CHAPTER TWO

2.0

SOURCES OF HEAVY METALS AND sOIL WATER POLLUTION

Land and water pollution by heavy metals is a worldwide issue. All countries have been atectd

through the area and severity of pollution vary enormously in western Europe were altectu uy

heavy metats (vcUrath et al., 2001), of which over 300,000 were contaminated and tne

estimated totai number in Europe could be much larger as pollution problems increasingiy

Occurred in central and Eastern European countries (Gade, 2000). In USA, there are 6,000,00

brown Fielas which are contaminated with heavy metals and need reclamation (MCKecnan,

2000).

SOil and water pollution is also severe in India, pollution and Bengladesh where small industrial

units are pouring their untreated effluents in the surtace drains which Spread over near
agricultural fields. In these countries, raw sewage is often used for producing vegetables near bi

cities. Heavy metals that have been identified in the polluted environment include, As, Cu, Cd,

pb, cr, NI, Hg and Zn. The sources of various heavy metals are listed. I he presence of any metal

may vary from site to site depending upon the source of individual pollutant.

Excessive uptake of metals by plants may produce toxicity in human nutrition and can cause

acute and chronic diseases. For instance, Cd and Zn can lead to acute gastrointestinal and

respiratory damages and acute heart brain and kidney damages. High Concentrations of heavy

metals n soil can negatively affects crop growth as these metals interfere with metabolic

functions in plants, including physiological and biochemical processes, inhibition of

photosynthesis and respiration and degeneration of main cell organelles even leading to deatn ot

plants (Garbusy and Alkorta, 2017; Schmidt, 2017; Schwartz ef al., 2007).
CHAPTER ONE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Phytoremediation is a plant based approach which involves the use of plants to extract and

remove elemental pollutants or lower their bioavailability in soil (Berti and Cunningham, 2000).

Plants extend their root system into the soil matrix and establish rhizosphere ecosystem to

accumulate heavy metals and inoculate their bioavailability, thereby reclaiming the polluted soil

and stabilizing soil fertility. Plants-assisted bioremediation, sometimes referred to as a type of

phytoremediation, involves the interaction of plant roots and the microorganisms associated with

these root systems to remediate soils containing elevated concentration of organic compounds.

Although the continuous advancements in agriculture, manufacturing, transportation and mining

have all improved human living standards and quality of life, they have also significantly

contributed to toxic waste generation with severe environmental consequences. The major

concern has been recalcitrant and non-biodegradable toxicants such as heavy metals (HMS) and

their persistence in the environment.

Environmental proliferation of trace elements particularly HMS in terrestrial and marine

ecosystems has been reported to elicit numerous health issues and impedes on the overall

functioning of the ecosystem. Land and water are precious natural resources on which rely the

sustainability of agriculture and the civilization of mankind. Unfortunately, they have been

subjected to maximum exploitation and severely degraded or polluted due to anthropogenic

activities. The pollution includes point sources such as emission, effluents and solid discharge

from industries, vehicles exhaustion and metal from smelting and mining and non- point source

such as soluble salts (natural and artificial), use of insecticides/pesticides, disposal of industrial

and municipal wastes in agriculture and excessive use of fertilizers (cink#4,200,

damaging effect to plants, animals and ultimately to health, but those that add heavy male to

soils and waters are of serious concem due to their persistence in the environment and

carcinogenicity to human beings. They cannot be destroyed biologically but are only nefoed

from one oxidation state or organic complex to another (Garbios and Alkorta, 2961; Gibertat

al., 2003). Therefore, heavy metal pollution poses a great potential threat to the enviament and

human health

In order to maintain good quality of soils and waters and keep them free from contamination,

continuous efforts have been made to develop technologies that are easy to use, sustainable and

economically feasible, physicochemical approaches have been widely used for remedying

polluted soil and water, especially at a small scale. However, they experience more difficulties

for a large scale of remediation because of high costs and side effects. The use of plant species

for cleaning polluted soils and waters named as phytoremediation has gained increasing attention

since last decade as an emerging cheaper technology. Many studies have been conducted in this

field in the last two decades. Numerous plant species have been identified and tested for their

traits in the uptake and accumulation of different heavy metals. Mechanisms of metal uptake of

whole plant and cellular levels have been investigated. Progresses have been made in the

mechanistic and practical application aspects of phytoremediation.

