Welcome to International Network for Natural Sciences | INNSpub

Phytoremediation of barium, copper, zinc and arsenic contaminated soils by sunflower and alfalfa

Research Paper | June 1, 2016

| Download 8

Jamil Zargan, Massood Fakharyfar

Key Words:

J. Bio. Env. Sci.8( 6), 171-180, June 2016


JBES 2016 [Generate Certificate]


The existing remediation techniques of heavy metal-contaminated soils are expensive, time consuming and environmentally destructive. Unlike organic compounds, metals cannot degrade, and thus effective cleanup requires their immobilization to reduce or remove toxicity. Phytoremediation is a developing technology for cleaning up contaminated sites, which is cost effective, and has aesthetic advantages and long term applicability. The main aim of this study was to screen the accumulation and distribution of barium (Ba), copper (Cu), zinc (Zn) and arsenic (As) in 30 cultivars of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) and giant sunflower (Helianthus giganteus) for their possible use in phytoremediation. Soil samples were collected from Saghand and Bandar Abbas which are closed to industrial complexes. Also, loam soil was used as a blank sample for comparing results. Among these species, alfalfa samples could not grow in these soils, hence, it was removed from experiments. Furthermore, influence of adding nitric acid, acetic acid, citric acid and oxalic acid on performance of sunflower was investigated. Results proved that sunflower could be used for phytoremediation, as, they showed the ability of toleration high concentration of heavy metals and they exhibited the capability of barium, copper, zinc and arsenic uptake. Moreover, outcomes from experiments ascertained that adding acid to soils increased bioavailability of heavy metals, since, adding acids to soils increased bioavailability of barium, copper, zinc and arsenic and these samples showed higher heavy metals uptake.


Copyright © 2016
By Authors and International Network for
Natural Sciences (INNSPUB)
This article is published under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution Liscense 4.0

Phytoremediation of barium, copper, zinc and arsenic contaminated soils by sunflower and alfalfa

Baker AJM, McGrath SP, Sidoli CMD, Reeves RD. 1994a. The possibility of in situ heavy metal decontamination of polluted soils using crops of metal-accumulating plants. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 11, 41–49.

Baker AJM, Reeves RD, Hajar ASM. 1994b. Heavy metal accumulation and tolerance in British populations of the metallophyte Thlaspi caerulescens J. & C. Presl (Brassica- ceae). New Phytologist 127, 61–68.

Baker AJM, Brooks RR. 1989. Terrestrial higher plants which hyperaccumulate metallic elements. A review of their distribution, ecology and phytochemistry Biorecovery 1, 81–126.

Ban uelos GS, Ajwa HA. 1999. Trace elements in soils and plants: an overview. Journal of Environmental Science and Health Part A 34, 951– 74.

Barkay T, Schaefer J. 2001. Metal and radionuclide bioremediation: Issues, considerations and potentials. Current opinion in microbiology 4, 318–323.

Bennett LE, Burkhead JL, Hale KL, Terry N, Pilon M, Pilon-smits EAH. 2003 Analysis of transgenic Indian Mustard plants for phytoremediation of metals-contaminated mine tailings. Journal of Environmental Quality 32, 432-440.

BIO-WISE. 2000. Contaminated land remediation: a review of biological technology. London, DTI.

Brooks RR. 1988. (Ed) Plants that Hyperaccumulate Heavy Metals. CAB International, Oxon, UK, 356 p.

Brown SL, Chaney RL, Angle JS, Baker AJ. 1995. Zinc and cadmium uptake by hyperaccumulator Thlaspi caerulescens grown in nutrient solution. Soil Science Society of America Journal 59, 125–133.

Chaney RL, Malik M, Li YM, Brown SL, Brewer EP, Angle JS, Baker AJ. 1997. Phytoremediation of metals. Current opinion in Biotechnology 8, 279–284.

Chaudhry TM, Hayes WJ, Khan AG, Khoo CS. 1998. Phytoremediation—Focusing on accumulator plants that remediate metal-contaminated soils. Australasian Journal of Ecotoxicology 4, 37–51.

Dickinson NM, Turner AP, Watmough SA, Lepp NW. 1992. Acclimation of trees to pollution stress: cellular metal tolerance traits. Annals of Botany 70, 569 – 72.

