Science of the Total Environment 902 (2023) 165949

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Science of the Total Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scitotenv

Techno-economic analysis of phytoremediation: A strategic rethinking

Junye Wang *, Mojtaba Aghajani Delavar
Faculty of Science and Technology, Athabasca University, 1 University Drive, Athabasca, Alberta T9S 3A3, Canada

H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

• Review and synthesize mechanism and

application of phytoremediation
• Examine enhanced phytoremediation
methods and their practical applications.
• Analyze integrated assessment of phy­
toremediation for commercial potentials.
• Identify inconsistences and knowledge
gaps of cost assessment of phytoreme
diation
• Discuss upcoming challenges and future
directions for managing phytoremedia
tion.

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Editor: Charlotte Poschenrieder Phytoremediation is a cost-effective and environmentally sound approach, which uses plants to immobilize/
stabilize, extract, decay, or lessen toxicity and contaminants. Despite successful evidence of field application,
Keywords: such as natural attenuations, and self-purification, the main barriers remain from a “promising” to a “com­
Phytoremediation mercial” approach. Therefore, the ultimate goal of this paper is to examine factors that contribute to phytor­
Environmental pollution
emediation’s underutilization and discuss the real costs of phytoremediation when the time and land values are
Contaminated soil
considered. We revisit mechanisms and processes of phytoremediation. We synthesize existing information and
Reclamation
Phytomanagement understanding based on previous works done on phytoremediation and its applications to provide the technical
assessment and perspective views in the commercial acceptance of phytoremediation. The results show that
phytoremediation is the most suitable for remote regions with low land values. Since these regions allow a longer
period to be restored, land vegetation covers can be established in more or less time like natural attenuation.
Since the length of phytoremediation is an inherent limitation, this inherent disadvantage limits its adoption in
developed business regions, such as growing urban areas. Because high land values could not be recovered in the
short term, phytoremediation is not cost-effective in those regions. We examine the potential measures that can
enhance the performance of phytoremediation, such as soil amendments, and agricultural practices. The results
obtained through review can clarify where/what conditions phytoremediation can provide the most suitable
solutions at a large scale. Finally, we identify the main barriers and knowledge gaps to establishing a vegetation
cover in large-scale applications and highlight the research priorities for increased acceptance of
phytoremediation.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Wang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.165949
Received 6 May 2023; Received in revised form 29 July 2023; Accepted 30 July 2023
Available online 1 August 2023
0048-9697/© 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
J. Wang and M. Aghajani Delavar Science of the Total Environment 902 (2023) 165949

1. Introduction contaminants, and modulates their bioavailability, restoring damaged

soil and regulating soil health and productiveness (Ali et al., 2013).
Contaminated lands constitute a worldwide risk to human health and Compared to physical and chemical remediations, phytoremediation
biodiversity. Pollutants and toxic substances, such as heavy metals, or requires less equipment, materials, energy, and labor than other tech­
radioactive materials, can enter the environment directly or indirectly nologies like natural attenuation (Jaskulak et al., 2019). There is ample
through natural processes, such as volcanic exposure, forest fires, and proof that natural processes, such as natural attenuations, and self-
windblown transport of particles, and anthropogenic activities, such as purification of rivers, are special cases of phytoremediation, but their
extraction from ores, industrial wastes, agricultural pesticides, fertil­ successes have been proven beyond our research history. Phytor­
izers, and sewage. Therefore, contaminated soil and water should be emediation was an efficient approach for on-site or in-situ treatment of
remediated in order to avoid or reduce access to land, air, and aquatic different pollutants from soils and water under numerous situations. For
habitats. example, according to Marques et al. (2009), phytoremediation is ten
There are many approaches to remediating inorganic and organic times less expensive and significantly less intrusive than conventional
pollutants from soils, such as incineration, chemical oxidation, stabili­ approaches. Ma et al. (2000) extracted arsenic from polluted field soil
zation, electrocoagulation, and soil washing (Amponsah et al., 2017, using a plant. The maximum arsenic content of 7500 ppm was detected
2018). These physical and chemical approaches are expensive and in aboveground biomass, which was 200 times that in soil.
harmful to soils (Gurdon et al., 2021), resulting in secondary pollution Phytoremediation takes a long period with lesser effectiveness to
(Ji et al., 2011) and greenhouse gas emissions (Witters et al., 2012; remediate contaminated soil and water, as a comparison to traditional
Amponsah et al., 2018). Moreover, as pollutant concentration decreases, approaches, although it can be enhanced using genetic engineering,
they might not be appropriate in cases where contaminants are present microorganism, and soil amendments. Phytoremediation is interactions
in comparatively low amounts over a larger area (Mulligan et al., 2001). among plants, soil, water, pollutants, weather, and nutrients (Fig. 1).
Consequently, these physical and chemical practices may be the most Phytoremediation success relies greatly on the quick establishment of
suitable option for urgent remedial needs due to their short treatment vegetation cover and quick growth of vegetation species used in phy­
period despite less environmentally friendly features. Bioremediation is toremediation requires appreciative conditions, such as climate, soil
supposed to be safe and efficient for removing contaminants, particu­ types, agronomic practices, and selection of the species. Because soil and
larly organic pollutants, such as petroleum hydrocarbons (PHC), volatile weather vary by site, the exact phytoremediation performance using one
organic compounds (VOCs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) type of plant in one site may not reproduce in another. Consequently, it
(Amponsah et al., 2019), trichloroethylene (TCE), 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene is site-specific. Aside from soil and weather, plants’ physiology may be
(TNT), metal(loid)s (Shah and Daverey, 2021), salt (Shah et al., 2021, influenced by many living species, such as insects, pests, pathogens,
2022), pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), personal care microorganisms, and management in the site (Shah et al., 2021; Kafle
products and medications (Kurade et al., 2021), organic chemicals and et al., 2022). For example, the efficiency and duration of phytor­
radioactive elements (Pivetz, 2001), from polluted soils and water. emediation will be affected by soil control and associated systems,
Phytoremediation stands as one of the bioremediation techniques to fertilization, and irrigation techniques. Although agricultural practices
utilize plants for phytoextraction, phytomining, rhizofiltration, and are important for plant growth and reliable phytoremediation perfor­
phytostabilization of contaminates from soils (Sarwar et al., 2017; mances, they nevertheless have not been reviewed properly. Therefore,
Ashraf et al., 2019). Phytoremediation is considered an environmentally it is still challenging to assess how long a phytoremediation will take and
beneficial, cost-effective, and highly societal acceptable substitute for if it is efficient for a specific site and climate. This leads to difficulties for
conventional physical and chemical remediation processes (Pilon-Smits, a large-scale application of phytoremediation to a specific site and
2005). Plants stretch their roots into the soils to form a rhizosphere climate.
environment that accumulates heavy metals, degrades organic Despite the fact that phytoremediation was successful in the field for

Fig. 1. Illustration of phytoremediation.

2
J. Wang and M. Aghajani Delavar Science of the Total Environment 902 (2023) 165949

decades, it is underutilized and remains in its early phases of investi­ phytoremediation are shown in Fig. 2. Phytoremediation capacity de­
gation and development (Conesa et al., 2012; Ali et al., 2013; Lee, 2013; pends on five interactive components: 1) plant species and capacity to
Kafle et al., 2022). In the past decades, a lot of efforts have been made in tolerance, accumulation, and uptake, 2) weather environments, such as
this field and some reviews have summarized recent progresses in temperature, moisture, radiation, and rainfall, 3) soil features, such as
phytoremediation. Jaskulak et al. (2020) examined modeling-assisted porosity, density, pH, field capacity, electric conductivity, pollutants,
phytoremediation of soils contaminated by heavy metals. Kafle et al. and nutrient, 4) microbial activities, and 5) field management, such as
(2022) studied phytoremediation methods, plant choosing, and phy­ fertilization, irrigation, manuring, and tillage. Plants are able to drasti­
toremediation improvement with both organic and synthetic chemicals. cally alter the nearby soil through the processes of shoot and root
Conesa et al. (2012) reviewed the obstacles of phytoremediation and development, water and mineral uptake, senescence, and eventually
evaluate if it is still fruitful as a future direction. They suggested that destruction. They will directly or indirectly stabilize, sequester, and/or
new economic opportunities should be exploited, including the bio­ degrade contaminants. Agricultural practices, including crop rotations,
energy crop, biochar, and biofortification. Kafle et al. (2022) summa­ fertilizing, and irrigation, will maximize this remediation. Therefore, the
rized different mechanisms and enhanced measures. Wei et al. (2021) potential of the plants to remediate is generally determined by the ca­
indicated the importance of the viability of phytoremediation and tools pacity of vegetation uptake and accumulation and biogeochemical
to improve phytotechnologies. However, most review articles focus on transformation in soils or water.
only a very specific field of phytoremediation, such as different pollut­
ants, genetic engineering, phytoremediation mechanism, enhanced 2.1. Phytoremediation processes
techniques, and the values of phytoremediation are still unclear. It is still
unclear why phytoremediation is underutilized and in what situations Phytoremediation is a combined remediation process, including
phytoremediation is the most suitable, particularly under environmental phytoextraction, phytovolatilization, phytofiltration, phytodegradation,
and social-economic drivers. Additionally, soil amendment and agro­ and soil microorganisms (Yadav et al., 2018). Soil, plant, contaminant,
nomic practices, are still insufficiently explored. It is critical how phy­ and environmental factors determine the successful outcome of phy­
toremediation advances from a “promising” to a “commercial” toremediation technology in relation to both the remediation and
approach. revegetation of contaminated sites. The bioavailability of organic pol­
When assessing phytoremediation strategies, it is necessary to adopt lutants involves a full process of adsorption and desorption, transport,
an interdisciplinary approach to account for interactions among natural soil organic matter, minerals, soil properties, and uptake by microor­
drivers, such as plants, soil, water, pollutants, weather, and nutrients, ganisms and plants (Ren et al., 2018). Phytoremediation could syner­
and economic drivers, such as cost, in phytoremediation. Thus, in this gistically remove inorganic heavy metals and organic pollutants in a
study in contrast to previous studies, we attempt to offer an even more simple manner (Shao et al., 2020; Mishra et al., 2023).
detailed overview of phytoremediation applicability. The objectives of
this review are to synthesize our understanding of phytoremediation 2.1.1. Phytostabilization or phytoimmobilization
utilizing an interdisciplinary approach to identify the main barriers to Plants have the ability to immobilize or stabilize pollutants in the
why phytoremediation is underutilized, even though its many effective environment (Mendez and Maier, 2008). Phytostabilization decreases
applications in the field. While considering mechanisms, enhanced the mobility of inorganic pollutants, such as heavy metals, and organic
measures, and limitations, this review is going beyond phytor­ pollutants, such as pesticides and hydrocarbons, through microbial ac­
emediation advantages and limitations to include key factors in the tivity associated with the plant roots (Unterbrunner et al., 2007). In that
decision-making of phytoremediation, such as land values and time way, the bioavailability of pollutants is reduced in the soil to lower the
values. We revisit different phytotechnologies, including phytoex­ chance of additional environmental deterioration due to reducing
traction, rhizofiltration, phytostabilization, phytodegradation, and airborne or leaching into the water. Phytostabilization uses root systems
phytovolatilization. We will examine the potential measures to enhance to contain pollutants through accumulation or deposition within the
phytoremediation, such as soil amendments, and agricultural practices. rhizosphere without necessarily removing them from the site. A plant’s
Then we analyze the causes of why phytoremediation is underutilized. ability to immobilize or stabilize pollutants is referred to as phytosta­
We will examine the role of time and land values in phytoremediation bilization or phytoimmobilization. Phytostabilization restricts the
decision-making to explore the applicability and feasibility of phytor­ movement of the pollutants leaching into groundwater or getting into
emediation in contaminated soil and water and identify the main the food chain via many pathways, such as plant uptake, precipitation,
problems at large scale applications. Finally, we will point out the and complexation in the root system. Instead of degrading the pollut­
knowledge gap and future direction for increased industrial and ants, this procedure reduces and stops their spread to deeper soil or
governmental adoption of phytoremediation. groundwater. Moreover, phytostabilization does not take pollutants
from the land and accumulate them in plant roots and stems; rather, it
2. Concept and processes of phytoremediation concentrates on securing them in the soil close to the roots. Plants with
high dense, wide distribution, and deep roots have much larger surface
It is well realized that plant growth is able to extract, degrade and areas to cover larger volumes of contaminated soils for facilitating the
absorb pollutants from soils and water, and influence the physi­ phytostabilization of soils and pollutants in the rhizosphere. Some
ochemical and biological processes in the rhizosphere. Using plants for plants, such as hybrid poplar, have deep-rooted systems with high
phytoremediation includes phytoextraction, phytostabilization, and transpiration rates and can penetrate the soil to deeper depths of as
phytodegradation. It also includes phytomining, rhizofiltration, and much as 6 m deep (Unterbrunner et al., 2007). Establishing a plant cover
phytovolatilization (Sarwar et al., 2017). Throughout the course of on the surface of the polluted sites prevents pollutants from their
several years, as plants grow, they collaborate with the accompanying migration through wind and water erosion, leaching, and soil
microorganisms to either eliminate the contaminates from the polluted dispersion.
soil or change its physiochemical properties to mitigate a threat to both The immobilization and bioavailability of pollutants can be affected
human well-being and sustainability (Cunningham and Ow, 1996). by soil properties, such as soil pH, soil organic matter, cation and anion
Phytoremediation is a process of ecosystems where plants, soil, water, exchange capacities, clay fraction, and soil porosity, thereby, deter­
pollutants, weather, and nutrients interact in the remediation of toxic mining the successful outcome of phytostabilization technology in
contaminants from soil and water and its performance depends signifi­ polluted site (Bolan et al., 2011, 2014). Plant, pollutant, and environ­
cantly on the interaction among plants, microorganisms, and the envi­ mental factors also influence the immobilization and bioavailability of
ronment (e.g., soil, temperature, and water). The mechanisms of pollutants. Phytostabilization can be improved using soil amendments,

3
J. Wang and M. Aghajani Delavar Science of the Total Environment 902 (2023) 165949

Fig. 2. Phytoremediation systems and interactions between factors. Unlike a natural ecosystem, phytoremediation aims to remove pollutants from the ecosystem and
includes natural factors (e.g., soil, vegetation, and weather) in the yellow boxes and pollutants in the red box. Hydrology and biogeochemistry interact with plant
growth and agricultural practices in the ecosystem.

agricultural practices, and high tolerance of plant species to pollutants. produce less harmful byproducts. Root exudates, which are organic
However, since the pollutants are left in place, the site requires regular compounds, encourage this process by sustaining soil microbial pop­
monitoring to ensure that the optimal stabilizing conditions are main­ ulations. Plants respond to environmental stress which, as a result,
tained or surveillance to avoid exposure to humans and animals. regulates the metabolic profile to release exudates for promoting bac­
terial activity and development in the rhizosphere. Therefore, the phy­
2.1.2. Phytodegradation and phytotransformation todegradation technique can be used for the treatment of many
Organic contaminations may be degraded or even mineralized by pollutants, such as chlorinated solvents, herbicides and explosives, ar­
plants with accompanying microbes (Pivetz, 2001). However, inorganic omatic and petroleum hydrocarbons in soils, and volatile substances
pollutants, such as heavy metals, cannot be altered at an atomic level but from the atmosphere. Hydrophobic organic pollutants have responded
can be transformed, known as phytotransformation. Phytodegradation especially well to phytodegradation. Organic contaminants, such as
involves the degradation of organic pollutants directly by the enzymes TNT, PCBs, PAHs, PHCs, and herbicides, can be broken down by plants
and excretes released from roots, microorganisms, or metabolic activ­ and related microbes (Newman and Reynolds, 2004). For instance,
ities within plant tissues (Newman and Reynolds, 2004). The complex poplars have been utilized to phytodegrade harmful and resistant
organic pollutants are converted into simpler products and integrated organic substances with effectiveness. One of the most prevalent con­
into the plant tissues to boost plant growth. In phytodegradation, plants taminants, TCE, may be broken down by hybrid poplars and its phyto­
release enzymes, such as dehalogenase, peroxidase, and nitrilase, from toxic effects were reduced (Kang et al., 2012; Doty et al., 2017).
roots through metabolic activities of plant tissues, that assist to degrade Biostimulation or bioaugmentation can be used to increase the number
pollutants. Organic contaminants are directly degraded by these en­ of soil bacterial communities.
zymes (Schnoor et al., 1995). Plants’ roots and shoots both engage in Because heavy metals cannot be degraded, some plant species
substantial metabolic activity. This performance of plants may be possess the ability to transform them into less toxic forms through the
improved even more by microbiological communities that live within release of enzymes, chelats, or organic compounds in the rhizosphere.
and close to the roots, in the body of their roots, in the xylem stream, in Specific plants could exude chelates. These chelates bind to heavy
the tissue of their shoots and leaves, and on the exterior of their leaves. metals and form stable complexes, reducing their toxicity and facili­
Khandare and Govindwar (2015) showed that certain (Class 4) plants tating their sequestration or elimination from the plant (Prasad and
have better abilities for phytodegradion than some (Class 3) plant spe­ Freitas, 2003). They can strengthen microbial activity to promote the
cies. Even outside of the plant root/rhizosphere directly, several of these degradation of heavy metals by microorganisms and transform the
metabolic enzymes might well be helpful in the cleanup. Rhizospheric metals into less toxic forms through the redox process, or complexation.
bacteria attenuate or biodegrade organic pollutants in the soil to Specific plants can accumulate heavy metals in their tissues and then

