytoremediation
The waste effluents and water which is drained out from
the different industry is cleaned by the use of constructed
wetlands (Vangronsveld et al., 2009). This is the
successful technique used for heavy metal remediation
which is effective in cost and practically feasible
technology (Williams 2002; Galvan 2010; Rai 2012). Due
to the high growth rate, high biomass production and more
ability to extract the pollutant of aquatic macrophytes are
more suitable for the treatment of wastewater as compare
to the terrestrial plants and aquatic plants having the direct
contact with water which is contaminated perform the
better purification (Sood et al., 2012). Different species of
aquatic plants are used like floating, submerged and
emergent species in a wetland constructed (Fig.5). On the
edges of the wetland constructed willow (Salix sp.) and
Poplar (Populus ap.) are used (Pilon- Smits 2005).
Accumulation of heavy metal is different in different
aquatic plant sp.like in submerged metal accumulate in all
plant parts and case of floating plants only in the roots
accumulation of heavy metal (Rahman et al., 2011).
Fig 5. Phytoremediation in constructed wetlands
In harvested plant biomass
heavy metal accumulation
Harvest of metal rich metal
To reduce the volume
combustion of biomass
In specialized dumps safe
disposal
Priyanka Devi et al /J. Pharm. Sci. & Res. Vol. 12(6), 2020, 795-804
800
Translocation and uptake mechanism of heavy metal
From the contaminated soil, heavy metal is taken up by the
plants through the roots and accumulate in the roots from
their heavy metal ions are translocated to the shoots of
plants by mean of primarily xylem vessels and over there
it deposited in the vacuoles (Prasad 2004; Jabeen et al.,
2009). With fewer metabolic activities vacuole is the
cellular organelles (Denton 2007). From the vacuole it can
be removed from the cytosol and by reducing cellular
metabolic interactions (Assuncao et al., 2003; Sheoran et
al., 2011). There are five aspects which are basic for the
mechanism of phytoextraction of heavy metal first is
heavy metal mobilization in soil, accumulated metals
translocation from roots to aboveground plant parts, metal
ions are taken up by the plant roots, metal ion
sequestration in the tissue of plants and last is the
tolerance against the metals. Tolerance of metal is
essential for phytoremediation as well as for the metal
accumulation (Clemens 2001). By the variety of
molecules, the vacuoles are regulated and controlled
throughout the translocation of heavy metal from the soil
solution. In the transport of heavy metal cross membranes,
some molecules are formed and others are involved in the
formation of metal complexes. Heavy metal ions uptake
depends upon channel proteins also called special
transporters present in the root plasma membrane
(Greipsson 2011). Those metal which is not essential
compete and enters the plant's roots by the same
transporters transmembrane (Thangavel et al., 2004).
Phytoremediation limitation
It is the best technique for the remediation of heavy metal
from contaminated soil but still suffers from some
limitations (Clemens 2001; Leduc et al., 2005; Tong et al.,
2004).
• Time-consuming- required for removal of heavy
metal from contaminated soil is long.
• Efficiency is less- due to some hyperaccumulators
having a slow growth rate and less production of
biomass.
• Less mobilization- due to some tightly bound metal
ions.
• Risk in the food chain- mismanagement and lack of
proper care leads to contamination of the food chain.
Future perspective in phytoremediation related
research
As we know that it is a recent technology in the field of
research for the removal of heavy metal from
contaminated soil. Currently, most of the work is limited
up to laboratory and greenhouse only rare studies have
been done to evaluate the phytoremediation efficiency in
the actual field. So, the threat area of this technique to
conduct the field experiment because the field is the real
world where this contamination occurs and there are lot
many factors in the field which are different from
laboratory and greenhouse (Ji et al., 2011). Different
factors affect the phytoremediation like change in
temperature, moisture, precipitation, nutrients, insect pest,
soil type and plant pathogens (Vangronsveld et al., 2009).
