Biotechonlogy

Bhupendra Koul · Pooja Taak
Biotechnological
Strategies
for Effective
Remediation of
Polluted Soils
Biotechnological Strategies for Effective
Remediation of Polluted Soils
Bhupendra Koul • Pooja Taak
Biotechnological Strategies
for Effective Remediation
of Polluted Soils
Bhupendra Koul Pooja Taak
School of Bioengineering & Biosciences School of Bioengineering & Biosciences
Lovely Professional University Lovely Professional University
Phagwara, Punjab, India Phagwara, Punjab, India
ISBN 978-981-13-2419-2 ISBN 978-981-13-2420-8 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2420-8
Library of Congress Control Number: 2018958474
© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors
or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims
in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721,
Singapore
Preface
In Sanskrit, the classical language of India, “Mother Earth” has been revered as
“Ratna Garbha,” meaning repository of precious stones. In fact, gems, chemicals,
metals, and their derivatives are derived from the Earth. The entire environment is
personified as “Mother Nature” which is the creative and controlling force affecting
all species. Mother Nature is the source of all the biotic (flora and fauna) and abiotic
components which are being availed by man. In return, man has been ungrateful and
selfish and is therefore responsible for his own maladies. Although in his race to
achieve all the comforts, he has gained success in industrialization, automation,
transport, and health, but this has left behind a daunting legacy of land, air, water,
noise, radioactivity, and thermal pollutions. Undoubtedly, man has conquered time
and space and has reached the moon in search of a new life, but in the process, man
has ruined his own life and the environment on the planet. It is unfortunate that man
has been exploiting “Mother Nature” since he gained full cranial capacity from
prehistoric time till the modern era, but, the question, what man has given back to
Nature, remains unanswered. The fear of global warming, melting of ice caps,
floods, erosions, deforestation, bio-magnification, eutrophication, polluted rivers,
polluted air, radioactive hazards, uneven and untimely rainfall, crop failures, non-
availability of clean drinking water, spread of epidemics, various types of cancers,
and immunocompromised states are indicators of contamination and damage to our
food chain and the ecosystem. Among all the pollution types, soil pollution has
caused devastating consequences to the primary and secondary consumers both
directly and indirectly.
Although Mother Nature never deceives mankind, it is our moral duty to analyze
the losses done to the biodiversity and healthy environments in order to make the
Earth livable. It is time to devise eco-friendly strategies for sustainable remediation
of soils and ecosystems. The holistic approach of self-awareness and the advance-
ment in the eco-friendly soil remediation strategies will improve not only the indi-
vidual life but also the entire population, community, ecosystem, biome, and
biosphere.
This book focuses on the explicit information and recent advances on the avail-
able soil treatment techniques (Fig. 2.1) for the period up to 2018 and their future
v
vi Preface
prospects. Thus, the soil remediation strategies ensure environmental protection by

using natural resources for sustainable remediation which is economically and envi-
ronmentally beneficial for the society. This book is divided into nine chapters as
follows:
Chapter 1 Soil pollution: Causes and Consequences
Urbanization, modern agricultural practices, and industrialization have exacer-
bated the problem of environmental degradation in terms of air, water, and soil pol-
lution, at an alarming rate. Among all the pollution types, soil pollution has become
a matter of global concern as these factors have cumulative effect on the environ-
ment and human health through food chain contamination. The alarming situation
of the present state of soil pollution has forced the scientists to develop innovative,
refined, and reproducible strategies/technologies (in situ or ex situ) for sustainable
remediation of polluted soils. This chapter summarizes the various aspects of soil
pollution, its causes, and consequences.
Chapter 2 Ex Situ Soil Remediation Strategies
Ex situ techniques involve the treatment of contaminated soil, away from the
polluted soil region. Ex situ bioremediation can be operated in two ways which
include solid-phase bioremediation and slurry-phase bioremediation. Although
costly, these techniques are highly efficient, easy to control, and faster and have
greater potential to treat large number of contaminants from the soil. This chapter
explores various ex situ techniques such as land farming, biopile, windrow, soil
washing, composting, bioreactor, ion exchange, adsorption/absorption, pyrolysis,
and ultrasound technology.
Chapter 3 In Situ Soil Remediation Strategies
Physical methods generally involve disintegration of the contaminants by meth-
ods such as evaporation, heating, or washing. These methods are based on the prin-
ciples used for the extraction of desired metal from their respective mineral ores.
These techniques are suitable for the treatment of both inorganic and organic con-
taminants and involve low operational cost. The selection of the most suitable phys-
ical treatment depends specifically on the type of contaminated soil and type of the
contaminant(s) (i.e., organic, inorganic, or both). The present chapter discusses
various physical methods of soil remediation including physical separation, soil
flushing, volatilization, froth flotation, and thermal heating.
Chapter 4 Chemical Methods of Soil Remediation
Chemical methods include the addition of chemicals or solvents into the polluted
soil, so as to stabilize the pollutants, converting them into low toxic form and thus
diminishing the supply of contaminants to plants, water, and other ecosystems.
Since the complete soil remediation is difficult to achieve with biological methods,
the implementation of chemical techniques in tandem has gained much attention of
the scientists. This chapter explains several chemical remediation methods including
Preface vii
chemical leaching, chemical oxidation, chemical fixation, and electrokinetic

remediation.
Chapter 5 Biochar and Soil Remediation
Biochar has excellent potential to adsorb the contaminants from soil solution and
make them unavailable to organisms. The use of biochar facilitates the nutrient
availability and enhances the microbial activity, soil organic matter availability,
water retention, and crop production in soils. Although this method is simple,
robust, and suitable for many regions of the world, its economic estimations and
optimization should be taken into consideration for its large-scale application. This
chapter comprises of various processes which occur during biochar-mediated soil
treatment including carbon sequestration, nutrient exchange, water holding, adsorp-
tion/absorption, and oxidation/reduction.
Chapter 6 Soil Remediation Through Microbes
Microbes (bacteria and fungi) are adapted to cope with various unfavorable con-
ditions, including high temperature, alkalinity, and acidity. The use of microbe and
microbial consortium does facilitate bioremediation of polluted soils. Moreover, the
use of genetically modified microbes can increase the rate of microbe-mediated soil
remediation. Microbe-mediated soil remediation can take place via three methods,
i.e., bioventing, bioleaching, and bioaugmentation. This chapter discusses various
aspects of soil remediation aided by microbes.
Chapter 7 Soil Remediation Through Algae, Plants, and Animals
There is an expanding enthusiasm for deploying algal species for the remediation
of the organic (hydrocarbons) and inorganic pollutants (heavy metals) present in
soils. Phytoremediation mechanisms, although slow, have the potential to restore
the polluted soils. Although several chemical, physical, and biological methods
have been developed, phytoremediation is one of the safest green techniques for
treating the polluted sites. Some lower animals also play an important role in the
degradation of certain pollutants. This chapter explains various algal, plant, and
animal species which facilitate soil remediation and also highlights plants-
microbe(s) interactions for effective soil remediation.
Chapter 8 Nanobioremediation
Nanobioremediation is an emerging technique for remediation of polluted soils
which involves the use of biosynthetic nanoparticles. Because of the unique chemi-
cal and physical properties, nanoparticles have gained the attention of scientist to
make use of nanoparticle-mediated soil remediation. Nanoparticles are less toxic to
soil flora and enhance the microbial activity; therefore, nanobioremediation can be
promising where the other conventional remediation methods fail. This chapter
highlights the synthesis of nanoparticles from yeast, fungi, bacteria, and plant
extracts and their potential uses for remediation of contaminated soils.
viii Preface
Chapter 9 Case Studies and Future Prospects of Soil Remediation Strategies

Soil remediation strategies depend not only on the quality and quantity of the
contaminants but also the geographical conditions of the target site. For successful
soil remediation, different physical, chemical, and biological strategies can be
implemented in an integrated way. This chapter discusses various case studies
related to the implementation of remediation strategies at large scale. This chapter
also focuses on the explicit information and recent advances on the available soil
treatment techniques and their future prospects.
Phagwara, Punjab, India Bhupendra Koul

Contents
1 Soil Pollution: Causes and Consequences�� 1

1.1 Introduction�� 1
1.2 Causes of Soil Pollution�� 3
1.2.1 Natural Sources�� 4
1.2.2 Anthropogenic Sources�� 5
1.3 Harmful Effects of Soil Pollution �� 17
1.4 Remedies to Cope with Soil Pollution�� 27
1.5 Conclusions�� 28
References�� 31
2 Ex situ Soil Remediation Strategies�� 39
2.2 Land Farming�� 40
2.3 Biopile�� 40
2.4 Windrow �� 41
2.5 Composting�� 42
2.6 Soil Washing �� 43
2.7 Bioreactor �� 48
2.8 Absorption/Adsorption �� 49
2.9 Ion Exchange�� 49
2.10 Pyrolysis �� 50
2.11 Ultrasonic Technology�� 51
References�� 52
3 In Situ Soil Remediation Strategies�� 59
3.2 Physical Methods of Soil Remediation�� 60
3.2.1 Physical Separation�� 61
3.2.2 Soil Flushing �� 62
3.2.3 Volatilization �� 63
ix
x Contents
3.2.4 Froth Flotation�� 64

3.2.5 Thermal Remediation�� 65
References�� 73
4 Chemical Methods of Soil Remediation �� 77
4.2 Chemical Leaching �� 78
4.3 Chemical Fixation�� 78
4.4 Chemical Oxidation�� 79
4.5 Electrokinetic Remediation�� 80
References�� 82
5 Biochar and Soil Remediation�� 85
5.2 Carbon Sequestration�� 87
5.3 Nutrient Exchange�� 87
5.4 Water Holding�� 88
5.5 Adsorption/Absorption �� 88
5.6 Oxidation/Reduction�� 88
5.7 Biochar-Microbe Interaction in Soil �� 89
5.8 Remediation of Organic and Inorganic Contaminants
from Soils�� 91
References�� 94
6 Soil Remediation Through Microbes�� 101
6.2 Microbial Degradation of Petroleum Hydrocarbons�� 102
6.3 Bioventing�� 111
6.4 Bioleaching �� 112
6.5 Bioaugmentation�� 113
6.6 Mycoremediation�� 114
References�� 118
7 Soil Remediation Through Algae, Plants and Animals�� 129
7.2 Phycoremediation �� 130
7.3 Phytoremediation�� 134
7.3.1 Rhizofiltration �� 135
7.3.2 Phytotransformation�� 161
7.3.3 Phytoextraction/Phytoaccumulation �� 163
7.3.4 Phytomining�� 164
7.3.5 Phytostimulation �� 164
Contents xi
7.4 Genetic Engineering Approaches for Phytoremediation�� 165

7.5 Animal-Mediated Soil Remediation �� 174
8 Nanobioremediation�� 197
8.2 Properties of Nanoparticles�� 199
8.3 Types of Nanoparticles �� 200
8.3.1 TiO2 (Titanium Dioxide) Based Nanoparticles�� 200
8.3.2 Iron Based Nanoparticles�� 201
8.3.3 Bimetallic Nanoparticles�� 201
8.3.4 Nanoclays�� 203
8.3.5 Nanotubes �� 203
8.3.6 Dendrimers and Nanosponges�� 204
8.3.7 Magnetic Nanoparticles�� 204
8.4 Green Synthesis of Nanoparticles for Soil Remediation�� 205
8.5 Nanobioremediation (NBR)�� 205
9 Case Studies and Future Prospects of Soil
Remediation Strategies�� 221
9.2 Case Studies on Soil Remediation�� 222
9.2.1 Case Study 1 �� 222
9.2.2 Case Study 2 �� 223
9.2.3 Case Study 3 �� 224
9.2.4 Case Study 4 �� 224
9.2.5 Case Study 5 �� 225
9.2.6 Case Study 6 �� 226
9.2.7 Case Study 7 �� 227
9.2.8 Case Study 8 �� 228
9.2.9 Case Study 9 �� 229
9.2.10 Case Study 10 �� 231
9.2.11 Case Study 11 �� 231
9.2.12 Case Study 12 �� 233
9.2.13 Case Study 13 �� 234
9.2.14 Case Study 14 �� 235
9.2.15 Case Study 15 �� 236
9.2.16 Case Study 16 �� 236
9.3 Future Prospects�� 237
About the Authors
Dr. Bhupendra Koul is serving as an Assistant Professor in the School of

Bioengineering and Biosciences, Lovely Professional University, Punjab, India. He
was awarded with CSIR-Senior Research Fellowship in the year 2013 during his
research at Plant Transgenics Lab., CSIR-National Botanical Research Institute
(CSIR-NBRI), Lucknow. During his Ph.D., he has worked on the optimization,
introduction, and expression of modified full-length and truncated versions of
Bt-cry1Ab and Bt-cry1Ac genes in tomato for developing non-chimeric and stable
transgenic lines resistant to two lepidopteran insects, Helicoverpa armigera and
Spodoptera litura, and evaluated the performance of both the versions of cry1Ab
and cry1Ac genes for the stability and efficacy of insecticidal toxin in transgenic
plants. He has evaluated the performance and role of different cis-motifs of artificial
synthetic promoters for overexpression of genes in tomato and performed compara-
tive in silico analyses of different cry1A genes for toxicity to target insects. He has
developed several stable transgenic tomato plants resistant to plant pathogens
through the expression of protein transcription co-activator TAF4B gene and chi-
tinolytic protein toxic to whiteflies. He has 5.9 years of research experience and
4 years of teaching experience to the UG and PG students and has received the
“Teacher Appreciation Award, 2016” at LPU, in the Discipline of Biotechnology
and Biosciences, through MHRD minister, Government of India. He is well
acquainted with the techniques of plant tissue culture, gene cloning, Agrobacterium-
mediated transformation, and molecular characterization of transgenic plants
including immunological and insect bioassays. He has designed the full-length syn-
thetic cry1Ac gene (NCBI submission accession No. KP195020.1; GI:768678299)
and has published 13 research papers in national and international journals includ-
ing BMC Genomics, Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, and SpringerPlus, 3 book
chapters in Springer Nature, and 1 Patent (Patent No. 3177DEL2010), besides pre-
sentation of the researches in the national and international conferences. He is also
the guest reviewer of international journals like BMC Biotechnology, Protoplasma,
and Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture (PCTOC).
xiii
xiv About the Authors
Pooja Taak is currently pursuing her PhD at Lovely Professional University (LPU),
Punjab, India, under the guidance of Dr. Bhupendra Koul, Assistant professor,
School of Bioengineering and Biosciences, Lovely Professional University, Punjab,
India. She completed her specialization in crop genetics and plant breeding during
her master’s studies in botany at Punjabi University Patiala and her project training
at the Biotechnology Division of CSIR-IHBT, Palampur, India, under the supervi-
sion of Dr. Kunal Singh. Presently, she is working on effective weed management
strategies to enhance the yield of Stevia rebaudiana. She has also published her
research findings in national and international journals.
Abbreviations
ACC deaminase 1-Aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid deaminase

ACT2p Actin promoter
AM Arbuscular mycorrhizal
AOPs Advanced oxidation processes
ArsC Arsenate reductase gene
BCF Bioconcentration factor
BHC Benzene hexachloride
BIS Bureau of Indian Standards
BTEX Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene
CAS Community Approaches to Sanitation
CAX-2 Calcium vacuolar transporter
CEC Cation exchange capacity
CUP1 Copper metallothionein
CNTs Carbon nanotubes
DAF Dissolved air flotation
DCE 1,2-Dichloroethene
DDT Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
DGEF Directorate General of Foreign Trade
DPT Dipropyltryptamine
γ-GCS γ-Glutamylcysteine synthetase gene
EDTA Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid
ERH Electrical resistance heating
EUROPHYT European Union Notification System for Plant Health
Interceptions
EXIM Export Import Foreign Trade
FDA Food and Drug Administration
FSSAI Food and Safety Standard Authority of India
GIS Geographical information system
eSCAP Soil contamination assessment prototype
GSH Glutathione
IASWC Indian Association of Soil and Water Conservationists
xv
xvi Abbreviations
IBI International biochar initiative

ISCO In situ chemical oxidation
ISV In situ vitrification
ISPV In situ plasma vitrification
ITC-HS Indian Trade Classification-Harmonized System
Mer Mercuric reductase gene
MFCs Microbial fuel cells
MTs Metallothioneins
MHz Megahertz
NAAT Nicotianamine aminotransferase genes
NtCBP4 Nicotiana tobaccum calmodulin-binding protein
OASIS Operational and Administrative System for Import Support
PAA Poly(amidoamine)
PAH Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
PCs Phytochelatins
PCBs Polychlorinated biphenyls
PCE Perchloroethylene
PCP Pentachlorophenol
PGP Plant growth promoting
PCs Phytochelatins
PMET Pittsburgh mineral and environmental technology
PPB Parts per billion
PRB Permeable reactive barrier
psMTA Pisum sativum metallothionein like
RASFF Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed
RFH Radio-frequency heating
RDX Royal demolition explosive
RS Remote sensing
SCSI Soil Conservation Society of India
SDS Sodium dodecyl sulfate
SEZ Special economic zones
SRS1p Soybean rubisco promoter
SRB Sulfate-reducing bacteria
SVE Soil vapor extraction
SVOCs Semi-volatile organic compounds
SWaCH Solid waste collection and handling
TCE Trichloroethylene
TF Translocation factor
TNT Trinitrotoluene
TEPP Tetraethyl pyrophosphate
TPH Total petroleum hydrocarbon
USEPA United states environmental protection agency
VC Vinyl chloride
VOCs Volatile organic compounds
WHO World health organization
Abbreviations xvii
YCF1 Cadmium factor protein

ZAT Zinc transporter of Arabidopsis thaliana
ZVI Zero-valent iron
nZVI Nano zero-valent iron
Chapter 1
Soil Pollution: Causes and Consequences
Abstract There has been a rapid rise in the soil pollution over the last two decades
which has posed threat to living beings and the ecosystem as well. Soil pollution is
caused by both natural and anthropogenic activities. Former includes volcanic erup-
tions, earthquakes, tsunamis etc. while the later includes metals (trace and heavy
metals), chemicals and radioactive wastes. The chemicals can be grouped into pes-
ticides and allied chemicals, crude petroleum and its derivatives and polymers, plas-
ticizers and other wastes. Radioactive wastes include nuclear power generation
wastes and other by products released from nuclear technology (medicines and
research). These are harmful substances which stay in the ecosystem for long dura-
tion during which they get accumulated and biomagnified to concentration poten-
tially toxic to organisms at higher trophic levels in the food chain. Most of these
chemicals are carcinogenic, teratogenic and mutagenic in nature. It is therefore cru-
cial to develop tools to assess potential risks of human exposure to pollutants and to
decide threshold concentrations in soils in order to protect human health.
Monitoring of soil quality is a difficult process because of the scarcity of moni-
toring variables and other indicators. The alarming situation of the state of soil pol-
lution has forced the scientific community to develop innovative, reproducible
strategies/technologies (in situ or ex situ) for treating polluted soils. This chapter
summarizes various aspects of soil pollution, its causes and consequences.
Keywords Pollution · Toxic effects · Heavy metals · PAHs
1.1 Introduction
In the coming years, sustainable plant productivity and availability of bio-resources

is expected to become a major constraint for food and nutritional security for human
population in developing countries where per capita arable land is shrinking while
human and livestock population is steadily increasing (Koul 2014; Marchand 2017).
Over-exploitation of bio-resources due to modernization and desire for comfort has
led to a state where comforts are encapsulated by pollution(s), hazards, and
© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018 1

B. Koul, P. Taak, Biotechnological Strategies for Effective Remediation
of Polluted Soils, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2420-8_1
2 1 Soil Pollution: Causes and Consequences
Fig. 1.1 Types of pollution
depletion of biodiversity. Urbanization, modern agricultural practices, industrializa-

tion, transportation, R&D work, hospital wastes, domestic wastes, mining and
radioactive wastes have led to the deterioration of our immediate environment at an
alarming rate (Gautam and Agrawal 2017; Kumar and Chopra 2017). Generally,
pollution can be classified on the basis of the environment in which it occurs and
can be grouped as air, water, noise, thermal and radioactive pollution (Fig. 1.1).
Among these pollution types, soil pollution has become a matter of global concern
1.2 Causes of Soil Pollution 3
as these factors have cumulative effect on the environment and human health
through food chain-contamination.
Land is one of the most important components of Mother Earth. Land provides a
base for the growth of vegetation and other activities. Various natural and anthropo-
genic activities like, construction of buildings, use of pesticides and chemical fertil-
izers, waste disposal, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis etc. are invariably responsible
for soil degradation. Thus, unwanted change in the physical, chemical and biologi-
cal characteristics of soil due to natural as well as anthropogenic activities is known
as soil pollution. Studies have revealed that 15% of the total arable land of the world
has been extensively degraded due to the mixing of several toxic pollutants (Wuana
and Okieimen 2011; Li et al. 2014) into the soil. Illegal dumping of the solid wastes,
polluted water absorbed by the soil, use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides,
dumping of minerals, oils, and radioactive wastes are the major causes of soil pol-
lution (Cachada et al. 2018). Soil fertility is severely affected due to the above-
mentioned factors. Till date, soil pollution has spread in many developed and
developing countries of the world.
At present, heavy metals are the most perilous soil contaminants because they are
persistent, environmentally stable and capable of producing toxic effects on human
health and its immediate environment (Rascio and Navari-Izzo 2011). Heavy metals,
though not required for normal plant growth, but are absorbed easily from the soil,
cause phytotoxicity by inactivating enzymes, which further inhibit the plant physi-
ological activities (Rascio and Navari-Izzo 2011). Expansion of industrial areas,
improper heavy metal waste disposal, uncontrolled use of animal manures, fertiliz-
ers, pesticides, sewage sludge, coal combustion residue, petrochemical spillage,
untreated effluents from refineries and tanneries are the main source for the release
of these hazardous wastes (Khan et al. 2009; Zhang et al. 2010). Soil and water turns
into a real sink for toxic metals that are discharged by various anthropogenic activi-
ties. Among the list of notorious heavy metals, metals such as zinc (Zn), chromium
(Cr), nickel (Ni), lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd), arsenic (As), copper (Cu) and mercury
(Hg) find the top position (GWRTAC 1997). Compared to the organic contaminants,
heavy metals do not undergo chemical or microbe-mediated degradation and so they
are more persistent in the soil than their organic counterparts. Therefore, heavy
metal remediation has become a tedious task (Kirpichtchikova et al. 2003; Adriano
2003). Moreover, these toxic heavy metals also hinder the degradation of organic
pollutants (Maslin and Maier 2000). The contaminated soils are a risk to all living
beings and the environment through direct contact or ingestion of contaminants and
drinking of polluted ground water (McLaughlin et al. 2000a, b; Ling et al. 2007).
1.2 Causes of Soil Pollution
As mentioned before, there are mainly two causes of soil pollution, (a) natural and
(b) anthropogenic (Fig. 1.4). The former includes volcanic eruptions, earthquakes,
tsunamis etc. while; the later includes metals (trace and heavy metals), chemicals
and radioactive wastes. The chemicals can be grouped into pesticides and allied
chemicals, crude petroleum and its derivatives and polymers, plasticizers and other
wastes. Radioactive wastes include nuclear power generation wastes and other by
product released from nuclear technology (medicines and research). These are
harmful substances which persist in the environment for long duration during which
they are taken up by the atmosphere, accumulated and biomagnified to concentra-
tion potentially toxic to organisms at higher toxic levels in the food chain.
1.2.1 Natural Sources
Natural sources which are responsible for soil pollution include earthquakes, volca-
nic eruptions, alterations in rainfall patterns and geographical changes. Natural
accumulation of chemicals (for e.g. accumulation of perchlorate in soil) and toxic
compounds in the soil surface leads to soil pollution.
1.2.1.1 Volcanic Eruptions
Eruption of hot materials such as lava, dust, gases and ash particles from volcano is
termed as volcanic eruption. According to U.S Geological survey volcano produces
large amount of hazardous substances that destroy the surrounding areas and are
toxic to living beings. Large quantity of greenhouse gases (sulphur dioxide, carbon
dioxide, hydrogen sulphide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen fluoride) and other aero-
sols are released during volcanic eruptions. These gasses accumulate in the atmo-
sphere, this phenomenon is termed as “outgassing”. Lava and ash particles released
from volcano destroy the surrounding land. Lava destroys the fertile top layer of the
soil which is termed as soil erosion through volcanoes.
1.2.1.2 Earthquakes
Earthquakes are the sudden release of energy in earth’s surface which is caused by
the movement of tectonic plates below the soil surface or by other volcanic activi-
ties. Earthquakes damage the infrastructure, pipelines, bridges, embankments,
dams, road lines, railway lines etc. furthermore, they cause severe damage to the
Earth’s surface, contaminate groundwater, causes landslides, mudflow etc.
Agricultural soil becomes non-fertile after earthquakes. Secondary effects of earth-
quakes include the damages which are caused by broken water, fuel, electrical and
oil pipelines (manmade materials). Toxic materials from sewage, medical and radio-
active wastes accumulate in the soil, water and air. Release of radioactive material
from nuclear power plant of Japan during March 2011 earthquake is an example of
the secondary effect. One major effect of earthquake is “soil liquefaction” which
occurs when soil stiffness and strength is reduced to zero and soil gets converted
into liquid or mud form. Soil liquefaction causes severe damage to residential areas
and living beings. Various reports are available on damage caused by soil liquefac-
tion, such as Niigata and Alaska earthquake in 1964, Loma Prieta earthquake in
1989, and Great Hanshin earthquake in 1995. More recently, liquefaction caused
severe damage to Christchurch townships of New Zealand in 2010.
1.2.1.3 Alterations in Rainfall Patterns
Organic materials are the most important constituent of soil as it frames soil struc-
ture, balance the nutrients, oxygen and water holding capacity of soil particles.
Alterations in rainfall pattern significantly affect the composition of organic materi-
als in the soil as organic matter is sensitive to climate alterations. Furthermore,
excessive rainfall on acidic soil increases acidification and leaching of the soil (Wild
1993). Arid and sub humid areas are greatly affected by variations in climate. For
example acid sulphate soils are formed from oxidation of pyrite rich materials due
to excessive rainfall (Rounsevell and Loveland 1992).
1.2.1.4 Geographical Changes
Changes in the geographical factors impose various adverse effects on the soil qual-
ity. The connection between soil erosion and geographical factors can be monitored
with the two recently developed techniques i.e. geographic information system
(GIS) and remote sensing techniques (RS). These techniques can be used to obtain
the information on soil quality and heterogeneity of soil surface as well as to inves-
tigate the extent of land degradation.
1.2.1.5 Tsunamis
Tsunami is a series of waves in the ocean which are caused by the displacement of
huge amount of water. Underwater explosions, earthquakes, landslides and volcanic
eruptions and other disturbances below or above the water level can cause tsunami.
Tsunami is responsible for salting of drinking water and agricultural land. Large
amount of different pollutants are carried away with the flooded water and get
deposited over the soil surface (Moqsud and Omine 2013). These deposits cause
land and water pollution.
1.2.2 Anthropogenic Sources
Various wastes including municipal, agricultural, domestic, industrial etc. are the
major anthropogenic source of soil pollution (Alloway 1995). All these wastes can-
not be considered as pollutant as they can be further recycled into some useful
materials. For e.g. animal excreta and crop residues can be recycled to manure,
papers and plastics can be converted into other products. Most commonly, these
wastes are considered as useless to human beings. Following are the major man-
made sources of soil pollution:
1.2.2.1 Solid Wastes
Solid wastes are the discarded or abandoned materials which are of no use. Fiscal
and population growth lead to huge amount of solid waste production in urban areas
(Karishnamurti and Naidu 2003; Singh et al. 2011). These wastes can be further
classified depending on their source i.e. municipal waste, hospital wastes and indus-
trial wastes.
Municipal Solid Wastes (MSW)
Municipal solid wastes comprise of domestic waste, market wastes, kitchen wastes,
slaughterhouse wastes, livestock and poultry wastes, ceramic wastes, glass and met-
als (DOE 2002). Municipal wastes can be further categorized into five types based
on the kind of pollutant.
• Recyclable materials: plastics, glass, aluminium cans, metals.
• Hazardous wastes: batteries, medicines, bulbs, fertilizer and pesticide containers,
paint, old computers, cell phones, printers etc.
• Biodegradable wastes: food and kitchen wastes
• Inert waste: demolition and construction wastes
• Non-biodegradable wastes: organic compounds and some heavy metals
There are two main methods to dispose the municipal wastes, i.e. dumps and
landfills. In these days landfills are specially designed in order to prevent the pollut-
ants from entering into soil. Synthetic sheets or clay linings can be used in order to
separate the waste materials from the soil below it. In the year 2009, 1098 landfills
were used to dispose 54.3% of municipal waste produced in U.S.A, while 11.9% of
the waste was disposed by incineration. The average production of municipal wastes
for the year 2013 is shown in Fig. 1.2.
Soil pollution due to municipal wastes is a major environmental threat in devel-
oping countries due to improper waste disposal. Open disposal of municipal wastes
poses various threats to soil as well as ground water.
Hospital Wastes
Hospital wastes are produced as a result of diagnosis, treatment and immunization

of human beings and animals. These wastes includes discarded surgical instru-
ments, discarded blood, contaminated microbial cultures, body parts (amputation),
30
25
Production percentage
20
15
10
0
Metals Rubber, Glass Wood Plastics Food Yard Paper and Other
leather scraps trimmings carbboard
and
texties
Materials
Fig. 1.2 Average production of the municipal solid-waste in the year 2013
human or animal tissues, used dressings, bandages, cotton, gloves, poisonous and
corrosive chemicals, solvents, diagnostic kits, empty bottles, genotoxic waste, radi-
active wastes (liquid used for radiotherapy) etc. According to WHO (2018) 0.5 kg
of waste per hospital per bed is generated in developed countries, while 0.2 kg of
waste per hospital per bed is generated in developing countries. Improper disposal
of these wastes cause several health hazards. These wastes are most commonly
dumped in landfills with the other municipal wastes and contaminate the soil of the
sorrounding area. Incineration of hospital wastes is the alternative strategy which is
followed in developing countries. Release of pollutants during incineration of these
wastes also imposes adverse effects on public health as well as the enviornment
(Batterman 2004). Production of different organic pollutants such as PCBs, PAHs
(Fig. 1.18) dioxins and furan (Fig. 1.17) and other carcinogens as a result of incin-
eration technique leads to several health issues (Beyersmann 2002; WHO 2011).
Bottom ash which is produced after incineration consists of organic compounds and
heavy metals (Cd, Pb, Cr, Hg, Zn etc). Improper disposal of this ash affects the soil
(alter the soil chemistry) of the dumping area and pollute the environment. To over-
come various environmental related concerns of hospital wastes, there is a need to
implement some effective and environmentally sound hospital waste management
strategies for proper disposal and to reduce the environmental and public health
issues (Gidarakos et al. 2009).
Industrial Wastes
Industrial wastes comprise of concrete, scrap, paints, metals, oil, trash, chemicals
(organic and Inorganic), gravel, masonry etc. These types of wastes are the chief
soil pollutants as they are toxic, reactive or corrosive. Disposal of these wastes in an
improper way can pose serious health issues and environment related problems. In
U.S.A, drastic increase of the industrial wastes i.e. 4.5 million tons has been reported
after the second World War. In 1990, the amount of wastes reached upto 265 million
tons. It has been reported in 1980 that more than 70,000 chemicals were manufac-
tured by different industries in U.S.A alone. High toxicity of these chemicals affect
the chemical and physical nature of the soils and their fertility. Toxic contaminants
settle down in the soil and are accumulated by the crops growing on it. Furthermore,
with an increase in the population size, urbanization and construction activities are
on the rise. These activities are the major cause of deforestation which are further
responsible for soil erosion and ultimately cause soil pollution. The developed
countries have devised strategies for remediation of industrial wastes while, the
developing countries are still not able to invest in pollution control methods
(Fig. 1.3).
1.2.2.2 Agricultural Practices
In the modern era, human population is increasing while the amount of arable land
to feed the teeming millions is decreasing. In order to cope with increasing demand
of food, various types of agrochemicals are used to protect the crops (from patho-
gens and insects) and to enhance the crop yield. Agrochemicals can be classified as
pesticides (herbicides, insecticides and fungicides), fertilizers, hormones and
Causes of soil pollution
Natural Anthropogenic
Volcanic eruptions Solid wastes
Agricultural practices
Earthquakes
Chemical wastes
Geographical changes
Radioactive wastes
Changes inrainfall pattern
Mining and smelting
Tsunamis Construction activities
Fig. 1.3 Causes of soil pollution

Organophosphorus
Organochlorine
Carbamates
Pyrethroid
Insecticides
Organochlorine
Pesticides Herbicides
Agrochemicals Aniline derivatives

Fungicides
Fertilizers
Fig. 1.4 Agrochemicals responsible for soil and water pollution
animal manure. These chemicals are highly toxic at a dose more than threshold
value and pose serious environmental and health risks. Application of manures and
fertilizers introduce heavy metals and other organic pollutants into the soil, which
alter its composition and retards its fertility. Ar, Mn, Cd, U, Vn, Zn are the heavy
metals which are associated with phosphate fertilizers and animal (poultry and pig)
manure. The agrochemicals which are used to eliminate or repel the pests are called
pesticides. Pesticides can be natural, synthetic or modified chemicals or other organ-
isms that can work as biological control agent. According to British Food and
Environment Protection Act, 1985, pesticide can be defined as a substance used to
destroy undesirable plants, and the organisms which are harmful to plants or plant
products. Pesticides are broadly divided into three categories i.e. herbicides, insec-
ticides and fungicides. The consumption pattern of pesticides is shown in Fig. 1.5.
Pesticides can persist for longer duration in soil and water. Various pesticides are
recalcitrant in nature and are non-biodegradable (Navarro et al. 2007).
Herbicides
Herbicides are the chemicals which are used to inhibit the growth of undesirable
plants in a field of cultivated crop. Persistence of herbicides in soil depends upon the
soil characteristics such as soil pH, soil nutrient composition etc. Application of
heavy doses on soil can cause a decline in soil flora and fauna. More than fifty
chemical groups of organic and inorganic compounds are used as herbicides.
Herbicides can be categorized on the basis of their chemical structures such as:
• Organochlorine herbicides (Fig. 1.6): These are the derivatives of phenoxyacetic
acid for e.g. 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid, 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic,
2-methyl-4,6-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid. These herbicides also contain the

derivatives of aniline such as alachlor and propanil (Fig. 1.7).
• Organophosphorus herbicides: These are the most widely used herbicides in
agriculture and are also known as glyphosates. They are non-carcinogen and
have high weed killing efficiency. Most commonly used herbicide “glyphosate”
(Fig. 1.8b) is a modified form of glycine (Fig. 1.8a). Certain derivatives of urea
(Fig. 1.9), triazine (Fig. 1.12) and carbamic acid are also used as herbicides.
0.5 %
21 %
Insecticides
44 %
Herbicides
Fungicides
30 %
Other
Fig. 1.5 Consumption pattern of pesticides in the world
(A)
(B) (C)
Fig. 1.6 Structures of organochlorine herbicides: (a) Phenoxy acetic acid, (b) 2,4 dichloro
Phenoxy acetic acid and (c) 2,4,5 trichloro Phenoxy acetic acid
(A) (B)
Fig. 1.7 Structures of aniline derivatives: (a) Propanil and (b) Alachlor
Fig. 1.8 Structures of (a)

Glycine and (b)
Glyphosate
(A) (B)
(A) (B) (C) (D)
Fig. 1.9 Structures of urea derivatives: (a) Diouron, (b) Fluometuron (c), Linuron and (d)
Chlorobromuron
Insecticides
These are the chemicals which are used to kill the insects in crop fields. Insecticides
include larvicides and ovicides which kill insect larvae and eggs respectively. Use
of various insecticides in agriculture has been rapidly increasing over the past two
decades. Insecticides can be divided into four main groups on the basis of the
organic compound present.
• Organophosphorus compounds (Fig. 1.15): These are the nerve poisons and
effect on central nervous system. They can be applied as fumigants, systematic
pesticides or contact poisons in agriculture. However, these are highly toxic to
non-target organisms also. Sarin, tetraethyl pyrophosphate (TEPP), diazinon,
dibrom, malathion, temephos, chlorpyrifos and terbufos are the most commonly
used organophosphates.
• Organochlorines (Fig. 1.16): These are easily available and highly effective
insecticides to control the pests which are responsible for yellow fever and
malaria. They can be classified into three different classes i.e. BHC, DDT and
cyclodiene. Organochlorines have been reported as persistent organic com-
pounds which kill non-target organisms also.
• Carbamates (Fig. 1.10): These organic compounds are the derivatives of car-
bamic acid (NH2COOH) and are also known as urethanes. Terbucarb, propoxur,
carbaryl, aldicarb, oxamyl and carbamates are some commonly used agricultural
insecticides. However, they have been proved to be fatal for various bird species
and kill the non-target insect species by inactivation of acetylcholinesterase
enzyme.
• Pyrethroids: Pyrethroids consists of six active constituents i.e. jasmolines I and
II, pyrethrum I and II and cinerins I and II (Fig. 1.11). They have lower persis-
O
H H
H
O C N
O C N C N
CH3
CH3 CH3
O
O
N CH3 O
HC C S CH3
CH3
(A) (B) (C)
Fig. 1.10 Structures of Carbamate pesticides: (a) Aldicarb, (b) Carbofuran and (c) Carboryl
(A) (B)
(C) (D)
(E) (F)
Fig. 1.11 Structures of natural Pyrethrins: (a) Cinerin I, (b) Cinerin II, (c) Jasmolin I, (d) Jasmolin
II, (e) Pyrethrin I and (f) Pyrethrin II
tence and toxicity, while higher insecticidal activity. Bioresmethrin, fenvalerate,

allethrin and permethrin are the four groups of synthetic pyrethroids. These
degrade easily in the sunlight and at high temperatures. However, they are very
toxic to bees and aquatic flora and fauna.
Fungicides
These are the natural or synthetic, organic or inorganic chemical compounds which
are used to prevent fungal growth. They are used as fumigants. Bordeaux mixtures,
organotins (Fig. 1.13), phthalimide (Captan) (Fig. 1.14a), tributyltinacetate and
benzimidazole (Fig. 1.14b) are some most commonly used agricultural fungicides.
(A) (B) (C)
Fig. 1.12 Structures of triazine derivatives: (a) Triazine, (b) Atrazine and (c) Simazine
(A) (B)
Fig. 1.13 Structures of organotin fungicides: (a) Tributyltinacetate and (b) Triphenyltinacetate
(A) (B)
Fig. 1.14 Structures of (a) Captan and (b) Benzimidazole

Fig. 1.15 Structures of
organophosphorus
pesticides (a) TEPP (b)
Sarin
(A) (B)
(A) (B) (C)
(D) (E) (F)
Fig. 1.16 Structures of organochlorine pesticides: (a) DDT, (b) BHC, (c) Chlorinated cyclodiene,
(d) Aldrin, (e) Dieldrin and (f) Heptachlor
(A) (B)
(C) (D)
Fig. 1.17 Structures of dioxins and furans: (a) 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, (b) 2,3,7,8-tetra-
chlorodibenzofuran, (c) 1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and (d) 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran
(A) (B) (C)
(D) (E) (F)
(G) (H) (I)
Fig. 1.18 Structures of PAHs: (a) Pyrene, (b) Benzo(c) Phenanthrene, (c) Triphenylene, (d)
Phenanthrene, (e) Benz(a) Anthracene, (f) Chrysene, (g) Naphthalene, (h) Anthracene and (i)
Tetracene
1.2.2.3 Radioactive Wastes
These wastes contain radioactive materials which are the byproducts of nuclear
power plants and research stations. Although, the development of nuclear technol-
ogy is one of the greatest achievements of the last century but, the wastes generated
by it is severely lethal to all living beings and are generally monitored by govern-
mental agencies so as to protect the environment and public health. Radionuclides
are the unstable elements having atomic number > Bi-83 (Bismuth) and are radioac-
tive (Igwe et al. 2005). These elements release energy in the form of ionizing radia-
tions (van der Perk 2006). Cesium-137, iodine-131, americium-241, cobalt-60,
strontium-90, plutonium, radontechnetium-99, tritium, radium, uranium and tho-
rium are some naturally occurring radionuclides. Emissions of radionuclides from
nuclear power stations are the sources of anthropogenic nuclear wastes. Cesium-137
and strontium-90 have half-life of 30 and 29.1 years respectively. It has been
reported that the average levels of radionuclides in the soil was 620 mc km−2 for Cs
137 and 388 mc km−2 for Sr 90 (Igwe et al. 2005). Deposition of these radionuclides
in the soil will lead to the magnification of radioactive materials through food chain
contamination and ultimately affecting the living beings. Soil contaminated with
radioactive materials, affect its chemical and physical characteristics and also its
fertility. Polluted soils lose their fertility due to the toxic effects of radioactive mate-
rials. The mobilization of radionuclides in the soil depends upon its pH, composi-
tion, and rainfall. Radioactive materials are easily taken up by the plants and get
accumulated into the living beings through the ingestion of the contaminated plant
products.
1.2.2.4 Chemical Wastes
During the past decade, there has been a drastic increase in the amount of chemical
wastes generated through industrialization in the developed as well as the develop-
ing countries. Chemical wastes include polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, petro-
leum hydrocarbons, various solvents and other heavy metals. It can be classified
into organic and inorganic chemical wastes. Organic chemical wastes include
hydrocarbons (aliphatic and aromatic) and inorganic chemical wastes include heavy
metals. Organic wastes impose several health risks such as, toxicity to immune,
reproductive and nervous system, cause allergies and cancers (van der Perk 2006).
Some chlorinated aromatic compounds for e.g. pentachlorophenol, hexachloroben-
zene, polychlorinated biphenyls and some VOCs such as dichloroethylene, trichlo-
roethylene, tetrachloroethylene and vinyl chloride are carcinogenic in nature.
Organic pollutants can transform in soil through various methods such as volatiliza-
tion, leaching or chemical, physically or biological transformation (Semple et al.
2003). Furthermore, organic pollutants undergo bioaccumulation in living organ-
isms. The accumulation of contaminants from soil to living beings is termed as
bioaccumulation. Accumulation of organic contaminants in earthworms is linked to
bio magnification as these contaminants enter the food chains and cause various
adverse effects at each trophic level.
Heavy metals are the class of elements which having metallic properties. It
includes metalloids, lanthanides and actinides. These metals are characterized by
atomic number < 2, density range 3.5–7 g/cm3 and atomic weight 22.98 to <40 (Afal
and Wiener 2014). In the past decade heavy metals have considerably affected the
soil productivity and quality with an increase in pollution from agricultural, indus-
trial and municipal sources. Soils polluted with heavy metals poses various adverse
effects on living beings and soil fertility (Smith et al. 1995). These metals possess
specific thermal and electrical conductivities. In nature, there are 92 elements, out
of which 30 are the metalloids. Among these, chromium (Cr), lead (Pd), molybde-
num (Mo), beryllium (Be), boron(B), lithium (Li), tellurium (Te), antimony (Sb),
aluminium (Al), titanium (Ti), vanadium (V), manganese (Mn), tungsten (W),
cesium (Cs), cobalt (Co), nickel (Ni), copper (Cu), selenium (Se), arsenic (As),
strontium (Sr), silver (Ag), cadmium (Cd), tin (Sn), barium (Ba), platinum (Pt), gold
(Au), mercury (Hg) and bismuth (Bi) are toxic for human beings, at higher concen-
1.3 Harmful Effects of Soil Pollution 17
tration (Mingho 2005). Heavy metals such as Pb, Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, and Zn etc. can
change the soil chemistry and impose toxic effects (Table 1.1) on living beings
(Shaylor et al. 2009).
1.2.2.5 Mining and Smelting
Mining and smelting wastes comprise the wastes produced during metal and min-
eral extraction and their processing. These wastes damage the surrounding environ-
ment and harm all living beings, as air borne pollutants. Various researches have
been conducted regarding the management of mining and metallurgical sites so as
to neutralize the toxic effects of the pollutants on the environment. Toxic metals
which are found in tailings of mining and smelting industries include Hg, Pb, Ar,
Cu, Cd, Se, Ni, Zn and Cn (Ryszka and Turnau 2007; Escarré et al. 2011; Asensio
et al. 2013; Kapusta and Sobczyk 2015). Wastes from mining and smelting indus-
tries include brown and red mud from bauxite refining, phosphogypsum from phos-
phoric acid production plant, fluorogypsum from hydrofluoric acid production,
slags from lead, copper, and phosphorus processing industries, slags from carbon
and steel production etc. These wastes can be classified as (1) drilling muds and
wastes containing oil, (2) tailings from sulfide ore processing and (3) wastes gener-
ated from physical and chemical processing of metalliferous and non-metalliferous
minerals. 90% of these wastes are generated by fertilizer, chemical and petroleum
refining industries while the rest 10% is generated by other small-scale industries.
Various studies have shown that these wastes can stay in soil for a long duration i.e.
from hundreds to thousands of years. As a result, these contaminants gain access
into the food chain and impose several health hazards.
1.3 Harmful Effects of Soil Pollution
I. Impact on plants
Our biosphere has three zones lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere. A slight
disturbance in any of the zones may affect the other zones severely because of the
interlinking network of several ecological functions operating within. Many anthro-
pogenic activities that have led to soil pollution have also affected the functional
quality of living organisms including the elimination of a species, in severe cases.
Soil pollution greatly affects the agroecosystems (Table 1.1) which can be analyzed
as follows:
(i) Loss of crop productivity and crop diversity
Pollution of soil and water are a hindrance for crop productivity and diversity
which has decreased drastically within a span of 20 years (Nath et al. 2005). The
Table 1.1 Source and toxicity symptoms of some important heavy metals
18
Oxidation
Element state Source Toxicity Reference(s)
Arsenic (As) As (III) Igneous and sedimentary On human: Carcinogenic, affects nervous, integumentary, Marin et al. (1993),
and As rocks, pesticides, herbicides, cardiovascular, immune, endocrine, renal, hepatic, hematopoietic and Barrachina et al.
(II) and insecticides reproductive system. (1995), Cox et al.
manufacturing industries On plants: Reduced leaf area, fruit yield, leaf fresh weight, seedling (1996), Abedin et al.
height and seed germination. Chlorosis, stunted growth, wilting. (2002), and Abdul
et al. 2015
Chromium (Cr) Cr(III), Electroplating processes, On human: Dermatological problems, nephrotoxic, teratogenic Sharma and Sharma
Cr(IV), stainless steel industries, effect, digestion problems, upper respiratory and pulmonary tract (1993), Moral et al.
Cr3+ and leather tanning, mordant disorders, induce mutations. (1995), Panda and
CrO42− dyeing, wood preservation, On plants: Reduced bud sprouting, germination percentage, root Patra (2000),
ore refining length, plant height, leaf number, leaf area, yield reduction, grain Nematshahi et al.
weight reduction, and increased seed deformity. (2012), and Langård
and Costa (2015)
Nickel (Ni) Ni2+, Ni3+ German silver, stainless steel, On human: Acute toxic, chronic and sub chronic toxic, genotoxic, Khalid and Tinsley
1
electroplating and ceramic developmental toxic, haematotoxic, immunotoxic, neurotoxic, (1980), Sheoran et al.
industries, reproductive toxic, carcinogenic. (1990), Pandolfini
On plants: Germination reduction, photosynthesis, metabolism and et al. (1992),
cell structure disruption, oxidative stress. Barsukova and
Gamzikova (1999),
Lin and Kao (2005),
and Klein and Costa
(2015)
Lead (Pb) Pb Fossil fuel combustion, On human: Attack brain and central nervous system which leads to Moustakas et al.
(NO3)2, automobiles exhaust coma, convulsions and even death, mental retardation and behavioral (1994), Kabir et al.
Pb(II) disorders, hypertension, anemia, renal disorders, immunotoxic, (2009), Hussain et al.
reproductive toxic. Effects on the mental development of infants. (2013), Skerfving and
On plants: Growth retardation, chlorosis, blackening of roots, Bergdahl (2015)
disturbs water balance and mineral nutrition, retard photosynthesis,
effect hormonal balance, membrane structure and permeability.

Oxidation
Manganese(Mn) Mn(II) Ceramics, electrical coils, On human: Effects respiratory tract and brain, symptoms include Shenker et al. (2004),
batteries, welding rods, forgetfulness, hallucinations, dullness, weak muscles, insomnia, Asrar et al. (2005),
matches, glasses, dyes headaches and nerve damage, also cause lung disorders and Doncheva et al.
Parkinson disease. (2005), Arya and Roy
On plants: Disturbance in water balance, swelling of cell walls, leaf (2011), and Lucchini
wilting, brown spots on leaves. et al. (2015)
Silver (Ag) Ag(II) Electrical appliances, plating On human: Corneal injury, skin irritation, dermatitis, breathing Holler et al. (2015),
applications, silver brazing, disorders, dizziness, respiratory irritation, headaches, stomach Wang et al. (2015),
manufacturing of mirrors and disorders, confusions, coma and even death. Cox et al. (2016), and
batteries On plants: Reduced chlorophyll content and biomass of plants, Zuverza-Mena et al.
disturb the metabolism of plants. (2016)
Zinc (Zn) Zn(II) Mining and smelting, sewage On humans: Oral intake can cause nausea, pain, vomiting cramps Bonnet et al. (2000),
effluents, municipal wastes, and diarrhea. “zinc shakes” or “zinc chills” or metal fume fever can Doncheva et al.
wastes from automobiles, occur by inhaling the freshly formed zinc oxides. (2001),
batteries, pesticides, steel and On plants: Chlorosis and reddening of young leaves, brown spot on Manivasagaperumal
brass alloys industries and the leaf surface, in severe cases necrotic lesions appears on the leaves et al. (2011), and
construction sites and leaf death occurs, stunted growth of main root and lateral roots Sandstead (2015)
become yellow in color.
Cadmium (Cd) Cd2+ Mining and smelting, sewage On human: Bone demineralization, liver Disturbance, lung cancer, Jiang et al. (2001),
sludges, batteries, plating, renal tubular dysfunction, Itai-Itai disease. Wang et al. (2007),
pigments and plastic On plants: Reduction in seed germination, plant nutrient content, Bernard (2008),
industries shoot and root length. Ahmad et al. (2012),
Kang et al. (2013),
and Yourtchi and
Bayat (2013)
(continued)
19
Table 1.1 (continued)
20
Oxidation
Copper (Cu) Cu2+, Dyes, paints, pigments, On humans: Vomiting, hematemesis (blood vomiting), hypotension Kjær and Elmegaard
Cu3+ ceramics and pesticide (low blood pressure), jaundice, gastrointestinal disorders, damage to (1996), Cook et al.
manufacturing industries kidney and liver. (1997), Sheldon and
On plants: Interveinal foliar, cream or white spots or lesions on Menzies (2005), and
leaves, in severe cases wilting can occur. Purpling of foliage. Ellingsen et al. (2015)
Iron (Fe) Fe2+, Fe3+ Mining and smelting, steel On humans: Damage gastrointestinal tract, stomach ache, nausea Becker and Asch
industries and blood vomiting, metabolic acidosis damage brain and liver, (2005), Nagajyoti
hypovolemic shock, death may occur due to liver failure. et al. (2010), and
On plants: Bronzing and stippling of leaves, leaf discoloration. Ponka et al. (2015)
Mercury (Hg) Hg1+, Fossil fuel combustion, On humans: Affect gastrointestinal, neurologic and renal organ Du et al. (2005),
Hg2+ plastics and electronic system, sensation disturbance and lack of coordination, formication, Kibra (2008), Shekar
industries skin discoloration, swelling and desquamation, hypotonia, kidney et al. (2011), and
disorders and insomnia. Berlin et al. (2015)
1
On plants: Abnormal germination and hypertrophy of the roots and

coleoptiles, affects light and dark reaction of photosynthesis.
Cobalt (Co) Co2+, Alloys, paints, dyes and On humans: Cardiomyopathy, deafness, nerve problems, tinnitus, Jayakumar et al.
Co3+ pigments manufacturing thyroid and blood thickening. (2007, 2008),
industries On plants: Affect growth and plant metabolism, inhibit differentiation Jayakumar et al.
of starch grain and alter the number and structure of chloroplast per (2013), Catalani et al.
unit area of leaf, leaf fall, discoloration, reduced shoot weight. (2012), and Lison
(2015)
Selenium (Se) Se−2, Fossil fuel combustion, alloys On human: Nausea, diarrhea, tiredness and irritability, paresthesia, Alexander (2015) and
Se+6, Se+4 and rubber manufacturing hyperreflexia, discoloration and loss of teeth, nail brittleness, Gupta and Gupta
industries deformation and loss of nails, alopecia, skin rashes, joint pain. Acute (2017)
toxicity causes myocardial infarction, renal failure, vascular
symptoms such as tachycardia and flushing of face, neurological
features including tremors, myalgia and irritability.
On plants: Chlorosis, leaf become white, stunted growth of plant,
decreased protein synthesis, withering and drying of leaves and

premature death of plant.
Oxidation
Bismuth (Bi) Bi+3 Metallurgical, thermal and On humans: Affects kidney, liver and bladder, respiratory and skin Fowler et al. (2015)
electrical processes, disorders.
cosmetics and On plants: Non-toxic.
pharmaceuticals industries
Antimony (Sb) Sb(III) Alloys, plastics, rubbers, On human: Respiratory irritation, pneumoconiosis, spots on the Paoli et al. (2013) and
and textiles, paper, glass, ceramic skin, gastrointestinal symptoms, chronic bronchitis, chronic Tylenda et al. (2015)
Sb(V) and paints industries, lead emphysema, tuberculosis, pleural adhesions, cardiovascular and skin
storage batteries, related disorders, genotoxic and carcinogenic.
On plants: Decrease in leaf and root biomass production.
21
yields and the shelf-life of the traditional crops such as soybean, gram, wheat and
garlic grown in polluted areas, get affected.
(ii) Decline in nutrient use efficiency (NUE)
A low nutrient use efficiency is an indicator of more fertilizer requirement for
optimal productivity. The contaminants may interact with the soil components, soil
biota and the plant roots in several ways to affect the nutrient transformation and
absorption by the roots.
(iii) Quality of agricultural output (vegetables, fruits and grains)
The shelf-life, taste and aroma of crops grown on polluted soils gets severely
affected. Certain vegetables have shown lower storage life and give foul smell dur-
ing cooking and unpleasant taste after cooking. The oxidative damage (lipid peroxi-
dation and H2O2 levels) to the vegetables was observed when irrigated with industrial
waste waters. Interestingly, the accumulation of heavy metals in the edible parts of
the vegetables was more as compared to the grains (Hassanein et al. 2013). Not only
the vegetables and grains, the fruits of the trees that were irrigated with polluted
waters emit foul smell during short-term storage.
(iv) Heavy metal contamination of plants and plant-based products
Heavy metals in agricultural soils are derived from mining, smelting, vehicle
exhaust, as well as applications of pesticides and fertilizers (Vieira da Silva et al.
2016; Jiang et al. 2017). It has been reported that the plants grown in contaminated
and waste water irrigated land uptake and accumulate heavy metals to a level which
is toxic for consumption (Sachan et al. 2007; Chary et al. 2008).
(v) Rejection of export consignment
In continuation to the aforementioned effect, soil pollution can lead to an adverse
impact on a country’s export of food items. The food export consignments may be
rejected due to the presence of pesticides, heavy metals etc. (see Boxes 1.1 and 1.2).
(vi) Soil compaction
Soil friability and soil organic matter are important parameters which influences
root and plant growth and thus enhances the crop yield. On the other hand, soil
compaction (due to high mineral content and lower organic matter) affects the root
proliferation, penetration and nutrient and water uptake which further leads to crop
yield penalty.
(vii) Decline in available soil moisture content
The maintenance of soil moisture content is crucial for optimal yield and fertil-
izer use efficiency. Agricultural soils contaminated with pollutants negatively affects
the soil structure and the soil moisture content. An increase in soil salinity also
reduces the soil moisture content. Therefore, presence of the industrial water con-
taining high salt content reduces the agricultural soil moisture content.
(viii) Poor percolation leading to water logging
Box 1.1: Quality Control of Export and Import Consignment

The EU, US, Australia, Japan and India have developed a transparent system
for maintaining the quality standards of the import and export of plants, seeds,
grains, fruits, dry-fruits, oils, spices and other unprocessed and processed
products. On receiving each consignment lab tests rae conducted for the pres-
ence of weeds, pathogens (bacteria, virus, fungi), pesticides, chemicals etc.
After lab tests the reports are displayed onto the respective web portals
wherein a detailed report with reasons for destruction, interception, withhold-
ing or returning of the consignment from exporting countries is mentioned
along with the similar incidences that have occurred in the past.
In the EU the information on the safety of the consignmets is made visible
on two web portals (a) Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) and
(b) European Union Notification System for Plant Health Interceptions
(EUROPHYT). The RASFF is an informative tool to disseminate the infor-
mation on serious risks that have been detected in relation to food or feed.
This enables the EU member states to exchange views and act rapidly in co-
ordination. On the other hand, EUROPHYT is a notification and rapid alert
system which deals with the interception of the consignments, of plants and
plant products such as fruits and vegetables, during inter- and intra import
within the EU.
In the case of the US, an Import Refusal Report is generated by FDA’s
Operational and Administrative System for Import Support (OASIS) and
released by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The reports contain the
detailed information as to why the consignment was refused and did not get
entry into the US. In Australia, the Department of Agriculture and Water
Resources releases a monthly report called the ‘failing food report’ that lists
products (country-wise) that pose a high or medium risk to public health. In
Japan, the same information (monthly statement) is released by the Ministry
of Health, Labour and Welfare, on cases of violation of their Food Sanitation
Law. This monthly report provides the details of the exporting country and the
Article of the law that has been violated.
In India, the import and export of goods is governed by Export Import
(EXIM) Policy. India’s Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) is the
chief governing body responsible for all matters related to EXIM Policy. The
Importers that get registered with DGFT obtain an Importer Exporter Code
Number (IEC). After an IEC has been obtained, the source of items for import
must be identified and declared. The Indian Trade Classification – Harmonized
System (ITC-HS) facilitates free import of most goods without an import
license. The Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) is a committee involved with
product certification, quality system certifications and testing, and consumer
affairs. The Food Safety and Standard Authority of India (FSSAI) issues food
import clearance certificates for all food articles.
Box 1.2: Rejection of Export Consignment: Indian Case Study

There are true examples of soil pollution leading to the crop and crop product
contamination which led to the rejection of export consignments. In the recent
past, a number of Indian consignments to the US and the EU have faced noti-
fications, rejections and alerts. The main reason for rejection of plant-based
consignments is the presence of higher than approved level of pesticide resi-
due. According to the US-FDA Import Refusal Report basmati rice faced 444
refusals, plain (white or polished) rice 112, capsicum and okra 41, between
2014 and 2017, due to a higher pesticide content. Recently in 2016, Indian
cashew export consignment to the US was rejected because the laboratory test
revealed that they were contaminated by chlorphenol. The reason being that
chlorinated water was used by processing factories. The toxicity of chloro-
phenol irritates the eyes, respiratory tract and repeated administration results
in liver and bone marrow damage.
In the EU, between Jnuaru 2000 and April 2016, the RASFF portal high-
lighted 36 notifications against basmati rice, for higher than permissible con-
tent of pesticide residue such as acephate and carbendazim. From January
2014 till May 2017, 33 alerts were visible on the portal regarding the basmati
consignment which were rejected at EU ports for the presence of chemicals
such as oxytetracycline and sulphites above the permissible maximum reside
limits (MRLs). Traces of prohibited chemicals such as nitrofuran and chlor-
amphenicol were also reported. In the year 2010, the Indian consignment of
table grapes faced rejection at the EU due to the presence of chlormequat
chloride (ccc) higher than permissible level.
In Japan, the Indian shrimps export consignment were rejected due to the
presence of ethoxyquin and furazolidone, more than the acceptable MRLs.
This resulted in heavy losses to the Indian exporters.
Table 1 Notifications raised by the EU in RASFF Portal (2005–2017)

Border rejections
Serious Destructions of Border in proportion to
Country Notifications cases consignment rejections notifications (%)
China 3374 577 391 1730 51.3
Turkey 3296 874 431 2018 61.2
India 2240 672 583 1490 66.5
Brazil 1139 419 None 717 62.9
Vietnam 1049 256 136 372 35.5
In the year 2015, Indian green chillies export faced temporary rejection in
Saudi Arabia due to the presence of higher than permissible levels of pesticide
residues. In the year 2016, several concerns were raised in the UAE, on Indian
mangoes, chillies and cucumbers which had pesticide residues beyond the
(continued)
Box 1.2: (continued)

Codex Alimentarius Commission’s limits. Therefore, efforts need to made at
the grass-root level. The prohibited/hazardous chemicals and their reckless
use must not be practiced anymore inorder to gain higher yields. Moreover,
the issues related to the presence of excessive pesticide residues must be
addressed/resolved by the exporting countries themselves so as to avoid rejec-
tion of the consignments thereby making the export procedures cumbersome
and time-consuming.
Although shallow water table enhances the changes of contamination of the

ground waters but, poor infiltration/percolation leads to water logging or swampy
lands. The poor-quality water along with silica and clay of hard pans which further
prevents water infiltration.
(ix) Effect on soil fertility
Fertility of soil depends on the interaction among its physical, chemical and
biological components. Presence of pollutants in the agroecosystems greatly affects
the spoil properties (soil pH, electrical conductivity, sodium adsorption ratio, bulk
density, availability of macro and micronutrients and soil organic matter). Resulting
in the loss of soil fertility and crop productivity.
II. Impact on humans and animals
Nearly 80% of the diseases particularly in developing world can be linked with
soil and water. The soil gets highly polluted by several pathogenic organisms and
hazardous industrial effluents. Undoubtedly, soil pollution is the result of urban-
technological revolution and speedy exploitation of natural resources. There are
three common ways that humans are exposed to soil materials: (i) ingestion, (ii)
respiration and (iii) skin absorption or penetration (Brevik 2013). The harmful
effects of soil pollution on human health (Table 1.1) can be discussed under the fol-
lowing headings:
(i) Effects of industrial pollutants
Industrial wastes consist of a variety of chemicals which are extremely toxic to
both animals and humans. Different industries (tanning, dyeing, chemical, pesti-
cides industries etc.) release harmful pollutants which enter the food chain causing
a number of undesirable effects. Industrial effluents when discharged through sew-
age system poison the biological purification capacity of sewage treatment resulting
in several soil and water-borne diseases. Heavy metals present in polluted soils can
release to other ecosystems, such as groundwater, rivers, atmosphere and crops, and
consequently are hazardous to human beings and ecosystems. The heavy metals
such as Zn, Hg, Cd, etc. destroy the beneficial microorganisms present in the soil
thus, affecting its fertility. Some of the trade wastes contain pathogenic bacteria,
e.g., anthrax bacilli bacteria from tanning industry waste.
(ii) Effects of urban waste products
Not only the industrial wastes but also the urban wastes spread several chronic
diseases. About 90% of the pollution load in river system is due to faecal matter. The
wastes including household wastes, building materials, sludge, dead animal skele-
tons etc. provides excellent medium for the growth of pathogenic bacteria, viruses,
etc. Vibrio cholerae found in sewage causes cholera. Solid wastes dumping areas are
a source of revolting miasma. Suspended matter in sewage covers the soil and thus,
interferes with the soil moisture. In urban areas, anthropogenic sources of soil heavy
metals include traffic emissions (vehicle exhaust, tire wear, brake lining wear, etc.),
industrial discharges (power plant, chemical plant, coal combustion, metallurgical
industry, etc.), and municipal wastes (Wei and Yang 2010; Du et al. 2015). The use
of polluted ground water containing human excreta, sewage sludge decreases soil
fertility by killing microorganisms. The fungus, Coccidioides spp. grow and repro-
duce in and above the soil. It can grow under extreme environmental conditions,
including high temperatures, high salinity or alkalinity which most other microor-
ganisms cannot tolerate. The fungus usually enters humans through the respiratory
route by inhalation of microscopic fungal spores and causes coccidioidomycosis
(Stockamp and Thompson 2016).
(iii) Effects of radioactive pollutants
The problem of radioactive wastes dumped into the soil is more complicated as
the radioactive elements can remain active in soil for longer durations (long half-
lives). Radioactive pollutants may cause detrimental effects when food containing
radionuclides is consumed by man. The pollutants may concentrate in specific body
organs and cause undesirable effects such as vomiting, nausea, restlessness, bilious-
ness, cramps and even death. The radio nuclides such as C-14, Fe-55, Mn-54,
Co-57, etc., get concentrated in the biological systems. Radiations also affects the
soil microflora and fauna and thus leads to loss of soil fertility. The radiations also
kill the plant species. Variations in radio-sensitivity among trees and shrubs are due
to differences in their chromosome number and size.
(iv) Effects of modern agro-technology
Potassium fertilizers in soil decrease the production of a valuable nutrient ascor-
bic acid (vitamin C) and carotenes in vegetables and fruits. Reckless use of nitrog-
enous fertilizers in the fields leads to accumulation of nitrates in the soil. This can
cause diarrhea and cyanosis in children who play outdoors (Henry and Cring 2013).
Use of nitrate causes eutrophication of water bodies. But, Phosphate fertilizer are
more to blamed for this and they are considered detrimental (phosphatic fertilizers
like DAP) to crop production. Cereal crops like jawar, maize, etc., grown on alka-
line soil absorb higher amounts of fluorides and are responsible for the spread of
fluorosis. Pesticides retained in soil concentrate in crops, vegetables, etc., which
taint them to such an extent that they lose their economic value. Pesticides like
1.4 Remedies to Cope with Soil Pollution 27
DDT, endrin, etc., are known to percolate slowly through soil into ground water and
contaminate the potable water supplies. Organophosphate pesticides cause extreme
muscular weakness, tremors, dizziness and interfere in the normal metabolic activi-
ties in poisoned animals.
1.4 Remedies to Cope with Soil Pollution
The impact assessment is a crucial step required for initiating and implementing
appropriate remedial measures for restoration and sustenance of polluted soils
(Cachada et al. 2018). Soil remediation strategies aim towards various in situ and ex
situ treatment regimes that deploy physical and chemical means or natural/geneti-
cally modified microbes, plants, and animals for degradation of toxic compounds or
hazardous waste into simpler non-toxic products (Pavel and Gavrilescu 2008;
Gomes et al. 2013). Pesticides and fertilisers are major contributors to soil contami-
nation so a restriction on their usage can solve the issue of soil pollution to a certain
extent. Wherever possible, biodegradable products (such as cartons for packaging)
must be used. Items that can be re-used should not be disposed of; objects made of
paper, glass, aluminium and the like should be recycled. The major objective of soil
remediation strategies should be to develop certain kinds of innovative phytoreme-
diation, chemical and physical methods that have a potential to effectively reduce
both the amount and toxicity-level of the hazardous wastes. This broad area of
research requires applied field research, laboratory research and bench studies in
order to provide a scientific and technological base for management of hazardous
wastes in a cost-effective and efficient way, without producing secondary pollut-
ants. Heretofore, various types of soil remediation strategies have been suggested,
practiced, and tested to remove the soil pollutants. These include the use of metal-
guzzling plants, microbes, and animals. Phytoremediation is a green-phenomenon
which involves the use of plants and plant associated bacteria and fungi (endophytic
or rhizospheric), soil amendments (to improve soil physical properties, such as
structure, aeration, water permeability, retention, and drainage), and optimized
agronomic practices to remove soil pollutants. The use of plants as hyper-
accumulators of toxic metals is a simple, reliable, specific, affordable and eco-
friendly soil remediation approach (Macek et al. 2000; Rascio and Navari-Izzo
2011). Nearly, thirty-four plant families including five-hundred plant species that is
0.2% of the angiosperms worldwide have been identified as hyperaccumulators of
heavy metals (Zn, Cd, Pd, Cu, Ni and Co), metalloids (As) and non-metals (Se).
Most of the hyperccumulator-plants belong to the families asteraceae, brassicaceae,
buxaceae euphorbiaceae, flacourtiaceae, and rubiaceae (Reeves 2006). The different
criteria of the hyperaccumulator green-technology are (a) tolerance capacity, (b)
elimination efficiency based on plant biomass, (c) accumulation potential, (d) bio-
concentration factor (BCF) index and (e) translocation factor (TF) index (Verbruggen
et al. 2009). The use of natural and genetically engineered endophytic and rhizo-
spheric bacteria can synergize and accelerate the phytoremediation potential and
eliminate or beak-down soil toxicants (Glick 2003, 2010; Ma et al. 2015; Kong and
Glick 2017; Mesa et al. 2017). Although, hyperaccumulators of Ni, As, Mn, Se, Cd
and Zn have been described and experimentally proven but, the hyperaccumulation
of Cr, Ta, Cu, Co and Pb is still doubtful (van der Ent et al. 2013; Koubová et al.
2016). Various chemical, physical and thermal techniques have also been adopted to
enhance the rate of phytoremediation (Arlai et al. 2012; Veetil et al. 2014; Bashiri
et al. 2015; Xu et al. 2016). Chemical techniques that are deployed to extract the
pollutants from contaminated soils include chemical oxidation and solvent extrac-
tion (Ou-Yang et al. 2010). Chemical methods can lower the cost of remediation
process, as they can be operated on-site without any necessity to transport the soil
for off-site treatment. Furthermore, physical methods include soil vapour extraction
and soil washing (Fox 1996). Vapour extraction method leads to the vapourization
of the soil contaminants with the aid of pipes and wells in the soil. On the other
hand, thermal remediation techniques are currently being employed on highly con-
taminated soils (Falciglia and Vagliasindi 2015; Dupuis and Knoepfel 2015). This
method performs well where other methods may be costly to employ. Soils affected
by sewage wastes, industrial and mining effluents can be efficiently remediated with
the use of innovative biochar strategies (Anawar et al. 2015; Luo and Gu 2016).
Nanobioremediation is another emerging technology for remediation of pollutants
with the aid of biosynthetic nanoparticles. Because of unique chemical and physical
properties, nanoparticles have gained the attention of scientists. It is essential to
analyse and implement new remediation strategies which can upgrade the environ-
ment for sustainable livelihood. These strategies grouped under in-situ and ex-situ
remediation regimens need to be tailor-made for the environment under consider-
ation (Rani et al. 2013; Gomes et al. 2013; Cassidy et al. 2015; Kuppusamy et al.
2016). For this purpose, it is crucial to understand the efficiency and efficacy of
remediation technologies that are presently available (Eapen and D’Souza 2005;
Eapen et al. 2007; Stenuit et al. 2008; Kong and Glick 2017). It is crucial to analyse
the molecular mechanism and robustness of the degradation pathway of the toxic
compounds in plants or microbes before implementing it on a pilot scale. As men-
tioned before, some recent techniques like the use of biochar, biofilms and nanobio-
remediation have shown promise for the speedy biotransformation and sustainable
remediation of polluted soils and solid-wastes. The subsequent chapter focuses on
the available remediation techniques and their potential for soil remediation for the
period up to 2018 (Box 1.3) (Fig. 2.1).
1.5 Conclusions
Healthy land is an essential element in order to sustain human development and to

expand the livelihoods. But, with the boost of industrialization and urbanization, the
maintenance of soil quality and standard has become a global issue as the soil is a
vital medium of natural environment. Soil plays a major role as a medium for energy
and material transfer between atmosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere. Soil
1.5 Conclusions 29
Box 1.3: “Swach Bharat Abhiyaan”

Swachh Bharat Abhiyan is also called as the ‘Clean India Mission’ or ‘Clean
India drive’ or ‘Swachh Bharat Campaign’. It is a national level campaign run
by the Indian Government to cover all the backward statutory towns to make
them clean. This campaign involves the construction of latrines, promoting
sanitation programs in the rural areas, cleaning streets, roads and changing the
infrastructure of the country to lead the country ahead. This campaign was
officially launched by the Honorable Prime Minister, Mr. Narendra Modi on
145th birth anniversary of the Late Mahatma Gandhi on second of October in
2014 at Rajghat, New Delhi, India.
It is a politics free campaign and inspired by the patriotism. It is launched
as a responsibility of each and every Indian citizen to make this country a
Swachh country. This campaign has initiated people globally towards the
cleanliness. Teachers and students of the school are joining this “Clean India
Campaign” very actively with great fervor and joy. Under this campaign,
another cleanliness initiative has been started by the UP CM, Yogi Adityanath
in March 2017. He has banned chewing paan, gutka and other tobacco prod-
ucts in the government offices all over UP.
As a part of the campaign, volunteers, known as Swachhagrahis, or
“ambassadors of cleanliness”, have promoted indoor plumbing and the
Community Approaches to Sanitation (CAS) at the village level. Other non-
governmental activities include national real-time monitoring and updates
from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as The Ugly Indian,
Waste Warriors and SWaCH Pune (Solid Waste Collection and Handling) that
are working towards the ideas of Swachh Bharat.
Water pollution is one of the biggest issues facing India right now. As may
be evident, untreated sewage is the biggest source of such form of pollution in
India. There are other sources of pollution such as runoff from the agricultural
sector as well as unregulated units that belong to the small-scale industry. The
situation is so serious that there is no water body in India that is not polluted
to some extent or the other. Rivers Yamuna, Ganga, Gomti, Ghaghara,
Chambal, Mahi, Vardha are among the most coliform polluted water bodies in
India. The coliform count must be below 104 MPN/100 ml and preferably
absent from water, to be considered safe for general human use, and for irriga-
tion where coliform may cause disease outbreak from contaminated-water
supplies to agriculture.
Industrial sector in India is witnessing rapid growth since the last decade
of twentieth century with reforms in economic laws and with establishment of
special economic zones (SEZ). Such rapid industrial growth has also increased
threat to the environment. In spite of great difficulty in its remediation in com-
parison with polluted air and water, soil pollution as a threat to human life is
by and large ignored at national level in India due to lack of comprehensive
(continued)
Box 1.3: (continued)

information on the subject. Though coordinated effort on assessment of soil
pollution is absent at national level, sporadic information has been generated
by several researchers on various aspects of pollution affecting the soil
quality.
Apart from Swach Bharat Abhiyaan, certain other rules/act are also in
action in India for the protection of environment resources. They include, the
manufacture, storage and import of hazardous chemicals rules 1989, biomedi-
cal waste (management and handling) rules 1998, the municipal solid waste
(management and handling) rules 2000, batteries (management and handling)
rules 2001, hazardous wastes (management, handling and transboundary
movement) rules, 2008 etc. These rules provide that the occupier shall be
responsible for environmentally sound and safe handling of any type of haz-
ardous substance generated during his/her establishment.
Societ y for environment and development has been carrying out ‘Mitti
Bachao Andolan’ (Save Soil Campaign) in five districts of Rajasthan (Kota,
Bundi, Jhalawar, Baran and Sawai Madhopur) India. Under this campaign,
farmers, students and school teachers are made aware about the soil and its
conservation and also equipped with portable soil testing kits during training
sessions to test the soil samples.
Soil Conservation Society of India (SCSI) was established in year 1952 at
Hazaribagh, Jharkhand, India on Dec 21, 1952. The headquarters of this soci-
ety is at New Delhi. This society was established with an objective to bring
awareness and knowledge about land resources of the country, also about the
conservation and care of soil and water. The objective of this society is sys-
tematic survey of relevant natural resources of the country i.e. climate, land,
water, plants, animals and human resources using the modern techniques of
remote sensing (computerized interpretation), storage and the retrieval of
information. It aims at the spread of knowledge regarding efficient soil and
water conservation and management practices including rainwater harvesting
and its use. The outreach (development projects) activities include soil and
water conservation practices for the effective control of soil erosion, sediment
discharge and floods, increasing the shelf-life of storage reservoirs for
irrigation.
The Indian Association of Soil and Water Conservationists (IASWC) was
established in 1972 at Dehradun, India as a non-profit body to encourage land
use for conservation of soil and water resources to sustain mankind. It also
promotes and disseminates knowledge, practical skills and research in the sci-
ence and technology, for soil and water conservation.
References 31
pollution is caused by natural sources such as volcanic eruptions, earthquakes etc.