4
J. Wang and M. Aghajani Delavar Science of the Total Environment 902 (2023) 165949

volatilize them into the atmosphere through transpiration, resulting in a changed into the substantially less dangerous Hg. Yet, precipitation and
reduction of the metal amount in the soil. deposition might bring back the volatile form of mercury to the soil.
Volatile organic pollutants may be volatilized directly from shoots or
2.1.3. Phytoextraction and Phytovolatalization leaves or indirectly from the soil due to plant root metabolisms (Limmer
In order to minimize the level of toxins in the soil and water, phy­ and Burken, 2016). Gordon et al. (1998) showed that poplars could
toextraction makes advantage of plants’ capacity to extract contami­ directly uptake and degrade substantially TCE in a field trial. During the
nants from the ground or the water, move them around, and collect them growing season, at least 95 % of the TCE was removed from the influent
in the aboveground biomass. The optimal strategy is to repeatedly water stream. 70 to 90 % of the TCE was transpired in the laboratory
harvest the biomass volatile state separately and eliminate pollution trial while <5 % of the total TCE uptaken by the plants was transpired in
from the soil while preserving the soil’s fertility and structure. The greenhouse and field treatment. Newman and Reynolds (2004) found
phytoextraction process consists of five key steps: Bioavailability and that actively metabolizing poplars could intercept a moving plume of
mobilization, ion absorbed by roots, transportation to leaves, accumu­ TCE-polluted water and decrease the polluted levels substantially.
lation, and deposition in plants, and tolerance to sustain plant devel­
opment (Yan et al., 2020). Phytovolatilization involves the uptake of 2.1.4. Phytofiltration
contaminants by plant roots but contaminates do not accumulate in the Plant roots, stems, or seedlings are used to filter pollutants out of
biomass of plants. Plants convert contaminates to a gaseous state and contaminated soil or water, known as phytofiltration (Mesjasz-Przyby­
release them into the atmosphere. łowicz et al., 2004; Yan et al., 2020). Rhizofiltration is the use of plant
The accumulation of metal depends on plant uptake ability and roots to collect, accumulate, and precipitate toxic substances from
intracellular binding sites. The two primary markers of a plant species’ contaminated lands in the rhizosphere. Like phytoextraction, rhizofil­
capability for phytoextraction are its capacity to accumulate metals and tration accumulates pollutants in or on the plant. However, rhizofiltra­
its ability to produce above-ground biomass (Salt et al., 1998; Ali et al., tion extracts pollutants in water, rather than in soil (Pivetz, 2001). The
2013). The heavy metal is sorbed at the surface of the roots, travels rhizofiltration accumulates in the roots or in the portion of the plant
through the cell membrane into the root cells, and then builds up in above water. Plant mass containing pollutants are removed by har­
plant shoots. Certain plants, known as hyperaccumulators, are able to vesting the roots or the above-water portion of the plant and disposed of.
collect extremely high concentrations of poisonous chemicals (metals or To remove more harmful metals from solutions, an ideal plant for rhi­
metalloids) in shoots throughout their life cycle without displaying any zofiltration should possess quickly growing roots with high biomass
signs of phytotoxicity (Rascio and Navari-Izzo, 2011). Over 400 plant yield, a thick root network, and high resistance to heavy metals (Ma
species from 45 families are hyperaccumulators. The majority of these et al., 2001).
organisms are Brassicaceae (Salt et al., 1998). Considering identical Heavy metals are uptaken by the roots or are deposited onto the root
conditions, the amount of metals gathered by naturally occurring heavy surface. To change pH, moisture, and bioavailability, roots emit exu­
metal hyperaccumulators can be 100 times larger than that of typical dates (Yaashikaa et al., 2022). This can render heavy metals in
non-hyperaccumulating species (Brooks et al., 1998; Rascio and Navari- groundwater. To remove contaminants from waste effluents, phytofil­
Izzo, 2011). For instance, Thalspi may hyperaccumulate many metals tration was utilized with the root system, shoots, and seedlings (Dixit
and may collect roughly μg g− 1 dry matter of Zinc (Brooks et al., 1998). et al., 2015; Rahman et al., 2016). Certain aquatic plants, including
Ideally, the plants can produce a lot of biomasses to extract signifi­ hyacinth and azolla, are good candidates for wetland rehabilitation
cant amounts of heavy metals into the roots and transport them to because of their high levels of heavy metal deposition and tolerance to
aboveground biomass. The biomass of the polluted plant can be used to fast biomass production (Wang et al., 2002; Williams, 2002; Hooda,
recycle the extracted heavy metal. Pollutants may be continually drawn 2007). Rhizofiltration is a practical method for treating surface and
out of the soil or water by plants, who can also store them in their tis­ groundwater that contains only trace amounts of harmful metals. This
sues. Certain plants may acquire metals in a toxic-free manner because method may thus be especially useful for groundwater and water
they are hyperaccumulators. For instance, Thlaspi caerulescens might polluted with heavy metals or radionuclides. Applications to organic
acquire 26,000 mg kg− 1 Zinc and 22 % of interchangeable Cadmium pollutants are rare.
from contaminated soil without suffering negative consequences
(Kochian, 1996; Brown et al., 1995; Gérard et al., 2000). The majority of 2.2. Soil microorganisms
plants, though, could only hyperaccumulate single particular metal.
Phytoextraction can be enhanced using many methods: 1) Chelate Instead of the plant itself, many neutral hydrophobic compounds in
assisted or induced technique that improves the mobility and absorption the rhizosphere are mostly remedied by microorganisms. Certain
of heavy metals, 2) soil organic amendment and agronomic technique, poisonous inorganics can be concentrated by a wide range of microbes,
in which organic wastes, such as digestate, manure, or compost, are fungi, and alga besides plant own. Toxic metals could be sequestered by
added into the soil to improve bioavailability and increase plant growth, elements of cell walls or by intracellular metal-binding proteins and
and 3) biostimulation and bioaugmentation, in which native microbial peptides. Remediation mechanisms can be altered to prevent metal
communities or other matters are added to improve the ability of uptake. Metals can be converted into harmless forms by enzymes, and
remediation. We will discuss the details later. precise metal efflux systems can lower intracellular concentrations of
During the process of phytovolatilization, plants may absorb pol­ metals (Jan et al., 2014).
lutants and water from the lands, and turn them into a volatile state. Microorganisms discovered a favorable home in the root system and
They are finally released into the atmosphere through the stomata on constructed ecosystems that were helped by oxygen, exudates, and other
their leaf surfaces (Ghosh and Singh, 2005). The most crucial method for compounds released from plants (Simmer and Schnoor, 2022). Microbes
removing metals and metalloids from polluted soils, water, and organic coexist with air, nutrients, and water which are essential to the biolog­
wastes is phytoextraction (Ali et al., 2013). Some metal contaminants, ical functioning of soil (Young and Crawford, 2004). Consequently, the
such as Se, As, and Hg, can be transformed into the gaseous state through building up of microorganisms in the rhizosphere is 1–4 orders of
redox and methylation reactions, which can be transported through the magnitude, compared to bulk soils (Olson et al., 2003). Extracellular
stems to the leaves, and emitted into the air at relatively low concen­ respiratory microbes are able to fully oxidize intracellular organic ma­
trations (Frankenberger Jr and Karlson, 1995). Certain metals may un­ terials to release electrons. To shift the energy potential in the
dergo biomethylation, resulting in the formation of volatile compounds contaminant degradation pathway, electrons migrate from the intra­
that are then emitted to the environment. This method, for instance, was cellular respiratory chain to extracellular electron acceptors (Lovley and
employed for the phytovolatilization of Hg cleanup as the Hg ion is Holmes, 2022; Zhou et al., 2023).

5
J. Wang and M. Aghajani Delavar Science of the Total Environment 902 (2023) 165949

Interactions between soil, plants, and microbes are critical in chelate in the rhizosphere. This causes heavy metal-chelate complexes to
terrestrial ecosystems and phytoremediation, which are especially sig­ develop, which promotes heavy metal absorption and transport (Clem­
nificant for farming, waste treatment, phytoremediation, the water in­ ens et al., 2002; Gul et al., 2021).
dustry, and the natural and seminatural environment (Fig. 3). The plant- Organic pollutants are often more susceptible to biodegradation than
microorganism interaction can promote the plant growth and metal heavy metals (EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency),
accumulation in several approaches: 1) synthesizing phytohormones 2013). Microorganisms play a key role in the removal of persistent
and rhizobacteria to resist the harmful influences of metal stress, and organic pollutants (POPs), but it could be restricted by the low
promote plant growth, (2) releasing exudes, which promote the micro­ bioavailability of POPs due to the limited mass-transfer rate (Huese­
organism activities in the rhizosphere, and (3) enhancing the metal mann et al., 2003). Bioavailability is a dynamic interaction between
bioavailability by chelation, acidification, and precipitation, which microorganism uptakes and soil particle exchange processes under
helps sequestration of metal ions. Furthermore, microorganisms and environmental conditions. As soil–pollutant contact time increases,
host plants may collaborate to enhance growth and metal buildup. It is pollutant bioavailability, and extractability reduce, which was termed
critical to create intimate plant-microorganism relationships and ‘ageing’ phenomenon (Reid et al., 2000; Ren et al., 2018). Microor­
improve the phytoextraction performance in polluted soils throughout ganisms can completely degrade/mineralize organic pollutants,
this process (Ju et al., 2019). partially transform the pollutants, or alter their mobility (Giovanella
Heavy metal distribution and solubility can be influenced by soil et al., 2020). Oxidations and hydrolysis enhance the water-solubility of
microbes linked to plants. Some microbes coexist with plant roots, organic pollutants and their susceptibility to further degradation. For
whereas others are free-living (Wu et al., 2006; Tiwari and Lata, 2018). example, Yakimov et al. (2007) used hydrocarbonoclastic bacteria for
Exudates are released by the root to facilitate plant intake, encourage the degradation of petroleum oil entering marine systems. Johnsen et al.
microbial development and activity in the rhizosphere, and affect (2005) indicated that the microbial remediation of PAHs can offer: 1)
several physicochemical aspects (Yaashikaa et al., 2022). Plants can assimilative biodegradation and mineralization to produce carbon and
reduce metal toxicity by changing the composition of their root exudates energy for the microorganism, 2) intracellular detoxification processes
and regulating the metabolism and activities of their rhizosphere bac­ to increase the solubility of the pollutants as a prerequisite for excretion
teria. Dissolved oxygen, exudates, and secondary substances released of the compounds, and 3) co-metabolism in terms of the absence of
from plants in the rhizosphere helped microorganisms in finding a energy and carbon generation for the cell metabolism. Microorganisms
favorable home. Plant-associated microbes, particularly rhizobacteria, were used for phenol biodegradation to remove phenolic contaminants
are capable of encouraging plant development and cleaning up organic in aquatic systems (Delavar and Wang, 2023).
and metal contaminated soil (Rajkumar et al., 2012). Microorganisms Plant-microbe relations may be divided into four categories:
have been realized in improving plant growth and survival under heavy competition, commensalism, mutualism, and parasitism. Mycorrhizal
metal stress conditions due to their ability to consume and transform fungi constitute significant rhizosphere living creatures. Fungi types
waste into less or non-toxic byproducts (Tiwari and Lata, 2018). Mi­ connected with most plants include ectomycorrhizas, arbuscular my­
crobes in the rhizosphere improve the bioavailability of metals through corrhizas, orchid mycorrhizas, and ericaceous mycorrhizas. The arbus­
chelation, acidification, and precipitation for pollutant degradation or cular mycorrhizal fungi are more commonly found in the rhizosphere. It
mineralization through their enzyme-catalyzed catabolic activity was reported by Smith and Read (2010) that mycorrhizal fungi
(Verma and Kuila, 2019). For instance, organic acids excluded by plant increased root uptake up to 47-fold, improved the availability of nutri­
roots and microbes can reduce the soil pH and help the stabilization of ents and water for plant growth (Cui and Nobel, 1992), promoted plant
metal ions (Mishra et al., 2017). They substantially enhance the avail­ survival in metal-polluted soils for plant cover establishment (Meier
ability of heavy metals for plant uptake (Vamerali et al., 2010; Sheoran et al., 2012), and immobilized the tailing substances through the hyphae
et al., 2010). These microorganisms are able to release enzymes and net and cohered soil particles that form appreciate soil aggregates
(Jastrow et al., 1998; Liu et al., 2022). Ma et al. (2019) showed that
inoculation of microorganisms alone or coupled with arbuscular
mycorrhizal fungi substantially enhanced plant development. They
changed the physiological state, such as electrolyte leak, chlorophyll,
proline, and malondialdehyde levels, and buildup potential of the Ni and
sodium (Na+) for their absorption and translocation. This suggested that
microbial strains may be employed to enhance the efficacy of phytor­
emediation in salt- and metal-contaminated soils.

3. Enhanced strategies of phytoremediation

3.1. Soil amendment for enhanced phytoremediation

Phytoremediation can be enhanced through soil amendments, agri­

cultural practices, and genetic modification. Soil additions such as bio­
char, woodchips, or saw raw can be used to improve pollutant biological
accessibility for plant absorption or to promote microbial activity in the
rhizosphere. Soil additives may considerably improve soil tilth and assist
plant establishment and development. Agricultural practices can be used
for improving phytoremediation, such as nutrient and manuring,
fertilization, irrigation, and natural microbial stimulation. These will
promote plant growth, soil water, organic matter, and microbe activities
and improve bioavailability and plant uptake by altering the soil envi­
ronment, such as soil pH, chelates, nutrients, and ion composition (Li
et al., 2003; Walker et al., 2003).
Fig. 3. Soil microorganisms in phytoremediation from contaminated soil in the
rhizosphere.