Research is still in progress to identify hyperaccumulation
coding genes for particular heavy metals in plants. to
develop the ‘superbug’ plants for the phytoremediation it
is important to identify and transformation of genes to
other plants that are suitable for phytoremediation. Rather
than having a lot many challenges still it is best green
remediation used for removal of heavy metal from soil
ecofriendly as well as efficiently.
The interdisciplinary research of phytoremediation
For this technique, it requires the knowledge of soil
chemistry, ecology, plant biology, microbiology as well as
environmental engineering. The current status and trend of
the integration approach of scientific knowledge help in
coming out of this problem with great results in the future
(Fig. 6.).
Fig 6. Interdisciplinary research of phytoremediation
CONCLUSION
As we all know that soil contamination and toxicity of
these metal is increasing day by day result in many
environmental problems that require a great need to solve
this problem by the effective remediation methods. Due to
high cost, change in soil properties, destruction in soil
microbes and production of secondary pollutants are the
limitations of physical and chemical methods of
remediation. In comparison, phytoremediation is the best
green technique that is used to solve this problem. It is
eco-friendly, economically efficient and practically
feasible adopted throughout the world. Phytoremediation
requires the knowledge of soil chemistry, ecology, plant
biology, microbiology as well as the environmental
engineering highly interdisciplinary in nature. Research is
still in progress to identify hyperaccumulation coding
genes for particular heavy metals in plants. to develop the
‘superbug’ plants for the phytoremediation it is important
to identify and transformation of genes to other plants that
are suitable for phytoremediation. Rather than having a lot
many challenges still it is best green remediation used for
removal of heavy metal from soil ecofriendly as well as
Environmen
t engineering
Ecology
Plant
biology
Soil
chemistry
Soil
microbiology
Phytoremediatio
n Research
Priyanka Devi et al /J. Pharm. Sci. & Res. Vol. 12(6), 2020, 795-804
801
efficiently. To understand the mechanism which enhances
the efficiency of phytoremediation to know about
molecular advancements and achievements. Commercially
feasible technology for remediation of heavy metal and
phytomining of heavy metals by the phytoextraction.
Acknowledgements
P.D. and P.K. gratefully acknowledge the support
provided by Lovely Professional University.
Author Contributions
P.D. and P.K equally contributed to writing the
manuscript.
Conflict of Interest Statement
We wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of
interest associated with this publication and there has been
no significant financial support for this work that could
have influenced its outcome.
REFERENCE
1. Abhilash, P.C., Powell, J.R., Singh, H.B., Singh, B.K., 2012. Plant-
microbe interactions: novel applications for exploitation in
multipurpose remediation technologies. Trends Biotechnol. 30,
416–420.
2. Ainza, C., Trevors, J., Saier, M., 2010. Environmental mercury
rising. Water Air Soil Pollut. 205, 47–48.
3. Alford, E.R., Pilon-Smits, E.A.H., Paschke, M.W., 2010.
Metallophytes – a view from the rhizosphere. Plant Soil 337, 33–
50.
4. Ali, H., Naseer, M., Sajad, M.A., 2012. Phytoremediation of heavy
metals by Trifolium alexandrinum. Int. J. Environ. Sci. 2, 1459–
1469.
5. Alkorta, I., Hernandez-Allica, J., Becerril, J., Amezaga, I., Albizu,
I., Garbisu, C., 2004. Recent findings on the phytoremediation of
soils contaminated with environmentally toxic heavy metals and
metalloids such as zinc, cadmium, lead, and arsenic. Rev. Environ.
Sci. Biotechnol. 3, 71–90.
6. Anderson, C.W.N., Brooks, R.R., Stewart, R.B., Simcock, R., 1999.
Gold uptake by plants. Gold Bull. 32, 48–52.
7. Arora, M., Kiran, B., Rani, S., Rani, A., Kaur, B., Mittal, N., 2008.
Heavy metal accumulation in vegetables irrigated with water from
different sources. Food Chem. 111, 811–815.
8. Assuncao, A.G.L., Schat, H., Aarts, M.G.M., 2003. Thlaspi
caerulescens, an attractive odel species to study heavy metal
hyperaccumulation in plants. New Phytol. 159, 351–360.