** SOURCES OF HEAVY METALS AND SOIL WATER POLLUTION

though the

beau mash that of 2001k of which over 10,000 wes contaminated as the

Recused to vental and Fasten European combies (trade, 2000) in USA, there are 6.000.000

bony Fick which are contaminated with heavy metals and need reclamation (Mekechan
units are pouring their untreated eftuents in the surface drains which quead over near

jes Heavy metals that have been identified in the pothured environment include, As, Cu, C

phen, N. He and n. The sources of various heavy metals are listel. The presence of any metal

acute and chronic diseases. For instance, Gf and on can lead to acute gastrointestinal and

respiratory thanages and acute heart brain and kidney damages. High Concentrations of heavy

metals in suit can negatively affects emp growth as these metals interfere with metabolie

Ametions in plants, including physiological and biochemical processes inhibition of

photosynthesis and respiration and degeneration at main cell organethes even leading to death of

phots (tarbux and Afkorts, 201% Schmidt, 201%200

Soil contamination with heavy metals may also cause changes in the composition of soil

microbial community, adversely affecting soil characteristics (Giller et al., 2014; Kozdroy and

Van Elsa's, 2014; Kurek and Bollag, 2015).

2.1 PLANT SPECIES FOR PHYTOREMEDIATION

To identify plant populations with the ability to accumulate heavy metal, 300 accessions ot 30

plants species were tested by Ebbs et al. (2015) in hydroponies for four(4) weeks, having

moderate levels of Cd, Cu and Zn. The results indicate that many Brassica spp Such as B.

Juncea, LL Czern, B napus and B. raps L exhibited moderately enhanced Zn and Cd

accumulation. They were also found to be most effective in removing Zn from the contaminated

soils. To date, more than 400 plant species have been identified as metal hyper-accumulators

representing less than 0.2% of all angiosperms (Brooks, 2015; Baker et al., 2007). The plant

species that have been identified for remediation of soil include either high biomass plants such

as willous (Landberg and Greger, 2016) or those that have low biomass but high hyper-

accumulating characteristics such as this spp, and Arabidopsis species. The hyper-accumulators
that have been most extensively studied by scientific community include Thlasp spp are known

to hyperaccumulate more than one metal i.e. T. caerulescens for Cd, Ni, Pb, and Zn. T.

goesingense for Ni, and Zn. 7. ochroleucum for Ni and Zn and 7. rotundifolium for Ni, pb and

Zn (Prasad and Freitas, 2016).

Among the genus, 1hlaspi, the hyperaccumulator plant 7hlaspi caerulescenS received much

attention and has been extensively studied as potential candidates for Cd and Zn contaminated

soils.

2.2 PHYTOREMEDIATION OF POLLUTED WATER

Rhizofiltration is the removal of pollutants from the contaminated waters by accumulation into

plant biomass. Several aquatic species have been identified and tested for the phytoremediation

of heavy metals from the polluted water. These include sharp deck (Polygonum amphibium L.),

duck weed (Lemma minor L.), water hyacinth (Eichomia crassippes), water lettuce (P.

stratiotes), water drop wort Oenathe Jauanies (BI) Del, Calamus (Lepironia articulate)

pennywort (Hydrocotyle umbellate L.) (Prasad and Freitas, 2015). The roots of Indian mustard

are found to be effective in the removal of Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb and Zn and sunflower can remove

Pb, Li, Cs. 137 and Sr. 90 from hydrophonic solution (Zaranyika and Ndaphoadza, 2008).

CHAPTER THREE

3.0 MECHANISM OF PHYTOREMEDIATION

There are four (4) basic mechanisms of phytoremediation of contaminated soil:

3.1 PHYTOEXTRACTION

This involves the cultivation of upper plants that concentrate and translocate soil contaminants in

their tissues (Milner and Kochain, 2008). The species considered suitable for Phytoextraction

generally meet the following criteria;

ii.

Metallotolerant to high heavy metals concentration

Rapid growth and high biomass production and

iii. Effective accumulation of metal in foliar parts.