and anthropogenic activities such as industrialization, urbanization, agricultural
practices, nuclear technology, mining and smelting industries etc. Human activities
disturb the balance between different ecosystems and shrink the agricultural land
which affects the food security.
The two most important categories of soil pollutants are heavy metals (Hg, Zn,
Pb, Cd, As, Cu) and organic compounds (PAHs, PCBs etc.). Different types of
industrial wastes, manures, fuel combustions are the main sources of these pollut-
ants. Presences of these contaminants above the threshold level cause toxicity to all
living beings. Most of these contaminants have no biological role but have gained
the attention of scientists due to their toxicity, persistence, abundance and accumu-
lation in the environment. It has been reported that the area containing polluted soils
has reached up to 2250 million hectares and is further expanding (Yao et al. 2012)
This alarming rise in the soil pollution has forced the scientists to develop vari-
ous strategies for its remediation and reclamation. However, the present environ-
mental policies lack clear commands and hence do not address the global concern
of soil pollution properly. Besides that, practical implementation of these policies is
not beneficial due to non-operational soil quality standards, uncertain soil remedia-
tion methods, limited funding, poor supervision and technical capabilities of reme-
diation industries. In addition, environmental policies regarding the management of
soil standards should focus on the implementation of appropriate and integrated soil
remediation strategies in order to improve the soil quality.
References
Abdul KSM, Jayasinghe SS, Chandana EP, Jayasumana C, De Silva PMC (2015) Arsenic and
human health effects: a review. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol 40(3):828–846
Abedin MJ, Cotter-Howells J, Meharg AA (2002) Arsenic uptake and accumulation in rice (Oryza
sativa L.) irrigated with contaminated water. Plant Soil 240(2):311–319
Adriano DC (2003) Trace elements in terrestrial environments; biogeochemistry, bioavailability
and risks of metals, 2nd edn. Springer, New York
Afal A, Wiener SW (2014) Metal toxicity. Medscape.org
Ahmad I, Akhtar MJ, Zahir ZA, Jamil A (2012) Effect of cadmium on seed germination and seed-
ling growth of four wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivars. Pak J Bot 44(5):1569–1574
Alexander J (2015) Selenium. In: Handbook on the toxicology of metals, 4th edn. Academic,
London, pp 1175–1208
Alloway BJ (1995) Heavy metals in soils. Blackie Academic and Professional, an Imprint of
Chapman and Hall, London
Anawar HM, Akter F, Solaiman ZM, Strezov V (2015) Biochar: an emerging panacea for remedia-
tion of soil contaminants from mining, industry and sewage wastes. Pedosphere 25(5):654–665
Arlai A, Nakkong R, Samjamin N, Sitthipaisarnkun B (2012) The effects of heating on physical
and chemical constitutes of organic and conventional okra. Procedia Eng 32:38–44
Arya SK, Roy BK (2011) Manganese induced changes in growth, chlorophyll content and antioxi-
dants activity in seedlings of broad bean (Vicia faba L.). J Environ Biol 3(26):707–711
Asensio V, Vega FA, Singh BR, Covelo EF (2013) Effects of tree vegetation and waste amend-
ments on the fractionation of Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb and Zn in polluted mine soils. Sci Total Environ
443:446–453
Asrar Z, Khavari-Nejad RA, Heidari H (2005) Excess manganese effects on pigments of Mentha
spicata at flowering stage. Arch Agron Soil Sci 51(1):101–107
Barrachina AC, Carbonell FB, Beneyto JM (1995) Arsenic uptake, distribution, and accumulation
in tomato plants: effect of arsenite on plant growth and yield. J Plant Nutr 18(6):1237–1250
Barsukova VS, Gamzikova OI (1999) Effects of nickel surplus on the element content in wheat
varieties contrasting in Ni resistance. Agrokhimiya 1:80–85
Bashiri F, Ahmadi R, Khezri SM (2015) Remove soil contaminants by heat treatment. Int J Fund
Arts Architect 1(1):8–12
Batterman S (2004) Findings on assessment of small-scale incinerators for health-care waste
water, sanitation and health protection of the human environment. World Health Organization,
Geneva
Becker M, Asch F (2005) Iron toxicity in rice-conditions and management concepts. J Plant Nutr
Soil Sci 168(4):558–573
Berlin M, Zalups RK, Fowler BA (2015) Mercury. In: Handbook on the toxicology of metals, 4th
edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 1013–1075
Bernard A (2008) Cadmium and its adverse effects on human health. Indian J Med Res
128(4):557–564
Beyersmann D (2002) Effects of carcinogenic metals on gene expression. Toxicol Lett
127(1–3):63–68
Bonnet M, Camares O, Veisseire P (2000) Effects of zinc and influence of Acremonium lolii on
growth parameters, chlorophyll A fluorescence and antioxidant enzyme activities of ryegrass
(Lolium perenne L. cv Apollo). J Exp Bot 51(34):945–953
Brevik EC (2013) Soils and human health: an overview. In: Brevik EC, Burgess LC (eds) Soils and
human health. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 29–56
Cachada A, Rocha-Santos T, Duarte AC (2018) Soil and pollution: an introduction to the main
issues. Soil pollution, pp 1–28
Cassidy DP, Srivastava VJ, Dombrowski FJ, Lingle JW (2015) Combining in situ chemical oxida-
tion, stabilization, and anaerobic bioremediation in a single application to reduce contaminant
mass and leachability in soil. J Hazard Mater 297:347–355
Catalani S, Rizzetti MC, Padovani A, Apostoli P (2012) Neurotoxicity of cobalt. Hum Exp Toxicol
31:421–437
Chary NS, Kamala CT, Raj DS (2008) Assessing risk of heavy metals from consuming food grown
on sewage irrigated soils and food chain transfer. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 69:513–524
Cook CM, Kostidou A, Vardaka E, Lanaras T (1997) Effects of copper on the growth, photosynthe-
sis and nutrient concentrations of Phaseolus plants. Photosynthetica 34(2):179–193
Cox MS, Bell PF, Kovar JL (1996) Differential tolerance of canola to arsenic when grown hydro-
ponically or in soil. J Plant Nutr 19(12):1599–1610
Cox A, Venkatachalam P, Sahi S, Sharma N (2016) Silver and titanium dioxide nanoparticle toxic-
ity in plants: a review of current research. Plant Physiol Biochem 107:147–163
DOE (2002) EU Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste. A con-
sultation paper on limiting landfill to meet the EC Landfill Directive’s targets for reducing the
landfill of biodegradable municipal waste. Environmental Policy Division, Department of the
Environment
Doncheva S, Stoynova Z, Velikova V (2001) Influence of succinate on zinc toxicity of pea plants.
J Plant Nutr 24(6):789–804
Doncheva S, Georgieva K, Vassileva V, Stoyanova Z, Popov N, Ignatov G (2005) Effects of suc-
cinate on manganese toxicity in pea plants. J Plant Nutr 28(1):47–62
Du X, Zhu YG, Liu WJ, Zhao XS (2005) Uptake of mercury (Hg) by seedlings of rice (Oryza
sativa L.) grown in solution culture and interactions with arsenate uptake. Environ Exp Bot
54(1):1–7
References 33
Du P, Xie Y, Wang S, Zhao H, Zhang Z, Wu B, Li F (2015) Potential sources of and ecologi-

cal risks from heavy metals in agricultural soils, Daye City, China. Environ Sci Pollut Res
22:3498–3507
Dupuis J, Knoepfel P (2015) Episode IV: consolidation of the institutional regime for contami-
nated sites, and gambling on the remediation objectives, methods and funding of the bon-
fol site 2001–2008. In the politics of contaminated sites management. Springer International
Publishing, pp 127–146
Eapen S, D’Souza SF (2005) Prospects of genetic engineering of plants for phytoremediation of
toxic metals. Biotechnol Adv 23:97–114
Eapen S, Singh S, D’Souza SF (2007) Advances in development of transgenic plants for remedia-
tion of xenobiotic pollutants. Biotechnol Adv 25:442–451
Ellingsen DG, Møller LB, Aaseth J (2015) Copper. In: Handbook on the toxicology of metals, 4th
edn. Elsvier/Academic Press, Amsterdam, pp 765–786
Escarré J, Lefèbvre C, Raboyeau S, Dossantos A, Gruber W, Cleyet Marel JC, Frérot H, Noret N,
Mahieu S, Collin C, van Oort F (2011) Heavy metal concentration survey in soils and plants of
the Les Malines mining district (Southern France): implications for soil restoration. Water Air
Soil Pollut 216:485–504
Falciglia PP, Vagliasindi FGA (2015) Remediation of hydrocarbon polluted soils using 2.45 GHz
frequency-heating: influence of operating power and soil texture on soil temperature profiles
and contaminant removal kinetics. J Geochem Explor 151:66–73
Fowler BA, Sullivan D, Sexton MJ (2015) Bismuth. In: Handbook on the toxicology of metals, 4th
edn. Academic, San Diego, pp 655–666
Fox RD (1996) Critical review: physical/chemical treatment of organically contaminated soils and
sediments. J Air Waste Manag 46:391–431
Gautam M, Agrawal M (2017) Phytoremediation of metals using vetiver (Chrysopogon zizanioi-
des (L.) Roberty) grown under different levels of red mud in sludge amended soil. J Geochem
Explor 182:218–227
Gidarakos E, Petrantonaki M, Anastasiadou K, Schramm KW (2009) Characterization and
hazard evaluation of bottom ash produced from incinerated hospital waste. J Hazard Mater
172(2–3):935–942
Glick BR (2003) Phytoremediation: synergistic use of plants and bacteria to clean up the environ-
ment. Biotechnol Adv 21(5):383–393
Glick BR (2010) Using soil bacteria to facilitate phytoremediation. Biotechnol Adv 28(3):367–374
Gomes HI, Dias-Ferreira C, Ribeiro AB (2013) Overview of in situ and ex situ remediation tech-
nologies for PCB-contaminated soils and sediments and obstacles for full-scale application.
Sci Total Environ 445:237–260
Gupta M, Gupta S (2017) An overview of selenium uptake, metabolism, and toxicity in plants.
Front Plant Sci 7:2074
GWRTAC (1997) Remediation of metals-contaminated soils and groundwater. Tech Rep TE-976-
01, Pittsburgh
Hassanein RA, Hashem HA, El-Deep MH, Shouman A (2013) Soil contamination with heavy met-
als and its effect on growth, yield and physiological responses of vegetable crop plants (turnip
and lettuce). J Stress Physiol Biochem 9:145–162
Henry JM, Cring FD (2013) Geophagy: an anthropological perspective. In: Brevik EC, Burgess
LC (eds) Soils and human health. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 179–198
Holler JS, Fowler BA, Nordberg GF (2015) Silver. In: Handbook on the toxicology of metals, 4th
edn. Elsevier/Academic Press, Amsterdam, pp 1209–1216
Hussain A, Abbas N, Arshad F, Akram M, Khan ZI, Ahmad K, Mansha M, Mirzaei F (2013)
Effects of diverse doses of lead (Pb) on different growth attributes of Zea mays L. Agric Sci
4(5):262–265
Igwe JC, Nnorom IC, Gbaruko BC (2005) Kinetics of radionuclides and heavy metals behavior in
soils: implications for plant growth. Afr J Biotechnol 4(13):1541–1547
Jayakumar K, Jaleel CA, Vijayarengan P (2007) Changes in growth, biochemical constituents,

and antioxidant potentials in radish (Raphanus sativus L.) under cobalt stress. Turk J Boil
31(3):127–136
Jayakumar K, Jaleel CA, Azooz MM (2008) Phytochemical changes in green gram (Vigna radiata)
under cobalt stress. Glob J Mol Sci 3(2):46–49
Jayakumar K, Rajesh M, Baskaran L, Vijayarengan P (2013) Changes in nutritional metabolism of
tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) plants exposed to increasing concentration of cobalt
chloride. Int J Food Nut Saf 4(2):62–69
Jiang W, Liu D, Hou W (2001) Hyperaccumulation of cadmium by roots, bulbs and shoots of
garlic. Bioresour Technol 76(1):9–13
Jiang X, Xiong Z, Liu H, Liu G, Liu W (2017) Distribution, source identification, and ecological
risk assessment of heavy metals in wetland soils of a river-reservoir system. Environ Sci Pollut
Res 24:436–444
Kabir M, Iqbal MZ, Shafiq M (2009) Effects of lead on seedling growth of Thespesia populnea
L. Adv Environ Biol 3(2):184–190
Kang MY, Cho SH, Lim YH, Seo JC, Hong YC (2013) Effects of environmental cadmium expo-
sure on liver function in adults. Occup Environ Med 70:268–273
Kapusta P, Sobczyk Ł (2015) Effects of heavy metal pollution from mining and smelting on enchy-
traeid communities under different land management and soil conditions. Sci Total Environ
536:517–526
Karishnamurti GSR, Naidu R (2003) Solid-solution equilibria of cadmium in soils. Geoderma
113:17–30
Khalid BY, Tinsley J (1980) Some effects of nickel toxicity on rye grass. Plant Soil 55(1):139–144
Khan MS, Zaidi A, Wani PA, Oves M (2009) Role of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria in the
remediation of metal contaminated soils. Environ Chem Lett 7:1–19
Kibra MG (2008) Effects of mercury on some growth parameters of rice (Oryza sativa L.). Soil &
Environ 27:23–28
Kirpichtchikova T, Manceau A, Lanson B, Sarret G, Marcus MA, Jacquet T (2003) Speciation
and mobility of heavy metals (Zn, Cu, Pb) in soil contaminated by sewage irrigation. J Phys
107:695–698
Kjær C, Elmegaard N (1996) Effects of copper sulfate on black bindweed (Polygonum convolvulus
L.). Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 33(2):110–117
Klein C, Costa M (2015) Nickel. In: Handbook on the toxicology of metals, 4th edn. Elsevier,
Amsterdam, pp 1091–1111
Kong Z, Glick BR (2017) The role of plant growth-promoting bacteria in metal phytoremediation.
In Adv Micro Physiol 71:97–132
Koubová K, Tlustoš P, Břendová K, Száková J, Najmanová J (2016) Lead accumulation ability of
selected plants of noccaea spp. Soil Sediment Contam Int J 25(8):882–890
Koul B (2014) Expression of insecticidal toxin coded by modified full-length and truncated
Bt-cry1Ac genes in transgenic tomato for assessment of their stability and efficacy against
target insects. PhD thesis, Banasthali Vidyapith, Rajasthan, India
Kumar V, Chopra AK (2017) Phytoremediation potential of water caltrop (Trapa natans L.) using
municipal wastewater of the activated sludge process-based municipal wastewater treatment
plant. Environ Technol 22:1–12
Kuppusamy S, Thavamani P, Megharaj M, Venkateswarlu K, Lee YB, Naidu R (2016)
Pyrosequencing analysis of bacterial diversity in soils contaminated long term with PAHs and
heavy metals: implications to bioremediation. J Hazard Mater 317:169–179
Langård S, Costa M (2015) Chromium. In: Handbook on the toxicology of metals, 4th edn.
Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 717–742
Li Z, Ma Z, van der Kuijp TJ, Yuan Z, Huang L (2014) A review of soil heavy metal pollution from
mines in China: pollution and health risk assessment. Sci Environ 468:843–853
Lin YC, Kao CH (2005) Nickel toxicity of rice seedlings: cell wall peroxidase, lignin, and NiSO4-
inhibited root growth. Crop Environ Bioinf 2:131–136
References 35
Ling W, Shen Q, Gao Y, Gu X, Yang Z (2007) Use of bentonite to control the release of copper
from contaminated soils. Aus J Soil Res 45(8):618–623
Lison D (2015) Cobalt. In: Handbook on the toxicology of metals, 4th edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam,
pp 743–763
Lucchini RG, Aschner M, Kim Y, Šarić M (2015) Manganeese. In: Handbook on the toxicology of
metals, 4th edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 975–1011
Luo L, Gu JD (2016) Alteration of extracellular enzyme activity and microbial abundance by
biochar addition: Implication for carbon sequestration in subtropical mangrove sediment.
J Environ Manag 182:29–36
Ma Y, Oliviera RS, Nai F, Rajkumar M, Luo Y, Rocha I, Freitas H (2015) The hyperaccumulator
Sedum plumbizincicola harbors metal-resistant endophytic bacteria that improve its phytoex-
traction capacity in multi-metal contaminated soil. J Environ Manag 156:62–69
Macek T, Mackova M, Kas J (2000) Exploitation of plants for the removal of organics in environ-
mental remediation. Biotechnol Adv 18:23–34
Manivasagaperumal R, Balamurugan S, Thiyagarajan G, Sekar J (2011) Effect of zinc on germina-
tion, seedling growth and biochemical content of cluster bean (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba (L.)
Taub). Curr Bot 2(5):11–15
Marchand C (2017) Phytoremediation of soil contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons and trace
elements. PhD dissertation, Linnaeus University, Sweden
Marin AR, Pezeshki SR, Masscheleyn PH, Choi HS (1993) Effect of dimethylarsinic acid (DMAA)
on growth, tissue arsenic and photosynthesis of rice plants. J Plant Nutr 16(5):865–880
Maslin P, Maier RM (2000) Rhamnolipid-enhanced mineralization of phenanthrene in organic-
metal co-contaminated soils. Biorem J 4(4):295–308
McLaughlin MJ, Zarcinas BA, Stevens DP, Cook N (2000a) Soil testing for heavy metals. Commun
Soil Sci Plant Anal 31(11–14):1661–1700
McLaughlin MJ, Hamon RE, McLaren RG, Speir TW, Rogers SL (2000b) Review: a bioavailability-
based rationale for controlling metal and metalloid contamination of agricultural land in
Australia and New Zealand. Aust J Soil Res 38(6):1037–1086
Mesa V, Navazas A, González-Gil R, González A, Weyens N, Lauga B, Peláez AI (2017) Use
of endophytic and rhizosphere bacteria to improve phytoremediation of arsenic-contaminated
industrial soils by autochthonous Betula celtiberica. Appl Environ Microbiol 83(8):11–16
MingHo Y (2005) Environmental toxicology: biological and health effects of pollutants, 2nd edn.
CRC Press, BocaRaton
Moqsud MA, Omine K (2013) Bioremediation of agricultural land damaged by tsunami. In:
Rolando Chamy, Francisca Rosenkranz (ed) Biodegradation of hazardous and special products.
InTech https://doi.org/10.5772/56595
Moral R, Navarro Pedreno J, Gomez I, Mataix J (1995) Effects of chromium on the nutrient ele-
ment content and morphology of tomato. J Plant Nutr 18(4):815–822
Moustakas M, Lanaras T, Symeonidis L, Karataglis S (1994) Growth and some photosynthetic
characteristics of field grown Avena sativa under copper and lead stress. Photosynthetica
30(3):389–396
Nagajyoti PC, Lee KD, Sreekanth TVM (2010) Heavy metals, occurrence and toxicity for plants:
a review. Environ Chem Lett 8(3):199–216
Nath K, Saini S, Sharma YK (2005) Chromium in tannery industry effluent and its effect on plant
metabolism and growth. J Environ Biol 26:197–204
Navarro S, Vela N, Navarro G (2007) Review. An overview on the environmental behaviour of
pesticide residues in soils. Span J Agric Res 5(3):357–375
Nematshahi N, Lahouti M, Ganjeali A (2012) Accumulation of chromium and its effect on growth
of Allium cepa cv. hybrid. Euro J Exp Bio 2(4):969–974
Ou-Yang X, Chen JW, Zhang XG (2010) Advance in supercritical CO2 fluid extraction of contami-
nants from soil. Geol B China 29(11):1655–1661
Panda SK, Patra HK (2000) Nitrate and ammonium ions effect on the chromium toxicity in devel-
oping wheat seedlings. Proc Natl Acad Sci 70:75–80
Pandolfini T, Gabbrielli R, Comparini C (1992) Nickel toxicity and peroxidase activity in seedlings
of Triticum aestivum L. Plant Cell Environ 15(6):719–725
Paoli L, Fiorini E, Munzi S, Sorbo S, Basile A, Loppi S (2013) Antimony toxicity in the lichen
Xanthoria parietina (L.) Th. Fr. Chemosphere 93(10):2269–2275
Pavel LV, Gavrilescu M (2008) Overview of ex situ decontamination techniques for soil cleanup.
Environ Eng Manag J 7(6):815–834
Ponka P, Tenenbein M, Eaton JW (2015) Iron. In: Handbook on the toxicology of metals, 4th edn.
Rani A, Souche Y, Goel R (2013) Comparative in situ remediation potential of Pseudomonas
putida 710A and Commamonas aquatica 710B using plant (Vigna radiata (L.) wilczek) assay.
Ann Microbiol 63(3):923–928
Rascio N, Navari-Izzo F (2011) Heavy metal hyperaccumulating plants: how and why do they do
it? And what makes them so interesting? Plant Sci 180(2):169–181
Reeves RD (2006) Hyperaccumulation of trace elements by plants. In: Phytoremediation of metal-
contaminated soils. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 25–52
Rounsevell MDA, Loveland PJ (1992) An overview of hydrologically controlled soil responses to
climate change in temperate regions. Seesoil 8:69–78
Ryszka P, Turnau K (2007) Arbuscular mycorrhiza of introduced and native grasses colonizing
zinc wastes: implications for restoration practices. Plant Soil 298:219–229
Sachan S, Singh SK, Srivastava PC (2007) Buildup of heavy metals in soil water plant continuum
as influenced by irrigation with contaminated effluent. J Environ Sci Eng 49:293–296
Sandstead HH (2015) Zinc. In: Handbook on the toxicology of metals, 4th edn. Elsevier,
Amsterdam, pp 1369–1385
Semple KT, Morriss AWJ, Paton GI (2003) Bioavailability of hydrophobic organic contaminants
in soils: fundamental concepts and techniques for analysis. Eur J Soil Sci 54:809–818
Sharma DC, Sharma CP (1993) Chromium uptake and its effects on growth and biological yield of
wheat. Cereal Res Commun 21(4):317–322
Shaylor H, McBride M, Harrison E (2009) Sources and impacts of contaminants in soil. Cornell
Waste Management Institute
Shekar CHC, Sammaiah D, Shasthree T, Reddy KJ (2011) Effect of mercury on tomato growth and
yield attributes. Int J Pharma Biosci 2(2):358–364
Sheldon AR, Menzies NW (2005) The effect of copper toxicity on the growth and root morphol-
ogy of Rhodes grass (Chloris gayana Knuth.) in resin buffered solution culture. Plant Soil
278(1–2):341–349
Shenker M, Plessner OE, Tel-Or E (2004) Manganese nutrition effects on tomato growth, chloro-
phyll concentration, and superoxide dismutase activity. J Plant Physiol 161(2):197–202
Sheoran IS, Singal HR, Singh R (1990) Effect of cadmium and nickel on photosynthesis and the
enzymes of the photosynthetic carbon reduction cycle in pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan L.). Photo
Res 23(3):345–351
Singh RP, Singh P, Arouja ASF, Ibrahim MH, Sulaiman O (2011) Management of urban solid
waste: vermicomposting a sustainable option. Resourc Conser Recycl 55:719–729
Skerfving S, Bergdahl IA (2015) Manganeese. In: Handbook on the toxicology of metals, 4th edn.
Smith LA, Means JL, Chen A (1995) Remedial options for metals-contaminated sites. Lewis
Publishers, Boca Raton
Stenuit B, Eyers L, Schuler L, Agathos SN, George I (2008) Emerging high-throughput approaches
to analyze bioremediation of sites contaminated with hazardous and/or recalcitrant wastes.
Biotechnol Adv 26(6):561–575
Stockamp NW, Thompson GR (2016) Coccidioidomycosis. Infect Dis Clin N Am 30:229–246
Tylenda CA, Sullivan DW Jr, Fowler BA (2015) Antimony. In: Handbook on the toxicology of
metals, 4th edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 565–579
Van der Ent A, Baker AJ, Reeves RD, Pollard AJ, Schat H (2013) Hyperaccumulators of metal and
metalloid trace elements: facts and fiction. Plant Soil 362(1–2):319–334
References 37
Van der Perk M (2006) Soil and water contamination. Taylor & Francis, London
Veetil DP, Mercier G, Blais JF, Chartier M, Tran LH, Taillard V (2014) Remediation of contami-
nated dredged sediments using physical separation techniques. Soil Sediment Contam Int
J 23(8):932–953
Verbruggen N, Hermans C, Schat H (2009) Molecular mechanisms of metal hyperaccumulation in
plants. New Phytol 181(4):759–776
Vieira da Silva FB, Araujo do Nascimento CW, Muniz Araujo PR, Vieira da Silva LH, da Silva RF
(2016) Assessing heavy metal sources in sugarcane Brazilian soils: an approach using multi-
variate analysis. Environ Monit Assess 188(8):457
Wang M, Zou J, Duan X, Jiang W, Liu D (2007) Cadmium accumulation and its effects on metal
uptake in maize (Zea mays L.). Bioresour Technol 98(1):82–88
Wang P, Menzies NW, Lombi E, Sekine R, Blamey FPC, Hernandez-Soriano MC, Kopittke PM
(2015) Silver sulfide nanoparticles (Ag2S-NPs) are taken up by plants and are phytotoxic.
Nanotoxicology 9(8):1041–1049
Wei B, Yang LA (2010) review of heavy metal contaminations in urban soils, urban road dusts and
agricultural soils from China. Microchem J 94:99–107
WHO (2011) Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and dibenzofurans, in Air Quality Guidelines
for Europe 2000, European Series no. 91, chapter 5.11 WHO Regional Office for Europe,
Copenhagen, Denmark
WHO (2018) Health care wastes. In: Avenue Appia 20 1202 Geneva
Wild A (1993) Soils and the environment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Wuana RA, Okieimen FE (2011) Heavy metals in contaminated soils: a review of sources, chem-
istry, risks and best available strategies for remediation. ISRN Ecol 2011:1–20
Xu F, Liu X, Chen Y, Zhang K, Xu H (2016) Self-assembly modified-mushroom nano composite
for rapid removal of hexavalent chromium from aqueous solution with bubbling fluidized bed.
Sci Rep 6:26201
Yao Z, Li J, Xie H, Yu C (2012) Review on remediation technologies of soil contaminated by heavy
metals. Procedia Environ Sci 16:722–729
Yourtchi MS, Bayat HR (2013) Effect of cadmium toxicity on growth, cadmium accumulation
and macronutrient content of durum wheat (Dena CV.). Int J Agri Crop Sci 6(15):1099–1103
Zhang S, Qiu CB, Zhou Y, Jin ZP, Yang H (2010) Bioaccumulation and degradation of pesti-
cide fluroxypyr are associated with toxic tolerance in green alga Chlamydomonas reinhardtii.
Ecotoxicology 20:337–347
Zuverza-Mena N, Armendariz R, Peralta-Videa JR, Gardea-Torresdey JL (2016) Effects of sil-
ver nanoparticles on radish sprouts: root growth reduction and modifications in the nutritional
value. Front Plant Sci 7:90–97
Chapter 2
Ex situ Soil Remediation Strategies
Abstract Ex situ techniques involves the treatment of contaminated soil, away

from the polluted site. Ex situ bioremediation can be operated in two ways which
include solid phase bioremediation and slurry phase bioremediation. Besides its
high cost, these techniques are highly efficient, easy to control, faster and have great
potential to treat large number of contaminants from the soil. Ex situ techniques
involve land farming, biopile, windrow, soil washing, composting, bioreactor, ion
exchange, adsorption/absorption, pyrolysis and ultrasound technology. These tech-
niques can be successfully applied for the treatment of fuel hydrocarbons, haloge-
nated and non-halogenated organic compounds as well as for various pesticides.
Keywords Ex situ · Composting · Bioreactor · Land farming · Pyrolysis
2.1 Introduction
These techniques involve the treatment of polluted soils away from the polluted
area. The success of ex situ bioremediation techniques depends on the (a) cost
incurred, (b) depth of the pollutant, (c) type of the pollutant, (d) geographical loca-
tion of the pollutant, (e) degree of pollution and (f) the choice of ex situ technique
used (Philp and Atlas 2005). The ex situ strategies can be grouped under solid-phase
bioremediation (land farming, soil biopile, windrow, windrow-composting) and
slurry-phase bioremediation (bioreactors). Figure 2.1 provides a general summary
of the ex situ and in situ remediation techniques. Although, solid-phase bioremedia-
tion is easy to maintain, but it requires much space and the process of decontamina-
tion is less time-effective than slurry-phase bioremediation. The ex situ remediation
treatments are faster, manageable and can successfully remediate several inorganic
and organic pollutants (Prokop et al. 2000). Following are the types of ex situ
strategies:

40 2 Ex situ Soil Remediation Strategies
Fig. 2.1 Ex situ and in situ remediation strategies for treatment of polluted soil
2.2 Land Farming
It is one of the simplest bioremediation techniques as it requires less capital and

expertise. It may be practiced both in situ and ex situ depending upon the depth of
the polluted zone. If the excavated polluted soils are treated on-site then the treat-
ment is said to be in situ and vice-versa. In other words, it can be said that when a
pollutant lies less than 1 m below the soil surface, bioremediation may not require
excavation. On the contrary, if the pollutant lies more than 1.7 m below the surface,
then it is brought to the surface for effective soil remediation mediated by autoch-
thonous microorganisms (Nikolopoulou et al. 2013; Volpe et al. 2012; Silva-Castro
et al. 2015). In land farming optimal aeration, nutrients and irrigation enhance the
activity of microorganisms which further enhances the process of bioremediation. It
is usually used for the remediation of PAHs (Silva-Castro et al. 2012; Cerqueira
et al. 2014). Being a simple technique, it can be implemented to remediate large
amount of contaminated soils with less energy input (Maila and Colete 2004).
However, this treatment can be practiced in any location and climate, adhering to
the governmental policies (Besaltatpour et al. 2011). Although, land farming is a
feasible technique but, it is slow and not much effective in comparison to the other
ex situ bioremediation treatments.
Drawbacks of this technique include the requirement of a large processing area,
unavoidable environmental conditions hampering microbial activity, cost of excava-
tion, and inefficiency in the removal of inorganic pollutants as well as toxic volatiles
(Maila and Colete 2004).
2.3 Biopile
As the name indicates, this method involves piling or stacking of contaminated soils
to facilitate microbial activity through cost-effective and controlled nutrient amend-
ment, aeration and irrigation practices (Fig. 2.2) (Whelan et al. 2015). Thus, the
2.4 Windrow 41
Fig. 2.2 Biopile set up for treatment of polluted soil
biopile technique can prevent volatilization of contaminants with low molecular

weight and finds application in remediation of polluted soils of very cold regions
(Dias et al. 2015; Whelan et al. 2015). The advantage of a biopile setup is that a
large amount of contaminated soil can be treated in a less area. The pretreatment
(sieving, aeration) of contaminated soils enhances the process of biopile-mediated
remediation (Delille et al. 2008). Other amendments such as straw, saw-dust, wood-
bark and wood-chips do enhance the process of biopile set-up (Rodrıguez-Rodrıguez
et al. 2010). However, the running of the biopile set-up and its maintenance add to
its cost. Moreover, the heated air that is generated tends to dry the soil which further
inhibits the microbial activity and promotes volatilization of contaminants rather
than biodegradation (Sanscartier et al. 2009).
2.4 Windrow
Windrow is another ex situ soil remediation technique which is a modification of

biopile treatment. Windrow treatment involves frequent whirling of piled polluted
soils to enhance the bioremediation process (Fig. 2.3). This periodic turning of pol-
luted soils along with irrigation enhances aeration, microbe-mediated degradation,
uniform distribution of pollutants and thus, accomplishes bioremediation through
assimilation, biotransformation followed by mineralization (Barr 2002). In com-
parison to biopile technique windrow ensures higher hydrocarbon removal, the rate
of which depends on the soil type (Coulon et al. 2010). However, this technique may
not be successful if the polluted soil contains toxic volatile compounds or releases
methane (greenhouse gas) during the process (Hobson et al. 2005).
Fig. 2.3 Windrow set up

for treatment of polluted
soil
2.5 Composting
Composting is a technique which is used to degrade and convert the organic pollut-
ants and has been practiced for remediation of organic toxicants, for the last
3–5 years (Lukić et al. 2017) (Fig. 2.4). The investigated pollutants include mono-
aromatics (toluene and benzene), pesticides [2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-
D) and diazinon], petroleum hydrocarbons, explosives [2,4,6-trinitrotoluene
(TNT)], polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) [phenanthrene, anthracene,
benzanthracene, benzopyrene] and chlorophenols [pentachlorophenol (PCP)].
Bastida et al. (2016), considered in a model experiment the effects of petroleum
contamination and bioremediation potential of manure, as an enhancer of microbial
mobility in semiarid soils. The addition of compost in polluted soil enhanced the
removal of PAHs and alkanes (88%) after 88 days, in a goldmine site, in Iperindo,
Osun State and three industrial locations of Ogun State (Taiwo et al. 2016). A higher
degradation percentage of total hydrocarbons (~82%), polycyclic aromatic hydro-
carbons (~93%), and n-alkanes (~ 96%) was observed on treating with 75% of
organic wastes (Paladino et al. 2016). Compost technology, in association with bio-
stimulation and bioaugmentation has been successfully used for the treatment of
polluted sludges and soils. High microbial concentration, lower hydrocarbons and
salt concentration, proper nutrients and water supply can successfully enhance the
biological activity, and ultimately enhance the biodegradation rate (~75%) of
organic wastes. This technique has also been used in combination with land farming
or windrows which are more promising for efficient and economical removal of
contaminants from soil (Lukić et al. 2017).
2.6 Soil Washing 43
Fig. 2.4 Soil composting for treatment of polluted soil
2.6 Soil Washing
Soil washing is a simple technique to remove the contaminants that adhere to the
surface of the soil particles, in an aqueous-based system (Fig. 2.5). They are then
extracted from polluted soils by dissolving or suspending the polluted soil in wash-
ing solution. These contaminants (organic and inorganic) then bind to silt, clay and
organic soil particles, chemically or physically. Most of the clay and silt adhere to
the larger particles like gravel and sand. The washing treatments break adhesive
bonds between larger and smaller particles and thus separate them. Thus, concen-
trating the contaminants into small volume on the basis of gravity separation, attri-
tion scrubbing and particle size separation makes their disposal more feasible.
Soil washing has been successfully used for remediation of soils that were con-
taminated with heavy metals, selected VOCs, SVOCs, fuels, explosives, and pesti-
cides (Mann 1999). Compared to US the technique of soil washing has been
deployed extensively in Europe. Although, soil washing is a cost-effective versatile
and well-established technique but, performs well on coarse-particle and sandy
soils having little or no organic matter. Moreover, the complex mixtures of pollut-
ants may require several washings.
Different types of additives like surfactants, acids and chelating agents are mixed
with the soil so as to solubilize the contaminants present in it. Most commonly,
those surfactants are added which have both hydrophilic and hydrophobic proper-
ties. This amphoteric nature of surfactants enhances the solubility of hydrophobic
and hydrophilic organic contaminants (Mao et al. 2015). Different categories of
surfactants such as anionic, cationic, non-ionic and zwitter-ionic have been success-
fully used for remediation of polluted soils (Fountain et al. 1996). Table 2.1 shows
various ionic and non-ionic surfactants used for the remediation of soil contami-
nated with organic and inorganic pollutants. The addition of surfactants leads to
various types of interactions: hydrophilic groups enters into the aqueous phase
while the lipophilic groups combine with hydrophobic pollutant molecules present
Fig. 2.5 Soil washing set up for treatment of polluted soils
in the soil. These dissolved pollutants have better mobility and can be removed or
extracted from the soil (Kim et al. 2011).
Heavy metal particles can be successfully removed from the soil via complex
formation (Ochoa-Loza et al. 2001) with surfactant molecules and via ionic
exchange (Swarnkar et al. 2012). In a study, nonionic surfactant (Ammonyx KP),
cationic surfactant (DPC) and ionic biosurfactant (JBR-425) were analysed for their
metal removal efficiency. It was observed that among them JBR-425 was effective
for the removal of 56% Cu, 39% Zn, 68% Pb and 43% Cd from contaminated soil
(Slizovskiy et al. 2011). Various radionuclides such as Cs137 (caesium), Sr90
(strontium) and U238 (uranium) can also be removed from the contaminated soil
via complex formation, dissolution and ion exchange methods (Gadelle et al. 2001;
Willms et al. 2004). Hexadecyl trimethyl ammonium, a cationic surfactant has been
successfully used for the treatment of Cs+contaminated soils (Evans 2003).
Biosurfactants are the important surface active biological compounds which are
produced in living organisms (Paria 2008). Biosurfactants can be ionic or anionic in
nature and the most commonly used biosurfactants are lipo-peptide (polymyxin,
surfactin), humic substances and glycolipid (fructose lipids, rhamnolipids, sophoro-
lipids) (Salati et al. 2011). The hydrophobic parts of biosurfactants are made from
aliphatic hydrocarbons while the hydrophilic parts are made from phosphates,
cyclic peptides, polysaccharides, carbohydrates and amino acids (Mulligan 2005;
Rahman and Gakpe 2008; Pacwa-Plociniczak et al. 2011).
Moreover there are various factors which should be taken into consideration for
the successful implementation of surfactant enhanced remediation such as solubil-
Table 2.1 Application of various ionic and non-ionic surfactants for the remediation of soil contaminated with organic and inorganic pollutants
Soil source/
Surfactant Contaminated sites Major contaminants Results References
Ionic
Dowfax, sodium dihexyl Alameda Point Naval DNAPL, especially TCA and TCE 95% DNAPL (dense non-aqueous Strbak (2000)
2.6 Soil Washing
Sulfosuccinate, NaCl and CaCl2 Air Station Site, phase liquid) removal and 93%
Alameda, CA surfactant recovery
4 wt% Isalchem 123 (PO)7.7 sodium Millican Field, Pearl Petroleum, LNAPLs 87.5% of the LNAPL (light non-
ether sulfate with 8% SBA Harbor, Hawaii aqueous phase liquid) in soil was
(Secondary butyl alcohol) cosolvent recovered
AOT/Calfax 16 L-35 Underground storage Diesel fuel, and gasoline fuel 75–99% benzene reduction, 65–99% Shiau et al.
tank site in Oklahoma NAPL TPH (Total petroleum hydrocarbon) (2003)
reduction
Mixture of Alfoterra 123–4-PO Chevron Cincinnati BTEX (benzene, toluene, LNAPL reduced from 8% to less than USEPA
sulfate, 8% 2-butanol, Emcol-CC-9 Facility in Hooven ethylbenzene and xylene), LNAPLs 1% residual saturation (2005)
and calcium chloride
50 ml HTAB (Hexadecyl trimethyl Nankai University, Aldicarb (carbamate pesticide) 56% desorption ratio of aldicarb Xu et al.
ammonium bromide) Tianjin, China (2006)
1.5% (w/w) CTAB (Cetyl Clay soil from Benzene series, naphthalene and Organic pollutants were removed by Ranjan et al.
trimethylammonium bromide) Meachitoba Province, phenanthrene 98.9% (2006)
Canada
10−2 M SDS (Sodium dodecyl Agricultural soil from Cd(II) After 18 days 94% removal efficiency Giannis et al.
sulfate) Crete island, Greece of Cd (2007)
10 wt% NaCl +4 wt% SDS Organic contaminated 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene (TCB) 97% removal efficiency for TCB Lee et al.
soil in Pyeongtaek, (trichlorobenzene) (2008)
Korea
(continued)
45
46
Soil source/
8 mM SDS Fuel oil contaminated Diesel 97% removal efficiency for diesel Khalladia
soil near Algiers, et al. (2009)
Algeria
Spolapon AOS 146 solution An incinerator plant in PCBs 56% efficacy for PCBs Svab et al.
Czech Republic (polychlorinated biphenyls) (2009)
decontamination
20 ml 0.5% Texapon-40 Heavy metals Heavy metals like Cd, Zn, Cu, Ni Cd, Ni and Zn were removed by Torres et al.
contaminated soil from 83.2%, 82.8% and 86.6% respectively 2012)
a metallurgy plant,
Mexico
Non-ionic
0.5% Canarcel Tween 80 An out-of-service oil Polluted by gasoline and diesel, Average TPH removal was 87.1% Iturbe et al.
distribution and storage like MTBE (Methyl tert-butyl (2004)
station, Mexico ether) benzene, toluene, BTEX
Tergitol NP-10 Heverlee bos’ after Diesel Diesel oil was removed by 50% Vreysen and
2
removal of the surface Maes (2005)

litter, Belgium
2% sorbitan monooleate Soil from a pilot-scale Diesel, coal oil and lubricating oil 88% of total petroleum hydrocarbon in Lee et al.
site in Pusan, Korea soil was removed (2005)
6% Tween 80 Bachman Road site in Tetrachloroethylene Washing out 19 L tetrachloroethylene Ramsburg
Oscoda, northeast et al. 2005
Michigan, US
25 ml 0.05 M Brij-35 Soil prepared in the Hydrophobic aromatic compounds 43%–69% removal efficiency Fabbri et al.
laboratory (2008)
Ex situ Soil Remediation Strategies
Soil source/
A combination of 0.213 M MGDA An old wood PAH (Polycyclic aromatic Concentrations of As and PAH were Elgh-Dalgren
(methylglycinediacetic acid) preservation site in hydrocarbons) and As reduced from 105 ± 4 and et al. (2009)
Elnaryd, south east 27 ± 0.7 mg/kg to 25 and 10 mg/kg
Sweden after washing, respectively
Tween 80 Loamy sand in Madrid, P-cresol >70% extraction efficiency Rosas et al.
Spain (2011)
2.6 Soil Washing
20 ml 0.5% Tween 80 Heavy metals Cd, Zn, Cu, Ni, Pb and other heavy Removal efficiency was 85.9% Cd, Torres et al.
contaminated soil from metals 85.4% Zn and 81.5% Cu (2012)
a metallurgy plant,
Mexico
0.15% (v/v) Empilan KR6 and Crude oil contaminated Petroleum hydrocarbon TPH removal increased from 15% to Couto et al.
1.6 mg/kg bioaugmentation soil in refinery 28% (2012)
commercial product MicroSolv-400
47
ity of surfactants towards targeted pollutants, adsorption of surfactants in soil and

biodegradability/toxicity of the surfactants (Mao et al. 2015). Biological and physi-
cochemical characteristics such as hydraulic conductivity (Renshaw et al. 1997) of
soil may get altered due various types of surface reactions between surfactant mol-
ecules and soil particles (Jia et al. 2005). Toxic or non-biodegradable surfactants
pose hazardous effects on soil ecosystem. Certain anionic surfactants have the abil-
ity to bind with biological molecules such as DNA, enzymes, peptides etc. and can
change the biological functioning of organisms (Cserhati et al. 2002). While, the
cationic and nonionic surfactants can affect the bacterial cell membrane (Evankovic
and Hrenović 2010) and exhibit anti-microbial activity (Santonicola et al. 2008).
2.7 Bioreactor
Bioreactors have now become one of the best ex situ strategies for treatment of pol-
luted soils containing recalcitrant pollutants, under controlled/automated environ-
mental conditions (Robles-González et al. 2008; Das and Chandran 2011). They are
often used to treat the polluted soils in slurry or solid phases. Use of bioreactor for
soil remediation has various advantages over other ex situ bioremediation treat-
ments. Total control over the bioreactor parameters such as substrate and inoculum
concentrations, pH, temperature, agitation and aeration rates are the major benefits
of bioreactor-based bioremediation (Uddin et al. 2017). Bioreactors have been
reported to successfully remediate the soils contaminated with volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) such as toluene, benzene, xylenes and ethylbenzene. They are
often used to determine the actual potential and feasibility of biological techniques
in the remediation of soil and water (Ioannou-Ttofa et al. 2017). In slurry-based
system the reduction rate of pollutant depends mostly on the degradation rate of
microbes accessible in the system and the outcome represents the remediation
potential of microbes (Robles-González et al. 2008). Su et al. (2012), evaluated the
bioremediation of river sediments polluted with 9% phenanthrene. Under optimal
conditions, 22–63% phenanthrene was removed within 30 days of treatment with
dehydrogenase and polyphenol oxidase enzymes. Wick et al. (2011), reported the
remediation potential of pristine sediment contaminated with anthracene, fluoran-
thene, phenanthrene, and pyrene. Rahman et al. (2017), characterized the microbial
population in the thiocyanate degrading bioreactor that includes solid particulate
tailings of mine water. Many organisms have containing genes for denitrification
and sulfur oxidation have been isolated, but only Thiobacillus sp. has thiocyanate
degradation genes. Nguyen et al. (2017), used biofilm reactor systems to evaluate
the Pb removal capacity of an indigenous association of five sulfate-reducing bacte-
ria (SRB): Desulfomicrobium salsugmis, D. autotrophicum, D. escambiense,
Desulfovibrio carbinolicus and D. vulgaris. It has been reported that under con-
trolled bioreactor conditions, microbial consortium effectively degraded the marine
fuel (MF-380) and the effect of variables such as pH, temperature and C: N ratio
was also analyzed (de Almeida et al. 2017). Bioreactors hold a promising potential
2.9 Ion Exchange 49
to degrade royal demolition explosive (RDX), trinitrotoluene (TNT), chlorobenzene

and dichloro-benzene and other organic contaminants of industrial areas including
leaking storage tanks. Genetically modified microorganisms can be deployed for
enhancing the process of bioreactor-based bioremediation (bioaugmentation) and
before transporting the treated soil to the field the organisms can be destroyed, so as
to prevent horizontal gene transfer of the foreign gene. However, there are certain
constraints which hinder the performance of bioreactors which include high con-
centration of toxic pollutants, low temperature, some problematic microbes and dis-
posal of discharged effluents.
2.8 Absorption/Adsorption
Different types of absorbents and adsorbents have been frequently used for reme-
diation of contaminated soils. Rate of adsorption or absorption of contaminants can
be enhanced by using certain surfactants (inorganic). These surfactants start such
kind of reactions (surface tension diminishment, solvency upgrade, micellar solubi-
lization, wettability and frothing limit) which assist the extraction of pollutants
(Mulligan et al. 2001). Combined use of surfactants (ionic, cationic and non-ionic)
and other complexing agents (diphenylthiocarbazone and EDTA) have been tested
for removal of Pb, Cd, Zn from soils polluted with heavy metals (Doong et al. 1998).
Zhang et al. 2007, effectively expelled Pb from polluted soil by washing it with
EDTA after SDS treatment. Commercially activated carbon has also been widely
used for adsorption of Sb and Ar from contaminated soils (Rajaković 1992; Lorenzen
et al. 1995; Navarro and Alguacil 2002).
2.9 Ion Exchange
Ion-exchange is a technique which involves exchange of anions and cations between

the media and contaminants. The materials which are generally used for ion-
exchange are resins (natural polymers) with functional groups attached over it
(FRTR 2012). When liquids are passed over these resins, cations and anions of
resins and pollutants are exchanged with each other. This method can successfully
extract the nitrates, silicates, dissolved metals, ammonia and radionuclides from
aqueous medium (Vilensky et al. 2002; Rengaraj et al. 2003). Ion exchange resins
are environmentally compatible and highly reliable as they are insoluble and can be
used for long time in majority of the cases. This technique has been used from late
1990s in the industries and is now available commercially (Harmer and Sun 2001;
Mergen et al. 2008). The potential of resin membrane increased with electrokinetic
soil was studied for metal removal and it has been observed that ~96% of Pb and Cd
were removed by this method, within 4 days (Kim et al. 2005). A study was con-
ducted at Thala valley tip, Antarctica and it was observed that the resins chelating
with iminodiacetic acid can help to reduce about 92–100% of heavy metals within
a year (Woodberry et al. 2007). The limitation of this technique is that oil, grease,
and other organic and inorganic compounds which are present in the treated media
can block or damage the resin (Beril Gonder et al. 2006). Waste water, which is
produced as an outcome of resin treatment requires additional disposal and treat-
ment which adds to the cost of this method (Pintar et al. 2001). There are some other
concerns also with respect to noise generation, treatment size, odor and the disposal
of used resins (Srinivasan and Sorial 2009). Most of the resin beds can be reused
while some resins can be used only once (Alexandratos 2008). Although, ion
exchange system is efficient but is not free from complications.
2.10 Pyrolysis
Pyrolysis is a promising treatment for soil remediation in which the chemical

decomposition of toxic compounds occurs by the use of high temperature (>430 °C),
high pressure and anoxic conditions (Venderbosch and Prins 2010) (Fig. 2.6). This
treatment transforms the pollutants or toxic materials into organic liquids, water,
char and fuel gas (Rofiqul Islam et al. 2008). Organic and inorganic contaminants
for e.g. PCBs, SVOCs, PAHs, paint wastes, cyanides, refinery wastes, pesticides,
wastes from processing of synthetic rubber, dioxins, mercury, soils contaminated
creosote and hydrocarbons, wastes from coal-tar and wood-treatment and radioac-
tive wastes are most commonly remediated by pyrolysis treatment (Mohan et al.
2006; Arvanitoyannis et al. 2007). The equipments used in pyrolysis consist of rota-
tory kilns, fluidized-bed furnaces and molten salt destructions. This is a reliable
technology which ensures a high flexibility in its design and operation, high
Fig. 2.6 Schematic representation of Pyrolysis process

2.11 Ultrasonic Technology 51
pollutant-cleaning efficiency, no CO2 production, effective reduction in weight and

volume of the toxic materials, low operational and maintenance cost, stable opera-
tion for organic and inorganic wastes, energy production opportunities and efficient
material recovery and feasibility of implementation in both small and large-scale
(Inguanzo et al. 2002; US EPA 2012). However, this technique is not free from limi-
tations. The increased soil moisture content adds to the cost of treatment and certain
gases such as CO, H2, CH4 that are released during the course of operation are also
a concern. Moreover, the major limitation of this technology is its feasibility in
treating organic pollutants from oily sludges and soils compared to inorganics.
A report on Cr(VI) remediation from its ore processing residue highlighted
99.1% success (Zhang et al. 2009). In a similar report, Thuan and Chang (2012)
could remove 90% pentachlorophenol (PCP) within 40 min (pyrolysis temperature
350 °C). Debela et al. (2012), analysed that mixing of heavy metal (Cd, Zn and Pb)
contaminated soil with 5–10% of sawdust followed by pyrolysis at 400 °C can effi-
ciently retard the concentrations of heavy metals. Interestingly, pyrolysis is an
excellent technique for the disposal of phytoremediation crops. In a report by Stals
et al. (2010), the Pb and Cd phytoaccumulator plants were subjected to this eco-the
friendly technique which economically yielded oil (as source of fuel) and char (as
soil amendment).
2.11 Ultrasonic Technology
This technology involved the use of high temperature up to 4726 °C, high frequency
up to 18 kHz and high localized pressures up to 50 MPa which degrades the con-
taminants because of chemical reactions (Adewuyi 2001). This technology is more
valuable as it requires less area, less energy requirements, less installation and
maintenance cost (Thangavadivel 2010). This treatment has been successfully used
for remediation of soil polluted with petroleum hydrocarbons, pesticides, chlori-
nated solvents and heavy metals. It has also been used at a large scale for industrial
uses such as audible frequency sonication of 100 Hz was used in Canada and low
frequency ultrasound were used in Australia for treating the polluted soil (Mason
et al. 2004). It has been reported that ultrasonic technology was successfully used
for the desorbing or leaching the contaminants from soils and sediments (Kazi et al.
2006; Abramov et al. 2013). In a report by Mason et al. (2004), it has been found
that low frequency ultrasound efficiently increased the rate of soil washing treat-
ment. Ultrasound technique and biomass obtained from transgenic algal species
Chlamydomonas reinhardtii has been successfully used in combination for efficient
removal of heavy metal (Hg) from polluted sediments (He et al. 2011). In a study by
Thangavadivel 2010, contaminated slurries treated with anionic detergent sodium
dodecyl sulphate i.e. SDS, supplied with low frequency and high power ultrasound
energy were used to enhance the extraction of DDT from polluted soil. Combined
action of ultrasound energy and Fenton oxidation reactions were tested for treating
the organic pollutants present in contaminated soil. It has been found that this
combination effectively removed 87% and 92% of xylene and toluene respectively
from the polluted soil, within 2 days of treatment (Flores et al. 2007; Huguenot et al.
2015). It has also been reported by Pham et al. 2009, that eletrokinetics remediation
treatment significantly enhanced the removal rate (for phenanthrene and hexachlo-
robenzene) up to ten times when used in combination with ultrasound energy.
There are also some limitations of this treatment such as, during the ultrasound
desorption treatment, repeated power cuts due to the increased frequency hinder the
rate of remediation. Finer particles take longer time for removal as compare to large
particles because more sonication time is required for small particles. No doubt,
ultrasound desorption is a promising and reliable treatment and an alternative to
solvent flushing or other conventional method but further elaboration is required for
its large-scale efficiency.
2.12 Conclusions
Major advantage of ex situ treatment over in situ treatment is that it requires less
time period to operate and the byproducts are not released in the environment until
they are converted to non-harmful products. These strategies can successfully be
applied for the treatment of polluted soils, groundwater and sludges polluted with
pesticides, petroleum hydrocarbons, and other organic and inorganic pollutants.
However, the main limitations of these treatments are the removal and transporta-
tion of contaminated soil to the treatment area which eventually leads to its high
cost. Moreover, the emission of substances during the remediation treatment may
also affect the surrounding environment. The above limiting factors should be taken
into consideration to improve the large-scale application of the aforementioned
techniques. The ex situ treatments can also be used in an integrated manner and with
other in situ and bioremediation strategies which will surely enhance the rate of
bioremediation when deployed on a pilot scale.
References
Abramov VO, Mullakaev MS, Abramova AV, Esipov IB, Mason TJ (2013) Ultrasonic technology
for enhanced oil recovery from failing oil wells and the equipment for its implementation.
Ultrason Sonochem 20:1289–1296
Adewuyi YG (2001) Sonochemistry: environmental science and engineering applications. Ind Eng
Chem Res 40:4681–4715
Alexandratos SD (2008) Ion-exchange resins: a retrospective from industrial and engineering.
Indus Eng Chem Res 48(1):388–398
Arvanitoyannis IS, Kassaveti A, Stefanatos S (2007) Current and potential uses of thermally
treated olive oil waste. Int J Food Sci Technol 42:852–867
Barr D (2002) Biological methods for assessment and remediation of contaminated land: case
studies. Construction Industry Research and Information Association, London
References 53
Bastida F, Jehmlich N, Lima K, Morris BEL, Richnow HH, Hernandez T, von Bergen M, Garcia
C (2016) The ecological and physiological responses of the microbial community from a semi-
arid soil to hydrocarbon contamination and its bioremediation using compost amendment. J
Proteome 135:162–169
Beril Gonder Z, Kaya Y, Vergili I, Barlas H (2006) Capacity loss in an organically fouled anion
exchanger. Desalination 189:303–307
Besaltatpour A, Hajabbasi M, Khoshgoftarmanesh A, Dorostkar V (2011) Landfarming process
effects on biochemical properties of petroleum-contaminated soils. Soil Sediment Cont Int
J 20:234–248
Cerqueira VS, Peralba MR, Camargo FAO, Bento FM (2014) Comparison of bioremediation strat-
egies for soil impacted with petrochemical oily sludge. Int Biodeter Biodegrad 95:338–345
Coulon F, Al Awadi M, Cowie W, Mardlin D, Pollard S, Cunningham C, Risdon G, Arthur P,
Semple KT, Paton GI (2010) When is a soil remediated? Comparison of biopile and windrowed
soils contaminated with bunker-fuel in a full-scale trial. Environ Pollut 158:3032–3040
Couto MNPFS, Basto MCP, Vasconcelos MTSD (2012) Suitability of Scirpus maritimus for petro-
leum hydrocarbons remediation in a refinery environment. Environ Sci Pollut Res 19:86–95
Cserhati T, Forgács E, Oros G (2002) Biological activity and environmental impact of anionic
surfactants. Environ Int 28:337–348
Das N, Chandran P (2011) Microbial degradation of petroleum hydrocarbon contaminants: an
overview. Biotechnol Res Int 2011:1
de Almeida DG, da Silva MDGC, do Nascimento Barbosa R, Silva DDSP, da Silva RO, de Souza
Lima GM, de Gusmão NB, de Queiroz MDFV (2017) Biodegradation of marine fuel MF-380
by microbial consortium isolated from seawater near the petrochemical Suape Port, Brazil. Int
Biodeter Biodegrad 116:73–82
Debela F, Thring R, Arocena J (2012) Immobilization of heavy metals by co-pyrolysis of contami-
nated soil with woody biomass. Water Air Soil Pollut 223:1161–1170
Delille D, Duval A, Pelletier E (2008) Highly efficient pilot biopiles for on-site fertilization treat-
ment of diesel oil-contaminated sub-Antarctic soil. Cold Reg Sci Technol 54:7–18
Dias RL, Ruberto L, Calabro A, Balbo AL, Del Panno MT, Mac Cormack WP (2015) Hydrocarbon
removal and bacterial community structure in on-site biostimulated biopile systems designed
for bioremediation of diesel-contaminated Antarctic soil. Polar Biol 38:677–687
Doong RA, Wu YW, Lei WG (1998) Surfactant enhanced remediation of cadmium contaminated
soils. Water Sci Technol 37(8):65–71
Elgh-Dalgren K, Arwidsson Z, Camdzija A, Sjöberg R, Ribé V, Waara S, Allard B, von Kronhelm
T, van Hees PAW (2009) Laboratory and pilot scale soil washing of PAH and arsenic from a
wood preservation site: changes in concentration and toxicity. J Hazard Mater 172:1033–1040
Evankovic T, Hrenović J (2010) Surfactants in the environment. Arch Ind Hyg Toxicol 61:95–110
Evans CV (2003) Removal of heavy metals and radionuclides from soils using cationic surfactant
flushing. University of Wisconsin Water Resources Institute, Madison
Fabbri D, Prevot AB, Zelano V, Ginepro M, Pramauro E (2008) Removal and degradation of aro-
matic compounds from a highly polluted site by coupling soil washing with photocatalysis.
Chemosphere 71:59–65
Flores R, Blass G, Domínguez V (2007) Soil remediation by an advanced oxidative method
assisted with ultrasonic energy. J Hazard Mater 140:399–402
Fountain JC, Starr RC, Middleton T, Beikirch M, Taylor C, Hodge D (1996) A controlled field test
of surfactant-enhanced aquifer remediation. Groundwater 34:910–916
FRTR (2012) Remediation technologies screening matrix and reference guide version 4.0 – reme-
diation technology. Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable, Washington, DC
Gadelle F, Wan JM, Tokunaga TK (2001) Removal of Uranium(VI) from contaminated sediments
by surfactants. J Environ Qual 30:470–478
Giannis A, Gidarakos E, Skouta A (2007) Application of sodium dodecyl sulfate and humic acid as
surfactants on electrokinetic remediation of cadmium-contaminated soil. Desalin 211:249–260
Harmer MA, Sun Q (2001) Solid acid catalysis using ion-exchange resins. Appl Catal A 221:45
He Z, Siripornadulsil S, Sayre RT, Tarina TJ, Weavers LK (2011) Removal of sedimentary

ultrasound combined with biomass (transgenic Chlamydomonas reinhardtii). Chemosphere
83:1249–1254
Hobson AM, Frederickson J, Dise NB (2005) CH4 and N2O from mechanically turned windrow
and vermicomposting systems following in-vessel pre-treatment. Waste Manag 25:345–352
Huguenot D, Mousset E, van Hullebusch ED, Oturan MA (2015) Combination of surfactant
enhanced soil washing and electro-Fenton process for the treatment of soils contaminated by
petroleum hydrocarbons. J Environ Manag 153:40–47
Inguanzo M, Domınguez A, Menendez J, Blanco C, Pis J (2002) On the pyrolysis of sewage
sludge: the influence of pyrolysis conditions on solid, liquid and gas fractions. J Anal Appl
Pyrol 63:209–222
Ioannou-Ttofa L, Michael-Kordatou I, Fattas SC, Eusebio A, Ribeiro B, Rusan M, Amer ARB,
Zuraiqi S, Waismand M, Linder C, Wiesman Z, Gilron J, Fatta-Kassinos D (2017) Treatment
efficiency and economic feasibility of biological oxidation, membrane filtration and separation
processes, and advanced oxidation for the purification and valorization of olive mill wastewa-
ter. Water Res 114:1–13
Iturbe R, Flores C, Chavez C, Bautista G, Tortes LG (2004) Remediation of contaminated soil
using soil washing and biopile methodologies at a field level. J Soils Sediment 4:115–122
Jia LQ, Ou ZQ, Ouyang ZY (2005) Ecological behavior of linear alkylbenzene sulfonate (LAS) in
soil-plant systems. Pedosphere 15:216–224
Kazi TG, Jamali MK, Siddiqui A, Kazi GH, Arain MB, Afridi HI (2006) An ultrasonic assisted
extraction method to release heavy metals from untreated sewage sludge samples. Chemosphere
63:411–420
Khalladia R, Benhabilesa O, Bentahara F, Moulai-Mostefa N (2009) Surfactant remediation of
diesel fuel polluted soil. J Hazard Mater 164:1179–1184
Kim SO, Kim WS, Kim KW (2005) Evaluation of electrokinetic remediation of arsenic contami-
nated soils. Environ Geochem Health 27:443–453
Kim BK, Baek K, Ko SH, Yang JW (2011) Research and field experiences on electrokinetic reme-
diation in South Korea. Sep Purif Technol 79:116–123
Lee M, Kang H, Do W (2005) Application of nonionic surfactant-enhanced in situ flushing to a
diesel contaminated site. Water Res 39:139–146
Lee DH, Chang HW, Kim C (2008) Mixing effect of NaCl and surfactant on the remediation of
TCB contaminated soil. Geosci J 12:63–68
Lorenzen L, Van Deventer JSJ, Landi WM (1995) Factors affecting the mechanism of the adsorp-
tion of arsenic species on activated carbon. Min Eng 8(4–5):557–569
Lukić B, Panico A, Huguenot D, Fabbricino M, van Hullebusch ED, Esposito G (2017) A review
on the efficiency of landfarming integrated with composting as a soil remediation treatment.
Environ Technol Rev 6(1):94–116
Maila MP, Colete TE (2004) Bioremediation of petroleum hydrocarbons through land farming: are
simplicity and cost-effectiveness the only advantages? Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol 3:349–360
Mann MJ (1999) Full-scale and pilot-scale soil washing. J Hazard Mater 66(1):119–136
Mao X, Jiang R, Xiao W, Yu J (2015) Use of surfactants for the remediation of contaminated soils:
a review. J Hazard Mater 285:419–435
Mason TJ, Collings A, Sumel A (2004) Sonic and ultrasonic removal of chemical contaminants
from soil in the laboratory and on a large scale. Ultrason Sonochem 11:205–210
Mergen MRD, Jefferson B, Parsons SA, Jarvis P (2008) Magnetic ion-exchange resin treatment:
impact of water type and resin use. Water Res 42:1977–1988
Mohan D, Pittman CU, Steele PH (2006) Pyrolysis of wood/biomass for bio-oil: a critical review.
Energy Fuel 20:848–889
Mulligan CN (2005) Environmental applications for biosurfactants. Environ Pollut 133:183–198
Mulligan CN, Yong RN, Gibbs BF (2001) An evaluation of technologies for the heavy metal reme-
diation of dredged sediments. J Hazard Mater 85(1):145–163
Navarro P, Alguacil FJ (2002) Adsorption of antimony and arsenic from a copper electrorefining
solution onto activated carbon. Hydrometallurgy 66(1–3):101–105
References 55
Nguyen YT, Kieu HT, West S, Dang YT, Horn H (2017) Community structure of a sulfate-reducing
consortium in lead-contaminated wastewater treatment process. World J Microbiol Biotechnol
33(1):10
Nikolopoulou M, Pasadakis N, Norf H, Kalogerakis N (2013) Enhanced ex situ bioremediation of
crude oil contaminated beach sand by supplementation with nutrients and rhamnolipids. Mar
Pollut Bull 77:37–44
Ochoa-Loza FJ, Artiola JF, Maier RM (2001) Stability constants for the complexation of various
metals with a rhamnolipid biosurfactant. J Environ Qual 30:479–485
Pacwa-Plociniczak M, Plaza GA, Piotrowska-Seget Z, Cameotra SS (2011) Environmental appli-
cations of biosurfactants: recent advances. Int J Mol Sci 12:633–654
Paladino G, Arrigoni JP, Satti P, Morelli I, Mora V, Laos F (2016) Bioremediation of heav-
ily hydrocarbon-contaminated drilling wastes by composting. Int J Environ Sci Technol
13(9):2227–2238
Paria S (2008) Surfactant-enhanced remediation of organic contaminated soil and water. Adv
Colloid Interf Sci 138:24–58
Pham TD, Shrestha RA, Virkutyte J, Sillanpaa M (2009) Combined ultrasonication and electroki-
netic remediation for persistent organic removal from contaminated kaolin. Electrochim Acta
54:1403–1407
Philp JC, Atlas RM (2005) Bioremediation of contaminated soils and aquifers. In: Atlas RM, Philp
JC (eds) Bioremediation: applied microbial solutions for real-world environmental cleanup.
American Society for Microbiology (ASM) Press, Washington, DC, pp 139–236
Pintar A, Batista J, Levec J (2001) Catalytic denitrification: direct and indirect removal of nitrates
from potable water. Catal Today 66:503–510
Prokop G, Schamann M, Edelgaard I (2000) Management of contaminated sites in Western
Europe. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen
Rahman PKSM, Gakpe E (2008) Production, characterisation and applications of biosurfactants-
review. Biotechnology 7:360–370
Rahman SF, Kantor RS, Huddy R, Thomas BC, van Zyl AW, Harrison ST, Banfield JF (2017)
Genome-resolved metagenomics of a bioremediation system for degradation of thiocyanate in
mine water containing suspended solid tailings. Microbiol Open 6(3):1–9
Rajaković LV (1992) The sorption of arsenic onto activated carbon impregnated with metallic
silver and copper. Sep Sci Technol 27(11):1423–1433
Ramsburg CA, Pennell KD, Abriola LM, Daniels G, Drummond CD, Gamache M, Hsu HI,
Petrovskis EA, Rathfelder KM, Ryder JL, Yavaraski TP (2005) Pilot-Scale demonstration of
surfactant-enhanced pce solubilization at the bachman road site. 2. system operation and evalu-
ation. Environ Sci Technol 39:1791–1801
Ranjan RS, Qian Y, Krishnapillai M (2006) Effects of electrokinetics and cationic surfactant cetyl-
trimethylammonium bromide [ctab] on the hydrocarbon removal and retention from contami-
nated soils. Environ Technol 27:767–776
Rengaraj S, Joo CY, Kim Y, Yi J (2003) Kinetics of removal of chromium from water and elec-
tronic process wastewater by ion exchange resins: 1200H, 1500H and IRN97H. J Hazard Mater
102:257–275
Renshaw CE, Zynda GD, Fountain JC (1997) Permeability reductions induced by sorption of
surfactant. Water Resour Res 33:371–378
Robles-González IV, Fava F, Poggi-Varaldo HM (2008) A review on slurry bioreactors for biore-
mediation of soils and sediments. Microb Cell Factories 7(5):1–16
Rodrıguez-Rodrıguez CE, Marco-Urrea E, Caminal G (2010) Degradation of naproxen and carba-
mazepine in spiked sludge by slurry and solid-phase Trametes versicolor systems. Bioresour
Technol 101:2259–2266
Rofiqul Islam M, Haniu H, Rafiqul Alam Beg M (2008) Liquid fuels and chemicals from pyrol-
ysis of motorcycle tire waste: product yields, compositions and related properties. Fuel
87:3112–3122
Rosas JM, Vicente F, Santos A, Romero A (2011) Enhancing p-cresol extraction from soil.
Salati S, Papa G, Adani F (2011) Perspective on the use of humic acids from biomass as natural
surfactants for industrial applications. Biotechnol Adv 29:913–922
Sanscartier D, Zeeb B, Koch I, Reimer K (2009) Bioremediation of diesel-contaminated soil by
heated and humidified biopile system in cold climates. Cold Reg Sci Technol 55:167–173
Santonicola MG, Lenhoff AM, Kaler EW (2008) Binding of alkyl polyglucoside surfactants to
bacteriorhodopsin and its relation to protein stability. Biophys J 94:3647–3658
Shiau BJB, Brammer JM, Sabatini DA, Harwell JH, Knox RC (2003) Recent development of low
concentration surfactant flushing for napl-impacted site remediation and pollution prevention,
petroleum hydrocarbons and organic chemicals in ground water/prevention, assessment, and
remediation twentieth annual conference and exposition, Costa Mesa, CA
Silva-Castro GA, Uad I, Gonzalez-Lopez J, Fandino CG, Toledo FL, Calvo C (2012) Application
of selected microbial consortia combined with inorganic and oleophilic fertilizers to recuper-
ate oil-polluted soil using land farming technology. Clean Techn Environ Policy 14:719–726
Silva-Castro GA, Uad I, Rodrıguez-Calvo A, Gonzalez-Lopez J, Calvo C (2015) Response of
autochthonous microbiota of diesel polluted soils to landfarming treatments. Environ Res
137:49–58
Slizovskiy IB, Kelsey JW, Hatzinger PB (2011) Surfactant-facilitated remediation of metal-
contaminated soils: efficacy and toxicological consequences to earthworms. Environ Toxicol
Chem 30:112–123
Srinivasan R, Sorial GA (2009) Treatment of perchlorate in drinking water: a critical review. Sep
Purif Technol 69:7–21
Stals M, Carleer R, Reggers G, Schreurs S, Yperman J (2010) Flash pyrolysis of heavy metal con-
taminated hardwoods from phytoremediation: characterisation of biomass, pyrolysis oil and
char/ash fraction. J Anal Appl Pyrol 89:22–29
Strbak L (2000) In situ flushing with surfactants and cosolvents. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC, report
Su L, Zhou H, Guo G, Zhao A, Zhao Y (2012) Anaerobic biodegradation of PAH in river sediment
treated with different additives. Procedia Environ Sci 16:311–319
Svab M, Kubal M, Müllerova M, Raschman R (2009) Soil flushing by surfactant solution: pilot-
scale demonstration of complete technology. J Hazard Mater 163:410–417
Swarnkar V, Agrawal N, Tomar R (2012) Sorption of chromate and arsenate by surfactant modified
erionite (E-SMZ). J Dispers Sci Technol 33:919–927
Taiwo AM, Gbadebo AM, Oyedepo JA, Ojekunle ZO, Alo OM, Oyeniran AA, Onalaja OJ,
Ogunjimi D, Taiwo OT (2016) Bioremediation of industrially contaminated soil using compost
and plant technology. J Hazard Mater 304:166–172
Thangavadivel K (2010) Development and application of ultrasound technology for treatment of
organic pollutants. PhD thesis, University of South Australia, Adelaide SA
Thuan NT, Chang MB (2012) Investigation of the degradation of pentachlorophenol in sandy soil
via low-temperature pyrolysis. J Hazard Mater 229–230:411–418
Torres LG, Lopez RB, Beltran M (2012) Removal of As, Cd, Cu, Ni, Pb, and Zn from a highly con-
taminated industrial soil using surfactant enhanced soil washing. Phys Chem Earth 37–39:30
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2005) Cost and performance report for LNAPL character-
ization and remediation. U.S. Environmental Protectoin Agency, Washington, DC
Uddin MJ, Aditya Sagar G, Jagdeeshwar J (2017) Soil pollution and soil remediation techniques.
IJARIIT 3(1):582–593
US EPA (2012) About remediation technologies. US EPA office of superfund remediation and
technology innovation (CLU-IN), Washington, DC
Venderbosch RH, Prins W (2010) Fast pyrolysis technology development. Biofuels Bioprod
Biorefin 4(2):178–208
Vilensky MY, Berkowitz B, Warshawsky A (2002) In situ remediation of groundwater contami-
nated by heavy and transition metal ions by ion exchange methods. Environ Sci Technol
36:1851–1855
References 57
Volpe A, DArpa S, Del Moro G, Rossetti S, Tandoi V, Uricchio VF (2012) Fingerprinting hydrocar-
bons in a contaminated soil from an Italian natural reserve and assessment of the performance
of a low-impact bioremediation approach. Water Air Soil Pollut 223:1773–1782
Vreysen S, Maes A (2005) Remediation of a diesel contaminated, sandy-loam soil using low con-
centrated surfactant solutions. J Soils Sed 5:240–244
Whelan MJ, Coulon F, Hince G, Rayner J, McWatters R, Spedding T, Snape I (2015) Fate and
transport of petroleum hydrocarbons in engineered biopiles in polar regions. Chemosphere
131:232–240
Wick AF, Haus NW, Sukkariyah BF, Haering KC, Daniels WL (2011) Remediation of PAH-
contaminated soils and sediments: a literature review. CSES Department, internal research
document 102
Willms C, Li Z, Allen L, Evans CV (2004) Desorption of cesium from kaolinite and illite using
alkylammonium salts. Appl Clay Sci 25:125–133
Woodberry P, Stevens G, Northcott K, Snape I, Stark S (2007) Field trial of ion-exchange resin
columns for removal of metal contaminants, Thala valley tip, Casey station, Antarctica. Cold
Reg Sci Technol 48:105–117
Xu J, Yuan X, Dai S (2006) Effect of surfactants on desorption of aldicarb from spiked soil.
Zhang W, Tsang DC, Lo IM (2007) Removal of Pb and MDF from contaminated soils by EDTA-
and SDS-enhanced washing. Chemosphere 66(11):2025–2034
Zhang LJ, Zhang Y, Liu DH (2009) Remediation of soils contaminated by heavy metals with dif-
ferent amelioration materials. Soil 41(3):420–424
Chapter 3
In Situ Soil Remediation Strategies
Abstract Physical remediation of polluted soil is one of the in situ remediation

strategies, generally involves disintegration of the contaminants by methods such as
evaporation, heating or washing. These methods are based on the principles used for
the extraction of desired metal from their respective mineral ores. Suitability and
efficacy of physical separation technique depends upon type of the soil, shape, dis-
tribution and size of the contaminant, amount of humus, moisture and clay in the
soil. These techniques can be used for the extraction/removal of both inorganic and
organic contaminants from polluted soils and involves low operational cost. The
selection of the most suitable physical treatment largely depends on the type of
contaminated soil and type of the contaminant (organic or inorganic). Most com-
monly these techniques are applicable to the soils of industrialized urban areas
(contaminated through anthropogenic activities). The present chapter discusses
various physical methods of soil remediation including physical separation, soil
flushing, volatilization, froth flotation and thermal heating.
Keywords Physical separation · Soil flushing · Thermal remediation · Froth

flotation
3.1 Introduction
As the name indicates, these techniques involve the remediation of soil contami-
nated with inorganic and organic pollutants, at the site of pollution. The in situ
techniques are most commonly used to treat chlorinated solvents, heavy metals,
hydrocarbons and dyes deploying (single or in combination) microbes, plants, phys-
ical and chemical methods (Folch et al. 2013; Kim et al. 2014; Frascari et al. 2015;
Roy et al. 2015). The status of electron acceptor, nutrient availability, moisture con-
tent, temperature, pH and adequate soil porosity are the most important require-
ments that are crucial for in situ bioremediation to be successfully accomplished
(Philp and Atlas 2005). This chapter provides a summary on different in situ