9. Awofolu, O., 2005. A survey of trace metals in vegetation, soil and
lower animal along some selected major roads in metropolitan city
of Lagos. Environ. Monit. Assess. 105, 431–447.
10. Barcelo, J., Poschenrieder, C., 2003. Phytoremediation: principles
and perspectives. Contrib. Sci. 2, 333–344.
11. Cempel, M., Nikel, G., 2006. Nickel: a review of its sources and
environmental toxicology. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 15, 375–382.
12. Chaney, R.L., Malik, M., Li, Y.M., Brown, S.L., Brewer, E.P.,
Angle, J.S., Baker, A.J.M., 1997. Phytoremediation of soil metals.
Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 8, 279–284. Bothe, H., 2011. Plants in
heavy metal soils. In: Sherameti, I., Varma, A. (Eds.),
13. Chaudhry, T.M., Hayes, W.J., Khan, A.G., Khoo, C.S., 1998.
Phytoremediation-focusing on accumulator plants that remediate
metal-contaminated soils. Aust. J. Ecotoxicol. 4, 37–51.
14. Chehregani, A., Malayeri, B.E., 2007. Removal of heavy metals by
native accumulator plants. Int. J. Agri. Biol. 9, 462–465.
15. Cherian, S., Oliveira, M.M., 2005. Transgenic plants in
phytoremediation: recent advances and new possibilities. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 39, 9377–9390.
16. Cluis, C., 2004. Junk-greedy greens: phytoremediation as a new
option for soil decontamination. BioTeach J. 2, 61–67.
17. Cobbett, C., 2003. Heavy metals and plants-model systems and
hyperaccumulators. New Phytol. 159, 289–293.
18. Das, K., Das, S., Dhundasi, S., 2008. Nickel, its adverse health
effects and oxidative stress. Indian J. Med. Res. 128, 412–425.
19. Degraeve, N., 1981. Carcinogenic, teratogenic and mutagenic
effects of cadmium.Mut. Res. 86, 115–135.
20. Denton, B., 2007. Advances in phytoremediation of heavy metals
using plant growth promoting bacteria and fungi. Basic Biotechnol.
3, 1–5.
21. Detoxification of Heavy Metals, Soil Biology, vol. 30. Springer-
Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 35–57.
22. Doty, S.L., Shang, Q.T., Wilson, A.M., Moore, A.L., Newman,
L.A., Strand, S.E., 2007. Enhanced metabolism of halogenated
hydrocarbons in transgenic plants containing mammalian P450
2E1. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97, 6287–6291.
23. Erakhrumen, A.A., 2007. Phytoremediation: an environmentally
sound technology for pollution prevention, control and remediation
in developing countries. Edu. Res. Rev. 2, 151–156.
24. Ernst, W.H.O., 2000. Evolution of metal hyperaccumulation and
phytoremediation hype. New Phytol. 146, 357–358.
25. Fulekar, M., Singh, A., Bhaduri, A.M., 2009. Genetic engineering
strategies for enhancing phytoremediation of heavy metals. Afr. J.
Biotechnol. 8, 529–535.
26. Garbisu, C., Alkorta, I., 2003. Basic concepts on heavy metal soil
bioremediation. Eur. J. Miner. Process. Environ. Prot. 3, 58–66.
27. Ghosh, M., Singh, S.P., 2005. A review on phytoremediation of
heavy metals and utilization of it’s by products. Appl. Ecol.
Environ. Res. 3, 1–18.
28. Ghosh, S., 2010. Wetland macrophytes as toxic metal accumulators.
Int. J. Environ. Sci. 1, 523–528.
29. Gohre, V., Paszkowski, U., 2006. Contribution of the arbuscular
mycorrhizal symbiosis to heavy metal phytoremediation. Planta
223, 1115–1122.
