Phytoremediation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Phytoremediation describes the treatment of environmental problems (bioremediation) through the use of plants.

Contents

[edit] What is phytoremediation ?

The word's etymology comes from the Greek « phyto » = plant, and Latin « remedium » = restoring balance, or remediating. Phytoremediation consists in depolluting contaminated soils, water or air with plants able to contain, degrade or eliminate metals, pesticides, solvents, explosives, crude oil and its derivatives, and various other contaminants, from the mediums that contain them. It is clean, efficient, inexpensive and non-environmentally disruptive, as opposed to processes that require excavation of soil.

[edit] Various phytoremediation processes

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

  • Phytoextraction - uptake and concentration of substances from the environment into the plant biomass.
  • Phytostabilization - reducing the mobility of substances in the environment, for example by limiting the leaching of substances from the soil.
  • Phytotransformation - chemical modification of environmental substances as a direct result of plant metabolism, often resulting in their inactivation, degradation (phytodegradation) or immobilization (phytostabilization).
  • Phytostimulation - enhancement of soil microbial activity for the degradation of contaminants, typically by organisms that associate with roots. This process is also known as rhizosphere degradation.
  • Phytovolatilization - removal of substances from soil or water with release into the air, sometimes as a result of phytotransformation to more volatile and / or less polluting substances.
  • Rhizofiltration - filtering water through a mass of roots to remove toxic substances or excess nutrients. The pollutants remain absorbed in or adsorbed by the roots.

[edit] Phytoextraction

Phytoextraction (or phytoaccumulation) uses plants to remove contaminants from soils, sediments or water into harvestable plant biomass. Phytoextraction has been growing rapidly in popularity world-wide for the last twenty years or so. Generally this process has been tried more often for extracting heavy metals than for organics. At the time of disposal contaminants are typically concentrated in the much smaller volume of the plant matter than in the initially contaminated soil or sediment. 'Mining with plants', or phytomining, is also being experimented with.

The plants absorb contaminants through the root system and store them in the root biomass and/or transport them up into the stems and/or leaves. A living plant may continue to absorb contaminants until it is harvested. After harvest a lower level of the contaminant will remain in the soil, so the growth/harvest cycle must usually be repeated through several crops to achieve a significant cleanup. After the process, the cleaned soil can support other vegetation.

Two versions of phytoextraction:

  • natural hyper-accumulation, where plants naturally take up the contaminants in soil unassisted, and
  • induced or assisted hyper-accumulation, in which a conditioning fluid containing a chelator or another agent is added to soil to increase metal solubility or mobilization so that the plants can absorb them more easily.

Examples of phytoextraction from soils (see also 'Table of hyperaccumulators'):

[edit] Phytotransformation

In the case of organic pollutants, such as pesticides, explosives, solvents, industrial chemicals, and other xenobiotic substances, certain plants, such as Cannas, render these substances non-toxic by their metabolism. In other cases, microorganisms living in association with plant roots may metabolize these substances in soil or water.

[edit] The role of genetics

Breeding programs and genetic engineering are powerful methods for enhancing natural phytoremediation capabilities, or for introducing new capabilities into plants. Genes for phytoremediation may originate from a micro-organism or may be transferred from one plant to another variety better adapted to the environmental conditions at the cleanup site.

[edit] Advantages and limitations

  • Advantages:
    • the cost of the phytoremediation is lower than that of traditional processes both in situ and ex situ
    • the plants can be easily monitored
    • the possibility of the recovery and re-use of valuable metals (by companies specializing in “phytomining”)
    • it is the least harmful method because it uses naturally occurring organisms and preserves the natural state of the environment.
  • Limitations:
    • phytoremediation is limited to the surface area and depth occupied by the roots.
    • slow growth and low biomass require a long-term commitment
    • with plant-based systems of remediation, it is not possible to completely to prevent the leaching of contaminants into the groundwater (without the complete removal of the contaminated ground which in itself does not resolve the problem of contamination)
    • the survival of the plants is affected by the toxicity of the contaminated land and the general condition of the soil.
    • possible bio-accumulation of contaminants which then pass into the food chain, from primary level consumers upwards.

[edit] Hyperaccumulators and biotic interactions

This section is for the first four points (Protection, Interferences, Mutualism, and Commensalism) mainly a summary of the following article: The significance of metal hyperaccumulation for biotic interactions, by R.S. Boyd and S.N. Martens.[1]

A plant is said to be a hyperaccumulator if it can concentrate the pollutants in a minimum percentage which varies according to the pollutant involved (for example: more than 1000 mg/kg of dry weight for nickel, copper, cobalt, chromium or lead; or more than 10,000 mg/kg for zinc or manganese.[2] Most of the 215 metal-hyperaccumulating species included in their review hyperaccumulate nickel. They listed 145 hyperaccumulators of nickel (around 300 Ni accumulators are known; see Hyperaccumulators table – 2 : Nickel and its notes), 26 of cobalt, 24 of copper, 14 of zinc, four of Lead, and two of Chromium. This capacity for accumulation is due to hypertolerance, or phytotolerance: the result of adaptative evolution from the plants to hostile environments along multiple generations. Boyd and Martens list 4 biotic interactions that may be affected by metal hyperaccumulation, to which can be added the biofilm as a particular aspect of micorrhizae:

  1. protection
  2. Interferences with neighbour plants of different species
  3. Mutualism (Mycorrhizal associations or micorrhizae, and Pollen and seed dispersal)
  4. Commensalism
  5. The biofilm

[edit] Protection

More and more evidence show that the metals in hyperaccumulating plants give them some protection from various bacteria, fungi and / or insects. For instance, with foliar Ni concentrations as low as 93 mg/kg, the larval weight of Spodoptera exigua (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) (beet army worm) is reduced and time to pupation extended. (Boyd & Moar, subm.)

