Desktop version

Home arrow Environment

  • Increase font
  • Decrease font


<<   CONTENTS   >>

Phytoremediation

Phytoremediation is a bioremediation process that is cost-effective, eco-friendly and solar energy driven in situ process that uses various kinds of plants associated with microorganisms to clean, stabilize and transfer the pollutants in the contaminated site. Plants can be successfully used for cleaning radionuclides and pollutants of both organic and inorganic origin (Ali et al. 2013). Phytoremediation includes different techniques like phytoextraction, phytovolatilization, phytofiltration, phytodegradation and phytostabilization (Alkorta et al. 2004). The first process among them is phytoextraction, which is uptake of the different contaminants, translocating them into shoots and storing them in the tissues of shoots (Sekara et al. 2005). The next important process is phytofiltration, which is uptake of the contaminants by different plant parts like roots (rhizofiltration), seedlings (blastofiltration) or by excising plant shoots (caulofiltration) to reduce their movement into the groundwater (Mesjasz-Przybylowicz et al. 2004). Other processes are phytostabilization and phytoimmobilizatiou. These processes reduce the bioavailability of the heavy metals so that it can prevent the contamination in the ground water and migration to the food chain (Erakhmmeu et al. 2007). The immobilization happens in the same way as sorption, precipitation, the formation of organic complex and transformation of the redox state but all these processes happen in the rhizosphere controlled by the plants and related microorganisms (Barcelo et al. 2003). The organic pollutants are degraded by the root exudates through the process of phytostimulation. The contaminants inside the plants are metabolized by the enzymes (oxygenaes, dehalogenases, etc.), which is a completely different process from the immobilization process of microorganisms (Vishnoi and Srivastava 2008). The volatile metals like Hg and Se are not completely immobilized by the plants, they rather get converted into different forms (from solid to gas) and are released into the atmosphere (Karami and Shamsuddin 2010). This process is known as phytovolatilization. This process can remove the contaminants temporarily from the soils as this process only allows the transformation of the heavy metals front one medium (soil and water) to another medium (air), so they can change the medium anytime. All these processes are shown briefly in the Figure 2.

Among the plants known for phytoremediation, hyperaccumulator is very popular due to its usefulness. The criteria for hyperaccumulation vary with the types of pollutant heavy metals like 100 mg kg'1 for Cd and 1000 mg kg"1 for Cu, Co, Cr, and Pb. The shoot to soil ratio of the metal should be higher than 1 in the case of hyperaccumulators (Baker et al. 1994). The hyperaccumulators should have a high tolerance towards the heavy metal concentration in their biomass (Prasad and Freitas 2003). There are some plants known for hyperaccumulation of heavy metals like Arabidopsis halleri and Solanumnigram L. for Cd accumulation (Wei et al. 2005), Populous deltoids for Hg accumulation (Che et al. 2003), Brassica juncea and Astragalusbisulcatus for Se (Bitther et al.

2012), Populuscanescens for Zn, etc. However, hyperaccumulator plants are very few, very slow

Different processes of phytoremediation for controlling heavy metal pollution

Figure 2. Different processes of phytoremediation for controlling heavy metal pollution.

growing, and low in biomass yield which restricts their application where quick remediation is needed (Xiao et al. 2010). These restrictions can be handled by applying growth-promoting rhizobacteria or arbuscular mycorrhiza (Wei et al. 2003). The root exudates containing carbohydrates, flavonoids, amino acids, etc. can accelerate the microbial activity, which produces an enzyme named ACC deaminase that reduces the of ethylene level in the soil, promoting an environment for healthier root development of the plants (Kuiper et al. 2004, Glick et al. 1998). Kluweraascorbate SUD 165 is a Ni-resistant bacteria which lowers the level of ethylene and promotes the growth of Brasicacampestris (Burd et al. 1998).