30. Govindasamy, C., Arulpriya, M., Ruban, P., Francisca, L.J.,
Ilayaraja, A., 2011. Concentration of heavy metals in seagrasses
tissue of the Palk Strait, Bay of Bengal. Int. J. Environ. Sci. 2, 145–
153.
31. Greipsson, S., 2011. Phytoremediation. Nat. Educ. Knowl. 2, 7
32. Gulati, K., Banerjee, B., Bala Lall, S., Ray, A., 2010. Effects of
diesel exhaust, heavy metals and pesticides on various organ
systems: possible mechanisms and strategies for prevention and
treatment. Indian J. Exp. Biol. 48, 710–721.
33. Hess, R., Schmid, B., 2002. Zinc supplement overdose can have
toxic effects. J. Paediatr. Haematol. Oncol. 24, 582–584.
34. Jabeen, R., Ahmad, A., Iqbal, M., 2009. Phytoremediation of heavy
metals: physiological and molecular mechanisms. Bot. Rev. 75,
339–364.
35. Ji, P., Sun, T., Song, Y., Ackland, M.L., Liu, Y., 2011. Strategies
for enhancing the phytoremediation of cadmium-contaminated
agricultural soils by Solanum nigrum L. Environ. Pollut. 159, 762–
768.
36. Kalve, S., Sarangi, B.K., Pandey, R.A., Chakrabarti, T., 2011.
Arsenic and chromium hyperaccumulation by an ecotype of Pteris
vittata-prospective for phytoextraction from contaminated water
and soil. Curr. Sci. 100, 888–894.
37. Kara, Y., 2005. Bioaccumulation of Cu, Zn and Ni from the
wastewater by treated Nasturtium officinale. Int. J. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 2, 63–67.
38. Karenlampi, S., Schat, H., Vangronsveld, J., Verkleij, J., van der
Lelie, D., Mergeay, M., Khan, S., Hesham, A.E.-L., Qiao, M.,
Rehman, S., He, J.-Z., 2010. Effects of Cd and Pb on soil microbial
community structure and activities. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 17,
288–296.
39. Krystofova, O., Shestivska, V., Galiova, M., Novotny, K., Kaiser,
J., Zehnalek, J., Babula, P., Opatrilova, R., Adam, V., Kizek, R.,
2009. Sunflower plants as bioindicators of environmental pollution
with lead (II) ions. Sensors 9, 5040–5058.
40. Kuiper, I., Lagendijk, E.L., Bloemberg, G.V., Lugtenberg, B.J.J.,
2004. Rhizoremediation: a beneficial plant-microbe interaction.
Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact. 17, 6–15.
41. LeDuc, D.L., Terry, N., 2005. Phytoremediation of toxic trace
elements in soil and water. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 32, 514–
520.
42. Li, J.T., Liao, B., Lan, C.Y., Ye, Z.H., Baker, A.J.M., Shu, W.S.,
2010. Cadmium tolerance and accumulation in cultivars of a high-
biomass tropical tree (Averrhoa carambola) and its potential for
phytoextraction. J. Environ. Qual. 39, 1262–
Priyanka Devi et al /J. Pharm. Sci. & Res. Vol. 12(6), 2020, 795-804
802
43. Lone, M.I., He, Z., Stoffella, P.J., Yang, X., 2008.
Phytoremediation of heavy metal polluted soils and water:
progresses and perspectives. J. Zhejiang Univ. – Sci. B 9, 210–220.
44. Malayeri, B.E., Chehregani, A., Yousefi, N., Lorestani, B., 2008.
Identification of the hyper accumulator plants in copper and iron
mine in Iran. Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 11, 490–492.
45. Malayeri, B.E., Chehregani, A., Yousefi, N., Lorestani, B., 2008.
Identification of the hyper accumulator plants in copper and iron
mine in Iran. Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 11, 490–492.
46. Malik, R.N., Husain, S.Z., Nazir, I., 2010. Heavy metal
contamination and accumulation in soil and wild plant species from
industrial area of Islamabad, Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot. 42, 291–301.
47. Manousaki, E., Kalogerakis, N., 2011. Halophytes present new
opportunities in phytoremediation of heavy metals and saline soils.