6
J. Wang and M. Aghajani Delavar Science of the Total Environment 902 (2023) 165949

3.1.1. Biochar bioaugmentation (Nwankwegu and Onwosi, 2017). Whitman et al.

Biochar is a carbonaceous porous material generated from the py­ (2016) discovered fast alterations in the bacterial population following
rolysis of organic substances such as plant residuals, woodchips, and maize straw addition. After 12 days of alteration, significant changes in
manures (Paz-Ferreiro et al., 2014). Due to its specific physicochemical community makeup were discovered. On day 82, though, the mixture
features, such as high pH, large surface area for sorption of metals, was once again more comparable. Around 10 % of the bacterial func­
alkaline nature, and high carbon, biochar is able to immobilize toxic tional taxonomic units reacted to the introduction of straw (Whitman
heavy metals, which represents good materials to remediate heavy et al., 2016). Straw inclusion in rice-wheat crop production significantly
metals. Biochar can improve soil properties and provide microorganism boosted microbial richness, activity, and diversity in central China (Guo
habits due to increasing soil porosity and biochar porous structure, et al., 2016). Okafor and Orji (2022) investigated the restoration pos­
including 1) Increasing microorganism habits, 2) improving bioavail­ sibilities of paint effluent-polluted grounds using wheat shells and
ability, 3) supplying active and labile C, 3) acid neutralization, 4) woodchips as bulking agents. Over 24 weeks, they evaluated the
Immobilizing pollutants, and 4) improving water and nutrient retention. microbiological characteristics of effluents and physicochemically
Therefore, biochar can change adsorption, ion exchange, complexation, contaminated soils at varied bulking agent concentrations (10 %, 30 %,
precipitation, hydrophobic, hydrogen bond, and anaerobic conditions. and 50 %). The 50 % altered option had greater bacterial growth rates,
Biochar can immobilize heavy metals in the soils to decrease plant followed by 30 % and 10 % than the control. For bioremediation of oil
adsorption of heavy metals (Ippolito et al., 2012). A large surface area hydrocarbon damaged farming soil, a rice husk amendment was applied
available for the physical adsorption and surface precipitation assists the as a bulking agent (Nwankwegu et al., 2017). Throughout a two-month
exchange of heavy metal cations with other metal cations and adsorp­ incubation time, rice husk inclusion had a high removal effectiveness of
tion (Lu et al., 2012). Biochar could be habitats of Sphingomonas sp. PJ2 97.85 0.93 %, whereas increased natural attenuation had a lower
in saline soil for bioremediation of PAHs (Song et al., 2021). Black removal efficiency of 53.15 3.81 %. Shamsollahi and Partovinia (2019)
carbon affected microbial activities and immobility of PAHs, and PCBs reviewed applications of rice husk to bioremediation of wastewater as a
in harbor sediments (Lohmann et al., 2005). Furthermore, biochar cheap and sustainable bio-based adsorbent. They indicated that rice
addition increases microbial diversity and plant cover in heavy metal husk is potential for the stabilization of biocatalysts but pre-proceeded
contaminated soils (O’Connor et al., 2018; Campos et al., 2020). For approaches affected its ability of adsorption. Sugar beet residue is a
example, biochar treatment dramatically decreased Cd concentration of by-product after the sugar extraction and fermentation process. Sugar
20–90 % in rice grain using a biochar dose of 40 t/ha, yielding an beet residue amendment with Aspergillus niger improved plant growth
acceptable Cd level (0.4 mg.kg− 1) from all Cd-contaminated rice soils and phytoextraction because of numerous polysaccharides and phos­
(Bian et al., 2013). Compared to unprocessed soil, biochar addition phatase (Azcón et al., 2009). The straw was used for increasing soil C in a
reduced Cd and Zn concentration by 99 % and dramatically increased 30-year field trial (Marschner et al., 2003), the sorption capacity of soils
biomass (Břendová et al., 2015). Yang et al. (2021) showed that biochar (Siedt et al., 2021), and the field capacity and water retention (Anik
amendment improved pH values more in acidic soils than in neutral and et al., 2017).
alkaline soils. Following 42 days, the pH values in the acidic soils rose Nevertheless, it becomes clear that the effects of all organic
from 5.9 to 7.2. In comparison, the pH values in neutral/alkaline soils amendments on remediations may vary substantially due to various
weren’t altered much. They also discovered that a rising rate of biochar factors, such as soil properties, application rate and timing, and the
application decreased the accessible heavy metals. Wang et al. (2020a) production process of the organic substances. The introduction of
also showed that applications of organic-inorganic fertilizer with bio­ sawdust as a bulking agent significantly boosted biodegradation rates
char reduced the bioavailability of heavy metals and the maize uptake in and successfully remedied the dual-purpose kerosene hydrocarbon
contaminated soil. Kołtowski et al. (2016) reported that biochar (Nwankwegu et al., 2016). It should be noted that bulking agents locally
decreased PAHs by 86 % in coal polluted soil and bioaccessible PAHs by available can reduce costs (Yang et al., 2013; Zhang and Sun, 2016). The
nearly 100 %, in comparison with unproceeded soil. Two types of bio­ application of the bulking agent to soil rehabilitation might support the
chars derived from softwood bark and Aspen wood were used to facili­ protection of damaged agricultural areas while also improving soil
tate the most microbial growth for the removal of naphthenic acids and water retention, microorganism growth, soil organic matter, and
metals (Frankel et al., 2016). Similar naphthenic acids removal was fertility (Lahmar et al., 2012; Yang et al., 2013; Rhykerd et al., 1999). As
observed in 6-day sterile for both biochar assays (>30 %). However, a result, plant growth and biodegradation rates rose. However, consid­
biodegradation by softwood bark associated biofilms increased the erable effort remains to determine how bulking agents aid the biore­
removal of naphthenic acids to 87 % in the existence of metals. How­ mediation of polluted soil.
ever, the majority of these investigations were based on short-term
laboratory treatments, and the long-term performances are yet unclear 3.1.3. Digestate and compost
(Gao et al., 2022). Organic amendments can enhance soil texture, water and nutrient
retention, organic matter for microorganisms, and alter soil qualities
3.1.2. Woodchips, crop residuals, and sawdust like pH, complexation, and sorption. Organic additions in polluted soils
There is abundant organic waste from plants and agricultural prod­ improve fertility while reducing the bioavailability and mobility of
ucts, such as straw, woodchips, husks, residues, sawdust, bark, and shell potentially hazardous components. As a result, organic amendments
(Shamsollahi and Partovinia, 2019). These agricultural wastes can be improve phytoremediation in polluted environments. As an organic
applied for soil amendments or potential biosorbents. Soil amendments fertilizer of digestate and compost, the best practices should be applied
of organic waste or bulking agents can increase microorganisms, soil in the Right Source of Nutrients at the Right Rate and Right Time in the
porosity, aeration, adsorption, field capacity, and organic matter (Zhang Right Place.
and Sun, 2016; Siedt et al., 2021). They can also improve bioavailability, Digestates are cheap, renewable, and environmentally friendly fer­
soil pH values, temperature, enzymes, and water and nutrient retention tilizers. Digestates can enhance soil properties, remove pathogens and
(Zhang and Sun, 2016). These soil amendments with high adsorption increase microbial activities (O’Connor et al., 2021). Digestate amend­
capacity based on woodchip, straw, and sawdust are appropriate and ment improved soil organic matter allowed a sustained release of nu­
cost-effective for stabilizing potentially harmful components in trients, and increased microbial diversity (Dutta et al., 2021). The N, P, K
contaminated soil for environmental rehabilitation and restoration ratio of digestates is comparable to synthetic fertilizers as a beneficial
(Awad et al., 2018). alternative for agricultural applications (Tampio et al., 2015). Digestates
Several research studies indicated that organic amendments boost have humic acids that are useful in a lot of ecological processes and
the survival of environmental microbes and improve the effectiveness of microbes (Wang et al., 2021a) and changed biogeochemical processes

7
J. Wang and M. Aghajani Delavar Science of the Total Environment 902 (2023) 165949

(Shen et al., 2018a, 2019). They might promote beneficial microbes to successfully metabolize and degrade pollutants when given the right
inhibit harmful fungal pathogens (O’Brien et al., 2020). Digestates with circumstances.
slightly alkaline properties neutralized acidic soil thus enhancing the Landfarming has successfully employed biostimulation and bio­
immobilization of pollutants. As a source of nutrients and carbon, augmentation to eliminate PAHs through soils (Juwarkar et al., 2010).
digestate amendments promoted soil microbial activity and the immo­ Poi et al. (2017) demonstrated that bioaugmentation combined with
bilization of contaminants (Zheng et al., 2015). The digestate amend­ biostimulation might give a faster rate of bioremediation of different
ment demonstrated a substantial decrease in concentrations of Cu, Zn, hydrocarbon contaminants than biostimulation alone. Agnello et al.
Fe, Pb, and Cr in the mining site (Guo et al., 2020). Gielnik et al. (2019) (2016) performed a comparison among four bioremediation treatments
showed a high proportion of alkB genes with a diesel removal efficiency of contaminated soils of combined heavy metals and petroleum hydro­
rate of 78 % when digestate was applied to petroleum-contaminated carbons: 1) natural attenuation, 2) phytoremediation using Alfalfa, 3)
soil. The phytoremediation of tailings sites with the application of bioaugmentation using Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and 4)
digestates could substantially improve the physicochemical properties bioaugmentation-assisted phytoremediation. They discovered that al­
of soils, soil organic matter, and microorganism diversity within 3 years, falfa crops survived and flourished in the polluted soil, especially if
compared to natural restoration (Chen et al., 2023). infected with P. aeruginosa. The bioaugmentation increased plant
The microbial biomass carbon and nitrogen could be improved using growth by 56 % for shoots and 105 % for roots, correspondingly. Bio­
organic amendments, compared to synthetic fertilizer. Composting is a augmentation of planted soil using P. aeruginosa reduced metal content
natural process of recycling organic waste, such as plant residuals and and transport in the plant. The bioaugmentation-assisted phytor­
food wastes, to convert them to a compost fertilizer with humic acid and emediation approach removed 68 % of the total PHCs, followed by
nutrients (Shen et al., 2018b). Soil compost addition and aeration can bioaugmentation (59 %), phytoremediation (47 %), and natural atten­
improve phytoremediation efficiency (Robichaud et al., 2019), boost uation (37 %). As contrasted with individual applications of natural
plant growth and microbial soil activity, and raise plant resistance to attenuation, bioaugmentation, or phytoremediation, the use of com­
stress. Wang et al. (2011) used composting amendment for soil biore­ bined plants and bacteria proved to be the most efficient strategy for
mediation to remove petroleum hydrocarbons. Their results showed that treating the current co-contaminated soil.
compost amendment with cultivated Seepweed was more successful in
removing polluted soil from the Yellow River Delta. After the compost 3.1.5. Chelation
addition, the mean content of total PHCs in the soils decreased from Heavy metal bioavailability in soils may be insufficient for effective
7900 to 17,900 mg.kg− 1 to 1400–3700 mg.kg− 1. According to Liu et al. root uptake. Chelation therapy involves the use of chelating chemicals to
(2009), using compost reduces exchangeable Cd by 70 % and wheat stimulate transport and mobilization in solution (Prasad and Freitas,
toxicity by over 50 %. 2003). The application of chelants to soils alters the primary mode of
However, the properties of digestates and composted materials plant uptake from the symplast to the apoplast and additionally raises
depend significantly on the feedstock material, degree of decomposition, the total levels of soluble metals. Chelant can strengthen water-soluble
and treatment technology. Certain composts may have low quality complexes to desorb metals from the soil to allow the bioavailable
because of contaminants in the feedstock, such as glass and stones, and metals for plant uptake. Thus, the complexes are extracted by plants
can introduce additional contaminants into the soil, like plastics and from the soil or by using soil washing (Leštan et al., 2008).
metals (Sharifi and Renella, 2015). Furthermore, some digestates may Chelation procedures are one of the most often utilized remediation
lead to nutrient leaching (Nkoa, 2014), introduce indigested materials methods for soil cleaning and improving phytoextraction in metal-
like stone/plastic/glass, and increase soil salinity, odor, and NH3 and contaminated soils. Plants can extract low bioavailable metals because
N2O emission (Zilio et al., 2020; Wang, 2014). their mobility in the soil has been improved by the use of chelant (Huang
et al., 1997). Chelants improved heavy metal absorption and detoxifi­
3.1.4. Natural attenuation, biostimulation, and bioaugmentation cation. Natural chelants derived from plants or microbes appear to be
Natural attenuation is a natural process to clean up or attenuating more promising than manufactured chemical chelators. Phytochelatins
contaminants to less harmful forms or immobilized contaminants so that are a major type of heavy metal chelants found in plants. Non-
they are less of a threat to the environment. In natural attenuation, translational chelants are produced from reduced glutathione in a
contaminants are degraded or immobilized by the indigenous microor­ transpeptidation process mediated by the enzyme chelants. As a result,
ganisms, insects, and plant root systems for decreasing the amount and glutathione availability is critical for phytochelatin synthesis in plants,
concentration of the pollutants. Soil can sorb or stick contaminants, particularly during heavy metal exposure. In addition to biological ac­
which resist their mobility and diffusion. However, natural attenuation tivities in the rhizosphere, synthetic chelants like diethylene­
requires the right environmental conditions to clean sites properly. If triaminepentaacetic acid (DTPA) and ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid
not, natural attenuation is a slow process and will not be quick enough (EDTA) are used. DTPA is a diethylene triamine backbone amino poly­
or complete enough. The clean-up site requires to be monitored and carboxylic acid with five carboxymethyl groups that may separate
examined to ensure natural attenuation is working and avoid potential exchangeable, carbonate, and organically bound metal fractions. DTPA
exposure to human (Chapelle et al., 2003). improves metal solubility in soil solutions, which increases root ab­
Biostimulation is to stimulate those native microbial communities by sorption and phytoextraction (Prasad and Freitas, 2003; Bhargava et al.,
adding nutrients, electron donors, and electron acceptors, such as 2012). Blaylock et al. (1997) demonstrated that the synthetic chelants
digestate, compost, or fertilizers. Bioaugmentation includes the intro­ improved Indian mustard’s capacity to collect large quantities of Pb in
duction of adapted specific cultured microorganisms into contaminated Pb-polluted soil. Huang et al. (1997) demonstrated that EDTA treatment
soil or groundwater to enhance the capacity of degrading the contami­ enhanced the quantity of bioavailable Pb in the soil and boosted plant
nants and adjusts environmental conditions. The proven consortia of extraction. In Pb-polluted soil (total soil Pb 2500 mg.kg− 1), EDTA
microorganisms may be recognized from the initial polluted environ­ treatment elevated maize and pea shoot Pb concentrations from 500 mg.
ment and afterward altered to be reintroduced to break down and kg− 1 to 10,000 mg.kg− 1. These findings suggest that chelates promoted
immobilize the pollutants. Environmental conditions, such as the pH Pb migration into the xylem while also increasing Pb translocation from
value, and nutrient concentration (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorus, and trace roots to shoots.
elements) could be adjusted to be favorable to microorganisms. In Metal chelants, conversely, may be discharged into groundwater and
addition to biogeochemical changes, the amount of moisture in the soil, their residue may impact soil microbes. As a result, selecting chelating
temperature, and oxygen concentration might also be altered to promote agents, dosages, and application times are crucial (Yadav, 2010). Proper
the growth of indigenous biodegrading bacteria. Microorganisms may environmental management strategies using metal chelators must be