60 3 In Situ Soil Remediation Strategies
Fig. 3.1 Comparison of physical, biological and chemical methods of soil remediation
strategies for remediation of polluted soils. These strategies can be categorized into
five major divisions based upon the type of the treatment:
• Biological methods
• Physical methods
• Chemical methods
• Biochar/biofilms
• Nanobioremediation
Biological methods include the use of bacteria, algae, fungi, plants and animals
so as to degrade or immobilize the contaminants in the soil. Physical methods con-
sist of physical separation, soil flushing, volatilization, froth flotation and thermal
treatments. While chemical methods comprises of leaching, fixation and electro
kinetic remediation (Fig. 3.1). Carbon sequestration, nutrient exchange, water hold-
ing, absorption/adsorption and oxidation/reduction are summarized under biochar/
biofilm. Nanobioremediation is also an emerging technology for soil remediation.
Each in situ strategy has its own advantages and limitations which depend upon the
soil condition, characteristics and pollutant content.
3.2 Physical Methods of Soil Remediation
Physical remediation techniques involve both, soil-replacement and thermal desorp-

tion methods (Su 2014; von Lindern et al. 2016). Soil-replacement is further of
three types i.e. soil spading, soil replacement and soil importing. Soil spading
includes digging of contaminated soil and spreading the contaminants into deep
3.2 Physical Methods of Soil Remediation 61
sites; soil replacement is the removal of polluted soil while, soil importing is the
addition of unpolluted soil into an area of polluted soil to dilute the concentration of
contaminants. The soil replacement methods can efficiently isolate the contami-
nated soil and decrease the effect of pollutants on the environment. Apart from this,
the technique is costly and is applicable only for small areas which are severely
polluted (Ahmad 2016).
The thermal desorption method is based on the pollutants’s volatility and deals
with heating the polluted soil with microwave, steam and infrared radiations to vol-
atilize the contaminants (volatile heavy metals like Hg and As). These volatile metal
contaminants are then accumulated using the vacuum negative pressure or carrier
gas (Li et al. 2010). Traditionally, thermal desorption technique can be categorized
into low temperature (90–320 °C) and high temperature desorption (320–560 °C).
Besides that, there are some limitations in this technique which include long desorp-
tion time and the use of expensive devices (Aresta et al. 2008).
The efficiency of physical methods depends upon various soil properties such as
size, shape and dispersal of particles, clay, moisture and humus content, hydropho-
bic and magnetic properties of the soil particles. Besides that, physical treatments
are not applicable in following conditions:
• When the soil-clay or slit content is more than 30–50%.
• When metal contaminants are tightly bound to soil particles.
• When there is high humic content.
• When there is much similarity between the properties of soil particles and metal
bearing particles.
Physical remediation involves the following methods:
3.2.1 Physical Separation
Physical separation is generally considered as particle separation process and is

mostly applicable when heavy metal contaminants are of a particular size. It involves
the techniques which are generally used in mineral processing and mining indus-
tries to extract the desired metals from mineral ores (Dermont et al. 2008). In case
of soil remediation, these technologies have been successfully used to separate
heavy metals from contaminated soils (Williford and Bricka 2000; Mercier 2000).
There are two types of physical separation techniques: (a) magnetic separation –
The soil particles have some magnetic properties which can vary from ferromag-
netic (largely positive), paramagnetic and organometallics (intermediate) to organic
(negative) (Rikers et al. 1998). Magnetic field of low intensity can attract the ferro-
magnetic substances, while a high intensity magnetic field can attract the paramag-
netic substances (Mercier et al. 2001). Low intensity magnetic fields have been
successfully used to regain the spent amunition debris at military sites. High inten-
sity magnetic field can be applied for the elimination of heavy metals such as Zn,
Cu, Cr, Ni, Pb from polluted soils (Rikers et al. 1998). However, in case of
heterogeneous soil matrix, the magnetic separation is not feasable for removal of
heavy metals (Mercier 2000); (b) electrostatic separation – It is rarely used for soil
remediation. Lead-based paint chip separation and recovery technology is one such
example of electrostatic separation being practiced at full scale, in the Pittsburgh
Mineral and Environmental Technology Inc. (Gilbert and Weyand 1990). This tech-
nique efficiently removed 70–80% PAHs, 36–40% Pb, 61–65% Cu and 27–33% Zn
from contaminated sandy beach sediments in Canada (Veetil et al. 2014). However,
further research is required for its full-scale application.
3.2.2 Soil Flushing
Soil flushing involves injection or infiltration of a mixture of water, acidic or basic

solutions, chelating agent, reducing agents, and surfactants into the contaminated
area, followed by mobilization of contaminants by emulsion formation after a
chemical reaction with the flushing solution. Soil flushing setup involves injection
well to inject the solution and extraction well to extract the solution containing the
contaminants. These contaminants are then further treated to transform the contami-
nants into less toxic form (Fig. 3.2). The success of soil flushing technique relies on
the (a) nature of contaminants being processed, (b) soil characteristics (homoge-
neous and non-homogeneous), (c) ability to inject the solution, (d) control of the
Fig. 3.2 Soil flushing method for removal of soil contaminants

injection flow and (e) the recovery of flushing solution. Water is preferred as a flush-
ing liquid to extract the hydrophilic constituents from polluted soils. Acidic solu-
tions aid in recovery of metals or basic organic materials while, basic solutions can
be used for metals such as zinc, tin, lead and some phenols. For the recovery of
some heavy metals, chelating (EDTA), complexing (Cl−, CN−) and reducing (H2,
CO, Fe) agents are also used. Surfactants aid in the recovery and removal of hydro-
phobic organics while cosolvents are effective in removal of some organics (USEPA
1991).
Surfactants (cationic, anionic, non-ionic) are most commonly used in soil flush-
ing for removal of fuels and chlorinated solvents. Among the aforementioned cate-
gories anionic or non-ionic surfactants are preferred as they are generally less toxic
and their negative or neutral charge reduces the chances of their sorbtion to nega-
tively charged clays. These surfactants can be mixed with a cosolvent (e.g. isopro-
panol) which increase the solubility of surfactant in solution and thus provide
surfactant/contaminant solution an acceptable viscosity. Later, the cosolvent isopro-
panol is recovered during the recovery process owing to its toxicity and persistence.
Therefore, ethanol has now been substituted for isopropanol (NAVFAC 2002). A
homogeneous soil system greatly reduces the remediation time. There are certain
factors which limit the applicability and efficiency of the flushing method. The
adhesion of certain surfactants molecules reduces the soil porosity, while the hetero-
geneous soils with low permeability makes the remediation process cumbersome.
Furthermore, some soil factors like (a) high cation exchange capacity, (b) high buff-
ering capacity, (c) high organic content, and (d) pH adversely affects and increases
the remediation time which further adds to the cost of treatment.
3.2.3 Volatilization
Semi-volatile and non-volatile organic contaminants present in soil can be removed

by heating the soil at a temperature required to vaporize the pollutants. Vapourization
of contaminants can be achieved by steam, aeration, vacuum, and heating the soil to
several hundred-degree centigrades. Among these, aeration of contaminated soil is
a cost-effective, simple and convenient process. Volatilization of pollutants can be
accelerated by heating the contaminated soil in a container. Steam-induced volatil-
ization involves the heating of polluted soil and condensation of steam below
100 °C. The wet solids from the degrading operations are slurried with water and
then steam is passed to rise the temperature. The volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) are then condensed and collected along with the steam. Hence, volatiliza-
tion technique can be successfully used for the extraction of VOCs from sludges and
wet soils (Fox 1996).
3.2.4 Froth Flotation
Froth flotation is a physio-synthetic method to remove the metal pollutants from

contaminated soils. The setup consists of a chamber for treating the contaminated
soil-water mixture. The reagent mixture is added into the chamber and is dispersed
using air bubble suspension system. The concentrated froth which rises up is col-
lected from the top of the chamber for further treatment and extraction of the con-
taminants (Fig. 3.3). Froth flotation procedure is mainly used in industries for the
extraction of metals from their respective ores. This process has been effectively
used to extract metals such as Pb, Cu, Cd, and Zn, from silts and soils (Cauwenberg
et al. 1998; Venghaus and Werther 1998; Bergeron et al. 2001). The efficiency of the
process depends upon the affinity of a molecule’s hydrophobic surface for air bub-
bles infused in the soil slurry. The process includes three stages: (1) adhesion of the
metal-bearing particles to the air bubbles (2) assembling of the air pockets in the
froth (3) and froth division, which drifts up from the slurry. There are different types
of flotation systems including flotation cells and flotation segments. Metal sulfides
are easy to isolate with this method as compared to oxides and carbonates (Bouchard
2001). In soil remediation, the main considerations which affect the flotation of
metal particles are: (1) heterogeneity of the metal mixes, (2) metal conveyance over
the molecular surface and (3) size of the particles (Cauwenberg et al. 1998;
Vanthuyne et al. 2003). The selective flotation of metal particles from the molecule
of small size (<10 μm) is problematic in most of the mechanical flotation
Fig. 3.3 Process of froth flotation to remove the pollutants from contaminated soil
procedures because of the large surface area of hydrophilic undesirable ore particles
(Kirjavainen 1996; Vanthuyne and Maes 2007). Flotation methods are not very
effective for extraction of heavy and coarse metal particles (Bouchard 2001). The
dissolved air flotation (DAF) system produces very small bubbles and is a promis-
ing technology for flotation of small size metal particles (Vanthuyne et al. 2003).
3.2.5 Thermal Remediation
Thermal remediations are the most commonly used methods which involve the uti-
lization of heat so as to volatilize the contaminants from the complex soil mixture.
This treatment generally occurs in two steps i.e. primary desorption and secondary
incineration (Fig. 3.4). In situ thermal remediation includes five strategies: (1) steam
injection and extraction, (2) electrical resistance heating, (3) radio-frequency heat-
ing, (4) vitrification and conductive heating. Certain operational parameters such as
time of treatment, heating and temperature can be controlled during thermal treat-
ment. These treatments are most commonly used for rapid soil cleanup by enhanc-
ing the mobility of pollutants (hot air/steam injection procedure), by transforming
the pollutants into less toxic residuals (pyrolysis procedure), by separating the pol-
lutants from soil (microwave heating/thermal desorpion procedure), by immobiliz-
ing the pollutants (vitrification procedure) and by destroying the pollutants
(incineration procedure). Arlai et al. (2012), provides a general analysis that the
effects of heat can alter the physical and chemical properties of organic pollutants.
Fig. 3.4 Schematic representation of thermal treatment for remediation of contaminated soil
It was reported that Vapourization is the main phenomenon used for the recovery of
VOCs. Heat-activated persulfate oxidation of groundwater contaminated by herbi-
cide atrazine has been reported by Ji et al. (2015). They predicted transformation
pathways, including dealkylation, alkyl chain oxidation, and dechlorination-
hydroxylation along with underlying mechanisms under increased temperature.
Although thermal treatments hold a promising potential to remediate the con-
taminated sediments and soils but, the high temperature can alter the soil properties
to a certain extent. In spite of its high applicability and efficiency, very diminutive
work has been done in order to expand the feasibility of these treatments on a pilot-
scale. Thermal remediation involves the following methods:
3.2.5.1 Electrical Resistance Heating (ERH)
Electrical resistance heating (ERH) is a procedure which involves the passage of an

electric current via soil moisture, between the electrodes, thereby producing heat.
Hexagonal electrodes are used to supply the electric currents at a particular depth
through six-phase soil heating (Beyke and Fleming 2002). During the heating of
soil, the clay and silt contents gets heated faster as they are more conductive.
Volatilization and steam formation are the two most important removal mechanisms
for removal of many organic and inorganic contaminants (Beyke and Fleming
2005). According to U.S. EPA (2004) near about $32 – $73 per cubic yard are
required for two full-scale ERH for soil remediation. Beyke and Fleming, (2005)
has estimated that approximately $40–$70 per cubic yard are required for soil reme-
diation. In situ ERH has been used for remediation of 1,4-Dioxane and it has been
found that total 99.8% of the contaminant was removed by this method (Oberle
et al. 2015). Truex et al. (2011) demonstrated the combined effect of zero-valent
iron and electrical resistance heating for effective in situ remediation of trichloro-
ethene and it has been found that these techniques efficiently remove the pollutant
from soil. This technique can be used near the people’s locality area, without dis-
turbing the environmental surroundings. Performance or efficiency of ERH may be
enhanced by using it in combination with other soil remediation techniques.
Furthermore, ERH is now proven as an economic and efficient remediation tech-
nique having the capacity to remediate those polluted sites where others techniques
are not applicable (Wolf et al. 2009).
In the year 2003, Department of Energy, US successfully remediated the soil of
Young-Rainey STAR Center, Largo, Florida, contaminated with 2-dichloroethylene,
trichloroethylene, methylene, petroleum hydrocarbons, chloride and toluene.
Remediation was achieved (99.85%–99.99% remediation efficiency) within
4–5 months using the two methods i.e. ERH and steam-enhanced extraction.
Fig. 3.5 Steam injection and extraction process for removal of soil contaminants
3.2.5.2 Steam Injection and Extraction
Steam injection and extraction involves the injection of steam through injection
wells followed by extraction of pollutants, mobilized groundwater and vapors from
the recovery wells (Fig. 3.5). Steam releases its latent heat of vaporization when
injected into the soil thereafter, it condenses into aqueous state and then moves to
soil and finally displaces water and air in front of it. The implementation of steam
injection to a specific contaminated soil site can be determined by the soil permea-
bility, the depth of the pollutants in the soil, and the type of the pollutant. The soil
permeability should be high enough in order to allow sufficient steam to be injected
so as to heat the entire surface (Kempa et al. 2013). Injection pressure should be
increased in order to achieve a higher injection rate. The vaporization of non-volatile
and semi-volatile compounds [n-decane (n-C10), n-dodecane (n-C12),
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, methylcyclohexane] at temperatures lower than 100 °C
(steam distillation) have been achieved with steam injection procedure (Tzovolou
et al. 2011). Moreover, implementation of this technique is quite difficult as it is a
costly technique and only used in case when high-speed remediation is required.
3.2.5.3 Conductive Heating
Conductive heating involves the process in which heat and vacuum are supplied
concurrently to soil surfaces to degrade the contaminants. Heat can be supplied to
the soil with the aid of thermal wells and thermal blankets. As the soil is heated, the
pollutants present in soil get degraded or vaporized by various phenomena such as
(a) distillation (b) oxidation (c) boiling (d) evaporation and (e) pyrolysis. These
degraded contaminants are then extracted through the vacuum wells and then treated
further.
This method expends huge amount of energy and is applicable below as well as
above 100 °C for removal of different types of pollutants such as pesticides, mer-
cury, dioxins, PAHs, PCBs, chlorinated solvents, explosive materials and heavy
metals. Surface heater blankets can be used when treatment zone is nearly 6 inches
to the ground surface. The wells are created by direct push or by using some con-
ventional drilling strategies. Heat wells are made up of steel pipe and current is
supplied through them. The heating elements usually operate at a temperature range
between 540 and 815 °C (Baker and Heron 2004). Steel pipe and the surrounding
soil are heated by radiant energy and thermal conductance respectively. Generally
conductive heating technique performs best in unsaturated soils but, is also appli-
cable in the case of saturated soils having low hydraulic conductivity. At high tem-
peratures, dry soils including fine grained clay and silt, undergo cracking and
shrinkage which enhances the pollutant extraction (U.S. EPA 2004). This can be
used in combination with steam injection, for treating the sites with complex consti-
tution of sand or gravel. This method has very high remediation capacity and almost
100% cleaning efficiency. Various field experiments have been conducted for soil
remediation by TerraTherm Environmental Services, Inc., USA, by using this
method.
3.2.5.4 Radio-Frequency Heating (RFH)
Radio-frequency heating (RFH) involves in situ heating of polluted soils by apply-

ing alternating electric field of high frequency (Falciglia and Vagliasindi 2015)
(Fig. 3.6). This technique can be applied to dielectric materials. The supply of cur-
rent increases the mobility of polar molecules, which result in generation of
mechanical heat. Radio frequencies of 27.12 MHz, 13.56 MHz, 6.78 MHz, and
40.68 MHz etc. are recommended for scientific, industrial and medical applications.
Application of higher frequencies can enhance the heating rate but, will reduce the
penetration depth. This technique has some unique advantages over microwave
heating, as RFH uses frequencies in MHz range (Roland et al. 2012). Bientinesi
et al. (2015), followed the basic principles of RFH and described its usefulness for
remediation of oil polluted soils, based on several years of work experience at
Consorzio Polo Tecnologico Magona (CPTM), Italy. Their work demonstrated that
RFH can be applied when the utilization of other strategies like steam infusion is
restricted due to logical or topographical hinderances. Though, this method has not
Fig. 3.6 Schematic diagram of radio frequency heating set-up for removal of soil pollutants
been used at a commercial level but, in the coming years this technique will defi-
nitely hold a promising potential for soil remediation.
3.2.5.5 In situ Vitrification (ISV)
In situ vitrification (ISV) involves heating at a temperature of 1400–2000 °C of is a

type of procedure which transforms the polluted soil to crystalline solids and stable
glass (Fig. 3.7). This technology can remove, destroy or immobilize the contami-
nants present in soil or sludge and is most common for the removal of radioactive
wastes and petroleum hydrocarbons (Shearer 1991; Hamby 1996; Fu 2008; Yeung
et al. 2010; Wuana and Okieimen 2011). There are two methods to produce heat and
to melt the polluted soils: (1) first method – involves vitrification of the materials by
using electrodes that are placed in soil (typically 4) and electrical resistance, by
applying high voltage to the electrodes while, (2) second method – involves plasma-
arc technology (ISPV-in situ plasma vitrification process) where the electrodes are
placed in the soil and a high voltage electric current is used to heat the soil to a
temperature between 1600 and 2000 °C (Fox et al. 2001; Bashiri et al. 2015; Dupuis
and Knoepfel 2015).
In situ vitrification process greatly depends upon the presence of alkali metal
oxides in the soil as their higher amount increases the heat-conductivity in the soil.
This is a cost-effective technique with little or no disturbance on site and has been
successfully used for the remediation of oil spillage in the Niger Delta Region,
Nigeria (David and Joel 2013).
Plasma arc in situ vitrification (ISPV) is a new and less used technique which is
based on the principle of plasma arc technology in which electric energy is applied
Fig. 3.7 Schematic representation of in situ vitrification process for removal of soil pollutants
between the two electrodes in the form of direct current. Passage of electric current
at high temperatures (2000–20,000 °C) generates highly ionized gases between the
electrodes and resistance to this electric flow produce plasma. Plasma is considered
as a fourth state of matter which consist of a mixture of ions, electrons and neutral
particles (Jiang et al. 2014). Plasma arc is generated when the voltage applied
between the two electrodes is sufficient to ionize the gas between them and allow
the gas to conduct electric current.
Plasma torch is a device which is used to convert the electrical energy into ther-
mal energy (Camacho 1988, 1991). These torches are operated at extremely high
enthalpy, high temperature range (4000–7000 °C) as compare to fossil fuels burn-
ers. PISV remediation set up involves the introduction of a plasma torch through
drilled borehole into an area of contaminated soil at a particular depth. With an
introduction of this plasma torch, the inorganic fraction of the soil got vitrified while
the organic fraction got pyrolysed. In this way the soil contaminants converted into
highly stable mass which is resistant to leaching (Fox et al. 2001).
Various laboratory based studies have been conducted with ISPV (at 100–200 kW
power) in Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, USA. These studies revealed the
successful remediation of soil contaminated with various organic, inorganic, heavy
metals and radioactive materials by using ISPV (Circeo and Mayne 1993; Mayne
et al. 2000). Plasma arc method has been successfully used to destroy waste rubber
(Huang et al. 2003), to destroy polypropylene (Tang et al. 2005) to destroy (99.99%
efficiency) the polychlorinated biphenyls present in chemical solids (Li et al. 2009)
and hospital wastes (Kołaciński et al. 2017). This method is beneficial over the tra-
ditional and planar in situ vitrification as it is cost effective and highly efficient and
it allows the vapors and gases to escape from the surface of melt zone rather than
being confined to it. This treatment can be used to treat various types of contami-
nants such as toxic materials, organic and inorganic contaminants, wastes sludges
and sediments, underground storage tanks, radioactive wastes, sanitary landfills etc.
Furthermore, the cost of this technology depends upon various factors such as type
of contaminants, conditions of soils and the type of plasma torch (Circeo and Martin
2001).
‘Planar melting’ is an advancement of the in situ vitrification method, where the
starter material is injected in a vertical plane in between the electrodes at a certain
depth. Generally, two electrodes are used with starter material. These electrodes
move away from each other as the melting starts. Planar technique was successfully
performed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in 2000 (Coel-Roback et al.
2003). This technique has been successfully used to remediate the debris or soil
contaminated with VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs and certain other radioactive materials.
Before the initiation of this technique, complete characterization of waste materials
is a pre-requisite. High applicability, durability and cost effectiveness are the posi-
tive aspects of this technique. Migration of contaminants to other uncontaminated
areas is the limitation of this technique.
Plasma Arc In Situ Vitrification Plasma arc in situ vitrification (ISPV) is a new
and less used technique which is based on the principle of plasma arc technology in
which electric energy is applied between the two electrodes in the form of direct
current (Fig. 3.8). Passage of electric current at high temperatures (2000–20,000 °C)
generates highly ionized gases between the electrodes and resistance to this electric
flow produce plasma. Plasma is considered as a fourth state of matter which consist
of a mixture of ions, electrons and neutral particles (Jiang et al. 2014). Plasma arc is
Fig. 3.8 Schematic representation of in situ plasma vitrification process

generated when the voltage applied between the two electrodes is sufficient to ion-
ize the gas between them and allow the gas to conduct electric current.
Plasma torch is a device which is used to convert the electrical energy into ther-
mal energy (Camacho 1988, 1991). These torches are operated at extremely high
enthalpy, high temperature range (4000–7000 °C) as compare to fossil fuels burn-
ers. PISV remediation set up involves the introduction of a plasma torch through
drilled borehole into an area of contaminated soil at a particular depth. With an
introduction of this plasma torch, the inorganic fraction of the soil got vitrified while
the organic fraction got pyrolysed. In this way the soil contaminants converted into
highly stable mass which is resistant to leaching (Fox et al. 2001).
Various laboratory based studies have been conducted with ISPV (at 100–
200 kW power) in Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, USA. These studies
revealed the successful remediation of soil contaminated with various organic, inor-
ganic, heavy metals and radioactive materials by using ISPV (Circeo and Mayne
1993; Mayne et al. 2000). Plasma arc method has been successfully used to destroy
waste rubber (Huang et al. 2003), to destroy polypropylene (Tang et al. 2005) to
destroy (99.99% efficiency) the polychlorinated biphenyls present in chemical sol-
ids (Li et al. 2009) and hospital wastes (Kołaciński et al. 2017). This method is
beneficial over the traditional and planar in situ vitrification as it is cost effective
and highly efficient and it allows the vapors and gases to escape from the surface of
melt zone rather than being confined to it. This treatment can be used to treat vari-
ous types of contaminants such as toxic materials, organic and inorganic contami-
nants, wastes sludges and sediments, underground storage tanks, radioactive wastes,
sanitary landfills etc. Furthermore, the cost of this technology depends upon various
factors such as type of contaminants, conditions of soils and the type of plasma
torch (Circeo and Martin 2001).
3.3 Conclusions
Physical soil remediation technique includes stepwise removal of contaminant

through washing or volatilization treatment. It is a type of volume reduction process
which further transfers the concentrated pollutant into another media i.e. water and
air. From that media, these contaminants are further treated and converted into more
concentrated form. Depending upon the concentration of the contaminant(s) most
suitable strategy can be designed/selected in order to fully destroy the contaminant(s).
Electro kinetic and soil flushing methods should be completely understood before
their large-scale implementation. Removal efficiency of physical treatments for
various volatile organic compounds can be enhanced with the aid of steam, hot air
or electric current. Physical treatments can remove both heavy metal and organic
contaminants in the same treatment system and the extracted metals can be recycled
in some cases. Moreover, for large scale implementation of physical methods there
References 73
are certain challenges which need to be addressed such as high equipment cost and
proper disposal of residuals and waste water.
Physical treatment can be performed under in situ or ex situ conditions. However,
in situ treatments are more beneficial as there is no need to transport the contami-
nated soil to another area. In situ treatments take longer duration because of the
heterogeneity of soil surface. During physical treatment, the spread of toxic
contaminants should be avoided from the contaminated area as it may cause serious
health related issues. To conclude, merging of different physical treatments along
with the knowledge of plant and soil science is crucial for designing a suitable,
highly efficient and ecofriendly physical remediation strategy.
References
Ahmad P (2016) Plant metal interaction: emerging remediation techniques. Elsevier. British
Library, Amsterdam
Aresta M, Dibenedetto A, Fragale C, Giannoccaro P, Pastore C, Zammiello D, Ferragina C (2008)
Thermal desorption of polychlorobiphenyls from contaminated soils and their hydrodechlori-
nation using Pd- and Rh-supported catalysts. Chemosphere 70(6):1052–1058
Arlai A, Nakkong R, Samjamin N, Sitthipaisarnkun B (2012) The effects of heating on physical
and chemical constitutes of organic and conventional okra. Procedia Eng 32:38–44
Baker RS, Heron G (2004) In-situ delivery of heat by thermal conduction and steam injection for
improved DNAPL remediation. Proceedings of the 4th international conference on remediation
of chlorinated and recalcitrant compounds, Monterey, CA, May 24–27. Battelle, Columbus,
OH
Bashiri F, Ahmadi R, Khezri SM (2015) Remove soil contaminants by heat treatment. Int J Fundam
Arts Archit 1(1):8–12
Bergeron M, Blackburn D, St-Laurent H, Gosselin A (2001) U.S. patent no. 6,273,263. Washington,
DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Beyke G, Fleming D (2002) Enhanced removal of separate phase viscous fuel by electrical resis-
tance heating and multi-phase extraction. 9th annual international petroleum environmental
conference, October 22–25, Albuquerque, NM
Beyke G, Fleming D (2005) In situ thermal remediation of DNAPL and LNAPL using electrical
resistance heating. Remed J 15(3):5–22
Bientinesi M, Scali C, Petarca L (2015) Radio frequency heating for oil recovery and soil remedia-
tion. IFAC-PapersOnLine 48(8):198–1203
Bouchard S (2001) Traitement du minerai, Le Griffon d’Argile, Québec, Canada, p 373
Camacho SL (1988) Industrial-worthy plasma arc torches: state-of-the-art. Pure Appl Chem
60:619–632
Camacho SL (1991) Harnessing artificial lightning. World and I, pp 310–317
Cauwenberg P, Verdonckt F, Maes A (1998) Flotation as a remediation technique for heavily pol-
luted dredged material. 1. Characterisation of flotated fractions. Sci Total Environ 209:12–131
Circeo LJ, Martin RC (2001). In situ plasma vitrification of buried wastes
Circeo LJ, Mayne PW (1993) In-situ thermal stabilization of soils using plasma arc technology
.Final report to National Science Foundation, NSF Grant MSS-9113134). Atlanta, Georgia
Institute of Technology
Coel-Roback B, Lowery P, Springer M, Thompson L, Huddleston G (2003) Non-traditional in
situ vitrification A technology demonstration at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Conference,
February 23–27, Tucson, AZ, p 12
David EO, Joel OF (2013) Environmental remediation of oil spillage in Niger delta region. In SPE
Nigeria annual international conference and exhibition. Soc Pet Eng
Dermont G, Bergeron M, Mercier G, Richer-Laflèche M (2008) Soil washing for metal removal: a
review of physical/chemical technologies and field applications. J Hazard Mater 152(1):1–31
Dupuis J, Knoepfel P (2015) Episode IV: consolidation of the institutional regime for contami-
nated sites, and gambling on the remediation objectives, methods and funding of the bonfol site
2001–2008. In: The politics of contaminated sites management. Springer, Cham, pp 127–146
Falciglia PP, Vagliasindi FGA (2015) Remediation of hydrocarbon polluted soils using 2.45 GHz
frequency-heating: influence of operating power and soil texture on soil temperature profiles
and contaminant removal kinetics. J Geochem Explor 151:66–73
Folch A, Vilaplana M, Amado L, Vicent R, Caminal G (2013) Fungal permeable reactive barrier to
remediate groundwater in an artificial aquifer. J Hazard Mater 262:554–560
Fox RD (1996) Critical review: physical/chemical treatment of organically contaminated soils and
sediments. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 46:391–431
Fox CA, Circeo LJ, Martin RC (2001) In-situ plasma remediation of contaminated soils. Remed
J 11(4):3–13
Frascari D, Zanaroli G, Danko AS (2015) In situ aerobic cometabolism of chlorinated solvents: a
review. J Hazard Mater 283:382–399
Fu JH (2008) The research status of soil remediation in China. Annual meeting of Chinese society
for environmental sciences. pp 1056–1060
Gilbert SR, Weyand TE (1990) Nonmetallic abrasive blasting material recovery process including
and electrostatic separation step, U.S. Patent #4,943,368
Hamby DM (1996) Site remediation techniques supporting environmental restoration activities˗a
review. Sci Total Environ 191(3):203–224
Huang H, Tang L, Wu CZ (2003) Characterization of gaseous and solid product from thermal
plasma pyrolysis of waste rubber. Environ Sci Technol 37:4463–4467
Ji Y, Dong C, Kong D, Lu J, Zhou Q (2015) Heat-activated persulfate oxidation of atrazine: impli-
cations for remediation of groundwater contaminated by herbicides. Chem Eng J 263:45–54
Jiang B, Zheng JT, Qiu S, Wu MB, Zhang QH, Yan ZF, Xue QZ (2014) Review on electrical dis-
charge plasma technology for wastewater remediation. Chem Eng J 236:348–368
Kempa T, Marschalko M, Yilmaz I, Lacková E, Kubečka K, Stalmachová B, Bouchal T, Bednárik
M, Drusa M, Bendová M (2013) In-situ remediation of the contaminated soils in Ostrava city
(Czech Republic) by steam curing/vapor. Eng Geol 154:42–55
Kim S, Krajmalnik-Brown R, Kim JO, Chung J (2014) Remediation of petroleum hydrocar-
bon-contaminated sites by DNA diagnosis-based bioslurping technology. Sci Total Environ
497:250–259
Kirjavainen VM (1996) Review and analysis of factors controlling the mechanical flotation of
gangue minerals. Int J Miner Proc 46(1–2):21–34
Kołaciński Z, Rincón JM, Szymański TP, Sobiecka E (2017) Thermal plasma vitrification process
as the effective technology for hospital incineration fly ash immobilization. Vitrification and
geopolimerization of wastes for immobilization or recycling 51
Li YJ, Huang ZQ, Xu YX, Sheng HZ (2009) Plasma-arc technology for the thermal treatment of
chemical wastes. Environ Eng Sci 26:731–737
Li J, Zhang GN, Li Y (2010) Review on the remediation technologies of POPs. Hebei Enviorn
Sci:65–68
Mayne PW, Burns SE, Circeo LJ (2000) Plasma magmavication of soils by nontransferred arc.
J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 126(5):387–396
Mercier G (2000) Availability of metals in soils and prediction of removal efficiency by mineral
engineering techniques. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Geology and Geological Engineering,
Université Laval, Québec, Canada, INSA-Toulouse, Toulouse, France. p 277
Mercier G, Duchesne J, Blackburn D (2001) Prediction of the efficiency of physical methods to
remove metals from contaminated soils. J Environ Eng 127(4):348–358
References 75
NAVFAC (2002) Surfactant-enhanced aquifer re-mediation (SEAR), Design manual, NFESC

technical report TR-2206-ENV. p 110
Oberle D, Crownover E, Kluger M (2015) In situ remediation of 1, 4-Dioxane using electrical
resistance heating. Remediat J 25(2):35–42
American Society for Microbiology (ASM) Press, Washington, pp 139–236
Rikers RA, Rem P, Dalmijn WL (1998) Improved method for prediction of heavy metal recoveries
from soil using High Intensity Magnetic Separation (HIMS). Int J Miner Process 54:165–182
Roland U, Holzer F, Trommler U, Hoyer C, Rabe C, Kraus M, Kopinke FD (2012) Applications of
radio-frequency heating in environmental technology. Procedia Eng 42:161–164
Roy M, Giri AK, Dutta S, Mukherjee P (2015) Integrated phytobial remediation for sustainable
management of arsenic in soil and water. Environ Int 75:180–198
Shearer TL (1991) A comparison of in situ vitrification and rotary kiln incineration for soils treat-
ment. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 41(9):1259–1264
Su C (2014) A review on heavy metal contamination in the soil worldwide: situation, impact and
remediation techniques. Environ Skeptics Critics 3(2):24
Tang L, Huang HT, Wu C (2005) Comparative study of PP thermal plasma pyrolysis and tradi-
tional pyrolysis. Chem Eng 33:44–47
Truex MJ, Macbeth TW, Vermeul VR, Fritz BG, Mendoza DP, Mackley RD, Wietsma TW,
Sandberg G, Powell T, Powers J, Pitre E (2011) Demonstration of combined zero-valent iron
and electrical resistance heating for in situ trichloroethene remediation. Environ Sci Technol
45(12):5346–5351
Tzovolou DN, Aggelopoulos CA, Theodoropoulou MA, Tsakiroglou CD (2011) Remediation of
the unsaturated zone of NAPL-polluted low permeability soils with steam injection: an experi-
mental study. J Soils Sediments 11(1):72–81
USEPA (1991) Engineering bulletin: in situ soil flushing, EPA 540/2-91/021. Office of Research
and Development. p 7
USEPA (2004) In situ thermal treatment of chlorinated solvents, fundamentals and field applica-
tions, EPA 542/R-04/010. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, p 145
Vanthuyne M, Maes A (2007) The removal of heavy metals from dredged sediments by mechani-
cal Denver flotation: the contribution of true flotation and entrainment. Land Contam Reclam
15:15–30
Vanthuyne M, Maes A, Cauwenberg P (2003) The use of flotation techniques in the remediation of
heavy metal contaminated sediments and soils: an overview of controlling factors. Miner Eng
16(11):1131–1141
Veetil DP, Mercier G, Blais JF, Chartier M, Tran LH, Taillard V (2014) Remediation of contami-
nated dredged sediments using physical separation techniques. Soil Sediment Contam Int
J 23(8):932–953
Venghaus T, Werther J (1998) Flotation as an additional process step for the washing of soils con-
taminated with heavy metals. Sixth international FZK/TNO conference. 1. Thomas Telford,
Edinburgh, pp 479–490
Von Lindern I, Spalinger S, Stifelman ML, Stanek LW, Bartrem C (2016) Estimating children’s
soil/dust ingestion rates through retrospective analyses of blood lead biomonitoring from the
Bunker Hill Superfund Site in Idaho. Environ Health Perspect 124:1462–1470
Williford CW, Bricka RM (2000) Physical separation of metal-contaminated soils. In: Iskandar
IK (ed) Environmental restoration of metals-contaminated soils. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton,
pp 121–165
Wolf JW, Barton T, Gomes T, Damasi D (2009) Electrical resistance heating: rapid treatment for
soil and groundwater remediation. Águas Subterrâneas, 1
Wuana RA, Okieimen FE (2011) Heavy metals in contaminated soils: a review of sources, chem-
istry, risks and best available strategies for remediation. ISRN Ecol 2011:20
Yeung AT, Chen Y, Zhan L, Tang X (2010) Remediation technologies for contaminated sites. In:
Advances in environmental geotechnics. Zhejiang University Press, Hangzhou, pp 328–369
Chapter 4
Chemical Methods of Soil Remediation
Abstract Chemical methods aim at addition of chemicals or solvents into the pol-
luted soils so as to stabilize the pollutants and convert them into less toxic forms that
are harmless to the waterbodies, plants, and human beings. Since, complete soil
remediation is difficult to achieve with biological methods alone hence, the amalga-
mation of both biological and chemical methods has gained much attention of the
scientists. Besides that, the harmful effects of the use of chemical methods should
also be considered before implementing on a pilot-scale. The materials generally
used for chemical treatments are metallic oxides, clays or biomaterials. Remediation
efficiency of these materials depends upon the soil texture, organic matter present in
the soil, type of metal contaminant etc. Furthermore, chemical methods can offer a
fast remediation compared to slow bioremediation process. This chapter discusses
the available chemical remediation methods such as chemical leaching, chemical
oxidation, chemical fixation and electro kinetic remediation.
Keywords Chemical leaching · Chemical oxidation · Chemical fixation ·

Electrokinetic remediation
4.1 Introduction
Chemical treatments involve the addition of certain chemicals in order to remove

the pollutants from contaminated soils, sludges and waste water. A number of chem-
ical treatments are available for soil remediation, which include chemical leaching
and fixation, electro kinetic remediation and vitrification. These methods can be
performed on site, are fast and cost-effective. Chemical remediation techniques
include the following methods:

78 4 Chemical Methods of Soil Remediation
4.2 Chemical Leaching
This method involves washing of the contaminated soil with chemical reagents,
gases or other fluids which help to leach the heavy metals (Pd, Zn, Hg etc.) from the
polluted soils (Ou-Yang et al. 2010). These heavy metals are then recovered from
the leachate. Different concentrations of sulfuric acid (H2SO4), nitric acid (HNO3),
hydrogen chloride (HCl), phosphoric acid (H3PO4), and hydrogen fluoride (HF)
were investigated for their effect and efficiency of arsenic (As) removal from yel-
lowish brown contaminated soil (As 2830 mg/kg). Phosphoric acid has been
reported to be most promising for the extraction of As (Tokunaga and Hakuta,
2002). In another report, potassium phosphate (300 mM, pH 6.0 at 40 °C) was
found to be most effective for removal of As from stream sediments around the
abandoned mine areas in Goro, Korea (Lee et al. 2007). The efficiency of the wash-
ing procedure has been analysed with a combination of cyclodextrin and EDTA, for
mobilization of the contaminants (Ehsan et al. 2007). However, EDTA is a potential
secondary pollutant because of its poor degradability. Li et al. (2009) checked the
efficacy of tea saponin for removal of contaminants. The results showed that the
percentage removal of zinc (Zn), cadmium (Cd), lead (Pb), and copper (Cu) were
6.74%, 42.38%, 13.07% and 8.75%, respectively. Tea saponin can effectively
remove heavy metals as well as soluble acid which will greatly reduce ecological
hazards. Chemical leaching was used to remove heavy metals like nickel (Ni) and
vanadium (V), which were present as impurities in the carbon black waste generated
from gasification of crude oil bottom in refineries. Acid leaching with 2M nitric acid
(HNO3) was found to be a very effective method (more effective than alkali) for
removal of both Ni (95%) and V (98%). Further, the acid treated carbon black waste
was used as an absorbent for dye removal. Interestingly, the adsorbtion capacity of
the treated carbon black waste was very high (∼361.2 mg dye/g carbonblack) than
the untreated one (Dong et al. 2017). Xu et al. (2016), suggested chemical leaching
to be an efficient method for extraction of Plutonium (Pu) from soils contaminated
with radioactive waste. Although, chemical leaching is a successful method for effi-
cient and quick remediation of polluted soils, but, its efficiency depends upon the
nature of soil and the type of heavy metal(s) present.
4.3 Chemical Fixation
Chemical fixation involves the addition of chemicals or materials to the polluted

soil, to stabilize the pollutants, converting them into less toxic form and thus reduc-
ing their bioavailability, mobility and ecological risk (Wuana and Okieimen 2011).
The materials which can be used are metallic oxides, clays or biomaterials. Zhou
et al. (2017) evaluated the synergistic effect of two amendment materials, red mud
(R) and compost (C), for remediation of agricultural soil contaminated with heavy
metals like copper (Cu), lead (Pb), zinc (Zn) and cadmium (Cd). The result
4.4 Chemical Oxidation 79
suggested that a combination of these two materials (R + C) could bring a reduction

in the availability of heavy metals to lower their ecological risk. In situ chemical
fixation has been reported to be a cost-effective technique for removal of arsenic
(As) from contaminated soil (Yang et al. 2007). Several chemicals (single and in
combination) like Ferrous sulfate (FeSO4), potassium permanganate (KMnO4) and
calcium carbonate (CaCO3) were tested for their extent of chemical fixation of As
(formation of insoluble arsenic-bearing phase to decrease its leachability). Treatment
solution containing only FeSO4 proved to be the best for remediation of
As-contaminated soil (Yang et al. 2007). In a study, the ability of bentonite, sodium
bentonite, and diatomaceous earth for remediation of soil contaminated with cad-
mium (Cd) was evaluated. The results showed that the percent remediation of Cd
was 21.40, 27.63, 32.30 and 27.24 when the Cd concentration was 20, 30, 40 and
50 g/kg, respectively (Lv et al. 2009). In another study, the chemical fixation poten-
tial of furfural dreg, phosphate rock and weathered coal was evaluated and it was
found that they had the ability to reduce the heavy metals like Cu, Pb, Cd and Zn, to
some extent (Zhang et al. 2009). Zeolitic imidazolate has also been reported as an
efficient catalyst for chemical fixation of CO2 at room temperature
(Kuruppathparambil et al. 2016). However, chemical fixation is basically deployed
to remediate the soils with lower pollutant(s) content. Undobtedly, the bioavailabil-
ity of the treated/fixed contaminants is influenced by the environmental conditions
(Bolan et al. 2003).
4.4 Chemical Oxidation
In situ chemical oxidation is a widely used remediation strategy in which chemical

oxidation of contaminants is performed in order to degrade wide varieties of con-
taminants including heavy metals and hydrocarbons. Other physical and chemical
treatments are usually not recommended for removal of aromatic hydrocarbons, as
high concentration of solvents is required for complete removal (Luthy et al. 1994,
Masten and Davies 1997; Silva et al. 2005). In order to overcome these limitations
chemical oxidation has been proved to be a promising and most effective remedia-
tion strategy for removal of Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Different
types of oxidants including hydrogen, ozone, persulphate, permanganate and perox-
ides have been evaluated for their efficiency in extraction of contaminants from
polluted soils (ITRC 2005; Zhao et al. 2011a, b). Among them activated persulfate
and permanganate has been reported to show maximum PAHs removal capacity
(Zhao et al. 2011a). AOPs i.e. advanced oxidation processes is a modified form of
chemical treatments which include the use of various oxidants in an integrated way.
This approach has been proved highly effective for removal of various recalcitrant
organic compounds. Among AOPs, perozone, Fenton’s reagent and activated per-
sulfate are the most commonly used oxidants. Removal efficiency of oxidation
methods can be increased to a great extent when used in an integrated manner with
various other bioremediation methods. Various researches have concluded that
chemical oxidation successfully increases the biodegradation of various soil pollut-

ants (Nam et al. 2001; Haapea and Tuhkanen 2006; Kulik et al. 2006; Rivas 2006;
Sun and Yan 2008). Higly pressurized hot water (250–300 °C) have also been used
as an oxidant i.e. extracting agent (Dadkhah and Akgerman 2002; Kronholm et al.
2003). This technique is called supercritical water oxidation (SWO). Chemical oxi-
dation processes have various advantages over biological methods: (1) it can be
used in combination with other remediation methods, (2) it requires lesser time
period for extraction of pollutants, (3) the technique can be easily modified by
changing the oxidants or temperature and pressure conditions, and (4) this tech-
nique can be performed under in situ as well as ex situ (Rivas 2006). On the con-
trary, the reactants other than the target contaminant can react with the oxidants
thus, affect their efficiency. Besides that, the by-products of chemical oxidation are
of potential risk to the environmental (Liao et al., 2018). Oxidation with Fenton’s
reagent produces a group of by-products i.e. quinones, carboxylic acids, ketones
and aldehydes (Lee et al. 2001). Oxidation with permanganate, ozone and persulfate
produces aromatic ketones, aliphatic or aromatic acids, short-chain alkanes, mono-
carboxylic acids, aldehydes, aromatic quinones etc. (Liang et al. 2009; Forsey et al.
2010; Liao et al. 2014a, b). Further researches are required in order to achieve maxi-
mum pollutant removal efficiency and to delimit the production of toxic
by-products.
Electro Fenton process can also be used in a combination with soil washing or
soil flushing remediation method so as to separate the contaminants from soil.
Environmental factors such as toxicity and biodegradability of effluents, operating
parameters such as current density, type of electrode and catalyst used and the com-
position of soil matrix are the major factors which can influence the electro fenton
process (Mousset et al. 2017). The combination of soil washing/soil flushing with
electro fenton process has also been used for the removal of organic contaminants
for e.g. polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and petroleum hydrocarbons
(Rosales et al. 2009; Mousset et al. 2014a; b, 2017; Huguenot et al. 2015) explo-
sives e.g. trinitrotoluene (Murati et al. 2009), pesticides e.g. pentachlorophenol
(Hanna et al. 2005) and dyes e.g. Lissamine Green B (Rosales et al. 2009) from
polluted soils.
4.5 Electrokinetic Remediation
Electrokinetic remediation strategy is performed by applying an electric current on

both sides of the contaminated soil so as to generate an electric field gradient
(López-Vizcaíno et al. 2017). In the presence of the electric field, contaminants are
carried to the poles through electrophoresis, electroosmotic flow and electromigra-
tion (Fig. 4.1).
This method is applicable for permeable soil and can be easily performed with-
out any environmental risk thus, protecting the natural ecosystem (Virkutyte et al.
2002; Luo et al. 2004; Xu et al. 2006). Direct electrokinetic remediation is not able
4.6 Conclusions 81
Fig. 4.1 Electrokinetic remediation
to maintain the pH of the soil. It requires addition of certain buffer solutions in the
cathode and anode to control the pH value (Gill et al. 2014). This technique is quite
effective for the treatment of both saturated and unsaturated soils. The remediation
efficiency of this method gets hampered by the presence of hematites, carbonates
and gravel, along with the pollutants. There are several electrokinetic remediation
technologies available at commercial level such as, Elektro-Klean™, Lasagna™,
electrobioremediation etc. (Virkutyte et al. 2002). Electrokinetic remediation can be
made more effective when used in combination with other techniques such as ‘per-
meable reactive barrier’ (PRB) (Zhang and Sun, 2007), electrokinetic-microbe
combined remediation (Yu et al. 2009), and electrokinetic-oxidation/reduction com-
bined remediation (Hamdan et al. 2014).
Still, there are various limitations such as electric energy consumption and
adverse effects of electricity on soil characteristics to carry out the soil remediation
with electro kinetic methods (Pazos et al. 2012; Jeon et al. 2015; Li et al. 2016). In
place of electric energy/DC power, solar energy can be deployed for the treatment
of contaminated soil (Yuan et al. 2009; Hassan et al. 2015; Souza et al. 2016).
4.6 Conclusions
As mentioned before, chemical treatments generally involve the applications of

various solutions or fluids containing chemical reagents i.e. salts, acid or bases,
chelators and surfactants in order the transfer the metal from solid to liquid media.
The efficiency of extraction process depends upon the type of reagent or extraction
method used. Chemical treatments are more advantageous as compared to physical
separation methods. In chemical methods, a variety of heavy metal components can

be treated; the adsorbed metal compounds can be extracted; very fine-grained soil
can also be treated; and the extracted metals can further be recovered by various
other methods. Soil washing with nontoxic or degradable chemical reagents will
surely become a most suitable washing method for soil remediation because of their
less hazardous effects. However, there are various limitations of chemical methods
for their large scale implementation, chemical reagents may affect the cost of treat-
ment; by-products/residuals of chemical reagents may prove to be detrimental to the
soil microbes as well the soil composition; extraction of contaminants from highly
polluted sludges is difficult to operate; treated soil cannot be used for re-vegetation
in various cases because of its altered chemical, physical and biological properties;
and the presence of chemical reagents in water is a kind of water pollution.
Furthermore, these chemical reagents can cause other environmental problems
which may disturb the balance of the ecosystem. To conclude, the chemical and
physical treatments should be deployed in an integrated manner in order to compen-
sate for the limitations, to establish a cost-effective, feasible and ecofriendly soil
remediation strategy.
References
Bolan NS, Adriano DC, Duraisamy P, Mani A (2003) Immobilization and phytoavailabil-
ity of cadmium in variable charge soils. III. Effect of biosolid compost addition. Plant Soil
256(1):231–241
Dadkhah AA, Akgerman A (2002) Hot water extraction with in situ wet oxidation: PAHs removal
from soil. J Hazard Mater B 93:307–320
Dong P, Maneerung T, Ng WC, Zhen X, Dai Y, Tong YW, Ting YP, Koh SN, Wang CH, Neoh KG
(2017) Chemically treated carbon black waste and its potential applications. J Hazard Mater
321:62–72
Ehsan S, Prasher SO, Marshall WD (2007) Simultaneous mobilization of heavy metals and poly-
chlorinated biphenyl (PCB) compounds from soil with cyclodextrin and EDTA in admixture.
Chemosphere 68(1):150–158
Forsey SP, Thomson NR, Forsey BJFSP, Thomson NR, Barker JF (2010) Oxidation kinetics of
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons by permanganate. Chemosphere 79(6):628–636
Gill RT, Harbottle MJ, Smith JWN, Thornton SF (2014) Electrokinetic-enhanced bioremediation
of organic contaminants: a review of processes and environmental applications. Chemosphere
107:31–42
Haapea P, Tuhkanen T (2006) Integrated treatment of PAH contaminated soil by soil washing,
ozonation and biological treatment. J Hazard Mater 136(2):244–250
Hamdan SH, Molelekwa GF, Van der Bruggen B (2014) Electrokinetic remediation technique: an
integrated approach to finding new strategies for restoration of saline soil and to control seawa-
ter intrusion. Chem Electro Chem 1(7):1104–1117
Hanna K, Chiron S, Oturan MA (2005) Coupling enhanced water solubilization with cyclodextrin
to indirect electrochemical treatment for pentachlorophenol contaminated soil remediation.
Water Res 39:2763–2773
Hassan I, Mohamedelhassan E, Yanful EK (2015) Solar powered electrokinetic remediation of Cu
polluted soil using a novel anode configuration. Electrochim Acta 181:58–67
Huguenot D, Mousset E, van Hullebusch ED, Oturan MA (2015) Combination of surfactant
enhanced soil washing and electro-Fenton process for the treatment of soils contaminated by
petroleum hydrocarbons. J Environ Manag 153:40–47
References 83
ITRC Interstate Technology Regulatory Council (2005) Technical and regulatory guidance for in
situ chemical oxidation of contaminated soil and groundwater, 2nd edn. ITRC, ISCO Team,
Washington, DC
Jeon EK, Ryu SR, Baek K (2015) Application of solar-cells in the electrokinetic remediation of
As-contaminated soil. Electrochim Acta 181:160–166
Kronholm J, Kuosmanen T, Hartonen K, Riekkola ML (2003) Destruction of PAHs from soil
by using pressurized hot water extraction coupled with supercritical water oxidation. Waste
Manag 23:253–260
Kulik N, Goia A, Trapidoa M, Tuhkanenb T (2006) Degradation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocar-
bons by combined chemical pre-oxidation and bioremediation in creosote contaminated soil.
Kuruppathparambil RR, Babu R, Jeong HM, Hwang GY, Jeong GS, Kim MI, Kim DW, Park DW
(2016) A solid solution zeolitic imidazolate framework as a room temperature efficient catalyst
for the chemical fixation of CO2. Green Chem 18(23):6349–6356
Lee BD, Iso M, MBD H (2001) Prediction of Fenton oxidation positions in poly-cyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons by frontier electron density. Chemosphere 42(4):431–435
Lee M, Paik IS, Do W, Kim I, Lee Y, Lee S (2007) Soil washing of As-contaminated stream sedi-
ments in the vicinity of an abandoned mine in Korea. Environ Geochem Health 29(4):319–329
Li GD, Zhang ZW, Jing P, Nannan Z, Li L, Yufei Y, Miao Y (2009) Leaching remediation of
heavy metal contaminated fluvio-aquatic soil with tea-saponin. Trans Chinese Soc Agric Eng
25(10):231–235
Li DW, Huang T, Liu KX (2016) Near-anode focusing phenomenon caused by the coupling effect
of early precipitation and backward electromigration in electrokinetic remediation of MSWI
fly ashes. Environ Technol 37:216–227
Liang YT, Nostrand JDV, Wang J (2009) Microarray-based functional gene analysis of soil
microbial communities during ozonation and biodegradation of crude oil. Chemosphere
75(2):193–199
Liao XY, Tao H, Yan XL (2014a) Discussion on several key points of decision support system for
remediation of contaminated sites. Environ Sci 35(4):1576–1585
Liao XY, Zhao D, Yan XL (2014b) Identification of persulfate oxidation products of polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbon during remediation of contaminated soil. J Hazard Mater 276(9):26–34
Liao X, Yan X, Ma D, Zhao D, Sun L, Li Y, Tao H (2018) The research and development of tech-
nology for contaminated site remediation. In: Twenty years of research and development on
soil pollution and remediation in China. Springer, Singapore, pp 785–798
López-Vizcaíno R, Yustres A, León MJ, Saez C, Cañizares P, Rodrigo MA, Navarro V (2017)
Multiphysics implementation of electrokinetic remediation models for natural soils and pore-
waters. Electrochim Acta 225:93–104
Luo Q, Zhang X, Wang H, Qian Y (2004) Mobilization of 2,4-dichlorophenol in soils by non-
uniform electrokinetics. Acta Sci Circumst 24(6):1104–1109
Luthy RG, Dzombak DA, Peters CA, Roy SB, Ramaswami A, Nakles DV, Nott BR (1994)
Remediating tar-contaminated soils at manufactured gas plant sites. Environ Sci Technol
28:266A–276A
Lv L, Jin M, Li B, Xie J (2009) Study on remediation of the soil contaminated with cadmium by
applying four minerals. J Agric Univ Hebei 32(1):1–5
Masten SJ, Davies SHR (1997) Efficacy of in-situ ozonation for the remediation of PAH contami-
nated soils. J Contam Hydrol 28(4):327–335
Mousset E, Oturan N, van Hullebusch ED, Guibaud G, Esposito G, Oturan MA (2014a) Influence
of solubilizing agents (cyclodextrin or surfactant) on phenanthrene degradation by electro-
Fenton process-study of soil washing recycling possibilities and environmental impact. Water
Res 48:306–316
Mousset E, Oturan N, van Hullebusch ED, Guibaud G, Esposito G, Oturan MA (2014b) Treatment
of synthetic soil washing solutions containing phenanthrene and cyclodextrin by electro-
oxidation. Influence of anode materials on toxicity removal and biodegradability enhancement.
Appl Catal B Environ 160–161:666–675
Mousset E, Trellu C, Oturan N, Rodrigo MA, Oturan MA (2017) Soil remediation by electro-
Fenton process. In: Electro-Fenton process. Springer, Singapore, pp 399–423
Murati M, Oturan N, van Hullebusch ED, Oturan MA (2009) Electro-Fenton treatment of TNT in
aqueous media in presence of cyclodextrin. Application to ex-situ treatment of contaminated
soil. J Adv Oxid Technol 12:29–36
Nam K, Rodriguez W, Kukor JJ (2001) Enhanced degradation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocar-
bons by biodegradation combined with a modified Fenton reaction. Chemosphere 45(1):11–20
Ou-Yang X, Chen JW, Zhang XG (2010) Advance in supercritical CO2 fluid extraction of contami-
nants from soil. Geol B China 29(11):1655–1661
Pazos M, Plaza A, Martín M, Lobo MC (2012) The impact of electrokinetic treatment on a loamy-
sand soil properties. Chem Eng J 183:231–237
Rivas FJ (2006) Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons sorbed on soils: a short review of chemical
oxidation-based treatments. J Hazard Mater 138(2):234–251
Rosales E, Pazos M, Longo MA, Sanroman MA (2009) Influence of operational parameters on
electro-Fenton degradation of organic pollutants from soil. J Environ Sci Health A Tox Hazard
Subst Environ Eng 44:1104–1110
Silva A, Delerue-Matos C, Fiuza A (2005) Use of solvent extraction to remediate soils contami-
nated with hydrocarbons. J Hazard Mater B 124:224–229
Souza FL, Saéz C, Llanos J, Lanza MRV, Cañizares P, Rodrigo MA (2016) Solarpowered elec-
trokinetic remediation for the treatment of soil polluted with the herbicide 2,4-D. Electrochim
Acta 190:371–377
Sun HW, Yan QS (2008) Influence of pyrene combination state in soils on its treatment efficiency
by Fenton oxidation. J Environ Manag 88(3):556–563
Tokunaga S, Hakuta T (2002) Acid washing and stabilization of an artificial arsenic-contaminated
soil. Chemosphere 46(1):31–38
Virkutyte J, Sillanpaa M, Latostemaa P (2002) Electrokinetic soil remediation-critical overview.
Sci Total Environ 289(113):97–121
Wuana RA, Okieimen FE (2011) Heavy metals in contaminated soils: a review of sources, chemis-
try, risks and best available strategies for remediation. ISRN Ecology 2011:1–20
Xu Q, Huang XF, Cheng JJ, Lu XC (2006) Progress on electrokinetic remediation and its com-
bined methods for POPs from contaminated soils. Environ Sci 27(11):2363–2368
Xu H, Zhou R, Li W, Wang Y, Han X, Zhai X, Tian M, Zhang R, Jin Y, Shen M, Wang Y (2016)
Removal of plutonium from contaminated soil by chemical leaching. Procedia Environ Sci
31:392–400
Yang L, Donahoe RJ, Redwine JC (2007) In situ chemical fixation of arsenic-contaminated soils:
an experimental study. Sci Total Environ 387(1):28–41
Yu YT, Tian GM, He MM (2009) Comparison of two different combined bioleaching-
electrokinetic remediation processes. Acta Sci Circumst 29(1):163–168
Yuan SH, Zheng ZH, Chen J, Lu XH (2009) Use of solar cell in electrokinetic remediation of
cadmium-contaminated soil. J Hazard Mater 162:1583–1587
Zhang RH, Sun HW (2007) Remediation of chromate contaminated soils by combined technology
of electrokinetic and iron PRB. Environ Sci 28(5):1131–1136
Zhang LJ, Zhang Y, Liu DH (2009) Remediation of soils contaminated by heavy metals with dif-
ferent amelioration materials. Soil 41(3):420–424
Zhao D, Liao XY, Yan XL (2011a) Chemical oxidants for remediation of soils contaminated with
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons at a coking site. Environ Sci 32(3):857–863
Zhao D, Yan XL, Liao XY (2011b) Chemical oxidants for remediation of BTEX contaminated
soils at coking sites. Environ Sci 32(3):849–856
Zhou R, Liu X, Luo L, Zhou Y, Wei J, Chen A, Tang L, Wu H, Deng Y, Zhang F, Wang Y (2017)
Remediation of Cu, Pb, Zn and Cd-contaminated agricultural soil using a combined red mud
and compost amendment. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 118:73–81
Chapter 5
Biochar and Soil Remediation
Abstract Biochar is the charred organic matter formed under high heat and low
oxygen conditions that occur in natural fires and modern pyrolysis systems. Biochars
have various properties for the remediation of polluted soils which include negative
charge and large surface area. The use of biochar facilitates nutrient availability,
enhance the microbial activity, soil organic matter availability, water holding and
enhance crop production of soils. Biochar have excellent potential to adsorb the
contaminants from soil solution and make them unavailable to organisms. Various
methods come under biochar technique which includes carbon sequestration, nutri-
ent exchange, water holding, adsorption/absorption and oxidation/reduction.
Although this method (use of biochar in soil remediation) is simple, robust and suit-
able for many regions of the world but, its economic estimations and optimization
should be taken into consideration for its large-scale implementation. Furthermore,
various other public health related concern associated with biochar use should be
addressed properly in order to establish biochar as a best alternative to other soil
remediation methods, in future.
Keywords Carbon sequestration · Nutrient exchange · Water holding · Adsorption
5.1 Introduction
The use of biochar is one of the recent and effective biological process for carbon
sequestration, soil conditioning and remediation, and water remediation (Lehman
et al. 2006, and 2007; Lehman and Joseph 2008; Sohi et al. 2009; Ahmad et al.
2013). According to International Biochar Initiative (IBI), biochar is a solid sub-
stance or material which can be produced by carbonization of biomass (Mulabagala
et al. 2015). The use of biochar promotes several activities: (1) it facilitates the
availability of nutrients in soil, (2) enhances the activity of microbes, (3) enhances
the availability of soil organic matter, and (4) promotes water holding and crop
production by the soils. Thus, its use decreases the fertilizer requirements of the
soil, emission of greenhouse gases, leaching of nutrients and soil erosion (Sohi et al.
2009; Woolf et al. 2010). The metal ions, organic and industrial effluents are the

86 5 Biochar and Soil Remediation
Fig. 5.1 (a) Soil contaminated with heavy metals and PAHs. (b) Contaminated soil with fertilizer.
(c) Contaminated soil with Biochar. (d) Contaminated soil with Biochar and Fertilizers
main source of water and soil contamination. Biochars have an excellent potential
to absorb inorganic and organic contaminants (Hale et al. 2011; Mohan et al. 2012)
thus, possess the capacity for both water and soil remediation. Biochars have
received great attention recently for extraction of contaminants from contaminated
soil, because of their capability to retard the bioavailability of organic and inorganic
pollutants (Cao et al. 2009; Beesley et al. 2011; Gomez-Eyles et al. 2011; Hale et al.
2011). In future, the use of biochar shall replace coal and wood-based activated
carbons for the deduction of pathogens and pollutants from soil (Bernd et al. 2013).
A decrease in the bioavailability of organic contaminants has been observed by
using this technique for agricultural soils (Yang et al. 2006; Cao et al. 2009; Wang
et al. 2010; Yu et al. 2011; Li et al. 2017). In a recent report by Liu et al. (2017),
biochar in combination with immobilized bacterial consortium effectively removed
82.18% of cypermethrin from soil, within 40 days, and the shortest degradation
half-life of cypermethrin was observed to be 16.4 days. Therefore, the use of bio-
char increases soil health and productiveness, and can boost the agricultural yields
(Qambrani et al. 2017). The integrated approach of biochar with phytoremediation
can enhance the growth and remediation efficiency of plants grown on mine tailings
(Fellet et al. 2014). Combination of biochar with composting has been successfully
reported to enhance the remediation efficiency. Composting amends the biochar
5.3 Nutrient Exchange 87
surface structure and biochar stimulates the microbial activity of the compost (Wu
et al. 2016). Use of biochar in combination with soil fertilizers can effectively
reduce the leaching of contaminants into soil and the availability of heavy metals to
the plants. This would enhance the efficiency of fertilizers thereby increasing the
crop yields (Fig. 5.1) (Beesley et al. 2011; Karami et al. 2011; Sizmur et al. 2011;
Beesley et al. 2014). Biochar does not require further refinement as this technique is
simple, robust and appropriate for many areas of the world. But, for its large-scale
application, economic evaluations and optimization are a pre-requisite. Biochar-
mediated remediation involves the following methods.
5.2 Carbon Sequestration
Carbon sequestration is the accumulation or storage of CO2 or other carbon forms

so as to avoid the climate change. Concentrations of pesticides have been reported
to decrease in polluted soil with an increase in the concentration of biochar content
in the soil (Singh and Kookana 2009). The ability of the biochars to remove the pol-
lutants from soil and sediments through sequestration has been successfully evalu-
ated (Lehmann and Joseph 2015; Luo and Gu 2016; Guo et al. 2017). In a report by
Luo and Gu (2016), the addition of biochar, led to a decrease in the microbial abun-
dance and their enzymatic activity but, compared to that of controls, the carbon
sequestration activity was increased (Luo and Gu 2016). In a study by Guo et al.
(2017), multi-walled carbon nanotubes were used as an absorbent for in situ seques-
tration of dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDTs) and hexachlorocyclohexanes
(HCHs). Carbon nanotubes were found to sequester these pesticides efficiently due
to their enormous adsorption capacity and surface area.
5.3 Nutrient Exchange
Nutrient exchange is a chemical process in which nutrient ions (cations and anions)
get stabilized in soil instead of being leached away. The cation exchange capacity
(CEC) is an indicator of the absorbance capacity of soil to absorb cations. The soils
with high CEC value are usually fertile as they have high nutrient holding capacity.
Anion exchange usually takes place at positively charged places due to the dissocia-
tion of hydroxyl ions from aluminum and iron hydroxides, clay minerals, and
amide/amine groups present in the organic matter of soil (Singh et al. 2017). The
pyrolysis of organic substances and their further exposure to the environment leads
to oxygenation of biochar surfaces. These oxygenized surfaces produce oxygen
containing functional groups including hydroxyl, carboxyl, phenol and carbonyl
groups having high CEC which breakdown the organic contaminants into their
byproducts (Cheng et al. 2006; Liang et al. 2006; Lee et al. 2010). With an increase
in pyrolysis temperatures the CEC of biochars first increases and then decreases
which ultimately broken down the contaminants into small compounds (Gaskin
et al. 2008; Lee et al. 2010; Harvey et al. 2011; Mukherjee et al. 2011).
5.4 Water Holding
Soils supplemented with biochar efficiently increased the nutrient holding capacity
and nutrient composition of soil, due to the direct addition of nutrients (Gaskin et al.
2008; Novak et al. 2012; Brantley et al. 2015). Addition of biochar into the soil is an
effective treatment for removal of toxicants from polluted soils due to its various
properties such as: high-water retention capacity; reduction of bioavailability; capa-
bility to retain pesticides; protection of microbes from predators prevents the stress
induced by toxin to plants and microorganisms. Recently, workers have focused
their attention on evaluating the use and suitability of biochar as a soil remediation
strategy for several benefits such as: (1) to enhance the seed germination, (2) to
enhance the productivity of crop and soil and, (3) to promote vegetation on indus-
trial and sewage waste contaminated soils, waste rock piles and mine tailings
(Anawar et al. 2015). All biochars may not prove beneficial for the degradation of
soil contaminants because moisture content of soil moisture content which will
affect the degradation rates of the respective toxicants.
5.5 Adsorption/Absorption
Black carbons are present in natural conditions by the partial incineration of fossil
fuels and biomass. They can also be synthesized using a pyrolyzer. The adsorption
of the hydrophobic organic pollutant by black carbon-like materials can efficiently
retard their concentration in the aqueous phase (Ghosh 2007; Yang and Xing 2010;
Pignatello 2013; Kołtowski et al. 2016). The applications of black carbon into the
soil decrease the availability of organic pollutants in the soil (Xu et al. 2015). The
activated carbon (black carbon produced from pyrolysis of different materials at
high temperature) can effectively retard the accumulation of pollutants in soil, slud-
ges and sediments (Cho et al. 2009; Beckingham and Ghosh 2011; Ghosh et al.
2011). Biochar produced from pyrolysis of various agricultural crop residues has
been proved to be effective for the adsorption of organic contaminant atrazine and
heavy metal Pb, from the polluted soil (Cao et al. 2009).
5.6 Oxidation/Reduction
The redox reactions i.e. oxidation and reduction reactions in the soil are essential
as they regulate the solubility of many elements, create new compounds and hence,
alter the soil biochemistry. With the addition of biochar these reactions get enhanced
5.7 Biochar-Microbe Interaction in Soil 89
and so it can be used for the remediation of soil contaminants. The application of
biochar increases the soil porosity while decreases the soil density (Mukherjee and
Lal 2013; Ma et al. 2016). These large and small pores containing air and water are
congenial for oxic and anoxic reactions to occur. Arsenic is one of the toxic metals
and is more poisonous in its reduced form As (III) under anoxic conditions, as
compared to As (V) formed under oxic conditions. Reducing conditions may
develop in the small micropores due to increased aeration, which resulted into
decrease in the valence state of As (Ratnaike 2003; Moreno-Jiménez et al. 2012).
Oxides have large affinity for the heavy metals and form hydrogen, covalent or
ionic bond with them (Kunhikrishnan et al. 2016; Nagarajah et al. 2017; Yu et al.
2017). Iron oxide is one of the best-known sink for many heavy metals including
arsenic (As), mercury (Hg), chromium (Cr), lead (Pb), and selenium (Se) etc.
hence, iron oxides can be used for remediation of soil (Pardo et al. 2016; Zou et al.
2016; Sharma et al. 2017). Certain other oxides such as Al and Mn oxide also have
same characteristics. Dissolved organic carbon of biochar has been reported to
reduce and oxidize the arsenic (As) and cadmium (Cd) into their less toxic forms
i.e. As (III) and Cd (VI) (Dong et al. 2014). The effects of different forms of Fe
oxides such as Fe salts, red mud, Fe(0), or iron containing by-products in polluted
soils have been evaluated by supplying it to the contaminated soil and it was found
that Fe oxides enhanced the immobilization of trace elements present in soil (Suda
and Makino 2016; Kim et al. 2017).
5.7 Biochar-Microbe Interaction in Soil
The term ‘biochar’ generally refers to a carbon-rich solid material which is pro-
duced as a result of pyrolysis of biomass (plant-based materials) under anaerobic
conditions (Chen and Chen 2009; Beesley et al. 2011). Because of their prospective
benefit for soil fertility, carbon sequestration and contaminant immobilization bio-
chars are deployed in soil remediation strategies (Cao et al. 2009; Jeffery et al.
2015). A combination of contaminant-degrading microbes and biochar can increase
the degradation of PAHs contaminated soil (Chen et al. 2012; Garcia-Delgado et al.
2015). The property of biochars to facilitate the immobilization of pollutants for
further degradation by the microbes have drawn the attention of soil scientists (Oh
et al. 2013; Dong et al. 2014).
Biochar takes part in the direct extracellular electron transfer (DEET) between
the microbial cells and soil minerals or organic matters and also takes part in direct
interspecific electron transfer (DIET) between the microbial cells (Chen et al. 2014;
Fang et al. 2014). This transfer of electrons between microbial cells and biochar
plays a chief role in the degradation of heavy metals and pollutants present in the
soil (Fang et al. 2015; Yang et al. 2016a).
Although biochar influences (both positive and negative) the microbial activity
in several ways, seven possible mechanisms have been reported (Fig. 5.2): (1) bio-
char facilitates microbial territories by improving soil characteristics such as aera-
tion conditions, pH and water content that are crucial for microbial growth (Quilliam
Fig. 5.2 (1) Biochar provide shelter to microbes in its pores (2) Biochar can improves soil CEC
and enhance microbial growth via sorption of nutrient cations with functional groups (3) VOCs
and free radicals inhibit the growth of toxic microbes and enhance plant growth (4) Biochar
improves soil conditions (e.g. water content, aeration, pH) (5) Biohar improves enzyme activities
by absorbing enzyme molecules (6) Biochar increase rate of hydrolysis of signaling molecules and
change the structures of microbial community (7) Biochar enhance adsorption and degradation of
soil pollutants and thus reduce the toxicity of pollutants
et al. 2013); (2) biochar provides shelters to soil microbes in their pore surfaces and
structures (Quilliam et al. 2013); (3) biochar provides sufficient amount of nutrients
to the soil microbes and thus facilitated their growth (Joseph et al. 2013); (4) bio-
char effects the enzymatic activities of microbial communities (Lehmann et al.
2011; Yang et al. 2016b); (5) due to the hydrolysis of signaling molecules, biochars
disturbs the intra-and inter-specific signaling between the microbial cells (Gao et al.
2016); (6) biochar decreases the bioavailability of pollutants to microorganisms by
absorbing and degrading the pollutants (Qin et al. 2013; Stefaniuk and Oleszczuk
2016); and (7) biochar triggers potential toxicity with hydrocarbons and environ-
mentally persistent free radicals (Fang et al. 2014). In a nut-shell, biochar provides
a microenvironment essential for microbial activity.
5.8 Remediation of Organic and Inorganic Contaminants from Soils 91
5.8 emediation of Organic and Inorganic Contaminants

R
from Soils
The greatest concern of organic contaminants has been focused on herbicides, pes-
ticides, dyes, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and antibiotics (Qiu et al. 2009,
Beesley et al. 2010, Zheng et al. 2010, Teixidó et al. 2011, Xu et al. 2012). The vari-
ous mechanisms proposed for the interaction of biochar with organic and inorganic
contaminants is shown in Figs. 5.3 and 5.4. In a study by Jones et al. 2011, it has
been reported that in soil contaminated with simazine application of biochar signifi-
cantly suppresses the leaching and biodegradation of simazine into the groundwater.
Small particle size and high application rate (25 t/h) of biochar was found to be most
effective for adsorption of simazine. Similarly biochar produced from cottom straw
and woodchips (850 °C) has been reported to significantly decrease the dissipation
of fipronil, chlorpyrifos and carbofuran from contaminated soil and thus reduce
their bioavailability (Yu et al. 2009; Yang et al. 2010).
Metal or other inorganic contaminants are produced from various anthropogenic
sources such as metal finishing, pesticides, mining, animal manure, power plants,
fertilizers, smelting, battery manufacture, sewage sludge, waste water etc. (Adriano
2001; Ok et al. 2011; Usman et al. 2012; Lim et al. 2013). The metals are non-
biodegradable and are highly toxic to all the living being (Adriano 2001; Zhang
Fig. 5.3 Postulated mechanisms of the interactions of biochar with organic contaminants. (a)
Electrostatic interaction between biochar and organic contaminant. (b) electrostatic attraction
between biochar and polar organic contaminant. (c) Electrostatic attraction between biochar and
non-polar organic contaminant
Fig. 5.4 Postulated mechanisms of biochar interactions with inorganic contaminants. (a) Ion
exchange between exchangeable metal and metal contaminant in biochar, (b) electrostatic attrac-
tion of anionic metals (c) precipitation of target metal contaminants and (d) electrostatic attraction
of cationic metal
et al. 2013). Biochar is a novel pyrolysed material which can absorb or adsorb these
metals from polluted soil or water. Table 5.1 summarizes the various studies on
biochar applications for remediating soil contaminated with organic and inorganic
contaminants. In a study by Beesley et al. (2010), they have used the biochar
obtained from hardwood in the soil contaminated with Cd, Zn, Cu and As. It has
been reported that among these metals Cd and Zn immobilized in soils amended
with biochar as compared to un-amended soil. Mobility of As in the soil was also
reported to increase with the addition of biochar (Park et al. 2011b; Zhang et al.
2013). In a similar report, mobility of antimony also increased with the addition of
biochar derived from broiler litter (Uchimiya et al. 2012).
Overall, the biochars produced at higher temperatures exhibit higher sorption
efficiency for organic contaminant remediation in soil and water. This is probably
due to the high surface area and microporosity of biochars. Therefore, the biochars
should be produced under well-defined pyrolysis conditions. The biochar properties
should also be carefully examined before the applications for the remediation of
specific organic contaminants in soil or water.
5.8 Remediation of Organic and Inorganic Contaminants from Soils 93
Table 5.1 Applications of biochar for remediation of soils contaminated with organic and
inorganic contaminants
Biochar type Contaminant(s) Result Reference
Hard wood Arsenic Mobilization of arsenic due to Hartley
(400 °C) enhanced pH et al.
(2009)
Woodchips (450 Chloropyrifos and Adsorption of contaminants due to Yu et al.
and 850 °C) carbofuran high surface area and nano-porosity (2009)
Pine wood (350 Phenanthrene Entrapment in micro- or meso-pores Zhang
and 700 °C) et al.
(2010)
Hard wood Polycyclic aromatic Sorption and biodegradation Beesley
hydrocarbons (PAHs) et al.
Hard wood Cadmium and zinc Immobilization due to enhanced pH (2010)
Hard wood Arsenic and copper Mobilization due to enhanced pH
Dairy manure Atrazine Sorption Cao et al.
(450 °C) (2011)
Hardwood (450 Simazine Sorption due to abundance of Jones et al.
and 600 °C) micropores (2011)
Rice straw Pentachlorophenol Adsorption due to high surface area Lou et al.
and microporosity (2011)
Chicken manure Cadmium, lead and Immobilization due to partitioning of Park et al.
and green waste copper metals from the exchangeable phase to (2011a)
(550 °C) less bioavailable organic-bound
fraction
Broiler litter Copper Cation exchange; electrostatic Uchimiya
(700 °C) interaction; sorption on mineral ash et al.
contents; complexation by surface (2011c)
functional groups
Oak wood Copper and lead Complexation with phosphorous and Karami
organic matter et al.
(2011)
Dairy manure Lead Immobilization by Cao et al.
(450 °C) hydroxypyromorphite formation (2011)
Cottonseed Nickel, copper, lead and Surface functional groups of biochars Uchimiya
hulls cadmium controlled metal sequestration et al.
(200–800 °C) (2011b)
Pulpgrade Tylosin Sorption Jeong et al.
hardwood and (2012)
softwood chips
(850 and
900 °C)
Oak wood Lead Immobilization by rise in soil pH and Ahmad
(400 °C) adsorption onto biochar et al.
(2012)
Rice straw Lead Non-electrostatic adsorption Jiang et al.
(2012)
(continued)

Biochar type Contaminant(s) Result Reference
Broiler litter Lead, zinc, copper and Stabilization of Pb and cu; desorption Uchimiya
(350 and antimony of Sb et al.
600 °C) (2012)
Sewage sludge Arsenic, cobalt, Immobilization of arsenic, chromium, Khan et al.
(500–550 °C) cadmium, nickel, cobalt, nickel and lead due to rise in (2013)
chromium, copper, lead soil pH; mobilization of copper, zinc
and zinc and cadmium due to high available
concentrations in biochar
5.9 Conclusions
Since biochar has been reported to be beneficial for crop productivity, for soil reme-
diation and reuse of agricultural wastes hence, researches in the field of bioremedia-
tion with biochar have increased rapidly in the past few years. Because of their
multiple applications biochar can be used as an alternative to other bioremediation
techniques. However, we cannot ignore the various public health issues related to
the use of biochar, as the soil amended with biochar can cause several respiratory
diseases. Furthermore, biochar can accumulate high concentration of heavy metal
ions which is also one of the serious health related concern. Hence, the appropriate
dose of biochar should be taken into consideration for its use in the soil remediation
program. Moreover, leaching of the contaminants to ground water from biochar
amended soils and their accumulation in soil microbes will eventually lead to the
contamination of the ground water and bio-magnification of the contaminants
respectively. In this way these contaminants may enter into food-chain or food-web
and thus disturbing the ecosystem. To overcome the aforementioned drawbacks,
further in-depth research is required for establishment of biochar as an ecofriendly
and efficient soil remediation treatment.
References
Adriano DC (2001) Trace elements in terrestrial environments. Biogeochemistry, bioavailability

and risks of metals. Springer, New York
Ahmad M, Lee SS, Yang JE, Ro HM, Lee YH, Ok YS (2012) Effects of soil dilution and amend-
ments (mussel shell, cow bone, and biochar) on Pb availability and phytotoxicity in military
shooting range soil. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 79:225–231
Ahmad M, Lee SS, Rajapaksha AU, Vithanage M, Zhang M, Cho JS, Lee SE, Ok YS (2013)
Trichloroethylene adsorption by pine needle biochars produced at various pyrolysis tempera-
tures. Bioresour Technol 143:615–622
Anawar HM, Akter F, Solaiman ZM, Strezov V (2015) Biochar: an emerging panacea for remedia-
tion of soil contaminants from mining, industry and sewage wastes. Pedosphere 25(5):654–665
Beckingham B, Ghosh U (2011) Field-scale reduction of PCB bioavailability with activated car-
bon amendment to river sediments. Environ Sci Technol 45:10567–10574
References 95
Beesley L, Jiménez EM, Eyles JLG (2010) Effects of biochar and greenwaste compost amend-
ments on mobility, bioavailability and toxicity of inorganic and organic contaminants in a
multi-element polluted soil. Environ Pollut 158:2282–2287
Beesley L, Moreno-Jiménez E, Gomez-Eyles JL, Harris E, Robinson B, Sizmur T (2011) A review
of biochars’ potential role in the remediation, revegetation and restoration of contaminated
soils. Environ Pollut 159:3269–3282
Beesley L, Inneh OS, Norton GJ, Moreno-Jimenez E, Pardo T, Clemente R, Dawson JJ (2014)
Assessing the influence of compost and biochar amendments on the mobility and toxicity of
metals and arsenic in a naturally contaminated mine soil. Environ Pollut 186:195–202
Bernd M, Steffen W, Karsten A, Lübken M (2013) EGU general assembly, potential dual use of
biochar for wastewater treatment and soil amelioration. Geophys Res Abstr:15
Brantley KE, Brye KR, Savin MC, Longer DE (2015) Biochar source and application rate effects
on soil water retention determined using wetting curves. Open J Soil Sci 5(01):1–10
Cao XD, Ma LN, Gao B, Harris W (2009) Dairy-manure derived biochar effectively sorbs lead and
atrazine. Environ Sci Technol 43:3285–3291
Cao X, Ma L, Liang Y, Gao B, Harris W (2011) Simultaneous immobilization of lead and atrazine
in contaminated soils using dairy-manure biochar. Environ Sci Technol 45:4884–4889
Chen B, Chen Z (2009) Sorption of naphthalene and 1-naphthol by biochars of orange peels with
different pyrolytic temperatures. Chemosphere 76:127–133
Chen B, Yuan M, Qian L (2012) Enhanced bioremediation of PAH-contaminated soil by immobi-
lized bacteria with plant residue and biochar as carriers. J Soil Sediment 12:1350–1359
Chen SS, Rotaru AE, Shrestha PM, Malvankar NS, Liu FH, Fan W, Nevin KP, Lovley DR (2014)
Promoting interspecies electron transfer with biochar. Sci Rep:5019
Cheng CH, Lehmann J, Thies JE, Burton SD, Engelhard MH (2006) Oxidation of black carbon by
biotic and abiotic processes. Org Geochem 37:1477–1488
Cho YM, Ghosh U, Kennedy AJ, Grossman A, Ray G, Tomaszewski JE, Smithenry DW, Bridges
TS, Luthy RG (2009) Field application of activated carbon amendment for in situ stabilization
of polychlorinated biphenyls in marine sediment. Environ Sci Technol 43:3815–3823
Dong X, Ma L, Gress J (2014) Enhanced Cr(VI) reduction and As (III) oxidation in ice phase:
important role of dissolved organic matter from biochar. J Hazard Mater 267:62–70
Fang GD, Gao J, Liu C, Dionysiou DD, Wang Y, Zhou DM (2014) Key role of persistent free radi-
cals in hydrogen peroxide activation by biochar: implications to organic contaminant degrada-
tion. Environ Sci Technol 48:1902–1910
Fang GD, Liu C, Gao J, Dionysiou DD, Zhou DM (2015) Manipulation of persistent free radicals in
biochar to activate persulfate for contaminant degradation. Environ Sci Technol 49:5645–5653
Fellet G, Marmiroli M, Marchiol L (2014) Elements uptake by metal accumulator species grown
on mine tailings amended with three types of biochar. Sci Total Environ 468–469:598–608
Gao X, Cheng HY, Del Valle I, Liu S, Masiello CA, Silberg JJ (2016) Charcoal disrupts soil micro-
bial communication through a combination of signal sorption and hydrolysis. ACS Omega
1:226–233
Garcia-Delgado C, Alfaro-Barta I, Eymar E (2015) Combination of biochar amendment and
mycoremediation for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons immobilization and biodegradation in
creosote-contaminated soil. J Hazard Mater 285:259–266
Gaskin JW, Steiner C, Harris K, Das KC, Bibens B (2008) Effect of low-temperature pyrolysis
conditions on biochar for agricultural use. Trans ASABE 51(6):2061–2069
Ghosh U (2007) The role of black carbon in influencing availability of PAHs in sediments. Hum
Ecol Risk Assess 13:276–285
Ghosh U, Luthy RG, Cornelissen G, Werner D, Menzie CA (2011) In situ sorbent amendments,
a new direction in contaminated sediment management. Environ Sci Technol 45:1163–1168
Gomez-Eyles JL, Sizmur T, Collins CD, Hodson ME (2011) Effects of biochar and the earthworm
Eisenia fetida on the bioavailability of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and potentially toxic
elements. Environ Pollut 159:616–622
Guo Y, Lai C, Zeng G, Gong J, Su C, Yang C, Xu P (2017) Sequestration of HCHs and DDTs in
sediments in Dongting Lake of China with multiwalled carbon nanotubes: implication for in
situ sequestration. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 24:7726–7739
Hale SE, Hanley K, Lehmann J, Zimmerman AR, Cornelissen G (2011) Effects of chemical, bio-
logical, and physical aging as well as soil addition on the sorption of pyrene to activated carbon
and biochar. Environ Sci Technol 45:10445–10453
Hartley W, Dickinson NM, Riby P, Lepp NW (2009) Arsenic mobility in brownfield soils amended
with green waste compost or biochar and planted with Miscanthus. Environ Poll 15(7):
2654–2662
Harvey OR, Herbert BE, Rhue RD, Kuo LJ (2011) Metal interactions at the biochar- water inter-
face, energetics and structure-sorption relationships elucidated by flow adsorption microcalo-
rimetry. Environ Sci Technol 45:5550–5556
Jeffery S, Bezemer TM, Cornelissen G, Kuyper TW, Lehmann J, Mommer L, Sohi SP, van de
Voorde TFJ, Wardle DA, van Groenigen JW (2015) The way forward in biochar research: tar-
geting trade-offs between the potential wins. Glob Change Biol Bioenergy 7:1–13
Jeong CY, Wang JJ, Dodla SK, Eberhardt TL, Groom L (2012) Effect of biochar amendment on
tylosin adsorption–desorption and transport in two different soils. J Environ Qual 41:1185–1192
Jiang TY, Jiang J, Xu RK, Li Z (2012) Adsorption of Pb(II) on variable charge soils amended with
rice-straw derived biochar. Chemosphere 89:249–256
Jones DL, Jones GE, Murphy DV (2011) Biochar mediated alternations in herbicide breakdown
and leaching in soil. Soil Biol Biochem 43:804–813
Joseph S, Graber ER, Chia C, Munroe P, Donne S, Thomas T, Nielsen S, Marjo C, Rutlidge H,
Pan GX, Li L, Taylor P, Rawal A, Hook J (2013) Shifting paradigms: development of high-
efficiency biochar fertilizers based on nanostructures and soluble components. Carbon Manag
4:323–343
Karami M, Clemente R, Jimenez EM, Lepp NW, Beesley L (2011) Efficiency of green waste
compost and biochar soil amendments for reducing lead and copper mobility and uptake to
ryegrass. J Hazard Mater 191:41–48
Khan S, Chao C, Waqas M, Arp HPH, Zhu YG (2013) Sewage sludge biochar influence upon
rice (Oryza sativa L.) yield, metal bioaccumulation and greenhouse gas emissions from acidic
paddy soil. Environ Sci Technol 47:8624–8632
Kim SC, Hong YK, Oh SJ, Oh SM, Lee SP, Kim DH, Yang JE (2017) Effect of chemical amend-
ments on remediation of potentially toxic trace elements (PTEs) and soil quality improvement
in paddy fields. Environ Geochem Health 39(2):345–352
Kołtowski M, Hilber I, Bucheli TD, Oleszczuk P (2016) Effect of activated carbon and biochars on
the bioavailability of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in different industrially contaminated
soils. Environ Sci Pollut R 23(11):11058–11068
Kunhikrishnan A, Seshadri B, Choppala G, Shankar S, Thangarajan R, Bolan N (2016) 3 redox
reactions of heavy metal (loid)s in soils and sediments in relation to bioavailability and reme-
diation. In: Trace elements in waterlogged soils and sediments. CRC Press, Baca Rotan
Lee JW, Kidder M, Evans BR, Paik S, Buchanan AC III, Garten CT, Brown RC (2010)
Characterization of biochars produced from Cornstovers for soil amendment. Environ Sci
Technol 44:7970–7974
Lehmann J (2007) Bio-energy in the black. Front Ecol Environ 5:381–387
Lehmann J, Joseph S (2008) Biochar for environmental management science and technology.
Earthscan, Sterling
Lehmann J, Joseph S (eds) (2015) Biochar for environmental management: science, technology
and implementation. Routledge, Oxon
Lehmann J, Gaunt J, Rondon M (2006) Bio-char sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems-a review.
Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 11:403–427
Lehmann J, Rillig MC, Thies J, Masiello CA, Hockaday WC, Crowley D (2011) Biochar effects
on soil biota – a review. Soil Biol Biochem 43:1812–1836
Li Y, Zhu Y, Liu X, Wu X, Dong F, Xu J, Zheng Y (2017) Bioavailability assessment of thiacloprid
in soil as affected by biochar. Chemosphere 171:185–191
References 97
Liang B, Lehmann J, Solomon D, Kinyangi J, Grossman J, O’Neill B, Skjemstad JO, Thies J,