Dickinson NM, Lepp NW. 1997. Metals and trees: impacts, responses to exposure and exploitation of resistance traits. In: Prost R, editor. Contaminated soils: the 3rd International Conference on the Biogeochemistry of Trace Elements. 247–54 p.

Diels N, van der Lelie D, Bastiaens L. 2002. New develop- ments in treatment of heavy metal contaminated soils. Reviews in Environmental Science and Biotechnology 1, 75–82.

Dushenkov S. 2003. Trends in phytoremediation of radionuclides. Plant Soil 249, 167–175.

Eapen S, Singh S, D’Souza SF. 2007. Phytoremediation of metals and radionuclides. In: Singh, S.N., Tripathi RD (Eds.), Environmental Bioremediation Technologies. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg.

Ebbs S, Lau I, Ahner B, Kochian L. 2002. Phytochelatin synthesis is not responsible for Cd tolerance in the Zn/Cd hyperaccumulator Thlaspi caerulescens (J. & C. Presl). Planta 214, 635–640.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency USA). 2004. Radionuclide Biological Remediation Resource Guide Prepared by: Ibeanusi VM, Grab DA. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5 Division, Chicago IL. Available at: www.epa.gov/.

Evans LD. 2002.  The  dirt  on  phytoremediation. Journal of soil and water conservation 57, 12A–15A.

Garbisu C, Alkorta I. 2003. Basic concepts on heavy metal soil bioremediation. European Journal of Mineral Processing and Environmental Protection 3, 58–66.

Hawkes SJ. 1997. What is a heavy metal. Journal of Chemical Education 74, 77-86.

Huang JW, Chen J, Berti WR, Cunningham SD. 1997. Phytoremediation of lead- contaminated soils: role of synthetic chelates in lead phytoextraction. Environmental Science and Technology 31, 800–5.

Ikhuoria EU, Okieimen FE. 2000. Scavenging cadmium, copper, lead, nickel and zinc ions from aqueous solution by modified cellulosic sorbent. International journal of environmental studies 57, 401-409.

Lasat MM. 2002. Phytoextraction of toxic metals: a review of biological mechanisms. Journal of Environmental Quality 31, 109–120.

Lenntech K. 2004. Water treatment and air purification. Published by Rotter Dam Seweg, Netherlands.

Martin I, Bardos P. 1996. A review of full scale treatment technologies for the remediation of contaminated land. Richmond, Surrey: EPP Publications.

McGrath SP, Zhao FJ, Lombi E. 2002. Phytoremediation of metals, metalloids, and radionuclides. Advances in Agronomy 75, 1–56.

McGrath SP, Zhao FJ. 2003. Phytoextraction of metals and metalloids. Current Opinion in Biotechnology 14, 277–282.

McIntyre T. 2003. Phytoremediation of heavy metals from soils. Advances in Biochemical Engineering/Biotechnology 78, 97–123.

Meagher RB. 2000. Phytoremediation of toxic elemental and organic pollutants. Current opinion in plant biology 3, 153–162.

Navari-Izzo F, Quartacci MF. 2001. Phytoremediation of metals. Tolerance mechanisms against oxidative stress. Minerva Biotecnologica 13, 73–83.

Raskin I, Smith RD, Salt DE. 1997. Phytoremediation of metals: using plants to remove pollutants from the environment. Current Opinion in Biotechnology 8, 221–226.

Salt DE, Blaylock M, Kumar PBAN, Dushenkov V, Ensley BD, Chet I, Raskin I. 1995. Phytoremediation: a novel strategy for the removal of toxic metals from the environment using plants. Nature biotechnology 13, 468–475.

Salt DE, Smith RD, Raskin I. 1998. Phytoremediation. Annual review of plant biology 49, 643–668.

Schützendübel A, Polle A. 2002. Plant responses to abiotic stresses: heavy metal‐induced oxidative stress and protection by mycorrhization. Journal of experimental botany 53, 1351-1365.

Singh OV, Labana S, Pandey G, Budhiraja R, Jain RK. 2003. Phytoremediation: an overview of metallic ion decontamination from soil. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 61, 405–412.

Welch, R.M. 1995. Mieronutrient nutrition of plants. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 14, 49-82.

Wenzel WW, Adriano DC, Salt D, Smith R. 1999. Phytoremediation: A plant-microbe-based remediation system Bioremediation of Contaminated Soils Agronomy Monograph 37, 457–508.