Among phytoremediation technologies, phytoextraction has received increasing attention from

researchers not only for it's public appeal but also for the substantial economic opportunity it

presents. Two approaches have been proposed for heavy metals; continuous or natural

phytoextraction employs natural hyperaccumulator may tend to be slow growing, produce low

biomass and take years or decades to effectively cleanup sites.

Chemically assisted phytoextraction (chelate enhanced phytoextraction) tries to address these

shortfalls by artificially inducing heavy metal accumulation in plants through the application of

amendrient such as chelating agents which heavy metals solubility and bioavailability in soil.

3.2 PHYTOSTABILIZATION

Plants stabilizes pollutants in soil thereby rendering them harmless and reducing the damage of

pollutants (Arasiola et al., 2019). Phytostabilization also involves the establishment of a plant

cover on the surface of the contaminated sites with the aim of reducing the mobility of

contaminants within the vadose zone through accumulation by roots or immobilization within the

rhizosphere, thereby reducing off-site contamination since metals with different oxidation states

possess and display diverse toxicity, several plants are able to convert these metals into less toxic

states by releasing redox enzymes. For instance, Cr (vi) can be converted into Cr (III) which is

less toxic and less mobile in the soil. While phytostabilization is minimally disruptive (no

contaminated secondary waste), it is regarded as a temporary measure for the containment of

heavy metals such as Se, Hg and As which can exist as gaseous species in the environment.

Several plant species including A. thaliana, B. juncea and C. canescent have been shown to

possess the ability to extract heavy metal and convert them into a gaseous species which are

released into the atmosphere.

3.3 PHYTOVOLATILIZATION

In this case, plants converts contaminants into volatile substances and are emitted into the

atmosphere (Kramar, 2008). However, phytovolatilization remains controversial since the

contaminants released into the atmosphere can be re-disposed back into the soil after a while and

therefore not a practical long term solution.

3.4 PHYTODEGRADATION

This involves the uptake of contaminants with the following breakdown, mineralization or

metabolization by plants. itself through varied internal accelerator reactions and metabolic

processes (Spaczynski et al., 2012). In contrast, phytodegradation primarily employs the roots of

certain terrestrial or aquatic plant species to absorb, concentrate and precipitate heavy metals

from contaminated water and aqueous waste sources.

By using rhizofiltration, numerous plant species have been found to effectively remove heavy

metals such as pb, Cd, Cd, Ni, Zn and Cr which are primarily held within the roots and has been

proven to be suitable for the treatment of acid mine drainage, partially treated industrial

discharges and agricultural runoff as well as low-level radioactive contaminants from liquid

streams.

3.5 FACTORS AFFECTING PHYTOEXTRACTION

Several factors affect the uptake mechanism of heavy metals by plants and their subsequent
understanding can greatly enhance the uptake performance by plants. The success of a

phytoextraction program depends upon the identification of suitable plant species that can

hyperaccumulate heavy metals and produce large amounts of biomass using established crop

production and Management practices. Some important criteria in selecting plant species for

phytoremediation are:

a) The level of tolerance to the metals at the concerned site

b) The heavy metals accumulation and translocation potential of the plant

c) High growth rate and above ground biomass yield which provides more area for the

uptake and storage of heavy metals

d) Tolerance to weather extremes including drought and flooding

e) Tolerance to high pH and salinity

f) Root characteristic and depth of the root zone, and

g) Easily harvestable.

The root zone also plays an important role in phytoextraction by absorbing heavy contaminants

and storing or metabolizing them within the plant tissue. In addition, root exudates consisting of

a suite of small and high molecular weight organic as well as inorganic compound can change

rhizosphere pH and increase heavy beyond plant selection, metal bioavailability in the soils is yet

another crucial factor in the phytoextraction process. Soil metal fraction generally exists in three

forms; available, unavailable, and exchangeable fractions.

3.6

PHYTOEXTRACTION EFFICIENCY

Three key factors determine the metal accumulation efficiency of plants, namely: bio

concentration factor (BCF), translocation factor (TF) and biomass production. Bio concentration
factor (BCF) describes the ability of a plant to absorb metals from the soil while the TF, also

called shoot-root quotient, describes a plants ability to translocate metals from roots to the

aboveground biomass (shoots, stem, leaves and flowers).