Luizao FJ, Petersen J, Neves EG (2006) Black carbon increases cation exchange capacity in
soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 70:1719–1730
Lim JE, Ahmad M, Usman ARA, Lee SS, Jeon WT, Oh SE, Yang JE, Ok YS (2013) Effects of
natural and calcined poultry waste on Cd, Pb and As mobility in contaminated soil. Environ
Earth Sci 69:11–20
Liu J, Ding Y, Ma L, Gao G, Wang Y (2017) Combination of biochar and immobilized bacteria in
cypermethrin-contaminated soil remediation. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 120:15–20
Lou L, Wu B, Wang L, Luo L, Xu X, Hou J, Xun B, Hu B, Chen Y (2011) Sorption and ecotoxicity
of pentachlorophenol polluted sediment amended with rice-straw derived biochar. Bioresour
Technol 102:4036–4041
Luo L, Gu JD (2016) Alteration of extracellular enzyme activity and microbial abundance by
biochar addition: implication for carbon sequestration in subtropical mangrove sediment.
Ma Y, Rajkumar M, Zhang C, Freitas H (2016) Beneficial role of bacterial endophytes in heavy
metal phytoremediation. J Environ Manag 174:14–25
Mohan D, Sharma R, Singh VK, Steele P, Pittman CU Jr (2012) Fluoride removal from water using
bio-char, a green waste low cost adsorbent, equilibrium uptake and sorption dynamics model-
ing. Ind Eng Chem Res 51(2):900–914
Moreno-Jiménez E, Esteban E, Peñalosa JM (2012) The fate of arsenic in soil-plant systems.
In: Whitacre DM (ed) Reviews of environmental contamination and toxicology. Springer,
New York, pp 1–37
Mukherjee A, Lal R (2013) Biochar impacts on soil physical properties and greenhouse gas emis-
sions. Agronomy 3(2):313–339
Mukherjee A, Zimmerman AR, Harris W (2011) Surface chemistry variations among a series of
laboratory-produced biochars. Geoderma 163:247–255
Mulabagala V, Baaha DA, Egieborb NO, Chen WY (2015) Biochar from biomass: a strategy for
carbon dioxide sequestration, soil amendment, power generation, and CO2 utilization. In:
Handbook of climate change mitigation and adaptation. Springer, New York
Nagarajah R, Wong KT, Lee G, Chu KH, Yoon Y, Kim NC, Jang M (2017) Synthesis of a unique
nanostructured magnesium oxide coated magnetite cluster composite and its application for the
removal of selected heavy metals. Sep Purif Technol 174:290–300
Novak JM, Busscher WJ, Watts DW, Amonette JE, Ippolito JA, Lima IM, Gaskin J, Das KC,
Steiner C, Ahmedna M, Rehrah D (2012) Biochars impact on soil-moisture storage in an ultisol
and two aridisols. Soil Sci 177(5):310–320
Oh SY, Son JG, Hur SH, Chung JS, Chiu PC (2013) Black carbon-mediated reduction of
2,4-dinitrotoluene by dithiothreitol. J Environ Qual 42:815–821
Ok YS, Usman ARA, Lee SS, Abd El-Azeem SAM, Choi B, Hashimoto Y, Yang JE (2011) Effects
of rapeseed residue on lead and cadmium availability and uptake by rice plants in heavy metal
contaminated paddy soil. Chemosphere 85:677–682
Pardo T, Martínez-Fernández D, de la Fuente C, Clemente R, Komárek M, Bernal MP (2016)
Maghemite nanoparticles and ferrous sulfate for the stimulation of iron plaque formation and
arsenic immobilization in Phragmites australis. Environ Pollut 219:296–304
Park JH, Choppala GK, Bolan NS, Chung JW, Cuasavathi T (2011a) Biochar reduces the bioavail-
ability and phytotoxicity of heavy metals. Plant Soil 348:439–451
Park JH, Lamb D, Paneerselvam P, Choppala G, Bolan N, Chung JW (2011b) Role of organic
amendments on enhanced bioremediation of heavy metal(loid) contaminated soils. J Hazard
Mater 185:549–574
Pignatello JJ (2013) Adsorption of dissolved organic compounds by black carbon. In: Molecular
environmental soil science (pp 359–385), vol 186. Springer Netherlands Pollution, The
Netherlands, pp 195–202
Qambrani NA, Rahman MM, Won S, Shim S, Ra C (2017) Biochar properties and eco-friendly
applications for climate change mitigation, waste management, and wastewater treatment: a
review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 79:255–273
Qin G, Gong D, Fan MY (2013) Bioremediation of petroleum-contaminated soil by biostimulation

amended with biochar. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 85:150–155
Qiu Y, Zheng Z, Zhou Z, Sheng GD (2009) Effectiveness and mechanisms of dye adsorption on a
straw-based biochar. Bioresour Technol 100:5348–5351
Quilliam RS, Glanville HC, Wade SC, Jones DL (2013) Life in the ‘charosphere’- does bio-
char in agricultural soil provide a significant habitat for microorganisms? Soil Biol Biochem
65:287–293
Ratnaike RN (2003) Acute and chronic arsenic toxicity. Postgrad Med J 79:391–396
Sharma R, Sarswat A, Pittman CU, Mohan D (2017) Cadmium and lead remediation using mag-
netic and non-magnetic sustainable biosorbents derived from Bauhinia purpurea pods. RSC
Adv 7(14):8606–8624
Singh N, Kookana RS (2009) Organo-mineral interactions mask the true sorption potential of
biochars in soils. J Environ Sci Health 44:214–219
Singh B, Camps-Arbestain M, Lehmann J (2017) Biochar: a guide to analytical methods. CSIRO
Publishing, Melbourne
Sizmur T, Wingate J, Hutchings T, Hodson ME (2011) Lumbricus terrestris L. does not impact on
the remediation efficiency of compost and biochar amendments. Pedobiologia 54:S211–S216
Sohi S, Loez-Capel E, Krull E, Bol R (2009) Biochar’s roles in soil and climate change, a review
of research needs. CSIRO Land and Water Science Report p 64
Stefaniuk M, Oleszczuk P (2016) Addition of biochar to sewage sludge decreases freely dissolved
PAHs content and toxicity of sewage sludge-amended soil. Environ Pollut 218:242–251
Suda A, Makino T (2016) Functional effects of manganese and iron oxides on the dynamics of
trace elements in soils with a special focus on arsenic and cadmium: a review. Geoderma
270:68–75
Teixidó M, Pignatello JJ, Beltrán JL, Granados M, Peccia J (2011) Speciation of the ionizable
antibiotic sulfamethazine on black carbon (biochar). Environ Sci Technol 45:10020–10027
Uchimiya M, Klasson KT, Wartelle LH, Lima IM (2011b) Influence of soil properties on heavy
metal sequestration by biochar amendment: copper sorption isotherms and the release of cat-
ions. Chemosphere 82:1431–1437
Uchimiya M, Wartelle LH, Klasson T, Fortier CA, Lima IM (2011c) Influence of pyrolysis tem-
perature on biochar property and function as a heavy metal sorbent in soil. J Agric Food Chem
59:2501–2510
Uchimiya M, Bannon DI, Wartelle LH, Lima IM, Klasson KT (2012) Lead retention by broiler
litter biochars in small arms range soil: impact of pyrolysis temperature. J Agric Food Chem
60:5035–5044
Usman ARA, Lee SS, Awad YM, Lim KJ, Yang JE, Ok YS (2012) Soil pollution assessment and
identification of hyperaccumulating plants in chromate copper arsenate (CCA) contaminated
sites, Korea. Chemosphere 87:872–878
Wang HL, Lin KD, Hou ZN, Richardson B, Gan J (2010) Sorption of the herbicide terbuthyla-
zine in two New Zealand forest soils amended with biosolids and biochars. J Soils Sediments
10:283–289
Woolf D, Amonette JE, Street-Perrott FA, Lehmann J, Joseph S (2010) Sustainable biochar to
mitigate global climate change. Nat Commun 1:Article number, 56
Wu H, Lai C, Zeng G (2016) The interactions of composting and biochar and their implications for
soil amendment and pollution remediation: a review. Crit Rev Biotechnol 37:1–11
Xu T, Lou L, Luo L, Cao R, Duan D, Chen Y (2012) Effect of bamboo biochar on pentachlorophe-
nol leachability and bioavailability in agricultural soil. Sci Total Environ 414:727–731
Xu W, Pignatello JJ, Mitch WA (2015) Reduction of nitroaromatics sorbed to black carbon by
direct reaction with sorbed sulfides. Environ Sci Technol 49(6):3419–3426
Yang K, Xing B (2010) Adsorption of organic compounds by carbon nanomaterials in aqueous
phase: Polanyi theory and its application. Chem Rev 110(10):5989–6008
Yang YN, Sheng GY, Huang MS (2006) Bioavailability of diuron in soil containing wheat-straw-
derived char. Sci Total Environ 354:170–178
References 99
Yang XB, Ying GG, Peng PA, Wang L, Zhao JL, Zhang LJ, Yuan P, He HP (2010) Influence of
biochars on plant uptake and dissipation of two pesticides in an agricultural soil. J Agric Food
Chem 58:7915–7921
Yang J, Pan B, Li H, Liao S, Zhang D, Wu M, Xing B (2016a) Degradation of p-nitrophenol on
biochars: role of persistent free radicals. Environ Sci Technol 50:694–700
Yang X, Liu J, McGrouther K, Huang H, Lu K, Guo X, He L, Lin X, Che L, Ye Z, Wang H (2016b)
Effect of biochar on the extractability of heavy metals (Cd, Cu, Pb, and Zn) and enzyme activ-
ity in soil. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23:974–984
Yu XY, Ying GG, Kookana RS (2009) Reduced plant uptake of pesticides with biochar additions
to soil. Chemosphere 76:665–671
Yu XY, Mu CL, Gu C, Liu C, Liu XJ (2011) Impact of woodchip biochar amendment on the sorp-
tion and dissipation of pesticide acetamiprid in agricultural soils. Chemosphere 85:1284–1289
Yu Z, Qiu W, Wang F, Lei M, Wang D, Song Z (2017) Effects of manganese oxide-modified
biochar composites on arsenic speciation and accumulation in an indica rice (Oryza sativa L.)
cultivar. Chemosphere 168:341–349
Zhang H, Lin K, Wang H, Gan J (2010) Effect of Pinus radiate derived biochars on soil sorption
and desorption of phenanthrene. Environ Pollut 158:2821–2825
Zhang X, Wang H, He L, Lu K, Sarmah A, Li J, Bolan NS, Pei J, Huang H (2013) Using biochar
for remediation of soils contaminated with heavy metals and organic pollutants. Environ Sci
Pollut Res 20:8472–8483. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-013-1659-0
Zheng W, Guo M, Chow T, Bennett DN, Rajagopalan N (2010) Sorption properties of greenwaste
biochar for two triazine pesticides. J Hazard Mater 181:121–126
Zou Y, Wang X, Khan A, Wang P, Liu Y, Alsaedi A, Hayat T, Wang X (2016) Environmental reme-
diation and application of nanoscale zero-valent iron and its composites for the removal of
heavy metal ions: a review. Environ Sci Technol 50(14):7290–7304
Chapter 6
Soil Remediation Through Microbes
Abstract The use of microbes including bacteria and fungi for treatment of pol-
luted soils is also a method of soil remediation. Microbes are adapted to survive
under various unfavorable conditions, such as high temperature, alkalinity, and
acidity, and can easily develop biological resistance against the toxic substances
because of their jumping genes. Under favorable conditions of growth and adequate
supply of the nutrients, the microbes can biotransform or biodegrade complex
organic materials into harmless or less toxic smaller molecules. With the addition of
micronutrients into the microbial consortia the degradation rate of pollutants can be
enhanced as the added nutrients stimulate soil microbes which eventually expedite
the rate of biodegradation. Mycoremediation is fungal-mediated bioremediation of
polluted soils containing organic and inorganic pollutants. Fungal mycelia can
spread similarly as that of plant roots and accumulate heavy metals in their cytosol.
Environmentalists regard microorganisms as ‘eco-friendly nano-factories’ for treat-
ing the polluted soils. However, natural pollutants can be degraded by the naturally
occurring microbes while for degradation of manmade chemicals or pollutants,
genetically transformed microbes should be developed for efficient soil remedia-
tion. Microbe-mediated remediation can take place via three methods i.e. biovent-
ing, bioleaching, bioaugmentation. In the last few years, several reports covering the
success stories of microbe-mediated soil remediation have come up.
Keywords Microbial remediation · Bioventing · Bioleaching · Bioreactors ·

Bioaugmentation
6.1 Introduction
Microbes play a vital role to sustain the environment (Widdel and Rabus 2001;
Varjani and Srivastava 2015) and have been successfully used for the remediation of
polluted soils (Chandra et al. 2013; Varjani and Upasani 2016). They are adapted to
survive under unfavorable conditions such as high temperature, alkalinity, and acid-
ity. Microbes can easily develop biological resistance against the toxic substances
because of their jumping genes. Under favorable conditions of growth and adequate

102 6 Soil Remediation Through Microbes
supply of the nutrients, the microbes can bio transform or biodegrade complex
organic materials into smaller molecules (de-Bashan et al. 2012). Environmentalists
regard microorganisms as ‘eco-friendly nano-factories’ for treating the polluted
soils (Potysz et al. 2016; Verma and Jaiswal 2016; Chen et al. 2016, 2017).
Microbes for e.g. yeast, bacteria and fungi have the potential to degrade the
hydrocarbons present in contaminated soils (McDonald et al. 2006; Varjani et al.
2015; Varjani and Upasani 2016). The biodegradation efficiency of bacteria has
been reported by several research groups which ranges from 0.003% (Hollaway
et al. 1980) to 100% (Phillips and Stewart 1974), 6% (Jones et al. 1970) to 82%
(Pinholt et al. 1979) for soil fungi and 0.003% (Hollaway et al. 1980) to 100%
(Phillips and Stewart 1974) for marine bacteria.
Nowadays, applications of genetically modified/engineered microbes have
gained great attention of the scientists across different fields so as to enhance the
degradation rate of the toxic compounds. Though modified microorganisms have
been successfully used but, their capability is affected by their competitive potential
towards other microorganisms, indigenous predators and certain other abiotic fac-
tors. Growth inhibition and loss of degradation potential of microbes can hinder the
performance of bioremediation. To overcome these problems, repeated inoculation
of microbes into the soil is recommended. To improve the performance of bioaug-
mentation, a combination of various conventional and molecular methods can also
be used (Cycoń et al. 2017). However, various regulatory environmental and eco-
logical concerns related to genetically modified organisms are the major constrains
for their large-scale implementation.
6.2 Microbial Degradation of Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Degradation of organic pollutants by microbes is one of the most important and

promising phenomenon for cleaning the soils contaminated with petroleum hydro-
carbons (Atlas 1981; Amund and Nwokoye 1993; Lal and Khanna 1996) (Table 6.1).
Petroleum hydrocarbons can be categorized into four groups: phenols, esters,
porphyrins, and ketones (Colwell et al. 1977). Biodegradation of petroleum hydro-
carbons largely depends upon the nature as well as the amount of hydrocarbons
present. Floodgate (1984), repoted 25 genera of hydrocarbon degrading fungi and
bacteria. Several success stories of soil remediation through microbes are available
(Farhadian et al. 2008; Sajna et al. 2015; Varjani et al. 2015; Varjani and Upasani
2016) (Table 6.2). Furthermore, various researches have also been conducted to out-
line the pathway adopted by microbes for degradation of contaminants (Watkinson
and Morgan 1990; Rojo 2009; Jaekel et al. 2013; Ron and Rosenberg 2014; Abbasian
et al. 2015; Meckenstock et al. 2016; Wilkes et al. 2016). The energy produced dur-
ing the degradation of soil pollutants can be used by the microbes for their cellular
metabolism (Abbasian et al. 2015).
6.2 Microbial Degradation of Petroleum Hydrocarbons 103
Table 6.1 List of selected microorganisms which aid phytoextraction of heavy metals
Microbes responsible for
Element Source remediation Reference(s)
Chromium Tanning, paints, pigments, Bacillus pumilus S28, Bacillus Abou-Shanab
(Cr) fungicide subtilis S3 Brevibacterium et al. (2008)
halotolerans S29 Pseudomonas
pseudoalcaligenes S22
Rahnella aquatilis Kumar et al.
(2009)
Bacillus sp. Dhal et al.
(2010)
Desulfovibrio desulfuricans Ock Joo et al.
(2015)
Nickel (Ni) Electroplating, mining and Microbacterium Abou-Shanab
smelting arabinogalactanolyticum et al. (2006)
AY509225 Microbacterium
oxydans AY509223
Bacillus subtilis SJ-101 Zaidi et al.
(2006)
Pseudomonas sp. Kuffner et al.
(2008)
Pseudomonas jessenii PjM15 Rajkumar et al.
(2013)
Bacillus cereus SRA10, Ma et al.
Psychrobacter sp. SRA1 (2009a)
Psychrobacter sp. SRA2
Bacillus cereus SRA10, Ma et al.
Psychrobacter sp. SRA1 and (2009b)
SRA2
Bacillus sp. SN9, Pseudomonas Ma et al.
sp. SRI2, Psychrobacter sp. (2009c)
SRS8
Achromobacter xylosoxidans Ma et al.
Ax10 (2009b)
Pseudomonas sp. A3R3 Ma et al. (2011)
Pseudomonas sp. SRI2, Ma et al. (2011)
Psychrobacter sp. SRS8 and
Bacillus sp. SN9
Bacillus pumilus NBRFT9 Tiwari et al.
Paenibacillus macerans (2012)
NBRFT5
Bacillus endophyticus NBRFT4
Bacillus megaterium SR28C Rajkumar et al.
(2013)
Enterobacter cloacae Banerjee et al.
(2015)
(2015)
(continued)

Lead (Pb) Bearing metals, cable Bacillus firmus Salehizadeh and
covering, explosives, batteries, Shojaosadati
manufacture of pesticides, (2003)
antifouling paints, analytical
reagents and gasoline additives
Vibrio harveyi Mire et al.
(2004)
Corynebacterium glutamicum Choi and Yun
(2004)
Bacillus sp. Tunali et al.
(2006)
Bacillus sp. ATS-2 Cabuk et al.
(2006)
Pseudomonas putida Uslu and Tanyol
(2006)
Bacillus megaterium HKP-1, Wu et al.
Azotobacter chroococcum (2006a)
HKN-5 and Bacillus
mucilaginosun HKK-1
Microbacterium sp. G16 and Sheng et al.
Pseudomonas fluorescens G10 (2008)
Cupriavidus taiwanensis Chen et al.
(2008b)
Burkholderia sp. J62 Jiang et al.
(2008)
Bacillus sp. RJ16 He et al. (2009)
Azotobactor chroococum and Hadi and Bano
Rhizobium leguminosarum (2010)
Rahnella sp. JN6 He et al. (2013)
Enterobacter sp. JYX7and Jing et al.
Klebsiella sp. JYX10 (2014)
Pseudomonas aeruginosa Ahmady-
Asbchin et al.
(2015)
(2015)
Manganese Sewage sludge, Municipal –
(Mn) wastewater discharges, mining
and mineral processing, iron
and steel foundries, emissions
from steel, alloy and iron
production fossil fuels
combustion, industrial
emissions power plants
(continued)

Silver (Ag) Manufacture and disposal of –
certain photographic and
electrical supplies, emissions
from smelting operations, coal
combustion, and cloud seeding
Cadmium Fertilizer, plastic, pigment Arthrobacter mysorens, Belimov et al.
(Cd) Agrobacterium radiobacter, (2004)
Flavobacterium sp. L30,
Azospirillum lipoferum,
Bacillus megaterium HKP-1, Wu et al.
HKN-5, and Bacillus
mucilaginosun HKK-1
Burkholderia cepacia Li et al. (2007)
Pseudomonas tolaasii ACC23, Dell’Amico
Pseudomonas fluorescens et al. (2008)
ACC9, Mycobacterium sp.
ACC14,
Bacillus sp. J119 Sheng et al.
(2008)
(2013)
Burkholderia sp. J62 Jiang et al.
(2008)
(2008b)
Pseudomonas aeruginosa Ganesan (2008)
MKRh3
Bacillus sp. RJ16, He et al. (2009)
Pseudomonas sp. RJ10
Streptomyces tendae F4 Dimpka et al.
(2009)
Paecilo myceslilacinus NH1 Gao et al.
(2010)
Bacillus mycoides, Micrococcus Malekzadeh
roseus et al. (2012)
Fusarium oxysporum Zhang et al.
(2012)
Phyllobacterium Ma et al. (2013)
myrsinacearum RC6b
Klebsiella sp. BAM1 Prapagdee et al.
(2013)
Pseudomonas putida 710, Rani et al.
Comamonas aquatica 710B (2013)
(continued)

Rahnella sp. Yuan et al.
(2013)
Enterobacter intermedius Płociniczak
MH8b et al. (2013)
Micrococcus sp. MU1 and Prapagdee et al.
Klebsiella sp. BAM1 (2013)
Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Liang et al.
Bacillus subtilis, B. cereus, (2014)
B.megaterium
Pseudomonas sp. LK9 Chen et al.
(2014)
(2015)
Bacillus pumilus E2S2 and Ma et al. (2015)
Bacillus sp. E1S2
Cedeceadavisae LCR1 Liu et al. (2015)
Rhodococcus erythropolis
NSX2
(2015)
Serratia sp. RSC-14 Khan et al.
(2015)
Zinc (Zn) Fertilizer Streptomyces rimosus Mameri et al.
(1999)
Aphanothece halophytica Incharoensakdi
and Kitjaharn
(2002)
Thiobacillus ferrooxidans Liu et al. (2004)
Azotobacter chroococcum Wu et al.
HKN-5, Bacillus megaterium (2006a)
HKP-1 and Bacillus
mucilaginosun HKK-1
Burkholderia cepacia Li et al. (2007)
(2013)
Enterobacter sp. NBRI K28 Kumar et al.
(2008)
Pseudomonas sp. PsM6, Rajkumar et al.
P. Jessenii PjM15 (2013)
Bacilus subtilis, B. cereus, He et al. (2010)
Flavobacterium sp. and
Pseudomonas aeroginosa
(continued)

NBRFT5
(2012)
Phyllobacterium Ma et al. (2013)
myrsinacearum RC6b
Enterobacter intermedius Płociniczak
MH8b et al. (2013)
Pseudomonas veronii Long et al.
(2013)
Acinetobacter sp. Tabaraki et al.
(2013)
(2014)
Rhizobium leguminozarum Adediran et al.
(2015)
Bacillus pumilus E2S2 and Ma et al. (2015)
Bacillus sp. E1S2
Arsenic Smelting, mining, and Methanobacterium bryantii McBride and
(As) coal-fired power plants Wolfe (1971)
Enterobacter sp., Aeromonas Cullen (1989)
sp., Nocardia sp.
Achromobacter sp.
Pseudomonas arsenitoxidans Santini et al.
NT-26 (2000)
Clostridium collagenovorans, Michalke et al.
Desulfovibrio vulgaris and D. (2000)
gigas, Methanobacterium
formicicum,
Thermus aquaticus and Gihring et al.
Thermus thermophilus (2001)
Enterobactor cloacae CAL2 Nie et al. (2002)
Sulfurospirillum species NP4 MacRae et al.
(2007)
Staphylococcus arlettae Srivastava et al.
(2013)
Bacillus thuringiensis GDB-1 Babu et al.
(2013)
(continued)

Copper Copper plating, copper Pseudomonas cepacia Savvaidis et al.
(Cu) sheathing, fungicides in (2003)
agriculture Psuedomonas aspleni AC Reed and Glick
(Canola) (2005)
Sphaerotilus natans Beolchini et al.
(2006)
Bacillus megaterium HKP-1 Wu et al.
HKN-5,
Bacillus mucilaginosun HKK-1
(2008a, b)
Achromobacter xylosoxidans Ma et al.
Ax10 (2009a)
Enterobacter sp. Bestawy et al.
(2010)
Acidithiobacillus caldus, A. Kaksonen et al.
ferrooxidans, A. thiooxidans, (2011)
Leptospirillum ferrooxidans
and Sulfobacillus
thermotolerans
Kocuria flava Achal et al.
(2011)
Pantoea agglomerans Jp3-3 Zhang et al.
and Pseudomonas (2011)
thivervalensis Y1-3-9
NBRFT5
(2012)
Bacillus thuringiensis GDB-1 Babu et al.
(2013)
(2014)
Enterobacter sp. K3-2 Li et al. (2016)
Acidithiobacillus thiooxidans Potysz et al.
(2016)
Iron (Fe) Metallurgical, iron and steel Pseudomonas aeruginosa Akintunde et al.
industry, sewage, dust from (2015)
iron mining, fertilizer and
herbicide
(continued)

Mercury Municipal waste combustors, –
(Hg) Medical waste incinerators,
Coal-fired power generation,
manufacture of alkali, metals,
and cement
Cobalt Seawater, volcanic Eruptions, –
(Co) forest fires, exhausts from
burning coal and oil, and from
industrial processes
Selenium Photocopying, photocells, –
(Se) light meters and solar cells
Antimony Mines and industrial facilities, –
(Sb) fumes from burning of oil
fuels (vehicle exhaust gases)
and industrial dust Waste
incinerators, metal processing
works, burning coal,
Bismuth Copper, lead gold and silver –
(Bi) smelting, waste water and
sewage sludge,
pharmaceuticals, cosmetics,
pearlescent pigments, ceramic
glazes, permanent magnets
Various fungal species such as Amorphoteca, Neosartoria, Aspergillus,

Paecilomyces, Talaromyces, Fusarium, Sporobolomyces, Graphium and Penicillium
and yeast species such as Pichia, Rhodotorula, Candida, Yarrowia and Pseudozyma
have been successfully used for treatment of petroleum hydrocarbons from polluted
soils (Atlas 1981; Leahy and Colwell 1990; Boonchan et al. 2000; Sajna et al. 2015;
Wilkes et al. 2016). Bacterial species such as Arthrobacter, Azoarcus, Micrococcus,
Achromobacter, Cellulomonas, Flavobacterium, Brevibacterium, Pseudomonas,
Corynebacterium, Nocardia, Acinetobacter, Ochrobactrum, Stenotrophomaonas,
Vibrio and Marinobacter have been reported to degrade hydrocarbons (Widdel and
Rabus 2001; Roy et al. 2002; Foght 2008; Mittal and Singh 2009; Chandra et al.
2013; Meckenstock et al. 2016; Varjani et al. 2015; Varjani and Upasani 2016).
Biodegradation of contaminants involve catalytic action of various enzymes via
three possible ways: (1) chemotrophic aerobic (2) chemotrophic anaerobic and (3)
phototrophic (Abbasian et al. 2015). Reaction such as hydroxylation, dehydrogena-
tion, oxidation and reduction are responsible for both aerobic and anaerobic degra-
dation pathways (Abbasian et al. 2015; Wilkes et al. 2016). ω-oxidation, β-oxidation,
terminal oxidation and sub-terminal oxidation are the major pathways which are
responsible for degradation of pollutants (Salleh et al. 2003; Abbasian et al. 2015).
Table 6.2 Reports on microorganism-mediated remediation of hydrocarbon polluted soils

Compound(s) Sources Microbe(s) Reference(s)
4-Chloronitrobenzene Rubbers, dyes, plastics, Pseudomonas putida Xiao et al.
soaps, detergents, ZWL73 (2006), Zhen
lubricating oils, et al. (2006) and
agrochemicals, Zhao et al.
pesticides and (2009)
pharmaceuticals
industries
Fenitrothion (O, Insecticide Burkholderia sp. FDS-1Zhang et al.
O-dimethyl O-p-nitro-m- (2006) and
tolyl phosphorothioate) Hong et al.
(2007)
para-Nitrophenol Rubber, dyes, paint, Moraxella sp. Spain and
drugs and fungicides Gibson (1991)
industries Arthrobacter sp. Jain et al.
(1994)
Bacillus sphaericus Kadiyala and
JS905 Spain (1998)
Arthrobacter Labana et al.
protophormiae RKJ100 (2005)
Pseudomonas sp. WBC-3 Liu et al. (2005)
Pseudomonas sp. Zhang et al.
(2009)
Methyl parathion (O, Agricultural and Pseudomonas sp. WBC-3 Liu et al. (2005)
O-dimethyl domestic pesticides,
Op-Nitrophenol fungicides, herbicides
phosphorothioate)
4-Chlorophenol Disinfectants, Arthrobacter Jernberg and
pesticides and chlorophenolicus A6L Jansson (2002)
herbicides
Pentachlorophenol Agricultural and Sphingobium Cai and Xun
industrial uses chlorophenolicum ATCC (2002), Dams
39723 et al. (2007)
4-Chloronitrobenzene Industrial applications Pseudomonas putida Xiao et al.
ZWL73 (2006) and
Zhen et al.
(2006)
Comamonas sp. CNB-1 Wu et al.
(2006b) and Ma
et al. (2007)
Ortho-nitrophenol and Rubber, dyes, paint, Pseudomonas sp. Chi et al. (2013)
metanitrophenol drugs and fungicides WBC-3, Cupriavidus
industries necator JMP134,
Alcaligenes sp. NyZ215
(continued)
6.3 Bioventing 111

Compound(s) Sources Microbe(s) Reference(s)
PAHs mixture Industrial effluents, Rhodococcus sp., Yu et al. (2005)
(phenanthrene, fluorene, diesel and gasoline Acinetobacter sp. and
pyrene) exhaust, soot, coke, Pseudomonas sp.
cigarette and cigar Bacillus sp. B3G, Silva et al.
smoke Bacillus sp. B1F, (2009a, b)
Bacillus sp. B5A,
Enterobacter
agglomerans B1A,
Chromobacterium sp.
4015
Pseudomonas aeruginosa Varjani and
NCIM 5514 Upasani (2016)
Fig. 6.1 Schematic representation of bioventing for treatment of contaminated soil
6.3 Bioventing
The soil bioventing involves the supply of oxygen to the polluted soils to stimulate
microbial degradation of the pollutants. A bioeventing setup consists of a blower or
compressor associated with one air-supply well and soil-gas observing wells
(Downey et al. 2004) (Fig. 6.1). However, this technique is a choice for remediating
light-spilled petroleum products but, may be utilized to treat more recalcitrant tox-
ins using ozonation (Philp and Atlas 2005; Azubuike et al. 2016). Obviously, bio-
venting has a future and a minimal innovation, along with people’s interest for more
natural strategies for remediation will most likely empower the continuing experi-
mentation (Herndon et al. 2013). Bioventing is more viable as compared to land
farming (Sharma 2012). Researchers have recommended that anaerobic conditions
may help in degrading the contaminants like chlorinated solvents and polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) thus, opening potential outcomes of venting sub-
strates other than oxygen, for growth of microbes (Antizar-Ladislao 2010).
Besides microbial action, the degradation process can stimulate the mobilization
of other toxic metals like arsenic (As) or manganese (Mn) (Hellekson 1999). In
specific cases, one contaminant may really synergise the degradation of another
contaminant. Chlorinated compounds generally degrade anaerobically, yet some of
them trichloroethylene (TCE) and perchloroethylene (PCE) can be degraded aerobi-
cally in the presence of co-metabolites, which include aromatic compounds like
toluene (Bradley 2003). Considering the complexity of polluted sites bioventing
may be applied with certain other strategies like soil-vapour extraction and air-
sparging. The enthusiasm for bioventing might proceed however, care need to be
taken especially while working with chlorinated solvents and PAHs. The break-
down of both of these compounds may generate other secondary toxins. The limita-
tion of this technique is that it is not applicable when the ground water level goes
several feet down. Low temperature and low permeability also hampers the effec-
tiveness of bioventing (Uddin et al. 2017).
6.4 Bioleaching
Bioleaching has been widely used to dissolve heavy metals such as copper (Cu),
nickel (Ni), zinc (Zn), Aurum (Au), lead (Pb), cobalt (Co), arsenic (As) and others
with the use of bacteria, instead of chemicals. This phenomenon is based on the
unique characteristic of certain bacteria (which can eat the metal content) which
uses two different pathways for dissolution of metal sulfides that are polysulfide and
thiosulphate pathway. The dissolution of metals can be achieved by proton attack
and oxidation reactions (Fu et al. 2010; Vera et al. 2013). Rashidi et al. (2012), pro-
posed a mathematical model for bioleaching of uranium by iron-oxidizing bacteria
Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans, Thiobacillus ferrooxidans, Leptospirillum ferrooxi-
dans and acidophilic iron-oxidizing bacteria for bioleaching of sulfide minerals
(Romo et al. 2013). Extraction of Cu from mine wastes is one of the commercial
applications of this technique (Watling 2014). This technique can be used in combi-
nation with electrokinetic remediation to dissolve and recycle the heavy metals such
as Cu and Zn (Peng et al. 2011). It can also be used in combination with AOPs
(advanced oxidation processes: Fenton or Fenton like reactions) to enhance the pro-
cess of heavy metal removal from sludge. In Fenton like reactions, hydoxyl (OH)
group is the main reactant which can degrade the waste water sludge (Pham et al.
2010; Lin et al. 2015). Various biosurfactants produced by some microbes such as
Bacillus subtilis, B. pumilus, Brevibacillus parabrevis and Pseudomonas aeruginosa
have been reported to remove phenanthrene (Reddy et al. 2010; Kumar et al. 2012).
6.5 Bioaugmentation 113
Fungal species such as Aspergillus niger, Penicillium chrysogenum, P. simplicissi-

mum, P. purpurogenum can also be used in bioleaching (Rezza et al. 2001). It has
been reported that A. niger could effectively remove 82.1 % Pb, 74.1 % Cu, 87.8 %
Cd and 87.6 % Zn from sewage sludge (Xu and Feng 2016). The limitation of this
technique is that it requires a treatment of atleast 16–20 days, which does affect the
maintenance cost and is therefore not suitable for large-scale application.
6.5 Bioaugmentation
Bioaugmentation is the addition of microbes (pollutant degraders cultured in labo-

ratory) into the soils which harbors a low population of indigenous pollutant degrad-
ers (Castiglione et al. 2016). Indigenous microbial populations do not have the
capability to degrade the extensive variety of contaminants present in mixtures such
as petroleum (Isaac et al. 2016). For remediation of crude oil contaminated soils,
indigenous populations can be supplemented with oil-degrading microorganisms.
Degradation rate can be facilitated by the addition of certain aerobic and anaerobic
microbes (Gram +ve/−ve bacteria and fungi) (Kuppusamy et al. 2016). Different
species of microbes have different ability for oil degradation due to their unique
enzymatic activities. Some microorganisms have the capacity to degrade cyclic,
branched or linear alkanes while, some are able to degrade mono or poly-nuclear
aromatics, and some can collectively degrade both aromatics and alkanes.
Bioaugmentation has been successfully performed for the treatment of various
industrial, agricultural and domestic soils. In the past few years, bioaugmentation
has also been practiced for treatment of soils contaminated with aromatic hydrocar-
bons such as nitro phenols, chlorophenols, nitrobenzene, chlorobenzene, organo
pesticides etc. (Chi et al. 2013; Wang et al. 2014). Treatment of soil contaminated
with nitrobenzene has been efficiently achieved with microbial strain Pseudomonas
putida ZWL73 (Zhao et al. 2009) at laboratory scale. In a study by Hong et al. 2007;
different concentrations (1–50 mg/kg) of fenitrothion (toxic nitrophenolic pesti-
cide) was added into the soil and it was reported that Burkholderia sp. FDS-1 effec-
tively retard the concentrations of fenitrothion in the soil and thus indicating a
promising remediation potential. Other bacterial strains such as Arthrobacter proto-
phormiae RKJ100 have been reported to degrade the para-nitrophenolic compounds
present in soil (Labana et al. 2005). Pseudomonas sp. strain WBC-3 significantly
utilized organophosphate pesticides such as methyl parathion for their cellular
metabolism (Liu et al. 2005; Zhang et al. 2009). Soil contaminated with
4-Chlorophenol (180 μg/g of soil) was supplied with bacterial strains Arthrobacter
chlorophenolicus A6L and it was reported that the inoculated strain efficiently
removed 4-Chlorophenol from 180 to 3 μg/g of soil (Jernberg and Jansson 2002)
Bioaugmentation can be performed by using consortia of both bacterial and fungal
strains. In a study by Silva et al. 2009a, b, a consortium of filamentous fungi
(Aspergillus sp., Achremonium sp., Verticillium sp.), consortia of bacterial sp.
(Bacillus sp. B3G, Bacillus sp. B1F, Enterobacter agglomerans B1A, Bacillus sp.
B5A, Chromobacterium sp. 4015) and a mixture of both bacterial and fungal con-
sortia were used for the treatment of soils contaminated with PAH. Among these
consortia, the combinations of both bacterial and fungal strains have been reported
to be highly efficient for PAHs degradation. Efficiency of bioremediation depends
upon the catabolic activity of microbes as well as their survival in the polluted soils.
It has also been reported that certain indigenous microbial communities resist the
invasion of foreign microbes; hence a suitable coexistence must be present between
indigenous and foreign microbial communities for successful implementation of
bioaugmentation.
Furthermore, detailed study of microbes used for remediation purposes may
prove beneficial for the selection of microbes having high degradation potential.
Well adapted microbial species should be taken into consideration for the successful
bioaugmentation process. The various factors which regulate bioaugmentation
include physical environment, concentration and chemical structure of the pollut-
ants, pollutant availability, nature and size of microbes (Adams et al. 2015).
6.6 Mycoremediation
Mycoremediation is a bioremediation process which involves the use of fungi to

reduce the pollutants present in contaminated water, soils and sludges (organic and
inorganic) (Fig. 6.2) (Table 6.3). Various saprophytic, mitosporic, wood decaying
and ectomycorrhizal fungi with efficient PAHs degradation potential have been
described for their remediation potential. (Bamforth and Singleton 2005; Eibes
et al. 2006; Silva et al. 2009a, b). Fungal mycelia can spread similarly as that of
plant roots and accumulate heavy metals in their cytosol. This process is known as
Fig. 6.2 Mycoremediation of contaminants

6.6 Mycoremediation 115
Table 6.3 Mycoremediation of heavy metals and hydrocarbons polluted soils

Mushroom spp. Contaminant(s) Reference(s)
Pleurotus ostreatus Cd Favero et al. (1990a, b)
Hg Mandal et al. (1998)
Cd, Hg Yayçinkaya et al. (2002)
Pb Xiangliang et al. (2005)
Cd Das et al. (2007)
Cr Javaid and Bajwa (2007)
Cu, Cr, Ni, Zn Javaid and Bajwa (2008)
Co Xiangliang et al. (2009)
Pb Tay et al. (2009)
Crude oil Olusola and Anslem (2010)
Pb Liew et al. (2010)
Cd Tay et al. (2011)
Zn Jibran and Milsee Mol
(2011)
PAH Okparanma et al. (2011)
Cd Tay et al. (2011)
Cu, Cr, Ni, Zn Javaid et al. (2011)
Radioactive waste Eskander et al. (2012)
Cu, Cr, Fe, Zn Arbanah et al. (2012)
Heavy metals Oyetayo et al. (2012)
Cr Puentes-Cárdenas et al.
(2012)
Pb Prasad et al. (2013)
Cu, Cd, Fe, Ni, Pb, Lamrood and Ralegankar
Zn (2013)
Cu, Pb de Almeida and Burgess
(2013)
Cr Arbanah et al. (2013)
Oxo-biodegradable da Luz et al. (2013)
plastic
Pb Dulay et al. (2015)
Mn Wu et al. (2016)
Coriolus versicolor MKACC 52492 PAH Jang et al. (2009)
Schizophyllum commune, Polyporous sp. Malachite green Rajput et al. (2011)
Lentinula edodes 2,4-dichlorophenol Tsujiyama et al. (2013)
(DCP)
Agaricus bisporus, Lactarius piperatus Cd (II) ions Nagy et al. (2013)
Fomes fasciatus Cu (II) Sutherland and Venkobachar
(2013)
Pleurotus platypus, Agaricus bisporus, Cu, Zn, Fe, Cd, Pb, Lamrood and Ralegankar
Calocybe indica Ni (2013)
Flammulina velutipes Cu Luo et al. (2013)
Absidia cylindrospora Fluorene Garon et al. (2004)
Coniothyrium sp., Fusarium sp. PAHs Jacques et al. (2008)
mycofilteration, which is actually responsible for mycoremediation (Sesli et al.

2008; Falandysz et al. 2012). The success of mycoremediation depends on the capa-
bility of a fungal species to accumulate a particular toxic metal in its roots. A major-
ity of the mushroom species produce organic acids and extracellular enzymes
(peroxidases, manganese dependent peroxidase, lignin peroxidase, pectinases, oxi-
dases, xylanases and cellulases) that break-down the complex molecules into small
soluble molecules for mushroom nutrition and are considered as good recyclers in
nature (Mai et al. 2004; Kuforiji and Fasidi 2008; Zhu et al. 2013; Kulshreshtha
et al. 2014). This interesting feature of the mushrooms has gained attention in the
field of waste management as well as soil bioremediation (Akinyele et al. 2012;
Kumhomkul and Panich-pat 2013; Lamrood and Ralegankar 2013; Kulshreshtha
et al. 2013, 2014;). Mushrooms can accumulate large volume of noxious heavy met-
als [mercury (Hg), copper (Cu), chromium (Cr), cadmium (Cd), selenium (Se),
nickel (Ni), lead (Pb), zinc (Zn), manganese (Mn), iron (Fe) in their fruiting bodies
as compared to fruits, vegetables, and plants (Demirbas 2002; Cocchi et al. 2006;
Dogan et al. 2006; Zhu et al. 2011; Quarcoo and Adotey 2013). High metal concen-
tration has been reported in edible mushroom species such as Agaricus campestris,
Coprinus comatus, Calvatia utriformis, Lepista nuda (Kalac and Svoboda 2000;
Demirbas 2001; Falandysz et al. 2003; Ita et al. 2006; Garcıa et al. 2009). Various
fungal species like Agaricus bisporous, Phellinus badius, Phellinus sanguineus
have been reported to accumulate Cd (Zhu et al. 2011); Macrolepiota procera
(Scop.) Singer accumulated Pb (Arvay et al. 2014); Stropharia rugosoannulata,
Lactarius quietus, Psilocybe cubensis, Schizophyllum commune, Panellus stipticus
accumulated Hg (Arvay et al. 2014; Gabriel et al. 2016);
Sarcosphaeera crassa accumulate As (Konuk et al. 2007); Russula delica, Suillus
grevillei accumulated Cr (Cayır et al. 2010; Arvay et al. 2014); Boletus pulverulen-
tus, Cantharellus cibarius accumulated Cu (Arvay et al. 2014); Boletus pulverulen-
tus, Lactarius quietus, Macrolepiota procera accumulated Zn (Arvay et al. 2014)
and Agaricus arvensis, Agaricus porphyrizon, Amanita pantherina, Tricholoma vir-
gatum, Boletus edulis, Macrolepiota procera accumulated Se and Fe (Tuzen et al.
2007). Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus (AM fungi) assisted phytoremediation is an
interesting approach to plant-based environmental remediation. In soil, AM fungi
are of great importance for heavy metal availability as they provide a direct connect-
ing link between roots and soil. Mycorrhiza can be defined as a symbiotic associa-
tion of fungus and plant root that is primarily responsible for nutrient transfer
(Brundrett 2004; Chibuike 2013). Mycorrhizal fungi expand the roots surface area
and thus increase the nutrients and water absorbance ability of roots, while the plant
supply carbohydrates to the fungi (Harrier and Watson 2004; Chibuike 2013).
Under heavy metal stress conditions, plant performance can be increased in
terms of lipid peroxidation, antioxidant enzyme and soluble amino acid on inoculat-
ing the plants with Mycorrhizal fungi (Andrade et al. 2009; Punamiya et al. 2010;
Achakzai et al. 2012). AM fungi protects the plants from toxic metals by accumulat-
ing toxic metals in their vacuole and binding them in their cell wall and also enhance
6.7 Conclusions 117
the plant growth in the polluted soils by improving mineral (phosphorous, nitrogen
and potassium) nutrition (Vivas et al. 2003; Bheemareddy and Lakshman 2011).
AM associations are important for the restoration of the degraded ecosystems
because of their benefits to symbiotic partners as they not only facilitate the plant
establishment and survival in contaminated soil but also provide protection to the
plants against phytotoxic effects of contaminants. The fungi enhance soil bioreme-
diation process by activating microbial activity and by improving soil structure
(Lenoir et al. 2016).
6.7 Conclusions
Contaminated soil is one among the major environmental issue due to its various
mutagenic and carcinogenic properties. Microbial remediation is a biological strat-
egy which has been applied for soil remediation and has various advantages over the
traditional remediation methods which include its low cost, high efficiency and
complete soil remediation.
Fungi are considered as the natural decomposers of ecosystem as they can effi-
ciently degrade and reduce the toxic heavy metals and other organic contaminants.
Rate of mycoremediation can be enhanced with the aid of certain carbon sources.
White rot fungi are the most important one as they can degrade different types of
toxic compounds such as heavy metals, aromatic hydrocarbons, chemical contami-
nants, dyes etc. Further studies are required so as to understand in depth mechanism
of pollutant degradation.
Deinococcus radiodurans is an important soil bacterium which has recently
gained the attention of scientists as it is capable to degrade highly radioactive tolu-
ene and mercury. This bacterium has the potential to degrade the radioactive waste
materials and to remediate the radioactive waste environments of energy, medicine
and military areas. Till date, genomic data of various microbes has been sequenced
and can be found on open databases. These databases must be analyzed thoroughly
so as to identify some novel contaminant degrading gene(s) and to develop geneti-
cally transformed strains of bacteria for efficient and complete remediation of con-
taminated soils. However, biosafety issues related to transformed microbes should
be taken into consideration. Another aspect which should be taken care is that the
transformed microbes can interact with the indigenous population of soil flora
which may affect the ecological diversity of the soil. Thus, the major focus of the
scientists should be to enhance the activity of transformed bacteria as well as to
maintain the indigenous microbial communities so that there is no loss to ecological
diversity. Furthermore, various chemical or physical methods could be implemented
in combination with microbial remediation so as to enhance the rate of soil
remediation.
References
Abbasian F, Lockington R, Mallavarapu M, Naidu R (2015) A comprehensive review of aliphatic

hydrocarbon biodegradation by bacteria. Appl Biochem Biotechnol. Springer, New York,
pp 1−30
Abou-Shanab RAI, Angle JS, Chaney RL (2006) Bacterial inoculants affecting nickel uptake by
Alyssum murale from low, moderate and high Ni soils. Soil Biol Biochem 38:2882–2889
Abou-Shanab RA, Ghanem K, Ghanem N, Al-Kolaibe A (2008) The role of bacteria on heavy-
metal extraction and uptake by plants growing on multi-metal-contaminated soils. World
J Microbiol Biotechnol 24:253–262
Achakzai AKK, Liasu MO, Popoola OJ (2012) Effect of mycorrhizal inoculation on the growth
and phytoextraction of heavy metals by maize grown in oil contaminated soil. Pak J Bot
44(1):221–230
Achal V, Pan X, Zhang D (2011) Remediation of copper-contaminated soil by Kocuria flava CR1,
based on microbially induced calcite precipitation. Ecol Eng 37:1601–1605
Adams GO, Fufeyin PT, Okoro SF, Ehinomen I (2015) Bioremediation, biostimulation and bio-
augmention, a review. Int J Environ Bioremed Biodegrad 3(1):28–39
Adediran GA, Ngwenya BT, Mosselmans JFW, Heal KV, Harvie BA (2015) Mechanism behind
bacteria induced plant growth promotion and Zn accumulation in Brassica juncea. J Hazard
Mater 283:490–499
Ahmady-Asbchin S, Safari M, Tabaraki R (2015) Biosorption of Zn (II) by Pseudomonas aeru-
ginosa isolated from a site contaminated with petroleum. Desalin Water Treat 54:3372–3379
Akintunde TA, Abioye OP, Oyeleke SB, Boboye BE, Ijah UJJ (2015) Remediation of iron using
rhamnolipid-surfactant produced by Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Res J Environ Sci 9:169–177
Akinyele JB, Fakoya S, Adetuyi CF (2012) Anti-growth factors associated with Pleurotus ostreatus
in a submerged liquid fermentation. Malay J Microbiol 8:135–140
Amund OO, Nwokoye N (1993) Hydrocarbon potentials of yeast isolates from a polluted Lagoon.
J Sci Res Dev 1:65–68
Andrade SA, Gratão PL, Schiavinato MA, Silveira AP, Azevedo RA, Mazzafera P (2009) Zn
uptake, physiological response and stress attenuation in mycorrhizal jack bean growing in soil
with increasing Zn concentrations. Chemosphere 75(10):1363–1370
Antizar-Ladislao B (2010) Bioremediation: working with bacteria. Elements 6(6):389–394
Arbanah M, Miradatul Najwa MR, Ku Halim KH (2012) Biosorption of Cr(III), Fe(II), Cu(II),
Zn(II) ions from liquid laboratory chemical waste by Pleurotus ostreatus. Int J Biotechnol
Wellness Ind 1:152–162
Arbanah M, Miradatul Najwa MR, Ku Halim KH (2013) Utilization of Pleurotus ostreatus in the
removal of Cr (VI) from chemical laboratory waste. Int Refreed J Eng Sci 2(4):29–39
Arvay J, Tomas J, Hauptvogl M, Kovacik A, Bajcan D, Massanyi P (2014) Contamination of
wild-grown edible mushrooms by heavy metals in a former mercury-mining area. J Environ
Sci Health B 49:815–827
Atlas RM (1981) Microbial degradation of petroleum hydrocarbons: an environmental perspec-
tive. Microbiol Rev 45(1):180–209
Azubuike CC, Chikere CB, Okpokwasili GC (2016) Bioremediation techniques–classifica-
tion based on site of application: principles, advantages, limitations and prospects. World
J Microbial Biotechnol 32(11):180
Babu AG, Kim JD, Oh BT (2013) Enhancement of heavy metal phytoremediation by Alnus firma
with endophytic Bacillus thuringiensis GDB-1. J Hazard Mater 250:477–483
Bamforth SM, Singleton I (2005) Bioremediation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: current
knowledge and future directions. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 80(7):723–736
Banerjee G, Pandey S, Ray AK, Kumar R (2015) Bioremediation of heavy metals by a novel bacte-
rial strain Enterobacter cloaca and its antioxidant enzyme activity, flocculant production, and
protein expression in presence of lead, cadmium, and nickel. Water Air Soil Pollut 226:1–9
References 119
Belimov AA, Kunakova AM, Safronova VI, Stepanok VV, Yudkin LY, Alekseev YV, Kozhemyakov
AP (2004) Employment of rhizobacteria for the inoculation of barley plants cultivated in soil
contaminated with lead and cadmium. Microbiology 73:99–106
Beolchini F, Pagnanelli F, Toro L, Veglio F (2006) Ionic strength effect on copper biosorption by
Sphaerotilus natans: equilibrium study and dynamic modelling in membrane reactor. Water
Res 40:144–152
Bestawy EE, Helmy S, Hussien H, Fahmy M, Amer R (2010) Bioremediation of heavy metal-
contaminated effluent using optimized activated sludge bacteria. Appl Water Sci 3:181–192
Bheemareddy VS, Lakshman HC (2011) Effect of salt and acid stress on Triticum aestivum inocu-
lated with Glomus fasciculatum. Int J Agric Technol 7:945–956
Boonchan S, Britz ML, Stanley GA (2000) Degradation and mineralization of high-molecular-
weight polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons by defined fungal bacterial cocultures. Appl Environ
Microbiol 66(3):1007–1019
Bradley PM (2003) History and ecology of chloroethene biodegradation: a review. Bioremed
J 7(2):81–109
Brundrett M (2004) Diversity and classification of mycorrhizal associations. Biol Rev
79(3):473–495
Cabuk A, Akar T, Tunali S, Tabak O (2006) Biosorption characteristics of Bacillus sp. ATS-2
immobilized in silica gel for removal of Pb. J Hazard Mater 136:317–323
Cai M, Xun L (2002) Organization and regulation of pentachlorophenol degrading genes in
Sphingobium chlorophenolicum ATCC 39723. J Bacteriol 184(17):4672–4680
Castiglione MR, Giorgetti L, Becarelli S, Siracusa G, Lorenzi R, Di Gregorio S (2016) Polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbon-contaminated soils: bioaugmentation of autochthonous bacteria and
toxicological assessment of the bioremediation process by means of Vicia faba L. Environ Sci
Pollut Res 23:7930–7941
Cayır A, Coskun M, Coskun M (2010) The heavy metal content of wild edible mushroom samples
collected in Canakkale Province, Turkey. Biol Trace Elem Res 134:212–219
Chandra S, Sharma R, Singh K, Sharma A (2013) Application of bioremediation technology in the
environment contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbon. Ann Microbiol 63:417–431
Chen B, Zhou D, Zhu L (2008a) Transitional adsorption and partition of nonpolar and polar aro-
matic contaminants by biochars of pine needles with different pyrolytic temperatures. Environ
Sci Technol 42:5137–5143
Chen WM, Wu CH, James EK, Chang JS (2008b) Metal biosorption capability of Cupriavidus
taiwanensis and its effects on heavy metal removal by nodulated Mimosa pudica. J Hazard
Mater 151:364–371
Chen L, Luo S, Li X, Wan Y, Chen J, Liu C (2014) Interaction of Cd hyperaccumulator Solanum
nigrum L. and functional endophyte Pseudomonas sp. Lk9 on soil heavy metals uptake. Soil
Biol Biochem 68:300–308
Chen F, Tan M, Ma J, Zhang S, Li G, Qu J (2016) Efficient remediation of PAH-metal co-
contaminated soil using microbial-plant combination: a greenhouse study. J Hazard Mater
302:250–261
Chen X, Liu X, Zhang X, Cao L, Hu X (2017) Phytoremediation effect of Scirpus triqueter inocu-
lated plant-growth-promoting bacteria (PGPB) on different fractions of pyrene and Ni in co-
contaminated soils. J Hazard Mater 325:319–326
Chi XQ, Zhang JJ, Zhao S, Zhou NY (2013) Bioaugmentation with a consortium of bacterial
nitrophenol-degraders for remediation of soil contaminated with three nitrophenol isomers.
Environ Poll 172:33–41
Chibuike GU (2013) Use of mycorrhiza in soil remediation: a review. Sci Res Essays 8(35):679–1687
Choi SB, Yun YS (2004) Lead biosorption by waste biomass of Corynebacterium glutamicum
generated from lysine fermentation process. Biotechnol Lett 26:331–336
Cocchi L, Vescovi L, Petrini LE, Petrini O (2006) Heavy metals in edible mushrooms in Italy. Food
Chem 98:277–284
Colwell RR, Walker JD, Cooney JJ (1977) Ecological aspects of microbial degradation of petro-
leum in the marine environment. Crit Rev Microbiol 5(4):423–445
Cullen WR (1989) The metabolism of methylarsine oxide and sulfide. Appl Organomet Chem
3:71–78
Cycoń M, Mrozik A, Piotrowska-Seget Z (2017) Bioaugmentation as a strategy for the remediation
of pesticide-polluted soil: a review. Chemosphere 172:52–71
Da Luz JMR, Paes SA, Nunes MD, da Silva MCS, Kasuya MCM (2013) Degradation of oxo-
biodegradable plastic by Pleurotus ostreatus. PLoS ONE 8(8):69386
Dams RI, Paton GI, Killham K (2007) Rhizoremediation of pentachlorophenol by Sphingobium
chlorophenolicum ATCC 39723. Chem 68(5):864–870
Das N, Charumathi D, Vimala R (2007) Effect of pretreatment on Cd2+ biosorption by mycelia
biomass of Pleurotus florida. Afr J Biotechnol 6:2555–2558
de Almeida LK, Burgess JE (2013) Biosorption and bioaccumulation of copper and lead by
Phanerochaete and Pleurotus ostreatus
de-Bashan LE, Hernandez JP, Bashan Y (2012) The potential contribution of plant growth-
promoting bacteria to reduce environmental degradation-a comprehensive evaluation. Appl
Soil Ecol 61:171–189
Dell’Amico E, Cavalca L, Andreoni V (2008) Improvement of Brassica napus growth under cad-
mium stress by cadmium-resistant rhizobacteria. Soil Biol Biochem 40:74–84
Demirbas A (2001) Heavy metal bioaccumulation by mushrooms from artificially fortified soils.
Food Chem 74:293–301
Demirbas A (2002) Metal ion uptake by mushrooms from natural and artificially enriched soils.
Food Chem 78:89–93
Dhal B, Thatoi HN, Das NN, Pandey BD (2010) Reduction of hexavalent chromium by Bacillus
sp. isolated from chromite mine soils and characterization of reduced product. J Chem Technol
Biotechnol 85:1471–1479
Dimkpa CO, Merten D, Svatoš A, Büchel G, Kothe E (2009) Siderophores mediate reduced and
increased uptake of cadmium by Streptomyces tendae F4 and sunflower (Helianthus annuus),
respectively. J Appl Microbiol 107:1687–1696
Dogan HH, Sanda MA, Uyanoz R, Ozturk C, Cetin U (2006) Contents of metals in some wild
mushrooms: its impact in human health. Biol Trace Elem Res 110:79–94
Downey D, Miller R, Dragoo T (2004) Procedures for conducting bioventing pilot tests and long-
term monitoring of bioventing systems. Parsons Denver Co, Denver
Dulay RMR, De Castro MAEG, Coloma NB, Bernardo AP, Cruz AGD, Tiniola RC, Kalaw SP,
Reyes RG (2015) Effects and myco-remediation of lead (Pb) in five Pleurotus mushrooms. Int
J Biol Pharm Allied Sci 4(3):1664–1677
Eibes G, Cajthaml T, Moreira MT, Feijoo G, Lema JM (2006) Enzymatic degradation of anthra-
cene, dibenzothiophene and pyrene by manganese peroxidase in media containing acetone.
Chemos 64(3):408–414
Eskander SB, Abd El-Aziz SM, El-Sayaad H, Saleh HM (2012) Cementation of bioproducts gen-
erated from biodegradation of radioactive cellulosic-based waste simulates by mushroom.
ISRN Chemical Engineering
Falandysz J, Brzostowski A, Kawano M, Kannan K, Puzyn T, Lipka K (2003) Concentrations of
mercury in wild growing higher fungi and underlying substrate near lake Wdzydze. Poland
Water Air Soil Pollut 148:127–137
Falandysz J, Kojta AK, Jarzy´nska G, Drewnowska M, Dry-za lowska A, Wydma´nska D,
Kowalewska I, Wacko A, Szlosowska M, Kannan K, Szefer P (2012) Mercury in bay bolete
(Xerocomus badius): bioconcentration by fungus and assessment of element intake by humans
eating fruiting bodies. Food Addit Contam 29:951–961
Farhadian M, Vachelard C, Duchez D, Larroche C (2008) In situ bioremediation of monoaromatic
pollutants in groundwater: a review. Bioresour Technol 99(13):5296–5308
Favero N, Bressa G, Costa P (1990a) Response of Pleurotus ostreatus to cadmium exposure.
Ecotoxicol Environ Safe 20(1):1–6
Favero N, Costa P, Paolo Rocco G (1990b) Role of copper in cadmium metabolism in the basidio-
mycetes Pleurotus ostreatus. Comp Biochem Physiol Part C Comp Pharmacol 97(2):297–303
References 121
Floodgate G (1984) The fate of petroleum in marine ecosystems. In: Atlas RM (ed) Petroleum
microbiology. Macmillion, New York, pp 355–398
Foght JM (2008) Anaerobic biodegradation of aromatic hydrocarbons: pathways and prospects.
J Mol Micobiol Biotechnol 15:93–120
Fu H, Cwiertny DM, Carmichael GR, Scherer MM, Grassian VH (2010) Photoreductive dissolu-
tion of Fe-containing mineral dust particles in acidic media. J Geophys Res Atmos 115(D11)
Gabriel J, Svec K, Kolihova D, Tlustos P, Szakova J (2016) Translocation of mercury from sub-
strate to fruit bodies of Panellus stipticus, Psilocybe cubensis, Schizophyllum commune and
Stropharia rugosoannulata on oat flakes. Ecotoxicol Environ Safe 125:184–189
Ganesan V (2008) Rhizoremediation of cadmium soil using a cadmium-resistant plant growth-
promoting rhizopseudomonad. Curr Microbiol 56(4):403–407
Gao Y, Miao C, Mao L, Zhou P, Jin Z, Shi W (2010) Improvement of phytoextraction and anti-
oxidative defense in Solanum nigrum L. under cadmium stress by application of cadmium-
resistant strain and citric acid. J Hazard Mater 181:771–777
Garcıa MA, Alonso J, Melgar MJ (2009) Lead in edible mushrooms: levels and bioaccumulation
factors. J Hazard Mater 167:777–783
Garon D, Sage L, Wouessidjewe D, Seigle-Murandi F (2004) Enhanced degradation of fluorene in
soil slurry by Absidia cylindrospora and maltosyl-cyclodextrin. Chemosphere 56(2):159–166
Gihring TM, Druschel GK, McCleskey RB, Hamers RJ, Banfield JF (2001) Rapid arsenite oxi-
dation by Thermus aquaticus and Thermus thermophilus: field and laboratory investigations.
Environ Sci Technol 35:3857–3862
Hadi F, Bano A (2010) Effect of diazotrophs (Rhizobium and Azobactor) on growth of maize (Zea
mays L.) and accumulation of Lead (Pb) in different plant parts. Pak J Bot 42:4363–4370
Harrier LA, Watson CA (2004) The potential role of arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi in the
bioprotection of plants against soil-borne pathogens in organic and/or other sustainable farm-
ing systems. Pest Manag Sci 60:149–157
He LY, Chen ZJ, Ren GD, Zhang YF, Qian M, Sheng XF (2009) Increased cadmium and lead
uptake of a cadmium hyperaccumulator tomato by cadmium-resistant bacteria. Ecotoxicol
Environ Saf 72:1343–1348
He CQ, Tan GE, Liang X, Du W, Chen YL, Zhi GY, Zhu Y (2010) Effect of Zn tolerant bacterial
strains on growth and Zn accumulation in Orychophragmus violaceus. Appl Soil Ecol 44:1–5
He H, Ye Z, Yang D, Yan J, Xiao L, Zhong T, Yuan M, Cai X, Fang Z, Jing Y (2013) Characterization
of endophytic Rahnella sp. JN6 from Polygonum pubescens and its potential in promoting
growth and Cd, Pb, Zn uptake by Brassica napus. Chemosphere 90:1960–1965
Hellekson D (1999) Bioventing principles, applications and potential. Restor Reclam Rev 5(2):1–9
Herndon RC, Moerlins JE, Kuperberg JM, Richter PI, Biczó IL (2013) Clean-up of former soviet
military installations: identification and selection of environmental technologies for use in cen-
tral and eastern Europe (Vol. 1). Springer
Hollaway SL, Faw GM, Sizemore RK (1980) The bacterial community composition of an active
oil field in the Northwestern Gulf of Mexico. Mar Poll Bull 11(6):153–156
Hong Q, Zhang ZH, Hong YF, Li S (2007) A microcosm study on bioremediation of fenitrothion-
contaminated soil using Burkholderia sp. FDS-1. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 59(1):55–61
Incharoensakdi A, Kitjaharn P (2002) Zinc biosorption from aqueous solution by a halotolerant
cyanobacterium Aphanothece halophytica. Curr Microbiol 45(4):261–264
Isaac P, Bourguignon N, Maizel D, Ferrero MA (2016) Indigenous PAH-degrading bacteria in
oil-polluted marine sediments from Patagonia: diversity and biotechnological properties. In:
Biology and biotechnology of Patagonian microorganisms. Springer, Cham, pp 31–42
Ita BN, Essien JP, Ebong GA (2006) Heavy metal levels in fruiting bodies of edible and non-edible
mushrooms from the Niger delta region of Nigeria. J Agric Soc Sci 2:84–87
Jacques RJS, Okeke BC, Bento FM, Teixeira AS, Peralba MCR, Camargo FAO (2008) Microbial
consortium bioaugmentation of a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons contaminated soil.
Bioresour Technol 99(7):2637–2643
Jaekel U, Musat N, Adam B, Kuypers M, Grundmann O, Musat F (2013) Anaerobic degradation