7. Biotechnology in bioremediation

Recombinant DNA technology has been used to alter the genetic materials of microorganisms or plants to create genetically modified microorganisms or plants, more efficient and specific than the previous versions (Sayler and Ripp 2000). They are important as then ability to sustain in the adverse condition is more than the normal strain, the development of “microbial biosensor” is possible which can be used to detect the contamination accurately in a short periods of time, and many microorganisms associated with plants can increase the rate of bioremediation by increasing the rate of phytochelation and degradation of the metals (Divya et al. 2011). Genetically modified E. coli and Moreaxella sp. can accumulate 25 times more Cd and Hg than their wild type expressing a gene phytochelatin 20 on the cell surface (Bae et al. 2001, 2003). Following genetic modification,

P. fluorescens expresses Phytochelatin synthase (PCS) and E. coli expresses Hg2+ transporter w'hich increases removal of Ni and Hg, respectively (Zhao et al. 2005, Lopez et al. 2002, Sriprang et al. 2003). The problem is that the genetically engineered microorganisms face competition with the native microorganisms for survival (Wu et al. 2006).

The main problem with phytoremediatiou is the accumulation of the heavy metals and their metabolites within the tissues of the plants w'hich is harmful to the plants and after the death of the plants again there is a chance to reenter into the atmosphere. If these plants are genetically modified with the genes of those bacteria w'hich are capable of degrading heavy metals, then the metals could be degraded inside the plant tissues. The plants will be made capable of producing different metal chelators such as metallothineins and phytochetains, which will help the plant to uptake and accumulate more heavy metals from the soil (Ruis and Daniell 2009). High biomass yielding plants like poplar, willow, and jatropha can be used as heavy metal accumulators as well as the plants that can be used for energy production. But if these plants are burned after heavy metal accumulation, it will release the metals to the atmosphere which will transfer the problem from soil to air. Poplar trees are genetically modified to synthesize mercuric reductase and Y-gltamylsysteine, which increases the Hg, Cd and Cu accumulation and degradation inside the plant tissues, respectively, to ensure the production of healthy biomass for further application (Bittsanszkya et al. 2005, Gullner et al. 2001. Abhilash et al. 2012).

Mostly, the contaminated sites have multiple pollutants, which are very difficult for the plants to control efficiently. The rhizospliere needs some energy to fight with this situation. Biostimulation is a technique to increase the microbial activity in the rhizospliere by the addition of growth stimulants. Bioaugmentation is the addition of selected and cultured microorganisms to the rhizospliere to remove the contamination.

8. Nano technology in bioremediation

Nanoparticles are more effective than the microorganisms as they can cover a huge area and can also reduce the processing tune. The enhancement of the microbial activity by applying nauoparticles for the removal of the contaminants is called “nanobioremediation”. Different biological cells are used for the preparation of the nano-particles because of their small size, cells can be easily genetically modified and they can be easily cultured under controlled conditions. Different polymers and magnetosomes are used as these macromolecules are easily converted to nanostructures. Different proteins can be used like virus-like protein (VLP) and tailored metal particles (Sarikaya et al. 2003). US Department of Energy (DOE) has taken an initiative to clean the radioactive waste by using a radioactive-resistant organism Deinococcus radiodurans (Brim et al. 2000, Smith et al. 1998).

9. Conclusion

Development and industrialization are synonymous. They are unstoppable and have an adverse effect on the environment. The conventional methods have failed to control the situation, and are not user-friendly. Bioremediation is the best hope left in our hands, though it has some restrictions. Several organisms are out there that cannot break the toxic contaminants successfully. Many of them cannot tolerate the adverse environmental condition. In order to improve these situations, scientists should be encouraged to find out other successful techniques like biotechnology. GEMs are more efficient than their wild type. Their outer protein membranes are modified by biotechnology so that they can adsorb more toxic metals. They are more element-specific and they are also able to break the contaminants into metabolites. Bioremediation will be the future of pollution control, but it must make sure that it is completely non-toxic to the environment.