Bio concentration and translocation factor screening are necessary to select and categorize plants

either as indicators, excluders or hyperaccumulator. Plants with bioconcentration factor and

translocation factors greater than one point to an efficient metal transport system present in the

plant and are considered suitable in root to shoot metal translocation.

In contrast, plants with TF values below one indicate insufficient metal transfer suggesting that

such plants accumulate metal in the roots and rhizomes much greater than in aboveground

structure.

3.7 TREATMENT AND CONTROL OF PHYTOREMEDIATION

Over the last few decades, a number of strategies and technologies have been developed and

applied to address heavy metal contamination. According to Stegman et al, contaminated sites

may be managed using either of four alternatives;

i. Abandonment of the contaminated site

ii.

Complete or partial encapsulation of the contaminated site

iii.

Excavation and disposal of the contaminated soil followed by land filling or

iv.

Treatment of the contaminated soil in-situ or ex-situ.

The first three alternatives do not exactly eliminate the contaminants from the site but rather
restrict further spread and prevents human exposure. However, these methods are effective only

in small isolated areas and best suited for short term periods. As such, several remediation

techniques have been sought and develop in the last three decades to effectively deal with the

problem.

These techniques consist of chemical, physical, thermal and biological methods which have been

broadly classified into ex-situ (off-site) and in-situ (on-site) remediation techniques. Generally,

ex-situ remediation techniques requires the removal of contaminated Media (soil, sediment,

water etc) for treatment off site and returning the treated Media to the original site. Conventional

ex-situ remediation methods includes; excavation, detoxification and destruction of the

10

contaminant physically or chemically through stabilization, solidification, immobilization,

incineration or destruction.

In contrast, in-situ remediation techniques are typically conducted on site to either decrease

metal bioavailability or separate contaminated Media. Although, in-situ remediation methods are

cheaper due to the lack of excavation and transportation of materials, they are often more time

consuming, less controllable, less effective and less efficient at contaminant removal compared

to ex-situ options. A composition between commonly applied soil remediation technologies for

heavy metals have been presented.

3.8

METAL REMOVAL RATE

The rate of metallic element removal from polluted wet land depends on plant species,

climacteric condition, statue of substrates, type of element (Hg> MN > Cd= Fe> Cr=Pb > Cu

= Zn > Al > Ni > As), their ionic forms (Marchand et al., 2010). Remediation habit of plants

species hyperaccumulator > accumulator > indicator > excluder (Bradl, 2005), pH less than 5 is
harmful for plants meanwhile there is a report for a plant species (lupinus) that can grow in pH

42 and up take 98% metallic elements (Ximenez Embun et al., 2001). Results of five aquatic

species indicated that all aluminum up take increased in low pH (Gallon et al., 2004).

3.9

ADVANTAGES OF PHYTOREMEDIATION

1. Phytoremediation is highly accepted by the public in removing toxicants from soil

2. Phytoremediation uses solar energy and thus makes them cost effective

3. Phytoremediation contributes to landscape improvement and reduces environmental

impact of heavy metals

4. Helps in reducing dust dispersal by contaminated wind

11

5. It aids in the reduction of leaching, surface run offs and mobilization of contaminants in

the soil (Mendez and Maier, 2008).

6. Easy to implement and maintain

7. Suitable for large contaminated areas

3.10 DISADVANTAGES OF PHYTOREMEDIATION

1. The toxicity and bioavailability of degraded products remains unknown.

2. The release of compounds to increase the morbidity of the metals can be leached into

ground water.

3. Contamination may spread through food chain if accumulator plants are ingested by

animals.
4. Plants are selective in metal remediation

5. The concentration of metals can be toxic and lethal to plants.

6. Highly dependent on environmental and climatic factors as well as soil-plant chemistry.

7. Harvested plant biomass requires proper disposal as hazardous waste.

CHAPTER FOUR

4.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 CONCLUSION

Phytoremediation is an effective technique in removing metal contamination in soils through

plant uptake mechanisms. These methods despites its advantages has some limitations which

include the leaching of metals to the food chain via ingestion of the contaminated plant by

animals or to the aquatic habitats. The major factor to be considered in phytoremediation is the

plant species used.