of propane and butane by sulfate-reducing bacteria enriched from marine hydrocarbon cold
seeps. ISME J 7(5):885–895
Jain RK, Dreisbach JH, Spain JC (1994) Biodegradation of p-nitrophenol via 1,2,4-benzenetriol by
an Arthrobacter sp. Appl Environ Microbiol 60(8):3030–3032
Jang KY, Cho SM, Seok SJ, Kong WS, Kim GH, Sung JM (2009) Screening of biodegradable
function of indigenous ligno-degrading mushroom using dyes. Mycobiol 37:53–61
Javaid A, Bajwa R (2007) Biosorption of Cr(III) ions from tannery wastewater by Pleurotus
ostreatus. Mycopathologia 5:71–79
Javaid A, Bajwa R (2008) Biosorption of electroplating heavy metals by some basiodiomycetes.
Mycopathologia 6:1–6
Javaid A, Bajwa R, Shafique U, Anwar J (2011) Removal of heavy metals by adsorption on
Pleurotus ostreatus. Biomass Bioenergy 35:1675–1682
Jernberg C, Jansson JK (2002) Impact of 4-chlorophenol contamination and/or inoculation with
the 4-chlorophenol-degrading strain, Arthrobacter chlorophenolicus A6L, on soil bacterial
community structure. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 42(3):387–397
Jiang C, Sheng X, Qian M, Wang Q (2008) Isolation and characterization of a heavy metal resistant
Burkholderia sp. from heavy metal-contaminated paddy field soil and its potential in promoting
plant growth and heavy metal accumulation in metal-polluted soil. Chemosphere 72:157–164
Jibran AK, Milsee Mol JP (2011) Pleurotus sajor-caju protein: a potential biosorptive agent. Adv
Bio Tech 11:25–27
Jing YX, Yan JL, He HD, Yang DJ, Xiao L, Zhong T, Yuan M, Cai XD, Li SB (2014)
Characterization of bacteria in the rhizosphere soils of Polygonum pubescens and their
potential in promoting growth and Cd, Pb, Zn uptake by Brassica napus. Int J Phytoremed
16:321–333
Jones J, Knight M, Byron JA (1970) Effect of gross population by kerosene hydrocarbons on the
microflora of a moorland soil. Nature 227:1166
Kadiyala V, Spain JC (1998) A two-component monooxygenase catalyzes both the hydroxylation
of p-nitrophenol and the oxidative release of nitrite from 4-nitrocatechol in Bacillus sphaericus
JS905. App Environ Microbiol 64(7):2479–2484
Kaksonen AH, Lavonen L, Kuusenaho MK, Kolli A, Närhi HM, Vestola EA, Puhakka JA, Tuovinen
OH (2011) Bioleaching and recovery of metals from final slag waste of the copper smelting
industry. Miner Eng 24:1113–1121
Kalac P, Svoboda L (2000) A review of trace element concentrations in edible mushrooms. Food
Chem 69:273–281
Khan AR, Ullah I, Khan AL, Park G, Waqas MS, Hong BK, Jung Y, Kwak Y, Lee I, Shin J (2015)
Improvement in phytoremediation potential of Solanum nigrum under cadmium contami-
nation through endophytic-assisted Serratia sp RSC-14 inoculation. Environ Sci Pollut Res
22:14032–11404
Konuk M, Afyon A, Yagız D (2007) Minor element and heavy metal contents of wild grow-
ing and edible mushrooms from Western Black Sea region of Turkey. Fresen Environ Bull
16:1359–1362
Kuffner M, Puschenreiter M, Wieshammer G, Gorfer M, Sessitsch A (2008) Rhizosphere bacteria
affect growth and metal uptake of heavy metal accumulating willows. Plant Soil 304:35–44
Kuforiji OO, Fasidi IO (2008) Enzyme activities of Pleurotus tuber-regium (Fries) Singer, culti-
vated on selected agricultural wastes. Bioresource Technol 99:4275–4278
Kulshreshtha S, Mathur N, Bhatnagar P (2013) Mycoremediation of paper, pulp and cardboard
industrial wastes and pollutants. In: Goltapeh EM, Danesh YR, Varma A (eds) Fungi as biore-
mediators: soil biology. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 77–116
Kulshreshtha S, Mathur N, Bhatnagar P (2014) Mushroom as a product and their role in mycore-
mediation. AMB Express 4:1–7
Kumar KV, Singh N, Behl HM, Srivastava S (2008) Influence of plant growth promoting bacte-
ria and its mutant on heavy metal toxicity in Brassica juncea grown in fly ash amended soil.
References 123
Kumar KV, Srivastava S, Singh N, Behl HM (2009) Role of metal resistant plant growth promoting
bacteria in ameliorating fly ash to the growth of Brassica juncea. J Hazard Mater 170:51–57
Kumar CG, Mamidyala SK, Sujitha P, Muluka H, Akkenapally S (2012) Evaluation of critical
nutritional parameters and their significance in the production of rhamnolipid biosurfactants
from Pseudomonas aeruginosa BS-161R. Biotechnol Progr 28:1507–1516
Kumhomkul T, Panich-pat T (2013) Lead accumulation in the straw mushroom, Volvariella volva-
cea, from lead contaminated rice straw and stubble. Bull Environ. Contam Toxicol 91:231–234
Kuppusamy S, Thavamani P, Megharaj M, Venkateswarlu K, Lee YB, Naidu R (2016)
Pyrosequencing analysis of bacterial diversity in soils contaminated long term with PAHs and
heavy metals: implications to bioremediation. J Hazard Mater 317:169–179
Labana S, Pandey G, Paul D, Sharma NK, Basu A, Jain RK (2005) Pot and field studies on bio-
remediation of p-nitrophenol contaminated soil using Arthrobacter protophormiae RKJ100.
Environ Sci Technol 39(9):3330–3337
Lal B, Khanna S (1996) Degradation of crude oil by Acinetobacter calcoaceticus and Alcaligenes
odorans. J Appl Bacteriol 81(4):355–362
Lamrood PY, Ralegankar SD (2013) Biosorption of Cu, Zn, Fe, Cd, Pb and Ni by non-treated
biomass of some edible mushrooms. Asian J Exp Biol Sci 4:190–195
Leahy JH, Colwell R (1990) Microbial degradation of hydrocarbons in the environment. Microbiol
Rev 54(3):305–315
Lenoir I, Lounes-Hadj Sahraoui A, Fontaine J (2016) Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal-assisted phy-
toremediation of soil contaminated with persistent organic pollutants: a review. Eur J Soil Sci
67(5):624–640
Li WC, Ye ZH, Wong MH (2007) Effects of bacteria on enhanced metal uptake of the Cd/
Zn-hyperaccumulating plant, Sedumal fredii. J Exp Bot 58:4173–4182
Li X, Wang X, Weng L, Zhou Q, Li Y (2016) Microbial fuel cell for organic contaminated soil
remedial application. A Rev Energy Technol 5:1156–1164
Liang X, He CQ, Ni G, Tang GE, Chen XP, Lei YR (2014) Growth and Cd accumulation of
Orychophragmus violaceus as affected by inoculation of Cd-tolerant bacterial strains.
Pedosphere 24:322–329
Liew HH, Tay CC, Yong SK, Surif S, Abdul Talib S (2010) Biosorption characteristics of lead
[Pb(II)] by Pleurotus ostreatus biomass. In: Abstracts of the proceedings of international con-
ference on science and social research (CSSR), Kuala Lumpur
Lin Z, Zhao L, Dong Y (2015) Quantitative characterization of hydroxyl radical generation in a
goethite-catalyzed Fenton-like reaction. Chemosphere 141:7–12
Liu HL, Chen BY, Lan YW, Cheng YC (2004) Biosorption of Zn(II) and Cu(II) by the indigenous
Thiobacillus thiooxidans. Chem Eng J 97:195–201
Liu H, Zhang JJ, Wang SJ, Zhang XE, Zhou NY (2005) Plasmid-borne catabolism of methyl para-
thion and p-nitrophenol in Pseudomonas sp. strain WBC-3. Biochem Biophys Res Commun
334(4):1107–1114
Liu W, Wang Q, Wang B, Hou J, Luo Y, Tang C, Franks AE (2015) Plant growth-promoting rhi-
zobacteria enhance the growth and Cd uptake of Sedum plumbizincicola in a Cd-contaminated
soil. J Soil Sediment 15(5):1191–1199
Long XX, Chen XM, Wong JWC, Wei ZB, Wu QT (2013) Feasibility of enhanced phytoextraction
of Zn contaminated soil with Zn mobilizing and plant growth promoting endophytic bacteria.
Trans Nonferrous Metals Soc China 23:2389–2396
Luo D, Yf X, Tan ZL, Li XD (2013) Removal of Cu2+ ions from aqueous solution by the abandoned
mushroom compost of Flammulina velutipes. J Environ Biol 34:359–365
Ma YF, Wu JF, Wang SY, Jiang CY, Zhang Y, Qi SW, Liu L, Zhao GP, Liu SJ (2007) Nucleotide
sequence of plasmid pCNB1 from Comamonas strain CNB-1 reveals novel genetic
organization and evolution for 4-chloronitrobenzene degradation. Appl Environ Microbiol
73(14):4477–4483
Ma Y, Rajkumar M, Freitas H (2009a) Inoculation of plant growth promoting bacterium
Achromobacter xylosoxidans strain Ax10 for the improvement of copper phytoextraction by
Brassica juncea. J Environ Manag 90:831–837
Ma Y, Rajkumar M, Freitas H (2009b) Improvement of plant growth and nickel uptake by nickel
resistant-plant growth promoting bacteria. J Hazard Mater 166:1154–1161
Ma Y, Rajkumar M, Freitas H (2009c) Isolation and characterization of Ni mobilizing PGPB from
serpentine soils and their potential in promoting plant growth and Ni accumulation by Brassica
spp. Chemosphere 75:719–725
Ma Y, Rajkumar M, Luo Y, Freitas H (2011) Inoculation of endophytic bacteria on host and non-
host plants-effects on plant growth and Ni uptake. J Hazard Mater 195:230–237
Ma Y, Rajkumar M, Luo Y, Freitas H (2013) Phytoextraction of heavy metal polluted soils using
Sedum plumbizincicola inoculated with metal mobilizing Phyllobacterium myrsinacearum RC
6b. Chemosphere 93:1386–1392
Ma Y, Oliviera RS, Nai F, Rajkumar M, Luo Y, Rocha I, Freitas H (2015) The hyperaccumulator
Sedum plumbizincicola harbors metal-resistant endophytic bacteria that improve its phytoex-
traction capacity in multi-metal contaminated soil. J Environ Manag 156:62–69
MacRae JD, Lavine IN, McCaffery KA, Ricupero K (2007) Isolation and characterization of NP4,
an arsenate-reducing Sulfurospirillum from groundwater in Northport. Mar J Environ Eng
131:81–88
Mai C, Schormann W, Majcherczyk A, Huttermann A (2004) Degradation of acrylic copolymers
by white-rot fungi. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 65:479–487
Malekzadeh E, Alikhani HA, Savaghebi-Firoozabadi GR, Zarei M (2012) Bioremediation of
cadmium- contaminated soil through cultivation of maize inoculated with plant growth-
promoting rhizobacteria. Bioremed J 16:204–211
Mameri N, Boudries N, Addour L, Belhocine D, Lounici H, Grib H (1999) Batch zinc biosorption
by a bacterial nonliving Streptomyces rimosus biomass. Water Res 33:1347–1354
Mandal TK, Baldrian P, Gabriel J, Nerud F, Zadrazil F (1998) Effect of mercury on the growth
of wood-rotting basidiomycetes Pleurotus ostreatus, Pycnoporus cinnabarinus and Serpula
lacrymans. Chemosphere 36(3):435–440
McBride BC, Wolfe RS (1971) Biosynthesis of dimethylasrine by a methanobacterium. Biochem
10:4312–4317
McDonald IR, Miguez CB, Rogge G, Bourque D, Wendlandt KD, Groleau D, Murrell JC (2006)
Diversity of solublemethane monooxygenase-containing methanotrophs isolated from polluted
environments. FEMS Microbiol Let 255(2):225–232
Meckenstock RU, Boll M, Mouttaki H, Koelschbach JS, Tarouco PC, Weyrauch P, Dong X,
Himmelberg AM (2016) Anaerobic degradation of benzene and polycyclic aromatic hydrocar-
bons. J Mol Microbiol Biotechnol 26:92–118
Michalke K, Wickenheiser EB, Mehring M, Hirner AV, Hensel R (2000) Production of volatile
derivatives of metal(loid)s by microflora involved in anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge.
Appl Environ Microbiol 66:2791–2796
Mire CE, Jeanette AT, William FO, Kandalam VR, Gregory BH (2004) Lead precipitation by Vibrio
harveyi: evidence for novel Quorum-sensing interactions. Appl Environ Microbiol 70:855–864
Mittal A, Singh P (2009) Isolation of hydrocarbon degrading bacteria from soils contaminated with
crude oil spills. Ind J Exp Biol 47(9):760–765
Nagy B, Măicăneanu A, Indolean C, Mânzatu C, MC S-D (2013) Comparative study of Cd(II) bio-
sorption on cultivated Agaricus bisporus and wild Lactarius piperatus based biocomposites.
Linear and nonlinear equilibrium modelling and kinetics. J Taiwan Inst Chem E 45(3):921–929
Nie L, Shah S, Burd GI, Dixon DG, Glick BR (2002) Phytoremediation of arsenate contaminated
soil by transgenic canola and the plant growth-promoting bacterium Enterobacter cloacae
CAL2. Plant Physiol Biochem 40:355–361
Ock Joo J, Choi JH, Kim IH, Kim YK, Oh BK (2015) Effective bioremediation of cadmium (II),
nickel (II), and chromium (VI) in a marine environment by using Desulfovibrio desulfuricans.
Biotechnol Bioprocess Eng 20:937–941
Okparanma RN, Ayotamuno JM, Davis DD, Allagoa M (2011) Mycoremediation of polycy-
clic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)-contaminated oil-based drill-cuttings. Afr J Biotechnol
10(26):5149–5156
References 125
Olusola SA, Anslem EE (2010) Bioremediation of a crude oil polluted soil with Pleurotus
Pulmonarius and Glomus Mosseae using Amaranthus Hybridus as a test plant. J Bioremed
Biodegrad 1:111
Oyetayo VO, Adebayo AO, Ibileye A (2012) Assessment of the biosorption potential of heavy met-
als by Pleurotus tuber-regium. Int J Adv Biol Res 2:293–297
Peng G, Tian G, Liu J, Bao Q, Zang L (2011) Removal of heavy metals from sewage sludge with
a combination of bioleaching and electrokinetic remediation technology. Desalin 271:100–104
Pham TTH, Brar SK, Tyagi RD, Surampalli RY (2010) Influence of ultrasonication and Fenton oxi-
dation pre-treatment on rheological characteristics of wastewater sludge. Ultrason Sonochem
17:38–45
Phillips GJM, Stewart JE (1974) Distribution of hydrocarbon utilizing bacteria in Northwestern
Atlantic waters and coastal sediments. Can J Microbiol 20(7):955–962
American Society for Microbiology (ASM) Press, Washington, DC, pp 139–236
Pinholt Y, Struwe S, Kjoller A (1979) Microbial changes during oil decomposition in soil.
Holarctic Ecol 2:195–200
Płociniczak T, Sinkkonen A, Romantschuk M, Piotrowska-Seget Z (2013) Characterization of
Enterobacter intermedius MH8b and its use for the enhancement of heavy metals uptake by
Sinapis alba L. Appl Soil Ecol 63:1–7
Potysz A, Lens PNL, van de Vossenberg J, Rene ER, Grybos M, Guibaud G, Kierczak J, van
Hullebusch ED (2016) Comparison of Cu, Zn and Fe bioleaching from Cu-metallurgical slags
in the presence of Pseudomonas fluorescens and Acidithiobacillus thiooxidans. Appl Geochem
68:39–52
Prapagdee B, Chanprasert M, Mongkolsuk S (2013) Bioaugmentation with cadmium-resistant
plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria to assist cadmium phytoextraction by Helianthus ann-
uus. Chemosphere 92:659–666
Prasad ASA, Varatharaju G, Anushri C, Dhivyasree S (2013) Biosorption of lead by Pleurotus
florida and Trichoderma viride. Br Biotechnol J 3(1):66–78
Puentes-Cárdenas IJ, Pedroza-Rodríguez AM, Navarrete-López M, Villegas-Garrido TL, Cristiani-
Urbina E (2012) Biosorption of trivalent chromium from aqueous solutions by Pleurotus
ostreatus biomass. Environ Eng Manag J 11(10):1741–1752
Punamiya P, Datta R, Sarkar D, Barber S, Patel M, Das P (2010) Symbiotic role of Glomus mos-
seae in phytoextraction of lead in vetiver grass [Chrysopogon zizanioides (L.)]. J Hazard Mater
177(1):465–474
Quarcoo A, Adotey G (2013) Determination of heavy metals in Pleurotus ostreatus (oyster mush-
room) and Termitomyces clypeatus (termite mushroom) sold on selected markets in Accra.
Ghana. Mycosphere 4:960–967
Rajkumar M, Ma Y, Freitas H (2013) Characterization of metal-resistant plant growth promot-
ing Bacillus weihenstephanensis isolated from serpentine soil in Portugal. J Basic Microbiol
48:1–9
Rajput Y, Shit S, Shukla A, Shukla K (2011) Biodegradation of malachite green by wild mushroom
of Chhatisgrah. J Exp Sci 2:69–72
Rani A, Souche Y, Goel R (2013) Comparative in situ remediation potential of Pseudomonas
putida 710A and Commamonas aquatica 710B using plant (Vigna radiata (L.) wilczek) assay.
Ann Microbiol 63(3):923–928
Rashidi A, Safdari J, Roosta-Azad R, Zokaei-Kadijani S (2012) Modeling of uranium bioleaching
by Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans. Annal Nucl Energy 43:13–18
Reddy MS, Naresh B, Leela T, Prashanthi M, Madhusudhan NC, Dhanasri G, Devi P (2010)
Biodegradation of phenanthrene with biosurfactant production by a new strain of Brevibacillus
sp. Bioresour Technol 101:7980–7983
Reed ML, Glick BR (2005) Growth of canola (Brassica napus) in the presence of plant growth
promoting bacteria and either copper or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Can J Microbiol
51:1061–1069
Rezza I, Salinas E, Elorza M, de Tosetti MS, Donati E (2001) Mechanisms involved in bioleach-
ing of an aluminosilicate by heterotrophic microorganisms. Process Biochem 36(6):495–500
Rojo F (2009) Degradation of alkanes by bacteria. Environ Microbiol 11:2477–2490
Romo E, Weinacker DF, Zepeda AB, Figueroa CA, Chavez-Crooker P, Farias JG (2013) Bacterial
consortium for copper extraction from sulphide ore consisting mainly of chalcopyrite. Braz
J Microbiol 44(2):523–528
Ron EZ, Rosenberg E (2014) Enhanced bioremediation of oil spills in the sea. Curr Opin
Roy S, Hens D, Biswas D, Biswas D, Kumar R (2002) Survey of petroleum degrading bacteria in
coastal waters of Sunderban Biosphere Reserve. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 18(6):575–581
Sajna KV, Sukumaran RK, Gottumukkala LD, Pandey A (2015) Crude oil biodegradation aided
by biosurfactants from Pseudozyma sp. NII 08165 or its culture broth. Bioresour Technol
191:133–139
Salehizadeh H, Shojaosadati SA (2003) Removal of metal ions from aqueous solution by polysac-
charide produced from Bacillus firmus. Water Res 37:4231–4235
Salleh AB, Ghazali FM, Rahman RNZA, Basri M (2003) Bioremediation of petroleum hydrocar-
bon pollution. Indian J Biotechnol 2:411–425
Santini JM, Sly LI, Schnagl RD, Macy JM (2000) A new chemolithoautotrophic arsenite-oxidizing
bacterium isolated from a gold mine: phylogenetic, physiological, and preliminary biochemical
studies. Appl Environ Microbiol 66:92–97
Savvaidis I, Hughes MN, Poole RK (2003) Copper bio sorption by Pseudomonas cepacia and
other strains. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 19:117–121
Sesli E, Tuzen M, Soylak M (2008) Evaluation of trace metal contents of some wild edible mush-
rooms from Black Sea region Turkey. J Hazard Mater 160:462–467
Sharma S (2012) Bioremediation: features, strategies and applications. Asian J Pharma Life Sci
2(2):202–213
Sheng X, He L, Wang Q, Ye H, Jiang C (2008) Effects of inoculation of biosurfactant-producing
Bacillus sp. J119 on plant growth and cadmium uptake in a cadmium-amended soil. J Hazard
Mater 155(1):17–22
Silva IS, Grossman M, Durranta LR (2009a) Degradation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(2–7 rings) under microaerobic and very low- oxygen conditions by soil fungi. Int Biodeterior
Biodegrad 63(2):224–229
Silva IS, Santos EC, Menezes CR, Faria AF, Franciscon E, Grossman M, Durrant LR (2009b)
Bioremediation of a polyaromatic hydrocarbon contaminated soil by native soil microbiota
and bioaugmentation with isolated microbial consortia. Biores Technol 100(20):4669–4675
Spain JC, Gibson DT (1991) Pathway for biodegradation of p-Nitrophenol in a Moraxella sp. Appl
Environ Microbiol 57(3):812–819
Srivastava S, Verma PC, Chaudhary V, Singh N, Abhilash PC, Kumar KV, Sharma N, Singh N
(2013) Inoculation of arsenic-resistant Staphylococcus arlettae on growth and arsenic uptake
in Brassica juncea (L.) Czern. Var. R-46. J Hazard Mater 262:1039–1047
Sutherland C, Venkobachar C (2013) Equilibrium modeling of Cu (II) biosorption onto untreated
and treated forest macro-fungus Fomes fasciatus. Int J Plant Anim Environ Sci 3:193–203
Tabaraki R, Ahmady-Asbchin S, Abdi O (2013) Biosorption of Zn (II) from aqueous solutions by
Acinetobacter sp. isolated from petroleum spilled soil. J Environ Chem Eng 1:604–608
Tay CC, Liew HH, Yong SK, Surif S, Abdul-Talib S (2009) Biosorption of lead(II) from aqueous
solutions by Pleurotus as a toxicity biosorbent. In: Environmental science and technology con-
ference (ESTEC), Kuala Terengganu Malaysia
Tay CC, Liew HH, Yin CY, Abdul-Talib S, Surif S, Suhaimi AA, Yong SK (2011) Biosorption
of Cadmium ions using Pleurotus ostreatus: growth kinetics, isotherm study and biosorption
mechanism. Korean J Chem Eng 28:825–830
Tiwari S, Singh SN, Garg SK (2012) Stimulated phytoextraction of metals from fly ash by micro-
bial interventions. Environ Technol 33:2405–2413
References 127
Tsujiyama S, Muraoka T, Takada N (2013) Biodegradation of 2,4-dichlorophenol by shiitake

mushroom (Lentinula edodes) using vanillin as an activator. Biotechnol Lett 35:1079–1083
Tunali S, Cabuk A, Akar T (2006) Removal of lead and copper ions from aqueous solutions by
bacterial strain isolated from soil. Chem Eng J 115:203–211
Tuzen M, Sesli E, Soylak M (2007) Trace element levels of mushroom species from East Black
Sea region of Turkey. Food Control 18:806–810
Uddin MJ, Aditya Sagar G, Jagdeeshwar J (2017) Soil pollution and soil remediation techniques.
Int J Adv Res, Ideas Innov Technol 3(1):582–593
Uslu G, Tanyol M (2006) Equilibrium and thermodynamic parameters of single and binary mixture
biosorption of lead (II) and copper (II) ions onto Pseudomonas putida: effect of temperature.
J Hazard Mater 135:87–93
Varjani SJ, Srivastava VK (2015) Green technology and sustainable development of environment.
Renew Res J 3(1):244–249
Varjani SJ, Upasani VN (2016) Biodegradation of petroleum hydrocarbons by oleophilic strain of
Pseudomonas aeruginosa NCIM 5514. Bioresour Technol 222:195–201
Varjani SJ, Rana DP, Jain AK, Bateja S, Upasani VN (2015) Synergistic ex-situ biodegradation of
crude oil by halotolerant bacterial consortium of indigenous strains isolated from on shore sites
of Gujarat, India. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 103:116–124
Vera M, Schippers A, Sand W (2013) Progress in bioleaching: fundamentals and mechanisms of
bacterial metal sulfide oxidation-part A. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 97(17):7529–7541
Verma JP, Jaiswal DK (2016) Book review: advances in biodegradation and bioremediation of
industrial waste. Front Microbiol 6:1555
Vivas A, Azcón R, Biró B, Barea JM, Ruiz-Lozano JM (2003) Influence of bacterial strains iso-
lated from lead-polluted soil and their interactions with arbuscular mycorrhizae on the growth
of Trifolium pratense L. under lead toxicity. Can J Microbiol 49(10):577–588
Wang LM, Chi XQ, Zhang JJ, Sun DL, Zhou NY (2014) Bioaugmentation of a methyl para-
thion contaminated soil with Pseudomonas sp. strain WBC-3. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad
87(1):116–121
Watkinson RJ, Morgan P (1990) Physiology of aliphatic hydrocarbon-degrading microorganisms.
Biodegrad 1(2–3):79–92
Watling HR (2014) Review of biohydrometallurgical metals extraction from polymetallic mineral
resources. Minerals 5(1):1–60
Widdel F, Rabus R (2001) Anaerobic biodegradation of saturated and aromatic hydrocarbons. Curr
Opin Biotechnol 12:259–276
Wilkes H, Buckel W, Golding BT, Rabus R (2016) Metabolism of hydrocarbons in n-Alkane utiliz-
ing anaerobic bacteria. J Mol Microbiol Biotechnol 26:138–151
Wu JF, Jiang CY, Wang BJ, Ma YF, Liu ZP, Liu SJ (2006a) Novel partial reductive pathway for
4-chloronitrobenzene and nitrobenzene degradation in Comamonas sp. strain CNB-1. Appl
Environ Microbiol 72(3):1759–1765
Wu S, Cheung K, Luo Y, Wong M (2006b) Effects of inoculation of plant growth promoting rhizo-
bacteria on metal uptake by Brassica juncea. Environ Pollut 140:124–135
Wu M, Xu Y, Ding W, Li Y, Xu H (2016) Mycoremediation of manganese and phenanthrene by
Pleurotus eryngii mycelium enhanced by tween 80 and saponin. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol
100:7249–7261
Xiangliang P, Jianlong W, Daoyong Z (2005) Biosorption of Pb(II) by Pleurotus ostreatus immo-
bilized in calcium alginate gel. Process Bio Chem 40:2799–2803
Xiangliang P, Jianlong W, Daoyong Z (2009) Biosorption of Co(II) by immobilised Pleurotus
ostreatus. Int J Environ Pollut 37:289–298
Xiao Y, Wu JF, Liu H, Wang SJ, Liu SJ, Zhou NY (2006) Characterization of genes involved in the
initial reactions of 4- chloronitrobenzene degradation in Pseudomonas putida ZWL73. Appl
Microbiol Biotechnol 73(1):166–171
Xu Y, Feng YY (2016) Feasibility of sewage sludge leached by Aspergillus niger in land utiliza-
tion. Pol J Environ Stud 25(1):405
Yayçinkaya Y, Arica MY, Soysal L, Bektaş S (2002) Cadmium and mercury uptake by immobi-
lized Pleurotus sapidus. Turk J Chem 26(3):441–452
Yu SH, Ke L, Wong YS, Tam NFY (2005) Degradation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons by a
bacterial consortium enriched from mangrove sediments. Environ Int 31(2):149–154
Yuan M, He H, Xiao L, Zhong T, Liu H, Li S, Deng P, Ye Z, Jing Y (2013) Enhancement of Cd
phytoextraction by two Amaranthus species with endophytic Rahnella sp. JN27. Chemosphere
103:99–104
Zaidi S, Usmani S, Singh BR, Musarrat J (2006) Significance of Bacillus subtilis strain SJ-101
as a bioinoculant for concurrent plant growth promotion and nickel accumulation in Brassica
juncea. Chemosphere 64:991–997
Zhang ZH, Hong Q, Xu JH, Zhang X, Li S (2006) Isolation of fenitrothion-degrading strain
Burkholderia sp. FDS-1 and cloning of mpd gene. Biodegradation 17(3):275–283
Zhang JJ, Liu H, Xiao Y, Zhang XE, Zhou NY (2009) Identification and characterization of cata-
bolic para-nitrophenol 4-monooxygenase and para-benzoquinone reductase from Pseudomonas
sp. strain WBC-3. J Bacteriol 191(8):2703–2710
Zhang Y, He L, Chen Z, Wang Q, Qian M, Sheng X (2011) Characterization of ACC deaminase-
producing endophytic bacteria isolated from copper-tolerant plants and their potential in pro-
moting the growth and copper accumulation of Brassica napus. Chemosphere 83:57–62
Zhang X, Lin L, Chen M, Zhu Z, Wang W, Chen B (2012) A nonpathogenic Fusarium oxyspo-
rum strain enhances phytoextraction of heavy metals by the hyperaccumulator Sedumal fredii
Hance. J Hazard Mater 229–230:361–370
Zhao S, Ramette A, Niu GL, Liu H, Zhou NY (2009) Effects of nitrobenzene contamination and
of bioaugmentation on nitrification and ammonia-oxidizing bacteria in soil. FEMS Microbiol
Ecol 70(2):315–323
Zhen D, Liu H, Wang SJ, Zhang JJ, Zhao F, Zhou NY (2006) Plasmid mediated degradation of
4-chloronitrobenzene by newly isolated Pseudomonas putida strain ZWL73. Appl Microbiol
Biotechnol 72(4):797–803
Zhu F, Qu L, Fan W, Qiao M, Hao H, Wang X (2011) Assessment of heavy metals in some wild
edible mushrooms collected from Yunnan Province, China. Environ Monit Assess 179:191–199
Zhu MJ, Du F, Zhang GQ, Wang HX, Ng TB (2013) Purification a laccase exhibiting dye decolor-
izing ability from an edible mushroom Russula virescens. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 82:33–39
Chapter 7
Soil Remediation Through Algae, Plants
and Animals
Abstract There is an expanding enthusiasm for utilizing algal species for remedia-
tion of organic (hydrocarbons) and inorganic pollutants (heavy metals) in soils.
Several algal species have been isolated which have potential to remediate the pol-
luted soils and wastewaters. Phytoremediation mechanisms, although not quick but,
have the potential to restore the polluted soils. This strategy is centred on the mutual
act of plants and the microbial communities related with them to remove, degrade,
transform or immobilize the noxious contaminants present in sediments, soils, sur-
face water and ground water. Even though various chemical, physical, and biologi-
cal methods have been developed and suggested but, phytoremediation is the ideal,
innovative, as well as the safest method for removing toxic metals without any
noticeable side effects. Some lower animals take in heavy metals from soil and fur-
ther degrade, remove or lower their toxicity. It has also been reported that earth-
worm has significant potential to augment the stable fraction and to retard mobile
fraction of heavy metals. This chapter discusses the advantanges and the concerns
related to soil remediation mediated through aglae, plants and animals.
Keywords Heavy metals · Phytoremediation · Hyperaccumulator · Rhizofiltration

· Phytotransformation · Phytostabilization
7.1 Introduction
Recently, bioremediation has gained interest of the scientists for soil remediation
which involves the use of algae (phycoremediation), plants (phytoremediation) and
animals to detoxify the soil contaminants, sludges, rivers and lakes (Cunningham
and Berti 1993; Lim et al. 2010; Ellis et al. 2012). Algae are efficient accumulators
of toxic heavy metals and other xenobiotic compounds (Suresh and Ravishankar
2004). Hence, the bioremediation potential of algae proves useful for the extraction
of toxic metals and contaminants.
Soil remediation can be achieved with the aid of plants. Several reports on phy-
toremediation are now avaible (Lim et al. 2010; Ellis et al. 2012). It is a cost-
effective strategy which takes advantage of accumulation-activity of the plants. The

130 7 Soil Remediation Through Algae, Plants and Animals
plants having this ability are called bioaccumulators or hyper accumulators. Above
all, soil animals also help to achieve the soil remediation and play a direct or indirect
role in soil remediation process. Soil reclamation through soil animals can take
place in either of the two ways: firstly, the soil animals can act as indicator of pol-
luted soil and can address the risk and toxicity of polluted soils and Secondly, the
animals can directly take part in reclamation process by accumulating the toxic
metals to enhance the microbial and metabolic activity of polluted soils. Thus, soil
bioremediation strategies ensure environmental protection by using natural
resources for sustainable remediation which is economically and environmentally
beneficial for the society.
7.2 Phycoremediation
There is an expanding enthusiasm among environmentalists for utilizing algal spe-

cies for remediation of organic (hydrocarbons) and inorganic pollutants (heavy met-
als) in soils. Several algal species have been isolated which have the potential to treat
contaminated soils and wastewaters (Table 7.1). (Olguin 2003; Perales-Vela et al.
2006; Wenzel 2009; Kidd et al. 2009; Khan et al. 2009; Uroz et al. 2009; Rajkumar
et al. 2010; Olguin, 2012). Algae is the choice for remediation program because of
their small size, less complex body and high biomass, and also these are fast accu-
mulators of toxic compounds. Under heavy metal stress conditions, certain defence
mechanisms have been reported in algae which include compartmentalization, bind-
ing protein synthesis (i.e. PCs (poly(-y-glutamyl-cysteinyl)glycines) and MTs
(metallothionein) and phytochelatin complex formation), and exclusion and trans-
port of metal complexes to the vacuoles (Grill et al. 1989; Ben-Chekroun and
Baghour 2013). In Chlorella vulgaris, proline concentration was reported to rise
under chromium (Cr) and copper (Cu) stress conditions (Krämer et al. 1996; Sharma
and Dietz 2006; Ben-Chekroun and Baghour 2013) while, in Thalassiosira
pseudonana and T. weissflogii, synthesis of phytochelatins was observed under metal
stress conditions (Payne 2000; Ahner et al. 2002; Ben-Chekroun and Baghour 2013).
During phycoremediation, algae undergo two types of mechanisms, i.e. complex
formation and exclusion (inhibit the entry of metal ions). Formation of complex
tends to decrease the toxicity of inorganic contaminants i.e. heavy metals (Cobbett
and Goldsbrough 2002; Perales-Vela et al. 2006). Various green algal species includ-
ing Cladophora and Enteromorpha have been identified for their phytoremediation
potential (Al-Homaidan et al. 2011; Ben-Chekroun and Baghour 2013). Chlorophya
and Cyanophyta have also been reported as hyper-absorbents and hyper-accumula-
tors for arsenic (As) and boron (B). Some algal colonies were reported to live in
symbiotic association with roots of Arundo donax L. for phytoremediation of As
(Mirza et al. 2010a, b). The benefit of using algae in phytoremediation is the high
algal biomass production which leads to increase in absorption and accumulation of
toxic pollutants. However, the metal sorption capacity of algal strains should be high
enough for efficient phycoremediation (Ben-Chekroun and Baghour 2013).
7.2 Phycoremediation 131
Table 7.1 Reports on phycoremediation of heavy metals and other organic compounds
Sr.
No. Algal species Contaminant remediated References
1. Ankistrodesmus amalloides DDT, Dieldrin and Photodieldrin Neudorf and
Khan (1975)
2. Phytoplankton Chlorinated hydrocarbons Harding and
Phillips
(1978)
3. Agmenellum Bisphenol, 14c Naphthalene Cerniglia et al.
quadruplicatum (1979)
4. Scenedesmus bijugatus, Monocrotophos Megharaj
Chlorella vulgaris et al. (1987)
5. Selenastrum capricornutum BaP Warshawsky
et al. (1995)
6. Anabaena and Nostoc, DDT [1,1,1-trichloro-2,2- bis Megharaj
Chlorococcum (p-chlorophenyl) ethane] et al. (2000)
7. Cladophora crispate Zn(II) Ozer et al.
(2000)
8. Chlorella miniata Ni(II) Wong et al.
Chlorella vulgaris (2000)
9. Chlorella vulgaris Cd(II) Aksu (2001)
10. Spirogyra sp. Cr(IV) Gupta et al.
(2001)
11. Chlorella vulgaris Ni(II) Mehta and
Cu(II) Gaur (2001)
12. Chlamydomonas reinhardtii Cd(II) Adhiya et al.
(2002)
13. Ulothrix zonata Cu(II) Nuhoglu et al.
(2002)
14. Dunaliella sp. Cr(IV) Donmez and
Aksu (2002)
15. Chlorella vulgaris Cu(II) Mehta et al.
(2002)
16. Consortium of Pseudomonas Phenanthrene Muñoz et al.
migulae and Chlorella (2003)
sorokiniana
17. Nannochloropsis spp. Bisphenol A (BPA; 2,2-bis Ishihara and
Chlorella gracilis (4-hydroxyphenyl)propane) Nakajima
(2003)
18. Ulva lactuca Hg(II) Zeroual et al.
(2003)
19. Chlorella vulgaris Ni(II) Al-Rub et al.
(2004)
20. Chlorella sorokiniana Ni(II) Akhtar et al.
(2008)
21. Laminaria japonica Pb(II), Zn(II), Al(III), Cd(II), Cr(II), Cu(II) Lee et al.
(2004)
(continued)

Sr.
22. Cladophora crispate Cu(II) Ozer et al.
(2004)
23. Chlorococcum sp., R-endosulfan, endosulfan sulfate Sethunathan
Scenedesmus sp. et al. (2004)
24. Chlorella fusca Bisphenol A (BPA; 2,2-bis Hirooka et al.
(4-hydroxyphenyl)propane) (2005)
25. Chlamydomonas reinhardtii Cr(IV) Arıca et al.
(2005)
26. Fucus vesiculosus Ni(II), Cu(II) Rincon et al.
(2005)
27. Sphaeroplea sp. Ni(II) Srinivasa Rao
et al. (2005)
28. Chlamydomonas reinhardtii Hg(II), Pb(II), Cd(II) Tüzün et al.
(2005)
29. Cladophora fracta Pb(II), Cd(II) Lamaia et al.
(2005)
30. Chlorella vulgaris Ni(II) Aksu and
D€onmez
(2006)
31. Fucus vesiculosus Pb(II), Cd(II) Rincon et al.
(2005)
32. Sphaeroplea sp. Cu(II) Srinivasa Rao
et al. (2005)
33. Chlorella vulgaris Cd(II) Aksu and
D€onmez
(2006)
34. Cladophora fascicularis Cu(II) Deng et al.
(2006)
35. Chlorella miniata Cr(III) Han et al.
(2006)
36. Laminaria japonica Pb(II) Luo et al.
(2006)
37. Spirogyra sp. Cr(III) Bishnoi et al.
(2007)
38. Cladophora fascicularis Pb(II) Deng et al.
(2007)
39. Ulva lactuca Cr(IV) El-Sikaily
et al. (2007)
40. Sargassum sp. Cu(II) Karthikeyan
Ulva fasciata et al. (2007)
41. Ascophyllum nodosum Zn(II) Romera et al.
Asparagopsis armata (2007)
Chondrus crispus
Codium vermilara
Fucus spiralis
Spirogyra insignis
(continued)
7.2 Phycoremediation 133

Sr.
42. Scenedesmus quadricauda, Fluoranthene, Pyrene Lei et al.
Chlorella vulgaris, (2007)
Selenastrum capricornutum,
Scenedesmus platydiscus
43. Ascophyllum nodosum Ni(II), Cu(II), Pb(II), Cd(II) Romera et al.
Asparagopsis armata (2007)
Chondrus crispus
Codium vermilara
Fucus spiralis
44. Chondrus crispus Cu(II) Romera et al.
(2007)
45. Spirogyra neglecta Pb(II), Cu(II) Singh et al.
(2007)
46. Chlorella sorokiniana Cr(III) Akhtar et al.
(2008)
47. Five different species of Fenamiphos (ethyl 4-methylthio-m-tolyl Cáceres et al.
Cyanobacteria and green isopropyl phosphoramidate) (2008)
algae
48. Chlorococcum sp., Organophosphorus pesticide, fenamiphos Cáceres et al.
Pseudokirchneriella (ethyl 4-methylthio-m-tolyl isopropyl (2008)
subcapitata phosphoramidate) and its metabolites
fenamiphos sulfoxide phenol, fenamiphos
sulfone, fenamiphos sulfone phenol
fenamiphos sulfoxide, fenamiphos and
phenol
49. Chlorella vulgaris Cr(IV) Gokhale et al.
(2008)
50. Fucus vesiculosus Pb(II), Cu(II) Mata et al.
(2008)
51. Ulva lactuca Cd(II) Sari and
Tuzen (2008)
52. Protothecazopfii Polyurethane Ueno et al.
(2008)
53. Fucus vesiculosus Au(III) Mata et al.
(2009)
54. Rhizoclonium Cr(III) Onyancha
heiroglyphicum, Spirogyra et al. (2008)
condensate
55. Scenedesmus incrassatulus Cr(IV) Jacome-Pilco
et al. (2009)
56. Ulothrix cylindricum As(III) Tuzen et al.
(2009)
57. Pseudokirchneriella Carbamazepine Vernouillet
subcapitata et al. (2010)
58. Selenastrum capricornutum Naphthalene, pyrene, benzene, toluene, Gavrilescu
phenanthrene (2010)
(continued)

Sr.
59. Scenedesmus obliquus GH2 Crude-oil Tang et al.
(2010)
60. Cladophora hutchinsiae Se(IV) Tuzen and
Sari (2010)
61. Scenedesmus quadricauda Fungicides (dimethomorph and Olette et al.
pyrimethanil) and herbicide (isoproturon) (2010)
62. Chlorella vulgaris U(VI) Vogel et al.
(2010)
63. Cladophora sp. Pb(II), Cu(II) Lee and
Spirogyra sp. Chang (2011)
64. Scenedesmus Obliquus Zn(II) Monteiro et al.
(ACOI598) (2011)
65. Scenedesmus vacuolatus Fluoxetine and its metabolites Neuwoehner
norfluoxetine, propranolol, lidocaine, and and Escher
trimipramine (2011)
66. Chlamydomonas reinhardtii Herbicide (fluroxypyr) Zhang et al.
(2011)
67. Chlorella vulgaris Tetracycline de Godos
et al. (2012)
68. Monoraphidium braunii Bisphenol Gattullo et al.
(2012)
69. Chlamydomonas reinhardtii Herbicide (prometryne) Jin et al.
(2012)
70. Pediastrum tetras, Herbicide (mesotrione) Moro et al.
Ankistrodesmus fusiformis, (2012)
Amphora coffeaeformis
71. Spirogyra neglecta Cu(II) Singh et al.
(2012)
72. Spirogyra sp. Cr(IV) Yaqub et al.
(2012)
73. Stigeoclonium sp. diatoms, Ibuprofen, acetaminophen caffeine Matamoros
Chlorella sp., et al. (2015)
Monoraphidium
7.3 Phytoremediation
Phytoremediation process depends upon the mutual activity of plants and the asso-
ciated rhizospheric microbial communities to remove, degrade, transform or immo-
bilize the toxic contaminants present in sediments, soils, surface water and ground
water. This process, although not quick but, has the potential to restore the polluted
soils (Atma et al. 2017). Although several chemical, physical, and biological meth-
ods have been established but, phytoremediation is the ideal, innovative, as well as
the safest method for removing toxic metals without any noticeable side effects
(Atma et al. 2017). It has gained success in the treatment of various contaminants
7.3 Phytoremediation 135
such as pesticides, chlorinated solvents, explosives, petroleum, radionuclides,

hydrocarbons and heavy metals, in the polluted soils (Eapen and D’Souza 2005;
Eapen et al. 2007). Soils polluted with heavy metals are one of the major ecological
related worries of the present-day world. Several strategies have been deployed to
relieve the environment from these metals howeve, majority of them are costly and
do not provide efficient outcome. Interestingly, phytoremediation technique can
efficiently remediate the contaminated soils (Table 7.2). Aromatics-polluted soils
are also of environmental concern because of their carcinogenic and mutagenic
properties (Xu and Zhou 2017). Microbes can improve the efficiency of remediation
process through several mechanisms. Table 7.3 shows plant/microbe mediated
remediation of hydrocarbon contaminated soils. The efficiency or the phytoreme-
diation potential of plants can be increased by the reinforcement of certain kinds of
plant growth promoting (PGP) bacteria such as Azospirillum brasilense, Bacillus
pumilus, Pseudomonas putida, A. brasilense, Enterobacter cloacae etc. (de-Bashan
et al. 2012; Thijs et al. 2016). It has been observed that in salt stress conditions the
plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) not only prevents inhibition of pho-
tosynthesis and membrane damage but also shows positive effects on plant biomass
and health (Gerhardt et al. 2017). Moreover, plants with large biomass help to pre-
vent the spread of toxic compounds via air and water erosion (Cherian and Oliveira
2005). Candidate plants for phytoremediation must have the characteristics like
extensive root system, ability to tolerate large amount of contaminant, high biomass
production, and to survive under the adverse stress conditions. As mentioned before,
certain factor such as suitable bacterial and plant species must be taken into consed-
eration to accomplish the high remediation success (Ali et al. 2013; Balliana et al.
2017; Marchand 2017). Phytoremediation phenomena comprises ans is related to
various processes including rhizofiltration, phytodegradation, phytovolatilization,
phytostabilization, phytoextraction/phytoaccumulation, phytomining and phyto-
stimulation (Fig. 7.1).
Phytoremediation involves the following methods:
7.3.1 Rhizofiltration
Rhizofiltration uses the roots of the plants to remediate polluted soil(s) and water(s)
through absorption, concentration and precipitation of the contaminants (Dürešová
et al. 2014; Mirza et al. 2014). This technique is more suitable for remediation of
inorganic and organic pollutants from waste water with the aid of aquatic plants
(Jena and Dey 2017). Actually, rhizofiltration involves both phytostabilization and
phytoextraction (Dhanwal et al. 2017). An ideal plant for rhizofiltration must have a
large surface area and significant root biomass (Chen et al. 2016a, b). The roots of
many terrestrial plants grown hydroponically, including Brassica juncea, Helianthus
annuus and certain grasses, significantly remove toxic heavy metals like Cd2+, Cu2+,
Pb2+, Ni2+ and Zn2+ from aqueous solutions (Akpor and Muchie 2010). Rhizofiltration
is not limited to aquatic species only; certain terrestrial species such as Amaranthus
Table 7.2 Reports on phytoremediation of toxic-metal contaminated soils
136
Experiment
Element Contaminant (oxidation state) Plant(s) used type Remediation success Reference(s)
Chromium Cr(VI) Eichhornia crassipes (water Lab 5000–6000 mg/kg of Cr was Lytle et al. (1988)
(Cr) hyacinth) accumulated after supplying
10 mg/l solution for a period of
14 days.
Cr(III) Oryza sativa L. Lab 109.44 mg/kg of Cr(III) was Mishra et al.
accumulated by the roots when (1997)
supplied with 25.0 mg/l of
Cr(III).
Cr (VI) 140.34 mg/kg of Cr(IV) was
7
accumulated by roots when

supplied with 25.0 mg/l of
Cr(IV).
Cr(IV) Convolvuls arvensis L. Field C. arvensis accumulated more Gardea-Torresdey
than 30,000 mg of Cr/kg of dry et al. (2004)
root tissue from agar-based
medium containing 20 mg/l of
Cr(IV).
Soil contaminated with 14, Two poplar clones Eridano Lab Maximum amount of Cr Sebastiani et al.
800 mg/kg Cr (Populus deltoides × (587 mg/kg) has been reported to (2004)
maximowiczii-clone) and I-214 P. be accumulated in the roots of
xeuramericana Eridano.
Cr-containing soil [30 mg Cr3+ Helianthus annuus Lab 0.25 mg/g of Cr accumulated in Turgut et al.
(CrCl3.6H2O)] the plant stem due to the addition (2004)
of 0.3 g/kg EDTA into the soil.
Soil contaminated with Cr Salix fragilis (“Belgisch Rood”) Green house Maximum amount of Cr Vandecasteele
(65–779 mg/kg) and Salix viminalis (“Aage”) (50.5 mg/kg) accumulated in the et al. (2005)
roots of S. viminalis.
Soil Remediation Through Algae, Plants and Animals
Experiment
Cr(IV) and Cr(III) Salsola kali Lab A maximum of 3000 mg/kg Cr Gardea-Torresdey
accumulated in the roots when et al. (2005)
supplied with 20 mg/l of Cr (IV).
Cr-contaminated Eutric Cichorium intybus, Beta vulgaris, Field Z. mays accumulated the Ciura et al. (2005)
Cambisols, Agricultural Cucurbita pepo, Hordeum vulgare, maximum Cr (16.6 mg/m2/year).
academy research station near Phaseolus vulgaris, Brassica
Krakow, Poland oleracea var. capitata, Zea mays,
Pastinaca sativa, Medicago sativa

Dipotassium chromate Spinach (Spinacia oleracea L.), Lab B. campestris L. removed the Dheri et al. (2007)
(K2Cr2O7) Fenugreek (Trigonella maximum amount of Cr
foenumgraecum L.), and Raya (2.52–15.62 mg/g) from soil.
(Brassica campestris L.)
Salt of Chromium Phyllanthus amarus, Lab P. amarus absorbed the Eddy and Ekop
Stachytarpheta indica, Murraya maximum amount of Cr (2007)
koenigii (25.21 mg/kg) from Cr
contaminated soil.
Agricultural soil near Oryza sativa Field Maximum amount of Cr Liu et al. (2007)
Zhengzhou City, People’s (2.73–3.28 mg/kg) accumulated
Republic of China in the roots of the plant.
Potassium dichromate Bacopa monnieri L. Lab B. monnieri L. effectively Shukla et al.
(K2Cr2O7) removed Cr (319.5 mg/kg) from (2007)
solution.
Leather tannery sludge Melia azedarach Linn., Leucaena Lab Maximum 3450 mg/kg of Cr has Sakthivel and
(Sembattu, Trichy, Tamil leucocephla, Azadiracha indica been accumulated in the leaves of Vivekanandan
Nadu, India) A. indica. (2009)
(continued)
137
138
Experiment
0.02 mg/kg Cr in soil Triticum aestivum, Brassica Field 50.62 mg/kg of Cr accumulated Chandra et al.
campestris in roots of T. aestivum and (2009)
60.26 mg/kg accumulated in the
roots of B. campestris.
Potassium dichromate Brassica juncea L. (Indian Lab 640–4190 mg/kg of Cr Diwan et al.
(K2Cr2O7) mustard) accumulated in the stem of the (2010)
plant.
Cr(III) and CrO42- Azolla pinnata Field 415–1095 mg/kg of Cr Rai (2010)
accumulated in the plant tissue
7
when supplied with 0.5–3.0 mg/l

of Cr.
Cr(VI) Cynodon dactylon, Echinochla Lab A maximum of 94.59 mg/kg of Sampanpanish
colonum, Vetiveria nemoralis Cr was accumulated by C. et al. (2010)
dactylon when supplied with
5 mg/kg of Cr.
Potassium dichromate Cyperus kylinga, C. rotundus, Field Highest concentration of Cr Sundaramoorthy
(K2Cr2O7) Ludwigia parvifloria and Marselia (275.5 mg/kg) was recorded in et al. (2010)
quadrifolia the roots of C. rotundus.
Potassium dichromate Typha Angustifolia, Cyperus Field Highest concentration of Cr Chandra and Yadav
(K2Cr2O7) Esculentus, and Phragmites (75.82 mg/kg) was accumulated (2011)
Cummunis by T. angustifolia.
Chromium(III) nitrate Populus alba and Morus alba Lab Highest concentration of Cr Rafati et al. (2011)
nonahydrate (CrN3O9.9H2O) (15.39 mg/kg) was found in the
fallen leaves of M. alba.
Cr(III) 15 μgl−1 Typha latifolia L., Scirpus Lab S. Americans removed the Santos-Díaz and
americans Pers. maximum amount of Cr Barrón-Cruz
(40.7 mg/kg). (2011)
Experiment
Cr (0, 50, 100, 200, 400, 600, Arundo donax Lab 262.6 mg/kg of Cr was Kausar et al.
and 900 μg/l) accumulated in the stem of the (2012)
plant when supplied with
900 mg/lof Cr.
Potassium dichromate Lemna gibba and Ceratophyllum Lab 2816 mg/kg of Cr was Abdallah (2012)
(K2Cr2O7·5H2O) demersum accumulated by C. demersum
when supplied with 15 mg/l of
Cr.
Potassium dichromate Green gram (Vigna radiata), Pearl Lab 5.56 mg/kg of Cr was Dheeba and
(K2Cr2O7) millet (Sorghum bicolour), accumulated by the roots of Z. Sampathkumar
Sunflower (Helianthus annuus), mays when supplied with (2012)
Maize (Zea mays), Ground nut different concentration of Cr
(Arachis hypogaea) (10–50 mg/kg).
National metallurgical Azolla pinnata and Lemna minor Lab 0.026 mg/l of Cr was Vaseem and
laboratory effluent accumulated by the plant when Banerjee (2012)
(Jamshedpur, India) supplied with 0.07 mg/l of Cr.
0.2 mg/lCr6+ Nitella pseudoflabellat Lab 79 mg/kg of Cr was accumulated Gomes and Asaeda
by plant when supplied with (2013)
0.2 mg/l Cr6+.
Potassium dichromate Pithecellobium dulce, Pongamia Lab P. glabra accumulated the Unnikannan et al.
(K2Cr2O7) glabra, Cassia auriculata maximum amount (70 mg/kg) of (2013)
chromium in roots when treated
with 50 mg/kg of Cr.
Contaminated water from Alnus acuminata Lab 71 mg/kg of Chromium Escobar and
upper, medium and lower accumulated in the stem of the Dussán (2016)
basin of Bagota river, plant.
Colombia
(continued)
139
140
Experiment
Pulp and paper mill effluents Water hyacinth (Eichhornia Site E. crassipes accumulated the Kumar et al.
crassipes Solms.), Water caltrop maximum amount (0.5 mg/kg) of (2016)
(Trapa natans L.) Cr in the roots.
Plant grown on fly ash dumps Ziziphus mauritiana Field Maximum 38.5 mg/kg of Cr has Pandey and Mishra
of Panki thermal power station, been accumulated in the roots of (2016)
Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, India Z. mauritiana.
Contaminated soil sites, 15 different plant species Field Among the 15 different plant Yuan et al. (2016)
Haining Country, northeast of species maximum amount of Cr
Zhejiang Province, China (372 mg/kg) was accumulated by
7
Chenopodium rubrum L.
collected from HN-4 site.
Different concentration of red Chrysopogon zizanioides (L.) Lab 14.07 mg/plant of Cr Gautam and
mud in soil amended with accumulated in the roots of plant Agrawal (2017)
sewage sludge when supplied with 10% of red
mud.
Municipal waste water Trapa natans L. Site 0.3 mg/kg of Cr accumulated in Kumar and Chopra
collected from activated sludge the roots of the plant after 60 (2017)
of Sarai, Jwalapur, Haridwar, days of treatment with municipal
India waste water.
Contaminated untreated mine Eichhornia crassipes Lab 3.5 mg/kg of Cr (VI) Saha et al. (2017)
waste water (Cr VI) from accumulated in the roots of plant
Sukinda chromite mines,
Orissa India
Experiment
Nickel (Ni) Ultramafic soil of North Berkheya coddii Lab B. coddii extracted 168 kg/ha of Robinson et al.
central Italy Ni from contaminated soil. (1997)
Ni-contaminated soil of Italy Alyssum bertolonii and Field Both these plants accumulated Anderson et al.
Streptanthus polygaloides 13,400 and 17,400 mg/kg dry (1999)
weight of Ni.
Ni(NO3)2·6H2O Pelargonium sp. Lab Pelargonium sp. accumulated a Dan et al. (2002)
significant amount of Ni in its
roots (1190 mg/kg DW) and

shoots (2100 mg/kg DW).
Ni-contaminated soil Brassica juncea and Brassica Lab B. juncea accumulated the Panwar et al.
carinata maximum amount (34.02 mg/kg) (2001)
of Ni.
NiSO4.6H2O Salix acmophylla Boiss. Lab 746.3 mg/kg of Ni was Ali et al. (2003)
accumulated in the roots of plant
when supplied with 10000 mg/kg
of Ni.
Ni and different concentration Helianthus annuus L., and Hybrid Field Leaves of Helianthus Liphadzi et al.
of EDTA poplar (Populus deltoids Marsh. × accumulated 19.2 mg/kg of Ni. (2003)
P. nigra L.)
Ni-containing soils of Albania 145 wild plant species collected Field Two species Alyssum murale and Cullaj et al. (2004)
(South-eastern Europe) from Ni contaminated sites Alysum markgrafii accumulated
the maximum content of Ni that
is 25,500 mg/kg and 23,700 mg/
kg, respectively.
Ni-containing soil [30 mg Ni2+ Helianthus annuus Lab 0.05 mg/g of Ni accumulated in Turgut et al.
(NiSO4.6H2O)] the plant leaves due to the (2004)
addition of 0.3 g/kg EDTA into
the soil.
Ni-contaminated ultramafic Berkheya coddii Lab Large amount of Ni accumulated Mesjasz-
soil from Agnes mine and the in the leaves (18000 μg/g) of B. Przybyłowicz et al.
Songimyelo Game Reserve, coddii. (2004)
141
NE South Africa
(continued)
142
Experiment
Different Ni concentrations Hordeum vulgaris, Spinacea Lab 473 mg/kg of Ni was Giordani et al.
oleracea, Brassica juncea, accumulated in the roots of beans (2005)
Phaseolus vulgaris, Sorgum when supplied with 300 mg/kg of
vulgare, Solanum lycopersicum, Ni.
Ricinus communis
Different Ni concentration Bornmuellera tymphaea and Lab L. emarginata removed a Chardot et al.
Leptoplax emarginata maximum amount of Ni (2005)
(4591 mg/kg) from soil.
Ni-contaminated Eutric Cichorium intybus, Beta vulgaris, Field C. pepo accumulated the Ciura et al. (2005)
7
Cambisols, Agricultural Cucurbita pepo, Hordeum vulgare, maximum amount of Ni

academy research station near Phaseolus vulgaris, Brassica (13.2 mg/m2/year).
Soil contaminated with Ni Salix fragilis (“Belgisch Rood”) Green house Maximum amount of Ni (9.5 mg/ Vandecasteele
(34–46 mg/kg) and Salix viminalis (“Aage”) kg) accumulated in the roots of S. et al. (2005)
fragilis.
Nickel sulphate (NiSO4)2 Scirpus littoralis Field S. littoralis accumulated Bhattacharya et al.
56.37 mg/kg of Ni. (2006)
Salt of Ni Phyllanthus amarus, Lab P. amarus showed the maximum Eddy and Ekop
Stachytarpheta indica, Murraya potential for the absorption of Ni (2007)
koenigii (769.00 mg/kg).
Experiment
1240 mg/kg of Ni in soil Seven species of Alyssum Field A. bracteatum accumulated the Ghaderian et al.
maximum amount of Ni that is (2007)
(2300 mg/kg Ni).
50, 100 mg/kg Ni in soil Cynodon dactylon, Festuca Lab Accumulation of Ni is high in Soleimani and
arundinacea shoots (25 mg/kg dry weight) of Hajabbasi (2009)
C. dactylon.
135 mg/kg of Ni in soil Rubus ulmifolius Lab Maximum amount of Ni found in Marques et al.
the roots (48–151 mg/kg) of the (2009)

plant.
Soil containing Ni (1.63 mg/ Triticum aestivum, Brassica Field 16.80 mg/kg of Ni accumulated Chandra et al.
kg) campestris in the roots of wheat and (2009)
7.28 mg/kg in roots of mustard.
Ni2+ Eichhornia crassipes Lab The plant ash showed a Hussain et al.
maximum of 1.978 mg/kg Ni2+ (2010)
from contaminated soil and
water.
Ni-contaminated water Helianthus annuus L. Lab 55.82 mg/kg of total Ni was Mukhtar et al.
accumulated by the plant when (2010)
supplied with 30 mg/l of Ni.
10 g of ground solid Ni Berkheya coddii Lab B. coddii accumulated 168 mg/kg Keeling et al.
of Ni. (2003)
Nickel(II) Sulfate Hexahydrate Typha angustifolia, Cyperus Field A total of 71.61 mg/kg of Ni was Chandra and Yadav
(NiSO4.6H2O) esculentus, and Phragmites absorbed by C. esculentus when (2011)
cummunis supplied with 16.0 mg/l of Ni.
Nickelous nitrate, hexahydrate Populus alba and Morus alba Lab 11.14 mg/kg of Ni was Rafati et al. (2011)
(NiN2O6.6H2O) accumulated in P. alba when
supplied with 120 mg/kg of Ni.
(continued)
143
144
Experiment
Ni-contaminated soil from Phragmites australis, Miscanthus Lab Among the five plant types J. Li et al. (2011)
Uranium Mill Tailings floridulus, Parthenocissus serotinus accumulated the
Repository, South China quinquefolia, Juncellus serotinus maximum amount (25.2 mg/kg of
Ni), in roots.
Ultramafic soil of Serbia Alyssum murale Lab Maximum concentration of Ni Tumi et al. (2012)
was found in leaves (13,160 mg/
kg) of the plant.
Ni-contaminated soil Lepidium sativum Lab 10.8095 mg/kg of Ni was Mojiri et al. (2013)
(1–20 mg/kg Ni) accumulated when supplied with
7
20 mg/kg of Ni
Hoagland’s solution Sorghum bicolor and Carthamus Lab 0.09 g/plant of Ni was absorbed Al Chami et al.
(containing different tinctorius by the shoots of S. bicolor when (2015)
concentration of Ni) supplied with 5 mg/l of Ni.
Plant grown on fly ash dumps Ziziphus mauritiana Field A maximum of 42.5 mg/kg of Ni Pandey and Mishra
of Panki thermal power station, was accumulated in the roots of (2016)
Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, India plant.
Pulp and paper mill effluents Water hyacinth (Eichhornia Site A maximum of 1.0 mg/kg of Ni Kumar et al.
crassipes Solms.) and Water caltrop was accumulated in the leaves of (2016)
(Trapa natans L.) E. crassipes.
Lead (Pb) Different concentration of red Chrysopogon zizanioides (L.) Lab 0.93 mg/plant of Ni accumulated Gautam and
mud in soil amended with in the shoots of plant when Agrawal (2017)
sewage sludge supplied with 10% of red mud.
Lead acetate (Pb (CH3COO)2. Salix acmophylla Boiss. Lab 1038.5 mg/kg of Pb was Ali et al. (2003)
3H2O) accumulated by the roots of the
plants when supplied with
10000 mg/kg of Pb.
Experiment
Pb-contaminated soil Brassica juncea Lab 677 mg/kg of Pb was Lim et al. (2004)
accumulated by the shoots of the
plant, when supplied with
different Pb concentration and
5 mmol/kg of EDTA.
Pb-contaminated ultramafic Berkheya coddii Lab Maximum 3.3 mg/kg of Pb was Mesjasz-
soil from Agnes mine and the reported to be accumulated in Przybyłowicz et al.
Songimyelo Game Reserve, leaves of plant. (2004)

NE South Africa
Pb-contaminated Eutric Cichorium intybus, Beta vulgaris, Field Among the nine plant types C. Ciura et al. (2005)
Cambisols, Agricultural Cucurbita pepo, Hordeum vulgare, pepo accumulated the maximum
academy research station near Phaseolus vulgaris, Brassica amount Pb (12.6 mg/m2/year).
Lead nitrate (PbNO3)2 Scirpus littoralis Field S. littoralis accumulated a Bhattacharya et al.
maximum of 93.8 mg/kg of Pb. (2006)
75 mg/kg Pb in soil Alternanthera phyloxeroides, Lab Alternanthera phyloxeroides Cho-Ruk et al.
Sanvitalia procumbens, Portulaca accumulated maximum (2006)
grandiflora (22.49 mg/kg of Pb) in its tissues.
Salt of Pb Phyllanthus amarus, Lab S. indica accumulate 5.40 mg/kg Eddy and Ekop
Stachytarpheta indica, Murraya of Pb when supplied with 6 mg/ (2007)
koenigii kg of Pb.
500 mg/l Pb Zea mays L. Lab 900 mg/kg of Pb was Hovsepyan and
accumulated by the roots of plant Greipsson (2005)
when supplied with 500 mg/lof
Pb and 2.5 mmol/kg of EDTA.
(continued)
145
146
Experiment
Soil samples mixed with Pb Cynodon dactylon, Festuca Lab C. dactylon accumulated 15 mg/ Soleimani and
solution arundinacea kg of Pb in its roots when Hajabbasi (2009)
supplied with 100 mg/kg of Pb.
Contaminated soil in Portugal Rubus ulmifolius Lab 1178 mg/kg of Pb was absorbed Marques et al.
by the roots of R. ulmifolius (2009)
when supplied with 1400 mg/kg
of Pb.
0.43 mg/kg Pb in soil Triticum aestivum, Brassica Field 17.8 mg/kg accumulated in roots Chandra et al.
campestris of wheat and 26.14 mg/kg (2009)
7
accumulated in the roots of

mustard.
Lead nitrate (Pb (NO3)2) Tithonia diversifolia and Lab Helianthus annuus accumulated Adesodun et al.
Helianthus annuus maximum concentration of Pb in (2010)
roots that is 100.3, 96.8, 65.8 mg/
kg when supplied with 400 mg/
kg of lead nitrate in soil.
Pb-contaminated soil Zea mays Lab 14.17 mg/kg of Pb was absorbed Mojiri (2011)
by the roots of Z. mays when
supplied with 24 mg/kg of Pb.
Pb-contaminated water Helianthus annuus L. Lab 18.67 mg/kg of Pb was Mukhtar et al.
accumulated in the roots of H. (2010)
annuus when supplied with
30 mg/l of Pb.
Mining area in Hamedan 12 different plant species Field 10,121 mg/kg of Pb accumulated Nouri et al. (2009)
Province in the central west in the shoots of Echinophora
part of Iran platyloba.
Experiment
Pb(NO3)2 (1.0, 5.0, and Carex pendula Lab Maximum amount of Pb Yadav et al. (2011)
10.0 mg/L) in waste water accumulated in the roots
(1600 μg/g dry weight) of C.
pendula, when supplied with
10 mg/l of Pb(NO3)2.
Lead nitrate Pb (NO3)2 Typha angustifolia, Cyperus Field 92.8 mg/kg of Pb was Chandra and Yadav
esculentus, and Phragmites accumulated by P. cummunis (2011)
cummunis when supplied with 33.92 mg/l of

Pb (NO3)2.
Pb-contaminated soil from Phragmites australis, Miscanthus Lab 1.87 mg of Pb was absorbed by Li et al. (2011)
Uranium Mill Tailings floridulus, Parthenocissus P. australis when supplied with
Repository in South China quinquefolia 0.01–0.2 μg/l of Pb.
Pb(II) 60 μg/l Typha latifolia L., Scirpus Lab 148.3 mg/kg of Pb was absorbed Santos-Díaz and
americans Pers. by the roots of S. americanus Barrón-Cruz
when supplied with 60 μg/l of Pb. (2011)
Lead nitrate Pb (NO3)2 Lemna gibba and Ceratophyllum Lab 14.4 mg/l of Pb was accumulated Abdallah (2012)
demersum by L. gibba when supplied with
15 mg/l of Pb.
Toxic effluent from national Azolla pinnata and Lemna minor Lab 0.1 mg/l of Pb was accumulated Vaseem and
metallurgical laboratory, by L. minor when supplied with Banerjee (2012)
Jamshedpur 0.655 mg/l of Pb.
(continued)
147
148
Experiment
Natural wetland, located near 25 different plant species Site Among the 25 different plant Mazumdar and
river Barak in the Panchgram species maximum amount of Pb Das (2015)
area, Hailakandi district, Barak (197.66 mg/kg) was accumulated
Valley, Southern Assam, India in the leaves of Fimbristylis
bisumbellata.
Hoagland’s solution containing Sorghum bicolor and Carthamus Lab S. bicolor accumulated the Al Chami et al.
different concentrations of Pb tinctorius maximum amount of Pb (2015)
(90 mg/l) when supplied with
100 mg/l of Pb.
7
Effluents from Sagar Pulp and Water caltrop (Trapa natans L.) Site Maximum 0.65 mg/kg of Pb Kumar et al.
paper mills Ltd. Manglaur, and water hyacinth (Eichhornia accumulated in the roots of E. (2016)
Haridwar, India crassipes Solms.) crassipes.
Plant grown on fly ash dumps Ziziphus mauritiana Field A maximum of 45.33 mg/kg of Pandey and Mishra
of Panki thermal power station, Pb accumulated in the roots Z. (2016)
Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, India mauritiana.
Lead nitrate (0,0.5,1.0 mg/kg) Brassica juncea Parents, B. juncea Green house Maximum amount of Pb (2.5 mg/ Rahman et al.
cv. Rai (P1), B. juncea cv. (hydroponics) kg) accumulated by the roots of (2016)
BARI-11(P2) and Their F1 Hybrids 2nd parent when supplied with
[(Rai♀ X BARI-11♂) and 1.0 mg/kg of Lead nitrate.
(BARI-11♀ X Rai♂)]
Experiment
Contaminated soil sites, 15 different plant species Field Among the 15 different plant Yuan et al. (2016)
Haining Country, northeast of species maximum amount of Pb
Zhejiang Province, China (1648 mg/kg) was accumulated
by Aster subulatus (Michx.) Hort.
ex Michx. collected from HN-4
site.
Contaminated water from Alnus acuminata Lab A acuminata accumulated Escobar and
upper, medium and lower 135 mg/kg of lead in the roots of Dussán (2016)
basin of Bagota river, the plant.
Colombia
Different concentration of red Chrysopogon zizanioides (L.) Lab 1.87 mg/plant of Pb accumulated Gautam and
mud in soil amended with in the shoots of plant when Agrawal (2017)
sewage sludge supplied with 10% of red mud.
10,000 mg/kg Lead nitrate Helianthus annuus and Hydrangea Lab H. paniculata accumulated the Forte and Mutiti
(Pb(NO3)2) paniculata maximum amount of Pb (2017)
(780 mg/kg) in the shoots.
Municipal waste water Trapa natans L. Site T. natans accumulated 0.3 mg/kg Kumar and Chopra
collected from activated sludge of Pb in the roots. (2017)
of Sarai, Jwalapur, Haridwar,
India
Manganese Mn-contaminated Eutric Cichorium intybus, Beta vulgaris, Field Medicago sativa accumulated Ciura et al. (2005)
(Mn) Cambisols, Agricultural Cucurbita pepo, Hordeum vulgare, 10218 mg/t f.w.; Hordeum
academy research station near Phaseolus vulgaris, Brassica vulgare accumulated 10120 mg/t
Krakow, Poland oleracea var. capitata, Zea mays, f.w.; Cucurbita pepo accumulated
Pastinaca sativa, Medicago sativa 66.5 mg/m2/year.
(continued)
149
150
Experiment
Soil contaminated with Mn Salix fragilis (“Belgisch Rood”) Green house S. fragilis accumulated the Vandecasteele
(292–803 mg/kg) and Salix viminalis (“Aage”) maximum amount of Mn et al. (2005)
(201.7 mg/kg) in the leaves.
Manganese chloride (MnCl2) Scirpus littoralis Field S. littoralis accumulated Bhattacharya et al.
494.92 mg/kg of Mn. (2006)
Salt of manganese Phyllanthus amarus, Lab P. amarus accumulated the Eddy and Ekop
Stachytarpheta indica, Murraya maximum amount of Mn (2007)
koenigii (111.28 mg/kg) when supplied
with 140 mg/kg of Mn.
7
Mn (50, 100 and 500 μM), Mn Juncus effusus L. Lab J. effusus accumulated Najeeb et al.
(500 μM) + citric acid (5 mM), 452.89 mg/kg of Mn in its roots (2009)
and Mn (500 μM) + EDTA when supplied with 500 μM Mn
(5 mM) and 5 μM EDTA.
2.0 mg/kg in soil Triticum aestivum, Brassica Field B. campestris the maximum Chandra et al.
campestris amount of Mn (287 mg/kg) in the (2009)
leaves but T. aestivum
accumulated the maximum
amount (84.1 mg/kg) in the roots.
MnCl2.4H2O Typha angustifolia, Cyperus Field 814.4 mg/kg of Mn was Chandra and Yadav
esculentus, and Phragmites accumulated by P. cummunis (2011)
cummunis when supplied with 20.54 mg/l of
Mn.
Mn (II) 1.8 mg/l Typha latifolia L., Scirpus Lab S. americanus accumulated the Santos-Díaz and
americans Pers. maximum amount (22.1 mg/kg) Barrón-Cruz
of Mn when supplied with (2011)
1.2 μg/l of Mn.
Experiment
Toxic effluents from National Azolla pinnata and Lemna minor Lab L. minor accumulated the Vaseem and
metallurgical laboratory, maximum amount (0.301 mg/l) Banerjee (2012)
Jamshedpur of Mn.
Effluents from Sagar Pulp and Water caltrop (Trapa natans L.) Site E. crassipes accumulated the Kumar et al.
paper mills Ltd. Manglaur, and water hyacinth (Eichhornia maximum amount (1.9 mg/kg) of (2016)
Haridwar, India crassipes Solms.) Mn in the leaves.
Plant grown on fly ash dumps Ziziphus mauritiana Field Z. mauritiana accumulated a Pandey and Mishra
of Panki thermal power station, maximum of 636 mg/kg of Mn in (2016)

Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, India the roots.
Different concentration of red Chrysopogon zizanioides (L.) Lab C. zizanioides accumulated Gautam and
mud in soil amended with 20.93 mg/plant of Mn in the Agrawal (2017)
sewage sludge shoots when supplied with 5% of
red mud.
Municipal waste water Trapa natans L. Site T. natans accumulated a Kumar and Chopra
collected from activated sludge maximum of 1.4 mg/kg of Mn in (2017)
of Sarai, Jwalapur, Haridwar, the leaves.
India
Silver (Ag) Secondary treated municipal Lemna gibba L. Field Lemna gibba accumulated Sasmaz and Obek
waste water from Elazig, 2303% of silver. (2012)
Turkey
Different concentrations of Pistia stratiotes Lab P. stratiotes accumulated Hanks et al. (2015)
silver ions and nanoparticle 0.127 mg/kg of Ag by the roots
when supplied with 2 mg/l of
media.
Brown field sites contaminated Salix miyabeana, Festuca Lab Among the four plant species B. Desjardins et al.
with heavy metals, Montreal arundinacea, Medicago sativa, juncea accumulated the (2016)
(Quebec, Canada) Brassica juncea maximum amount of Ag
(4.60 mg/kg) from the
contaminated soil.
151
152
Table 7.3 Plant/microbe-mediated remediation of hydrocarbons contaminated soils

Experiment
Contaminant Plant(s)/ microbe(s) used type Remediation success Reference(s)
2,4,6-trinitrotoluene (TNT) Methanococcus sp. (strain B) Lab The bacteria transform 100 ppm of TNT within Boopathy and
40–60 days of treatment. Kulpa (1994)
Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCBs) Rhodococcus erythropolis strain Lab Strain TA421 is capable of degrading PCB. Chung et al.
TA421 (1994)
Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCBs) Rhizobium sp. Lab Rhizobial strains catabolized polychlorinated Damaj and
biphenyls. Ahmad (1996)
Glycerol trinitrate Beta vulgaris Lab Glycerol trinitrate degraded by plant. Goel et al.
7
(1997)
TNT Hairy root cultures of M. spicatum, Field M. aquaticum and M. spicatum accumulated Hughes et al.
M. aquaticum and Catharanthus TNT. (1997)
roseus
Dibenzothiophene (DBT) Rhizobium meliloti Lab Rhizobium strain utilized upto 30% of initial Frassinetti et al.
DBT concentration. (1998)
Atrazine Atrazine degrading bacteria Lab Among all bacteria Pseudomonas sp. strain Newcombe and
ADP, mineralized 17–35% of the atrazine. Crowley (1999)
RDX and HMX Myriophyllum aquaticum, Lab RDX was removed by both of the plants. Bhadra et al.
Catharanthus roseus (2001)
PAH and PCB Solanum nigrum, Triticum aestivum, Lab Up to 90% of PAHs and 20% of PCBs were Kucerova et al.
Glycine max etc removed by wheat cells. (2001)
Phenol and Chlorophenols Daucus carota (Hairy root cultures) Lab Transformed roots removed more than 90% of Araujo et al.
phenolic compounds. (2002)
Simazine M. aquaticum, Cannax×hybrida Lab 4 weeks old M. aquarium was reported more Knuteson et al.
tolerant to Simazine. (2002)
Trifluralin, Lindane Secale cereale Lab Ryegrass accumulated a fix amount of Li et al. (2002)
Trifluralin and Lindane
Experiment
4-Chlorophenol 2,6- Carex gracilis and Juncus effusus Lab Plants tolerated 30 mg/l of 4-chlorophenol after Wand et al.
Dimethylphenol Naphthalene few weeks. (2002)
HMX Populus spp. Lab 57% of HMX was accumulated by the plants. Yoon et al.
(octahydro-1,3,5,7-tetranitro- (2002)
1,3,5,7-tetrazocine)
2,4-Dichlorophenol Hairy root cultures of Brassica Lab Roots remediate approx. 97–98% of Agostini et al.
napus 2,4-dichlorophenol within one hour. (2003)
Benzotriazoles Helianthus annuus Hydroponics Phytotransformation of Benzotriazoles. Castro et al.

