Phytoremediation /ˌfaɪtəʊrɪˌmiːdɪˈeɪʃən/ (from Ancient Greek φυτό (phyto), meaning 'plant', and Latin remedium, meaning 'restoring balance') refers to the technologies that use living plants to clean up soil, air, and water contaminated with hazardous contaminants.[1] It is defined as "the use of green plants and the associated microorganisms, along with proper soil amendments and agronomic techniques to either contain, remove or render toxic environmental contaminants harmless".[2]

Phytoremediation is a cost-effective plant-based approach of remediation that takes advantage of the ability of plants to concentrate elements and compounds from the environment and to metabolize various molecules in their tissues. It refers to the natural ability of certain plants called hyperaccumulators to bioaccumulate, degrade, or render harmless contaminants in soils, water, or air. Toxic heavy metals and organic pollutants are the major targets for phytoremediation. Knowledge of the physiological and molecular mechanisms of phytoremediation began to emerge in recent years together with biological and engineering strategies designed to optimize and improve phytoremediation. In addition, several field trials confirmed the feasibility of using plants for environmental cleanup.[3]


Phytoremediation may be applied wherever the soil or static water environment has become polluted or is suffering ongoing chronic pollution. Examples where phytoremediation has been used successfully include the restoration of abandoned metal mine workings, and sites where polychlorinated biphenyls have been dumped during manufacture and mitigation of ongoing coal mine discharges reducing the impact of contaminants in soils, water, or air. Contaminants such as metals, pesticides, solvents, explosives,[4] and crude oil and its derivatives, have been mitigated in phytoremediation projects worldwide. Many plants such as mustard plants, alpine pennycress, hemp, and pigweed have proven to be successful at hyperaccumulating contaminants at toxic waste sites.

Not all plants are able to accumulate heavy metals or organics pollutants due to differences the physiology of the plant.[5] Even cultivars within the same species have varying abilities to accumulate pollutants.[5]

Over the past 20 years, this technology has become increasingly popular and has been employed at sites with soils contaminated with lead, uranium, and arsenic. While it has the advantage that environmental concerns may be treated in situ, one major disadvantage of phytoremediation is that it requires a long-term commitment, as the process is dependent on a plant's ability to grow and thrive in an environment that is not ideal for normal plant growth.

Advantages and limitations

  • Advantages:
    • the cost of the phytoremediation is lower than that of traditional processes both in situ and ex situ
    • the plants can be easily monitored
    • the possibility of the recovery and re-use of valuable metals (by companies specializing in "phyto mining")
    • it is potentially the least harmful method because it uses naturally occurring organisms and preserves the environment in a more natural state.
    • it preserves the topsoil, maintaining the fertility of the soil[6]
    • Increase soil health,yield, and plant phytochemicals [7]
    • the use of plants also reduces erosion and metal leaching in the soil[6]
  • Limitations:
    • phytoremediation is limited to the surface area and depth occupied by the roots.
    • slow growth and low biomass require a long-term commitment
    • with plant-based systems of remediation, it is not possible to completely prevent the leaching of contaminants into the groundwater (without the complete removal of the contaminated ground, which in itself does not resolve the problem of contamination)
    • the survival of the plants is affected by the toxicity of the contaminated land and the general condition of the soil.
    • bio-accumulation of contaminants, especially metals, into the plants which then pass into the food chain, from primary level consumers upwards or requires the safe disposal of the affected plant material.
    • when taking up heavy metals, sometimes the metal is bound to the soil organic matter, which makes it unavailable for the plant to extract[8]

Case studies

Heavy metal remediation with Ficus microcarpa Field Scale Experiment

Phytoremediation of efficiency of metal by Ficus microcarpa was evaluated through a real scale experiment.[9] The root biomass production of the species varied significantly from 3.68 to 5.43 g because of the spatial heterogeneity of different metals. According to the study it could take 4-93 years to purify excess Cd on the experimental site. Mercury was unable to be premeditated by F. microcarpa. The species of plant was moved to unpolluted soil. When transplanted Cd and CU were transferred to the rhizosphere soil. Pb and Hg were not released.[9]