8
J. Wang and M. Aghajani Delavar Science of the Total Environment 902 (2023) 165949

investigated in order to improve accumulation and efficiency in haz­ copper, lead, and zinc, in plant cells of Chenopodium album L. (Walker
ardous metal extraction and chelant restoration. et al., 2004). Copper, lead, and zinc were up-taken by Greek Cress up to
21, 54, and 16 %, respectively, in the polluted soil (van Herwijnen et al.,
3.2. Agronomic practices 2007). Phosphogypsum and farmyard manure substantially improved
soil chemical characteristics, increased soil fertility and SOM, and
The efficacy of phytoremediation is heavily dependent on the pace of reduced soil salinity and sodicity while they did not increase soil heavy
plant development and biomass output, which might take decades. metals (Huang et al., 2022).
Microorganism activity depends on many factors, such as soil aggre­ Conversely, there are deleterious influences of nitrogen fertilization
gates, moisture, temperature, pH, the type and concentration of con­ on Cd absorption and accumulation in plants. For instance, large dosages
taminants, nutrients, bioavailability, toxicity, mobility, and the of NH+ 4 -N applied repeatedly produce soil acidification (He et al., 1999)
availability of activated enzymes. The biodegradation effectiveness of and influence Cd bioavailability (Zaccheo et al., 2006). Certain organic
PAHs in soils by landfarming combined with organic waste composting wastes may provide metal(loid) input to agricultural soils (Park et al.,
is determined by soil physical, chemical, and biological qualities, waste 2011). Göthberg et al. (2004) demonstrated that increasing external
characteristics, and ambient circumstances. To reduce restrictions and nutrient solution influenced Cd absorption by water spinach. The less
environmental consequences, bioremediation is an exceptionally the nutritional concentration in the soil, the greater the accumulated Cd
complicated process that must account for site-specific variables. A va­ levels in the plants. This could be related to the N compound type, fer­
riety of field experiments have been conducted to investigate planting tilizer schedule and dose, and vegetation type, and highlights the ne­
time and harvest, fertilizer, irrigation, weed control tactics, pollination cessity of agronomic methods for large-scale phytoremediation.
regulation, and seed processing. If bioremediation is not carefully
handled and phytoremediation operations are not properly monitored, 3.2.2. Irrigation
the effects of the process may worsen rather than improve the situation Water is very vital in transporting and solving nutrients and pollut­
(Juwarkar et al., 2010). As a result, to guarantee effective degradation ants in soils. Water is also essential for plant growth and microorgan­
and phytoremediation, these parameters should be monitored and isms’ survival. During phytoremediation, the development of plants and
regulated. Nevertheless, there has been inadequate study into improving their associated microbes need sufficient water and nutrients. When soil
these operating factors, particularly for large-scale phytoremediation moisture levels are low, microbes lose water and plants get parched. The
(Tran et al., 2021). Agronomic practices are commonly used for pro­ mobility of organic and inorganic pollutants in the soil is affected by
moting plant growth, fertilizer, water, and soil management and can be their relative solubility, vapor pressure, molecular size, and charge, as
used for phytoremediation. This involves soil fertilization and condi­ well as the existence of other organic matter. The capacity of soil to
tioning, as well as the use of appropriate agronomic procedures (Huang collect and degrade organic substances is strongly related to the soil’s
et al., 1997; Chaney et al., 2000). organic matter, the amount of clay available, soil composition, and pH,
along with the age of the pollutants and moisture. Certain environ­
3.2.1. Fertilization mental characteristics have an indirect or direct impact on the efficacy
Fertilizer applications in agricultural production should adopt the of phytoremediation because they can reduce the bioavailability of
best practices through the 4Rs, which represent the Right Source of contaminants, and the availability of water, nutrients, and oxygen in the
Nutrients at the Right Rate and Right Time in the Right Place. Organic soil.
fertilizers, such as manure, compost, and digestate, and inorganic fer­ Irrigation frequency and dose might have a significant impact on the
tilizers can increase plant growth, plant uptakes, and phytoextraction. phytoremediation of contaminated soils. Hutchinson et al. (2001)
Particularly, organic fertilizers can promote microorganisms and demonstrated that daily watering at a depth of 30 cm stimulated root
biodiversity (Gu et al., 2019), increase the physiochemical and biolog­ development and improved pollutant degradation compared to other
ical fertility of soils (Park et al., 2011), and increase soil carbon and trials. Drip irrigation combined with intercropping considerably
organic matter. These are key for soil bacterial community and phy­ decreased the risk of pollution in crops and increased phytoremediation
toremediation performance. Soil polluted with petroleum hydrocarbons performance (Li et al., 2022). Azizian et al. (2011) studied the phytor­
may have a high C/N ratio but a little organic matter concentration. The emediation abilities of two plant species, oat, and corn. They discovered
organic amendment offers the proper nutrition and carbon supply to the that both phytoremediation capabilities were greater at the 1-day irri­
indigenous microbial population. (Okere and Semple, 2012). The gation frequency than at the 3-day and 7-day irrigation frequencies.
organic amendment can reduce metal(loid) bioavailability via adsorp­ Amiri et al. (2023) compared the phytoremediation capability of rape­
tion and complexation processes due to plant uptake and leaching (Park seed under various irrigation regimes and pumice levels. They discov­
et al., 2011), as well as increasing surface charges and metal adsorption ered a considerable increase in soil microorganisms (32 %) and
(Clark et al., 2007). The organic amendment had a favorable impact due elimination of phenanthrene (74 %) when comparing 125 % irrigation
to high soil pH, Cadmium complexation with organic compounds, and with 5 % pumice to regulate 100 % irrigation without pumice.
co-precipitation with P concentration. The use of organic manure has Therefore, appropriate irrigation can enhance water and nutrient
increased crop yield, soil moisture, soil organic matter, and nitrate, availability for microorganisms and plant growth and improve
compared to chemical fertilizers (Ren et al., 2021). This significantly bioavailability. Moreover, microbial populations can enhance the sur­
affected bacteria and fungi. Optimizing farmyard manure and cattle face absorption of roots for metal absorption and pollutant breakdown.
slurry applications could reduce N2O emissions for intensively managed Although irrigation is important for long-term plant establishment, little
grasslands (Shah et al., 2020). effort has been made to study the effects of irrigation on phytor­
The controlled release of fertilizer stimulated bacterial populations emediation. Currently, phytostabilization of mine tailings was still
(Cartmill et al., 2014). At low PHC contamination, the fertilizer did not hampered by the insufficient understanding of the minimal additives
improve hydrocarbon degradation in the rhizosphere but increased the necessary (i.e., manure, irrigation) to promote long-term plant cover
degradation of PHC at the medium fertilizer, particularly at intermedi­ establishment (Mendez and Maier, 2008).
ate and high PHC contamination. The fertilizer improved plant growth
impairment induced by the presence of PHC in soils. The rate and 3.2.3. Tillage
duration of fertilizer application may have an impact on Cd absorption Tillage is a commonly used agricultural practice. Tillage can change
from soils (Göthberg et al., 2004; Zaccheo et al., 2006). Manure use soil porosity, bulk density, and aggregates, leading to an increase in field
decreased Cadmium and lead contents in Amaranth stems and roots in capacity, soil permeability, adsorption, and movement and retention of
sandy loam soil (Alamgir et al., 2011), concentrations of three metals, air, water, nutrients, and pollutants. A variety of aggregates with

9
J. Wang and M. Aghajani Delavar Science of the Total Environment 902 (2023) 165949

varying pore sizes allows for the coexistence of air and water, which is from hyperaccumulators into sexually incompatible plant species
necessary for biological soil operation, and defines the ease with which (Marques et al., 2009). Consequently, genetically modified plants have a
plants extract moisture, the rate of flow in unsaturated conditions, and great potential for phytoremediation improvement through increasing
the rate of diffusion of chemicals and gases through and out of soil ag­ plant growth rate, tolerance, or accumulation towards pollutant removal
gregates. Slight modifications to soil moisture can cause orders of or detoxification in the environment. To circumvent some of the con­
magnitude changes in the corresponding rate coefficients, which are straints of phytoremediation, hyperaccumulator plants can be geneti­
sensitive to fine-scale structure (Young and Crawford, 2004). cally modified. The accumulation of heavy metals by gene engineering
Tillage altered the population and function of soil microbes plants may be enhanced further by adopting agronomic procedures such
(Houšková et al., 2021), and the soil’s properties to absorb pollutants as fertilization, liming, seed management, reducing the phytoextraction
(the cation exchange capacity). As a consequence, the accessibility of cycle, and irrigation via rapid plant development in various pedo-
reactive sites to any chemical in solution could be greatly increased. The climatic situations (Bhargava et al., 2012).
fine-scale structure, as well as the habitat’s hydraulic connectivity and
conductivity, regulate the availability of reactive sites and the retention 4. Upcoming challenges and future directions in
period of the solution close to an exchange site (Young and Crawford, phytoremediation
2004). It regulates nutrient sorptive characteristics via interactions be­
tween cations and clay particles, which contain net negative charges. Biogeochemical and hydrological mechanisms are the two major
Consequently, tillage can increase soil productivity according to plant natural processes that manage pollutants, soil, nutrients, greenhouse gas
biomass, microbial activity, and viral transit through the soil. emissions (GHGs), water, and plant development in phytoremediation
Tillage can affect phytoremediation efficacy since it changes the (Fig. 2). Plant biomass and metabolism are important factors in reme­
accessibility to water, minerals, and oxygen in the soil, as well as diation effectiveness, but they are influenced by soil pH, conductivity,
pollutant bioavailability. Aeration is required for the activities of oil- soil organic matter, microbial activities, and other soil amendments
degrading bacteria. Increasing soil aeration can improve phytor­ (Amponsah et al., 2019; Nissim et al., 2018). Based on the above review
emediation effectiveness (Robichaud et al., 2019). Tillage or the addi­ of the phytoremediation mechanism and enhanced strategies, we can
tion of bulking agents can promote soil porosity to contribute to better summarize the current status as 1) Although phytoremediation can be
aeration like pumping air into the soil. Tillage is more successful than enhanced using genetic engineering, soil amendment, and agronomic
forced aeration or leaving the land static in terms of increasing the rate practices, the reduction of the phytoremediation length is limited; 2) the
and scope of restoration. length of phytoremediation is still much longer than conventional
Rhykerd et al. (1999) perform field experiments to compare the ef­ chemical and physical remediation; and 3) phytoremediation length is
fects of tillage and addition of bulking agents on the remediations in an inherent limitation. If considering the phytoremediation length is
PHC contaminated soil. They discovered that both tillage and the inherent, the current status, real cost, and upcoming challenges of
addition of bulking agents increased the remediation performation. The phytoremediation must be assessed based on the inherent limitation.
tilled-hay treatment decreased 82 % of total petroleum hydrocarbons Since phytoremediation comprises numerous areas, soil and envi­
over the initial 12 weeks, while the non-bulked-static approach reduced ronmental health are related to human health, ecosystem health, and
33 %. Tillage, according to Acosta et al. (2018), resulted in enhanced planetary health (Guan et al., 2023). As a result, the multidisciplinary
growth of Atriplex halimus, most likely due to improved physical prop­ contribution from chemists, microbiologists, plant physiologists,
erties of the tailings, and a considerable decrease in Cd absorbed by the agronomists, economists, soil experts, hydrologists, toxicologists, ecol­
plant. ogists, environmental engineers, and government agencies will improve
While ploughing was not required for plant phytoextraction, it the process’s integrity, broaden the statement’s reach for more ad­
enhanced trace element concentrations in plants. This was explained by vancements in phytoremediation, and decrease inherent biases (Wilks
the fact that subsoiling increased above-ground production and fine root et al., 2015; Guan et al., 2023) (Fig. 4).
multiplication in shallow strata was thought to be a massive sink for
trace element phytostabilisation (Vamerali et al., 2011). 4.1. Integrated assessment and management

3.3. Genetic engineering There are two challenges in integrated phytoremediation assess­
ment: 1) Length of phytoremediation to reach an acceptable standard,
Genetic engineering or genetic modification and gene manipulation and 2) cost assessment that considers land use function values.
is a genetic technology to transfer plants’ genes to desirable genes. Two
ways have been followed for the genetic modification: (a) over­ 4.1.1. Cost assessment
expression of genes for hyper-accumulation, (b) transfer of genes from Currently, cost assessment of remediation is mainly based on mate­
other species such as bacteria, fungus, or other species. Overexpression rials, equipment, labor, transport, water, and energy. Thus, phytor­
of certain genes results in plants with a large capacity for heavy metal emediation is considered a cost-effective technique due to its low initial
extraction, absorption, degradation, hyperaccumulation, translocation, input of materials, equipment, labor, and energy. However, phytor­
and sequestration, or for transforming harmful metals into little toxic emediation is a complex issue compared to other physical and chemical
forms (Van Aken, 2008; Nedjimi, 2021). The overexpression of genes remediation. Its cost needs to consider not only materials but also soft
was employed to decrease heavy metal stress and increase plant phy­ materials related to cost (e.g., land values and time values). Land values
toremediation ability (Liu et al., 2020). To genetically alter plants, an are affected by many factors, such as physical attributes of location,
external source of the gene that does not occur naturally in the species is topography, climate, availability of water, accessibility to economic
extracted from other plant species or bacteria, fungi, or animals, to boost activities, shortage and demand of available land in a region, market
the tolerance, absorption, and transfer of pollutants. The genes are then value, and property price.
injected and inserted into the genome of a specific plant. The foreign Taking into account land utilization functions in biophysical terms
gene is acquired during DNA recombination and confers unique features necessitates the collection of site-specific data, such as the landscape,
(Rai et al., 2020). site characteristics, and plant species, as well as the identification of
Unlike traditional breeding, genetic alteration can produce species target groups that may have benefited from phytotechnologies, such as
that would be difficult to achieve through traditional breeding proced­ farmers, landowners, businesses and industries (Conesa et al., 2012;
ures such as crossover. For example, genetic manipulation may rapidly Wang et al., 2019a, 2019b). This indicates that the expenses and dura­
alter plants with desirable features and even transfer desirable genes tion of the remediation evaluation are site-specific, and hence broad cost

10
J. Wang and M. Aghajani Delavar Science of the Total Environment 902 (2023) 165949

Fig. 4. The interdisciplinary approach of natural and economic processes to study phytoremediation.

or land values cannot be evaluated without site-specific investigations. climate specific, it is difficult to estimate the length of phytor­
Certain alternatives in the decision-making process must be constructed emediation, leading to difficulty to estimate cost. Due to the lack of
as a beginning stage in the cost evaluation of phytomanagement projects economic studies or cost analyses, this is one of the most significant
(Conesa et al., 2012). impediments to the use of phytotechnologies. Phytoremediation length
Land values are one of the most significant indicators in business is key to estimating the cost of phytoremediation. The stronger the
choices that are influenced by site location, market pricing, land usage phytoremediation capacity, the shorter the phytoremediation length.
period, production, and country. Before determining the economic value When the duration of remediation is considered without any income or
of a land use function, people first need to know which target group is production, the presence of phytoremediation may not be demonstrated
interested in it, such as landlords, customers, organizations, or industrial as a revolutionary low-cost remediation approach. In a real cost evalu­
groups, and how much they are willing to pay for it. Land users recog­ ation, time values and land values are often not considered because it is
nize the importance of market information when making decisions, and difficult to evaluate (Fig. 5).
they track average changes in land values, allowing for price-per-acre Fig. 5 shows the cost assessment when considering the land values
comparisons from area to region and year to year. When remediating and the business income values from land production in the length of
property, the location, timing of land uses, as well as the company’s phytoremediation. If the land values and business income values are
financial status and goals, should all be taken into account. No corpo­ greater than the direct cost of chemical/physical remediation, the land
ration can pay for land decontamination if there is no economic return user would make a substantial profit from the remediation. For example,
based on market values. Land users need to maintain a risk management we can consider two types of extreme cases. In a highly prosperous
strategy in place and consider potential economic changes to guarantee urban area, both land values and business return values of land use are
budget flexibility if commodity prices, production, profits after the very high. Therefore, this type of land will not allow a long period
remediation, or interest rates shift. Market circumstances can shift without any income from the land. Phytoremediation will not be suit­
quickly, affecting land values. able. On the other hand, in the remote mining tailing sites, the land
As land is a resource, the land user should consider the cost of could not be used for any other business after remediation. Thus, phy­
monitoring, surveillance time, and land market values (Fig. 5). This toremediation has no economic income, and the direct cost of any
means that when a long time of monitoring and surveillance is required, phytoremediation could not be recovered. Its total economic values are
its land value is low because the land cannot be used for other busi­ usually negative. Due to its low direct cost, phytoremediation is the most
nesses. Therefore, phytoremediation cost needs to consider not only suitable for land restoration because phytoremediation has low direct
initial equipment, materials, and labor but also land values and time cost and no secondary pollution. There is one exception of phytoming for
value. On the other hand, the length of phytoremediation depends on some sites, such as noble metals and rare earth elements (Dinh et al.,
the soil, plants, climate, and agronomic practices. Due to site and 2022a, 2022b). Phytoming may be an approach of recovering noble

11
J. Wang and M. Aghajani Delavar Science of the Total Environment 902 (2023) 165949

Fig. 5. Actual economic values of time and land utilization and function and their potential business profits.

elements from low-grade minerals. As the circular economy, phytor­ (1) In a prosperous urban region, chemical/physical remediation will
emediation has been paid attention to recover some economic benefits ∑n− j
be applied because of the high land values ( i=1 Pi ) > > the direct
(Conesa et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2020c). Thus, the phytoremediation ∑n
cost ( i=1 Ci ) in Eq. (2). The profits produced by land use busi­
and convetional chemical/physical remediation in Fig. 5 can be ness include the expected income of products or rents from land
estimated. uses during the length of phytoremediation except for the years
For the phytoremediation simple estimate of net values (NVp) can be that chemical/physical remediation requires. The cost is the
calculated: direct cost of chemical/physical remediation during the j years.
∑n In this extreme situation, NVc > > NVp.
NV p = B − Ci (1)
i=1
(2) If a land value is between the two extreme cases, this leads to
uncertainty in evaluating the cost of remediation due to diffi­
where NVp is the total net value of phytoremediation, B is the profit of
culties in assessing the length of phytoremediation and land
phytomining if phytomining exists or biomass production such as energy
values. This cost unpredictability makes it difficult to make a
crops, Ci is the cost of remediation per year including fertilization,
commercial decision to adopt phytoremediation. One of the most
manuring, irrigation, chelation, and contaminated biomass disposal,
important features of phytoremediation acceptance is the mea­
and n is the period of phytoremediation.
surement of its length and overall economic feasibility.
For the conventional remediations, an estimate of net values can be
calculated as follows:
4.1.2. Length of phytoremediation
∑n− j ∑j
NV c = Pi − Ci (2) Because plant growth depends substantially on weather, and soil
management (e.g., fertilization and irrigation), phytoremediation length
i=1 i=1

where NVc is the total net value of conventional remediation, Pi is the depends on these factors. Like natural attenuation, phytoremediation
expected profit of the business from land uses per year, Ci is the cost of length assessment is site-specific for the characteristics of the contami­
remediation per year, n is the period of phytoremediation, and j is the nants (United States Environmental Protection Agency [US EPA], 1999;
years that chemical/physical remediation require. Chapelle et al., 2003). Phytoremediation-oriented strategy is to evaluate
In reality, the contaminated sites can be classified into three the length of plant cover establishment which is the integration of the
situations: below and above ground processes, including hydrology, biogeochem­
istry, fertilizers, pollutants, plants, and weather. The spatiotemporal
(1) In the remote region, phytoremediation will be applied in Eq. (1). variations of all these factors and their interaction control the behavior,
Because phytoremediation cannot produce profits from land use, fate, and transport dynamics of pollutants. An understanding of these
B = 0, except for the phytomining or biomass production such as processes is vital before phytoremediation length can be appropriately
energy crops. The cost of phytoremediation is the sum of annual applied to a site (Wang et al., 2019a, 2019b).
agronomic practice (e.g., fertilizers, irrigation, and tillage), Hydrological processes can significantly influence phytoremediation
monitoring, or surveillance. In this extreme situation, NVp > > since they affect water transport and retention. Water transport and
NVc. retention will depend on the slope, vegetation, and soil as well as the