(2003)
Ethylene dibromide and Leuceana leucocephala Lab Plant metabolized EDB and TCE. Doty et al.
trichloroethylene (2003)
Perchlorate N. tabacum Hydroponics Plant accumulated 10ppb to 100ppm of Sundberg et al.
under green Perchlorate from hydroponic solution. (2002)
house
TNT, PPB M. aquaticum Field Soil concentration for TNT and PPB decreased Sung et al.
250 μg/kg and 500 μg/kg respectively. (2003)
TCE Populus spp. cell suspension Lab Populous suspension cells transformed TCE. Shang and
Gordon (2003)
Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5- Crude cell extract of Clostridium Lab RDX was transformed into several polar Zhang and
triazine (RDX) acetobutylicum (ATCC 824) intermediates by crude cell extract. Hughes (2003)
Methyl tert butyl ether Populus spp. Lab Contaminant was taken up by plant and Ma et al.
volatilize to environment. (2004)
Bitumen Medicago sativa (alfalfa), Pot The rhizosphere microflora of alfalfa has been Muratova et al.
Phragmites australis (reed) reported to show higher degradative potential as (2003)
compare to rhizosphere microflora of reed.
Phenanthrene Sinapis alba (White mustard) and Lab Concentration of phenanthrene decreased upto Hynes et al.
Sphingomonas yanoikuyae 90% in soil when inoculated with S. (2004)
(Bacteria) yanoikuyae.
(continued)
153
154
Experiment
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol Spirodella punctata Lab S. punctata is capable to degrade Jansen et al.
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol (2004)
Chlorpyrifos Enterobacter Strain B-14 Lab Enterobacter sp. degrades chlorpyrifos Singh et al.
(250 mg/liter) in less than 2 days. (2004)
Diesel-fuel Thespesia populnea (milo), Cordia Greenhouse Milo significantly reduced the concentration of Tang et al.
subcordata (kou), Myoporum and lab hexadecane and pyrene by 33% and 42% (2004)
sandwicense (sandalwood) respectively.
Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5- Acetobacterium paludosum Lab A. paludosum degraded RDX (3 mg/l) within 9 Sherburne et al.
triazine (RDX) days and convert it into soluble radio-labeled (2005)
7
metabolites
RDX, TNT, HMX Populus spp. (P. deltoids × nigra Lab Bacteria transformed all the contaminants Van Aken et al.
DN34) and Methylobacterium sp (2004)
Creosote Cladosporium, Fusarium, Lab Mixed population of fungi was reported more Atagana et al.
Penicillium, Aspergillus and effective for removal (94.1%) of Creosote (2006)
Pleurotus
Total petroleum hydrocarbons Cyperus laxus Lam. Lab Phytoremediation extent of plants was 90% Escalante-
(TPH) 5 g TPH/kg of dry perlite when inoculated with hydrocarbon degrading Espinosa et al.
microbes. (2005)
Petroleum Three grass species ( Cyperus Greenhouse Among all species, B. brizantha caused an Merkl et al.
aggregatus, Brachiaria brizantha, approximately 15% higher dissipation of (2005)
Eleusine indica) and Three legumes contaminants than other species.
species (Calopogonium mucunoides,
Stylosanthes capitata, Centrosema
brasilianum)
DDT Brassica juncea, Cichorium intybus Lab Hairy roots successfully degraded DDT. Suresh et al.
(Hairy root cultures) (2005)
Experiment
Polycyclic Aromatic Basidiomycetes Fungi, and Lab 93.7% of pyrene was degraded by coculture of Arun et al.
Hydrocarbons (PAHs) Pseudomonas sp. Coriolus versicolor and Fomitopsis palustris (2008)
TNT 8 plant spp. Lab G. max assimilated maximum concentration of Adamia et al.
TNT (2006)
Phenol and chlorophenols Ipomea batatus, D. carota, Solanum Lab 98.6% of phenol was removed by S. aviculare Araujo et al.
aviculare and 83% of chlorophenol was removed by D. (2002)
carota
Crude oil spills Pseudomonas strain PSI Lab Pseudomonas strain reported to degrade upto Mittal and
70.69% of alkaneas and 45.37% of aromatics. Singh (2009)
Diesel oil Canavalia ensiformis Lab 17% of the plants survived in the contaminated Balliana et al.
soil. (2017)
Petroleum hydrocarbons Vetiveria zizanoides Lab Vetiver was found to tolerate 5% of Brandt et al.
contaminant. (2006)
Diesel Lolium multiflorum L. (ryegrass) Pot Ryegrass roots effectively increased the Kaimi et al.
biodegradation of diesel-contaminated soil upto (2006)
55%.
Petrol hydrocarbons (PHCs) and Thirteen different plant species Greenhouse Among all species, Pisum sativum L (Pea), Liste and Prutz
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons pot Lepidium sativum L. (cress), and Viola tricolor (2006)
(PAHs) L. (pansy) extracted the maximum (60%)
amounts of PAHs from soil.
Crude oil Lolium arundinaceum Schreb. Field After three years of study, it has been reported White et al.
(fescue) Lolium multiflorum L. that phytoremediation management of (2006)
(ryegrass) Cynodon dactylon L. contaminated sites through plants and fertilizer
(Bermuda grass) addition led to reduction of contaminants.
(continued)
155
156
Experiment
Diesel Lolium multiflorum L. (ryegrass) Pot Ryegrass roots have been reported to be Kaimi et al.
effectively increased the biodegradation of (2006)
diesel-contaminated soil upto 55%.
Petroleum Brachiaria brizantha (Hochst. ex Lab Degradation of total aromatics oil and grease Merkl et al.
A. Rich.) Stapf was higher in planted than in unplanted soil. (2006)
Phenol B. juncea, Raphanus sativus, Lab B. juncea showed higher remediation potential Singh et al.
Azadirachta indica, Beta vulgaris than other plants. (2006)
(Hairy root cultures)
2,4-Dinitrotoluene A. thaliana Lab Phytotransformation of 2,4-dinitrotoluene. Yoon et al.
7
(2006)
Triclosan Trametes versicolor Lab Complete dechlorination of triclosan (5 g/l) has Bokare et al.
been reported within 20 min. (2010)
Crude oil Cyperus brevifolius (Rottb.) Hassk Net house C. brevifolius decrease the concentration of Basumatary
crude oil up to 61.2% in TC (contaminated soil et al. (2012)
without fertilizer) and 86.2% in TA
(contaminated soil with fertilizer).
Chlorpyrifos Streptomyces sp. strain AC7, S. sp. Lab 90% of the contaminant was degraded by both Briceno et al.
strain AC5 the strains within 24 h of incubation. (2012)
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p Sphingomonas wittichii Lab Byproducts were totally degraded by microbial Bokare et al.
dioxin metabolism. (2012)
PAH Mesorhizobium sp., Alcaligenes sp. Lab 20.2% and 35.8% of PAH was removed after 56 Mao et al.
and Bacillus sp. days of incubation period. (2012)
p-nitrophenol (PNP) Bacillus pantothenticus and Bacillus Lab Both the spp. successfully degraded PNP. Sreenivasulu
aminovorans et al. (2012)
2,4,6-trinitrotoluene Achromobacter spanius STE 11 Lab Within 20 h of treatment, complete degradation Gumuscu and
of TNT (100 mg/l) was achieved by A. spanius Tekinay (2013)
STE 11.
Experiment
Phenol Halomonas sp. strain PH2-2 Lab The bacterial strain was able to degrade the Haddadi and
phenol up to 1100 mg/l of phenol Shavandi
(2013)
Lindane Sphingomonas sp. Lab The degradation efficiency of Sphingomonas Singh et al.
reached upto 99% when used in combination (2013)
with nanoparticles.
Atrazine Arthrobacter sp. strain DAT1 Lab Significant degradation of Atrazine was Wang et al.
achieved within 2–3 days when augmented (2013)

with Arthrobacter sp.
p-nitrophenol (PNP) Arthrobacter 4Hb Lab Within 24 hours of incubation period 17% Zohar et al.
removal of PNP was observed. (2013)
Naphthalene and crude oil Streptomyces spp. AB1, AH4, and Lab AM2, AB1 and AH4 remove 81.03%, 82.36% Ferradji et al.
AM2 and 85.23% of naphthalene after incubation (2014)
period of 12 days.
Phenanthrene, Fluorene and Kocuria sp. P10 Lab Maximum 83.2% of fluorene was degraded by Sun et al.
Fluoranthene Kocuria sp. P10 within 14 days after 14 days (2014)
incubation period.
Mixture of lindane and Cr(VI) Amycolatopsis tucumanensis DSM Lab Streptomyces sp. M7 and A. tucumanensis Polti et al.
45259, Streptomyces spp. A5, A11, successfully remove lindane and Cr(VI) (2014)
M7, MC1 respectively.
Crude Oil Thirty-three species of ornamental Greenhouse A maximum of 45–49% reduction of Ikeura et al.
flowering plants hydrocarbon in soil was done by Mimosa (2016)
pudica (Mimosa), Zinnia profusion (Zinnia),
Gazania rigens (Gazania), and Ipomoea
quamoclit (Cypress vine) after 180th day.
Aroclor 1248 (PCB) Burkholderia xenovorans with nZVI Lab 90% of the degradation was observed with Le et al. (2015)
(1000 mg/L) nZVI (1000 mg/L) with Burkholderia
xenovorans
(continued)
157
158
Experiment
Naphthalene, Anthracene, Pyrene Gordonia sp. Poz20, Amycolatopsis Lab 100% of naphthalene, 37.87% of anthracene, Ortega-
and fluoranthene sp. Poz14, Rhodococcus sp. Poz54 25.10% of pyrene, and 18.18% of fluoranthene Gonzalez et al.
were degraded within 45-days. (2015)
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons Plants: Lolium perenne (rye grass), Greenhouse The maximum metal phytoextraction (36.1% Chen et al.
and Cd, Zn Seduce alfredii Bacteria: Cd and 12.7% Zn) and PAH removal (96.4%), (2016a, b)
Microbacterium sp. KL5 and were obtained by interplanting ryegrass with
Candida tropicalis C10 Seduce alfredii with regular re-inoculation with
Microbacterium sp. KL5 and Candida
tropicalis C10 in the co-contaminated soil.
7
Total petroleum hydrocarbons Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers. and Lab A maximum of 32.13% of TPH removed by S. Alavi et al.
Aeluropus littoralis (Guna) Parl halepense (L.). (2016)
Pyrene Thalassospira sp. TSL5-1 Lab Strain TSL5-1 successfully degraded Pyrene Zhou et al.
from contaminated soil. (2016)
Pyrene and Ni Scirpus triqueter Lab The addition of PGPB increased the efficiency Chen et al.
of phytoremediation of pyrene and Ni in soil. (2017)
Atrazine Plant: Phaseolus vulgaris L. (bean) Greenhouse A maximum of 76.63% atrazine was removed Madariaga-
Bacteria: Trichoderma sp., and from soil by the BT (bean + Trichoderma sp) Navarrete et al.
Rhizobium sp. treatment in 40 days. (2017)
Monochlorobenzoate Pseudomonas sp. 2-CBA, Lab Three strains successfully catabolized Xu et al. (2017)
Pseudomonas sp. 3-CBA, and Monochlorobenzoate with different pathways.
Hydrogenophaga sp. 4-CBA
Experiment
Cypermethrin Biochar with immobilized bacteria Lab The treatment of biochar (0.5%) with Liu et al.
(Bacillus Zhanjiangensis strain immobilized bacteria achieved the maximum (2017)
TJTB48, Bacillus Pseudofirmus degradation rate (82.18%) of cypermethrin
TJTB58 and Oceanobacillus kimchii within 40 days.
TJTB66)
Tetrabromobisphenol Geobacter and Mycobacterium with Lab Degradation rate of Tetrabromobisphenol Yang et al.
compost of spent mushroom increased with an addition of spent mushroom (2017)
compost.
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons Burkholderia, Nitratireductor, Lab Addition of Hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin Gao et al.
Nevskia and Sulfuritalea (HPCD) enhanced the degradation rate of (2017)
bacterial consortium.
Pyrene Coriolopsis byrsina strain APC5 Lab, Field 96.1% of pyrene was degraded by C. byrsina. Agrawal and
Shahi (2017)
Asphaltenes in crude oil Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains Lab Both strains degrade oil asphaltenes (59–72%) Gao et al.
(Gx and Fx) and pure asphalt (∼10%) in crude oil. (2017)
159
Fig. 7.1 Different mechanisms associated with phytoremediation phenomenon
paniculatus, Helianthus annuus and Brassica juncea with large roots have signifi-
cant potential to accumulate inorganic contaminants like Cu and Pb (Rahman et al.
2013). Dürešová et al. (2014), evaluated the capability of Arundo donax to grow in
Cd and Zn-contaminated water for rhizofiltration of heavy metals and it has been
found that A.donax succefully adsorb these contaminants. Elias et al. (2014),
explained the remediation potential of water hyacinth for extraction of toxic heavy
metals contaminants such as Zn, Cr, Fe, Cd, Cu and B from ceramic wastewater and
it was found that Cr was accumulated more than other metals. The concentration of
metals in roots was almost ten times higher than stem and leaves. Pérez-Palacios
et al. (2017), used transgenic tobacco hairy roots to hyper accumulate high Cu con-
centrations from wastewaters. This technique has also been used to extract organic
contaminants like tri chloro ethylene, atrazine, dioxins, tetrachloroethane, nitrotolu-
enesanilines, metolachlor and other petroleum hydrocarbons (Dhanwal et al. 2017).
The positive aspects of this method are: (1) low operational cost, (2) plants can be
grown directly on contaminated water, (3) aesthetically pleasing and after harvest-
ing, and (4) plants can be a substitute for biofuels. Furthermore, some drawbacks
are also present such as: (1) only small concentration of pollutants can be extracted
from media, (2) roots are not able to extract the pollutants which are present below
the root zone, and (3) proper disposal of harvested plants is again a major issue.
However, regular disposal and harvesting of plants are the main limitations of rhi-
zofiltration (Nikolic and Stevovic 2015).
7.3.2 Phytotransformation
Phytotransformation also termed as phytodegradation involves degradation of

organic pollutants by plant metabolic processes or by the effect of plant exudates.
Hence, the organic contaminants are broken down into smaller molecules which
integrate with plant tissues and enhance the plant growth. LeFevre et al. (2015)
observed the potential of Arabidopsis for phytotransformation of xenobiotic con-
taminants into less toxic compounds. Major limitation of this method is that pollut-
ants that enter the food chain require more than one growing season for efficient
transformation. Phytotransformation can be described under the following three
heads:
7.3.2.1 Degradation
Phytodegradation involves the degradation of metal pollutants which are accumu-

lated by plants via metabolic processes, or enzymatic breakdown of pollutants sur-
rounding the plants. The plant enzymes involved in the breakdown of the
contaminants are dehalogenases, phosphatases, dehydrogenases, reductases, oxy-
genases and peroxidases. In this way, the organic contaminants are degraded into
smaller molecules and then incorporated into plant parts for their growth. This
method is used to remove the volatile liquids, petroleum and aromatic compounds
from contaminated soils (Newman and Reynolds 2004). Some plant species
degrade the metal pollutants after absorbing them. Studies suggest that Raphanus
sativus can dregrade the phenols (Bhatti et al. 2012), Allium sativum (Osuji et al.
2014) and Solanum tuberosum (Kurnik et al. 2015) can degrade the metal contami-
nants using peroxidases. Plants also degrade the pollutants in association with sym-
biotic microbes (most commonly Pseudomonas and Bacillus spp. (Ahemad and
Kibret 2014). The phytodegradation potential is affected by the following: (1) poor
association of microorganisms and pollutants, (2) higher concentration of inor-
ganic salts, and (3) toxicity of chlorinated and long chain hydrocarbons to micro-
bial strains.
7.3.2.2 Volatilization
Plant leaves have the ability to transpire a large amount of water through stomata
that are present over the leaf surface. Phytovolatilization involves translocation of
metal contaminants by plants, followed by transpiration to the ecosystem (Vara
Prasad and de Oliveira Freitas 2003). In the atmosphere, these contaminants may
get degraded by the sunlight (photodegradation). It also involves the transformation
of heavy metals to volatile or gaseous state, with the help of certain root exudates
(Kumar et al. 2014). Some heavy metals pollutants such as selenium (Se), mercury
(Hg) and other volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are also reported to release
through the leaves into atmosphere (Sarkar et al. 2007). Water contaminated with
tritium can also be remediated by the phytovolatilization. Phytovolatilization also
plays an important role for remediation of ammonium (Wiessner et al. 2013).
Genetically modified plants, Nicotiana tabacum and Arabidopsis thaliana, have
also been reported to transform the inorganic and organic salts of Hg into volatile
form (Dhir 2013). The advantage of this technique is that it has been used for the
transformation of Hg into its less toxic form (elemental Hg) in the soil. However,
precipitation and deposition of mercury back into oceans and rivers from the envi-
ronment is the limitation of this phenomenon (Mahmoud and Hamza 2017).
7.3.2.3 Stabilization
This phenomenon involves immobilization of the heavy metal contaminants in the

soil. The immobilization can be achieved by decreasing the wind-blown dust or by
reducing soil erosion. The main purpose of stabilization is to increase the degrada-
tion of heavy metal pollutants, certain pesticides and other hydrocarbons (Callender
et al. 2016). Plant roots perform stabilization by inhibiting water percolation in soil
matrix, prevent direct contact with polluted soil and thus, retard soil destruction and
dispersal of the contaminants (Singh and Prasad 2015). Thus, phytostabilization is
economical, simple and eco-friendly strategy which stabilizes and reduces the bio-
availiability of pollutants (Jadia and Fulekar 2009). Generally, the plants with dense
root system, high transpiration rate, and canopies are preferred for phytostabiliza-
tion. Regular site monitoring should be performed to confirm optimum stabilizing
conditions. In case, when soil amendments are used to increase immobilization,
periodic reapplication of the amendments should be done to maintain the effective-
ness (Khan et al. 2012; Grobelak and Napora 2015). This technique is more suitable
to phytostabilize the heavy metal contaminants of waste landfill sites. Addition of
sewage sludge, straws and manure to the waste sites enhances the binding of toxic
metals to them. Limes and lime stones help to bind the cationic metals with the
inorganic wastes. Phytostablization is also efficient in stabilizing the sites contami-
nated with radionucleoides so as to hold the toxic pollutants in place and stop sec-
ondary contamination and its exposure to living beings. This technique is also
suitable for the extraction of As, Cd, Zn and U from contaminated areas (Sinha et al.
2009). An experiment was conducted so as to evaluate and compare the phytostabi-
lization capability of Spartina maritime and Spartina densiflora for Cr, Co and Ni.
It was observed that both the species significantly removed Co from the metal con-
taminated soil (Cambroll et al. 2011). The benefit of this treatment is that the dis-
posal of toxic compound is not essential and is reliable for quick immobilization of
soil pollutants (USEPA 2000). However, this method is only applicable for the areas
with low contamination.
7.3.3 Phytoextraction/Phytoaccumulation
Roots of the plants can uptake translocate and accumulate metal and radioactive
pollutants from soil and fresh or polluted water. The roots are capable to absorb both
organic as well as inorganic contaminants. A significant amount of metals translo-
cates via xylem tissues and accumulate in the leaves and shoots of plant (Singh et al.
2015). In a recent report Eichhornia crassipes was reported to significantly accumu-
late toxic Cr(VI) from the contaminated water thus, exhibiting its phytoremediation
potential (Saha et al. 2017). In a study on A. thaliana using caesium (Cs) and stron-
tium (Sr), majority of the Cs-137 accumulated in the roots, while 80% of the Sr-90
accumulated in the shoots of the plant (Kanter et al. 2010). Phytoaccumulation
depends upon two main factors i.e. the availability of metal in soil and the rate of
translocation from roots to upper parts of the plant. Furthermore, the availability of
the metals depends on water or soil conditions like lipophilicity, pH and clay con-
tent. The addition of certain soil amendments into the soil enhanced the metal avail-
ability in soil, more than 10 folds for cesium (Cs) and 100 folds for uranium (U) and
lead (Pb) (Huang et al. 1998). This technique has been successfuly used by
Phytotech. Inc. USA for extraction of cadmium (Cd) and lead (Pb). Moreover, this
technique also successfully removes selenium (Se) from Se contaminated soil
(Garousi et al. 2016). Lemna gibba was reported to accumulate significant amount
of zinc (Zn) from Zn contaminated water. High removal efficiency (25 mg g−1) and
accumulation capacity of L. gibba makes it a suitable plant for soil remediation
(Khellaf and Zerdaoui 2009). Petroselinum crispum accumulated mercuric chloride
in its leaves, stem and roots from Hg-contaminated soil. The rate of accumulation
was observed to be directly proportional to the concentration of the mercuric chlo-
ride in the soil (Bibi et al. 2016). The accumulation and uptake of mercuric chloride
was also evaluated in roots, stem and leaves of tomato plants and it has been reported
that higher concentrations of mercuric chloride (150 mg kg−1 soil), resulted in the
maximum accumulation in root, stem and leaves of tomato plants, while its lower
concentrations (10 mg kg−1 soil) did not show any significant accumulation. Two
aquatic plant species Eichhornia crassipes and Centella asiatica were evaluated for
their phytoaccumulation potential. C. asiatica removed 99.6% of Cu while, E.
crassipes removed 97.3% of Cu from copper solution. This indicates significant
phytoremediation potential of both the species (Mokhtar et al. 2011). Lactuca sativa
was also used as a model plant to analyze its phytoaccumulation potential and it was
observed that it efficiently accumulates Cd and Pb from contaminated water into its
edible parts. However, the accumulated Cd content was higher than other the other
metal (Rashid et al. 2014). An experiment was conducted in order to assess the
accumulation of As, Pb and Cd by Brassica juncea (Rai and BARI-11) parents and
their F1 hybrids. Out of the three metals, As was found in roots of the plants while
Pb was detected both in roots as well as the arial plant parts of F1 hybrids (Rahman
et al. 2016). It has been concluded that the cost of this technique is almost 10 times
low in contrast to other conventional methods of soil remediation (Salt et al. 1995).
However, in-depth study of the physiology, mechanism of contaminant uptake and
translocation and accumulation by the plants is required.
7.3.4 Phytomining
Plants absorb pollutants from the soil via their extensive root system and accumu-
late in their tissues. Bioharvesting of these accumulated pollutants from the plants
is termed as phytomining. Inadequacy and cost of conventional mining methods
have promoted the advantage of phytomining for metal extraction from their respec-
tive ores (Giurco and Cooper 2012; Wilson-Corral et al. 2012; Sheoran et al. 2013).
Ni is one of the metal which has gained maximum attention because of its high
commercial demand and availability of large Ni-rich land area (Bani et al. 2015;
Nkrumah et al. 2016). The presence of element(s) rich soils, hyper-accumulator
plants, optimized agronomic practices to maximize annual biomass-metal(s) yield,
efficient methods for recovery of element(s) from the post-harvest biomass and the
markets for the element(s) recovered from biomass, are the pre-requisites for suc-
cessful phytomining (Chaney et al. 2007; Bani et al. 2015). The results obtained
from the researches of previous two decades show that phytomining is a cost-
effective and feasible technique to remediate the contaminated soils. However, this
technique is still in its infancy and it is crucial to have a clear understanding of the
processes that are undergoing within the hyper-accumulators for acquisition, trans-
location and accumulation, for strategic remediation of polluted sites (Jan et al.
2014). Its progress, sustainability and commercial application can be achieved by
using it in combination with several other scientific advances (Novo et al. 2017).
7.3.5 Phytostimulation
It is the phenomenon in which the compounds released from roots of the plants
enhance the activity of rhizospheric microbes (Pilipović et al. 2015). Thus, it is basi-
cally a type of symbiotic relationship between microbes and plants where plants
provide nutrients to microbes and microbes provide a suitable environment for root
growth (Eskander and Saleh 2017). The principal mechanisms which are adopted
for metal resistance are metal reduction, metal oxidation, demethylation, methyla-
tion, metal ligand degradation, metal-organic complexion, enzymatic reduction,
extracellular and intracellular metal sequestration, exclusion by permeability bar-
rier, metal efflux pumps and formation of metal chelators like biosurfactants and
metallothioneins (Panda and Dhal 2016). Mostly, Cyanobacteria are used for phyto-
stimulation, as they release certain kind of phytohormones into the soil which are
7.4 Genetic Engineering Approaches for Phytoremediation 165
then absorbed by plants and mediate phytostimulation (Singh et al. 2009; Beharti
2014). This technique is reliable for the elimination of pesticides, PAHs and chlori-
nated solvents from soil and sediments. Higher concentration of pollutants may also
prove toxic to the plants. Phytostimulation can prove to be a low cost and practica-
ble approach to extract the metal contaminants from the soil.
7.4 Genetic Engineering Approaches for Phytoremediation
It is now possible to incorporate gene(s) irrespective of their origin into plants to get
the desired characteristics. Genetic engineering approaches are used to introduce
more efficient accumulator genes into mild accumulator plants possessing the
desired phenotype (tallness, high biomass etc.) to turn them to hyperaccumulators
(Chaney et al. 2000). Similarly, highly effective accumulator genes from taller
plants may be inserted into natural plants/mild accumulators to increase their bio-
mass, thus improving their phytoremediation properties (Davison, 2005; Malik
et al. 2014). Interestingly, induction of hairy roots in the hyperaccumulator plants
showed higher efficiency for rhizofiltration of radionuclides (Nedelkoska and
Doran, 2000). Moreover, the enhanced phytohormone synthesis in transgenic plants
can increase the biomass of hyperaccumulators and thus enhance the process phy-
toremediation (Hedden and Phillips, 2000). Table 7.4 summarizes selected studies
on transgenic plants expressing genes for metal tolerance and xenobiotic com-
pounds degradation.
Phytochelatins (PCs) are a family of heavy metal-inducible peptides crucial for
reclamation of toxic heavy metals, that have been identified in plants and some
microbes. They are synthesized from glutathione (GSH) in the presence of enzyme
PC synthase and heavy metal ions. Zhu et al. (1999a), raised transgenic mustard
expressing the E. coli gshII gene encoding glutathione synthetase (GS) in the cyto-
sol. The transgenic plants accumulated three folds higher Cd (per shoot) than the
non-transgenic controls. Transgenic tobacco plants harbouring mouse metallothio-
nein (MT) gene were found tolerant to Cd stress and accumulated twenty percent
lower Cd than the untransformed controls. The trait was stably inherited even in T2
progeny (Maiti et al. 1989). Several MT genes from mouse (MTI), human (MTIA
and MTII), Chinese hamster (MTII), yeast (CUP I) and pea (psMTA) have been
transferred to N. tabacum, Brassica species and A. thaliana (Eapen and D’Souza
2005) for improved Cd tolerance. Transgenic A. thaliana transformed with PsMTA
gene from Pisum sativum accumulated more Cu than the non-transformed control
plants (Evans et al. 1992). Transgenic B. juncea overexpressing enzymes for phyto-
chelatin synthesis extracted more Cr, Cd, Zn, Cu and Pb than wild plants (Zhu et al.
1999a, b). Transgenic A. thaliana harbouring glutathione S-transferase gene from
tobacco showed improved Al and Cu tolerance (Ezaki et al. 2000). In a similar
report the expression of citrate synthase gene resulted in plants with enhanced Al
tolerance (dela Fuente et al. 1997). Transgenic rice containing nicotinamine amino-
Table 7.4 List of transgenic plants for metal tolerance and degradation of xenobiotic compounds
(phytoremediation)
Target
Gene(s) Source plant(s) Effect on plants Reference(s)
MT2 gene Homo sapiens Nicotiana Cd tolerance Misra and
tabacum L. Gedamu
and Brassica (1989)
napus L.
MTA gene Pisum sativum Arabidopsis Cu accumulation Evans et al.
thaliana (1992)
MT-1 gene Mus muridae N. tabacum Cd tolerance Pan et al.
(1994)
CYP105A1 Streptomyces N. tabacum Sulfonylurea resistance OKeefe et al.
griseolus 1994
CUP-1 gene Yeast Brassica Cd accumulation Hasegawa
oleracea var. et al. (1997)
botrytis
Ferretin Glycine max N. tabacum Increased accumulation Goto et al.
of Fe (1998)
FRE-1 and FRE-2 Yeast N. tabacum Increased accumulation Samuelsen
of Fe et al. (1998)
Nt CBP4 N. tabacum N. tabacum Increased Pb Arazi et al.
accumulation and Ni (1999)
tolerance
Pentaerythritol E. cloacae N. tabacum Degrade GTN (Glyceryl French et al.
tetranitrate trinitrate) and TNT (1999)
reductase (Trinitrotoluene)
Ferretin G.max Oryza sativa More accumulation of Goto et al.
Fe (1999)
CYP71A10 G. max N. tabacum Phenylurea tolerance Siminszky
et al. (1999)
Zn transporters A. thaliana A. thaliana Increased Zn Van der Zaal
ZAT(AtMTPI) accumulation et al. (1999)
Glutathione O. sativa B. juncea Increased Cd tolerance Zhu et al.
synthetase (1999a)
γ-Glutamylcysteine E. coli B. juncea Increased Cd tolerance Zhu et al.
synthetase (1999b)
CYP450 2E1 H. sapiens N. tabacum Oxidation of ethylene Doty et al.
dibromide and TCE (2000)
(Trichloroethylene)
Glutathione-s- N. tabacum A. thaliana Tolerance to Na, Al and Ezaki et al.
Transferase Cu (2000)
ACC-deaminase Bacteria Lycopersicon Increased accumulation Grichko et al.
esculentum of Ni, Cu, Zn, Mg, Cd, (2000)
Pb and Co
CAX-2 (Vacuolar A. thaliana N. tabacum Increased accumulation Hirschi et al.
transporters) of Mn, Cd and Ca (2000)
(continued)

Target
Glutathione B. juncea Increased Cd Pilon smits
reductase accumulation et al. (2000)
Nitroreductase E. cloaceae N. tabacum Degrade TNT Hannink et al.
(2001)
Cysteine synthase O. sativa N. tabacum Tolerance to Cd Harada et al.
(2001)
Pentaerythritol Enterobacter N. tabacum Metabolises Rosser et al.
tetranitrate cloacae pentaerythritol (2001)
reductase tetranitrate and
nitroglycerine
Nicotinamine amino Hordeum O. sativa Plant survive in Fe Takahashi
transferase (NAAT) vulgare L. deficient soil et al. (2001)
γ-glutamylcysteine E. coli A. thaliana Increased As Dhankher
synthetase ECS + accumulation and et al. (2002)
arsenate reductase tolerance
arsC
Arsenate reductase Bacteria B. juncea Increased tolerance to
γ-glutamylcysteine As
synthetase
CYP76B1 Helianthus N. tabacum, Increased herbicide Didierjean
tuberosus A. thaliana tolerance et al. (2002)
CYP2B6 H. sapiens O. sativa Metabolises benfuresate Kawahigashi
and ethofumesate et al. (2002)
γ-glutamylcysteine E. coli Populus Increased accumulation Koprivova
synthetase ECS tremula × P. of Cd in roots et al. (2002)
alba
Mn-peroxidase C. versicolor N. tabacum Degrade Limura et al.
pentachlorophenol (2002)
ACC deaminase E. cloacae B. napus Increased accumulation Nie et al.
and tolerance to As(V) (2002)
γ-glutamylcysteine E. coli A. thaliana Increased tolerance and Dhankher
synthetase ECS + and N. accumulation of Cd et al. (2003)
arsenate reductase tabacum
arsC
Phytochelatin T. aestivum N. glauca Increased accumulation Gisbert et al.
synthase (Ta PCS) of Pb (2003)
Pentaerythritol E. cloacae N. tabacum Degrade GTN (Glyceryl Hannink et al.
tetranitrate trinitrate) and TNT (2003)
reductase (Trinitrotoluene)
Znt A-heavy metal E. coli A. thaliana Tolerance to Pb and Cd Lee et al.
transporters (2003)
selenocysteine lyase M. musculus A. thaliana Increased tolerance and Pilon et al.
SL accumulation of Se (2003)
YCF1 Yeast A. thaliana Tolerance to Pb and Cd Song et al.
(2003)
(continued)

Target
CUP-1 gene Yeast N. tabacum Increased accumulation Thomas et al.
of Cu (2003)
Selenocysteine A. bisculatus A. thaliana Selenite Resistance Ellis et al.
methyl transferase (2004)
Acetyltransferase Noccaea A. thaliana Increased tolerance to Freeman et al.
SAT goesingense Ni (2004)
γ-Glutamylcysteine B. juncea B. juncea Increased tolerance to Flocco et al.
synthetase (ECS), metolachlor, atrazine, (2004)
Glutathione 1-chloro-2,4-
synthetase (GS) dinitrobenzene and C
phenanthrene
Cysteine synthase Spinacia N. tabacum Increased tolerance to Kawashima
oleracea Ni, Se, Cd and et al. (2004)
accumulation of Cd
selenocysteine Astragalus B. juncea Increased tolerance, LeDuc et al.
methyltransferase bisulcatus accumulation and (2004)
SMT volatilization of Se
ATP sulfurylase B. juncea Increase tolerance to Se Van Huysen
CAPS et al. (2004)
ATP sulfurylase A. thaliana B. juncea Increased Wangeline
APS1 concentrations of Cr, et al. (2004)
Mo, Cd, V, W and Cu in
shoots
Glutathione E. coli B. juncea Increased accumulation Bañuelos
synthase GS of Se in leaves et al. (2005)
ATP sulfurylase A. thaliana B. juncea Increased Se
APS accumulation in leaves
NA synthase NAS1 A. thaliana N. tabacum Increased Ni Douchkov
accumulation and et al. (2005)
tolerance
CYP2C9 H. sapiens O. sativa Tolerance to Hirose et al.
sulfonylurea (2005)
CYP1A1, CYP2B6, H. sapiens O. sativa, Resistance to herbicides
Inui and
CYP2C9 and Solanum including sulfonylurea Ohkawa
CYP2C19 tuberosum (2005)
NA synthase NAS1 Hordeum A. thaliana Increased tolerance to Kim et al.
vulgare Zn, Cd, Mn, Ni, Cu and (2005)
Fe
Glutathione G. max N. tabacum Increased tolerance to Karavangeli
S-transferase I alachlor et al. (2005)
Nitroductase E. coli A. thaliana Degradation of TNT Kurumata
et al. (2005)
CYP2B6 H. sapiens O. sativa Degradation of Kawahigashi
metolachlor et al. (2005a)
(continued)

Target
CYP1A1 H. sapiens O. sativa Degradation of Kawahigashi
simazine and atrazine et al. (2005b)
CYP2B22 Sus scrofa O. sativa Herbicides tolerance Kawahigashi
CYP2C49 et al. (2005c)
Peroxidase L. esculentum L. esculentum Degradation of phenol Oller et al.
(2005)
NA synthase NAS1 Noccaea A. thaliana Increased Ni Pianelli et al.
caerulescens accumulation and (2005)
tolerance
Laccase C. versicolor N. tabacum Degradation of Sonoki et al.
pentachlorophenol and (2005)
bisphenol A
ACC deaminase P. putida B. napus Increased accumulation Stearns et al.
and tolerance to Ni (2005)
Extradiol Terrabacter sp. A. thaliana Remediation of Uchida et al.
dioxygenase (Dbf 2,3-dihydroxybiphenyl (2005)
B)
Haloalkane Rhodococcus N. tabacum Dechlorination of 1
dehalogenase sp. chlorobutane
(DhaA)
Atrazine Pseudomonas N. tabacum, Degrade atrazine to Wang et al.
chlorohydrolase sp. Medicago hydroxyatrazine (2005)
(AtzA) sativa
CYP1A1, CYP2B6 H. sapiens O. sativa Degrade metolachlor Kawahigashi
and CYP2C19 and atrazine et al. (2006)
Selenocysteine Astragalus B. juncea Increased Se LeDuc et al.
methyltransferase bisulcatus and accumulation and (2006)
SMT and ATP A. thaliana tolerance
sulfurylase APS1
Phytochelatin A. thaliana N. tabacum Increased Cd Pomponi et al.
synthase PCS1 accumulation and (2006)
tolerance
xpl A Rhodococcus A. thaliana Degrades RDX (Royal Rylott et al.
rhodochorous Demolition Explosive) (2006)
selenocysteine lyase Astragalus B. juncea Increased accumulation Bañuelos
SL and bisulcatus and of Se et al. (2007)
selenocysteine Mus musculus
methyltransferase
SMT
rhlA and rhlB P. aeruginosa N. tabacum Increased tolerance to Brichkova
Al et al. (2007)
(continued)

Target
CYP450E1 H. sapiens N. tabacum Increased degradation Dixit et al.
of chloropyriphos and (2008)
anthracene
743B4, 73C1 A. thaliana A. thaliana Increased degradation Gandia-
of TNT Herrero et al.
(2008)
Protox B. subtilis O. sativa Increased tolerance to Jung et al.
diphenyl ether and (2008)
oxyflufen
CYP1A1 H. sapiens O. sativa Increased metabolism Kawagashi
of norflurazon and et al. (2007)
chlorotoluron
Biphenyl Burkholderia N. tabaccum Oxidized Mohammadi
dioxygenase gene xenovorans 4-chlorobiphenyls et al. (2007)
γ-glutamylcysteine E. coli B. juncea Increased accumulation Reisinger
synthase ECS and and tolerance to Pb, Cr, et al. (2008)
glutathione synthase Zn, As and Cd
GS
pnrA P. putida P. tremula ×P. Increased tolerance of Van Dillewijn
tremuloides TNT et al. (2008)
Acyl-CoA- binding A. thaliana A. thaliana Increased accumulation Xiao et al.
protein ACBP1 and tolerance to Pb (2008)
iaaM + ACC A. tumefaciens Petunia Increased accumulation Zhang et al.
deaminase and P. putida hybrida, N. of Cu and Co (2008)
tabacum
Metallothionein P. sativum P. alba Increased tolerance to Balestrazzi
MTA1 Zn and Cu et al. (2009)
merA E. coli Liquidambar Increased volatilization Dai et al.
styraciflua × and tolerance to Hg (2009)
L. formosana
Hg binding protein, Bacillus A. thaliana Increased accumulation Hsieh et al.
merP megaterium and tolerance of Cd, Pb (2009)
and Hg
Metallothionein A. thaliana A. thaliana Increased accumulation Rodríguez-
MT4 and tolerance of Zn and Llorente et al.
Cu (2010)
Glutathione Trichoderma N. tabacum Increased remediation Dixit et al.
transferase virens and tolerance of (2011)
anthracene
Metallothionein Cajanus cajan A. thaliana Increased Cd and Cu Sekhar et al.
MT1 accumulation and (2011)
tolerance
(continued)

Target
Human P450 2E1 Trichoderma Alfalfa plants Remediate TCE Zhang and
(CYP2E1) gene and virens, H. (pKHCG) (trichloroethylene) and Liu (2011)
glutathione sapiens Cd
S-transferase (GST)
Vacuolar H+ T. aestivum N. tabacum Increased Cd Khoudi et al.
pyrophoshatase VP1 accumulation and (2012)
tolerance
Metallothionein Pisum sativum P. alba Increased accumulation Turchi et al.
MTA1 of Zn and Cu (2012)
Metallothionein S. cerevisiae N. tabacum Increased Zn and Cd Daghan et al.
MTII accumulation (2013)
ScMTII S. cerevisiae N. tabacum Increased accumulation
of Cd
As(III) vacular Pteris vittata A. thaliana Increased tolerance and Chen et al.
antiporter ACR3 translocation of As (2013)
G protein DEP1 O. sativa A. thaliana Increased Cd Kunihiro et al.
accumulation and (2013)
tolerance
Metallothioneins B. campestris A. thaliana Increased Cd and Cu Lv et al.
MT1 and MT2 accumulation and (2013)
tolerance
Vacuolar Cd A. thaliana and N. tabacum Increased tolerance and LeBlanc et al.
transporter YCF1 S. cerevisiae accumulation of As (2013)
+Phosphate
transporter PHT1
and PHT7
ScYCF1 Yeast Populus alba Increased accumulation Shim et al.
× P. tremula of Zn, Pb, and Cd in (2013)
var. roots
glandulosa
Human P450 2E1 Trichoderma Alfalfa plants Degrade Hg and TCE Zhang et al.
(CYP2E1) gene and virens, H. (pKHCG ) (2013)
glutathione sapiens
S-transferase (GST)
Metallothionein Iris lactea var. A. thaliana Increased tolerance to Gu et al.
MT2b chinensis Cd (2014)
gshI E. coli Populus Increased GSH Gyulai et al.
canescens (Glutathione) (2014)
concentration
P450 CYP1A2 H. sapiens A. thaliana Resistance to Kebeish et al.
phenylurea and (2014)
chlortoluron
(continued)

Target
nidA, nidB, NahAa Pseudomonas A. thaliana Increased tolerance and Peng et al.
and NahAb putida G7, assimilation of PAHs (2014a)
Mycobacterium
vanbaalenii
PYR-1
NahAa, NahAb, P. putida G7 A. thaliana Improved uptake of Peng et al.
NahAc, and NahAd and O. sativa phenanthrene and lower (2014b)
concentrations in shoots
and roots
AtHMA4 A. thaliana N. tabacum Decreased Siemianowski
accumulation of Cd in et al. (2014)
shoots and roots.
Increased accumulation
of H2O2
bphC Bacteria N. tabacum Increased tolerance to Viktorova
PCBs et al. (2014)
Apoplastic A. thaliana A. thaliana Increased Cd Chen et al.
endo-β-mannase accumulation and (2015)
MAN3 tolerance
AtACBP1 and A. thaliana B. juncea Increased Pb Du et al.
AtACBP4 accumulation in roots (2015)
Metallothionein I. lactea var. A. thaliana Increased Cu Gu et al.
MT2b chinensis accumulation and (2015)
tolerance
IlMT2b I.lactea var. A. thaliana Increased concentration
chinensis of Cu and decrease in
H2O2
gshI E. coli Populus Increased accumulation He et al.
tremula × P. of Cd in shoots (2015)
alba
FDH Plant and A. thaliana Increased CN tolerance Kebeish et al.
(gi145358030), bacteria and metabolism (2015)
CYND (gi1167514)
Class 1 hemoglobin N. tabacum N. tabacum Decreased uptake of Cd Lee and
Hb1 and enhanced metal Hwang (2015)
tolerance
γ glutamyl-cisteine S. thermophilus Beta vulgaris Increased accumulation Liu et al.
synthetase- and tolerance to Zn, Cu (2015)
glutathione and Cd
synthetase GCS-GS
operon
CsGSTU1 and Citrus sinensis N. tabacum Tolerance to Lo Cicero
CsGSTU2 Fluorodifen et al. (2015)
dBphC Soil Medicago Increased tolerance to Wang et al.
metagenomic sativa L. cv. PCBs/2,4-DCP and (2015)
library Gongnong degradation of PCBs
(continued)

Target
OsMTP1 Oryza sativa L. N. tabacum Increased accumulation Das et al.
cv. IR64 of Cd (2016)
Transcription factor A. thaliana A. thaliana Increased accumulation Chen et al.
ZAT6 of phytochelatins and 2016a, b
tolerance to Cd
Arsenic Westerdykella A. thaliana Increased tolerance to Verma et al.
methyltransferase aurantiaca AsIII and AsV (2016)
(WaarsM) gene
transferase genes (NAAT) from barley overproduced iron chelator-deoxymugineic

acid in rice and grew well in Fe deficient soils (Takahashi et al. 2001). Overexpression
of bacterial 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid (ACC) deaminase resulted in
enhanced tolerance to Cd, Co, Cu, Ni, Pb and Zn (Grichko et al. 2000). There are
reports on genetic manipulation of metal transporters, leading to transgenic plants
with modified metal tolerance/accumulation chacteristics. Transgenic A. thaliana
plants harbouring Zn transporter-ZAT gene from Thlaspi goesingense accumulated
two-fold Zn in the roots than the controls (Van der Zaal et al. 1999). Improved Ni
tolerance was observed in transgenic plants by the expression of transporter gene-
NtCBP4 (Arazi et al. 1999). Transgenic tobacco expressing A. thaliana calcium
vacuolar transporter CAX-2 gene were tolerant to increased Mn concentration
(Hirschi et al. 2000). In a similar report, overexpression of transgenic ABC trans-
porter yeast protein (YCF1) involved in the transfer of Cd into vacuoles in A. thali-
ana led to enhanced Pb and Cd tolerance (Song et al. 2003). Increased Fe tolerance
was observed by the overexpression of metal transporter AtNramp1 (Curie et al.
2000). There are several successful reports on raising transgenic plants for increased
iron uptake (Robinson et al. 1999); enhanced tolerance to Se (DeSouza et al. 2000)
enhanced tolerance to As (Dhankher et al. 2002) and phytoreduction of Hg (Bizily
et al. 2003). A. thaliana plants expressing MerA and MerB genes could grow on
fifty-fold higher methylmercury concentrations and volatilized the elemental mer-
cury, than the non-transformed control plants. Transgenic A. thaliana plants express-
ing two genes: E. coli arsenate reductase gene (ArsC) driven by soybean rubisco
promoter (SRS1p) and E. coli γ-glutamylcysteine synthetase gene (γ-ECS) driven
by actin promoter (ACT2p) gained 4 to 17-fold greater fresh shoot weight and accu-
mulated 2 to 3-fold more As per gram of tissue than the control plants expressing
γ-ECS or ArsC alone (Dhankher et al. 2002).
Each metal has a unique mechanism for uptake, translocation and sequestration
therefore, it is crucial to design appropriate strategies for producing transgenic
plants specific for a particular metal. Like others remediation strategies, phytoreme-
diation has its disadvantages which includes potential phytotoxicity of the contami-
nant, climatic and geological limitations, potentially longer timescale as compared
to other technologies and risk of the pollutants or its metabolites of food chain
contamination (Macek et al. 2000). The operational period of this technique is very
long (many years). Proper disposal and consumption of heavy metal containing
plants is also a major concern. Moreover, unfavourable climatic conditions can also
affect the plant growth, biomass production and remeditaion efficiency of the plants
(Jena and Dey 2017). Further research is still required to overcome these drawbacks
for effective implementation of this technique, in future.
7.5 Animal-Mediated Soil Remediation
Some lower animals adsorb heavy metals from soil and further degrade, remove or
lower their toxicity (Prakash et al. 2017) (Table 7.5). In a study by Wang et al.
(2007), it was concluded that a combination of earthworm and straw mulch can suc-
cessfully increase the Cu concentration in plants. The earthworm can effectively
accumulate Pb and its concentration can increase with an increase in Pb concentra-
tion of the soil (Kou et al. 2008).
During vermicomposting of animal manure, transformation of heavy metals to
less toxic byproducts has been reported Lv et al. (2016). It has also been reported
that earthworm has significant potential to enhance the stable fraction of heavy met-
als and to decrease the mobile fraction. Moreover, other animal classes like enchy-
traeids, collembola, mites, isopods, nematodes and protozoans have been deployed
for the assessment of polluted soil toxicity (Haimi 2000). The accumulation and
transfer of soil contaminants from animals, especially the earthworms to food web
is the biggest limitation of this strategy.
Table 7.5 Animal groups Species Animal group

associated with
Folsomia candida Collembola
bioremediation
Folsomia fimetaria
Orchesella cincta
Eisenia fetida/Andrei Earthworms
Lumbricus terrestris
Aporrectodea caliginosa
Enchytraeus albidus Enchytraeids
Porcellio scaber Isopods
Trichoniscus pusillus
Platynothrus peltifer Mites
Plectus parietinus Nematodes
Colpoda cucullus Protozoans
References 175
7.6 Conclusions
Severe contamination of soil with various organic and inorganic contaminants is

one of the major concerns of the society as these contaminants may enter into the
food chain or food web and can create serious health related issues. Organic con-
taminants and heavy metals are not easily degradable and difficult to dispose hence,
they can cause various mutagenic, teratogenic and carcinogenic effects in living
beings. Various techniques are availableand are being practised for soil remediation
but, among them phytoremediation has proved as an environment friendly and a
better substitute to other techniques. Choice of most suitable plant for remediation
as well as the introduction of some foreign genes can successfully enhance the
remediation potential of plants.
Furthermore, use of algal species is also an emerging tool for remediation which
is called Phycoremediation. With the aid of algal spp. various organic contaminants
can be degraded, besides that there are some pollutants which are not degraded by
them. Introduction of genetic engineering and transgenic approaches can enhance
the remediation potential of algal spp. No doubt, there is a bright future of soil bio-
remediation, besides that there is still a long way to go so as to comparatively study
all the remediation process as well as to evaluate their remediation potential.
References
Abdallah MAM (2012) Phytoremediation of heavy metals from aqueous solutions by two
aquatic macrophytes, Ceratophyllum demersum and Lemna gibba L. Environ Technol
33(14):1609–1614
Adamia G, Ghoghoberidze M, Graves D, Khatisashvili G, Kvesitadze G, Lomidze E (2006)
Absorption distribution and transformation of TNT in higher plants. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf
64:136–145
Adesodun JK, Atayese MO, Agbaje TA, Osadiaye BA, Mafe OF, Soretire AA (2010)
Phytoremediation potentials of sunflowers (Tithonia diversifolia and Helianthus annuus) for
metals in soils contaminated with zinc and lead nitrates. Water Air Soil Pollut 207:195–201
Adhiya J, Cai X, Sayre RT, Traina SJ (2002) Binding of aqueous cadmium by the lyophilized
biomass of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. Colloids Surf A 210(1):1–11
Agostini E, Coniglio MS, Milrad SR, Tigier HA, Giulietti AM (2003) Phytoremediation of 2, 4
dichlorophenol by Brassica napus hairy root cultures. Biotechnol Appl Biochem 37:139–144
Agrawal N, Shahi SK (2017) Degradation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (pyrene) using
novel fungal strain Coriolopsis byrsina strain APC5. Int Biodeter Biodegrad 122:69–81
Ahemad M, Kibret M (2014) Mechanisms and applications of plant growth promoting rhizobacte-
ria: current perspective. J King Saud Univ Sci 26(1):1–20
Ahner BA, Wei L, Oleson JR, Ogura N (2002) Glutathione and other low molecular weight thiols
in marine phytoplankton under metal stress. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 232:93–103
Akhtar N, Iqbal M, Zafar SI, Iqbal J (2008) Biosorption characteristics of unicellular green alga
Chlorella sorokiniana immobilized in loofa sponge for removal of Cr(III). J Environ Sci China
20(2):231–239
Akpor OB, Muchie M (2010) Remediation of heavy metals in drinking water and wastewater treat-
ment systems: processes and applications. Int J Phys Sci 5(12):1807–1817
Aksu Z (2001) Equilibrium and kinetic modelling of cadmium(II) biosorption by C. vulgaris in a
batch system: effect of temperature. Sep Purif Technol 21(3):285–229
Aksu Z, D€onmez G (2006) Binary biosorption of cadmium(II) and nickel(II) onto dried
Chlorella vulgaris: co-ion effect on mono-component isotherm parameters. Process Biochem
41(4):860–868
Al Chami Z, Amer N, AlBitar L, Cavoski I (2015) Potential use of Sorghum bicolor and
Carthamus tinctorius in phytoremediation of nickel, lead and zinc. Int J Environ Sci Technol
12(12):3957–3970
Alavi N, Parseh I, Ahmadi M, Jafarzadeh N, Yari AR, Chehrazi M, Chorom M (2016)
Phytoremediation of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHs) from highly saline and clay soil
using Sorghum halepenes (L.) Pers. and Aeluropus littoralis (Guna) Parl. Soil Sed Contam
26:127–140
Al-Homaidan AA, Al-Ghanayem AA, Alkhalifa AH (2011) Green algae as bioindicators of heavy
metal pollution in Wadi Hanifah Stream, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Int J Water Resour Arid
Environ 1(1):10–15
Ali MB, Vajpayee P, Tripathi RD, Rai UN, Singh SN, Singh SP (2003) Phytoremediation of lead,
nickel, and copper by Salix acmophylla Boiss., role of antioxidant enzymes and antioxidant
substances. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 70(3):462–469
Ali H, Khan E, Sajad MA (2013) Phytoremediation of heavy metals-concepts and applications.
Al-Rub FA, El-Naas M, Benyahia F, Ashour I (2004) Biosorption of nickel on blank alginate
beads, free and immobilized algal cells. Proc Biochem 39(11):1767–1773
Anderson CWN, Brooks RR, Chiarucci A, LaCoste CJ, Leblancc M, Robinson BH, Simcocke R,
Stewart RB (1999) Phytomining for nickel, thallium and gold. J Geochem Explor 67:407–415
Araujo BS-d, Charlwood BV, Pletsch M (2002) Tolerance and metabolism of phenol and chloro
derivatives by hairy root cultures of Daucus carota L. Environ Pollut 117(2):329–335
Arazi T, Sunkar R, Kaplan B, Fromm HA (1999) Tobacco plasma membrane calmodulin bind-
ing transporter confers Ni+ tolerance and Pb2+ hypersensitivity in transgenic plants. Plant
J 20:171–182
Arıca MY, Tüzün I, Yalçın E, Ince O, Bayramoglu G (2005) Utilisation of native, heat and acid-
treated microalgae Chlamydomonas reinhardtii preparations for biosorption of Cr(VI) ions.
Process Biochem 40(7):2351–2358
Arun A, Raja PP, Arthi R, Ananthi M, Kumar KS, Eyini M (2008) Polycyclic aromatic hydrocar-
bons (PAHs) biodegradation by Basidiomycetes fungi, Pseudomonas isolate, and their cocul-
tures: comparative in vivo and in silico approach. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 151:132–142
Atagana HI, Haynes RJ, Wallis FM (2006) Fungal bioremediation of creosote-contaminated soil:
a laboratory scale bioremediation study using indigenous soil fungi. Water Air Soil Pollut
172:201–219
Atma W, Larouci M, Meddah B, Benabdeli K, Sonnet P (2017) Evaluation of the phytoremediation
potential of Arundo donax L. for nickel-contaminated soil. Int J Phytoremed 19(4):377–386
Balestrazzi A, Botti S, Zelasco S, Biondi S, Franchin C, Calligari Carbonera D (2009) Expression
of the PsMTA1 gene in white poplar engineered with the MAT system is associated with heavy
metal tolerance and protection against 8-hydroxy-2′-deoxyguanosine mediated-DNA damage.
Plant Cell Rep 28(8):1179–1192
Balliana AG, Moura BB, Inckot RC, Bona C (2017) Development of Canavalia ensiformis in soil
contaminated with diesel oil. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24:979–986
Bani A, Echevarria G, Sulçe S, Morel JL (2015) Improving the agronomy of Alyssum murale for
extensive phytomining: a five-year field study. Int J Phytorem 17:117–127
References 177
Bañuelos G, Terry N, LeDuc DL, Pilon-Smits EAH, Mackey B (2005) Field trial of transgenic
Indian mustard plants shows enhanced phytoremediation of selenium- contaminated sediment.
Bañuelos G, Leduc DL, Pilon-Smits EAH, Terry N (2007) Transgenic Indian mustard overexpress-
ing selenocysteine lyase or selenocysteine methyltransferase exhibit enhanced potential for
selenium phytoremediation under field conditions. Environ Sci Technol 41(2):599–605
Basumatary B, Bordoloi S, Sarma HP (2012) Crude oil-contaminated soil phytoremediation by
using Cyperus brevifolius (Rottb.) Hassk. Water Air Soil Pollut 223:3373–3383
Beharti A (2014) Phytoremediation: as a degradation of heavy metals. Int J Eng Tech Res
2(5):137–139
Ben-Chekroun K, Baghour M (2013) The role of algae in phytoremediation of heavy metals: a
review. J Mater Environ Sci 4(6):873–880
Bhadra R, Wayment DG, Williams RK, Barman SN, Stone MB, Hughes JB (2001) Studies on
plant mediated fate of the explosives RDX and HMX. Chemosphere 44(5):1259–1264
Bhattacharya T, Banerjee DK, Gopal B (2006) Heavy metal uptake by Scirpus littoralis schrad.
from fly ash dosed and metal spiked soils. Environ Monit Assess 121(1–3):363–380
Bhatti HN, Kalsoom U, Habib A (2012) Decolorization of direct dyes using peroxidase from
Raphanus sativus (F04 SL). J Chem Soc Pak 34(2):257–262
Bibi A, Farooq U, Naz S, Khan A, Khan S, Sarwar R, Mahmood Q, Alam A, Mirza N (2016)
Phytoextraction of HG by parsley (Petroselinum crispum) and its growth responses. Int
J Phytoremed 18(4):354–357
Bishnoi NR, Kumar R, Kumar S, Rani S (2007) Biosorption of Cr(III) from aqueous solution using
algal biomass Spirogyra spp. J Hazard Mater 145(1–2):142–147
Bizily SP, Kim T, Kandasamy MK, Meagher RB (2003) Subcellular targeting of methylmercury
lyase enhances its specific activity for organic mercury detoxification in plants. Plant Physiol
131(2):463–471
Bokare V, Murugesan K, Kim YM, Jeon JR, Kim EJ, Chang YS (2010) Degradation of triclosan by
an integrated nano-bio redox process. Bioresour Technol 101:6354–6360
Bokare V, Murugesan K, Kim JH, Kim EJ, Chang YS (2012) Integrated hybrid treatment for the
remediation of 2, 3, 7, 8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. Sci Total Environ 435:563–566
Boopathy R, Kulpa CF (1994) Biotransformation of 2, 4, 6-trinitrotoluene (TNT) by a
Methanococcus sp. (strain B) isolated from a lake sediment. Can J Microbiol 40:273–278
Brandt R, Merkl N, Schultze-Kraft R, Infante C, Broll G (2006) Potential of Vetiver (Vetiveria
zizanoides L. Nash) for phytoremediation of hydrocarbon contaminated soils in Venezuela. Int
J Phytoremed 8:273–284
Briceno G, Fuentes MS, Palma G, Jorquera MA, Amoroso MJ, Diez MC (2012) Chlorpyrifos bio-
degradation and 3, 5, 6-trichloro-2-pyridinol production by actinobacteria isolated from soil.
Int Biodeter Biodegrad 73:1–7
Brichkova GG, Shishlova AM, Maneshina TV, Kartel NA (2007) Tolerance to aluminum in geneti-
cally modified tobacco plants. Cytol Genet 41:151–155
Cáceres T, Megharaj M, Naidu R (2008) Toxicity and transformation of fenamiphos and its metab-
olites by two micro algae Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata and Chlorococcum sp. Sci Total
Environ 398:53–59
Callender KL, Roy S, Khasa DP, Whyte LG, Greer CW (2016) Actinorhizal alder phytostabiliza-
tion alters microbial community dynamics in gold mine waste rock from Northern Quebec: a
greenhouse study. PloS One 11(2):0150181
Cambroll EJ, Mateos-Naranjo E, Redondo-Gomez S, Luque T, Figueroa ME (2011) The role of
two Spartina species in phytostabilization and bioaccumulation of Co, Cr, and Ni in the Tinto–
Odiel estuary (SW Spain). Hydrobiologia 671(1):95–103
Castro S, Davis LC, Erickson LE (2003) Phytotransformation of benzotriazoles. Int J Phytoremed
5:245–265
Cerniglia CE, Gibson DT, Van Baalen C (1979) Algal oxidation of aromatic hydrocarbons: forma-
tion of 1-naphthol from naphthalene by Agmenellum quadruplicatum, strain PR-6. Biochem
Biophys Res Commun 88(1):50–58
Chandra R, Yadav S (2011) Phytoremediation of CD, CR, CU, MN, FE, NI, PB and ZN from
Aqueous Solution Using Phragmites Cummunis, Typha Angustifolia and Cyperus Esculentus.
Int J Phytoremed 13:580–591
Chandra R, Bharagava RN, Yadav S, Mohan D (2009) Accumulation and distribution of toxic met-
als in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and Indian mustard (Brassica campestris L.) irrigated with
distillery and tannery effluents. J Hazard Mater 162(2):1514–1521
Chaney RL, Li YM, Angle JS, Baker AJM, Reeves RD, Brown SL, Homer FA, Malik M, Chin M
(2000) In: Terry N, Banelos G (eds) Phytoremediation of contaminated soil and water. Lewis
Publishers, Boca Raton, pp 129–158
Chaney RL, Angle JS, Broadhurst CL, Peters CA, Tappero RV, Sparks DL (2007) Improved under-
standing of hyperaccumulation yields commercial phytoextraction and phytomining technolo-
gies. J Environ Qual 36(5):1429–1443
Chardot V, Massoura ST, Echevarria G, Reeves RD, Morel JL (2005) Phytoextraction Potential
of the Nickel Hyperaccumulators Leptoplax emarginata and Bornmuellera tymphaea. Int
Chen Y, Xu W, Shen H, Yan H, Xu W, He Z, Ma M (2013) Engineering arsenic tolerance and
hyperaccumulation in plants for phytoremediation by a pvacr3 transgenic approach. Environ
Sci Technol 47:9355–9362
Chen J, Yang L, Gu J, Bai X, Ren Y, Fan T, Cao S (2015) MAN3 gene regulates cadmium tol-
erance through the glutathione-dependent pathway in Arabidopsis thaliana. New Phytol
205(2):570–582
Chen J, Yang L, Yan X, Liu Y, Wang R, Fan T, Cao S (2016a) Zinc-finger transcription factor
zat6 positively regulates cadmium tolerance through the glutathione-dependent pathway in
Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol 171(1):707–719
Chen F, Tan M, Ma J, Zhang S, Li G, Qu J (2016b) Efficient remediation of PAH-metal co-
contaminated soil using microbial-plant combination: a greenhouse study. J Hazard Mater
302:250–261
Chen X, Liu X, Zhang X, Cao L, Hu X (2017) Phytoremediation effect of Scirpus triqueter inocu-
lated plant-growth-promoting bacteria (PGPB) on different fractions of pyrene and Ni in co-
contaminated soils. J Hazard Mater 325:319–326
Cherian S, Oliveira MM (2005) Transgenic plants in phytoremediation: recent advances and new
possibilities. Environ Sci Technol 39:9377–9390
Cho-Ruk K, Kurukote J, Supprung P, Vetayasuporn S (2006) Perennial plants in the phytoremedia-
tion of lead-contaminated soils. Biotechnol 5(1):1–4
Chung SY, Maeda M, Song E, Horikoshij K, Kudo T (1994) A Gram-positive polychlorinated
biphenyl-degrading bacterium, Rhodococcus erythropolis strain TA421, isolated from a termite
ecosystem. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem 58:2111–2113
Ciura J, Poniedziałek J, Sękara A, Jędrszczyk E (2005) The possibility of using crops as metal
phytoremediants. Pol J Environ Stud 14(1):17–22
Cobbett C, Goldsbrough P (2002) Phytochelatin and metallothioneins: roles in heavy metal detoxi-
fication and homeostasis. Annu Rev Plant Biol 53:159–182
Cullaj A, Hasko I, McBow F, Kongoli (2004) Investigation of the potential of several plants for
phytoremediation of nickel contaminated soils and for nickel phytoextraction. Eur J Miner
Process Environ Prot 4(2):144–151
Cunningham SD, Berti WR (1993) Remediation of contaminated soils with green plants: an over-
view. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol 29:207–212
Curie C, Alonso JM, LeJea M, Ecker JR, Briat JF (2000) Involvement of Nramp1 from Arabidopsis
thaliana in iron transport. Biochem J 347:749–755
Daghan H, Arslan M, Uygur V, Koleli N (2013) Transformation of tobacco with ScMTII gene-
enhanced cadmium and zinc accumulation. Clean-Soil Air Water 41:503–509
Dai J, Balish R, Meagher RB, Merkle SA (2009) Development of transgenic hybrid sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua × L. formosana) expressing γ-glutamylcysteine synthetase or mercu-
ric reductase for phytoremediation of mercury pollution. New Forests 38(1):35–52
References 179
Damaj M, Ahmad D (1996) Biodegradation of polychlorinated biphenyls by rhizobia: a novel find-

ing. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 218:908–915
Dan TV, KrishnaRaj S, Saxena PK (2002) Cadmium and nickel uptake and accumulation in
scented Geranium (Pelargonium sp. Frensham). Water Air Soil Pollut 137(1–4):355–364
Das N, Bhattacharya S, Maiti MK (2016) Enhanced cadmium accumulation and tolerance in trans-
genic tobacco overexpressing rice metal tolerance protein gene OsMTP1 is promising for phy-
toremediation. Plant Physiol Biochem 105:297–309
Davison J (2005) Risk mitigation of genetically modified bacteria and plants designed for biore-
mediation. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 32:639–650
de Godos I, Munoz R, Guieysse B (2012) Tetracycline removal during wastewater treatment in
high-rate algal ponds. J Hazard Mater 229:446–449
de-Bashan LE, Hernandez JP, Bashan Y (2012) The potential contribution of plant growth-
promoting bacteria to reduce environmental degradation-a comprehensive evaluation. Appl
Soil Ecol 61:171–189
dela Fuente JM, Ramirez-Rodriguez Y, Cabrera-Ponce JL, Herrera Estrella L (1997) Aluminium
tolerance in transgenic plants by alteration of citrate synthesis. Science 276:1566–1568
Deng L, Su Y, Su H, Wang X, Zhu X (2006) Biosorption of copper (II) and lead (II) from aqueous
solutions by nonliving green algae Cladophora fascicularis: equilibrium, kinetics and environ-
mental effects. Adsorption 12(4):267–277
Deng L, Su Y, Su H, Wang X, Zhu X (2007) Sorption and desorption of lead (II) from wastewater
by green algae Cladophora fascicularis. J Hazard Mater 143(1–2):220–225
Desjardins D, Pitre FE, Nissim WG, Labrecque M (2016) Differential uptake of silver, copper
and zinc suggests complementary species-specific phytoextraction potential. Int J Phytoremed
18(6):598–604
DeSouza MP, Pilon-Smits EAH, Terry N (2000) The physiology and biochemistry of selenium
volatilization by plants. In: Raskin I, Ensley BD (eds) Phytoremediation of toxic metals: using
plants to clean up the environment. Wiley, London, pp 171–188
Dhankher OP, Li Y, Rosen BP, Shi J, Salt D, Senecoff JF (2002) Engineering tolerance and hyper-
accumulation of arsenic in plants by combining arsenate reductase and g-glutamylcysteine
synthetase expression. Nat Biotechnol 20:1140–1145
Dhankher OP, Shasti NA, Rosen BP, Fuhrmann M, Meagher RB (2003) Increased cadmium
tolerance and accumulation by plants expressing bacterial arsenate reductase. New Phytol
159:431–441
Dhanwal P, Kumar A, Dudeja S, Chhokar V, Beniwal V (2017) Recent advances in phytore-
mediation technology. In: Advances in environmental biotechnology. Springer, Singapore,
pp 227–241
Dheeba B, Sampathkumar P (2012) A comparative study on the phytoextraction of five common
plants against chromium toxicity. Orient J Chem 28(2):867
Dheri GS, Brar MS, Malhi SS (2007) Comparative Phytoremediation of Chromium-Contaminated
Soils by Fenugreek, Spinach, and Raya. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 38:1655–1672
Dhir B (2013) Phytoremediation: role of aquatic plants in environmental clean-up. Springer, New
Delhi
Didierjean L, Gondet L, Perkins R, Lau SM, Schaller H, O'Keefe DP, Werck-Reichhart D (2002)
Engineering herbicide metabolism in tobacco and Arabidopsis with CYP76B1, a cytochrome
P450 enzyme from Jerusalem artichoke. Plant Physiol 130:179–189
Diwan H, Ahmad A, Iqbal M (2010) Uptake-related parameters as indices of phytoremediation
potential. Biologia 65(6):1004–1011
Dixit P, Singh S, Mukherjee PK, Eapen S (2008) Development of transgenic plants with cyto-
chrome P450E1 gene and glutathione-S-transferase gene for degradation of organic pollutants.
Abs J Biotechnol 136:S692–S693
Dixit P, Mukherjee PK, Sherkhane PD, Kale SP, Eapen S (2011) Enhanced tolerance and reme-
diation of anthracene by transgenic tobacco plants expressing a fungal glutathione transferase
gene. J Hazard Mater 192(1):270–276
Donmez G, Aksu Z (2002) Removal of chromium(VI) from saline wastewaters by Dunaliella spe-
cies. Process Biochem 38(5):751–762
Doty SL, Shang TQ, Wilson AM, Tangen J, Westergreen AD, Newman LA (2000) Enhanced
metabolism of halogenated hydrocarbons in transgenic plants containing mammalian cyto-
chrome P450 2E1. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:6287–6291
Doty SL, Shang TQ, Wilson AM, Moore AL, Newman LA, Strand SE (2003) Metabolism of the
soil and groundwater contaminants, ethylene dibromide and trichloroethylene by the tropical
leguminous tree, Leuceana leucocephala. Water Res 37:441–449
Douchkov D, Gryczka C, Stephan UW, Hell R, Bäumlein H (2005) Ectopic expression of nicoti-
anamine synthase genes results in improved iron accumulation and increased nickel tolerance
in transgenic tobacco. Plant Cell Environ 28(3):365–374
Du ZY, Chen MX, Chen QF, Gu JD, Chye ML (2015) Expression of Arabidopsis acyl- CoA-
binding proteins AtACBP1 and AtACBP4 confers Pb(II) accumulation in Brassica juncea
roots. Plant Cell Environ 38:101–117
Dürešová Z, Šuňovská A, Horník M, Pipíška M, Gubišová M, Gubiš J, Hostin S (2014)
Rhizofiltration potential of Arundo donax for cadmium and zinc removal from contaminated
wastewater. Chem Pap 68(11):1452–1462
Eapen S, D’Souza SF (2005) Prospects of genetic engineering of plants for phytoremediation of
toxic metals. Biotechnol Adv 23:97–114
Eapen S, Singh S, D’Souza SF (2007) Advances in development of transgenic plants for remedia-
tion of xenobiotic pollutants. Biotechnol Adv 25:442–451
Eddy NO, Ekop AS (2007) Phytoremediation potentials of some Nigerian weeds. Asian J Chem
19(3):1825–1831
Elias SH, Mohamed M, Nor-Anuar A, Muda K, Hassan MAHM, Othman MN, Chelliapan S
(2014) Water hyacinth bioremediation for ceramic industry wastewater treatment-application
of rhizofiltration system. J Sain Malay 43(9):1397–1403
Ellis DR, Sors TG, Brunk DG, Albrecht C, Orser C, Lahner B (2004) Production of S methyl
selenocysteine in transgenic plants expressing selenocysteine methyltransferase. BMC Plant
Biol 4(1):1
Ellis JT, Hengge NN, Sims RC, Miller CD (2012) Acetone, butanol, and ethanol production from
wastewater algae. Bioresour Technol 111:491–495
El-Sikaily A, Nemr AE, Khaled A, Abdelwehab O (2007) Removal of toxic chromium from waste-
water using green alga Ulva lactuca and its activated carbon. J Hazard Mater 148(1–2):216–228
Escalante-Espinosa E, Gallegos-Martínez ME, Favela-Torres E, Gutiérrez-Rojas M (2005)
Improvement of the hydrocarbon phytoremediation rate by Cyperus laxus Lam. inoculated
with a microbial consortium in a model system. Chemosphere 59:405–413
Escobar MP, Dussán J (2016) Phytoremediation potential of chromium and lead by Alnus acumi-
nata subsp. acuminata. Environ Prog Sustain Energy 35:942–948
Eskander S, Saleh H (2017) Phytoremediation: an overview. In: Environmental science and engi-
neering, Soil pollution and phytoremediation, vol 11, 1st edn. Studium Press LLC, pp 124–161
Evans KM, Gatehouse JA, Lindsay WP, Shi J, Tommey AM, Robinson NJ (1992) Expression of
the pea metallothionein like gene Ps MTA in Escherichia coli and Arabidopsis thaliana and
analysis of trace metal ion accumulation: implications of Ps MTA function. Plant Mol Biol
20:1019–1028
Ezaki B, Gardner RC, Ezaki Y, Matsumoto H (2000) Expression of aluminium induced genes in
transgenic Arabidopsis plants can ameliorate aluminium stress and/or oxidative stress. Plant
Physiol 122(3):657–665
Ferradji FZ, Mnif S, Badis A, Rebbani S, Fodil D, Eddouaouda K, Sayadi S (2014) Naphthalene
and crude oil degradation by biosurfactant producing Streptomyces spp. isolated from Mitidja
plain soil (North of Algeria). Int Biodeter Biodegrad 86:300–308
Flocco CG, Lindblom SD, Smits EAHP (2004) Overexpression of enzymes involved in glutathi-
one synthesis enhances tolerance to organic pollutants in Brassica juncea. Int J Phytoremed
6:289–304
References 181
Forte J, Mutiti S (2017) Phytoremediation potential of Helianthus annuus and Hydrangea panicu-
lata in copper and lead-contaminated soil. Water Air Soil Pollut 228(2):77
Frassinetti S, Setti L, Corti A, Farrinelli P, Montevecchi P, Vallini G (1998) Biodegradation of
dibenzothiophene by a nodulating isolate of Rhizobium meliloti. Can J Microbiol 44:289–297
Freeman JL, Persans MW, Nieman K, Albrecht C, Peer W, Pickering IJ, Salt DE (2004) Increased
glutathione biosynthesis plays a role in nickel tolerance in Thlaspi nickel hyperaccumulators.
Plant Cell 16(8):2176–2191
French CE, Rosser SJ, Davies GJ, Nicklin S, Bruce NC (1999) Biodegradation of explosives by
transgenic plants expressing pentaerythritol tetranitrate reductase. Nat Biotechnol 17:491–494
Gandia-Herrero F, Lorenz A, Larson T, Graham IA, Bowles J, Rylott EL (2008) Detoxification
of the explosive 2,4,6- trinitrotoluene in Arabidopsis: discovery of bifunctional Oand
C-glucosyltransferases. Plant J 56:963–974
Gao H, Zhang J, Lai H, Xue Q (2017) Degradation of asphaltenes by two Pseudomonas aeruginosa
strains and their effects on physicochemical properties of crude oil. Int Biodeter Biodegrad
122:12–22
Gardea-Torresdey JL, Peralta-Videa JR, Montes M, dela Rosa G, Corral-Diaz B (2004)
Bioaccumulation of cadmium, chromium and copper by Convolvulus arvensis L., impact on
plant growth and uptake of nutritional elements. Bioresour Technol 92:229–235
Gardea-Torresdey JL, Rosa DL, Peralta-Videa G, Montes JRM, Cruz-Jimenez G, Cano-Aguilera I
(2005) Differential uptake and transport of trivalent and hexavalent chromium by tumbleweed
(Salsola kali). Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 48(2):225–232
Garousi F, Kovács B, Andrási D, Veres S (2016) Selenium phytoaccumulation by sunflower plants
under hydroponic conditions. Water Air Soil Pollut 227(10):382
Gattullo CE, Bährs H, Steinberg CEW, Loffredo E (2012) Removal of bisphenol A by the freshwa-
ter green alga Monoraphidium braunii and the role of natural organic matter. Sci Total Environ
416:501–506
Gautam M, Agrawal M (2017) Phytoremediation of metals using vetiver (Chrysopogon zizanioi-
des (L.) Roberty) grown under different levels of red mud in sludge amended soil. J Geochem
Explor 182:218–227
Gavrilescu M (2010) Environmental biotechnology: achievements, opportunities and challenges.
Dynamic Biochem Process Biotech Mol Biol 4:1–36
Gerhardt KE, MacNeill GJ, Gerwing PD, Greenberg BM (2017) Phytoremediation of salt-
impacted soils and use of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) to enhance phytore-
mediation. In: Ansari A, Gill S, Gill R, Lanza G, Newman L (eds) Phytoremediation. Springer,
Cham, pp 19–51
Ghaderian SM, Mohtadi A, Rahiminejad MR, Baker AJM (2007) Nickel and other metal uptake
and accumulation by species of Alyssum (Brassicaceae) from the ultramafics of. Iran Environ
Pollut 145(1):293–298
Giordani C, Cecchi S, Zanchi C (2005) Phytoremediation of soil polluted by nickel using agricul-
tural crops. J Environ Manag 36(5):675–681
Gisbert C, Ros R, De Haro A, Walker DJ, Bernal MP, Serrano R, Navarro-Aviñó J (2003) A
plant genetically modified that accumulates Pb is especially promising for phytoremediation.
Biochem Biophys Res Commun 303(2):440–445
Giurco D, Cooper C (2012) Mining and sustainability: asking the right questions. Miner Eng
29:3–12
Goel A, Kumar G, Payne GF, Dube SK (1997) Plant cell biodegradation of a xenobiotic nitrate
ester nitroglycerin. Nat Biotechnol 15:174–177
Gokhale SV, Jyoti KK, Lele SS (2008) Kinetic and equilibrium modeling of chromium (VI) bio-
sorption on fresh and spent Spirulina platensis/Chlorella vulgaris biomass. Bioresour Technol
99(9):3600–3608
Gomes PI, Asaeda T (2013) Phytoremediation of heavy metals by calcifying macro-algae
(Nitella pseudoflabellata), Implications of redox insensitive end products. Chemosphere
92(10):1328–1334
Goto F, Yoshihara T, Saiki H (1998) Iron accumulation in tobacco plants expressing soybean fer-
ritin gene. Transgenic Res 7:173–180
Goto F, Yoshihara T, Shigemoto N, Toki S, Takaiwa F (1999) Iron accumulation in rice seed by
soya bean ferritin gene. Nat Biotechnol 17:282–286
Grichko VP, Filby B, Glick BR (2000) Increased ability of transgenic plants expressing the bacte-
rial enzyme ACC deaminase to accumulate Cd, Co, Cu, Ni, Pb and Zn. J Biotechnol 81:45–53
Grill E, Loffler S, Winnacker EL, Zenk MH (1989) Phytochelatins, the heavy-metal-binding pep-
tides of plants, are synthesized from glutathione by a specific gamma-glutamylcysteine dipep-
tidyl transpeptidase (phytochelatin synthase). Proc Natl Acad Sci 86:6838–6842
Grobelak A, Napora A (2015) The chemophytostabilisation process of heavy metal polluted soil.
PloS one 10(6):0129538
Gu CS, Liu LQ, Zhao YH, Deng YM, Zhu XD, Huang SZ (2014) Overexpression of Iris lactea
var. chinensis metallothionein llMT2a enhances cadmium tolerance in Arabidopsis thaliana.
Ecotoxicol Environ Safety 105:22–28
Gu CS, Liu LQ, Deng YM, Zhu XD, Huang SZ, Lu XQ (2015) The heterologous expression of
the Iris lactea var. chinensis type 2 metallothionein IlMT2b gene enhances copper tolerance in
Arabidopsis thaliana. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 94(2):247–253
Gumuscu B, Tekinay T (2013) Effective biodegradation of 2, 4, 6-trinitrotoluene using a novel
bacterial strain isolated from TNT-contaminated soil. Int Biodeter Biodegrad 85:35–41
Gupta VK, Shrivastava AK, Jain N (2001) Biosorption of Chromium(VI) from Aqueous solutions
by green algae spirogyra species. Water Res 35(17):4079–4085
Gyulai G, Bittsanszky A, Szabo Z, Waters Jr L, Gullner G, Kampfl G (2014) Phytoextraction
potential of wild type and 35s-gshi transgenic poplar trees (Populus canescens) for environ-
mental pollutants herbicide paraquat, salt sodium, zinc sulfate and nitric oxide in vitro. Int
Haddadi A, Shavandi M (2013) Biodegradation of phenol in hypersaline conditions by Halomonas
sp. strain PH2-2 isolated from saline soil. Int Biodeter Biodegrad 85:29–34
Haimi J (2000) Decomposer animals and bioremediation of soils. Environ Pollut 107(2):233–238
Han X, Wong YS, Tam NF (2006) Surface complexation mechanism and modeling in Cr(III) bio-
sorption by a microalgal isolate, Chlorella miniata. J Colloid Interface Sci 303(2):365–371
Hanks NA, Caruso JA, Zhang P (2015) Assessing Pistia stratiotes for phytoremediation of silver
nanoparticles and Ag (I) contaminated waters. J Environ Man 164:41–45
Hannink NK, Rosser SJ, French CE, Basran A, Murray JAH, Nicklin S (2001) Phyto-detoxification
of TNT by transgenic plants expressing a bacterial nitroreductase. Nat Biotechnol 19:1168–1172
Hannink NK, Rosser SJ, French CE, Bruce NC (2003) Uptake and metabolism of TNT and GTN
by plants expressing bacterial pentaerythritol tetranitrate reductase. Water Air Soil Pollut
3(3):251–258
Harada E, Choi YE, Tsuchisaka A, Obata H, Sano H (2001) Transgenic tobacco plants express-
ing a rice cysteine synthase gene are tolerant to toxic levels of cadmium. J Plant Physiol
158(5):655–661
Harding LW, Phillips JH (1978) Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) uptake by marine phytoplankton.
Mar Biol 49:103–111
Hasegawa I, Terada E, Sunairi M, Wakita H, Shinmachi F, Noguchi A (1997) Genetic improvement
of heavy metal tolerance in plants by transfer of the yeast metallothionein gene (CUPI). Plant
Soil 196:277–281
He J, Li H, Ma C, Zhang Y, Polle A, Rennenberg H (2015) Overexpression of bacterial g-glutamyl
cysteine synthetase mediates changes in cadmium influx, allocation and detoxification in pop-
lar. New Phytol 205:240–254
Hedden P, Phillips AL (2000) Gibberellin metabolism: new insights revealed by the genes. Trends
Plant Sci 5(12):523–530
Hirooka T, Nagase H, Uchida K, Hiroshige Y, Ehara Y, Nishikawa JI, Hirata Z (2005) Biodegradation
of bisphenol A and disappearance of its estrogenic activity by the green alga Chlorella fusca
var. vacuolata. Environ Toxicol Chem 24(8):1896–1901
References 183
Hirose S, Kawahigashi H, Inoue T, Inui H, Ohkawa H, Ohkawa Y (2005) Enhanced expression of