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 50, 656–660
48. Meers, E., Slycken, S.V., Adriaensen, K., Ruttens, A.,
Vangronsveld, J., Laing, G.D., Witters, N., Thewys, T., Tack,
F.M.G., 2010. The use of bio-energy crops (Zea mays) for
‘phytoremediation’ of heavy metals on moderately contaminated
soils: a field experiment. Chemosphere 78, 35–41.
49. Mejare, M., Bulow, L., 2001. Metal-binding proteins and peptides
in bioremediation and phytoremediation of heavy metals. Trends
Biotechnol. 19, 67–73.
50. Memon, A.R., Schroder, P., 2009. Implications of metal
accumulation mechanisms to phytoremediation. Environ. Sci.
Pollut. Res. 16, 162–175.
51. Mench, M., Schwitzguebel, J.-P., Schroeder, P., Bert, V.,
Gawronski, S., Gupta, S., 2009. Assessment of successful
experiments and limitations of phytotechnologies: contaminant
uptake, detoxification and sequestration, and consequences for
52. Mertz, W., 1981. The essential trace elements. Science 213, 1332–
1338. Mesjasz-Przybylowicz, J., Nakonieczny, M., Migula, P.,
Augustyniak, M., Tarnawska, M., Reimold, W.U., Koeberl, C.,
Przybylowicz, W., Glowacka, E., 2004. Uptake of cadmium, lead,
nickel and zinc from soil and water solutions by the nickel
hyperaccumulator Berkheya coddii. Acta Biol. Cracov. Bot. 46, 75–
85.
53. Mesjasz-Przybylowicz, J., Nakonieczny, M., Migula, P.,
Augustyniak, M., Tarnawska, M., Reimold, W.U., Koeberl, C.,
Przybylowicz, W., Glowacka, E., 2004. Uptake of cadmium, lead,
nickel and zinc from soil and water solutions by the nickel
hyperaccumulator Berkheya coddii. Acta Biol. Cracov. Bot. 46, 75–
85.
54. Milic, D., Lukovic, J., Ninkov, J., Zeremski-Skoric, T., Zoric, L.,
Vasin, J., Milic, S., 2012. Heavy metal content in halophytic plants
from inland and maritime saline areas. Cent. Eur. J. Biol. 7, 307–
317.
55. Modaihsh, A., Al-Swailem, M., Mahjoub, M., 2004. Heavy metal
contents of commercial inorganic fertilizer used in the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia. Agri. Mar. Sci. 9, 21–25.
56. Mudipalli, A., 2008. Metals (micro nutrients or toxicants) and
global health. Indian J. Med. Res. 128, 331–334.
57. Mukhopadhyay, S., Maiti, S.K., 2010. Phytoremediation of metal
enriched mine waste: a review. Global J. Environ. Res. 4, 135–150.
58. Padmavathiamma, P.K., Li, L.Y., 2007. Phytoremediation
technology: hyperaccumulation metals in plants. Water Air Soil
Pollut. 184, 105–126.
59. Peng, K., Luo, C., Chen, Y., Wang, G., Li, X., Shen, Z., 2009.
Cadmium and other metal uptake by Lobelia chinensis and
Solanum nigrum from contaminated soils. Bull. Environ. Contam.
Toxicol. 83, 260–264.
60. Pilon-Smits, E., 2005. Phytoremediation. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 56,
15–39.
61. Prasad, M.N.V., 2004. Phytoremediation of metals in the
environment for sustainable development. Proc. Indian Natl. Sci.
Acad. Part B 70, 71–98.
62. Pulford, I., Watson, C., 2003. Phytoremediation of heavy metal-
contaminated land by trees-a review. Environ. Int. 29, 529–540.
63. Rabhi, M., Ferchichi, S., Jouini, J., Hamrouni, M.H., Koyro, H.-W.,
Ranieri, A., Abdelly,C., Smaoui, A., 2010. Phytodesalination of a
salt-affected soil with the halophyte Sesuvium portulacastrum L. to
arrange in advance the requirements for the successful growth of a
glycophytic crop. Bioresour. Technol. 101, 6822–6828.