References

Abhilash, PC., Powell, J.R., Singh, H.B. and Singh, B.K. 2012. Plant-microbe interactions: Novel applications for exploitation in multipurpose remediation technologies. Trends Biotechnol. 30: 416-420.

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1990. Toxicological Profile for Silver. U.S. Department of Health and Human Sendees, Public Health Service: Atlanta, GA, USA.

Ahluwaha, S.S. and Goyal, D. 2007. Microbial and plant derived biomass for removal of heavy metals from wastewater. Bioresour. Technol. 98: 2243-2257.

Akar, T, Tunali, S. and Cabuk, A. 2007. Study on the characterization of lead (II) biosorption by fungus Aspergillus parasiticus. Appl. Biochem. Biotech. 136: 389-406.

All, H., Khan, E. and Sajad, M.A. 2013. Phytoremediation of heavy metals—Concepts and applications. Chemosphere 91: 869-881.

Alkorta, I., Hemandez-Allica, J., Beceml, J.M., Amezaga, I., Albizu, I. and 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 Envnon. Sci. Biotechnol. 3: 71-90.

Bae, W., Mehra, R.K., Mulchandani, A. and Chen, W. 2001. Genetic engineering of Escherichia coli for enhanced uptake and bioaccumulation of mercury. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 67: 5335-5338.

Bae, W., Wu, C.H., Kostal, J., Mulchandani, A. and Chen, W. 2003. Enhanced mercury biosorption by bacterial cells with surface-displayed MerR. App. Environ. Microbiol. 69: 3176-3180.

Baker, McGrath, S.P., Sidoli, C.M.D. and Reeves, R.D. 1994. The possibility of in situ heavy metal decontamination

of polluted soils using crops of metal accumulating plants. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 11: 42-49.

Barcelo, J. and Poscheimeder, C. 2003. Phytoremediation: principles and perspectives. Contnb. Sci. 2: 333-344.

Bitther, O P, Pilon-Smits, E.A.H., Meagher, R.B. and Doty, S. 2012. Biotechnological approaches for phytoremediation, pp. 309-328. In: Ane Altman, A. and Hasegawa, P.M. (eds.). Plant Biotechnology and Agriculture. Academic Press: Oxford, UK.

Bittsanszkya, A., Komives, Gullner, G., Gyulai, G., Kiss, J., Heszky, L., Radimszky L. and Rennenberg, H. 2005. Ability of transgenic poplars with elevated glutathione content to tolerate zinc(2+) stress. Environ. Int. 31: 251-254.

Brim, H., McFarlan, S.C., Frednckson, J.K., Mmton, K.W., Zhai, M., Wackett, L.P and Daly, M.J. 2000. Engineering Deinococcus radiodurans for metal remediation in radioactive mixed waste environments. Nat. Biotechnol. 18: 85-90. Brim, H., Yenkateshwaran, A., Kostandanthes, H.M., Frednckson, J.K. and Daly, M.J. 2003. Engineering Deinococcus geothermalis for bioremediation of high temperature radioactive waste environments. App. Environ. Microbiol. 69: 4575^1582.

Bind, G.I., Dixon, D.G. and Glick, B.R. 1998. Aplant growth-promoting bacterium that decreases nickel toxicity in seedlmgs. Appl. Envnon. Microbiol. 64: 3663-3668.

Carter, P., Cole, H. and Burton, J. 2006. Bioremediation: Successes and shortfalls, pp. 1-14. In: Proceedings ofKey International Conference and Exhibition for Spill Prevention, Preparedness, Response and Restoration (Interspill). London, UK, 23 March,

Che, D., Meagher, R.B., Heaton, A.C., Lima, A., Rugh, C.L. and Merkle, S.A. 2003. Expression of mercuric ion reductase m Eastern cottonwood (Populusdeltoides) confers mercuric ion reduction and resistance. Plant Biotechnol. J. 1: 311-319. Chen, S. and Wilson, D.B. 1997. Genetic engineering of bacteria and then potential for Hg-~ bioremediation. Biodegradation (8): 97-103.