Kaltag School oil seep (Alaska)

The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) has been monitoring fuel oil spills at the Kaltag School in Kaltag, Alaska, since 1991. The community has been working with ADEC to use a phytoremediation plan drafted by scientists at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. The ADEC continues to keep the public informed of the progress on their website.[10]


A range of processes mediated by plants or algae are useful in treating environmental problems:


Phytoextraction (or phytoaccumulation or phytosequestration) uses plants or algae to remove contaminants from soil or water into harvestable plant biomass. The roots take up substances from the soil or water and concentrate it above ground in the plant biomass[6] Organisms that can uptake extremely high amounts of contaminants from the soil are called hyperaccumulators.[11] Phytoextraction can also be performed by plants (e.g.Populus and Salix) that take up lower levels of pollutants, but due to their high growth rate and biomass production, may remove a considerable amount of contaminants from the soil.[12] Phytoextraction has been growing rapidly in popularity worldwide for the last twenty years or so. Typically, phytoextraction is used for heavy metals or other inorganics.[13] At the time of disposal, contaminants are typically concentrated in the much smaller volume of the plant matter than in the initially contaminated soil or sediment. After harvest, a lower level of the contaminant will remain in the soil, so the growth/harvest cycle must usually be repeated through several crops to achieve a significant cleanup. After the process, the cleaned soil can support other vegetation. Mining of these extracted metals through phytomining, is also being experimented with as a way of recovering the material.[8] Hyperaccumulators are plants that can naturally take up the contaminants in soil unassisted. In many cases these are metallophyte plants that can tolerate and incorporate high levels of toxic metals. Induced or assisted phytoextraction is a process where a conditioning fluid containing a chelator or another agent is added to soil to increase metal solubility or mobilization so that the plants can absorb them more easily.[14] While this leads to increased metal uptake by plants, it can also lead to large amounts of available metals in the soil beyond what the plants are able to translocate, causing potential leaching into the subsoil or groundwater.[14]

Examples of plants that are known to accumulate the following contaminants:


Phytostabilization reduces the mobility of substances in the environment, for example, by limiting the leaching of substances from the soil.[20] It focuses on the long term stabilization and containment of the pollutant. The plant immobilizes the pollutants by binding them to soil particles making them less available for plant or human uptake.[8] Unlike phytoextraction, phytostabilization focuses mainly on sequestering pollutants in soil near the roots but not in plant tissues. Pollutants become less bioavailable, resulting in reduced exposure. The plants can also excrete a substance that produces a chemical reaction, converting the heavy metal pollutant into a less toxic form.[6] Stabilization results in reduced erosion, runoff, leaching, in addition to reducing the bioavailability of the contaminant.[13] An example application of phytostabilization is using a vegetative cap to stabilize and contain mine tailings.[21]


Phytodegradation (also called phytotransformation) uses plants or microorganisms to degrade organic pollutants in the soil or within the body of the plant. The organic compounds are broken down by enzymes that the plant roots secrete and these molecules are then taken up by the plant and released through transpiration.[22] This process works best with organic contaminants like herbicides, trichloroethylene, and methyl tert-butyl ether.[13]

Phytotransformation results in the chemical modification of environmental substances as a direct result of plant metabolism, often resulting in their inactivation, degradation (phytodegradation), or immobilization (phytostabilization). In the case of organic pollutants, such as pesticides, explosives, solvents, industrial chemicals, and other xenobiotic substances, certain plants, such as Cannas, render these substances non-toxic by their metabolism.[23] In other cases, microorganisms living in association with plant roots may metabolize these substances in soil or water. These complex and recalcitrant compounds cannot be broken down to basic molecules (water, carbon-dioxide, etc.) by plant molecules, and, hence, the term phytotransformation represents a change in chemical structure without complete breakdown of the compound. The term "Green Liver" is used to describe phytotransformation,[24] as plants behave analogously to the human liver when dealing with these xenobiotic compounds (foreign compound/pollutant).[25][26] After uptake of the xenobiotics, plant enzymes increase the polarity of the xenobiotics by adding functional groups such as hydroxyl groups (-OH).