CYP2C9 and tolerance to sulfonylurea herbicides in transgenic rice plants. Plant Biotechnol
22:89–96
Hirschi KD, Korenkov VD, Wilganowski NL, Wagner GJ (2000) Expression of Arabidopsis
CAX2 in tobacco Altered metal accumulation and increased manganese tolerance. Plant
Physiol 124:125–133
Hovsepyan A, Greipsson S (2005) EDTA-enhanced phytoremediation of lead-contaminated soil
by corn. J Plant Nutr 28(11):2037–2048
Hsieh JL, Chen CY, Chiu MH, Chein MF, Chang JS, Endo G, Huang CC (2009) Expressing a
bacterial mercuric ion binding protein in plant for phytoremediation of heavy metals. J Hazard
Mater 161:920–925
Huang JW, Blaylock MJ, Kapulnik Y, Ensley BD (1998) Phytoremediation of Uranium contami-
nated soils: Role of organic acids in triggering uranium hyperaccumulation in plants. Environ
Sci 32(13):2004–2008
Hughes JB, Shanks J, Vanderford M, Lauritzen J, Bhadra R (1997) Transformation of TNT by
aquatic plants and plant tissue cultures. Environ Sci Technol 31:266–271
Hussain ST, Mahmood T, Malik SA (2010) Phytoremediation technologies for Ni++ by water hya-
cinth. Afr J Biotechnol 9(50):8648–8660
Hynes RK, Farrell RE, Germida JJ (2004) Plant-assisted degradation of phenanthrene as assessed
by solid-phase microextraction (SPME). Int J Phytoremed 6:253–268
Ikeura H, Kawasaki Y, Kaimi E, Nishiwaki J, Noborio K, Tamaki M (2016) Screening of plants for
phytoremediation of oil-contaminated soil. Int J Phytoremed 18:460–466
Inui H, Ohkawa H (2005) Herbicide resistance in transgenic plants with mammalian P450 mono-
oxygenase genes. Pest Manag Sci 61:286–291
Ishihara K, Nakajima N (2003) Improvement of marine environmental pollution using eco-system:
decomposition and recovery of endocrine disrupting chemicals by marine phyto-and zooplank-
tons. J Mol Catal B Enzym 23:419–424
Jacome-Pilco CR, Cristiani-Urbina E, Flores-Cotera LB, Velasco-García R, Ponce-Noyola T,
Canizares-Villanueva RO (2009) Continuous Cr(VI) removal by Scenedesmus incrassatulus in
an airlift photobioreactor. Bioresour Technol 100(8):2388–2391
Jadia CD, Fulekar MH (2009) Phytoremediation of heavy metals, recent techniques. Afr
J Biotechnol 8(6):921–928
Jan AT, Arif A, Qazi MRH (2014) Phytoremediation: a promising strategy on the crossroads of
remediation. In: Soil remedation and plants: prospects and challenges, pp 63–84
Jansen MAK, Hill LM, Thorneley RNF (2004) A novel stress-acclimation response in Spirodela
punctata (Lemnaceae): 2,4,6-trichlorophenol triggers an increase in the level of an extracel-
lular peroxidase, capable of the oxidative dechlorination of this xenobiotic pollutant. Plant Cell
Environ 27:603–613
Jena S, Dey SK (2017) Heavy metals. Am J Environ Stud 1(1):48–60
Jin ZP, Luo K, Zhang S, Zheng Q, Yang H (2012) Bioaccumulation and catabolism of prometryne
in green algae. Chemosphere 87:278–284
Jung S, lee HJ, Lee Y, Kang K, Kim YS, Grimm B (2008) Toxic tetrapyrrole accumulation in pro-
toporphyrinogrn IX oxidase overexpressing transgenic rice plants. Plant Mol Biol 67:535–546
Kaimi E, Mukaidani T, Miyoshi S, Tamaki M (2006) Ryegrass enhancement of biodegradation in
diesel-contaminated soil. Environ Exp Bot 55:110–119
Kanter U, Hauser A, Michalke B, Dräxl S, Schäffner AR (2010) Caesium and strontium accu-
mulation in shoots of Arabidopsis thaliana: genetic and physiological aspects. J Exp Bot
61(14):3995–4009
Karavangeli M, Labrou NE, Clonis YD, Tsaftaris A (2005) Development of transgenic tobacco
plants overexpressing maize glutathione S-transferase I for chloroacetanilide herbicides phy-
toremediation. Biomol Eng 22:121–128
Karthikeyan S, Balasubramanian R, Iyer CSP (2007) Evaluation of the marine algae Ulva fasciata
and Sargassum sp. for the biosorption of Cu(II) from aqueous solutions. Bioresour Technol
98(2):452–455
Kausar S, Qaisar M, Raja IA, Khan A, Sultan S, Gilani MA, Shujaat S (2012) Potential of Arundo
donax to treat chromium contamination. Ecol Eng 42:256–259
Kawagashi H, Hirose S, Ohkawa H, Ohkawa Y (2007) Herbicide resistance of transgenic rice
plants expressing human CYP1A1. Biotechnol Adv 25:75–85
Kawahigashi H, Hirose S, Hayashi E, Ohkawa H, Ohkawa Y (2002) Phytotoxicity and metabolism
of ethofumesate in transgenic rice plants expressing human CYP2B6 gene. Pestic Biochem
Physiol 74:139–147
Kawahigashi H, Hirose S, Ohkawa H, Ohkawa Y (2005a) Phytoremediation of metolachlor by
transgenic rice plants expressing human CYP2B6. J Agric Food Chem 53:9155–9160
Kawahigashi H, Hirose S, Ohkawa H, Ohkawa Y (2005b) Transgenic rice plants expressing
human CYP1A1 remediate the triazine herbicides Atrazine and Simazine. J Agric Food Chem
53:8557–8564
Kawahigashi H, Hirose S, Ozawa K, Ido Y, Kojima M, Ohkawa H (2005c) Analysis of substrate
specificity of pig CYP2B22 and CYP2C49 towards herbicides by transgenic rice plants.
Transgenic Res 14:907–917
Kawahigashi H, Hirose S, Ohkawa H, Ohkawa Y (2006) Broad range of herbicide tolerance of
glutinous upland rice variety ‘Yumenohatamochi’ carrying human cytochrome P450 genes.
Plant Biotechnol 23:227–231
Kawashima CG, Noji M, Nakamura M, Ogra Y, Suzuki KT, Saito K (2004) Heavy metal tolerance
of transgenic tobacco plants over-expressing cysteine synthase. Biotechnol Lett 26(2):153–157
Kebeish R, Azab E, Peterhaensel C, El-Basheer R (2014) Engineering the metabolism of the phenyl-
urea herbicide chlortoluron in genetically modified Arabidopsis thaliana plants expressing the
mammalian cytochrome P450 enzyme CYP1A2. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 21(13):8224–8232
Kebeish R, Aboelmyb M, El-Naggara A, El-Ayoutya Y, Peterhanselb C (2015) Simultaneous
overexpression of cyanidase and formate dehydrogenase in Arabidopsis thaliana chloroplasts
enhanced cyanide metabolism and cyanide tolerance. Environ Exp Bot 110:19–26
Keeling SM, Stewart RB, Anderson CWN, Robinson BH (2003) Nickel and cobalt phytoextrac-
tion by the hyperaccumulator Berkheya coddii, implications for polymetallic phytomining and
phytoremediation. Int J Phytoremed 5(3):235–244
Khan MS, Zaidi A, Wani PA, Oves M (2009) Role of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria in the
remediation of metal contaminated soils. Environ Chem Lett 7:1–19
Khan MJ, Azeem MT, Jan MT, Perveen S (2012) Effect of amendments on chemical immobiliza-
tion of heavy metals in sugar mill contaminated soils. Soil Environ 31(1)
Khellaf N, Zerdaoui M (2009) Phytoaccumulation of zinc by the aquatic plant, Lemna gibba
L. Bioresource Technol 100(23):6137–6140
Khoudi H, Maatar Y, Gouiaa S, Masmoudi K (2012) Transgenic tobacco plants expressing ectopi-
cally wheat H+-pyrophosphatase (H+-PPase) gene TaVP1 show enhanced accumulation and
tolerance to cadmium. J Plant Physiol 169(1):98–103
Kidd P, Barcelo J, Bernal MP, Navari-Izzo F, Poschenrieder C, Shilev S (2009) Trace element
behaviour at the root-soil interface: implications in phytoremediation. Environ Exp Bot
67:243–259
Kim S, Takahashi M, Higuchi K, Tsunoda K, Nakanishi H, Yoshimura E, Nishizawa NK (2005)
Increased nicotianamine biosynthesis confers enhanced tolerance of high levels of metals, in
particular nickel, to plants. Plant Cell Physiol 46(11):1809–1818
Knuteson SL, Whitwell T, Klaine SJ (2002) Influence of plant age and size on simazine toxicity
and uptake. J Environ Qual 31:2096–2103
Koprivova A, Kopriva S, Jäger D, Will B, Jouanin L, Rennenberg H (2002) Evaluation of trans-
genic poplars over-expressing enzymes of glutathione synthesis for phytoremediation of cad-
mium. Plant Biol 4:664–670
References 185
Kou YG, Fu XY, Hou PQ, Zhan ZC, Bai W, Yao Y (2008) The study of lead accumulation of earth-
worm in lead pollution soil. J Environ Sci Manag 33(1):62–64
Krämer U, Cotter-Howells JD, Charnock JM, Baker AJM, Smith JAC (1996) Free histidine as a
metal chelator in plants that accumulate nickel. Nature 379:635–638
Kucerova P, In der Wiesche C, Wolter M, Macek T, Zadrazil F, Mackova M (2001) The ability of
different plant species to remove polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and polychlorinated biphe-
nyls from incubation media. Biotechnol Lett 23:1355–1359
Kumar V, Chopra AK (2017) Phytoremediation potential of water caltrop (Trapa natans L.) using
municipal wastewater of the activated sludge process-based municipal wastewater treatment
plant. Environ Technol 22:1–12
Kumar B, Smita K, Flores LC (2014) Plant mediated detoxification of mercury and lead. Arab
J Chem 10:S2335–S2342
Kumar V, Chopra AK, Singh J, Thakur RK, Srivastava S, Chauhan RK (2016) Comparative assess-
ment of phytoremediation feasibility of water caltrop (Trapa natans L.) and water hyacinth
(Eichhornia crassipes Solms.) using pulp and paper mill effluent. Arc Agri Environ Sci 1:13–21
Kunihiro S, Saito T, Matsuda T, Inoue M, Kuramata M, Taguchi-Shiobara F, Kusano T (2013)
Rice DEP1, encoding a highly cysteine-rich G protein γ subunit, confers cadmium tolerance on
yeast cells and plants. J Exp Bot 64(14):4517–4527
Kurnik K, Treder K, Skorupa-Kłaput M, Tretyn A, Tyburski J (2015) Removal of phenol from syn-
thetic and industrial wastewater by potato pulp peroxidases. Water Air Soil Pollut 226(8):254
Kurumata M, Takahashi M, Sakamotoa A, Ramos JL, Nepovim A, Vanek T (2005) Tolerance to
and uptake and degradation of 2,4,6- trinitrotoluene (TNT) are enhanced by the expression of a
bacterial nitroreductase gene in Arabidopsis thaliana. Z Naturforsch 60:272–278
Lamaia C, Kruatrachuea M, Pokethitiyooka P, Upathamb ES, Soonthornsarathoola V (2005)
Toxicity and accumulation of lead and cadmium in the filamentous green alga Cladophora
fracta (OF Muller ex Vahl) Kutzing: a laboratory study. Sci Asia 31(2):121–127
Le TT, Nguyen KH, Jeon JR, Francis AJ, Chang YS (2015) Nano/bio treatment of polychlorinated
biphenyls with evaluation of comparative toxicity. J Hazard Mater 287:335–341
LeBlanc MS, McKinney EC, Meagher RB, Smith AP (2013) Hijacking membrane transporters for
arsenic phytoextraction. J Biotechnol 163(1):1–9
LeDuc DL, Tarun AS, Montes-Bayon M, Meija J, Malit MF, Wu CP, Böck A (2004) Overexpression
of selenocysteine methyltransferase in Arabidopsis and Indian mustard increases selenium tol-
erance and accumulation. Plant Physiol 135(1):377–383
LeDuc DL, AbdelSamie M, Móntes-Bayon M, Wu CP, Reisinger SJ, Terry N (2006) Overexpressing
both ATP sulfurylase and selenocysteine methyltransferase enhances selenium phytoremedia-
tion traits in Indian mustard. Environ Pollut 144(1):70–76
Lee YC, Chang SP (2011) The biosorption of heavy metals from aqueous solution by Spirogyra
and Cladophora filamentous macroalgae. Bioresour Technol 102(9):5297–5304
Lee BR, Hwang S (2015) Over-expression of NtHb1 encoding a non-symbiotic class 1 hemoglobin
of tobacco enhances a tolerance to cadmium by decreasing NO (nitric oxide) and Cd levels in
Nicotiana tabacum. Environ Exper Bot 113:18–27
Lee J, Bae H, Jeong J, Lee JY, Yang YY, Hwang I, Lee Y (2003) Functional expression of a bac-
terial heavy metal transporter in Arabidopsis enhances resistance to and decreases uptake of
heavy metals. Plant Physiol 133:589–596
Lee HS, Suh JH, Kim IB, Yoon T (2004) Effect of aluminum in two-metal biosorption by an algal
biosorbent. Min Eng 17(4):487–493
LeFevre GH, Müller CE, Li RJ, Luthy RG, Sattely ES (2015) Rapid phytotransformation of benzo-
triazole generates synthetic tryptophan and auxin analogs in Arabidopsis. Environ Sci Technol
49(18):10959–10968
Lei AP, Hu ZL, Wong YS, Tam NF (2007) Removal of fluoranthene andpyrene by different micro-
algal species. Bioresour Technol 98(2):273–280
Li H, Sheng G, Sheng W, Xu O (2002) Uptake of trifluralin and lindane from water by ryegrass.
Li GY, Hu N, Ding DX, Zheng JF, Liu YL, Wang YD, Nie XQ (2011) Screening of plant species
for phytoremediation of uranium, thorium, barium, nickel, strontium and lead contaminated
soils from a uranium mill tailings repository in South China. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol
86(6):646–652
Lim JM, Salido AL, Butcher DJ (2004) Phytoremediation of lead using Indian mustard (Brassica
juncea) with EDTA and electrodics. Microchem J 76(1):3–9
Lim SL, Chu WL, Phang SM (2010) Use of Chlorella vulgaris for bioremediation of textile waste-
water. Bioresour Technol 101:7314–7322
Limura Y, Ikeda S, Sonoki T, Hayakawa T, Kajita S, Kimbara K (2002) Expression of a gene for
Mn-peroxidase from Coriolus versicolor in transgenic tobacco generates potential tools for
phytoremediation. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 59:246–251
Liphadzi MS, Kirkham MB, Mankin KR, Paulsen GM (2003) EDTA-assisted heavy-metal uptake
by poplar and sunflower grown at a long-term sewage-sludge farm. Plant Soil 257(1):171–182
Liste HH, Prutz I (2006) Plant performance, dioxygenase-expressing rhizosphere bacteria, and
biodegradation of weathered hydrocarbons in contaminated soil. Chemosphere 62:1411–1420
Liu WX, Shen LF, Liu JW, Wang YW, Li SR (2007) Uptake of toxic heavy metals by rice (Oryza
sativa L.) cultivated in the agricultural soil near Zhengzhou City, People’s Republic of China.
Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 79(2):209–213
Liu D, An Z, Mao Z, Ma L, Lu Z (2015) Enhanced heavy metal tolerance and accumulation by
transgenic sugar beets expressing Streptococcus thermophilus STGCS-GS in the presence of
Cd, Zn and Cu alone or in combination. PLoS ONE 10(6):1–15
Liu J, Ding Y, Ma L, Gao G, Wang Y (2017) Combination of biochar and immobilized bacteria in
cypermethrin-contaminated soil remediation. Int Biodeter Biodegrad 120:15–20
Lo Cicero L, Madesis P, Tsaftaris A, Lo Piero AR (2015) Tobacco plants over-expressing the sweet
orange tau glutathione transferases (CsGSTUs) acquire tolerance to the diphenyl ether herbi-
cide fluorodifen and to salt and drought stresses. Phytochem 116:69–77
Luo F, Liu Y, Li X, Xuan Z, Ma J (2006) Biosorption of lead ion by chemically modified biomass
of marine brown algae Laminaria japonica. Chemosphere 64(7):1122–1127
Lv Y, Deng X, Quan L, Xia Y, Shen Z (2013) Metallothioneins BcMT1 and BcMT2 from Brassica
campestris enhance tolerance to cadmium and copper and decrease production of reactive oxy-
gen species in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Soil 367(1–2):507–519
Lv B, Xing M, Yang J (2016) Speciation and transformation of heavy metals during vermicom-
posting of animal manure. Bioresour Technol 209:397–401
Lytle CM, Lytle FW, Yang N, Qian JH, Hansen D, Zayed A, Terry N (1988) Reduction of Cr(VI) to
Cr(III) by wetland plants, potential for in situ heavy metal detoxification. Environ Sci Technol
32:3087–3093
Ma X, Richter AR, Albers S, Burken JG (2004) Phytoremediation of MTBE with hybrid poplar
trees. Int J Phytoremed 6(2):157–167
Macek T, Mackova M, Kas J (2000) Exploitation of plants for the removal of organics in environ-
mental remediation. Biotechnol Adv 18:23–34
Madariaga-Navarrete A, Rodríguez-Pastrana BR, Villagómez-Ibarra JR, Acevedo-Sandoval OA,
Perry G, Islas-Pelcastre M (2017) Bioremediation model for atrazine contaminated agricultural
soils using phytoremediation (using Phaseolus vulgaris L.) and a locally adapted microbial
consortium. J Environ Sci Health B 1:9
Mahmoud RH, Hamza AHM (2017) Phytoremediation application: plants as biosorbent for
metal removal in soil and water. In: Ansari A, Gill S, Gill R, Lanza G, Newman L (eds)
Phytoremediation. Springer, Cham, pp 405–422
Maiti IB, Wagner GJ, Yeargan R, Hunt AG (1989) Inheritance and expression of the mouse
metallothionein gene in tobacco: impact on cd tolerance and tissue cd distribution in seedlings.
Plant Physiol 91(3):1020–1024
Malik B, Pirzadah TB, Tahir I, Dar TH, Rehman R (2014) Recent trends and approaches in phy-
toremediation. In: Soil remediation and plants: prospects and challenges, pp 131–146
References 187
Mao J, Luo Y, Teng Y, Li Z (2012) Bioremediation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon-

contaminated soil by a bacterial consortium and associated microbial community changes. Int
elements (PhD dissertation). Linnaeus University, Sweden
Marques AP, Moreira H, Rangel AO, Castro PM (2009) Arsenic, lead and nickel accumulation in
Rubus ulmifolius growing in contaminated soil in Portugal. J Hazard Mater 165(1):174–179
Mata YN, Blazquez ML, Ballester A, Gonzalez F, Munoz JA (2008) Characterization of the bio-
sorption of cadmium, lead and copper with the brown alga Fucus vesiculosus. J Hazard Mater
158(2–3):316–323
Mata YN, Torres E, Blazquez ML, Ballester A, Gonzalez F, Munoz JA (2009) Gold(III)
biosorption and bioreduction with the brown alga Fucus vesiculosus. J Hazard Mater
166(2–3):612–618
Matamoros V, Gutierrez R, Ferrer I, Garcia J, Bayona JM (2015) Capability of microalgae-based
wastewater treatment systems to remove emerging organic contaminants: a pilot-scale study.
J Hazard Mater 288:34–42
Mazumdar K, Das S (2015) Phytoremediation of Pb, Zn, Fe, and Mg with 25 wetland plant species
from a paper mill contaminated site in North East India. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22:701–710
Megharaj M, Venkateswarlu K, Rao AS (1987) Metabolism of monocrotophos and quinalphos by
algae isolated from soil. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 39:251–256
Megharaj M, Kantachote D, Singleton I, Naidu R (2000) Effects of long-term contamination
of DDT on soil microfl ora with special reference to soil algae and algal transformation of
DDT. Environ Pollut 109:35–42
Mehta SK, Gaur JP (2001) Characterization and optimization of Ni and Cu sorption from aqueous
solution by Chlorella vulgaris. Ecol Eng 18(1):1–13
Mehta S, Tripathi B, Gaur J (2002) Enhanced sorption of Cu 2þ and Ni 2þ by acid pretreated
Chlorella vulgaris from single and binary metal solutions. J Appl Phycol 14(4):267–273
Merkl N, Schultze-Kraft R, Infante C (2005) Assessment of tropical grasses and legumes for phy-
toremediation of petroleum-contaminated soils. Water Air Soil Pollut 165:195–209
Merkl N, Schultze-Kraft R, Arias M (2006) Effect of the tropical grass Brachiaria brizantha
(Hochst. ex A. Rich.) Stapf on microbial population and activity in petroleum-contaminated
soil. Microbiol Res 16:180–191
Mesjasz-Przybyłowicz JO, Nakonieczny MI, Migula PA, Augustyniak MA, Tarnawska MO,
Reimold WU, Koeberl CH, Przybyłowicz WO, Głowacka E (2004) Uptake of cadmium, lead
nickel and zinc from soil and water solutions by the nickel hyperaccumulator Berkheya coddii.
Acta Biol Crac Ser Bot 1(46):75–85
Mirza N, Mahmood Q, Pervez A, Ahmad R, Farooq R, Shah MM, Azim MR (2010a)
Phytoremediation potential of Arundo donax L in arsenic contaminated synthetic wastewater.
Bioresour Technol 101:5815–5819
Mirza N, Pervez A, Mahmood Q, Ahmad SS (2010b) Phytoremediation of arsenic (As) and mer-
cury (Hg) contaminated soil. World Appl Sci J 1(8):113–118
Mirza N, Mahmood Q, Maroof Shah M, Pervez A, Sultan S (2014) Plants as useful vectors to
reduce environmental toxic arsenic content. Sci World J 2014
Mishra S, Shanker K, Srivastava MM, Srivastava S, Shrivastav R, Dass S, Prakash S (1997) A
study on the uptake of trivalent and hexavalent chromium by paddy (Oryza sativa), possible
chemical modifications in rhizosphere. Agric Ecosyst Environ 62(1):53–58
Misra S, Gedamu L (1989) Heavy metal tolerant transgenic Brassica napus L. and Nicotiana taba-
cum L. plants. Theor Appl Genet 78:16–18
Mittal A, Singh P (2009) Isolation of hydrocarbon degrading bacteria from soils contaminated with
crude oil spills. Indian J Exp Biol 47:760–765
Mohammadi M, Chalavi V, Novakova-Sura M, Laiberte JF, Sylvestre M (2007) Expression of
bacterial biphenyl-chlorobiphenyl dioxygenase genes in tobacco plants. Biotechnol Bioeng
97:496–505
Mojiri A (2011) The potential of corn (Zea mays) for phytoremediation of soil contaminated with
cadmium and lead. J Bio Environ Sci 5(13)
Mojiri A, Aziz HA, Aziz SQ, Selamat MRB, Gholami A, Aboutorab M (2013) Phytoremediation
of soil contaminated with nickel by Lepidium sativum; optimization by response surface meth-
odology. Global NEST J 15(1):69–75
Mokhtar H, Morad N, Fizri FFA (2011) Phytoaccumulation of copper from aqueous solutions
using Eichhornia Crassipes and Centella Asiatica. Int J Environ Sci Dev 2(3):205
Monteiro C, Castro PL, Xavier Malcata F (2011) Biosorption of zinc ions from aqueous solution
by the microalga Scenedesmus obliquus. Environ Chem Lett 9(2):169–176
Moro CV, Bricheux G, Portelli C, Bohatier J (2012) Comparative effects of the herbicides chlortol-
uron and mesotrione on freshwater microalgae. Environ Toxicol Chem 31:778–786
Mukhtar S, Bhatti HN, Khalid M, Haq MAU, Shahzad SM (2010) Potential of sunflower
(Helianthus annuus L.) for phytoremediation of nickel (Ni) and lead (Pb) contaminated water.
Pak J Bot 42(6):40–174026
Muñoz R, Guieysse B, Mattiasson B (2003) Phenanthrene biodegradation by an algal-bacterial
consortium in two-phase partitioning bioreactors. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 61:261–267
Muratova A, Hubner T, Narula N, Wand H, Turkovskaya O, Kuschk P, Merbach W (2003)
Rhizosphere microflora of plants used for the phytoremediation of bitumen-contaminated soil.
Microbiol Res 158:151–161
Najeeb U, Xu L, Ali S, Jilani G, Gong HJ, Shen WQ, Zhou WJ (2009) Citric acid enhances the
phytoextraction of manganese and plant growth by alleviating the ultrastructural damages in
Juncus effusus L. J Hazard Mater 170(2):1156–1163
Nedelkoska TV, Doran PM (2000) Hyperaccumulation of Cadmium by hairy roots of Thlaspi
caerulescens. Biotechnol Bioeng 67(5):607–615
Neudorf S, Khan MAQ (1975) Pick-up and metabolism of DDT, dieldrin and photodieldrin by a
fresh water alga (Ankistrodesmus amalloides) and a microcrustacean (Daphnia pulex). Bull
Environ Contam Toxicol 13:443–450
Neuwoehner J, Escher BI (2011) The pH-dependent toxicity of basic pharmaceuticals in the green
algae Scenedesmus vacuolatus can be explained with a toxicokinetic ion-trapping model.
Aquat Toxicol 101:266–275
Newcombe DA, Crowley DE (1999) Bioremediation of atrazine-contaminated soil by repeated
applications of atrazine-degrading bacteria. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 51:877–882
Newman LA, Reynolds CM (2004) Phytodegradation of organic compounds. Curr Opin Biotech
15(3):225–230
Nie L, Shah S, Rashid A, Burd GI, Dixon DG, Glick BR (2002) Phytoremediation of arsenate con-
taminated soil by transgenic canola and the plant growth-promoting bacterium Enterobacter
cloacae CAL2. Plant Physiol Biochem 40:355–361
Nikolic M, Stevovic S (2015) Family Asteraceae as a sustainable planning tool in phytoremedia-
tion and its relevance in urban areas. Urban For Urban Green 14:782–789
Nkrumah PN, Baker AJM, Chaney RL, Erskine PD, Echevarria G, Morel JL, Van der Ent A (2016)
Current status and challenges in developing Ni phytomining: an agronomic perspective. Plant
Soil 406(1):55–69
Nouri J, Khorasani N, Lorestani B, Karami M, Hassani AH, Yousefi N (2009) Accumulation of
heavy metals in soil and uptake by plant species with phytoremediation potential. Environ
Earth Sci 59(2):315–323
Novo LA, Castro PM, Alvarenga P, da Silva EF (2017) Phytomining of rare and valuable metals.
In: Ansari A, Gill S, Gill R, Lanza G, Newman L (eds) Phytoremediation. Springer, Cham,
pp 469–486
Nuhoglu Y, Malkoc E, Gürses A, Canpolat N (2002) The removal of Cu(II) from aqueous solutions
by Ulothrix zonata. Bioresour Technol 85(3):331–333
OKeefe DP, Tepperman JM, Dean C, Leto KJ, Erbes DL, Odell JT (1994) Plant expression of
a bacterial cytochrome P450 that catalyzes activation of a sulfonylurea pro-herbicide. Plant
Physiol 105:473–824
References 189
Olette R, Couderchet M, Biagianti S, Eullaffroy P (2010) Fungicides and herbicide removal in

Scenedesmus cell suspensions. Chemosphere 79:117–123
Olguin EJ (2003) Phycoremediation: key issues for cost-effective nutrient removal processes.
Biotechnol Adv 22(1):81–91
Olguin EJ (2012) Dual purpose microalgae–bacteria-based systems that treat wastewater and pro-
duce biodiesel and chemical products within a biorefinery. Biotechnol Adv 30(5):1031–1046
Oller ALW, Agostini E, Talano MA, Capozucca C, Milrad SR, Tigier A (2005) Overexpression of
a basic peroxidase in transgenic tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill cv Pera) hairy roots
increases phytoremediation of phenol. Plant Sci 169:1102–1111
Onyancha D, Mavura W, Ngila JC, Ongoma P, Chacha J (2008) Studies of chromium removal
from tannery wastewaters by algae biosorbents, Spirogyra condensata and Rhizoclonium hiero-
glyphicum. J Hazard Mater 158(2–3):605–614
Ortega-Gonzalez DK, Martínez-González G, Flores CM, Zaragoza D, Cancino-Diaz JC, Cruz-
Maya JA, Jan-Roblero J (2015) Amycolatopsis sp. Poz14 isolated from oil-contaminated soil
degrades polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Int Biodeter Biodegrad 99:165–173
Osuji AC, Eze SOO, Osayi EE, Chilaka FC (2014) Biobleaching of industrial important dyes with
peroxidase partially purified from garlic. Sci World J 2014:1–8
Ozer D, Ozer A, Dursun G (2000) Investigation of zinc (II) adsorption on Cladophora crispata in
a two-staged reactor. J ChemTechnol Biotechnol 75(5):410–416
Ozer A, Ozer D, Ibrahim EkIz H (2004) The equilibrium and kinetic modelling of the biosorption
of copper(II) ions on Cladophora crispata. Adsorption 10(4):317–326
Pan A, Yang M, Tie F, Li L, Chen Z, Ru B (1994) Expression of mouse metallothionein-1-gene
confers cadmium resistance in transgenic tobacco plants. Plant Mol Biol 24:341–351
Panda SS, Dhal NK (2016) A novel green technology to clean up the highly contaminated chro-
mites mining sites of Odisha. In: Shukla P (ed) Microbial biotechnology: an interdisciplinary
approach. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 21–31
Pandey VC, Mishra T (2016) Assessment of Ziziphus mauritiana grown on fly ash dumps: pros-
pects for phytoremediation but concerns with the use of edible fruit. Int J Phytoremed. [Epub
ahead of print]
Panwar BS, Ahmed KS, Mittal SB (2001) Phytoremediation of nickel-contaminated soils by
Brassica species. Environ Dev Sustain 4:1–6
Payne R (2000) Spirulina as bioremediation agent: interaction with metals and involvement of
carbonic anhydrase. MSc thesis, Rhodes University, South Africa
Peng R, Fu X, Tian Y, Zhao W, Zhu B, Xu J (2014a) Metabolic engineering of Arabidopsis for
remediation of different polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons using a hybrid bacterial dioxygen-
ase complex. Metab Eng 26:100–110
Peng RH, Fu XY, Zhao W, Tian YS, Zhu B, Han HJ (2014b) Phytoremediation of phenanthrene
by transgenic plants transformed with a naphthalene dioxygenase system from Pseudomonas.
Perales-Vela HV, Pena-Castro JM, Canizares-Villanueva RO (2006) Heavy metal detoxification in
eukaryotic microalgae. Chemosphere 64:1–10
Pérez-Palacios P, Agostini E, Ibáñez SG, Talano MA, Rodríguez-Llorente ID, Caviedes MA, Pajuelo
E (2017) Removal of copper from aqueous solutions by rhizofiltration using genetically modi-
fied hairy roots expressing a bacterial Cu-binding protein. Enviro Technol 38(22):2877–2888
Pianelli K, Mari S, Marquès L, Lebrun M, Czernic P (2005) Nicotianamine over-accumulation
confers resistance to nickel in Arabidopsis thaliana. Trans Research 14(5):739–748
Pilipović A, Orlović S, Katanić M, Simeunović J, Pekeč S, Matavuly M (2015) Phosphatase
activity as a parameter for assessment of the rhizodegradation potential of poplar clones:
Greenhouse dose-response experiment of phytoremediation of oil contaminated soil. Biologia
Serbica 36(1–2)
Pilon smits EAH, Zhu YL, Sears T, Terry N (2000) Overexpression of glutathione reductase in
Brassica juncea: effects on cadmium accumulation and tolerance. Plant Physiol 110:455–460
Pilon M, Owen JD, Garifullina GF, Kurihara T, Mihara H, Esaki N, Pilon-Smits EAH (2003)
Enhanced selenium tolerance and accumulation in transgenic Arabidopsis expressing a mouse
selenocysteine lyase. Plant Physiol 131(3):1250–1257
Polti MA, Aparicio JD, Benimeli CS, Amoroso MJ (2014) Simultaneous bioremediation of Cr (VI)
and lindane in soil by actinobacteria. Int Biodeter Biodegrad 88:48–55
Pomponi M, Censi V, Di Girolamo V, De Paolis A, di Toppi LS, Aromolo R, Cardarelli M (2006)
Overexpression of Arabidopsis phytochelatin synthase in tobacco plants enhances Cd2+ toler-
ance and accumulation but not translocation to the shoot. Planta 223(2):180–190
Prakash S, Selvaraju M, Ravikumar K, Punnagaiarasi A (2017) The role of decomposer animals in
bioremediation of soils. In: Bioremediation and sustainable technologies for cleaner environ-
ment, Springer, pp 57–64
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(4):961–970
Rahman MM, Azirun SM, Boyce AN (2013) Enhanced accumulation of copper and lead in ama-
ranth (Amaranthus paniculatus), Indian mustard (Brassica juncea) and sunflower (Helianthus
annuus). PloS One 8(5):62941
Rahman M, Haq N, Williams I (2016) Phytoaccumulation of arsenic, cadmium and lead by
Brassica juncea parents and their F1 hybrids. J Environ Prot 7:613–622
Rai PK (2010) Microcosm investigation on phytoremediation of Cr using Azolla pinnata. Int
Rajkumar M, Ae N, Prasad MNV, Freitas H (2010) Potential of siderophore-producing bacteria for
improving heavy metal phytoextraction. Trends Biotechnol 28:142–149
Rashid A, Mahmood T, Mehmood F, Khalid A, Saba B, Batool A, Riaz A (2014)
Phytoaccumulation, competitive adsorption and evaluation of chelators-metal interaction in
lettuce plant. Environ Eng Manag J 13(10):2583–2592
Reisinger S, Schiavon M, Terry N, Pilon-Smits EAH (2008) Heavy metal tolerance and accumula-
tion in Indian mustard (Brassica juncea L.) expressing bacterial γ–glutamylcysteine synthetase
or glutathione synthetase. Int J Phytoremed 10:1–15
Rincon J, Gonzalez F, Ballester A, Blazquez ML, Munoz JA (2005) Biosorption of heavy metals by
chemically-activated alga Fucus vesiculosus. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 80(12):1403–1407
Robinson BH, Chiarucci A, Brooks RR, Petit D, Kirkman JH, Gregg PEH, De Dominicis V, (1997)
The nickel hyperaccumulator plant Alyssum bertolonii as a potential agent for phytoremedia-
tion and phytomining of nickel. J Geochem Explor 59:75–86
Robinson NJ, Procter CM, Connolly EL, Guerinot ML (1999) A ferric chelate reductase for uptake
from soils. Nature 397:694–697
Rodríguez-Llorente ID, Pérez-Palacios P, Doukkali B, Caviedes MA, Pajuelo E (2010) Expression
of the seed-specific metallothionein mt4a in plant vegetative tissues increases Cu and Zn toler-
ance. Plant Sci 178(3):327–332
Romera E, Gonzalez F, Ballester A, Blazquez ML, Munoz JA (2007) Comparative study of bio-
sorption of heavy metals using different types of algae. Bioresour Technol 98(17):3344–3353
Rosser SJ, French CE, Bruce NC (2001) Special symposium: phytoremediation: engineering
plants for the phytodetoxification of explosives. In vitro Cell Dev Biol-Plant 37:330–333
Rylott EL, Jackson RG, Edwards J, Womack GL, Seth-Smith HMB, Rathbone DA (2006) An
explosive-degrading cytochrome P450 activity and its targeted application for phytoremedia-
tion of RDX. Nat Biotechnol 24:216–219
Saha P, Shinde O, Sarkar S (2017) Phytoremediation of industrial mines wastewater using water
hyacinth. Int J Phytoremed 19:87–96
Sakthivel V, Vivekanandan M (2009) Reclamation of tannery polluted soil through phytoremedia-
tion. Physiol Mol Biol Plants 15(2):175–180
Salt DE, Blaylock M, Kumar NPBA, Dushenkov V, Ensley BD, Chet I, Raskin I (1995)
Phytoremediation: a novel strategy for the removal of toxic metals from the environment using
plants. Biotechnol 13:468–475
References 191
Sampanpanish P, Tippayasak K, Chairat-utai P (2010) Chromium accumulation by phytoremedia-

tion with monocot weed plant species and a hydroponic sand culture system. J Environ Res
Dev 4(3):654–667
Samuelsen AI, Martin RC, Mok DWS, Machteld CM (1998) Expression of the yeast FRE genes in
transgenic tobacco. Plant Physiol 118:51–58
Santos-Díaz MDS, Barrón-Cruz MDC (2011) Removing heavy metals by in vitro cultures. In:
Loyola-Vargas VM, Ochoa-Alejo N (eds) Plant cell culture protocols, Methods in molecular
biology, vol 877. Springer, New Delhi
Sari A, Tuzen M (2008) Biosorption of Pb(II) and Cd(II) from aqueous solution using green alga
(Ulva lactuca) biomass. J Hazard Mater 152(1):302–308
Sarkar D, Datta R, Hannigan R (2007) Concepts and applications in environmental geochemistry,
vol 5. Elsevier Science
Sasmaz A, Obek E (2012) The accumulation of silver and gold in Lemna gibba L. exposed to
secondary effluents. Chem Erde-Geochem 72(2):149–152
Sebastiani L, Scebba F, Tognetti R (2004) Heavy metal accumulation and growth responses in pop-
lar clones Eridano (Populus deltoids × maximowiczii) and I-214 (P× euramericana) exposed to
industrial waste. Environ Exp Bot 52(1):79–88
Sekhar K, Priyanka B, Reddy VD, Rao KV (2011) Metallothionein 1 (CcMT1) of pigeonpea
(Cajanus cajan L.) confers enhanced tolerance to copper and cadmium in Escherichia coli and
Arabidopsis thaliana. Environ Exp Bot 72(2):131–139
Sethunathan N, Megharaj M, Chen ZL, Williams BD, Lewis G, Naidu R (2004) Algal degrada-
tion of a known endocrine disrupting insecticide, α-endosulfan, and its metabolite, endosulfan
sulfate, in liquid medium and soil. J Agric Food Chem 52:3030–3035
Shang TQ, Gordon MP (2003) Transformation of (14C) trichloroethylene by poplar suspension
cells. Chemosphere 47:957–962
Sharma SS, Dietz KJ (2006) The significance of amino acids and amino acid-derived molecules in
plant responses and adaptation to heavy metal stress. J Exp Bot 57(4):711–726
Sheoran V, Sheoran AS, Poonia P (2013) Phytomining of gold: a review. J Geochem Explor
128:42–50
Sherburne LA, Joshua DS, Pedro JJA (2005) Hexahydro-1, 3, 5-trinitro-1, 3, 5-triazine (RDX)
degradation by Acetobacterium paludosum. Biodegrad 16:539–547
Shim D, Kim S, Choi YI, Song WY, Park J, Youk ES, Lee Y (2013) Transgenic poplar trees express-
ing yeast cadmium factor 1 exhibit the characteristics necessary for the phytoremediation of
mine tailing soil. Chemosphere 90(4):1478–1486
Shukla OP, Dubey S, Rai UN (2007) Preferential accumulation of cadmium and chromium, tox-
icity in Bacopa monnieri L. under mixed metal treatments. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol
78:252–257
Siemianowski O, Barabasz A, Kendziorek M, Ruszczynska A, Bulska E, Williams LE (2014)
HMA4 expression in tobacco reduces Cd accumulation due to the induction of the apoplastic
barrier. J Exp Bot 65:1125–1139
Siminszky B, Corbin FT, Ward ER, Fleischmann TJ, Dewey RE (1999) Expression of a soybean
cytochrome P450 monooxygenase cDNA in yeast and tobacco enhances the metabolism of
phenylurea herbicides. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96(4):1750–17555
Singh A, Prasad SM (2015) Remediation of heavy metal contaminated ecosystem: an overview on
technology advancement. Int J Environ Sci Technol 12(1):353–366
Singh BK, Walker A, Morgan JAW, Wright DJ (2004) Biodegradation of chlorpyrifos by
Enterobacter strain B-14 and its use in bioremediation of contaminated soils. Appl Environ
Microbiol 70:4855–4863
Singh S, Melo JS, Eapen S, D'Souza SF (2006) Phenol removal by Brassica juncea hairy roots:
role of inherent peroxidase and H2O2. J Biotechnol 123(1):43–49
Singh A, Kumar D, Gaur JP (2007) Copper(II) and lead(II) sorption from aqueous solution by non-
living Spirogyra neglecta. Bioresour Technol 98(18):3622–3629
Singh A, Kuhad RC, Ward OP (2009) Advances in applied bioremediation. Springer, Berlin
Singh A, Kumar D, Gaur JP (2012) Continuous metal removal from solution and industrial efflu-
ents using Spirogyra biomass-packed column reactor. Water Res 46(3):779–788
Singh R, Manickam N, Mudiam MKR, Murthy RC, Misra V (2013) An integrated (nano-bio) tech-
nique for degradation of -HCH contaminated soil. J Hazard Mater 35:258–259
Singh S, Parihar P, Singh R, Singh VP, Prasad SM (2015) Heavy metal tolerance in plants: role of
transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics, and ionomics. Front Plant Sci 6:1143
Sinha RK, Valani D, Sinha S, Singh S, Heart S (2009) Bioremediation of contaminated sites, a low-
cost nature’s biotechnology for environmental cleanup by versatile microbes, plants &earth-
worms. In: Solid waste management and environmental remediation. Nova Science Publishers.
Isbn: 978-1-60741-761-763
Soleimani M, Hajabbasi MA (2009) Bioaccumulation of nickel and lead by Bermuda grass
(Cynodon dactylon) and tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea) from two contaminated soils. Cas
Jo Environ Sci 7(2):59–70
Song WY, Sohn EJ, Martinoia E, Lee YJ, Yang YY, Jasinski M, Forestier C, Hwang I, Lee Y
(2003) Engineering tolerance and accumulation of lead and cadmium in transgenic plants. Nat
Sonoki T, Kajita S, Ikeda S, Uesugi M, Tatsumi K, Katayama Y (2005) Transgenic tobacco express-
ing fungal laccase promotes the detoxification of environmental pollutants. Appl Microbiol
Sreenivasulu C, Megharaj M, Venkateswarlu K, Naidu R (2012) Degradation of p-nitrophenol by
immobilized cells of Bacillus spp. isolated from soil. Int Biodeter Biodegrad 68:24–27
Srinivasa Rao P, Kalyani S, Suresh Reddy KVN, Krishnaiah A (2005) Comparison of biosorption
of nickel (II) and copper (II) ions from aqueous solution by sphaeroplea algae and acid treated
sphaeroplea algae. Sep Sci Technol 40(15):3149–3165
Stearns JC, Shah S, Greenberg BM, Dixon DG, Glick BR (2005) Tolerance of transgenic canola
expressing 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid deaminase to growth inhibition by nickel.
Plant Physiol Biochem 43:701–708
Sun GD, Jin JH, Xu Y, Zhong ZP, Liu Y, Liu ZP (2014) Isolation of a high molecular weight poly-
cyclic aromatic hydrocarbon-degrading strain and its enhancing the removal of HMW-PAHs
from heavily contaminated soil. Int Biodeter Biodegrad 90:23–28
Sundaramoorthy P, Chidambaram A, Ganesh KS, Unnikannan P, Baskaran L (2010) Chromium
stress in paddy, (i) nutrient status of paddy under chromium stress; (ii) phytoremediation of
chromium by aquatic and terrestrial weeds. CR Biol 333(8):597–607
Sundberg SE, Ellington JJ, Evans JJ, Keys DA, Fisher JW (2002) Accumulation of perchlorate in
tobacco plants: development of a plant kinetic model. J Environ Monit 5(3):505–512
Sung K, Munster CL, Rhykerd R, Drew MC, Corapcioglu MY (2003) The use of vegetation to
remediate soil freshly contaminated by recalcitrant contaminants. Water Res 37:2408–2418
Suresh B, Ravishankar GA (2004) Phytoremediation-a novel and promising approach for environ-
mental cleanup. Crit Rev Biotechnol 24:97–124
Suresh B, Sherkhane PD, Kale S, Eapen S, Ravishankar GA (2005) Uptake and degradation
of DDT by hairy root cultures of Cichorium intybus and Brassica juncea. Chemosphere
1(9):1288–1292
Takahashi M, Nakanishi H, Kawasaki S, Nishiawa NK, Mori S (2001) Enhanced tolerance of rice
to low iron availability in alkaline soils using barley nicotinamine aminotransferase genes. Nat
Tang CS, Sun WH, Toma M, Robert FM, Jones RK (2004) Evaluation of agriculture-based phytore-
mediation in Pacific island ecosystems using trisector planters. Int J Phytoremed 6(1):17–33
Tang X, He LY, Tao XQ, Dang Z, Guo CL, Lu GN, Yi XY (2010) Construction of an artifi-
cial microalgal- bacterial consortium that efficiently degrades crude oil. J Hazard Mater
181:1158–1162
Thijs S, Sillen W, Rineau F, Weyens N, Vangronsveld J (2016) Towards an enhanced understanding
of plant–microbiome interactions to improve phytoremediation: engineering the metaorgan-
ism. Front Microbiol 7:341
References 193
Thomas JC, Davies EC, Malick FK, Endreszi C, Williams CR, Abbas M (2003) Yeast metallothio-
nein in transgenic tobacco promotes copper uptake from contaminated soils. Biotechnol Prog
19:273–280
Tumi AF, Mihailović N, Gajić BA, Niketić M, Tomović G (2012) Comparative study of hyperac-
cumulation of nickel by Alyssum murale sl populations from the ultramafics of Serbia. Pol
J Environ Stud 21(6):1855–1866
Turchi A, Tamantini I, Camussi AM, Racchi ML (2012) Expression of a metallothionein A1 gene
of Pisum sativum in white poplar enhances tolerance and accumulation of zinc and copper.
Plant Sci 183:50–56
Turgut C, Pepe MK, Cutright TJ (2004) The effect of EDTA and citric acid on phytoremediation of
Cd, Cr, and Ni from soil using Helianthus annuus. Environ Pollut 131:147–154
Tuzen M, Sari A (2010) Biosorption of selenium from aqueous solution by green algae
(Cladophora hutchinsiae) biomass: equilibrium, thermodynamic and kinetic studies. Chem
Eng J 158(2):200–206
Tuzen M, Sari A, Mendil D, Uluozlu OD, Soylak M, Dogan M (2009) Characterization of biosorp-
tion process of As(III) on green algae Ulothrix cylindricum. J Hazard Mater 165(1–3):566–572
Tüzün I, Bayramoglu G, Yalçın E, Basaran G, Çelik G, Arıca MY (2005) Equilibrium and kinetic
studies on biosorption of Hg (II), Cd (II) and Pb (II) ions onto microalgae Chlamydomonas
reinhardtii. J Environ Manag 77(2):85–92
Uchida E, Ouchi T, Suzuki Y, Yoshida T, Habe H, Yamaguchi I (2005) Secretion of bacterial xeno-
biotic degrading enzymes from transgenic plants by an apoplastic expressional system: an
applicability for phytoremediation. Environ Sci Technol 39:7671–7677
Ueno R, Wada S, Urano N (2008) Repeated batch cultivation of the hydrocarbon degrading, micro-
algal strain Prototheca zopfii RND16 immobilized in polyurethane foam. Can J Microbiol
54:66–70
United States Environmental Protection Agency, USEPA (2000) Electrokinetic and phytoreme-
diation in situ treatment of metal-contaminated soil: state-of-the-practice. Draft for Final
Review. EPA/542/R-00/XXX. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response Technology Innovation Office, Washington, DC
Unnikannan P, Baskaran L, Chidambaram ALA, Sundaramoorthy P (2013) Chromium phytotoxic-
ity in tree species and its role on phytoremediation. Insight Bot 3:1):15–1):25
Uroz S, Calvaruso C, Turpault MP, Frey Klett P (2009) Mineral weathering by bacteria: ecology,
actors and mechanisms. Trends Microbiol 17:378–387
Van Aken B, Yoon JM, Schnoor JL (2004) Biodegradation of nitro-substituted explosives
2,4,6-trinitrotoluene, hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine and octahydro-1,3,5,7-tetranitro-
1,3,5-tetrazocine by photosymbiotic Methylbacterium sp. associated with poplar tissues
(Populus deltoids×nigra DN-34). Appl Environ Microbiol 70:508–517
Van der Zaal BJ, Neuteboom LW, Pinas JE, Chardonnen AN, Schat H, Verkleij JAC (1999)
Overexpression of a novel Arabidopsis gene related to putative zinc transporter genes from
animals can lead to enhanced zinc resistance and accumulation. Plant Physiol 119:1047–1055
Van Dillewijn P, Couselo JL, Corredoira E, Delgado E, Wittich RM, Ballester A (2008)
Bioremediation of 2, 4, 6-trinitrotoluene by bacterial nitroreductase expressing transgenic
aspen. Environ Sci Technol 42:7405–7410
Van Huysen T, Terry N, Pilon-Smits EA (2004) Exploring the selenium phytoremediation potential
of transgenic Indian mustard overexpressing ATP sulfurylase or cystathione gamma synthase.
Int J Phytoremed 6:111–118
Vandecasteele B, Meers E, Vervaeke P, De Vos B, Quataert P, Tack FM (2005) Growth and trace
metal accumulation of two Salix clones on sediment-derived soils with increasing contamina-
tion levels. Chemosphere 58(8):995–1002
Vara Prasad MN, de Oliveira Freitas HM (2003) Metal hyperaccumulation in plants: biodiversity
prospecting for phytoremediation technology. Electron J Biotechnol 6(3):285–321
Vaseem H, Banerjee TK (2012) Phytoremediation of the toxic effluent generated during recovery
of precious metals from polymetallic sea nodules. Int J Phytoremed 14:457–466
Verma S, Verma PK, Pande V, Tripathi RD, Chakrabarty D (2016) Transgenic Arabidopsis thali-
ana expressing fungal arsenic methyltransferase gene (WaarsM) showed enhanced arsenic tol-
erance via volatilization. Environ Exper Bot 132:113–120
Vernouillet G, Eullaffroy P, Lajeunesse A, Blaise C, Gagne F, Juneau P (2010) Toxic effects and
bioaccumulation of carbamazepine evaluated by biomarkers measured in organisms of differ-
ent trophic levels. Chemosphere 80:1062–1068
Viktorova J, Novakova M, Trbolova L, Vrchotova B, Lovecka P, Mackova M (2014) Characterization
of transgenic tobacco plants containing bacterial bphc gene and study of their phytoremedia-
tion ability. Int J Phytoremed 16:937–946
Vogel M, Gunther A, Rossberg A, Li B, Bernhard G, Raff J (2010) Biosorption of U(VI) by the
green algae Chlorella vulgaris in dependence of pH value and cell activity. Sci Total Environ
409(2):384–395
Wand H, Kuschk P, Soltmann U, Stottmeister U (2002) Enhanced removal of xenobiotics by helo-
phytes. Biotechnol Acta 22:175–181
Wang L, Samac DA, Shapir A, Wackett LP, Vance CP, Olszewski NE (2005) Biodegradation of
atrazine in transgenic plants expressing a modified bacterial atrazine chlorohydrolase (atzA)
gene. Plant Biotech J 3:475–4786
Wang D, Li H, Hu F, Wang X (2007) Role of earthworm-straw interactions on phytoremediation of
Cu contaminated soil by ryegrass. Acta Ecologica Sinica 27(4):1292–1298
Wang Q, Xie S, Hu R (2013) Bioaugmentation with Arthrobacter sp. strain DAT1 for remediation
of heavily atrazine-contaminated soil. Int Biodeter Biodegrad 77:63–67
Wang Y, Ren H, Pan H, Liu J, Zhang L (2015) Enhanced tolerance and remediation to mixed con-
taminates of PCBs and 2,4-DCP by transgenic alfalfa plants expressing the 2,3-dihydroxybiph
enyl-1,2-dioxygenase. J Hazard Mater 286:269–275
Wangeline AL, Burkhead JL, Hale KL, Lindblom SD, Terry N, Pilon M, Pilon-Smits EAH (2004)
Overexpression of ATP sulfurylase in indian mustard. J Environ Qual 33(1):54–60
Warshawsky D, Cody T, Radike M, Reilman R, Schumann B, LaDow K, Schneider J (1995)
Biotransformation of benzopyrene and other polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and heterocy-
clic analogs by several green algae and other algal species under gold and white light. Chem
Biol Interact 97:131–148
Wenzel WW (2009) Rhizosphere processes and management in plant-assisted bioremediation
(phytoremediation) of soils. Plant Soil 321:385–408
White PM, Wolf DC, Thoma GJ, Reynolds CM (2006) Phytoremediation of alkylated polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons in a crude oil-contaminated soil. Water Air Soil Pollut 169:207–220
Wiessner A, Kappelmeyer U, Kaestner M, Schultze-Nobre L, Kuschk P (2013) Response of
ammonium removal to growth and transpiration of juncus effusus during the treatment of arti-
ficial sewage in laboratory-scale wetlands. Water Res 47(13):4265–4273
Wilson-Corral V, Anderson CWN, Rodriguez-Lopez M (2012) Gold phytomining. A review of
the relevance of this technology to mineral extraction in the 21st century. J Environ Manag
111:249–257
Wong JPK, Wong YS, Tam NFY (2000) Nickel biosorption by two chlorella species, C. Vulgaris (a
commercial species) and C. Miniata (a local isolate). Bioresour Technol 73(2):133–137
Xiao S, Gao W, Chen QF, Ramalingam S, Chye ML (2008) Overexpression of membrane-
associated acyl-CoA-binding protein ACBP1 enhances lead tolerance in Arabidopsis. Plant
J 54(1):141–151
Xu Y, Zhou NY (2017) Microbial remediation of aromatics-contaminated soil. Front Env Sci Eng
11:1
Xu C, Zang X, Hang X, Liu X, Yang H, Liu X, Jiang J (2017) Degradation of three monochloroben-
zoate isomers by different bacteria isolated from a contaminated soil. Int Biodeter Biodegrad
120:192–202
Yadav BK, Siebel MA, Van Bruggen JJ (2011) Rhizofiltration of a heavy metal (lead) containing
wastewater using the wetland plant Carex pendula. Clean: Soil, Air, Water 39(5):467–474
References 195
Yang CW, Chen WZ, Chang BV (2017) Biodegradation of tetrabromobisphenol-A in sludge with
spent mushroom compost. Int Biodeter Biodegrad 119:387–395
Yaqub A, Mughal M, Adnan A, Khan W, Anjum K (2012) Biosorption of hexavalent chromium by
Spirogyra spp.: equilibrium, kinetics and thermodynamics. J Anim Plant Sci 22(2):408–415
Yoon JM, Oh BT, Just CL, Schnoor JL (2002) Uptake and leaching of octahydro-1,3,5,7-tetranitro-
1,3,5,7-tetrazocine by hybrid poplar trees. Environ Sci Technol 36:4649–4655
Yoon JM, Oliver DJ, Shanks JV (2006) Phytoremediation of 2,4-dinitrotoluene in Arabidopsis
thaliana: toxicity, fate and gene expression studies in vitro. Biotechnol Prog 22:1524–1531
Yuan Y, Yu S, Bañuelos GS, He Y (2016) Accumulation of Cr, Cd, Pb, Cu, and Zn by plants in tan-
ning sludge storage sites: opportunities for contamination bioindication and phytoremediation.
Environ Sci Pollut Res 23:22477–22487
Zeroual Y, Moutaouakkil A, Zohra Dzairi F, Talbi M, Ung Chung P, Lee K, Blaghen M (2003)
Biosorption of mercury from aqueous solution by Ulva lactuca biomass. Bioresour Technol
90(3):349–351
Zhang C, Hughes JB (2003) Biodegradation pathways of hexahydro-1, 3, 5-trinitro-1, 3, 5-triazine
(RDX) by Clostridium acetobutylicum cell-free extract. Chemosphere 50(5):665–671
Zhang Y, Liu J (2011) Transgenic alfalfa plants co-expressing glutathione S-transferase (GST) and
human CYP2E1 show enhanced resistance to mixed contaminates of heavy metals and organic
pollutants. J Hazard Mater 189(1):357–362
Zhang Y, Zhao L, Wang Y, Yang B, Chen S (2008) Enhancement of heavy metal accumulation
by tissue specific co-expression of iaaM and ACC deaminase genes in plants. Chemosphere
72:564–571
Zhang S, Qiu CB, Zhou Y, Jin ZP, Yang H (2011) Bioaccumulation and degradation of pesti-
cide fluroxypyr are associated with toxic tolerance in green alga Chlamydomonas reinhardtii.
Ecotoxicol 20:337–347
Zhang Y, Liu J, Zhou Y, Gong T, Wang J, Ge Y (2013) Enhanced phytoremediation of mixed heavy
metal (mercury)-organic pollutants (trichloroethylene) with transgenic alfalfa co-expressing
glutathione S-transferase and human P450 2E1. J Hazard Mater 260:1100–1107
Zhou H, Wang H, Huang Y, Fang T (2016) Characterization of pyrene degradation by halophilic
Thalassospira sp. strain TSL5-1 isolated from the coastal soil of Yellow Sea, China. Int
Zhu Y, Pilon-Smits EAH, Jouanin L, Terry N (1999a) Overexpression of glutathione synthetase
in Brassica juncea enhances cadmium tolerance and accumulation. Plant Physiol 119:73–79
Zhu Y, Pilon-Smits EA, Tarun AS, Weber SU, Jouanin L, Terry N (1999b) Cadmium tolerance and
accumulation in Indian mustard is enhanced by overexpressing γ-glutamylcysteine synthetase.
Plant Physiol 121:1169–1177
Zohar S, Kviatkovski I, Masaphy S (2013) Increasing tolerance to and degradation of high
p-nitrophenol concentrations by inoculum size manipulations of Arthrobacter 4Hβ isolated
from agricultural soil. Int Biodeter Biodegrad 84:80–85
Chapter 8
Nanobioremediation
Abstract Soil and water contamination through heavy metals, hydrocarbons and
radioactive wastes is of global concern as these factors have cumulative effect on the
environment and human health. Removal of contaminants from polluted soils is one
of the major challenging tasks in the twenty-first century. Nanobioremediation is an
emerging technology for remediation of pollutants with the aid of biosynthetic
nanoparticles. Because of their unique chemical and physical properties, nanopar-
ticles have gained the attention of scientists from different fields of environmental
sciences. Nanobioremediation, an offshoot of nanotechnology, is a promising and
rapidly growing soil remediation technology. The present chapter summarizes the
synthesis of nanoparticles from yeast, fungi, bacteria and plants and their potential
uses for remediation of polluted soils and sludges. Nanobioremidiation can be
deployed where the other conventional remediation treatments do not prove to be
useful because nanoparticles are less toxic to soil flora and enhance the microbial
activity. Although various researches have been conducted on the physical and
chemical properties of nanoparticles still, more information is required about their
interaction, and adsorption with the contaminated soils. Further researches in soil-
bioremediation should focus on the combined use of nanoparticles, genetically
modified microbes and plants to design environment friendly, cost-effective, robust
and sustainable remediation strategies.
Keywords Nanotechnology · Bioremediation · Nanoparticles · Contaminants ·

Green synthesis
8.1 Introduction
The amount of wastes generated in the environment has been increasing day by day
as a result of the rapid advancement in science and technology (Dastjerdi and
Montazer 2010). Nowadays, the sustainability of environment is one of the major
concerns. Among various restoration strategies which have been discussed earlier,
bioremediation most commonly involves the use of microorganisms and plants.
However, these remedies are not feasible under highly toxic conditions. Nanoparticles

198 8 Nanobioremediation
have the promising potential to restore the toxic environments rapidly without
harming the surrounding micro flora.
The particles having size <100 nm are termed as nano or ultrafine particles.
These particles can be manufactured from various materials depending upon their
shape, size and chemical composition (Das and Ansari 2009). Nanoparticles can be
divided into two main group i.e. organic nanoparticles and inorganic nanoparticles.
Organic particles consist of carbon particles and inorganic particles consist of noble
metal particles, magnetic particles and various other semiconductor nanoparticles.
Incidental nanoparticles (coal and diesel combustion), natural nanoparticles (lunar
dust, volcanic eruptions) and engineered nanoparticles (metal-based materials) have
also been identified (Monica and Cremonini 2009). Nanoparticles can be synthe-
sized from different materials and through various conventional methods (Table 8.1).
These days, due to the cost effectiveness and efficiency of nanoparticles, they have
been successfully deployed for remediation of contaminated soil and water sources
(Friedrich et al. 1998; Dimitrov 2006; Dastjerdi and Montazer 2010).
Table 8.1 Synthesis methods for creating nanoparticles (Das and Ansari 2009)
Nanomaterials Methods Examples
Metal Photochemical Pt, Rh, Pd, Ir, Ag, Au, Cu, Co, Ni, Fe & Ni, Cu3Au,
nanoparticles electrochemical Co & Ni, Cd & Te, Cd & Se, ZnS
biochemical
thermochemical
Polymer NMs Electrochemical Nanowire of polypyrrole, polyaniline, poly(3,4-
polymerization ethylenedioxythiophane) dendrimers (PAMAM)
Carbon NMs Arc-discharge Cylindrical nanotube (SWNT, MWNT) fullerenes
Laser ablation
Chemical vapor
deposition
Nanocomposite Innovative methods Nanocomposite of polyethylene oxide and
polyethyleneimine; CNT epoxy composites include
hydrocarbon polymer composites, conjugated
polymer composites, CNTs with polycarbonates,
fluoropolymers, polyethylene glycol, polyester
polyamides, and so forth
Metal oxide Hydrothermal ZnO, Fe2O3, Fe3O4, MgO, BaCO3, BaSO4, TiO2
nanoparticles Solvothermal
Sol–gel
Reverse micelles
method
Electrochemical
deposition
Bionanomaterials Biological Viruses, plasmids, and protein nanoparticles
8.2 Properties of Nanoparticles 199
8.2 Properties of Nanoparticles
Physical properties of nanoparticles depend upon various parameters which include

size, shape, state of size distribution, structure, surface area and solubility. Among
these shape and size are the two most important factors which defines the nanopar-
ticles. Nanoparticles of different shapes and sizes can be produced such as spherical,
tube form, rod and disk shaped and other forms like urchins, squares, ellipsoids and
worms are also reported. Increase in the surface to volume ratio of nanoparticles
makes their surfaces more available for reactions as the number of molecules pres-
ent at the particle’s surface increases exponentially. Nanoparticles of size less than
20–30 nm are characterized by an excess of energy at the surface and are thermody-
namically unstable because of the interfacial tension that leads to a reduction in the
surface area. The optical properties of nanoparticles also vary according to their size
and shape. The surface area and surface morphology of nanoparticles can be exam-
ined with the use of BET (Brunauer–Emmett–Teller) and SEM (scanning electron
microscope). NTA (nanoparticle tracking analysis) method is widely used for analy-
sis and visualization of nanoparticles present in liquid medium. This technique
allows us to find the size distribution profile of nanoparticles with diameter ranging
from 10–1000 nm in a liquid medium (Filipe et al. 2010). Chemical properties of
nanomaterials include surface chemistry, chemical composition photocatalytic
properties and zeta potential (Rao and Biswas 2009). Zeta potential reflects the elec-
tric potential of nano-particles. The nano-particles having zeta potential more than
(+/−) 30 mV are stable in suspension because the surface charge inhibits the aggre-
gation of nanoparticles in this form. Quantum dots consist of different types of
metal complexes like magnetic transition metals or semiconductors with diameter of
size less than 10 nm. The activity of quantum dots can be enhanced by the coating
of their surfaces with some biocompatible material or some suitable functional
groups. Nanoparticles also have distinct mechanical properties which can be deter-
mined through various parameters such as hardness, adhesion, elastic modulus, fric-
tion, stress and strain. Atomic force microscopy (AFM) is a tool which is used to
measure the friction and adhesion between solid surface and nanoparticles.
Furthermore, coagulation, surface coating and lubrication also aid to mechanical
properties of nanoparticles (Guo et al. 2014). Metal nanoparticles also possess
higher thermal conductivities as compared to other solids or fluids. For example
thermal conductivity of copper nanoparticles is 700 times and 3000 times higher
than that of water and engine oil respectively. Nanofluids are prepared by mixing of
nanoparticles with liquids such as ethylene glycol, oils or water. These fluids exhibit
excellent thermal properties as compared to other fluids due to their large surface
area. It has also been found that nanofluids prepared from CuO or Al2O3 in ethylene
or water exhibit very high thermal conductivity (Cao 2002). Nanoparticles also pos-
sess optical properties as they are small enough to confine their electrons and pro-
duce quantum effects (Hewakuruppu et al. 2013). For example, gold nanoparticles
appear deep-red to black in solution because of quantum effect. Gold nanoparticles
of size 2.5 nm melt at much lower temperatures (~300 °C) than the gold slabs
Fig. 8.1 Types of nanoparticles (a) Iron oxide nanoparticles, (b) Zero valent iron nanoparticles,
(c) Fe/Pd nanoparticles (d) Nano-clay polymer, (e) Carbon nanotubes, (f) Silica-PAMAM
Dendrimer nanoparticles, (g) Iron-oxide magnetic nanoparticles, (h) Nanosponge for pollutants
removal
(1064 °C). Nanoparticles absorb the solar radiations to a great extent as compared
to other materials due to their large surface area. An application of metal nanopar-
ticles in the area of optics is termed as ‘Plasmonics’. There are various advantages
of nanomaterial over the micro particles as they have very large surface area/unit
mass. Large amount of contaminated material comes into their contact which
enhances its activity. Due to the quantum effect exhibited by nanoparticles, less
activation energy is required to make reactions feasible. Another property which is
exhibited by nanoparticles is surface plasmon resonance which can be used for the
detection of heavy metals. Various metallic and nonmetallic sources can be used to
manufacture different types of nanomaterials of different shapes and sizes (Fig. 8.1).
Nanoparticles can easily penetrate into polluted area where other microparticles
cannot reach. Furthermore, nanoparticles can be applied for both in situ and ex situ
remediation treatments. They can be easily used in slurry reactor as well as can be
used with a solid matrix (Friedrich et al. 1998; Dimitrov 2006; Dastjerdi and
Montazer 2010).
8.3 Types of Nanoparticles
8.3.1 TiO2 (Titanium Dioxide) Based Nanoparticles
TiO2 is commonly used material in electronics, semiconductors, energy convertors,

and photocatalytic and gas sensors. Because of its availability and low toxicity, TiO2
particles are used as a photocatalyst for the treatment of polluted water. ‘Reverse
micelle’ technique has been successfully used to produce TiO2 nanoparticles so as
8.3 Types of Nanoparticles 201
to adsorb various dyes from liquid media (Stathatos et al. 1999). Nbutoxymethyl-
2-chloro-2, 6-diethylacetanilide, an organic contaminant found in agricultural soil
can be efficiently removed from soil with the use of immobilized TiO2 nanoparticles
(Mahmoodi et al. 2007). Pollutants which have been successfully removed by TiO2
based nanoparticles are enlisted in Table 8.2.
8.3.2 Iron Based Nanoparticles
Nanoscale iron particles represent latest and highly efficient environmental reme-
diation technologies which can prove as cost-effective solutions to some most chal-
lenging environmental cleanup problems. Nanoscale iron particles have large
surface areas and high surface reactivity. Stabilized ZVI nanoparticles have been
examined for their potential to immobilize or remove various pollutants (organic
and inorganic) from contaminated soil and water. Various reports are available on
use of zero-valent iron (ZVI or Fe0) for extraction of pollutants from solid or liquid
media. In case of chlorinated contaminants, ZVI removed them by reductive dechlo-
rination reaction. Iron nanoparticle having size 10–30 nm have been used for the
extraction of Pb and Cr from aqueous solution (Ponder et al. 2000). In a study, As
(V) and As (III) have been strongly absorbed by nZVI from contaminated soil, with
the addition of Iron (hydr) oxides in nZVI (Kanel et al. 2005). Zhang et al. (2010)
compared the effectiveness of FeS, starch-stabilized ZVI and magnetite nanoparti-
cles for immobilization or removal of As from two Ascontaminated soils. It has
been found that all the nanoparticles effectively reduce the concentration of As in
polluted soils. It has also been reported that CMC-stabilized Fe-Pd nanoparticles
double the degradation rate of TCE from polluted soil as compare to starch-stabilized
nZVI. The enhanced degradation rate of CMC-stabilized ZVI is due to the high
specific reactivity and ability to stabilize the nanoparticles (He et al. 2007).
8.3.3 Bimetallic Nanoparticles
Although ZVI have the potential to degrade various polychlorinated bipehenyls,

chlorinated aromatics and aliphatic compounds besides that there are certain limita-
tions of ZVI technique (Wang and Zhang 1997) such as production of chlorinated
byproducts and decrease the reactivity of iron with respect to time. To overcome
these challenges iron can be used in combination with other metals such as Zn, Ni,
Cu, Pd with a higher catalytic activity than iron. Palladium is the most common
reductive dehalogenation catalyst used with nZVI for remediation purposes. PBDEs
(Polybrominated diphenyl ethers) are now ubiquitous in the environment, with soil
as a major sink, especially in e-waste recycling sites. In a study by Xie et al. 2014,
Ni/Fe bimetallic nanoparticles were used to degrade decabromodiphenyl ether pres-
ent in soil. It has been found that these bimetallic nanoparticles successfully degrade
Table 8.2 Nanoparticle mediated removal of contaminants

Type of nanoparticle Contaminant Reference
Arginine-modified TiO2 Nitrobenzene Makarova et al.
(2000)
Anatase TiO2 Phenol Andersson et al.
(2002)
TiO2 nanoparticle Rhodamine 6G Chen et al. (2003)
TiO2/SrFe12O19 composite Procion Red MX-5B Fu et al. (2006)
Mesoporous Anantase nanocrystal Methyl orange Wang et al. (2004)
Mesoporous TiO2 nanopowder3 Rhodamine B Peng et al. (2005)
Mesoporous titania nanohybrid 4-Chlorophenol, methyl Paek et al. (2006)
orange
Rutile TiO2 nanoparticle Parathion Wang et al. (2006)
TiO2/AC nanoparticle Methyl orange Li et al. (2006)
TiO2 nanoparticle Basic dye Wu et al. (2006)
TiO2 nanoparticle and carbonized Benzene, toluene Chuang et al. (2007)
composite
Zero-valent powder iron Nitrate Choe et al. (2000)
Colloidal zero-valent powder iron Herbicide Molinate Feitz et al. (2005)
Iron sulfide nanoparticle Lindane Paknikar et al. (2005)
Zero-valent powder iron Arsenic(V) Kanel et al. (2006)
ZVI nanoparticle Perchlorate Xiong et al. (2007)
ZVI Humic acid Giasuddin et al.
(2007)
Iron nanoparticle Ni(II) Li and Zhang (2007)
Pd/Fe nanoparticle Trichloroethene Wang and Zhang
(1997)
Lien and Zhang
(2001)
Ni/Fe nanoparticle Trichloroethene Schrick et al. (2002)
Ni/Fe nanoparticle Carbon tetrachloride Feng and Lim (2005)
Cu/Fe nanoparticle Nitrate Liou et al. (2005)
Fe-nanocomposite Azo-dye orange(II) Feng et al. (2003)
Dithiocarbamateanchored nanocomposite Pb(II), Cd(II), Cr(III) Say et al. (2006)
CNTs Pb(II) Li et al. (2002)
Li et al. (2005)
CNTs KMnO4 oxidized Cd(II) Li et al. (2003a, b, c)
Single-walled carbon nanotubes Zn(II) Lu and Chiu (2006)
Multi-walled carbon nanotubes
Al2O3/CNTs Fluoride Li et al. (2001)
Aligned carbon nanotubes Fluoride Li et al. (2003a, b, c)
CNTs (graphitized) 1,2-Dichlorobenzene Peng et al. (2003)
CNTs Trihalomethanes (CHCl3) Lu et al. (2005)
Poly(amidoamine)dendrimer Cu(II) Diallo et al. (1999)
Octylurea DAB-32 Pyrene Arkas et al. (2003)
(continued)
8.3 Types of Nanoparticles 203