Comte, S., Guibaud, G. andBaudu, M. 200S. Biosorption properties of extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) towards Cd, Cu and Pb for different pH values. J. Hazard. Mater. 151: 185-193.

Costa, C.N., Meurer, E.J., Bissam, C.A. and Selbach, PA. 2006. Contaminantes e poluentes do solo e do ambiente. In. Fimdamentos de quumca do solo. Porto Alegre: Evangraf.

D’Amore, J.J., Al-Abed, S.R., Scheckel, K.G. and Ryan, J.A. 2005 Methods for speciation of metals in soils: A review. J. Environ. Qual. 34: 1707-1745.

Das, N., Yimala, R. and Karthika, P. 200S. Biosorption of heavy metals—An overview. Indian J. Biotechnol. 7: 159-169. Divya, B. and Deepak Kumar, M. 2011. Plant-microbe mteraction with enhanced bioremediation. Res. J. BioTechnol. 6: 72-79.

Erakhrumen, A.A. 2007. Phytoremediation: An environmentally sound technology for pollution prevention, control and remediation in developing countries Educ. Res. Rev. 2: 151—156.99.

Evanko, C.R. andDzombak, D.A. 1997. Remediation of metals-contaminated soil and groundwater. Environ. Sci. 412:1—45. Fang, L., Wei, X., Cai, P, Huang, Q., Chen, H., Liang, W. and Rong, X. 2011. Role of extracellular polymeric substances m Cu(II) adsoiption on Bacillus subtilis and Pseudomonas putida. Bioresour. Technol. 102: 1137-1141.

Fang, L., Huang, Q., Wei, X., Liang, W., Rong, X., Chen, W. andCai, P. 2010. Microcalorimetric andpotentiometnc titration studies on the adsoiption of copper by extracellular polymeric substances (EPS), minerals and their composites. Bioresour. Technol. 101: 5774-5779.

Gan, S., Lau, E.V. and Ng, H.K. 2009. Remediation of soils contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). J, Hazard. Mater. 172: 532-549.

Garbisu, C. and Alkorta, 1.2001. Phytoextraction: A cost-effective plant-based technology for the removal of metals from the environment. Bioresour. Technol. 77: 229-236.

Glick, B.R., Penrose, D.M. and Li, J. 1998. A model for the lowering of plant ethylene concentrations by plant growth- promoting bacteria. J. Theor Biol. 190: 63-68.

Guine, V., Spading L., Sarret, G., Minis, M., Dedolme, C., Gaudet, J.-P. and Martins, J.M.F. 2006. Zinc sorption to three gram-negative bacteria: Combined titration, modeling and EXAFS study. Envnon. Sci. Technol. 40: 1806-1813. Gullner, G. 2001. Enhanced tolerance of transgenic poplar plants overexpressing gamma-glutamylcysteine synthetase towards cliloroacetamlide herbicides. J. Exp. Bot. 52: 971-979.

Haritash, A.K. and Kaushik, C.P 2009. Biodegradation aspects of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs): A review. J, Hazard. Mater. 169: 1-15.

Hussein, H., Farag, S. and Moawad, H. 2004. Isolation and characterization of Pseudomonas resistant to hearty metals contaminants. Arab. J. Biotechnol. 7: 13-22.

Kapoor, A. and Viraraghvan, T. 1995. Fungal biosoiption—An alternative treatment option for hearty metal bearing wastewater: Areview, Bioresour Technol. 53: 195-206.

Karami, A. and Shamsuddin, Z.H. 2010. Phytoremediation of hearty metals with several efficiency enhancer methods. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 9: 3689-3698.

Kelly, D.J.A., Budd, K. and Lefebvre, D.D. 2006. The biotransformation of mercury in pH-stat cultures of nucrofungi. Can. J. Bot. 84: 254-260.