This is known as Phase I metabolism, similar to the way that the human liver increases the polarity of drugs and foreign compounds (drug metabolism). Whereas in the human liver enzymes such as cytochrome P450s are responsible for the initial reactions, in plants enzymes such as peroxidases, phenoloxidases, esterases and nitroreductases carry out the same role.[23]

In the second stage of phytotransformation, known as Phase II metabolism, plant biomolecules such as glucose and amino acids are added to the polarized xenobiotic to further increase the polarity (known as conjugation). This is again similar to the processes occurring in the human liver where glucuronidation (addition of glucose molecules by the UGT class of enzymes, e.g. UGT1A1) and glutathione addition reactions occur on reactive centres of the xenobiotic.

Phase I and II reactions serve to increase the polarity and reduce the toxicity of the compounds, although many exceptions to the rule are seen. The increased polarity also allows for easy transport of the xenobiotic along aqueous channels.

In the final stage of phytotransformation (Phase III metabolism), a sequestration of the xenobiotic occurs within the plant. The xenobiotics polymerize in a lignin-like manner and develop a complex structure that is sequestered in the plant. This ensures that the xenobiotic is safely stored, and does not affect the functioning of the plant. However, preliminary studies have shown that these plants can be toxic to small animals (such as snails), and, hence, plants involved in phytotransformation may need to be maintained in a closed enclosure.

Hence, the plants reduce toxicity (with exceptions) and sequester the xenobiotics in phytotransformation. Trinitrotoluene phytotransformation has been extensively researched and a transformation pathway has been proposed.[27]


Phytostimulation (or rhizodegradation) is the enhancement of soil microbial activity for the degradation of organic contaminants, typically by organisms that associate with roots.[22] This process occurs within the rhizosphere, which is the layer of soil that surrounds the roots.[22] Plants release carbohydrates and acids that stimulate microorganism activity which results in the biodegradation of the organic contaminants.[28] This means that the microorganisms are able to digest and break down the toxic substances into harmless form.[22] Phytostimulation has been shown to be effective in degrading petroleum hydrocarbons, PCBs, and PAHs.[13] Phytostimulation can also involve aquatic plants supporting active populations of microbial degraders, as in the stimulation of atrazine degradation by hornwort.[29]


Phytovolatilization is the removal of substances from soil or water with release into the air, sometimes as a result of phytotransformation to more volatile and/or less polluting substances. In this process, contaminants are taken up by the plant and through transpiration, evaporate into the atmosphere.[22] This is the most studied form of phytovolatilization, where volatilization occurs at the stem and leaves of the plant, however indirect phytovolatilization occurs when contaminants are volatilized from the root zone.[30] Selenium (Se) and Mercury (Hg) are often removed from soil through phytovolatilization.[31] Poplar trees are one of the most successful plants for removing VOCs through this process due to its high transpiration rate.[13]


Rhizofiltration is a process that filters water through a mass of roots to remove toxic substances or excess nutrients. The pollutants remain absorbed in or adsorbed to the roots.[22] This process is often used to clean up contaminated groundwater through planting directly in the contaminated site or through removing the contaminated water and providing it to these plants in an off-site location.[22] In either case though, typically plants are first grown in a greenhouse under precise conditions.[32]

Biological hydraulic containment

Biological hydraulic containment occurs when some plants, like poplars, draw water upwards through the soil into the roots and out through the plant, which decreases the movement of soluble contaminants downwards, deeper into the site and into the groundwater.[33]


Phytodesalination uses halophytes (plants adapted to saline soil) to extract salt from the soil to improve its fertility[6]

Role of genetics

Breeding programs and genetic engineering are powerful methods for enhancing natural phytoremediation capabilities, or for introducing new capabilities into plants. Genes for phytoremediation may originate from a micro-organism or may be transferred from one plant to another variety better adapted to the environmental conditions at the cleanup site. For example, genes encoding a nitroreductase from a bacterium were inserted into tobacco and showed faster removal of TNT and enhanced resistance to the toxic effects of TNT.[34] Researchers have also discovered a mechanism in plants that allows them to grow even when the pollution concentration in the soil is lethal for non-treated plants. Some natural, biodegradable compounds, such as exogenous polyamines, allow the plants to tolerate concentrations of pollutants 500 times higher than untreated plants, and to absorb more pollutants.