4.2

RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations are deduced from the study;

I recommend that combination therapy of plants and microbe remediation could help reduce

the effects of both metal contaminations of soil and water bodies.

I recommend that studies should be done to enhance knowledge on the microbial remediation

mechanisms of polluted soils.

I recommend that government should make laws to guide the production of appliances in

companies (firms) that work with heavy metals concerning the levels of heavy metals they
use

13

REFERENCES

Aransiola, S. A., Ijah, U. J. J., Abioye, O. P. and Bola, J. D. (2019). Microbial-aided

phytoremnedaition of heavy metals contaminated soil: A review. Journal of

Phytoemediation, 8; 78-89.

Brooks, R. R. (2005). Plants that hyperaccumulate heavy metals. Wallington: CAN International.

Pp. 379,

Chaney, R. L, Malik, M. L. Y. M., Brown, S. L., Brewer, E. P., Scott Angle, J. and Baker, A. J.

M. (2005). Phytoremediation of soil metals. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol, 13(3): 279-284.

Cunning, S. C. and Berti, W. R. (2000). Phytoextraction and phytostabilization: Technical

economic and regulatory consideration of the soil lead issue. In; Terry, N., Banulos, G.

(eds.) Phytoremediation, Florida, USA: Lewia Publishers. Pp. 359-376.

Davidson, C. M. (2013). Methods for the determination of heavy metals and metallaloids in

soils. In: Heavy metals in soils: Trace metals and metalloids in soil and their

bioavailability mlowey, B. J. (ed) Springer Netherlands Dordrecht. Pp. 97-140.

Diarra, I. and Prassad, S. (2021). The current state of heavy metal pollution in Pacific Island

countries: A review. Applied Spectroscopy Review, 56:27-51.

Diarra, I., Kumar, K. and Prasad, S. (2021). Application of phytoremediation for heavy metals

contaminated sites in the South Pacific: Strategies, current challenges and future

prospects. Applied Spectroscopy Reviews, 1: 2-23.

Dicknson, N. M., Baker, A. J. M., Doronila, A., and Lardlaw, S. and Reeves, R. D. 92009).

Phytoremediation of inorganic compound: Realism and synergies. International Journal

of Phytoremediatuon, 11: 97-114.

Dos Santos, M. C. and Lenz, E. (2002). The use of aquatic macrophytes (Eichhomia crassipe) as
a biological filter in the treatment of lead contaminated effluents. Environ. Technol,

21(6): 615-622.

14

Ebbs, S. D., Lasat, M. M., Brady, D. J., Comish, J., Gordon, R. and Kochian, I. U. (2004).

Phytoextraction of cadmium and zinc from a contaminated soil. J. Environ. Qual, 26(5);

1424-1430.

Gachiff, E., Linton, P., Riddle, D. J. and Thomas, P. R. (2003), Chapter 23. Phytoremediation of

soil and ground water: Economic benefits over traditional methodologies: In

Bioremediation and bioeconomy, Prasad, M. N. V. (eds) Elsevier, London UK. Pp. 589-

608.

Garbisu, C. and Alkortal, A. (2001). Phytoextraction. A cost effective plant-based technology for

the removal of metals from the environment. Biores Technol, 77(3): 229-236.

Giller, K. E., Writter, E. and McGrath, S. P. (2003). Toxicities of heavy metals to

microorganisms and microbial process in gricultural soils. A review. Soll Blochem,

30(10-11): 1389-1414.

Hussain, C. M. and Kecil, R. (2020). Techniques for environmental analysis in modern

environmental analysis techniques for pollutants. Elsevier. Pp. 223-251.

Ingole, N. W. and Bhole, A. G. (2003). Removal of heavy metal from aqueous solution by water

hyacinth (Eichhomia crassipes). J. Water Supply Res. Technolo-AQUA, 52(2): 119-128.

Kramer, U. 92005). Phytoremediation: novel approaches to clearing up polluted soils. Current

opinion in biotechnology, 16: 133-141.