64. Rafati, M., Khorasani, N., Moattar, F., Shirvany, A., Moraghebi, F.,
Hosseinzadeh, S.,2011. Phytoremediation potential of Populus alba
and Morus alba for cadmium, chromuim and nickel absorption from
polluted soil. Int. J. Environ. Res. 5, 961– 970.
65. Rahman, M.A., Hasegawa, H., 2011. Aquatic arsenic:
phytoremediation using floating macrophytes. Chemosphere 83,
633–646.
66. Rai, P.K., 2012. An eco-sustainable green approach for heavy
metals management: two case studies of developing industrial
region. Environ. Monit. Assess. 184, 421–448.
67. Ravindran, K.C., Venkatesan, K., Balakrishnan, V., Chellappan,
K.P., Balasubramanian, T., 2007. Restoration of saline land by
halophytes for Indian soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 39, 2661–2664.
68. Robinson, B.H., Leblanc, M., Petit, D., Brooks, R.R., Kirkman,
J.H., Gregg, P.E.H., 1998.The potential of Thlaspi caerulescens for
phytoremediation of contaminated soils. Plant Soil 203, 47–56.
69. Rodrigues, S., Henriques, B., Reis, A., Duarte, A., Pereira, E.,
Romkens, P.F.A.M., 2012.Hg transfer from contaminated soils to
plants and animals. Environ. Chem. Lett. 10, 61–67.
70. Sakai, Y., Ma, Y., Xu, C., Wu, H., Zhu, W., Yang, J., 2012.
Phytodesalination of a saltaffected soil with four halophytes in
China. J. Arid Land Stud. 22, 17–20.
71. Salem, H.M., Eweida, E.A., Farag, A., 2000. Heavy Metals in
Drinking Water and theirEnvironmental Impact on Human Health.
ICEHM2000, Cairo University, Egypt, pp. 542–556.
72. Salem, H.M., Eweida, E.A., Farag, A., 2000. Heavy Metals in
Drinking Water and their Environmental Impact on Human Health.
ICEHM2000, Cairo University, Egypt, pp. 542–556.
73. Sanchez-Chardi, A., Ribeiro, C.A.O., Nadal, J., 2009. Metals in
liver and kidneys and the effects of chronic exposure to pyrite mine
pollution in the shrew Crocidura russula inhabiting the protected
wetland of Donana. Chemosphere 76, 387–394.
74. Sekara, A., Poniedzialeek, M., Ciura, J., Jedrszczyk, E., 2005.
Cadmium and lead accumulation and distribution in the organs of
nine crops: implications for phytoremediation. Pol. J. Environ.
Stud. 14, 509–516.
75. Shabani, N., Sayadi, M.H., 2012. Evaluation of heavy metals
accumulation by two emergent macrophytes from the polluted soil:
an experimental study. Environmentalist 32, 91–98.
76. Shabani, N., Sayadi, M.H., 2012. Evaluation of heavy metals
accumulation by two emergent macrophytes from the polluted soil:
an experimental study. Environmentalist 32, 91–98.
77. Sheoran, V., Sheoran, A., Poonia, P., 2011. Role of
hyperaccumulators in phytoextraction of metals from contaminated
mining sites: a review. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41, 168–
214.
78. Singh, S., 2012. Phytoremediation: a sustainable alternative for
environmental challenges. Int. J. Gr. Herb. Chem. 1, 133–139.
79. Sun, Y., Zhou, Q., Xu, Y., Wang, L., Liang, X., 2011a. The role of
EDTA on cadmium phytoextraction in a cadmium-
hyperaccumulator Rorippa globosa. J. Environ. Chem. Ecotoxicol.
3, 45–51.
80. Suresh, B., Ravishankar, G.A., 2004. Phytoremediation-A novel
and promising approach for environmental clean-up. Crit. Rev.