Kinya, K. and Kunberly, L.D. 1996. Current use of bioremediation for TCE cleanup: Results of a survey. Remediat. J. 6: 1-14.

Kuiper, I., Lagendijk, E.L., Bloemberg, G.Y, and Lugtenberg, B.J.J. 2004. Rluzoremediation: A beneficial plant-microbe mteraction. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact. 17: 6-15.

Lombi, E. and Gerzabek, M.H. 199S. Determination of mobile heavy metal fraction in soil: Results of a pot experiment with sewage sludge. Coimnun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 29: 2545-2556.

Lopez, A., Lazaro, N., Morales, S. and Margues, A.M. 2002. Nickel biosorption by free and umnobilized cells of Pseudomonas fluorescens 4F39: A comparative study. Water Air Soil Pollut. 135: 157-172.

Lovley, DR. and Phillips, E.J.P. 1988. Novel mode of microbial energy metabolism: Orgamc carbon oxidation to dissimilatory reduction of iron or manganese. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 54: 1472-1480.

Lovley, D.R., Philips, E.J., Gorby, Y.A. and Landa, E.R. 1991. Microbial reduction of uranium. Nature 350: 413-416.

Lovley, DR., Coates, J.D., Blunt-Harris, E.L., Philips, E.J.P. and Woodward, J.C. 1996. Humic substances as electron acceptors for microbial respuation. Nature 382: 445-448.

Lovely, D.R. 2002. Dissimilatory metal reduction: From early life to bioremediation. ASM News 68: 231-237.

Mesjasz-Przybylowicz, O.J., Nakonieczny, M., Migula, P, Augustymak, M., Tamawska, M.M., Reimold, W.U., Koeberl, C., Przyby, O.W. and Owacka, E.G. 2004. Uptake of cadmium, lead, nickel and zinc from soil and water solutions by the nickel hyperaccumulator Berkheyacoddii. Acta Biol. Cracov. Bot. 46: 75-85.

Onwubuya, K., Cundy, A., Puschenreiter, M., Kumpiene, J. and Bone, B. 2009. Developing decision support tools for the selection of “gentle” remediation approaches. Sci. Total Environ. 407: 6132-6142.

Penny, C., Vuilleumier, S. andBrmgel, F. 2010. Microbial degradation oftetrachloromethane: Mechanisms and perspectives for bioremediation. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 74: 257-275.

Peipetuo, E.A., Souza, C.B. andNascimento, C.A.O. 2011. Engineering bacteria for bioremediation, pp. 605-632. Im Carpi, A. (ed ). Progress in Molecular and Environmental Bioengineering—From Analysis and Modelmg to Technology Applications. Rijeka: InTech.

Pinedo-Rivilla, C., Aleu, J. and Collado, I.G. 2009. Pollutants biodegradation by fungi. Curr. Org. Chem. 13: 1194-1214.

Prasad, M.N.V. and Freitas, H.M.D.O. 2003. Metal hyperaccumulation in plants—Biodiversity prospecting for phytoremediation technology. Electro. J. Biotechnol. 6: 285-321.

Rajendran, P, Muthuknshnan, J. and Gunasekaran, P. 2003. Microbes in heavy metal remediation. Indian J. Exp. Biol. 41: 935-944.

Rojas, L.A., Yanez, C., Gonzalez, M., Lobos, S., Smalla, K. and Seeger, M. 2011. Characterization of the metabolically modified heavy metal-resistant Cupriavidusmetallidurans strain MSR33 generated for mercury bioremediation. PLoS One 6: el7555.

Ruis, ON. and Darnell, H. 2009. Genetic engineering to enhance mercury phytoremediation. C'uit. Opin. Biotechnol. 20: 213-219.

Salem, H.M., Eweida, E.A. and Farag, A. 2000. Heavy metals in dunking water and their environmental impact on human health, pp, 542-556. In: ICEHM 2000; Cairo University: Giza, Egypt.