McGrath, S. P., Zhao, F. J. and Lamb, E. (2001). Plant and rhizosphere process involved in

phytoremediation of metal contaminated soils. Plant Soil, 232(12): 207-214,

redevelopment of contaminated commercial and industrial properties. Available from:

http://md3.csa.com/discoveryguidebrown/overview.php7siD205e43ivvp4rDacttha39r5g.

Mendez, M. O. and Maier, R. M. (2008). Phytoremediation of mine tailing in template and

environments. Review in Environmental Science and Biotechnology, 7: 47-59,

15

Milner, M. J. and Kochian, L. V. (2008). Investigating heavy metal hyperaccumulation using

Thlespi aerulence as a model system. Ann. Bot, 102: 3-13.

Morel, J-L., Echevarria, G. and Goncharoua, N. (2007). Phytoremediation of metal

contamination soils Springer Science and Business Media, Netherlands. Pp. 45-65.

Paulo, J. C., Prakas, J. P., Varun, M., D'Souza, R. and Paul, M. S. (2014). Phytoremediation of

soils contaminated with metals and metalloids at mining areas: Potential of native flora.

In: Environmental risk assessment of Soil Contamination. Paulo, J. C. (eds.). Intechopen.

Pp. 485-517.

Purakayastha, T. J., Visweanath, T., Bhadraray, S., Chhonkar, P. K., Adhikar, P. P. and

Suribabu, K. (2008). Phytoextraction of zinc, copper, nickel and lead from contaminated

soil by different species of Brassica. Int. J. Phytoremediation, 10: 61-72.

Rai, P. K., Lee, S. S., Zhang, M., Tsang, Y. F. and Kim, K-H. (2019). Heavy metals in food

crops: Health risks, fate, mechanisms, and Management. Environ. Int, 125: 365-385.

Rai, P., K., Ice, S. S., Zhang, M., Tsang, Y. F., Kim, K. H. (2019). Heavy metals in food crops:

health risk, fate, mechanisms and management. Envron. Int, 125: 365-385.

Rathod, P. H., Rossiter, D. G., Noomea, M. F. and Meer, F. O. (2012). Proximal spectral sensing

to monitor phytoremediation of metal-contaminated soils. Int. J. Phytoremediat, 15: 405-

Romana, S., Bishoas, A. K., Ajay Singh, A. B., Ahirweer, N. K. and Subbla Rao, A. (2013).

Potential rose of phytostabilization of chromium contaminated soils. Ind. J. Plant

Physiolol, 18: 381-383.

Schmidth, U. (2003). Enhancing phytoremediation: The effect of chemical soil manipulation on

mobility plant accumulation and leaching of heavy metals. J. Environ. Qual, 32: 1939-

1954.

Sheoran, V., Sheoran, A. S. and Poonia, P. (2016). Factors affecting phytotoextraction: A

review. Pedosphere, 26: 148-166.

16

Spaczynski, M., Seta-Koselska, A., Patryzylas, P., Betkj, A., and Skorzynska-blot, E. (2012),

Phytoremediation and biodegradation in rhizosphere as efficient methods of reclamation

of soil contaminated by organic chemicals (A review). Acta Agrophys, 19: 55-169,

Wang, Q., Cui, Y. and Dong, Y. (2002). Phytoremediation of polluted water potential and

prospects of wetland plants. Acta Biotechnol, 2002(1-2): 199-208.

Wuana, R. A. and Okieimen, F. B. (2011). Heavy metals in contaminated soils: A review of

sources chemistry, risks and best available strategies for remediation. Ecology, 5: 1-20.

Xian, X. and Inshokolifard, G. (1989), Effect of pH on chemical forms and plant availability of

cadmium, zinc, and lead in polluted soils, Water, Air, Soll Pollution, 45: 265-273.

Zayad, A., Growthaman, S. and Terry, N. (2001), phytoremediation of trace elements by etland

plants: 1 Duck weed. J. Environ. Qual, 27(3): 715-721.

Zhao, F. J., Lomb, E. and Breedon, T. (2000). Zine hyperacculation and cellular distribution in

Arabidopsis haller. Plant Cell Environ, 23(5): 507-514.