Type of nanoparticle Contaminant Reference
Mag-Im18 Cu(II) Takafuji et al. (2004)
Modified jacobsite (MnFe2O4) Cr(VI) Hu et al. (2005a, b)
Maghemite nanoparticle
Magnetic chitosan nanoparticle Co(II) Chang et al. (2006)
Magnetic alginate microcapsules Ni(II) Ngomsik et al.
(2006)
PAA (poly amidoamine) bound iron oxide Methylene blue Mak and Chen
(2004)
Bromelain Chen and Huang
(2004)
the pollutants with 72% removal efficiency at pH 5.6 and a dosage of Ni/Fe 0.03 g/g.
Another report by Schrick et al. 2002 it was reported that degradation potential of
Fe/Pd nanoparticles was nine times more as compared to nZVI for degradation of
TCE.
8.3.4 Nanoclays
Clays are the materials with several layers which can absorb +ve and –ve ions and
undergo various ionic interactions with absorbed ions. Due to their extensive sur-
face area, nano sized dimensions, nanoclays can take up the contaminants from
polluted soil or water. However, lack of permanent porosity is a major disadvantage
of nanoclays. Ding et al. 1999 successfully removed TiO2 from liquid media by
dispersing them in layered nanoclays. Various reports are available for the use of
nanoclays for removal of various contaminants. The removal potential of allophane
nanoclay was investigated by Yuan and Wu 2007, and it was reported that allophane
nanoclay successfully reduced the concentration of phosphorus from 14.2 to
4.2 mg/L (70%).
8.3.5 Nanotubes
Nanotubes are the small hollow cylindrical materials which consist of carbon nano-
tubes and fullerenes. Nanotubes have various unique properties including high
strength, electrical and thermal conductivity, high adsorption capability and stiff-
ness (Yang 2003). Nanotubes have pores over their surface on which the molecules
can adsorb and interact with nanotubes. This interaction depends upon the pore size
of nanotubes. Carbon nanotubes (CNTs) are nanomaterials known for its excep-
tional properties, like high surface area and adsorption capacity. Due to these unique
properties, the potential use of CNTs in heavy metal contaminated water or soil has
been studied. Single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs) and multi-walled carbon

nanotubes (MWCNTs) have been successfully used for the extraction of Zn from
aqueous media (Lu and Chiu 2006). Organic contaminants such as trihalomethanes
and 1, 2-dichlorobenzene have been removed with the aid of carbon nanotubes
(Peng et al. 2003; Kondratyuk and Yates 2005; Lu et al. 2005).
8.3.6 Dendrimers and Nanosponges
These are the extremely branched polymers having a particular composition. These
types of structures are specially designed so as to capture the metal ions and inhibit
them to dissolve in other media. Poly amidoamine dendrimers are the dendrimers
which have been used for the extraction of Cu(II) from aqueous media (Diallo et al.
1999). Various dendrimers can be cross-linked with each other in order to capture
the large sized organic contaminants. Poly (amidoamine) dendrimers containing
different functional groups were used for the removal of copper from contaminated
soil. Effects of dendrimer dose, generation number, pH, terminal functional groups,
and ionic strength on the removal efficiency were investigated through a series of
column tests. About 90% of copper was removed from soil under test, with the use
of 66 bed volumes of 0.10% (w/w) of a generation 4.5 dendrimer with carboxylate
terminal groups at pH 6.0 (Xu and Zhao 2005). The dendrimers can be used as a
reusable and high-capacity extracting agents for removal of heavy metals from con-
taminated soils. In a research conducted by Arkas et al. 2006, hybrid filters were
prepared with dendritic and cyclodextrin nanosponges. These filters were then
investigated for their cleaning potential of polluted water and it was reported that
more than 95% of aromatic hydrocarbons were successfully removed from water.
8.3.7 Magnetic Nanoparticles
These are small sized magnetic particle which are further divide into 4 types depend-
ing upon their interaction with magnetic field i.e. paramagnetic, ferromagnetic, fer-
romagnetic, anti-ferromagnetic. In recent years, there has been an increase in the
use of engineered magnetic nanoparticles for remediation and water treatments. The
most popular magnetic nanoparticles are iron-based nanoparticles, Fe3O4, nZVI and
g-Fe2O3. Although, these nanoparticles are iron-based but, their chemical proper-
ties, reactivity and capability for pollutant removal is different from other iron based
nanoparticles. These magnetic nanoparticles have a large removal capacity, fast
kinetics and high reactivity for contaminant removal due to their extremely small
particle size and high surface area to volume ratio. Various reports are available for
the removal of contaminants from aqueous media with the addition of magnetic
nanoparticles. Different types of magnetic nano materials have been used for extrac-
tion of organic (dyes) and inorganic (heavy metals) pollutants.
8.5 Nanobioremediation (NBR) 205
8.4 Green Synthesis of Nanoparticles for Soil Remediation
Various physical and chemical methods have been used for production of nanopar-
ticles, but these processes involved the use of various toxic chemicals which impose
detrimental effects on the environment and living being. In order to develop effec-
tive and ecofriendly process for the production of nanoparticles, various biotic
sources comprise of Plants, Bacteria, Yeast and Fungi (Table 8.3 represents the list
of plants, bacteria, yeast and fungi) have been used. This production of nanoparti-
cles from the biotic sources is termed as green synthesis. Figure 8.2 shows a gener-
alized procedure for the synthesis of nanopartilcles. Nanoparticles from plant
sources are more important than other sources because of their easy handling and
availability. Moreover, in depth research is required in order to elaborate the mecha-
nism of action of nanoparticles as well as their effect on plant gene expression.
Bacteria have been most commonly used for the production of iron nanoparti-
cles. In a study by Bharde et al. 2005 Actinobacter sp. was used to produce spherical
iron nanoparticles under aerobic environment. Another study was conducted to pro-
duce greigite (Fe3S4) and maghemite (γ-Fe2O3) nanoparticles with the same bacte-
rial spp. Thermophilic strain Thermoanaerobacter has also been used for the
production of magnetite nanoparticles. In a study by Machado et al. 2013, green
nZVIs have been synthesized using extracts of vine leaves, grape marc and black tea
and it has been found that these green nanoparticles successfully degrade the ibu-
profen (as a contaminant) in aqueous media. These results indicated that green
Nanobioremediation can be a promising alternative to traditional remediation
technologies.
8.5 Nanobioremediation (NBR)
Among the innovative methods of in situ remediation, the nanotechnology (use of

nanomaterials) and its amalgamation with bioremediation and allied remediation
technologies has been the focus of various researches at laboratory and field levels
in North America and Europe (NANOREM 2013). The demands for innovative
technologies to efficiently accelerate the decontamination of contaminated sites are
increasing. Nanobioremediation is one such promising methodology which has
received great attention recently. Elemental/zero-valent metals such as iron, nickel
and palladium are being used at sites contaminated with various toxic substances to
stabilize transitional (Cr, As) and dehalogenation of persistent organic compounds
(Murugesan et al. 2011; Thome et al. 2015). The success of nanotechnology in the
field of remediation is because of small size (<100 nm) of nanoparticles, large sur-
face area and unique chemical characteristics (Tosco et al. 2014). Recalcitrant
organic compounds such as tetrachloroethylene (TCE) and polyvinyl biphenyls
(PCBs) can be effectively degraded through nanoremediation compared to microre-
mediation. Among all, the use of nanoiron (nZVI) is most effective due to its low
Table 8.3 List of various plants, bacteria, yeast and fungi used for the synthesis of nanoparticles
Nanoparticle Plant Bacteria Yeast and fungi References
Silicon-geranium Stauroneis sp. – – Ali et al. (2011)
Gold and silver Emblica officinalis, Citrus – Verticillium sp. and Shankar et al. (2003a, b, 2004), Ankamwar et al. (2005), Song et al.
sinensis, Coriandrum sativum, Fusarium oxysporum (2008), Narayan and Sakthivel (2008), Song et al. (2009), Kasthuri
Diopyros kaki (persimmon), et al. (2009), Philip (2009), Popescu et al. (2010), and Samim et al.
Hibiscus rosa sinensis, (2011)
Pelargonium graveolens,
Phyllanthium
Silver Nerium indicum, Elettaria Bacillus cereus, B. Yeast strains MKY3, Klaus et al. (1999), Joerger et al. (2000), Klaus et al. (2001), Shankar
cardamomom, Parthenium thuringiensis, B. Coriolus versicolor, et al. (2003a, b), Ahmad et al. (2003), Kowshik et al. (2003), Zhang
hysterophorus, Ficus indica, subtilis, Oscillatory Phaenerochaete et al. (2005), Chandran et al. (2006), Mohanpuria et al. (2008), Li et al.
Azadirachta indica, willei NTDMO1, chrysosporium, (2007), Vigneshwaran et al. (2007a), Vigneshwaran et al. (2007b),
Pelargoneum graveolens, Pseudomonis stuzeri, Cladosporium Basavaraja et al. (2008), Gade et al. (2008), Parashar et al. (2009),
Desmodium triflorum, Ocimum Lactobacillus strains, cladosporioides, Gurunathan et al. (2009), Balaji et al. (2009), Sanghi and Verma
sp., Brassica juncea, Corynebacterium, Aspergillus flavus, (2009), Shekhawat and Arya (2009), Jain et al. (2009), Ingle et al.
Pterocarpus santalinus, Escherichia coli, Fusarium semitectum, (2009), Nithya and Ragunathan (2009), Raut Rajesh et al. (2009),
Pongamia pinnata, Ureibacillus F. oxysporum, Saifuddin et al. (2009), Pugazhenthiran et al.(2009), Ganesh and
Clerodendrum inerme, Rumex thermosphaericus Extremophillic yeast, Gunasekaran (2009), Sintubin et al. (2009), Nanda and Saravanan
hymenosepalus, Euphorbia Staphylococcus aureus Pleurotus sajor-caju, (2009), Tripathy et al. (2010), Binupriya et al. (2009), Thakkar et al.
hirta, Gliricidia sepium, Carica Aspergillus niger, A. (2010), Philip (2010), Thirumurugan et al. (2010), Raut et al. (2010),
papaya (fruit), Aloe vera oryzae, Trichoderma Farooqui et al. (2010), Gade et al. (2010), Sathyavathi et al. (2010),
extract, Coriandrum sativum, viride, Fusarium solani, Mallikarjuna et al. (2011), Priya et al. (2011), Ahmad et al. (2011),
Capsicum annum, Avicennia Mourato et al. (2011), Mubarak et al. (2011), Jain et al. (2010), Juibari
marina, Rhizophora mucronata, et al. (2011), Selvi and Sivakumar (2012), Sunkar and Nachiyar (2012),
Ceriops tagal, Sonchus asper, GnanaJobitha et al. (2012), George et al. (2012), Gnanadesigan et al.
Opuntia, (2012), Jaganathan et al. (2012), Dhas et al. (2013), Ericka et al.
(2013), Kasi et al. (2013), and Verma et al. (2013)
Gold Medicago sativa, Syzygium Alkalothermophilic – Gardea-Torresday et al. (2002), Sastry et al. (2003), Ankamwar et al.
aromaticum L, Chenopodium actinomycete (2005), Smitha et al. (2009), Song et al. (2009), Sintubin et al. (2009),
album L., banana peel, Camellia Thermomonospora sp., Ankamwar (2010), Bankar et al. (2010), Arul Kumar and Sabesan
sinensis L., Magnolia kobus, Pseudomonas (2010), Vankar and Bajpai (2010), Deshpande et al. (2010),
Mentha piperita L., Azadirachta aeruginosa, Thirumurugan et al. (2010), Dwivedi and Gopal (2011), Ali et al.
indica, Justicia gendarussa L., lactobacillus strain (2011), Parida et al. (2011), Boruah et al. (2012), Fazaludeena et al.
Allium cepa L., Macrotyloma (2017), Aromal et al. (2012), and Das et al. (2012)
uniflorum, Mirabilis jalapa L.,
Terminalia catappa,
Cinnamomum zeylanicum,
Dyopiros kaki., Terminalia
catappa L., Amaranthus
spinosus, Mucuna pruriens,
Silver, nickel, Medicago sativa, Brassica – – Bali et al. (2006)
cobalt, zinc and juncea and Helianthus annuus
copper
Platinum Ocimum sanctum L., Diopyros – – Song et al. (2010), and Soundarrajan et al. (2012)
kaki
Palladium Gardenia jasminoides Ellis., Desulfovibrio – Nair and Pradeep (2002), Jia et al. (2009) Sathish et al. (2009), Xin
Cinnamomum zeylanicum desulfuricans NCIMB et al. (2010), and Petla et al. (2012)
Blume., Glycine Max L., 8307
Cinnamomum camphora L.
Lead Vitus vinifera L., Jatropha – – Joglekar et al. (2011), and Pavani et al. (2012)
curcas L.
Magnetic Aloe vera Magnetosirillium – Gericke and Pinches (2006), Mohanpuria et al. (2008), and Phumying
magneticum, Sulphate et al. (2013)
reducing bacteria
CdS – Clostridicum Candida glabrata, Dameron et al. (1989), Sweeney et al. (2004), and Mandal et al. (2006)
thermoaceticum, Schizosaccharomyce
Klebsiella aerogens, pombe
Escherichia coli
(continued)
Gold nanowires – Rhodopseudomonas – He et al. (2008)
capsulate
As-S nanotubes – Shewanella sp – Jiang et al. (2009)
ZnS – Sulphate reducing – Mandal et al. (2006), Labrenz et al. (2000), Rathore et al. (2008),
bacteria Murugadoss et al. (2009), and Sharma et al. (2009)
PbS – – Torilopsis spp., Kowshik et al. (2003), and Seshadri et al. (2011)
Rhodospiridium
dibovatum
CdS quantum dots – – Schizosacharomyces Kowshik et al. (2003)
pombe
Stable silver – – Aspergillus flavus, A. A. Bhainsa and D’souza (2006), and Khalil (2013)
terreus, furnigatus, A.
nidulans
Bioactive – – Usneea longissima Shahi and Patra (2003)
8.5 Nanobioremediation (NBR) 209
Fig. 8.2 Schematic representation of the generalized procedure for the biosynthesis of
nanoparticles
toxicity and cost-effectiveness. There are several research reports available wherein
zero-valent iron and nanosize Feo have been used as reducing agent to remediate
sites contaminated with halogenated compound, polychlorinated biphenyls, herbi-
cides, pesticides, aromatic polycyclic hydrocarbons and metals (Ponder et al. 2000;
Zhang et al. 2005; Devor et al. 2006; Elliott et al. 2009; Sakulchaicharoen et al.
2010). A problem associated with the application of nanoparticles in soil remedia-
tion is the clogging of soil pores (Reddy 2010). Although, with the use of surface
coating [sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), guar gum, lactate etc.], the stabil-
ity and reactivity of the nanoparticles can be prolonged (Wei et al. 2010;
Jiemvarangkul et al. 2011). Another limitation is that nanoparticles have been
reported to have toxic effects on some microorganisms eg. E. coli, Staphylococcus
aureus, Dehalococcoides spp. (Li and Jiang 2009; Gordon and Margel 2011). There
are several reports on the integrated use of nanoparticles and bioremediation. Singh
et al. (2013), succeeded (99% efficiency) in remediation of soil contaminated with
lindane, in 6 days, by the combined action of CMC-Pd/Fe nanoparticles and
Sphingomonas species. Le et al. (2015) reported the degradation of 89% degrada-
tion of Aroclor 1248 (PCB) using nZVI followed by the 90% biodegradation of the
products Burkhalderia xenovorans.
Fig. 8.3 Nanobioremediation of polluted soil using injection method and incorporation of nZVI
on target site
Nowadays stabilized ZVI nanoparticles are most commonly used for the extrac-
tion of organic and inorganic contaminants from polluted soil, sludges and ground-
water (Tratnyek et al. 2011). Figure 8.3 represents the schematic diagram of
incorporation of nZVI particles in the deep soil (through injection well) and over the
soil surface for remediation of contaminated soil. Different types of organic coat-
ings on these nanoparticles pose considerable effect on the reactivity of ZVI such as
(1) organic coating can modify the surface of ZVI and increase the rate of adsorp-
tion of contaminants over the nanoparticle’s surface, (2) these coatings can act as a
catalyst through shuttling electrons, which speed up the redox reactions, and (3)
coatings of different organic polyelectrolytes increases the mobility of hydrophobic
contaminants. Combination of ZVI with metal catalysts (e.g. Pb) has been shown to
be one of the most efficient and promising nanoparticle for effective degradation of
chlorinated contaminants (Urbano and Marinas 2001). Figure 8.4 represents the
mechanism of reductive dechlorination by nZVI of its surface with the aid of Pb as
a catalyst. This Fe-Pb bimetal system enhances the removal efficiency of nanopar-
ticle and do not allow the accumulation of harmful byproducts. The reactions over
the surface of Fe-ZVI include adsorption of H2 over the surface of metal, production
of reactive hydrogen species which further lead to the dechlorination reaction.
8.6 Conclusions 211
Fig. 8.4 Schematic representation of reductive dechlorination mechanism performed by nZVI,

with or without catalyst (Pb)
8.6 Conclusions
Nanotechnology holds a promising potential for environmental protection as well as

soil remediation. These particles degrade the contaminants to a low toxic level and
enhance the rate of biodegradation, thus it is an efficient, sustainable and effective
approach to remediate the polluted sites of different regions. This technology can
provide an efficient and ecofriendly alternative to other remediation method for
extraction of various organic (PAHs) and inorganic (heavy metals) pollutants from
soil. Distinctive physical and chemical properties of nanoparticles have made them
the particles of choice for restoration of the polluted environments. Nanoparticles
obtained from hyper accumulator plants, bacteria, yeast and fungi are of great
importance for remediation of polluted soil. Numbers of researches are now focused
on the green synthesis of nanoparticles i.e. the production of nanoparticles using
biological materials such as plants, bacteria, algae and fungi. Furthermore, research
is required so as to achieve the sustainability of nanoparticles and to understand the
detailed mechanism of their mode of action.
In the coming years, further modification and adaptation should be performed
in the field of nanotechnology that will surely enhance the efficiency of
Nanobioremediation. Likewise, detailed study regarding the effect of nanoparti-
cles on soil flora should be recommended. It is crucial to design a robust protocol
that may have least impact on soil microbes, so as to maintain the soil
biodiversity.
References
Ahmad A, Mukherjee P, Senapati S, Mandal D, Khan MI, Kumar R, Sastry M (2003) Extracellular
biosynthesis of silver nanoparticles using the fungus Fusarium oxysporum. Colloids Surf B:
Biointerfaces 28(4):313–318
Ahmad N, Sharma S, Singh VN, Shamsi SF, Fatma A, Mehta BR (2011) Biosynthesis of sil-
ver nanoparticles from Desmodium triflorum: a novel approach towards weed utilization.
Biotechnol Res Int 1:454090
Ali DM, Thajuddin N, Jeganathan K, Gunasekaran M (2011) Plant extract mediated synthesis of
silver and gold nanoparticles and its antibacterial activity against clinically isolated pathogens.
Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces 85:360–365
Andersson M, Österlund L, Ljungström S, Palmqvist A (2002) Preparation of nanosize anatase and
rutile TiO2 by hydrothermal treatment of microemulsions and their activity for photocatalytic
wet oxidation of phenol. J Phys Chem B 106(41):10674–10679
Ankamwar B (2010) Biosynthesis of gold nanoparticles (green-gold) using leaf extract of
Terminalia catappa. J Chem 7(4):1334–1339
Ankamwar B, Chaudhary M, Sastry M (2005) Gold nanotriangles biologically synthesized using
tamarind leaf extract and potential application in vapor sensing. Synth React Inorg, Met-Org,
Nano-Met Chem 35(1):19–26
Arkas M, Tsiourvas D, Paleos CM (2003) Functional dendrimeric “nanosponges” for the removal
of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from water. Chem Mater 15(14):2844–2847
Arkas M, Allabashi R, Tsiourvas D, Mattausch EM, Perfler R (2006) Organic/inorganic hybrid
filters based on dendritic and cyclodextrin “nanosponges” for the removal of organic pollutants
from water. Environ Sci Technol 40(8):2771–2777
Aromal SA, Vidhu VK, Philip D (2012) Green synthesis of well-dispersed gold nanoparticles
using Macrotyloma uniflorum. Spectro Acta Part A 85(1):99–104
Arulkumar S, Sabesan M (2010) Biosynthesis and characterization of gold nanoparticle using
antiparkinsonian drug Mucuna pruriens plant extract. Int J Res Pharm Sci 4:417–420
Balaji DS, Basavaraja S, Bedre MD, Prabhakar BK, Venkataraman A (2009) Extracellular bio-
synthesis of functionalized silver nanoparticles by strains of Cladosporium cladosporioides
fungus. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces 68(1):88–92
Bali R, Razak N, Lumb A, Harris AT (2006) The synthesis of metal nanoparticles inside live plants.
Nanosci Nanotechnol Int Conf IEEE Xplore 10:340592
Bankar A, Joshi B, Kumar AR, Zinjarde S (2010) Banana peel extract mediated synthesis of gold
nanoparticles. Colloids Surf B: Biointerfaces 80(1):45–50
Basavaraja S, Balaji SD, Lagashetty A, Rajasab AH, Venkataraman A (2008) Extracellular bio-
synthesis of silver nanoparticles using the fungus Fusarium semitectum. Mater Res Bull
43(5):1164–1170
Bhainsa KC, D’Souza SF (2006) Extracellular biosynthesis of silver nanoparticles using the fun-
gus Aspergillus fumigatus. Colloids Surf B: Biointerfaces 47(2):160–164
Bharde A, Wani A, Shouche Y, Joy PA, Prasad BLV, Sastry M (2005) Bacterial aerobic synthesis
of nanocrystalline magnetite. J Am Chem Soc 127:9326–9327
Binupriya AR, Sathishkumar M, Yun SI (2009) Myco-crystallization of silver ions to nanosized
particles by live and dead cell filtrates of Aspergillus oryzae var. viridis and its bactericidal
activity toward Staphylococcus aureus KCCM 12256. Ind Eng Chem Res 49(2):852–858
Boruah SK, Boruah PK, Sarma P, Medhi C, Medhi OK (2012) Green synthesis of gold nanopar-
ticles using Camellia sinensis and kinetics of the reaction. Adv Mater Lett 3:481–486
Cao YC (2002) Nanoparticles with Raman spectroscopic fingerprints for DNA and RNA detection.
Science 80(297):1536–1540
Chandran SP, Chaudhary M, Pasricha R, Ahmad A, Sastry M (2006) Synthesis of gold nanotri-
angles and silver nanoparticles using Aloevera plant extract. Biotechnol Prog 22(2):577–583
Chang YC, Chang SW, Chen DH (2006) Magnetic chitosan nanoparticles: studies on chitosan
binding and adsorption of Co(II) ions. React Funct Polym 66(3):335–341
References 213
Chen DH, Huang SH (2004) Fast separation of bromelain by polyacrylic acid-bound iron oxide
magnetic nanoparticles. Process Biochem 39(12):2207–2211
Chen J, Liu M, Zhang L, Zhang J, Jin L (2003) Application of nano TiO2 towards polluted water
treatment combined with electro-photochemical method. Water Res 37(16):3815–3820
Choe S, Chang YY, Hwang KY, Khim J (2000) Kinetics of reductive denitrification by nanoscale
zero-valent iron. Chemosphere 41(8):1307–1311
Chuang CS, Wang MK, Ko CH, Ou CC, Wu CH (2007) Removal of benzene and toluene by car-
bonized bamboo materials modified with TiO2. Bioresour Technol 99(5):954–958
Dameron CT, Reese RN, Mehra RK, Kortan AR, Carroll PJ, Steigerwald ML, Winge DR
(1989) Biosynthesis of cadmium sulphide quantum semiconductor crystallites. Nature
338(6216):596–597
Das I, Ansari SA (2009) Nanomaterials in science and technology. J Sci Indus Res 68:657–667
Das RK, Gogoi N, Jayasekhar BP, Sharma P, Chandan M, Utpal B (2012) The synthesis of gold
nanoparticles using Amaranthus spinosus leaf extract and study of their optical properties. Adv
Mater Phys Chem 2:275–281
Dastjerdi R, Montazer M (2010) A review on the application of inorganic nano-structured
materials in the modification of textiles: focus on anti-microbial properties. Colloids Surf B
Biointerfaces 79(1):5–18
Deshpande R, Bedre DM, Basavaraja S, Sawle B, Manjunath SY, Venkataraman A (2010) Rapid
biosynthesis of irregular shaped gold nanoparticles from macerated aqueous extracellular dried
clove buds (Syzygium aromaticum) solution. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces 79:235–240
Devor R, Geiger CL, Clausen CA, Quinn J, Milum KM (2006) Emulsified nanoscale iron particles
for environmental remediation of heavy metals. Abstr Pap Am Chem Soc:231
Dhas SP, Mukerjhee A, Chandrasekaran N (2013) Phytosynthesis of silver nanoparticles using
Ceriops tagal and its antimicrobial potential against human pathogens. Int J Pharm Pharm Sci
5(3):349–352
Diallo MS, Balogh L, Shafagati A, Johnson JH Jr, Goddard WA, Tomalia DA (1999) Poly (amido-
amine) dendrimers: a new class of high capacity chelating agents for Cu(II) ions. Environ Sci
Technol 33(5):820–824
Dimitrov DS (2006) Interactions of antibody-conjugated nanoparticles with biological surfaces.
Colloids Surf A 282:8–10
Ding Z, Zhu HY, Lu GQ, Greenfield PF (1999) Photocatalytic properties of titania pillared clays
by different drying methods. J Colloid Interface Sci 209(1):193–199
Dwivedi AD, Gopal K (2011) Plant-mediated biosynthesis of silver and gold nanoparticles.
J Biomed Nanotechnol 7:163–164
Elliott DW, Lien HL, Zhang WX (2009) Degradation of lindane by zero-valent iron nanoparticles.
J Environ Eng 135:317–325
Ericka RL, Palomares RI, Navarro RE, Ronaldo Herrera-Urbina RH, Tánori J, Claudia Iñiguez-
Palomares CI, Maldonado A (2013) Synthesis of silver nanoparticles using reducing agents
obtained from natural sources (Rumex hymenosepalus extracts). Nanoscale Res Lett 8(1):318
Farooqui AMD, Chauhan PS, Moorthy PK, Shaik J (2010) Extraction of silver nanoparticles from
the left extracts of Clerodendrum incerme. Dig J Nanomater Biostruct 5:43–49
Fazaludeena MF, Manickamb C, Ashankyty IM, Ahmed MQ, Bege QZ (2017) Synthesis and char-
acterizations of gold nanoparticles by Justicia gendarussa Burm F leaf extract. J Microbiol
Biotechnol Res 2:23–34
Feitz AJ, Joo SH, Guan J, Sun Q, Sedlak DL, Waite TD (2005) Oxidative transformation of con-
taminants using colloidal zero-valent iron. Colloids Surf A 265(1–3):88–94
Feng J, Lim TT (2005) Pathways and kinetics of carbon tetrachloride and chloroform reductions
by nano-scale Fe and Fe/Ni particles: comparison with commercial micro-scale Fe and Zn.
Feng J, Hu X, Yue PL, Zhu HY, Lu GQ (2003) Degradation of azo-dye orange II by a photoassisted
Fenton reaction using a novel composite of iron oxide and silicate nanoparticles as a catalyst.
Ind Eng Chem Res 42(10):2058–2066
Filipe V, Hawe A, Jiskoot W (2010) Critical evaluation of nanoparticle tracking analysis (NTA)
by nanoSight for the measurement of nanoparticles and protein aggregates. Pharm Res
27(5):796–810
Friedrich KA, Henglein F, Stimming U, Unkauf W (1998) Investigation of Pt particles on
gold substrates by IR spectroscopy particle structure and catalytic activity. Colloid Surf A
134(1–2):193–206
Fu W, Yang H, Chang L, Li M, Bala H, Yu Q, Zou G (2006) Preparation and characteristics of
core–shell structure nickel/silica nanoparticles. Colloids Surf A Physicochem Eng Asp
262(1–3):71–75
Gade AK, Bonde P, Ingle AP, Marcato PD, Duran N, Rai MK (2008) Exploitation of Aspergillus
niger for synthesis of silver nanoparticles. J Biobaased Mater Bioenergy 2(3):243–247
Gade A, Gaikwad S, Tiwari V, Yadav A, Ingle A, Rai M (2010) Biofabrication of silver nanoparti-
cles by Opuntia ficus-indica: in vitro antibacterial activity and study of the mechanism involved
in the synthesis. Curr Nanosci 6(4):370–375
Ganesh BMM, Gunasekaran P (2009) Production and structural characterization of crystalline
silver nanoparticles from Bacillus cereus isolate. Colloids Surf B: Biointerfaces 74(1):191–195
Gardea-Torresdey JL, Parsons JG, Gomez E, Peralta-Videa J, Troiani HE, Santiago P, Yacaman
MJ (2002) Formation and growth of Au nanoparticles inside live alfalfa plants. Nano Lett
2(4):397–401
George VC, Kumar DN, Suresh PK, Kumar RA (2012) A review on the therapeutic potentials of
parthenolide: a sesquiterpene lactone. Int Res J Pharm 3(2):69–73
Gericke M, Pinches A (2006) Biological synthesis of metal nanoparticles. Hydrometallurgy
83(1–4):132–140
Giasuddin AB, Kanel SR, Choi H (2007) Adsorption of humic acid onto nanoscale zerovalent iron
and its effect on arsenic removal. Environ Sci Technol 41(6):2022–2027
Gnanadesigan M, Anand M, Ravikumar S, Maruthupandy M, Ali MS, Vijayakumar V, Kumaraguru
AK (2012) Antibacterial potential of biosynthesised silver nanoparticles using Avicennia
marina mangrove plant. Appl Nanosci 2(2):143–147
Gnanajobitha G, Annadurai G, Kannan C (2012) Green synthesis of silver nanoparticle using
Elettaria cardamomom and assesment of its antimicrobial activity. Int J Pharm Sci Res
3:323–330
Gordon T, Margel S (2011) Synthesis and characterization of zinc/iron oxide composite nanopar-
ticles and their antibacterial properties. Colloids Surf 374:1–8
Guo D, Xie G, Luo J (2014) Mechanical properties of nanoparticles: basics and applications.
J Phys D Appl Phys 47:1–25
Gurunathan S, Kalishwaralal K, Vaidyanathan R, Venkataraman D, Pandian SRK, Muniyandi J,
Eom SH (2009) Biosynthesis, purification and characterization of silver nanoparticles using
Escherichia coli. Colloids Surf B: Biointerfaces 74(1):328–335
He F, Zhao D, Liu J, Roberts CB (2007) Stabilization of Fe-Pd nanoparticles with sodium car-
boxymethyl cellulose for enhanced transport and dechlorination of trichloroethylene in soil and
groundwater. Ind Eng Chem Res 46(1):29–34
He S, Ahang Y, Guo Z, Gu N (2008) Biological synthesis of gold nanowires using extract of
Rhodopseudomonas capsulata. Biotechnol Prog 24(2):476–480
Hewakuruppu YL, Dombrovsky LA, Chen C, Timchenko V, Jiang X, Baek S, Taylor RA
(2013) Plasmonic “pump–probe” method to study semi-transparent nanofluids. Appl Opt
52(24):6041–6050
Hu J, Chen G, Lo IM (2005a) Removal and recovery of Cr (VI) from wastewater by maghemite
nanoparticles. Water Res 39(18):4528–4536
Hu J, Lo IM, Chen G (2005b) Fast removal and recovery of Cr (VI) using surface-modified jacob-
site (MnFe2O4) nanoparticles. Langmuir 21(24):11173–11179
Ingle A, Rai M, Gade A, Bawaskar M (2009) Fusarium solani: a novel biological agent for the
extracellular synthesis of silver nanoparticles. J Nanopart Res 11(8):2079–2085
References 215
Jaganathan U, Inbakandan D, Ajithkumar TT, Balasubramanian T (2012) Mangrove plant,

Rhizophora mucronata (Lamk, 1804) mediated one pot green synthesis of silver nanoparticles
and its antibacterial activity against aquatic pathogens. Aquat Biosyst 8(1):11
Jain D, Daima HK, Kachhwaha S, Kothari SL (2009) Synthesis of plant-mediated silver nanoparti-
cles using papaya fruit extract and evaluation of their anti-microbial activities. Dig J Nanomater
Biostruct 4(3):557–563
Jain D, Kachhwaha S, Jain R, Srivastava G, Kothari SL (2010) Novel microbial route to synthesize
silver nanoparticles using spore crystal mixture of Bacillus thuringiensis. Indian J Exp Biol
48:1152–1156
Jia L, Zhang Q, Li Q, Song H (2009) The biosynthesis of palladium nanoparticles by antioxidants
in Gardenia jasminoides Ellis: long lifetime nanocatalysts for p-nitrotoluene hydrogenation.
Nanotechnology 20(38):385601
Jiang S, Lee JH, Kim MG, Myung NV, Fredrickson JK, Sadowsky MJ, Hur HG (2009) Biogenic
formation of As-S nanotubes by diverse Shewanella strains. Appl Environ Microbiol
75(21):6896–6899
Jiemvarangkul P, Zhang WX, Lien HL (2011) Enhanced transport of polyelectrolyte stabilized
nanoscale zero-valent iron (nZVI) in porous media. Chem Eng J 170:482–491
Joerger R, Klaus T, Granqvist CG (2000) Biologically produced silver–carbon composite materials
for optically functional thin-film coatings. Adv Mater 12(6):407–409
Joglekar S, Kodam K, Dhaygude M, Hudlikar M (2011) Novel route for rapid biosynthe-
sis of lead nanoparticles using aqueous extract of Jatropha curcas L. latex. Mater Lett
65(19–20):3170–3172
Juibari MM, Abbasalizadeh S, Jouzani GS, Noruzi M (2011) Intensified biosynthesis of silver
nanoparticles using a native extremophilic Ureibacillus thermosphaericus strain. Mater Lett
65(6):1014–1017
Kanel SR, Manning B, Charlet L, Choi H (2005) Removal of arsenic(III) from groundwater by
nanoscale zero-valent iron. Environ Sci Technol 39(5):1291–1298
Kanel SR, Greneche JM, Choi H (2006) Arsenic (V) removal from groundwater using nano scale
zero-valent iron as a colloidal reactive barrier material. Environ Sci Technol 40(6):2045–2050
Kasi G, Shanmugam G, Ayyakannu A (2013) Phytosynthesis of silver nanoparticles using
Pterocarpus santalinus leaf extract and their antibacterial properties. J Nanostruct Chem
3(1):68
Kasthuri J, Veerapandian S, Rajendiran N (2009) Biological synthesis of silver and gold nanopar-
ticles using apiin as reducing agent. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces 68(1):55–60
Khalil NM (2013) Biogenic silver nanoparticles by Aspergillus terreus as a powerful nanoweapon
against Aspergillus fumigatus. Afr J Microbiol Res 7(50):5645–5651
Klaus T, Joerger R, Olsson E, Granqvist CG (1999) Silver-based crystalline nanoparticles, micro-
bially fabricated. Proc Nat Acad Sci 96(24):13611–13614
Klaus T, Joerger R, Olsson E, Granqvist CG (2001) Bacteria as workers in the living factory: metal-
accumulating bacteria and their potential for materials science. Trends Biotechnol 19(1):15–20
Kondratyuk P, Yates JT Jr (2005) Desorption kinetic detection of different adsorption sites on
opened carbon single walled nanotubes: the adsorption of n-nonane and CCl4. Chem Phys Lett
410(4–6):324–329
Kowshik M, Ashtaputre S, Kharrazi S, Vogel W, Urban J, Kulkarni SK, Paknikar KM (2003)
Extracellular synthesis of silver nanoparticles by a silver-tolerant yeast strain MKY3.
Nanotechnology 14(1):95–100
Labrenz M, Druschel GK, Thompson-Ebert T, Gilbert B, Welch SA, Kemner KM (2000)
Formation of sphalerite (ZnS) deposits in natural biofilms of sulfatereducing bacteria. Science
290:1745–1747
Le TT, Nguyen KH, Jeon JR, Francis AJ, Chang YS (2015) Nano/bio treatment of polychlorinated
biphenyls with evaluation of comparative toxicity. J Hazard Mater 287:335–341
Li H, Jiang G (2009) Effects of waterborne nano-iron on medaka (Oryzias latipes): antioxidant
enzymatic activity, lipid peroxida tion and histopathology. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 7:2684–2692
Li XQ, Zhang WX (2007) Iron nanoparticles: the core − shell structure and unique properties for
Ni (II) sequestration. Langmuir 22(10):4638–4642
Li YH, Wang S, Cao A, Zhao D, Zhang X, Xu C, Luan Z, Ruan D, Liang J, Wu D, Wei B (2001)
Adsorption of fluoride from water by amorphous alumina supported on carbon nanotubes.
Chem Phys Lett 350:412–416
Li YH, Wang S, Luan Z, Ding J, Xu C, Wu D (2003a) Adsorption of cadmium (II) from aqueous
solution by surface oxidized carbon nanotubes. Carbon 41(5):1057–1062
Li YH, Wang S, Wei J, Zhang X, Xu C, Luan Z, Wu D, Wei B (2003b) Lead adsorption on carbon
nanotubes. Chem Phys Lett 357(3–4):263–266
Li YH, Wang S, Zhang X, Wei J, Xu C, Luan Z, Wu D (2003c) Adsorption of fluoride from water
by aligned carbon nanotubes. Mater Res Bull 38(3):469–476
Li YH, Di Z, Ding J, Wu D, Luan Z, Zhu Y (2005) Adsorption thermodynamic, kinetic and desorp-
tion studies of Pb2+ on carbon nanotubes. Water Res 39(4):605–609
Li Y, Li X, Li J, Yin J (2006) Photocatalytic degradation of methyl orange by TiO2-coated activated
carbon and kinetic study. Water Res 40(6):1119–1126
Li S, Shen Y, Xie A, Yu X, Zhang X, Yang L, Li C (2007) Rapid, room-temperature synthesis of
amorphous selenium/protein composites using Capsicum annuum L extract. Nanotechnology
18(40):405101
Li YH, Wang S, Wei J, Zhang X, Xu C, Luan Z, Wu D, Wei B (2002) Lead adsorption on carbon
nanotubes. Chem Phys Lett 357(3–4):263–266
Lien HL, Zhang WX (2001) Nanoscale iron particles for complete reduction of chlorinated eth-
enes. Colloids Surf A 191(1–2):97–105
Liou YH, Lo SL, Lin CJ, Hu CY, Kuan WH, Weng SC (2005) Methods for accelerating nitrate
reduction using zerovalent iron at near-neutral pH: effects of H2-reducing pretreatment and
copper deposition. Environ Sci Technol 39(24):9643–9648
Lu C, Chiu H (2006) Adsorption of zinc (II) from water with purified carbon nanotubes. Chem
Eng Sci 61(4):1138–1145
Lu C, Chung YL, Chang KF (2005) Adsorption of trihalomethanes from water with carbon nano-
tubes. Water Res 39(6):1183–1189
Machado S, Stawiński W, Slonina P, Pinto AR, Grosso JP, Nouws HPA, Delerue-Matos C (2013)
Application of green zero-valent iron nanoparticles to the remediation of soils contaminated
with ibuprofen. Sci Total Environ 461:323–329
Mahmoodi NM, Arami M, Limaee NY, Gharanjig K, Nourmohammadian F (2007)
Nanophotocatalysis using immobilized titanium dioxide nanoparticle: degradation and min-
eralization of water containing organic pollutant: case study of Butachlor. Mater Res Bull
42(5):797–806
Mak SY, Chen DH (2004) Fast adsorption of methylene blue on polyacrylic acid-bound iron oxide
magnetic nanoparticles. Dyes Pigments 61(1):93–98
Makarova OV, Rajh T, Thurnauer MC, Martin A, Kemme PA, Cropek D (2000) Surface modifica-
tion of TiO2 nanoparticles for photochemical reduction of nitrobenzene. Environ Sci Technol
34(22):4797–4803
Mallikarjuna K, Narasimha G, Dillip GR, Praveen B, Shreedhar B, Lakshmi CS, Raju BDP (2011)
Green synthesis of silver nanoparticles using Ocimum leaf extract and their characterization.
Dig J Nanomater Biostruct 6(1):181–186
Mandal D, Bolander ME, Mukhopadhyay D, Sarkar G, Mukherjee P (2006) The use of micro-
organisms for the formation of metal nanoparticles and their application. Appl Microbiol
Mohanpuria P, Rana NK, Yadav SK (2008) Biosynthesis of nanoparticles: technological concepts
and future applications. J Nanopart Res 7:9275–9280
Mohanraj VJ, Chen Y (2006) Nanoparticles-a review. Trop J Pharm Res 5(1):561–573
Monica RC, Cremonini R (2009) Nanoparticles and higher plants. Caryologia 62(2):161–165
Mourato A, Gadanho M, Lino AR, Tenreiro R (2011) Biosynthesis of crystalline silver and gold
nanoparticles by extremophilic yeasts. Bioinorg Chem Appl 2011(546074):1–8
References 217
Mubarak AD, Sasikala M, Gunasekaman M, Thajaddin N (2011) Biosynthesis and characteriza-

tion of silver nanoparticles using marine cyanobacterium, Oscillatoria willei NTDM01. Dig
J Nanomater Biostruct 6:385–390
Murugadoss G, Rajamannan B, Madhusudhanan U (2009) Synthesis and characterization of
water-soluble ZnS: Mn2+ nanocrystal. Chem Lett 6:197–201
Murugesan K, Bokare V, Jeon JR, Kim EJ, Kim JH, Chang YS (2011) Effect of Fe/Pd bimetallic
nanoparticles on Sphingomonas sp. PH-07 and a nano-bio hybrid process for triclosan degrada-
tion. Bioresour Technol 102:6019–6025
Nair B, Pradeep T (2002) Coalescence of nanoclusters and formation of submicron crystallites
assisted by Lactobacillus strains. Cryst Growth Des 2(4):293–298
Nanda A, Saravanan M (2009) Biosynthesis of silver nanoparticles from Staphylococcus aureus
and its antimicrobial activity against MRSA and MRSE. Nanomedicine 5(4):452–456
Nanorem (2013) Nanotechnological remediation processes from lab scale to end user applications
for the restoration of a clean environment. http://www.nanorem.eu/index.aspx
Narayanan KB, Sakthivel N (2008) Coriander leaf mediated biosynthesis of gold nanoparticles.
Mater Lett 62(30):4588–4590
Ngomsik AF, Bee A, Siaugue JM, Cabuil V, Cote G (2006) Nickel adsorption by magnetic alginate
microcapsules containing an extractant. Water Res 40(9):1848–1856
Nithya R, Ragunathan R (2009) Synthesis of silver nanoparticle using Pleurotus sajor caju and its
antimicrobial study. Dig J Nanomater Biostruct 4(4):623–629
Paek SM, Jung H, Lee YJ, Park M, Hwang SJ, Choy JH (2006) Exfoliation and reassembling route
to mesoporous titania nanohybrids. Chem Mater 18(5):1134–1140
Paknikar KM, Nagpal V, Pethkar AV, Rajwade JM (2005) Degradation of lindane from aqueous
solutions using iron sulfide nanoparticles stabilized by biopolymers. Sci Technol Adv Mater
6(3–4):370–374
Parashar V, Parashar R, Sharma B, Pandey AC (2009) Parthenium leaf extract mediated synthesis
of silver nanoparticles: a novel approach towards weed utilization. Dig J Nanomater Biostruct
4(1):45–50
Parida UK, Bindhani BK, Nayak P (2011) Green synthesis and characterization of gold nanopar-
ticles using onion (Allium cepa) extract. World J Nano Sci Eng 1:93–98
Pavani KV, Swati T, Snehika V, Sravya K, Sirisha M (2012) Phytofabrication of lead nanoparticles
using grape skin extract. Int J Eng Sci Technol 4(7):3376–3380
Peng X, Li Y, Luan Z, Di Z, Wang H, Tian B, Jia Z (2003) Adsorption of 1, 2-dichlorobenzene from
water to carbon nanotubes. Chem Phys Lett 376(1–2):154–158
Peng T, Zhao D, Dai K, Shi W, Hirao K (2005) Synthesis of titanium dioxide nanoparticles with
mesoporous anatase wall and high photocatalytic activity. J Phys Chem B 109(11):4947–4952
Petla RK, Vivekanandhan S, Misra M, Mohanty AK, Satyanarayana N (2012) Soybean (Glycine
max) leaf extract based green synthesis of palladium nanoparticles. J Biomater Nanobiotechnol
3(1):14–19
Philip D (2009) Biosynthesis of Au, Ag and Au–Ag nanoparticles using edible mushroom extract.
Spectrochim Acta A Mol Biomol Spectrosc 73(2):374–381
Philip D (2010) Green synthesis of gold and silver nanoparticles using Hibiscus rosa sinensis.
Physica 42(5):1417–1424
Phumying S, Labuayai S, Thomas C, Amornkitbamrung V, Swatsitang E, Maensiri S (2013) Aloe
vera plant-extracted solution hydrothermal synthesis and magnetic properties of magnetite
(Fe3O4) nanoparticles. Appl Phys A Mater Sci Process 111(4):1187–1193
Ponder SM, Darab JG, Mallouk TE (2000) Remediation of Cr (VI) and Pb (II) aqueous solutions
using supported, nanoscale zero-valent iron. Environ Sci Technol 34(12):2564–2569
Popescu M, Alin V, Lőrinczi A (2010) Biogenic production of nanoparticles. Dig J Nanomater
Biostruct 5(4):1035–1040
Priya MM, Selvi BK, Paul JA (2011) Green synthesis of silver nanoparticles from the leaf extracts
of Euphorbia hirta and Nerium indicum. Dig J Nanomater Biostruct 6(2):869–877
Pugazhenthiran N, Anandan S, Kathiravan G, Prakash NKU, Crawford S, Ashokkumar M (2009)

Microbial synthesis of silver nanoparticles by Bacillus sp. J Nanopart Res 11(7):1811–1815
Rao C, Biswas K (2009) Characterization of nanomaterials by physical methods. Annu Rev Anal
Chem 2:435–462
Rathore KS, Patidar D, Janu Y, Saxena NS, Sharma K, Sharma TP (2008) Structural and optical
characterization of chemically synthesized ZnS nanoparticles. Chem Lett 5(6):105–110
Raut Rajesh W, Lakkakula Jaya R, Kolekar Niranjan S, Mendhulkar Vijay D, Kashid Sahebrao
B (2009) Phytosynthesis of silver nanoparticle using Gliricidia sepium (Jacq.). Curr Nanosci
5(1):117–122
Raut RW, Kolekar NS, Lakkakula JR, Mendhulkar VD, Kashid SB (2010) Extracellular synthesis
of silver nanoparticles using dried leaves of Pongamia pinnata (L) pierre. Nano-Micro Lett
2(2):106–113
Reddy KR (2010) Nanotechnology for site remediation: dehalogenation of organic pollutants in
soils and groundwater by nanoscale iron particles. In: Proceedings of the 6th international
congress on environmental geotecnics, vol 1. India Habitat Centre, New Delhi, pp 163–180
Saifuddin N, Wong CW, Yasumira AA (2009) Rapid biosynthesis of silver nanoparticles using
culture supernatant of bacteria with microwave irradiation. J Chem 6(1):61–70
Sakulchaicharoen N, O'Carroll DM, Herrera JE (2010) Enhanced stability and dechlorination
activity of pre-synthesis stabilized nanoscale Fe/Pd particles. J Contam Hydrol 118:117–127
Samim M, Ahmed FJ, Abdin MZ, Naqzi S (2011) Dig J Nanomater Biostruct 6:549–556
Sanghi R, Verma P (2009) Biomimetic synthesis and characterisation of protein capped silver
nanoparticles. Bioresour Technol 100(1):501–504
Sastry M, Ahmad A, Khan MI, Kumar R (2003) Biosynthesis of metal nanoparticles using fungi
and actinomycete. Curr Sci 85(2):162–170
Sathish KM, Sneha K, Kwak IS, Mao J, Tripathy SJ, Yun YS (2009) Phyto-crystallization of pal-
ladium through reduction process using Cinnamom zeylanicum bark extract. J Hazard Mater
171(1–3):400–404
Sathyavathi R, Krishna BM, Rao VS, Saritha R, Rao N (2010) Biosynthesis of silver nanoparticles
using Coriandrum sativum leaf extract and their application in nonlinear optics. Adv Sci Lett
3(1):138–143
Say R, Birlik E, Denizli A, Ersöz A (2006) Removal of heavy metal ions by dithiocarbamate-
anchored polymer/organosmectite composites. Appl Clay Sci 31(3–4):298–305
Schrick B, Blough JL, Jones AD, Mallouk TE (2002) Hydrodechlorination of trichloroethylene to
hydrocarbons using bimetallic nickel–iron nanoparticles. Chem Mater 14:5140–5147
Selvi KV, Sivakumar T (2012) Isolation and characterization of silver nanoparticles from Fusarium
oxysporum. Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci 1(1):56–62
Seshadri S, Saranya K, Kowshik M (2011) Green synthesis of lead sulfide nanoparticles by the
lead resistant marine yeast, Rhodosporidium diobovatum. Biotechnol Prog 27(5):1464–1469
Shahi SK, Patra M (2003) Microbially synthesized bioactive nanoparticles and their formulation
active against human pathogenic fungi. Rev Adv Mater Sci 5:501–509
Shankar SS, Ahmad A, Pasricha R, Sastry M (2003a) Bioreduction of chloroaurate ions by gera-
nium leaves and its endophytic fungus yields gold nanoparticles of different shapes. J Mater
Chem 13(7):1822–1826
Shankar SS, Ahmad A, Sastry M (2003b) Geranium leaf assisted biosynthesis of silver nanopar-
ticles. Biotechnol Prog 19(6):1627–1631
Shankar SS, Rai A, Ahmad A, Sastry M (2004) Rapid synthesis of Au, Ag, and bimetallic Au
core–Ag shell nanoparticles using Neem (Azadirachta indica) leaf broth. J Colloid Interface
Sci 275(2):496–502
Sharma R, Chandra BP, Bisen DP (2009) Thermoluminescence and optical absorption spectra of
ZnS:Mn nanoparticles. Chem Lett 6(6):251–255
Shekhawat GS, Arya V (2009) Biological synthesis of Ag nanoparticles through in vitro cultures
of Brassica juncea C. zern. Adv Mater Res 67:295–299
References 219
Singh R, Manickam N, Mudiam MKR, Murthy RC, Misra V (2013) An integrated (nano-bio) tech-
nique for degradation of -HCH contaminated soil. J Hazard Mater 35:258–259
Sintubin L, De Windt W, Dick J, Mast J, Vander HD, Verstraete W, Boon N (2009) Lactic acid bac-
teria as reducing and capping agent for the fast and efficient production of silver nanoparticles.
Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 84(4):741–749
Smitha SL, Philip D, Gopchandran KG (2009) Green synthesis of gold nanoparticles using
Cinnamomum zeylanicum leaf broth. Spectrochim Acta A 74(3):735–739
Song JY, Kim BS (2008) Biological synthesis of bimetallic Au/Ag nanoparticles using Persimmon
(Diopyros kaki) leaf extract. Korean J Chem Eng 25(4):808–811
Song JY, Jang HK, Kim BS (2009) Biological synthesis of gold nanoparticles using Magnolia
kobus and Diopyros kaki leaf extracts. Process Biochem 44(10):1133–1138
Song JY, Kwon EY, Kim BS (2010) Biological synthesis of platinum nanoparticles using Diopyros
kaki leaf extract. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 33:159–164
Soundarrajan C, Sankari A, Dhandapani P, Maruthamuthu S, Ravichandran S, Sozhan G,
Palaniswamy N (2012) Rapid biological synthesis of platinum nanoparticles using Ocimum
sanctum for water electrolysis applications. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 35(5):827–833
Stathatos E, Tsiourvas D, Lianos P (1999) Titanium dioxide films made from reverse micelles and
their use for the photocatalytic degradation of adsorbed dyes. Colloids Surf A Physicochem
Eng Asp 149(1–3):49–56
Sunkar S, Nachiyar CV (2012) Microbial synthesis and characterization of silver nanoparticles
using the endophytic bacterium Bacillus cereus: a novel source in the benign synthesis. Glob
J Med Res 12:43–50
Sweeney RY, Mao C, Gao X, Burt JL, Belcher AM, Georgiou G, Iverson BL (2004) Bacterial
biosynthesis of cadmium sulfide nanocrystals. Chem Biol 11(11):1553–1559
Takafuji M, Ide S, Ihara H, Xu Z (2004) Preparation of poly (1-vinylimidazole)-grafted magnetic
nanoparticles and their application for removal of metal ions. Chem Mater 16(10):1977–1983
Thakkar KN, Mhatre SS, Parikh RY (2010) Biological synthesis of metallic nanoparticles.
Nanomedicine 6(2):257–262
Thirumurugan A, Jiflin GJ, Rajagomathi G, Tomy NA, Ramachandran S, Jaiganesh R (2010)
Biotechnological synthesis of gold nanoparticles of Azadirachta indica leaf extract. Int J Biol
Technol 1:75–77
Thome A, Reddy KR, Reginatto C, Cecchin I (2015) Review of nanotechnology for soil and
groundwater remediation: Brazilian perspectives. Water Air Soil Pollut 226:1–20
Tosco T, Papini MP, Viggi CC, Sethi R (2014) Nanoscale zerovalent iron particles for groundwater
remediation: a review. J Clean Prod 1:10–21
Tratnyek PG, Salter-Blanc A, Nurmi J, Amonette JE, Liu J, Wang CM, Dohnalkova A, Baer DR
(2011) Reactivity of zerovalent metals in aquatic media: effects of organic surface coatings,
ACS. Symposium series. Am Chem Soc 1071:381–406
Tripathy A, Raichur AM, Chandrasekaran N, Prathna TC, Mukherjee A (2010) Process variables in
biomimetic synthesis of silver nanoparticles by aqueous extract of Azadirachta indica (Neem)
leaves. J Nano Res 12(1):237–246
Urbano FJ, Marinas JM (2001) Hydrogenolysis of organohalogen compounds over palladium sup-
ported catalysts. J Mol Cat A Chem 173(1–2):329–345
Vankar PS, Bajpai D (2010) Preparation of gold nanoparticles from Mirabilis jalapa flowers. Ind
J Biochem Biophys 47:157–160
Verma A, Joshi P, Arya A (2013) Synthesis of plant-mediated silver nanoparticles using plant
extract of Sonchus asper. Int J Nanotechnol Appl 3(4):1–18
Vigneshwaran N, Kathe AA, Varadarajan PV, Nachane RP, Balasubramanya RH (2007a)
Biomimetics of silver nanoparticles by white rot fungus, Phaenerochaete chrysosporium.
Colloids Surf B: Biointerfaces 53(1):55–59
Vigneshwaran N, Ashtaputre NM, Varadarajan PV, Nachane RP, Paralikar KM, Balasubramanya
RH (2007b) Biological synthesis of silver nanoparticles using the fungus Aspergillus flavus.
Mater Lett 61(6):1413–1418
Wang CB, Zhang WX (1997) Synthesizing nanoscale iron particles for rapid and complete dechlo-
rination of TCE and PCBs. Environ Sci Technol 31(7):2154–2156
Wang H, Miao JJ, Zhu JM, Ma HM, Zhu JJ, Chen HY (2004) Mesoporous spherical aggregates
of anatase nanocrystals with wormhole-like framework structures: their chemical fabrication,
characterization, and photocatalytic performance. Langmuir 20(26):11738–11747
Wang J, Ma T, Zhang Z, Zhang X, Jiang Y, Dong D, Li Y (2006) Investigation on the sonocatalytic
degradation of parathion in the presence of nanometer rutile titanium dioxide (TiO2) catalyst.
J Hazard Mater 137(2):972–980
Wang WN, Tarafdar JC, Biswas P (2013) Nanoparticle synthesis and delivery by an aerosol route
for watermelon plant foliar uptake. J Nanopart Res 15:1–13
Wei YT, Wu SC, Chou CM, Che CH, Tsai SM, Lien HL (2010) Influence of nanoscale zero-valent
iron on geochemical properties of groundwater and vinyl chloride degradation: a field case
study. Water Res 44:131–140
Wu CH, Chang HW, Chern JM (2006) Basic dye decomposition kinetics in a photocatalytic slurry
reactor. J Hazard Mater 137(1):336–343
Xie Y, Fang Z, Cheng W, Tsang PE, Zhao D (2014) Remediation of polybrominated diphenyl
ethers in soil using Ni/Fe bimetallic nanoparticles: influencing factors, kinetics and mecha-
nism. Sci Total Environ 485:363–370
Xin Y, Qingbiao L, Huixuan W, Jiale H, Liqin L, Wenta W, Daohua S, Yuanbo S, James O, Luwei
H, Yuanpeng W, Ning H, Lishan J (2010) Green synthesis of palladium nanoparticles using
broth of Cinnamomum camphora leaf. J Nanopart Res 12(5):1589–1598
Xiong Z, Zhao D, Pan G (2007) Rapid and complete destruction of perchlorate in water and ion-
exchange brine using stabilized zero-valent iron nanoparticles. Water Res 41(15):3497–3350
Xu Y, Zhao D (2005) Removal of copper from contaminated soil by use of poly (amidoamine)
dendrimers. Environ Sci Technol 39(7):2369–2375
Yang RT (2003) Adsorbents: fundamentals and applications. Wiley, Hoboken
Yuan G, Wu L (2007) Allophane nanoclay for the removal of phosphorus in water and wastewater.
Sci Technol Adv Mater 8(1–2):60–62
Zhang H, Li Q, Lu Y, Sun D, Lin X, Deng X, Zheng S (2005) Biosorption and bioreduction of
diamine silver complex by Corynebacterium. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 80(3):285–290
Zhang M, Wang Y, Zhao D, Pan G (2010) Immobilization of arsenic in soils by stabilized
nanoscale zero valent iron, iron sulfide (FeS), and magnetite (Fe3O4) particles. Chin Sci Bull
55(4–5):365–372
Chapter 9
Case Studies and Future Prospects of Soil
Remediation Strategies
Abstract Soil remediation strategies are subjected to the quality and quantity of the
contaminant(s) as well as geographical conditions of the target site. There is no
single soil remediation method that can aid as a ‘silver bullet’ to restore the environ-
mental deterioration without any residual effect. For successful soil remediation
different physical, chemical and biological strategies can be implemented in an inte-
grated way. This chapter encompasses various case studies related to the implemen-
tation of remediation strategies on a large scale. This chapter also focuses on the
explicit information and recent advances on the available soil treatment techniques
and their future prospects. Thus, the ideal soil remediation strategies ensure envi-
ronmental protection by using natural resources for sustainable soil remediation
which is economically and environmentally beneficial for the society.
Keywords Soil contamination · Soil washing · Windrows · Bioventing · Microbial

degradation · Chemical oxidation
9.1 Introduction
Remediation of soil polluted with various organic and inorganic contaminants can
take place under in situ and ex situ conditions through physical, chemical and bio-
logical treatments. For a successful remediation strategy, in depth understanding of
physical and chemical properties of pollutants as well as that of the soil is required.
Great care should be taken while choosing a remediation strategy for soil contami-
nated with a particular pollutant. Various treatments have been performed at large
scale for the remediation of polluted soils through physical, chemical and biological
methods. Established case studies reveal that the researches which were conducted
at laboratory levels can be successfully implemented on a large scale. For e.g. a soil
treatment was conducted by Dunton Environmental, Birmingham, UK in 1979 to
remediate the soil polluted with tarry liquid and sludges of gas work wastes in
Saltisford Gasworks and Fire Station Warwick, UK. Bio-accelerators were devel-
oped to enhance the metabolism of naturally occurring microbes, which success-
fully degraded the soil contaminants. The concentrations of pollutants were reported

222 9 Case Studies and Future Prospects of Soil Remediation Strategies
to be decreased by 83% within 3 weeks of treatment. In this way, immobilization

and removal of pollutants was done with the aid of microbe-mediated remediation.
A study was conducted in Rovinari and Copsa-Mica, the two heavily polluted areas
of Romania. The soil was highly contaminated with heavy metals like copper, arse-
nic, cadmium, lead and mercury. Several plants spp. (Camelina sativa, Bunias ori-
entalis, Thlaspicae rulescens) were planted on the contaminated soil for
phytoextraction and phytostabilization of the contaminants. Among this plant spe-
cies, C. sativa was found to be highly effective for remediation of polluted soils. This
remediation project started in 2013 and is still ongoing. Another soil treatment was
performed on Ni-contaminated industrial soil of Mysore, India. This treatment was
based upon the applications of nanoparticles. As mentioned before, nanotechnology
offers the possibility of efficient removal of pollutants. In this remediation set up
zero valent iron nanoparticles were used for removal of Ni from industrial soil. The
initial concentration of nickel in the soil was 10–18.1 mg/kg. It was observed that
with the aid of nanoparticles Ni concentration decreased upto 75–90% in the soil.
9.2 Case Studies on Soil Remediation
Following are the few case studies of soil remediation treatments that were con-
ducted in different parts of the world using physical, chemical and biological
methods:
9.2.1 Case Study 1
Location
Eastgate, Memphis, U.S.A
Oxboro, South Bloomington, North America
Source of Soil Contamination
Waste and wastewater from dry cleaning operations
Time Period
Eastgate: February 1994–November 1996
System reactivation in March 2001–June 2001
Oxboro: October 10, 1997-Not specified
Purpose of Treatment
Use of in situ SVE (Soil vapor extraction) to remediate soil and groundwater pol-
luted with chlorinated solvents at dry cleaner sites.
Contaminants
1,1-Dichloroethene (1,1 DCE), Methylene Chloride, Tetrachloroethene (PCE),
Vinyl Chloride, 1,2-Dichloroethene (1,2 DCE), Benzene, Toluene, cis-1,2-
Dichloroethene (cis-1,2 DCE), Acetone, Trichloroethene (TCE), Naphthalene.
9.2 Case Studies on Soil Remediation 223
Technology: Soil Vapour Extraction

In Situ SVE system was operated in Easgate which also involve turning off the sys-
tem for shorter time periods. Trail period of 2001 was operated 24 h per day with an
air flow rate of 300 cfm. Total 2000 lbs of granular carbon was used for the treat-
ment. In Oxoboro, SVE systems include wells for soil venting with a blower system
which was checked on weekly and monthly basis.
Results
In Eastgate approximately 1350 lbs of PCE and TCE were removed from soil during
initial time period of treatment. In treatment of 2001, 0.16 lbs of PCE and TCE were
removed from contaminated soil. In Oxoboro concentration of PCE in soil decreased
from 160 mg/m3 to 0.3 mg/m3 in October 1997. TCE were completely removed
from the contaminated soil.
9.2.2 Case Study 2
Location
Former Market Place Shopping Center Site, Hilton Head, South Carolina
Denver Colorado Dry Cleaner, Denver, Colorado
United Cleaners Site #1973, Lemont, U.S. state of Illinois
Waste and wastewater from dry cleaning operations
Time Period
Site 1- Former Market Place – June 1, 2002
Site 2- Denver Colorado – April 2001
Site 3- United Cleaner #1973 – August 26, 2002
To treat the soil contaminated with chlorinated solvents with the aid of in situ treat-
ment technologies.
Contaminants
Dichloroethene (DCE), Tetrachloroethene (PCE), Volatiles-Halogenated,
Trichloroethene (TCE)
Technology: ISCO and In Situ Heat Soil Vapor Extraction (HSVE)
Two treatments were used i.e. ISCO and In Situ Heat Soil Vapor Extraction (HSVE).
At ‘Site 1’ ISCO was performed with the aid of ozone as an oxidant. At ‘Site 2’
ISCO was performed with modified Fenton’s Reagent. Two injections events were
used in the area to treat contaminated soil. Total 26,987 gallons of oxidation reagent
were applied through temporary injection systems. At Site 3 in situ HSVE technique
was performed by applying heat to the soil, increased the volatility of contaminants,
then SVE was performed to remove the contaminants.
Results
Site 1 showed a decrease in PCE concentration from 26,800 g/L to 704 g/L. At Site
2, average decreases in total concentration of all the contaminants were reduced
from 550 g/L to 52 g/L. At Site 3, concentration of PCE in soil was reduced from
4,300,000 g/kg to 2,400,000 g/kg. The treated area was completely remediated after
the treatment.
9.2.3 Case Study 3
Location
East Multnomah County Groundwater Contamination Site, Gresham, Oregon
Suspected releases from site operations, including overflow from an underground
storage tank (UST), spills, and on-site land disposal
Time Period
June 1991 to present
Implementation of different treatments to remove the chlorinated solvents from soil.
Contaminants
Trichloroethene (TCE), Tetrachloroethene (PCE), Cis-1,2-dichloroethene (DCE),
heavy metals
Technology
Air sparging
Air sparging, Groundwater pump, soil vapor extraction. Air sparging was per-
formed in two wells which enhanced the volatilization of VOCs from groundwater.
SVE was ceased from March to October 1999 and ceased permanently in December
2001.
Results
In year 2003, total 958 pounds of VOCs were removed from the soil after 13 year of
treatment period.
9.2.4 Case Study 4
Location
Morses Pond Culvert, Wellesley, Massachusetts
Chromium-laden pigments from former paint factory
Time Period
September–October 2001
In situ treatment of chromium contaminated soils
Contaminants
Chromium, zinc, and lead
Technology: ISCO
In situ chemical reduction was performed on the target site with the use of calcium
polysulfide. Total 40 injection wells were installed with a distance of 10 ft apart
from each other and 5–25 ft in depth. First treatment was performed in western part,
then eastern part of the area. Total 56,800 gallons of calcium polysulfide was
injected into soil through the injection wells.
Results
Concentration of total chromium was decreased from 67,000 mg/kg to 24 mg/kg.
9.2.5 Case Study 5
Location
Canada
Not mentioned
Onset of treatment
July 2010
This treatment was performed for remediation of soil contaminated with
hydrocarbons.
Contaminants
Benzene, Ethylbenzene, Xylene Mixture, Toluene
Technology: Biopile or Landfarming
Biopile or landfarming treatment was performed on the polluted soil (Fig. 9.1 a, b)
This process reduced the concentration of hydrocarbons in soil through the aid of
biodegradation. The conditions like oxygen, Moisture, nutrients, heat and pH were
maintained in order to enhance the biodegradation rate. Two piles of polluted soil
with size 25m3 were formed. Piles were of 20 ft in height and the air supply was
equally distributed under the soil piles. These piles were covered with plastic paper
to control the evaporation and to enhance the solar heating. VOCs were volatilized
and entered into the air stream. This air stream was then treated to remove the con-
taminants. One pile was treated with microbial consortia and second pile was treated
Fig. 9.1 Biopile-set up (a) Biopile or Land farming of soil (b) Biopiles covered with plastic sheet
with soil reaction mixture. Both the piles were then monitored at regular intervals
for their degradation efficiency.
Results
The time period for normal remediation was about 4 weeks. While, for full scale
remediation extra 7–14 days were required. This treatment was able to remediate
approximately 650,000 cubic meters of material/year.
9.2.6 Case Study 6
Location
Somerset Energy Refining
Somerset Kentucky

Not mentioned
Onset of treatment
September 2009
To evaluate the remediation efficiency of a mixture of Soil Rx, microbial consortia
and biodegradable natural enzymes for removal of hydrocarbons from soil.
Contaminants
Crude Oil and Gasoline
Technology: Microbial Degradation
Treatment area consisted of 2 frames of sizes 4’ × 4’ polluted with crude oil and
gasoline. A mixture of 20:1 of Soil Rx and water was prepared and 2.5 gallons of
this mixture was supplied to each frame. Samples were taken from the treatment
area after Ist, 5th and 14th day. All testing was completed by Environmental Science
Corporation in Mt. Juliet Tennessee. This remediation treatment converted the pol-
lutants into biodegradable products like Co2, H2O and enzymes.
Results
In the treated area with crude oil the concentration of toluene was reduced from 54
to 1.8 mg/kg, Benzene was reduced from 15 to 0.13 mg/kg, Xylene was reduced
from 190 to 45 mg/kg and Ethylbenzene was reduced from 33 to 4.4 mg/kg. In the
area polluted with gasoline, concentration of Benzene was reduced from 140 mg/kg
to BDL (below detectable levels), Ethylbenzene was reduced from 810 to 0.64 mg/
kg, Toluene was reduced from 2000 to BDL, Xylene was reduced from 5500 to
8.4 mg/kg. All the pollutants of this area were converted into low toxic compounds
within the first five days of the treatment.
9.2.7 Case Study 7
Location
Four Mile, Bell County, Kentucky
Crude oil released during oil transfer and pick up.
Onset of treatment
June 2010
This treatment was conducted to create a cost effective method so as to eliminate the
crude oil from soil site.
Contaminants
Crude Oil
Technology: Microbial Degradation
Contaminated site was applied with a mixture of Soil Rx and water (20:1) with
drench method. 5 gallons of Rx mixture was applied in each treatment (Fig. 9.2).
Contaminated site was treated on 10 May, 31 May and 11 June 2010.
Results
The results depicted that average 59% of VOCs concentration was decreased in soil
after the 12th day of treatment. Total 68% of benzene was removed, after 12th day
of treatment. This study revealed that soil Rx mixture can be used as an effective
remediation tool for the treatment of soil contaminated with crude oils.
9.2.8 Case Study 8
Location
Loring Air Force Base Tank Farm, U.S.A
Fuel was released from large fuel tanks placed at Loring Air Force Base Tank Farm,
U.S.A
Onset of treatment
October 2010
Fig. 9.2 Soil polluted with crude oil (Four Mile, Bell co., Kentucky)
Main purpose of this treatment was to remediate the polluted soil by using eco-
friendly and inexpensive method and to develop new advances in anaerobic biore-
mediation of soil polluted with hydrocarbons.
Contaminants
Fuel
Technology: Bioventing
Initially two bioventing remediation treatments were performed on the polluted soil
in 1996 to 2005. These treatments were not proved successful. After that treatment,
Soil Rx mixture was injected into the polluted soil through boring holes on 4th
October 2010 (Fig. 9.3). Samples were taken from the holes on 28th June 2011 foe
evaluation and the entire site was retreated with the same mixture.
Results
Although application of soil mixture is a suitable remediation tool. But, the result
obtained with the above treatment was not so effective for soil remediation.
9.2.9 Case Study 9
Location
Nynas UK AB, Bitumen Refinery, Dunde, Scotland
Oil soil polluted with hydrocarbons
Time Period
2 years 3 months, 2013-2015
Fig. 9.3 Overview of the target area (C) Control (T) Treated
To develop a sustainable and ecofriendly environmental solution to treat the old soil
polluted with hydrocarbons.
Contaminants
Hydrocarbons
Technology: Windrows
Polluted soil was screened so as to remove the large sized material from it. Soil was
then formed into windrows and covered with breathable material i.e. fleece (Fig. 9.4
a–d). After that soil was implemented with hydrocarbon degrading bacteria, air sup-
ply and sufficient amount of nutrients. Nutrients level, air supply and other condi-
tions were regularly monitored throughout the treatment period.
Hydrogen degrading bacteria were responsible for the degradation of
hydrocarbons.
Results
The above bioremediation treatment was proved as an efficient remediation method.
Total 72% of hydrocarbons were removed from the soil.
Fig. 9.4 Soil remediation: (a) Remediation area at the start of work (b) remediation of windrows
(c) turning of windrows (d) Remediated soil
9.2.10 Case Study 10
Location
Not mentioned
Not mentioned
Time Period
8 months
To remediate the soil polluted with heterogeneous organic compounds (BTEX,
PAH, TPH) ranging from 1000 mg/kg to 10,000 mg/kg. Total 2700 m3 of soil was
polluted with hydrocarbons.
Contaminants
Heterogeneous organic compounds i.e. BTEX, PAH, TPH
Technology: Chemical Oxidation
Initial sample was taken from the polluted soil during the period of licensing and
other formalities. A laboratory set up was made near the polluted soil to evaluate the
pH and other conditions of the soil. Fixed amount of Klozur Persulphate and Lime
was then added into the soil with the help of mixing head (Fig. 9.5a–b). These
chemicals served as oxidizing agents and oxidized the pollutants into low toxic
compounds. Additional water was added into the soil in order to enhance the pro-
cess of oxidation. Soil was analyzed periodically throughout the treatment.
Results
The soil was remediated efficiently within 8 weeks of the treatment.
Location
Former filling station site, South Glasgow, U.K
Not mentioned
Time Period
1 month
To remediate the contaminated soil and water polluted with hydrocarbons.
Contaminants
Hydrocarbons
Fig. 9.5 Soil remediation: (a) Addition of chemicals into polluted soil (b) Soil mixing
Technology: Chemical Oxidation

Remediation treatment was started with one initial round of vacuum extraction of
contaminants from the polluted soil. After that, ISCO was performed with a chemi-
cal oxidant (Chemox) over the soil surface (Fig. 9.6 a–d). Chemox was applied in
the soil through Direct Push Injection. Total three treatments were applied on soil
with the aid of chemox. It served as oxidizing agents and oxidized the pollutants
into low toxic compounds.
Results
Two treatments proved sufficient for soil remediation.
Fig. 9.6 In situ remediation of polluted soil (a-d) through chemical oxidation
Location
Olympic Park, Stratford, London
Not mentioned
Time Period
July 2007, 78 weeks
To remediate the polluted soil of Olympic park
Contaminants
Hydrocarbons (TPH, Benzopyrene,), Heavy metals (As, Cu, Pb,)
Technology: Soil Washing
For soil remediation of above polluted soil, soil washing method was used. This
treatment was performed by installing two soil washing units at two different sites
of the target soil (Fig. 9.7a, b). These plants were fitted with washers, scrubbers,
separators, hydrocyclones, drum magnets and recovery systems.
Fig. 9.7 Soil remediation (a, b) using soil washing method
Results
Soil washing method proved beneficial for the removal of Hydrocarbons (TPH,
Benzopyrene) and Heavy metals (As, Cu, Pb,) from the target soil.
Location
Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, U.S.A
Not mentioned
Time Period
July 2002–January 2003.
To remediate the soil contaminated with TCE.
Contaminants
TCE
Technology: EZVI
Different injection methods for EZVI were implemented on the contaminated soil.
Soil samples were taken at different time periods i.e. before the treatment, during
the treatment and after 6 weeks of the treatment. The whole project was funded by
NASA and Department of Defense Environmental Security Technology Certification
Program (ESTCP ER-0431).
Results
Total 50% of TCE was effectively removed from the soil.
Location
Naval Air Engineering Station, Lakehurst, New Jersey, U.S.A
Not mentioned
Time Period
Not mentioned
To remediated the polluted site of Aircraft Launch facility
Contaminants
PCE (Perchloroethylene), TCE (Trichloroethylene), TCA (Trichloroacetic acid),
c-DCE (cis-dichloroethene), VC (Vinyl chloride)
Technology
BNP (boronate nanoparticle)
Total 300 lbs of BNP nanoparticles were prepared in form of slurry. Total 18,000
gallons of water was mixed with 300 lbs of BNP. This slurry was then injected using
DPT (direct push technology) at 10 different locations of Northern plume and at 51
locations of Southern plume. In one area the injections were operated in a linear
pattern and in a grid pattern for the other area.
Results
The average decrease of contaminants was 74%. Two major contaminants i.e. TCE
and DCE showed an average decrease of 79% and 83% respectively.
Location
Not mentioned
Accidental release of gasoline
Time Period
1999–2000
To evaluate the remediation potential of plant species grown on gasoline contami-
nated area.
Contaminants
Gasoline
Technology
Phytoremediation
The plant species which were used included, willows, cattail, cottonwoods,
arrowhead and bulrush. Cottonwood and Black willow were grown near the edge of
drainage area.
Results
At the end of year 2000, these plants were evaluated in terms of their phytoremedia-
tion potential. It has reported after 3 growing seasons, total 90% of the contaminant
was removed from the target site.
Location
CEA research centre, Grenoble, France (Fig. 9.8)
Radioactive solid waste released from research station
Time Period
2006–2013
To achieve the radioactivity level below 0.04 Bq/g for α emitters and below 0.4 Bq/g
for β/γ emitters.
Contaminants
U-234, C-14, Cs-137, Sr-90, U-238 and Co-60.
9.3 Future Prospects 237
Fig. 9.8 Grenoble, France, CEA research centre
Technology
18 drillings (2–3 m in depth) were set inside the area with radioactivity levels above
2 Bq/g and 37 drillings were implemented on other areas. A gamma detector was
placed with each drilling. Samples were taken from each drilling at regular inter-
vals. These samples were then analysed chemically and radio logically in the
laboratory
Results
Soil remediation was started in 2009 and the soil was partially remediated by the
beginning of the year 2013.
9.3 Future Prospects
The remediation technologies that have been discussed are need commercialization
and field applicability in the underdeveloped countries where urbanization, industri-
alization, and agriculture are leaving a legacy of ecosystem pollution. There is no
single method that can aid as a ‘silver bullet’ to restore the polluted environments
(Azubuike et al. 2016). For a remediation technique to become acceptable, the pre-
dictability and effectiveness of remediation should be illustrative (Kuiper et al.
2004). The restoration and sustenance of heavy metal contaminated sites require
thorough inspection followed by the application of most suitable remediation strat-

egy. Various parameters should be taken into consideration to design eco-friendly,
most effective and quick remediation technique. These parameters include soil
structure, pollutant nature, microbial composition and hydrogeology (movement of
pollutants) (Dua et al. 2002; Kuiper et al. 2004). The molecular biomonitoring
methods can be applied for evaluating the intrinsic biodegradation potential, observe
the enhanced bioremediation, and estimating the success of bioremediation. Besides
this, background knowledge of sources, chemistry and risk associated with toxic
metals, and in depth understanding of molecular, cellular and biochemical processes
which are affected by the heavy metals can enhance the selection of an appropriate
remediation strategy.
Phytoremediation is an emerging, non-destructive, aesthetically pleasing and
low-cost technique which uses the potential of green plants to metabolize various
contaminants (heavy metals, chlorinated solvents, PAHs, explosives, surfactants,
pesticides, radionuclides) from the ecosystem, in their tissues. However, this tech-
nology is still in its infancy and full-scale application is needed. Mostly, all the
hyperaccumulator plants are of small size hence genetic modifications can be done
for these species to increase the biomass of hyperaccumulators so as to produce
efficient phytoremediators. The biggest obstruction to the progression of phytore-
mediation may be public opposition to genetic modification. However, there are still
some fundamental researches required for complete understanding of the phytore-
mediation mechanism and to develop new strategies to accelerate the rate of
phytoremediation.
In North America, a couple of new technologies have been adopted for remedia-
tion of PCE and TCE from polluted soil. The in situ use of zerovalent iron (ZVI)
remediated 25,000 PPB of TCE and PCE in the ground water, brought down to 0
PPB within a span of 6 years. At the sites where contamination from mines gets
leached into the groundwater, permanganate products have been used which aggres-
sively oxidize the TCE and PCE in ground water. In Canada, an innovative treat-in-
place (in situ) method of bio-remediation uses superbugs which are injected into the
soil. One such microorganism that has attracted the attention of geneticists is
Deinococcus radiodurans, a soil bacterium which can bear radiations several times
higher than humans. The bacterium has the potential to break down radioactive Hg
and toluene. After being engineered to work in radioactive waste environments, it
can be used to decompose wastes further in the fields of medicine, energy and mili-
tary. Molecular bio monitoring for bacteria and their genes responsible for degrada-
tion are of great importance in order to understand the molecular phenomenon
behind remediation processes. It could be applied for several purposes within the
environmental biotechnology: to map the genetic constitution of the microorgan-
isms, to diagnose the polluted soil, to check the remediation potential, to increase,
estimate and control the remediation process. In the long run, soil remediation by
using natural resources shall ensure sustainable development, which will prove
environmentally and economically safe for the people. Symbiotic association of
bacteria and plants is beneficial for the degradation of certain recalcitrant com-
pounds. Besides that, there is only some information available on plasmid dynamics
References 239
and the characterization of plasmids from natural resources. Multidisciplinary

approaches with a blend of engineering-based and bioremediation strategies might
be the most reliable solution (Kuiper et al. 2004; Pilon-Smits 2005). Alternatively,
multiple bioremediation approaches can be used in combinations, to overcome the
limitations including the cost of the technique(s) (Cassidy et al. 2015; García-
Delgado et al. 2015; Martínez-Pascual et al. 2015).
For sure there is promising future for microbial biodegradation techniques for
treating the contaminated soils. Basically, this technique is less expensive and
requires low start-up. The aforementioned microorganisms may either be effec-
tively isolated from their regular habitat or procured from commercial suppliers.
The soil metagenomics approach (next generation sequencing and bioinformatics
analysis) can assist to efficiently monitor the clean-up of contaminated environ-
ments and develop successful strategies to ameliorate the effect of pollutants on the
ecosystem(s) (Bouhajja et al. 2016). Bioelectrochemical technology (microbial fuel
cells: MFCs) has shown a promising potential for remediation of soil, sludge and
sediments contaminated with organic and inorganic pollutants (Adelaja et al. 2014;
Li et al. 2017). In the last couple of years, there have been great advances which
have opened new vistas for the improvement of molecular techniques to screen and
control microbial groups for expanding the current phytoremediation frameworks.
The application of nanoparticles has gained momentum in metal remediation tech-
nology because of their excellent adsorption and mechanical properties, high chem-
ical stability and unique electrical property (Singh and Prasad 2015).
It is impractical to re-establish all the characteristic features of the contaminated
soils and not each site can ever be totally recouped to a pristine state. Hence, the
application of green remediation approaches must be enough to manage the con-
taminated soils. At the same time, the efficiency, efficacy and the demand of each
technique varies with the nature of contaminant, site of contamination, feasibility of
application and the extent of human intervention. This review expects to educate
and motivate research for utilization of phytotechnologies in the coming years. In a
nutshell, bioremediation techniques are more reliable, more productive and consid-
erably less expensive than the chemical or physical strategies. Thus, future research
can incorporate various combinations of hyperaccumulator plant species and genet-
ically engineered microbes for a better remediation of contaminated soils (Azubuike
et al. 2016; Marchand 2017).
References
Adelaja O, Keshavarz T, Kyazze G (2014) Enhanced biodegradation of phenanthrene using differ-

ent inoculum types in a microbial fuel cell. Eng Life Sci 14(2):218–228
Azubuike CC, Chikere CB, Okpokwasili GC (2016) Bioremediation techniques-classification
based on site of application: principles, advantages, limitations and prospects. World
J Microbiol Biotechnol 32(11):180
Bouhajja E, Agathos SN, George IF (2016) Metagenomics: probing pollutant fate in natural and
engineered ecosystems. Biotechnol Adv 34(8):1413–1426
Cassidy DP, Srivastava VJ, Dombrowski FJ, Lingle JW (2015) Combining in situ chemical oxida-
tion, stabilization, and anaerobic bioremediation in a single application to reduce contaminant
mass and leachability in soil. J Hazard Mater 297:347–355
Dua M, Singh A, Sethunathan N, Johri AK (2002) Biotechnology and bioremediation: successes
and limitations. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 59:143–152
García-Delgado C, Alfaro-Barta I, Eymar E (2015) Combination of biochar amendment and
mycoremediation for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons immobilization and biodegradation in
creosote-contaminated soil. J Hazard Mater 285:259–266
Kuiper I, Lagendijk EL, Bloemberg GV, Lugtenberg BJ (2004) Rhizoremediation: a beneficial
plant-microbe interaction. Mol Plant-Microbe Int 17(1):6–15
Li X, Wang X, Weng L, Zhou Q, Li Y (2017) Microbial fuel cell for organic contaminated soil
remedial application: a review. Energy Technol 5(8):1156–1164
elements. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Biology and Environmental Science, Linnaeus
University, Kalmar
Martínez-Pascual E, Grotenhuis T, Solanas AM, Viñas M (2015) Coupling chemical oxidation and
biostimulation: effects on the natural attenuation capacity and resilience of the native microbial
community in alkylbenzene-polluted soil. J Hazard Mater 300:135–143
Pilon-Smits E (2005) Phytoremediation. Annu Rev Plant Biol 56:15–39
Singh A, Prasad SM (2015) Remediation of heavy metal contaminated ecosystem: an overview on
technology advancement. Int J Environ Sci Technol 12(1):353–366

Biotechonlogy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Biotechonlogy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Biotechonlogy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bhupendra Koul · Pooja Taak

ISBN 978-981-13-2419-2 ISBN 978-981-13-2420-8 (eBook)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018958474

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

prospects. Thus, the soil remediation strategies ensure environmental protection by

chemical leaching, chemical oxidation, chemical fixation, and electrokinetic

Chapter 9 Case Studies and Future Prospects of Soil Remediation Strategies

Phagwara, Punjab, India Bhupendra Koul

1 Soil Pollution: Causes and Consequences������������������������������������������������ 1

3.2.4 Froth Flotation���������������������������������������������������������������������� 64

7.4 Genetic Engineering Approaches for Phytoremediation�������������������� 165

Dr. Bhupendra Koul is serving as an Assistant Professor in the School of

ACC deaminase 1-Aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid deaminase

IBI International biochar initiative

YCF1 Cadmium factor protein

Keywords Pollution · Toxic effects · Heavy metals · PAHs

In the coming years, sustainable plant productivity and availability of bio-resources

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018 1

Fig. 1.1 Types of pollution

depletion of biodiversity. Urbanization, modern agricultural practices, industrializa-

1.2 Causes of Soil Pollution

1.2.1 Natural Sources

1.2.1.1 Volcanic Eruptions

1.2.1.3 Alterations in Rainfall Patterns

1.2.1.4 Geographical Changes

1.2.2 Anthropogenic Sources

1.2.2.1 Solid Wastes

Municipal Solid Wastes (MSW)

Hospital wastes are produced as a result of diagnosis, treatment and immunization

1.2.2.2 Agricultural Practices

Causes of soil pollution

Volcanic eruptions Solid wastes

Tsunamis Construction activities

Fig. 1.3 Causes of soil pollution

Agrochemicals Aniline derivatives

Fig. 1.4 Agrochemicals responsible for soil and water pollution

2-methyl-4,6-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid. These herbicides also contain the

Fig. 1.5 Consumption pattern of pesticides in the world

Fig. 1.8 Structures of (a)

(A) (B) (C) (D)

(A) (B) (C)

tence and toxicity, while higher insecticidal activity. Bioresmethrin, fenvalerate,

(A) (B) (C)

Fig. 1.14 Structures of (a) Captan and (b) Benzimidazole

(A) (B) (C)

(D) (E) (F)

(A) (B) (C)

(D) (E) (F)

(G) (H) (I)

1.2.2.3 Radioactive Wastes

1.2.2.4 Chemical Wastes

1.2.2.5 Mining and Smelting

1.3 Harmful Effects of Soil Pollution

effect hormonal balance, membrane structure and permeability.

On plants: Abnormal germination and hypertrophy of the roots and

decreased protein synthesis, withering and drying of leaves and

Box 1.1: Quality Control of Export and Import Consignment

Box 1.2: Rejection of Export Consignment: Indian Case Study

Table 1 Notifications raised by the EU in RASFF Portal (2005–2017)

Box 1.2: (continued)

Phagwara, Punjab, India Bhupendra Koul

1 Soil Pollution: Causes and Consequences�� 1

3.2.4 Froth Flotation�� 64

7.4 Genetic Engineering Approaches for Phytoremediation�� 165

1.2 Causes of Soil Pollution

1.2.1 Natural Sources

1.2.1.1 Volcanic Eruptions

1.2.1.3 Alterations in Rainfall Patterns

1.2.1.4 Geographical Changes

1.2.2 Anthropogenic Sources

1.2.2.1 Solid Wastes

1.2.2.2 Agricultural Practices

1.2.2.3 Radioactive Wastes

1.2.2.4 Chemical Wastes

1.2.2.5 Mining and Smelting

1.3 Harmful Effects of Soil Pollution

1.4 Remedies to Cope with Soil Pollution

2.2 Land Farming

2.6 Soil Washing

2.9 Ion Exchange

pollutant-cleaning efficiency, no CO2 production, effective reduction in weight and

2.11 Ultrasonic Technology

3.2 Physical Methods of Soil Remediation

3.2.1 Physical Separation

3.2.2 Soil Flushing

3.2.4 Froth Flotation

3.2.5 Thermal Remediation

3.2.5.1 Electrical Resistance Heating (ERH)

3.2.5.2 Steam Injection and Extraction

3.2.5.3 Conductive Heating

3.2.5.4 Radio-Frequency Heating (RFH)

3.2.5.5 In situ Vitrification (ISV)

4.2 Chemical Leaching

4.3 Chemical Fixation

4.4 Chemical Oxidation

4.5 Electrokinetic Remediation