Sankaya, M., Tamerler, C., Jen, A.K., Schulten, K. and Baneyx, F. 2003. Molecular biomimetics: Nanotechnology through biology. Nat. Mater. 2: 577-585.

Sayler, G.S. and Ripp, S. 2000. Field applications of genetically engineered microorganisms for bioremediation process. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 11: 286-289.

Sekara, A., Pomedzialeek, M., Ciura, J. and 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.

Sikkema, J., de Bont, J.A. and Poolman, B. 1995. Mechanisms of membrane toxicity of hydrocarbons. Microbiol. Rev, 59: 201-222.

Smith, M.D., Lennon, E., McNeil, LB. and Minton, K.W. 1998. Duplication insertion of drug resistance determinants in the radioresistant bacterium Deinococcus radiodwans. J. Bactenol. 170: 2126-2135.

Sponnann, A.M. and Widdel, F. 2000. Metabolism of alkylbenzenes, alkanes, and other hydrocarbons m anaerobic bacteria. Biodegradation 11: 85-105.

Sriprang, R., Hayaslu, M., Ono, H., Takagi, M., Hirata, K. and Murooka, Y. 2003. Enhanced accumulation of Cd:" by a Mesorhizobium sp. transformed with a gene from Arabidopsis thaliana coding for phytochelatin synthase. Appl. Envnon. Microbiol. 69: 79-796.

Sumner, M.E. 2000. Beneficial use of effluents, wastes, and biosolids. Coimnun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 31: 1701-1715.

Sutherland, R.A., Tack, F.M.G., Tolosa, C.A. and Verloo, M.G. 2000. Operationally defined metal fractions in road deposited sediment, Honolulu, Hawaii. J. Environ. Qual. 29(5): 1431-1439.

Thavasi, R. 2011. Microbial biosurfactants: From an envu'onment application point of view. J. Bioremed. Biodegrad. 2: Article 104e.

Tunali, S., Akar, T., Oezcan, A S., Kiran, I. and Oezcan, A. 2006. Equilibrium and kinetics of biosoiption of lead(II) from aqueous solutions by Cepbalosporiumaphidicola. Sep. Purif. Technol. 47: 105-112.

Vishnoi, S.R. and Srivastava, P.N. 200S. Phytoremediation-green for envnomnental clean. In: Proceedings of the 12th World Lake Conference, pp. 1016-1021.

Wei, S., Zhou, Q., Zhang, K. and Liang, J. 2003. Roles of rhizosphere in remediation of contaminated soils and its mechanisms. Ying Yong Sheng Tai XueBao 14: 143-147.

Wei, S H, Zhou, Q.X. and Wang, X. 2005. Cadmium-hyperaccumulator Solarium nigrum L. and its accumulating characteristics. Environ. Sci. 26: 167-171.

Wu, C.H., Wood, T.K., Mulchandam, A. and Chen, W. 2006. Engineering plant-microbe symbiosis for rhizoremediation of heavy metals. Appl. Environ Microbiol. 72: 1129-1134.

Wuana, R.A. and Okieimen, F.E. 2011. Heavy metals in contaminated soils: A review of sources, chemistry, risks and best available strategies for remediation. ISRN Ecol. 2011: Article 20.

Xiao, X., Luo, S.L., Zeng, G.M., Wei, W.Z., Wan, Y., Chen, L., Guo, H.J., Cao, Z., Yang, L.X., Chen, J.L. and Xi, Q, 2010. Biosorption of cadmium by endophytic fungus (EF) Microsphaeropsis sp. LSE10 isolated from cadmium hyperaccumulator .Sototwn nigrum L. Bioresour. Teclmol. 101: 1668-1674.

Zhao, X.W., Zhou, M.H., Li, Q.B., Lu, Y.H., He, N., Sun, D.H. and Deng, X. 2005. Simultaneous mercury bioaccumulation and cell propagation by genetically engineered Escherichia coli. Process Biochem. 40: 1611-1616.

 
<<   CONTENTS   >>

Related topics