Hyperaccumulators and biotic interactions

A plant is said to be a hyperaccumulator if it can concentrate the pollutants in a minimum percentage which varies according to the pollutant involved (for example: more than 1000 mg/kg of dry weight for nickel, copper, cobalt, chromium or lead; or more than 10,000 mg/kg for zinc or manganese).[35] This capacity for accumulation is due to hypertolerance, or phytotolerance: the result of adaptative evolution from the plants to hostile environments through many generations. A number of interactions may be affected by metal hyperaccumulation, including protection, interferences with neighbour plants of different species, mutualism (including mycorrhizae, pollen and seed dispersal), commensalism, and biofilm.

Tables of hyperaccumulators


As plants are able to translocate and accumulate particular types of contaminants, plants can be used as biosensors of subsurface contamination, thereby allowing investigators to quickly delineate contaminant plumes.[36][37] Chlorinated solvents, such as trichloroethylene, have been observed in tree trunks at concentrations related to groundwater concentrations.[38] To ease field implementation of phytoscreening, standard methods have been developed to extract a section of the tree trunk for later laboratory analysis, often by using an increment borer.[39] Phytoscreening may lead to more optimized site investigations and reduce contaminated site cleanup costs.

See also


  1. Reichenauer TG, Germida JJ (2008). "Phytoremediation of organic contaminants in soil and groundwater". Chemsuschem. 1 (8-9): 708–17. doi:10.1002/cssc.200800125. PMID 18698569.
  2. Das, Pratyush Kumar (April 2018). "Phytoremediation and Nanoremediation : Emerging Techniques for Treatment of Acid Mine Drainage Water". Defence Life Science Journal. DESIDOC. 3 (2): 190–196. doi:10.14429/dlsj.3.11346 via Crossref.
  3. Salt DE, Smith RD, Raskin I (1998). "PHYTOREMEDIATION". Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular Biology. 49: 643–668. doi:10.1146/annurev.arplant.49.1.643. PMID 15012249.
  4. Phytoremediation of soils using Ralstonia eutropha, Pseudomas tolaasi, Burkholderia fungorum reported by Sofie Thijs Archived 2012-03-26 at the Wayback Machine.
  5. 1 2 Lone, Mohammad Iqbal; He, Zhen-li; Stoffella, Peter J.; Yang, Xiao-e (2008-03-01). "Phytoremediation of heavy metal polluted soils and water: Progresses and perspectives". Journal of Zhejiang University SCIENCE B. 9 (3): 210–220. doi:10.1631/jzus.B0710633. ISSN 1673-1581. PMC 2266886.
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 Ali, Hazrat; Khan, Ezzat; Sajad, Muhammad Anwar. "Phytoremediation of heavy metals—Concepts and applications". Chemosphere. 91 (7): 869–881. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.01.075.
  7. Yahia A. Othman & Daniel Leskovar (2018): Organic soil amendments influence soil health, yield, and phytochemicals of globe artichoke heads, Biological Agriculture & Horticulture, DOI: 10.1080/01448765.2018.1463292
  8. 1 2 3 Sarma, Hemen. "Metal Hyperaccumulation in Plants: A Review Focusing on Phytoremediation Technology". Journal of Environmental Science and Technology. 4 (2): 118–138. doi:10.3923/jest.2011.118.138.
  9. 1 2 Luo, Jie; Cai, Limei; Qi, Shihua; Wu, Jian; Gu, Xiaowen Sophie (February 2018). "Heavy metal remediation with Ficus microcarpa through transplantation and its environmental risks through field scale experiment". Chemosphere. 193: 244–250. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.11.024. ISSN 0045-6535.