12
J. Wang and M. Aghajani Delavar Science of the Total Environment 902 (2023) 165949

climate and meteorological conditions. For example, the transport and or prohibit plant or bacterial development in the field, affecting phy­
fate of pollutants would be influenced by water transport at the catch­ toremediation efficacy. The challenges in field applications may be how
ment scale (Du et al., 2019a, 2019b). They are also influenced signifi­ lab and greenhouse conditions are scaled up to natural environmental
cantly by biogeochemical processes (Bhanja and Wang, 2020, 2021; conditions due to variations in weather and soils (Wang et al., 2021c).
Wang et al., 2020b, 2021b). Agronomic practices and soil amendments The phytoremediation activity provides an economic advantage to
may cause detrimental effects on pollutant mobility and bioavailability landowners due to low direct cost, however, the values considered are
(Mahar et al., 2016). Moreover, water, nutrients, and pollutants are heavily influenced by the potential income/profits from the cleaned
dispersed heterogeneously at the field scale, whereas they are homog­ area, land use function of post remediation, and the time required to
enous at the laboratory scale and greenhouse since soils are often well clean the soil. For example, in a prosperous urban area, phytor­
mixed. This might have an impact on plant and rhizosphere microbial emediation is not suitable because it requires a long period. Thus, the
development, as well as overall remediation efficacy. Although phy­ land has no potential income. The decision-making of the two types of
tostabilization of mine tailing sites in arid and semiarid regions has been remediation sites is shown in Fig. 6 according to land values and time
experimented with by mining companies, this remediation technology is values. One is those sites that have high land values in well-developed
only occasionally published and a general understanding of this tech­ regions, such as urban, highly commercialized, and industrialized
nology is insufficient (Mendez and Maier, 2008). areas while the other is those sites that have low land values in remote
Phytoremediation’s applicability and efficacy have various draw­ regions, such as abandoned oil pipeline segments, and wells, mining
backs, including a huge space needed, a long time to complete remedi­ sites, landfills, and agricultural lands.
ation owing to plant development, and difficulties controlling Fig. 7 shows various approaches to direct cost, land values, and
conditions due to climate and soil. Additionally, at some sites, phytor­ pollutant concentration together with their preferred range of applica­
emediation necessitates the facilities to collect runoff or leachate, which bility. The former has high values in well-developed regions on the right
raises the cost of the operation (Rodriguez et al., 2014, Valipour, 2014). side of Fig. 7, such as hazardous spills in growing urbanization, where
It is anticipated that phytoremediation management needs an integrated immediate remedies are required to retain socio-political acceptance.
approach to a holistic analysis of remediation outcomes from field These sites can be used for other productions or functions with the re­
treatment and practices in the near future. Computer modeling is able to turn of high profits after the remediation. The returned profit is much
link these different parameters and is useful to understand field condi­ higher than the direct cost of materials, energy, labor, and equipment
tions and predict future changes on a site-specific basis. Also, it is a tool using physical and chemical remediations (Fig. 5). Furthermore, to
to evaluate the risk of exposure to human health or wildlife, estimate the avoid exposure to human and animals, site cleanup needs to be
time required to achieve remedial goals, and suggest the best plume completed in a short timeframe equivalent to typical remediation ap­
monitoring locations and best management practices. Therefore, inte­ proaches (Robinson et al., 2003). Principally for high levels of con­
grated assessment will be a priority of future research. Effective phy­ taminants, the plants cannot withstand. They may experience slowed
toremediation assessment and management offer a huge potential to development or even mortality, leading to low potentials of phytor­
achieve sustainable use of remediation in environmental health, and emediation. Physical and chemical cleanup solutions are frequently the
ecosystem services. best option in these circumstances owing to their speed, regardless of
their high initial cost. Phytotechnology, on the other hand, may be used
4.2. Commercial potentials of phytoremediation technologies with green physical and chemical technologies to further clean up low
concentrations following conventional remediation treatments. In this
Phytoremediation is an effective solution for locations with low-to- regard, phytoremediation can act as a polishing treatment and provide a
moderate levels of pollution in severely polluted water and soils less expensive, more ecologically friendly, straightforward way to lower
(Zhang et al., 2017). However, there is inconsistent information on the the amount of contaminants levels. For example, some landscapes in
commercialization of phytoremediation, despite clear evidence of suc­ urban residential redevelopment zones are returned to the urban
cessful field applications. While phytoremediation has been utilized at greening site, like recreational utilization of the land. This may be
field scales (Doty et al., 2017; Jiang et al., 2015; Gupta and Gupta, beneficial for certain industrial site rehabilitation (French et al., 2006).
2017), it remains difficult because effectiveness may differ from labo­ The latter has low economic values that happen concerning remote
ratory or greenhouse research (Zabbey et al., 2017; Odoh et al., 2019; regions on the left side of Fig. 7. This means that these sites cannot
Abdullah et al., 2020). Worldwide, commercial phytoremediation quickly return any economic profit after the remediations. As a result, a
techniques appear to be underused (Ghosh and Singh, 2005; Conesa protracted time of cleanup is acceptable because there is no requirement
et al., 2012; Gerhardt et al., 2017). In fact, natural attenuation or self- for the short-term economic value of land gain. Additionally, the area
purification, as one special phytoremediation, has proved to be suc­ poses no dangers to humans or ecosystems. Abandoned mining sites in
cessful in the natural environment if pollution is at a low level. remote regions (Mendez and Maier, 2007, 2008), unused pipeline sec­
Furthermore, some nuclear accidents, such as Chornobyl nuclear tions and well facilities (Amponsah et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2019a,
disaster, would undertake phytoremediation after the physical and 2019b), landfills and landfarming (Paudyn et al., 2008), unused shoot­
chemical treatments. Because the half-life and decay of radionuclides is ing ranges, or certain postindustrial sites are typical locations for these
a natural property of all radioactive elements, such a nuclear disaster initiatives (French et al., 2006). Phytoremediation can be used for low
needs eventually phytoremediation processes. In these special situations hydrocarbon concentration contaminated sites at a large scale if expo­
of phytoremediation, although we cannot quantify how long the sites sure does not pose a substantial hazard to any ecological sensitivity
can reach the acceptable health standard, it is certain that the pollutants (Ruley et al., 2022; Hou et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2019a, 2019b). For the
in the sites attenuate year by year. This is direct evidence that phytor­ latter, phytoremediation aims to restore sites and land to their original
emediation is a proven approach. Therefore, the point is not to prove land use capability before disturbance. Therefore, phytoremediation,
phytoremediation but to move it from a proven technique to an accepted even natural attenuation, is the most attractive for these site reclama­
practice or what measures or conditions we need. tions. If additional economic benefits are possible such as bioenergy or
We investigate reasons why phytoremediation is still underutilized. biomass production in polluted sites, phytoremediation may be the best
The natural attenuation of PHCs in a vadose zone is predominantly due alternative at local or regional levels (Witters et al., 2009; Meers et al.,
to natural volatilization, biodegradation, and phytostabilization (Moli­ 2010). Because mining waste sites are typically located in isolated pla­
terni et al., 2012; Ma et al., 2014). Since plant and microbial develop­ ces, phytostabilization represents the most beneficial phytoremediation
ment is heavily influenced by weather, water and nutrients, soil, and technology for tailing ponds or mining site rehabilitation. For example,
agronomic practices, any adverse changes in these factors might restrict Gerhardt et al. (2017) indicated that phytoremediation is one of the

13
J. Wang and M. Aghajani Delavar Science of the Total Environment 902 (2023) 165949

Fig. 6. Role of land values and time values in a site remediation decision-making.

preferred approaches for landfarming remediation. Particularly in lower phytoremediation costs if the remediated land can use other
remote regions, phytoremediation needs less equipment and materials functions to yield an additional economic gain (Lewandowski et al.,
and has hence much low cost. Furthermore, like many abandoned 2006; French et al., 2006). However, the practicality problem of phy­
pipelines in Alberta, pollutant concentrations are not extremely high, totechnologies still remains to be unclear why low cost phytor­
and these contaminated lands need to restore their original statutes, emediation is underutilized compared to high cost physical and
such as forests, grassland, wetland, or arable lands. As a component of chemical remediation.
long-term phytomanagement, phytoremediation may become a com­ The growth of a persistent vegetative cover is seen as a suitable
mon practice in distant regions. alternative for achieving long-term cleanup of these polluted soils in
Present research in phytotechnologies focuses on three areas: (1) practical phytoremediation (Pardo et al., 2017). Long-term plant cover
genetics/physiology/biochemistry to improve plant tolerance, biomass can boost phytostabilizaton, phytofiltriton, rhizodegradation, soil
yield, and removal, (2) rhizosphere procedures that impact the phy­ microorganism activity, and phytodegradation. Phytostabilization of
toavailability of contaminants and microorganisms, and (3) rhizosphere polluted soils may reduce contaminant bioavailability, wind, and water
procedures that influence the phytoavailability of pollutants and mi­ runoff, enhance organic compounds and biodiversity (plant and micro­
croorganisms. These themes give answers to scientific concerns, and bial), and achieve a long-term, self-sustainable ecosystem (Mendez and
combining plant physiology with numerous land use functions may Maier, 2007; Zornoza et al., 2012; Pardo et al., 2014). It is additionally

Fig. 7. Various approaches to direct cost, land values and pollutant concentration together with their preferred range of applicability.

14
J. Wang and M. Aghajani Delavar Science of the Total Environment 902 (2023) 165949

cost-efficient, effective, and ecologically friendly, compared to other stabilization of pollutants. Native tree and grass plantings on formerly
existing physical and chemical approaches (Yang et al., 2010). degraded marginal areas are preferable since they are suitable for the
Native plants should be fully evaluated for effective vegetative cover local soil and climates. In these regions, phytoremediation, even natural
establishment because they are well suited to native settings and cli­ attenuation, is a powerful, sustainable, and low-cost solution.
mates (Wang et al., 2017; Al-Thani and Yasseen, 2020). Mendez and It is evident that the two extreme situations represent the commer­
Maier (2008) indicated that plants for phytostabilization of mine tailings cializd suitability of phytoremediations as a proven technology or the
must be native, drought-, salt-, and metal-tolerant in arid and semiarid limitation as underutilized technology. This answers why phytor­
regions. In previously degraded marginal areas, Simmer and Schnoor emediations is underutilized globally as a proven technology. Although
(2022) demonstrated that a dense cover of native trees and grasses offers the two extreme situations include many contaminated sites, their real
a robust and cost-effective solution. Yet, environmental conditions in costs of some contaminated sites between the two extreme situations
contaminated soils, such as dryness and salt, may be unsuitable for plant need to consider time values and land values as additional costs. We
development (Khandare and Govindwar, 2015). Kennen and Kirkwood need a strategic rethinking or change of phytoremediation research,
(2015) indicated that plant species are benign under most environments applications and management. In this regard, the phytoremediation
but they may become a problem in a new area. Further research is research and application are not to prove the feasibility of this tech­
required to expedite plant development for phytoremediation practi­ nology but how to accelerate it in its suitable regions as an alternative
cality in the creation of a stable vegetative cover. The length of the approach to conventional remediations. Thus, we identify three key
remediation, the efficacy of phytoremediation as soil contamination barriers to accelerating phytoremediation from a proven technology to
levels rise, and the knowledge gap in agronomic practices and soil an accepted practice: 1) Evaluation of land function values and time
amendment all restrict the application of this technique (McGrath and values due to uncertain phytoremediation length, 2) integrated assess­
Zhao, 2003; Bhargava et al., 2012). Several materials, like woodchips, ment of phytoremediation performance due to complex interactions
grass residuals, or straw, may be locally accessible, thus the necessary among soil, water, vegetation, weather, landscape, and pollutants, and
inputs of soil amendments and agronomic practice should be researched 3) qualifying effects of agronomic practices and soil amendments on
for plant cover development. Long-term in-situ field experiments are plant cover establishing and phytoremediation efficiency.
necessary for the widespread application of phytoremediation as a A lengthy time of phytoremediation is an inherent limitation in
regular successful soil restoration method. establishing vegetation cover to reach a “clean” state. Since plant growth
and microorganism activities depend significantly on water, nutrients,
5. Conclusions and perspectives weather, and soils, phytoremediation techniques are essentially site-
specific. Due to the heterogeneity of soil and vegetation, this unavoid­
Phytoremediation is a promising approach for the remediation of ably influences plant-soil-microbe interactions. To accelerate its wide­
polluted soil and water. Phytoremediation is generally considered a spread use, more fundamental and applied research should focus on the
cost-effective and sustainable technique in terms of its low direct cost of effect of agronomic practices, soil amendments, and native plants in the
materials, equipment, labor, and energy. However, in a real cost eval­ future. The wide-angle use of agronomic practices and soil amendments
uation, time values and land values need to be considered as additional should be examined for phytoremediation applications as a practical
costs. This indirect cost leads to uncertainty of its real cost evaluation technology. Furthermore, more pilot and field trials are required to test
because of the difficulty to evaluate phytoremediation length, causing the feasibility of phytoremediation and promote its acceptance.
difficulty in decision-making to adopt phytoremediation. Although The opportunity exists to truly optimize agronomic practice and soil
phytoremediation performance can be improved using many ap­ amendments for phytoremediation performance since there are many
proaches, such as genetic engineering, and soil amendment, a stable best practices to maintain plant growth in the agriculture and forest
plant cover requires an avoidably long-term effort to be established. It sectors. Integrated phytoremediation assessment requires quantifying
should be noted that a longer period of phytoremediation is its inherent phytoremediation performance at a site-specific condition, and requires
limitation, compared to other remediation techniques. We need a stra­ accounting for biophysical and biochemical interactions, depending on
tegic rethinking or change of phytoremediation research, applications the landscape, soil properties, vegetation species, weather conditions,
and management. and pollutant types. Agronomists, plant physiologists, microbiologists,
Here, we suggest that contaminated sites to be remediated can be and ecologists should collaborate closely with environmentalists and
classified into two extreme types according to land values and time policymakers to bridge the knowledge gaps in this interdisciplinary
values. One is those sites that have high land values, such as growing sector. Ultimately, the involvement and collaboration among land­
urban areas, and highly developed commercial, and industrial areas. We owners, local communities, scientists, engineers, and environmental
clarify that land values and time values are a major factor for business authorities can ensure this low carbon technology from a proven tech­
decision-making but this is not a technical problem. Because most nique to its wide acceptance.
contaminated sites are located in the business, industries or urban re­
gions, phytoremediation is not cost effective anymore because high land CRediT authorship contribution statement
values and time values could not be returned through land uses. This
leads to underutilization of the commercial phytoremediation technol­ J.W. and M.A.D., Conceptualization and methodology; M.A.D. and J.
ogies globally in spite of successful evidence in field applications and W.; data curation; J.W., writing—original draft preparation; J.W. and M.
natural attenuation. A.D., review and editing; J.W., project administration, and funding
In contrast, others are those sites that have low land values in remote acquisition; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
areas, such as abandoned oil pipeline segments and well pads, mining the manuscript.
tailing sites, landfills, and agricultural lands. Among remediation tech­
niques, phytoremediation will be the most suitable for the reclamation Declaration of competing interest
of these comminated sites with low land values that restore the
contaminated sites to nature since long-term is not a problem in remote The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
regions. In these remote regions, the establishment of a solid plant cover interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
is considered a sufficient option to achieve the long-term reclamation of the work reported in this paper.
the polluted soils for phytoremediation since the vegetation cover is able
to exudate enzymes, biosurfactants, and bio-chelate. Plants with asso­
ciated microorganisms finally can expedite the degradation and