Biotechnol. 24, 97–124.
81. Tariq, M., Ali, M., Shah, Z., 2006. Characteristics of industrial
effluents and their possible impacts on quality of underground
water. Soil Environ. 25, 64–69.
82. Tervahauta, A., 2000. Genetic engineering in the improvement of
plants for phytoremediation of metal polluted soils. Environ. Pollut.
107, 225–231.
83. Thangavel, P., Subbhuraam, C., 2004. Phytoextraction: role of
hyperaccumulators in metal contaminated soils. Proc. Indian Natl.
Sci. Acad. Part B 70, 109–130.
84. Tong, Y.P., Kneer, R., Zhu, Y.G., 2004. Vacuolar
compartmentalization: a secondgeneration approach to engineering
plants for phytoremediation. Trends Plant Sci. 9, 7–9.
85. Tripathi, R.D., Srivastava, S., Mishra, S., Singh, N., Tuli, R., Gupta,
D.K., Maathuis, F.J.M., 2007. Arsenic hazards: strategies for
tolerance and remediation by plants.Trends Biotechnol. 25, 158–
165.
86. Vamerali, T., Bandiera, M., Mosca, G., 2010. Field crops for
phytoremediation of metal-contaminated land. A review. Environ.
Chem. Lett. 8, 1–17.
87. Van Aken, B., 2009. Transgenic plants for enhanced
phytoremediation of toxic explosives. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 20,
231–236.
Priyanka Devi et al /J. Pharm. Sci. & Res. Vol. 12(6), 2020, 795-804
803
88. Vishnoi, S.R., Srivastava, P.N., 2008. Phytoremediation-green for
environmental clean. In: The 12th World Lake Conference, pp.
1016–1021.
89. Vithanage, M., Dabrowska, B.B., Mukherjee, B., Sandhi, A.,
Bhattacharya, P., 2012. Arsenic uptake by plants and possible
phytoremediation applications: a brief overview. Environ. Chem.
Lett. 10, 217–224.
90. Williams, J.B., 2002. Phytoremediation in wetland ecosystems:
progress, problems, and potential. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 21, 607–635.
91. Wright, R.T., 2007. Environmental Science. Toward a Sustainable
Future. Prentice Hall of India, New Delhi.
92. Wu, Q., Wang, S., Thangavel, P., Li, Q., Zheng, H., Bai, J., Qiu, R.,
2011. Phytostabilization potential of Jatropha curcas L. in
polymetallic acid mine tailings. Int. J. Phytorem. 13, 788–804.
93. Wuana, R.A., Okieimen, F.E., 2011. Heavy metals in contaminated
soils: a review of sources, chemistry, risks and best available
strategies for remediation. ISRN Ecology 2011, 1–20.
94. Xia, H.P., 2004. Ecological rehabilitation and phytoremediation
with four grasses in oil shale mined land. Chemosphere 54, 345–
353.
95. Yadav, R., Arora, P., Kumar, S., Chaudhury, A., 2010. Perspectives
for genetic engineering of poplars for enhanced phytoremediation
abilities. Ecotoxicology 19, 1574–1588.
96. Yoon, J., Cao, X., Zhou, Q., Ma, L.Q., 2006. Accumulation of Pb,
Cu, and Zn in native plants growing on a contaminated Florida site.
Sci. Total Environ. 368, 456–464.
97. Zacchini, M., Pietrini, F., Mugnozza, G.S., Iori, V., Pietrosanti, L.,
Massacci, A., 2009. Metal tolerance, accumulation and
translocation in poplar and willow clones treated with cadmium in
hydroponics. Water Air Soil Pollut. 197, 23–34.
98. Zorrig, W., Rabhi, M., Ferchichi, S., Smaoui, A., Abdelly, C., 2012.
Phytodesalination: a solution for salt-affected soils in arid and semi-
arid regions. J. Arid Land Stud. 22, 299–302.
Priyanka Devi et al /J. Pharm. Sci. & Res. Vol. 12(6), 2020, 795-804
804