  10. Alaska, Division of Spill Prevention and Response, Department of Environmental Conservation, State of. "Division of Spill Prevention and Response". Retrieved 2018-05-27.
  11. Rascio, Nicoletta; Navari-Izzo, Flavia. "Heavy metal hyperaccumulating plants: How and why do they do it? And what makes them so interesting?". Plant Science. 180 (2): 169–181. doi:10.1016/j.plantsci.2010.08.016.
  12. Guidi Nissim W.,Palm E.,Mancuso S.,Azzarello E. (2018) "Trace element phytoextraction from contaminated soil: a case study under Mediterranean climate". Environmental Science and Pollution Research
  13. 1 2 3 4 5 Pilon-Smits, Elizabeth (2005-04-29). "Phytoremediation". Annual Review of Plant Biology. 56 (1): 15–39. doi:10.1146/annurev.arplant.56.032604.144214. ISSN 1543-5008.
  14. 1 2 Doumett, S.; Lamperi, L.; Checchini, L.; Azzarello, E.; Mugnai, S.; Mancuso, S.; Petruzzelli, G.; Bubba, M. Del. "Heavy metal distribution between contaminated soil and Paulownia tomentosa, in a pilot-scale assisted phytoremediation study: Influence of different complexing agents". Chemosphere. 72 (10): 1481–1490. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2008.04.083.
  15. Marchiol, L.; Fellet, G.; Perosa, D.; Zerbi, G. (2007), "Removal of trace metals by Sorghum bicolor and Helianthus annuus in a site polluted by industrial wastes: A field experience", Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, 45 (5): 379–87, doi:10.1016/j.plaphy.2007.03.018, PMID 17507235
  16. Wang, J.; Zhao, FJ; Meharg, AA; Raab, A; Feldmann, J; McGrath, SP (2002), "Mechanisms of Arsenic Hyperaccumulation in Pteris vittata. Uptake Kinetics, Interactions with Phosphate, and Arsenic Speciation", Plant Physiology, 130 (3): 1552–61, doi:10.1104/pp.008185, PMC 166674, PMID 12428020
  17. Greger, M. & Landberg, T. (1999), "Using of Willow in Phytoextraction", International Journal of Phytoremediation, 1 (2): 115–123, doi:10.1080/15226519908500010.
  18. Adler, Tina (July 20, 1996). "Botanical cleanup crews: using plants to tackle polluted water and soil". Science News. Retrieved 2010-09-03.
  19. Meagher, RB (2000), "Phytoremediation of toxic elemental and organic pollutants", Current Opinion in Plant Biology, 3 (2): 153–162, doi:10.1016/S1369-5266(99)00054-0, PMID 10712958.
  20. Lone, Mohammad Iqbal; He, Zhen-li; Stoffella, Peter J.; Yang, Xiao-e (2008-03-01). "Phytoremediation of heavy metal polluted soils and water: Progresses and perspectives". Journal of Zhejiang University SCIENCE B. 9 (3): 210–220. doi:10.1631/jzus.B0710633. ISSN 1673-1581. PMC 2266886.
  21. Mendez MO, Maier RM (2008), "Phytostabilization of Mine Tailings in Arid and Semiarid Environments—An Emerging Remediation Technology", Environ Health Perspect, 116 (3): 278–83, doi:10.1289/ehp.10608, PMC 2265025, PMID 18335091, archived from the original on 2008-10-24.
  22. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 "Phytoremediation Processes". Retrieved 2018-03-28.
  23. 1 2 Kvesitadze, G.; et al. (2006), Biochemical Mechanisms of Detoxification in Higher Plants, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, ISBN 978-3-540-28996-8
  24. Sanderman, H. (1994), "Higher plant metabolism of xenobiotics: the "green liver" concept", Pharmacogenetics, 4: 225–241, doi:10.1097/00008571-199410000-00001.