15
J. Wang and M. Aghajani Delavar Science of the Total Environment 902 (2023) 165949

Data availability Brooks, R.R., Chambers, M.F., Nicks, L.J., Robinson, B.H., 1998. Phytomining. Trends
Plant Sci. 3, 359–362.
Brown, S.L., Chaney, R.L., Angle, J.S., Baker, A.J.M., 1995. Zinc and cadmium uptake by
No data was used for the research described in the article. hyperaccumulator Thlaspi caerulescens grown in nutrient solution. Soil Sci. Soc. Am.
J. 59 (1), 125–133.
Acknowledgment Campos, P., Miller, A.Z., Prats, S.A., Knicker, H., Hagemann, N., José, M., 2020. Biochar
amendment increases bacterial diversity and vegetation cover in trace element-
polluted soils: a long-term field experiment. Soil Biol. Biochem. 150, 108014.
This research was supported by the Canada Foundation for Innova­ Cartmill, A.D., Cartmill, D.L., Alarcón, A., 2014. Controlled release fertilizer increased
tion John R. Evans Leaders Fund and the Alberta Technology and phytoremediation of petroleum-contaminated sandy soil. Int. J. Phytoremediation
16, 285–301.
Innovation for Research Capacity Program (No. RCP-23-047-SEG). Chaney, R.L., Li, Y.M., Angle, J.S., Baker, A.J.M., Reeves, R.D., Brown, S.L., Chin, M.,
2000. In: Terry, N., Banelos, G. (Eds.), Phytoremediation of Contaminated Soil and
References Water. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 129–158.
Chapelle, F.H., Widdowson, M.A., Brauner, J.S., Mendez III, E., Casey, C.C., 2003.
Methodology for estimating times of remediation associated with monitored natural
Abdullah, S.R.S., Al-Baldawi, I.A., Almansoory, A.F., Purwanti, I.F., Al-Sbani, N.H.,
attenuation. In: Water-Resources Investigations Report 03–4057. U.S. Geological
Sharuddin, S.S.N., 2020. Plant-assisted remediation of hydrocarbons in water and
Survey.
soil: application, mechanisms, challenges and opportunities. Chemosphere 247,
Chen, L., Chen, S., Zhang, Y., Long, Y., Kong, X., Wang, S., Xu, A., 2023. Co-occurrence
125932.
network of microbial communities affected by application of anaerobic fermentation
Acosta, J.A., Abbaspour, A., Martínez, G.R., Martínez-Martínez, S., Zornoza, R.,
residues during phytoremediation of ionic rare earth tailings area. Sci. Total Environ.
Gabarrón, M., Faz, A., 2018. Phytoremediation of mine tailings with Atriplex
856, 159223.
halimus and organic/inorganic amendments: a five-year field case study.
Clark, G.J., Dodgshun, N., Sale, P.W.G., Tang, C., 2007. Changes in chemical and
Chemosphere 204, 71–78.
biological properties of a sodic clay subsoil with addition of organic amendments.
Agnello, A.C., Bagard, M., van Hullebusch, E.D., Esposito, G., Huguenot, D., 2016.
Soil Biol. Biochem. 39 (11), 2806–2817.
Comparative bioremediation of heavy metals and petroleum hydrocarbons co-
Clemens, S., Palmgren, M.G., Krämer, U., 2002. A long way ahead: understanding and
contaminated soil by natural attenuation, phytoremediation, bioaugmentation and
engineering plant metal accumulation. Trends Plant Sci. 7 (7), 309–315.
bioaugmentation-assisted phytoremediation. Sci. Total Environ. 563, 693–703.
Conesa, H.M., Evangelou, M.W., Robinson, B.H., Schulin, R., 2012. A critical view of
Alamgir, M., Kibria, M.G., Islam, M., 2011. Effects of farmyard manure on cadmium and
current state of phytotechnologies to remediate soils: still a promising tool? Sci.
lead accumulation in Amaranth (Amaranthus oleracea L.). J. Soil Sci. Environ.
World J. 2012.
Manage 2 (8), 237–240.
Cui, M., Nobel, P.S., 1992. Nutrient status, water uptake and gas exchange for three
Ali, H., Khan, E., Sajad, M.A., 2013. Phytoremediation of heavy metals—concepts and
desert succulents infected with mycorrhizal fungi. New Phytol. 122 (4), 643–649.
applications. Chemosphere 91 (7), 869–881.
Cunningham, S.D., Ow, D.W., 1996. Promises and prospects of phytoremediation. Plant
Al-Thani, R.F., Yasseen, B.T., 2020. Phytoremediation of polluted soils and waters by
Physiol. 110 (3), 715.
native Qatari plants: future perspectives. Environ. Pollut. 259, 113694.
Delavar, M.A., Wang, J., 2023. Phenol biodegradation in a bioreactor considering
Amiri, M.J., Shabani, A., Javidi, A., 2023. Phytoremediation potential of rapeseed in
different geometries and process parameters. AICHE J. e18100 https://doi.org/
phenanthrene-contaminated soils under different irrigation regimes and pumice
10.1002/aic.18100.
levels. Irrig. Drain. 72 (1), 90–104.
Dinh, T., Dobo, Z., Kovacs, H., 2022a. Phytomining of noble metals – a review.
Amponsah, N.Y., Wang, J., Zhao, L., 2017. Environmental profile of two soil remediation
Chemosphere 286, 131805.
options–a case study in northern Alberta. J. Environ. Account. Manag. 5 (2),
Dinh, T., Dobo, Z., Kovacs, H., 2022b. Phytomining of rare earth elements - a review.
117–131.
Chemosphere 297, 134259.
Amponsah, N.Y., Wang, J., Zhao, L., 2018. A review of life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG)
Dixit, R., Malaviya, D., Pandiyan, K., Singh, U.B., Sahu, A., Shukla, R., Paul, D., 2015.
emissions of commonly used ex-situ soil treatment technologies. J. Clean. Prod. 186,
Bioremediation of heavy metals from soil and aquatic environment: an overview of
514–525.
principles and criteria of fundamental processes. Sustainability 7 (2), 2189–2212.
Amponsah, N.Y., Wang, J., Zhao, L., 2019. Modelling PAH degradation in contaminated
Doty, S.L., Freeman, J.L., Cohu, C.M., Burken, J.G., Firrincieli, A., Simon, A., et al., 2017.
soils in Canada using a modified process-based model (DNDC). Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
Enhanced degradation of TCE on a superfund site using endophyte-assisted poplar
83 (3), 605–613.
tree phytoremediation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51, 10050–10058.
Anik, M.F.A., Rahman, M.M., Rahman, G.M., Alam, M.K., Islam, M.S., Khatun, M.F.,
Du, X., Shrestha, N.K., Wang, J., 2019a. Incorporating a non-reactive heavy metal
2017. Organic amendments with chemical fertilizers improve soil fertility and
simulation module into SWAT model and its application in the Athabasca oil sands
microbial biomass in rice-rice-rice triple crops cropping systems. Open J. Soil Sci. 7
region. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 26, 20879–20892.
(05), 87.
Du, X., Shrestha, N.K., Wang, J., 2019b. Integrating organic chemical simulation module
Ashraf, S., Ali, Q., Zahir, Z.A., Ashraf, S., Asghar, H.N., 2019. Phytoremediation:
into SWAT model with application for PAHs simulation in Athabasca oil sands
environmentally sustainable way for reclamation of heavy metal polluted soils.
region, Western Canada. Environ. Model. Softw. 111, 432–443.
Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 174, 714–727.
Dutta, S., He, M., Xiong, X., Tsang, D.C., 2021. Sustainable management and recycling of
Awad, Y.M., Ok, Y.S., Abrigata, J., Beiyuan, J., Beckers, F., Tsang, D.C., Rinklebe, J.,
food waste anaerobic digestate: a review. Bioresour. Technol. 341, 125915.
2018. Pine sawdust biomass and biochars at different pyrolysis temperatures change
EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency), 2013. Introduction to In Situ
soil redox processes. Sci. Total Environ. 625, 147–154.
Bioremediation of Groundwater. EPA542-R-13-018.
Azcón, R., Medina, A., Roldán, A., Biró, B., Vivas, A., 2009. Significance of treated
Frankel, M.L., Bhuiyan, T.I., Veksha, A., Demeter, M.A., Layzell, D.B., Helleur, R.J.,
agrowaste residue and autochthonous inoculates (Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and
Turner, R.J., 2016. Removal and biodegradation of naphthenic acids by biochar and
Bacillus cereus) on bacterial community structure and phytoextraction to remediate
attached environmental biofilms in the presence of co-contaminating metals.
soils contaminated with heavy metals. Chemosphere 75 (3), 327–334.
Bioresour. Technol. 216, 352–361.
Azizian, A., Amin, S., Noushadi, M., Maftoun, M., Emam, Y., 2011. Phytoremediation
Frankenberger Jr., W.T., Karlson, U., 1995. Volatilization of selenium from a dewatered
potential of corn and oat for increased levels of soil cadmium under different
seleniferous sediment: a field study. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 14 (3–4),
irrigation intervals. Iran Agric. Res. 30 (1& 2), 47–59.
226–232.
Bhanja, S.N., Wang, J., 2020. Estimating influences of environmental drivers on soil
French, C.J., Dickinson, N.M., Putwain, P.D., 2006. Woody biomass phytoremediation of
heterotrophic respiration in the Athabasca River basin, Canada. Environ. Pollut. 257,
contaminated brownfield land. Environ. Pollut. 141 (3), 387–395.
113630.
Gao, Y., Wu, P., Jeyakumar, P., Bolan, N., Wang, H., Gao, B., Wang, B., 2022. Biochar as
Bhanja, S.N., Wang, J., 2021. Influence of environmental factors on autotrophic, soil and
a potential strategy for remediation of contaminated mining soils: mechanisms,
ecosystem respirations in Canadian boreal forest. Ecol. Indic. 125, 107517.
applications, and future perspectives. J. Environ. Manag. 313, 114973.
Bhargava, A., Carmona, F.F., Bhargava, M., Srivastava, S., 2012. Approaches for
Gérard, E., Echevarria, G., Sterckeman, T., Morel, J.L., 2000. Cadmium Availability to
enhanced phytoextraction of heavy metals. J. Environ. Manag. 105, 103–120.
Three Plant Species Varying in Cadmium Accumulation Pattern, Vol. 29, No. 4.
Bian, R., Chen, D., Liu, X., Cui, L., Li, L., Pan, G., Chang, A., 2013. Biochar soil
American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science
amendment as a solution to prevent Cd-tainted rice from China: results from a cross-
Society of America, pp. 1117–1123.
site field experiment. Ecol. Eng. 58, 378–383.
Gerhardt, K.E., Gerwing, P.D., Greenberg, B.M., 2017. Opinion: taking phytoremediation
Blaylock, M.J., Salt, D.E., Dushenkov, S., Zakharova, O., Gussman, C., Kapulnik, Y.,
from proven technology to accepted practice. Plant Sci. 256, 170–185.
Raskin, I., 1997. Enhanced accumulation of Pb in Indian mustard by soil-applied
Ghosh, M., Singh, S.P., 2005. A review on phytoremediation of heavy metals and
chelating agents. Environ. Sci. Technol. 31 (3), 860–865.
utilization of it’s by products. Asian J. Energy Environ. 6 (4), 18.
Bolan, N., Kunhikrishnan, A., Thangarajan, R., Kumpiene, J., Park, J., Makino, T.,
Gielnik, A., Pechaud, Y., Huguenot, D., Cebron, A., Esposito, G., van Hullebusch, E.D.,
Kirkham, M.B., Scheckel, K., 2014. Remediation of heavy metal(loid)s contaminated
2019. Bacterial seeding potential of digestate in bioremediation of diesel
soils – to mobilize or to immobilize? J. Hazard. Mater. 266, 141–166.
contaminated soil. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegradation 143, 104715.
Bolan, N.S., Park, J.H., Robinson, B., Naidu, R., Huh, K.Y., 2011. Phytostabilization: a
Giovanella, P., Vieira, G.A.L., Otero, I.V.R., et al., 2020. Metal and organic pollutants
green approach to contaminant containment. Adv. Agron. 112, 145–204.
bioremediation by extremophile microorganisms. J. Hazard. Mater. 382, 121024.
Břendová, K., Tlustoš, P., Száková, J., 2015. Biochar immobilizes cadmium and zinc and
Gordon, M., Choe, N., Duffy, J., Ekuan, G., Heilman, P., Muiznieks, I., Ruszaj, M.,
improves phytoextraction potential of willow plants on extremely contaminated soil.
Shurtleff, B.B., Strand, S., Wilmoth, J., Newman, L.A., 1998. Phytoremediation of
Plant Soil Environ. 61 (7), 303–308.
trichloroethylene with hybrid poplars. Environ. Health Perspect. 106 (Suppl. 4),
1001–1004.

16
J. Wang and M. Aghajani Delavar Science of the Total Environment 902 (2023) 165949

Göthberg, A., Greger, M., Holm, K., Bengtsson, B.E., 2004. Influence of nutrient levels on Kołtowski, M., Hilber, I., Bucheli, T.D., Oleszczuk, P., 2016. Effect of steam activated
uptake and effects of mercury, cadmium, and lead in water spinach. J. Environ. biochar application to industrially contaminated soils on bioavailability of polycyclic
Qual. 33 (4), 1247–1255. aromatic hydrocarbons and ecotoxicity of soils. Sci. Total Environ. 566, 1023–1031.
Gu, S., Hu, Q., Cheng, Y., Bai, L., Liu, Z., Xiao, W., Tan, L., 2019. Application of organic Kurade, M.B., Ha, Y.H., Xiong, J.Q., Govindwar, S.P., Jang, M., Jeon, B.H., 2021.
fertilizer improves microbial community diversity and alters microbial network Phytoremediation as a green biotechnology tool for emerging environmental
structure in tea (Camellia sinensis) plantation soils. Soil Tillage Res. 195, 104356. pollution: a step forward towards sustainable rehabilitation of the environment.
Guan, D.X., Shi, Z., Zhu, L., Zhu, Y.G., Dahlgren, R.A., Ma, L.Q., 2023. Health as a Chem. Eng. J. 415, 129040.
unifying concept to promote integrated soil and environmental research. Soil Lahmar, R., Bationo, B.A., Lamso, N.D., Guéro, Y., Tittonell, P., 2012. Tailoring
Environ. Health 100001. conservation agriculture technologies to West Africa semi-arid zones: building on
Gul, I., Manzoor, M., Hashim, N., Shah, G.M., Waani, S.P.T., Shahid, M., Arshad, M., traditional local practices for soil restoration. Field Crop Res. 132, 158–167.
2021. Challenges in microbially and chelate-assisted phytoextraction of cadmium Lee, J.H., 2013. An overview of phytoremediation as a potentially promising technology
and lead–a review. Environ. Pollut. 287, 117667. for environmental pollution control. Biotechnol. Bioprocess Eng. 18, 431–439.
Guo, L., Zheng, S., Cao, C., Li, C., 2016. Tillage practices and straw-returning methods Leštan, D., Luo, C.L., Li, X.D., 2008. The use of chelating agents in the remediation of
affect topsoil bacterial community and organic C under a rice-wheat cropping system metal-contaminated soils: a review. Environ. Pollut. 153 (1), 3–13.
in central China. Sci. Rep. 6 (1), 33155. Lewandowski, I., Schmidt, U., Londo, M., Faaij, A., 2006. The economic value of the
Guo, M., Song, W., Tian, J., 2020. Biochar-facilitated soil remediation: mechanisms and phytoremediation function–assessed by the example of cadmium remediation by
efficacy variations. Front. Environ. Sci. 183. willow (Salix ssp). Agric. Syst. 89 (1), 68–89.
Gupta, M., Gupta, S., 2017. An Overview of Selenium Uptake, Metabolism, and Toxicity Li, N., Hongwei, J., Su, Y., 2022. Phytoremediation of arsenic contaminated soil based on
in Plants. Front. Plant Sci. 7, 2074. drip irrigation and intercropping. Sci. Total Environ. 850, 157970.
Gurdon, L., Esmahi, L., Amponsah, N.Y., Wang, J., 2021. Life cycle cost analysis of Li, Y.M., Chaney, R., Brewer, E., Roseberg, R., Angle, J.S., Baker, A., Nelkin, J., 2003.
contaminated site remediation using information technology tools. Environ. Dev. Development of a technology for commercial phytoextraction of nickel: economic
Sustain. 23, 10173–10193. and technical considerations. Plant Soil 249, 107–115.
He, Z.L., Alva, A.K., Calvert, D.V., Li, Y.C., Banks, D.J., 1999. Effects of nitrogen Limmer, M., Burken, J., 2016. Phytovolatilization of organic contaminants. Environ. Sci.
fertilization of grapefruit trees on soil acidification and nutrient availability in a Technol. 50 (13), 6632–6643, 2016.
Riviera fine sand Plant. Soil 206 (1), 11–19. Liu, L., Chen, H., Cai, P., Liang, W., Huang, Q., 2009. Immobilization and phytotoxicity
Hooda, P.S., 2007. Speciation and bioavailability of metal contaminants in soils: of Cd in contaminated soil amended with chicken manure compost. J. Hazard.
concepts, approaches and challenges. Prog. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1, 1165–1168. Mater. 163 (2–3), 563–567.
Hou, J., Wang, Q., Liu, W., Zhong, D., Ge, Y., Christie, P., Luo, Y., 2021. Soil microbial Liu, S., Yang, B., Liang, Y., Xiao, Y., Fang, J., 2020. Prospect of phytoremediation
community and association network shift induced by several tall fescue cultivars combined with other approaches for remediation of heavy metal-polluted soils.
during the phytoremediation of a petroleum hydrocarbon-contaminated soil. Sci. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 27, 16069–16085.
Total Environ. 792, 148411. Liu, X., Lu, X., Zhao, W., Yang, S., Wang, J., Xia, H., Chen, Q., 2022. The rhizosphere
Houšková, B., Bušo, R., Makovníková, J., 2021. Contribution of good agricultural effect of native legume Albizzia julibrissin on coastal saline soil nutrient availability,
practices to soil biodiversity. Open J. Ecol. 11 (1), 75–85. microbial modulation, and aggregate formation. Sci. Total Environ. 806, 150705.
Huang, J.W., Chen, J., Berti, W.R., Cunningham, S.D., 1997. Phytoremediation of lead- Lohmann, R., MacFarlane, J.K., Gschwend, P.M., 2005. Importance of black carbon to
contaminated soils: role of synthetic chelates in lead phytoextraction. Environ. Sci. sorption of native PAHs, PCBs, and PCDDs in Boston and New York harbor
Technol. 31 (3), 800–805. sediments. Environ. Sci. Technol. 39 (1), 141–148.
Huang, L., Liu, Y., Ferreira, J.F., Wang, M., Na, J., Huang, J., Liang, Z., 2022. Long-term Lovley, D.R., Holmes, D.E., 2022. Electromicrobiology: the ecophysiology of
combined effects of tillage and rice cultivation with phosphogypsum or farmyard phylogenetically diverse electroactive microorganisms. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 20 (1),
manure on the concentration of salts, minerals, and heavy metals of saline-sodic 5–19.
paddy fields in Northeast China. Soil Tillage Res. 215, 105222. Lu, H., Zhang, W., Yang, Y., Huang, X., Wang, S., Qiu, R., 2012. Relative distribution of
Huesemann, M.H., Hausmann, T.S., Fortman, T.J., 2003. Assessment of bioavailability Pb2+ sorption mechanisms by sludge-derived biochar. Water Res. 46 (3), 854–862.
limitations during slurry biodegradation of petroleum hydrocarbons in aged soils. Ma, J.F., Goto, S., Tamai, K., Ichii, M., 2001. Role of root hairs and lateral roots in silicon
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 22, 2853–2860. uptake by rice. Plant Physiol. 127 (4), 1773–1780.
Hutchinson, S.L., Schwab, A.P., Banks, M.K., 2001. Phytoremediation of aged petroleum Ma, L.Q., Tu, C., Kennelley, E.D., Komar, K.M., 2000. Phytoremediation of arsenic
sludge: effect of irrigation techniques and scheduling. J. Environ. Qual. 30 (5), contaminated soils and wastes. In: Annual Meetings Abstracts. American Society of
1516–1522. Agronomy, Minneapolis, MN, pp. 5–9.
Ippolito, J.A., Laird, D.A., Busscher, W.J., 2012. Environmental benefits of biochar. Ma, Y., Zheng, X., Anderson, S.H., Lu, J., Feng, X., 2014. Diesel oil volatilization
J. Environ. Qual. 41 (4), 967–972. processes affected by selected porous media. Chemosphere 99, 192–198.
Jan, A.T., Azam, M., Ali, A., Haq, Q.M.R., 2014. Prospects for exploiting bacteria for Ma, Y., Rajkumar, M., Oliveira, R.S., Zhang, C., Freitas, H., 2019. Potential of plant
bioremediation of metal pollution. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44 (5), 519–560. beneficial bacteria and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in phytoremediation of metal-
Jaskulak, M., Grobelak, A., Grosser, A., Vandenbulcke, F., 2019. Gene expression, DNA contaminated saline soils. J. Hazard. Mater. 379, 120813.
damage and other stress markers in Sinapis alba L. exposed to heavy metals with Mahar, A., Wang, P., Ali, A., Awasthi, M.K., Lahori, A.H., Wang, Q., Zhang, Z., 2016.
special reference to sewage sludge application on contaminated sites. Ecotoxicol. Challenges and opportunities in the phytoremediation of heavy metals contaminated
Environ. Saf. 181, 508–517. soils: a review. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 126, 111–121.
Jaskulak, M., Grobelak, A., Vandenbulcke, F., 2020. Modelling assisted Marques, A.P., Rangel, A.O., Castro, P.M., 2009. Remediation of heavy metal
phytoremediation of soils contaminated with heavy metals–main opportunities, contaminated soils: phytoremediation as a potentially promising clean-up
limitations, decision making and future prospects. Chemosphere 249, 126196. technology. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 39 (8), 622–654.
Jastrow, J.D., Miller, R.M., Lussenhop, J., 1998. Contributions of interacting biological Marschner, P., Kandeler, E., Marschner, B., 2003. Structure and function of the soil
mechanisms to soil aggregate stabilization in restored prairie. Soil Biol. Biochem. 30 microbial community in a long-term fertilizer experiment. Soil Biol. Biochem. 35 (3),
(7), 905–916. 453–461.
Ji, P., Sun, T., Song, Y., Ackland, M.L., Liu, Y., 2011. Strategies for enhancing the McGrath, S.P., Zhao, F.J., 2003. Phytoextraction of metals and metalloids from
phytoremediation of cadmium-contaminated agricultural soils by Solanum nigrum L. contaminated soils. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 14 (3), 277–282.
Environ. Pollut. 159 (3), 762–768. Meers, E., Van Slycken, S., Adriaensen, K., Ruttens, A., Vangronsveld, J., Du Laing, G.,
Jiang, C.A., Wu, Q.T., Goudon, R., Echevarria, G., Morel, J.L., 2015. Biomass and metal Tack, F.M.G., 2010. The use of bio-energy crops (Zea mays) for ‘phytoattenuation’of
yield of co-cropped Alyssum murale and Lupinus albus. Aust. J. Bot. 63 (2), heavy metals on moderately contaminated soils: a field experiment. Chemosphere 78
159–166. (1), 35–41.
Johnsen, A.R., Wick, L.Y., Harms, H., 2005. Principles of microbial PAH-degradation in Meier, S., Borie, F., Bolan, N., Cornejo, P., 2012. Phytoremediation of metal-polluted
soil. Environ. Pollut. 133, 71–84. soils by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42 (7),
Ju, W., Liu, L., Fang, L., Cui, Y., Duan, C., Wu, H., 2019. Impact of co-inoculation with 741–775.
plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria and rhizobium on the biochemical responses Mendez, M.O., Maier, R.M., 2007. Phytostabilization of mine tailings in arid and
of alfalfa-soil system in copper contaminated soil. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 167, semiarid environments—an emerging remediation technology. Environ. Health
218–226. Perspect. 116, 278–283.
Juwarkar, A.A., Singh, S.K., Mudhoo, A., 2010. A comprehensive overview of elements in Mendez, M.O., Maier, R.M., 2008. Phytoremediation of mine tailings in temperate and
bioremediation. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 9, 215–288. arid environments. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 7, 47–59.
Kafle, A., Timilsina, A., Gautam, A., Adhikari, K., Bhattarai, A., Aryal, N., 2022. Mesjasz-Przybyłowicz, J., Nakonieczny, M., Migula, P., Augustyniak, M., Tarnawska, M.,
Phytoremediation: mechanisms, plant selection and enhancement by natural and Reimold, U., et al., 2004. Uptake of cadmium, lead nickel and zinc from soil and
synthetic agents. Environmental Advances 100203. water solutions by the nickel hyperaccumulator Berkheya coddii. Acta Biol. Cracov.
Kang, J.W., Khan, Z., Doty, S.L., 2012. Biodegradation of trichloroethylene by an Ser. Bot. 46, 75–85.
endophyte of hybrid poplar. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 78, 3504–3507. Mishra, J., Singh, R., Arora, N.K., 2017. Alleviation of heavy metal stress in plants and
Kennen, K., Kirkwood, N., 2015. Phyto: Principles and Resources for Site Remediation remediation of soil by rhizosphere microorganisms. Front. Microbiol. 8, 1706.
and Landscape Design. Routledge, London. Mishra, P., Kiran, N.S., Romanholo Ferreira, L.F., Yadav, K.K., Mulla, S.I., 2023. New
Khandare, R.V., Govindwar, S.P., 2015. Phytoremediation of textile dyes and effluents: insights into the bioremediation of petroleum contaminants: a systematic review.
current scenario and future prospects. Biotechnol. Adv. 33 (8), 1697–1714. Chemosphere 326, 13839.
Kochian, L., 1996. In International Phytoremediation Conference, Southborough, MA. Moliterni, E., Rodriguez, L., Fernández, F.J., Villaseñor, J., 2012. Feasibility of different
bioremediation strategies for treatment of clayey and silty soils recently polluted
with diesel hydrocarbons. Water Air Soil Pollut. 223, 2473–2482.

17
J. Wang and M. Aghajani Delavar Science of the Total Environment 902 (2023) 165949

Mulligan, C.N., Yong, R.N., Gibbs, B.F., 2001. Remediation technologies for metal- Rhykerd, R.L., Crews, B., McInnes, K.J., Weaver, R.W., 1999. Impact of bulking agents,
contaminated soils and groundwater: an evaluation. Eng. Geol. 60 (1–4), 193–207. forced aeration, and tillage on remediation of oil-contaminated soil. Bioresour.
Nedjimi, B., 2021. Phytoremediation: a sustainable environmental technology for heavy Technol. 67 (3), 279–285.
metals decontamination. SN Appl. Sci. 3 (3), 286. Robichaud, K., Stewart, K., Labrecque, M., Hijri, M., Cherewyk, J., Amyot, M., 2019. An
Newman, L.A., Reynolds, C.M., 2004. Phytodegradation of organic compounds. Curr. ecological microsystem to treat waste oil contaminated soil: using phytoremediation
Opin. Biotechnol. 15, 225–230. assisted by fungi and local compost, on a mixed-contaminant site, in a cold climate.
Nissim, G.W., Palm, E., Mancuso, S., Azzarello, E., 2018. Trace element phytoextraction Sci. Total Environ. 672, 732–742.
from contaminated soil: a case study under Mediterranean climate. Environ. Sci. Robinson, B., Fernández, J.E., Madejón, P., Marañón, T., Murillo, J.M., Green, S.,
Pollut. Res. 25, 9114–9131. Clothier, B., 2003. Phytoextraction: an assessment of biogeochemical and economic
Nkoa, R., 2014. Agricultural benefits and environmental risks of soil fertilization with viability. Plant Soil 249, 117–125.
anaerobic digestates: a review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 34, 473–492. Rodriguez, M.D., Gomez, M.C.G., Blazuez, N.A., Tarazona, J.V., 2014. Soil pollution
Nwankwegu, A.S., Onwosi, C.O., 2017. Microbial cell immobilization: a renaissance to remediation. In: Encyclopedia of Toxicology, third ed., pp. 344–355.
bioaugmentation inadequacies. A review. Environ. Technol. Rev. 6 (1), 186–198. Ruley, J.A., Amoding, A., Tumuhairwe, J.B., Basamba, T.A., 2022. Rhizoremediation of
Nwankwegu, A.S., Onwosi, C.O., Orji, M.U., Anaukwu, C.G., Okafor, U.C., Azi, F., petroleum hydrocarbon–contaminated soils: a systematic review of mutualism
Martins, P.E., 2016. Reclamation of DPK hydrocarbon polluted agricultural soil between phytoremediation species and soil living microorganisms.
using a selected bulking agent. J. Environ. Manag. 172, 136–142. Phytoremediation 263–296.
Nwankwegu, A.S., Onwosi, C.O., Azi, F., Azumini, P., Anaukwu, C.G., 2017. Use of rice Salt, D.E., Smith, R.D., Raskin, I., 1998. Phytoremediation. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 49 (1),
husk as bulking agent in bioremediation of automobile gas oil impinged agricultural 643–668.
soil. Soil Sediment Contam. Int. J. 26 (1), 96–114. Sarwar, N., Imran, M., Shaheen, M.R., Ishaque, W., Kamran, M.A., Matloob, A.,
O’Brien, B.J., Neher, D.A., Roy, E.D., 2020. Nutrient and pathogen suppression Hussain, S., 2017. Phytoremediation strategies for soils contaminated with heavy
properties of anaerobic digestates from dairy manure and food waste feedstocks. metals: modifications and future perspectives. Chemosphere 171, 710–721.
Waste Biomass Valoriz. 11 (12), 6565–6573. Schnoor, J.L., Light, L.A., McCutcheon, S.C., Wolfe, N.L., Carreia, L.H., 1995.
O’Connor, D., Peng, T., Zhang, J., Tsang, D.C., Alessi, D.S., Shen, Z., Bolan, N.S., Hou, D., Phytoremediation of organic and nutrient contaminants. Environ. Sci. Technol. 29
2018. Biochar application for the remediation of heavy metal polluted land: a review (7), 318A–323A.
of in situ field trials. Sci. Total Environ. 619, 815–826. Shah, S.H.H., Li, Y., Wang, J., Collins, A.L., 2020. Optimizing farmyard manure and
O’Connor, J., Hoang, S.A., Bradney, L., Dutta, S., Xiong, X., Tsang, D.C., Bolan, N.S., cattle slurry applications for intensively managed grasslands based on UK-DNDC
2021. A review on the valorisation of food waste as a nutrient source and soil model simulations. Sci. Total Environ. 714, 136672.
amendment. Environ. Pollut. 272, 115985. Shah, S.H.H., Wang, J., Hao, X., Thomas, B.W., 2021. Modeling the effect of salt-affected
Odoh, C.K., Zabbey, N., Sam, K., Eze, C.N., 2019. Status, progress and challenges of soil on water balance fluxes and nitrous oxide emission using modified DNDC.
phytoremediation-an African scenario. J. Environ. Manag. 237, 365–378. J. Environ. Manag. 280, 111678.
Okafor, U.C., Orji, M.U., 2022. Assessment of paint-pigment degrading microorganisms Shah, S.H.H., Wang, J., Hao, X., Thomas, B.W., 2022. Modelling soil salinity effects on
from paint industries effluent-contaminated sites in Aba, South-East Nigeria. J. Appl. salt water uptake and crop growth using a modified denitrification-decomposition
Chem. Sci. Int. 13 (2), 32–45. model: a phytoremediation approach. J. Environ. Manag. 301, 113820.
Okere, U., Semple, K., 2012. Biodegradation of PAHs in ‘pristine’ soils from different Shah, V., Daverey, A., 2021. Effects of sophorolipids augmentation on the plant growth
climatic regions. J. Bioremed. Biodegr. 1 (2), 1–11. and phytoremediation of heavy metal contaminated soil. J. Clean. Prod. 280,
Olson, P.E., Reardon, K.F., Pilon-Smits, E.A.H., 2003. Ecology of rhizosphere 124406.
bioremediation. In: McCutcheon, S.C. (Ed.), Phytoremediation: Transformation and Shamsollahi, Z., Partovinia, A., 2019. Recent advances on pollutants removal by rice
Control of Contaminants. Schnoor, J.L., Wiley NY, pp. 317–354. husk as a bio-based adsorbent: a critical review. J. Environ. Manag. 246, 314–323.
Pardo, T., Clemente, R., Epelde, L., Garbisu, C., Bernal, M.P., 2014. Evaluation of the Shao, N., Li, S., Yan, F., Su, Y., Liu, F., Zhang, Z., 2020. An all-in-one strategy for the
phytostabilisation efficiency in a trace elements contaminated soil using soil health adsorption of heavy metal ions and photodegradation of organic pollutants using
indicators. J. Hazard. Mater. 268, 68–76. steel slag-derived calcium silicate hydrate. J. Hazard. Mater. 382, 121120.
Pardo, T., Bernal, M.P., Clemente, R., 2017. Phytostabilisation of severely contaminated Sharifi, Z., Renella, G., 2015. Assessment of a particle size fractionation as a technology
mine tailings using halophytes and field addition of organic and inorganic for reducing heavy metal, salinity and impurities from compost produced by
amendments. Chemosphere 178, 556–564. municipal solid waste. Waste Manag. 38, 95–101.
Park, J.H., Lamb, D., Paneerselvam, P., Choppala, G., Bolan, N., Chung, J.W., 2011. Role Shen, J., Treu, R., Wang, J., Nicholson, F., Bhogal, A., Thorman, R., 2018a. Modeling
of organic amendments on enhanced bioremediation of heavy metal (loid) nitrous oxide emissions from digestate and slurry applied to three agricultural soils
contaminated soils. J. Hazard. Mater. 185 (2–3), 549–574. in the United Kingdom: fluxes and emission factors. Environ. Pollut. 243 (Part B),
Paudyn, K., Rutter, A., Rowe, R.K., Poland, J.S., 2008. Remediation of hydrocarbon 1952–1965.
contaminated soils in the Canadian Arctic by landfarming. Cold Reg. Sci. Technol. 53 Shen, J., Treu, R., Wang, J., Thorman, R., Nicholson, F., Bhogal, A., 2018b. Modeling
(1), 102–114. nitrous oxide emissions from three United Kingdom farms following application of
Paz-Ferreiro, J., Lu, H., Fu, S., Méndez, A., Gascó, G., 2014. Use of phytoremediation and farmyard manure and green compost. Sci. Total Environ. 637, 1566–1577.
biochar to remediate heavy metal polluted soils: a review. Solid Earth 5, 65–75. Shen, J., Treu, R., Wang, J., Hao, X., Thomas, B.W., 2019. Modeling growing season and
Pilon-Smits, E., 2005. Phytoremediation. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 56, 15–39. annual cumulative nitrous oxide emissions and emission factors from organically
Pivetz, B.E., 2001. Phytoremediation of Contaminated Soil and Ground Water at fertilized soils planted with barley in Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada. Agric. Syst. 176,
Hazardous Waste Sites. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and 102654.
Development, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA/540/S-01/500. Sheoran, V., Sheoran, A.S., Poonia, P., 2010. Role of hyperaccumulators in
Poi, G., Aburto-Medina, A., Mok, P.C., Ball, A.S., Shahsavari, E., 2017. Large scale phytoextraction of metals from contaminated mining sites: a review. Crit. Rev.
bioaugmentation of soil contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons using a mixed Environ. Sci. Technol. 41 (2), 168–214.
microbial consortium. Ecol. Eng. 102, 64–71. Siedt, M., Schäffer, A., Smith, K.E., Nabel, M., Roß-Nickoll, M., van Dongen, J.T., 2021.
Prasad, V.M.N., Freitas, H.M., 2003. Metal hyperaccumulation in plants: biodiversity Comparing straw, compost, and biochar regarding their suitability as agricultural
prospecting for phytoremediation technology. Electron. J. Biotechnol. 6 (3), soil amendments to affect soil structure, nutrient leaching, microbial communities,
285–321. and the fate of pesticides. Sci. Total Environ. 751, 141607.
Rahman, M.A., Reichman, S.M., De Filippis, L., Tavakoly Sany, S.B., Hasegawa, H., 2016. Simmer, R.A., Schnoor, J.L., 2022. Phytoremediation, bioaugmentation, and the plant
Phytoremediation of toxic metals in soils and wetlands: concepts and applications. microbiome. Environ. Sci. Technol. 56 (23), 16602–16610.
In: Environmental Remediation Technologies for Metal-contaminated Soils, Smith, S.E., Read, D.J., 2010. Mycorrhizal symbiosis. Academic press.
pp. 161–195. Song, L., Niu, X., Zhang, N., Li, T., 2021. Effect of biochar-immobilized Sphingomonas sp.
Rai, P.K., Kim, K.H., Lee, S.S., Lee, J.H., 2020. Molecular mechanisms in PJ2 on bioremediation of PAHs and bacterial community composition in saline soil.
phytoremediation of environmental contaminants and prospects of engineered Chemosphere 279, 130427.
transgenic plants/microbes. Sci. Total Environ. 705, 135858. Tampio, E., Ervasti, S., Rintala, J., 2015. Characteristics and agronomic usability of
Rajkumar, M., Sandhya, S., Prasad, M.N.V., Freitas, H., 2012. Perspectives of plant- digestates from laboratory digesters treating food waste and autoclaved food waste.
associated microbes in heavy metal phytoremediation. Biotechnol. Adv. 30 (6), J. Clean. Prod. 94, 86–92.
1562–1574. Tiwari, S., Lata, C., 2018. Heavy metal stress, signaling, and tolerance due to plant-
Rascio, N., Navari-Izzo, F., 2011. Heavy metal hyperaccumulating plants: how and why associated microbes: an overview. Front. Plant Sci. 9, 452.
do they do it? And what makes them so interesting? Plant Sci. 180 (2), 169–181. Tran, H.T., Lin, C., Bui, X.T., Ngo, H.H., Cheruiyot, N.K., Hoang, H.G., Vu, C.T., 2021.
Reid, B.J., Jones, K.C., Semple, K.T., 2000. Bioavailability of persistent organic pollutants Aerobic composting remediation of petroleum hydrocarbon-contaminated soil.
in soils and sediments—a perspective on mechanisms, consequences and assessment. Current and future perspectives. Sci. Total Environ. 753, 142250.
Environ. Pollut. 108 (1), 103–112. United States Environmental Protection Agency [US EPA], 1999. Use of Monitored
Ren, J., Liu, X., Yang, W., Yang, X., Li, W., Xia, Q., Yang, Z., 2021. Rhizosphere soil Natural Attenuation at Superfund, RCRA Corrective Action, and Underground
properties, microbial community, and enzyme activities: short-term responses to Storage Tank Sites. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington.
partial substitution of chemical fertilizer with organic manure. J. Environ. Manag. Unterbrunner, R., Puschenreiter, M., Sommer, P., Wieshammer, G., Tlustos, P.,
299, 113650. Zupan, M., Wenzel, W.W., 2007. Heavy metal accumulation in trees growing on
Ren, X., Zeng, G., Tang, L., Wang, J., Wan, J., Liu, Y., et al., 2018. Sorption, transport and contaminated sites in Central Europe. Environ. Pollut. 148, 107–114.
biodegradation-an insight into bioavailability of persistent organic pollutants in soil. Valipour, M., 2014. Variations of irrigated agriculture indicators in different continents
Sci. Total Environ. 610–611, 1154–1163. from 1962 to 2011. Adv. Water Sci. Technol. 1 (1), 1–14.
Vamerali, T., Bandiera, M., Mosca, G., 2010. Field crops for phytoremediation of metal-
contaminated land. A review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 8, 1–17.