  25. Burken, J.G. (2004), "2. Uptake and Metabolism of Organic Compounds: Green-Liver Model", in McCutcheon, S.C.; Schnoor, J.L., Phytoremediation: Transformation and Control of Contaminants, A Wiley-Interscience Series of Texts and Monographs, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley, p. 59, doi:10.1002/047127304X.ch2, ISBN 0-471-39435-1
  26. Ramel, F., Sulmon, C., Serra, A.A., Gouesbet, G., Couée I. (2012), “Xenobiotic sensing and signalling in higher plants”, Journal of Experimental Botany, 63(11):3999-4014, doi: 10.1093/jxb/ers102, PMID 22493519
  27. Subramanian, Murali; Oliver, David J. & Shanks, Jacqueline V. (2006), "TNT Phytotransformation Pathway Characteristics in Arabidopsis: Role of Aromatic Hydroxylamines", Biotechnol. Prog., 22 (1): 208–216, doi:10.1021/bp050241g, PMID 16454512.
  28. Dzantor, E. Kudjo (2007-03-01). "Phytoremediation: the state of rhizosphere 'engineering' for accelerated rhizodegradation of xenobiotic contaminants". Journal of Chemical Technology & Biotechnology. 82 (3): 228–232. doi:10.1002/jctb.1662. ISSN 1097-4660.
  29. Rupassara, S. I.; Larson, R. A.; Sims, G. K. & Marley, K. A. (2002), "Degradation of Atrazine by Hornwort in Aquatic Systems", Bioremediation Journal, 6 (3): 217–224, doi:10.1080/10889860290777576.
  30. Limmer, Matt; Burken, Joel (2016-07-05). "Phytovolatilization of Organic Contaminants". Environmental Science & Technology. 50 (13): 6632–6643. doi:10.1021/acs.est.5b04113. ISSN 0013-936X.
  31. Lone, Mohammad Iqbal; He, Zhen-li; Stoffella, Peter J.; Yang, Xiao-e (2008-03-01). "Phytoremediation of heavy metal polluted soils and water: Progresses and perspectives". Journal of Zhejiang University SCIENCE B. 9 (3): 210–220. doi:10.1631/jzus.B0710633. ISSN 1673-1581. PMC 2266886.
  32. Surriya, Orooj; Saleem, Sayeda Sarah; Waqar, Kinza; Kazi, Alvina Gul. Phytoremediation of Soils. pp. 1–36. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-799937-1.00001-2.
  33. Evans, Gareth M.; Furlong, Judith C. (2010-01-01). Phytotechnology and Photosynthesis. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. pp. 145–174. doi:10.1002/9780470975152.ch7/summary. ISBN 9780470975152.
  34. Hannink, N.; Rosser, S. J.; French, C. E.; Basran, A.; Murray, J. A.; Nicklin, S.; Bruce, N. C. (2001), "Phytodetoxification of TNT by transgenic plants expressing a bacterial nitroreductase", Nature Biotechnology, 19 (12): 1168–72, doi:10.1038/nbt1201-1168, PMID 11731787.
  35. Baker, A. J. M.; Brooks, R. R. (1989), "Terrestrial higher plants which hyperaccumulate metallic elements – A review of their distribution, ecology and phytochemistry", Biorecovery, 1 (2): 81–126.
  36. Burken, J.; Vroblesky, D.; Balouet, J.C. (2011), "Phytoforensics, Dendrochemistry, and Phytoscreening: New Green Tools for Delineating Contaminants from Past and Present", Environmental Science & Technology, 45 (15): 6218–6226, doi:10.1021/es2005286.
  37. Sorek, A.; Atzmon, N.; Dahan, O.; Gerstl, Z.; Kushisin, L.; Laor, Y.; Mingelgrin, U.; Nasser, A.; Ronen, D.; Tsechansky, L.; Weisbrod, N.; Graber, E.R. (2008), ""Phytoscreening": The Use of Trees for Discovering Subsurface Contamination by VOCs", Environmental Science & Technology, 42 (2): 536–542, doi:10.1021/es072014b.
  38. Vroblesky, D.; Nietch, C.; Morris, J. (1998), "Chlorinated Ethenes from Groundwater in Tree Trunks", Environmental Science & Technology, 33 (3): 510–515, doi:10.1021/es980848b.
  39. Vroblesky, D. (2008). "User's Guide to the Collection and Analysis of Tree Cores to Assess the Distribution of Subsurface Volatile Organic Compounds".


This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.