18
J. Wang and M. Aghajani Delavar Science of the Total Environment 902 (2023) 165949

Vamerali, T., Bandiera, M., Mosca, G., 2011. In situ phytoremediation of arsenic-and Williams, J.B., 2002. Phytoremediation in wetland ecosystems: progress, problems, and
metal-polluted pyrite waste with field crops: effects of soil management. potential. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 21 (6), 607–635.
Chemosphere 83 (9), 1241–1248. Witters, N., Van Slycken, S., Ruttens, A., Adriaensen, K., Meers, E., Meiresonne, L.,
Van Aken, B., 2008. Transgenic plants for phytoremediation: helping nature to clean up Vangronsveld, J., 2009. Short-rotation coppice of willow for phytoremediation of a
environmental pollution. Trends Biotechnol. 26 (5), 225–227. metal-contaminated agricultural area: a sustainability assessment. BioEnergy Res. 2,
van Herwijnen, R., Hutchings, T.R., Al-Tabbaa, A., Moffat, A.J., Johns, M.L., Ouki, S.K., 144–152.
2007. Remediation of metal contaminated soil with mineral-amended composts. Witters, N., Mendelsohn, R.O., Van Slycken, S., Weyens, N., Schreurs, E., Meers, E.,
Environ. Pollut. 150 (3), 347–354. Vangronsveld, J., 2012. Phytoremediation, a sustainable remediation technology?
Verma, S., Kuila, A., 2019. Bioremediation of heavy metals by microbial process. Conclusions from a case study. I: energy production and carbon dioxide abatement.
Environ. Technol. Innov. 14, 100369. Biomass Bioenergy 39, 454–469.
Walker, D.J., Clemente, R., Roig, A., Bernal, M.P., 2003. The effects of soil amendments Wu, C.H., Wood, T.K., Mulchandani, A., Chen, W., 2006. Engineering plant-microbe
on heavy metal bioavailability in two contaminated Mediterranean soils. Environ. symbiosis for rhizoremediation of heavy metals. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 72 (2),
Pollut. 122 (2), 303–312. 1129–1134.
Walker, D.J., Clemente, R., Bernal, M.P., 2004. Contrasting effects of manure and Yaashikaa, P.R., Kumar, P.S., Jeevanantham, S., Saravanan, R., 2022. A review on
compost on soil pH, heavy metal availability and growth of Chenopodium album L. bioremediation approach for heavy metal detoxification and accumulation in plants.
in a soil contaminated by pyritic mine waste. Chemosphere 57 (3), 215–224. Environ. Pollut. 119035.
Wang, B., Xie, H.L., Ren, H.Y., Li, X., Chen, L., Wu, B.C., 2019a. Application of AHP, Yadav, K.K., Gupta, N., Kumar, A., Reece, L.M., Singh, N., Rezania, S., Khan, S.A., 2018.
TOPSIS, and TFNs to plant selection for phytoremediation of petroleum- Mechanistic understanding and holistic approach of phytoremediation: a review on
contaminated soils in shale gas and oil fields. J. Clean. Prod. 233, 13–22. application and future prospects. Ecol. Eng. 120, 274–298.
Wang, J., 2014. Decentralized biogas technology of anaerobic digestion and farm Yadav, S.K., 2010. Heavy metals toxicity in plants: an overview on the role of glutathione
ecosystem: opportunities and challenges. Front. Energy Res. 2, 10. and phytochelatins in heavy metal stress tolerance of plants. S. Afr. J. Bot. 76 (2),
Wang, J., Amponsah, N.Y., Zhao, L., Du, X., 2019b. Optimized approach for minimizing 167–179.
oil and gas asset and remediation and reclamation liability cost. In: 2019 Annual Yakimov, M.M., Timmis, K.N., Golyshin, P.N., 2007. Obligate oil-degrading marine
CLRA Alberta Chapter AGM and Conference, Red Deer, Canada. bacteria. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 18 (3), 257–266.
Wang, J., Li, Y., Bork, E.W., Richter, G.M., Eum, H.I., Chen, C., Mezbahuddin, S., 2020b. Yan, A., Wang, Y., Tan, S.N., Mohd Yusof, M.L., Ghosh, S., Chen, Z., 2020.
Modelling spatio-temporal patterns of soil carbon and greenhouse gas emissions in Phytoremediation: a promising approach for revegetation of heavy metal-polluted
grazing lands: current status and prospects. Sci. Total Environ. 739, 139092. land. Front. Plant Sci. 11, 359.
Wang, J., Li, Y., Bork, E.W., Richter, G.M., Chen, C., Shah, S.H.H., Mezbahuddin, S., Yang, F., Li, G.X., Yang, Q.Y., Luo, W.H., 2013. Effect of bulking agents on maturity and
2021b. Effects of grazing management on spatio-temporal heterogeneity of soil gaseous emissions during kitchen waste composting. Chemosphere 93 (7),
carbon and greenhouse gas emissions of grasslands and rangelands: monitoring, 1393–1399.
assessment and scaling-up. J. Clean. Prod. 288, 125737. Yang, F., Wang, B., Shi, Z., Li, L., Li, Y., Mao, Z., Wu, Y., 2021. Immobilization of heavy
Wang, L., Ji, B., Hu, Y., Liu, R., Sun, W., 2017. A review on in situ phytoremediation of metals (cd, Zn, and Pb) in different contaminated soils with swine manure biochar.
mine tailings. Chemosphere 184, 594–600. Environ. Pollut. Bioavail. 33 (1), 55–65.
Wang, L., Hou, D., Shen, Z., Zhu, J., Jia, X., Ok, Y.S., Tack, F.M., Rinklebe, J., 2020c. Yang, S.X., Liao, B., Li, J.T., Guo, T., Shu, W.S., 2010. Acidification, heavy metal mobility
Field trials of phytomining and phytoremediation: a critical review of influencing and nutrient accumulation in the soil–plant system of a revegetated acid mine
factors and effects of additives. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50 (24), 2724–2774. wasteland. Chemosphere 80 (8), 852–859.
Wang, L., Zhang, Q., Liao, X., Li, X., Zheng, S., Zhao, F., 2021c. Phytoexclusion of heavy Young, I.M., Crawford, J.W., 2004. Interactions and self-organization in the soil-microbe
metals using low heavy metal accumulating cultivars: a green technology. J. Hazard. complex. Science 304 (5677), 1634–1637.
Mater. 413, 125427. Zabbey, N., Sam, K., Onyebuchi, A.T., 2017. Remediation of contaminated lands in the
Wang, Q., Cui, Y., Dong, Y., 2002. Phytoremediation of polluted waters potentials and Niger Delta, Nigeria: prospects and challenges. Sci. Total Environ. 586, 952–965.
prospects of wetland plants. Acta Biotechnol. 22 (1–2), 199–208. Zaccheo, P., Crippa, L., Pasta, V.D.M., 2006. Ammonium nutrition as a strategy for
Wang, Q., Huang, Q., Guo, G., Qin, J., Luo, J., Zhu, Z., Wang, J., 2020a. Reducing cadmium mobilisation in the rhizosphere of sunflower. Plant Soil 283, 43–56.
bioavailability of heavy metals in contaminated soil and uptake by maize using Zhang, L., Sun, X., 2016. Influence of bulking agents on physical, chemical, and
organic-inorganic mixed fertilizer. Chemosphere 261, 128122. microbiological properties during the two-stage composting of green waste. Waste
Wang, X., Lyu, T., Dong, R., Liu, H., Wu, S., 2021a. Dynamic evolution of humic acids Manag. 48, 115–126.
during anaerobic digestion: exploring an effective auxiliary agent for heavy metal Zhang, S., Gedalanga, P.B., Mahendra, S., 2017. Advances in bioremediation of 1, 4-
remediation. Bioresour. Technol. 320, 124331. dioxane-contaminated waters. J. Environ. Manag. 204, 765–774.
Wang, Z., Xu, Y., Zhao, J., Li, F., Gao, D., Xing, B., 2011. Remediation of petroleum Zheng, R., Chen, Z., Cai, C., Tie, B., Liu, X., Reid, B.J., Baltrėnaitė, E., 2015. Mitigating
contaminated soils through composting and rhizosphere degradation. J. Hazard. heavy metal accumulation into rice (Oryza sativa L.) using biochar amendment—a
Mater. 190 (1–3), 677–685. field experiment in Hunan, China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 22, 11097–11108.
Wei, Z., Van Le, Q., Peng, W., Yang, Y., Yang, H., Gu, H., Sonne, C., 2021. A review on Zhou, Q., Li, R., Li, T., Zhou, R., Hou, Z., Zhang, X., 2023. Interactions among
phytoremediation of contaminants in air, water and soil. J. Hazard. Mater. 403, microorganisms functionally active for electron transfer and pollutant degradation in
123658. natural environments. Eco. Environ. Health. 2 (1), 3–15.
Whitman, T., Pepe-Ranney, C., Enders, A., Koechli, C., Campbell, A., Buckley, D.H., Zilio, M., Orzi, V., Chiodini, M.E., Riva, C., Acutis, M., Boccasile, G., Adani, F., 2020.
Lehmann, J., 2016. Dynamics of microbial community composition and soil organic Evaluation of ammonia and odour emissions from animal slurry and digestate
carbon mineralization in soil following addition of pyrogenic and fresh organic storage in the Po Valley (Italy). Waste Manag. 103, 296–304.
matter. ISME J. 10 (12), 2918–2930. Zornoza, R., Faz, A., Carmona, D.M., Martínez-Martínez, S., Acosta, J.A., 2012. Plant
Wilks, M.F., Roth, N., Aicher, L., Faust, M., Papadaki, P., Marchis, A., Schüürmann, G., cover and soil biochemical properties in a mine tailing pond five years after
2015. White paper on the promotion of an integrated risk assessment concept in application of marble wastes and organic amendments. Pedosphere 22 (1), 22–32.
European regulatory frameworks for chemicals. Sci. Total Environ. 521, 211–218.

19