Information published supporting the defence hypothesis of metal hyperaccumulation
Paper Plant species Metal Organism(s) affected
Ernst 1987 Silene vulgaris (Moench) Garke Cu (400 mg g-¹) Hadena cucubalis Schiff. (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)
Boyd et al. 1994 Streptanthus polygaloides Gray Ni Xanthomonas campestris (Gram-negative bacterium)
Boyd et al. 1994 Streptanthus polygaloides Gray Ni Alternaria brassicicola (Imperfect fungus)
Boyd et al. 1994 Streptanthus polygaloides Gray Ni Erisyphe polygoni (Powdery mildew)
Martens & Boyd 1994 Streptanthus polygaloides Ni Pieris rapae L. (Lepidoptera: Pieridae)
Boyd & Martens 1994 Thlaspi montanum L. var. montanum Ni Pieris rapae
Pollard & Baker 1997 Thlaspi caerulescens J. and C. Presl. Zn Schistocerca gregaria (Forsk.) (Orthoptera: Acrididae)
Pollard & Baker 1997 Thlaspi caerulescens J. and C. Presl. Zn Deroceras carvanae (Pollonera) (Pulmonata: Limacidae)
Pollard & Baker 1997 Thlaspi caerulescens J. and C. Presl. Zn Pieris brassicae L. (Lepidoptera: Pieridae)

The defense against viruses is not always supported. Davis et al. (2001) have compared two close species S. polygaloides Gray (Ni hyperaccumulator) and S. insignis Jepson (non-accumulator), inoculating them with Turnip mosaic virus. They showed that the presence of nickel weakens the plant's response to the virus.[3]

Circumvention of plants' elemental defences by their predators may occur in three ways:[1] (1) selective feeding on low-metal tissues, (2) use of a varied diet to dilute metal-containing food (likely more efficient in large-sized herbivores), and (3) tolerance of high dietary metal content.

  1. - Avoidance of an elemental defence via selective feeding:

Mishra & Kar (1974)[4] reported nickel to be transported through the xylem of crop plants. Similarly, Kramer et al. (1996) showed that Ni is transported as a complex with the amino-acid histidine in the xylem. This implies that phloem fluid may contain little nickel; thus phloem fluid may be used by able organisms as a rich source of carbohydrates.

Pea aphids (Acyrthosiphon pisum [Harris]; Homoptera: Aphididae) feeding on Streptanthus polygaloides Gray (Brassicaceae) have equal survival and reproduction rates for plants containing ca. 5000 mg/kg nickel amended with NiCl2, and those containing 40 mg/kg nickel. This means that either the phloem fluid is poor in nickel even for nickel hyperaccumulators, or that the aphids tolerate nickel. Moreover the aphids feeding on high nickel-content plants only show a small increase of nickel content in their bodies, relatively to the nickel content of aphids feeding on low-nickel plants.[1] On the other hand, aphids (Brachycaudus lychnidis L.) fed on the zinc-tolerant plant Silene vulgaris (Moench) Garcke (Caryophyllaceae) - which can contain up to 1400 mg/kg zinc in its leaves – were reported showing elevated (9000 mg/kg) zinc in their bodies.

  • 3 - Metal tolerance

Hopkin (1989)[5] and Klerks (1990)[6] demonstrated it for animal species; Brown & Hall (1990)[7] for fungal species; and Schlegel & al. (1992) and Stoppel & Schlegel (1995) for bacterial species.

Plants of Streptanthus polygaloides (Brassicaceae, Ni hyperaccumulator) can be parasitized by Cuscuta californica var. breviflora Engelm. (Cuscutaceae). Metal contents of Cuscuta ranged from 540–1220 mg/kg Ni, 73-fold higher than the metal contents of Cuscuta parasitizing a co-occurring non-hyperaccumulator plant species. Cuscuta plants are therefore very Ni-tolerant[1] - 10 mg Ni/kg is sufficient for growth to start decreasing in unadapted plants.[8] According to Boyd & Martens (subm.) this is "the first well-documented instance of the transfer of elemental defences from a hyperaccumulating host to a seed plant parasite".

[edit] Interferences with neighbour plants of different species

Its likelihood between hyperaccumulators and neighbouring plants was suggested but no mechanism was proposed.[2] Gabrielli et al. (1991),[9] and Wilson & Agnew (1992),[10] suggested a decrease in competition experienced by the hyperaccumulators for the litterfall from hyperaccumulators' canopy.

This mechanism mimics allelopathy in its effects, although technically due to redistribution of an element in the soil rather than to the plant manufacturing an organic compound. Boyd et Martens call it ‘‘elemental allelopathy’’ - without the autoxicity problem met in other types of allelopathy (Newman 1978).

[edit] Mutualism

Two types of mutualism are considered here, mycorrhizal associations or mycorrhizae, and animal-mediated pollen or seed dispersal.

1 - Mycorrhizal associations or mycorrhizae

There are two types of mycorrhizal fungi: ectomycorrhizae and endomycorrhizae. Ectomycorrhizae form sheaths around plant roots, endomycorrhizae enter cortex cells in the roots.[11]

Mycorrhizae are the symbiotic relationship between a soil-borne fungus and the roots of a plant. Some hyperaccumulators may form mycorrhizae and, in some cases, the latter may have a role in metal treatment.[1] In soils with low metal levels, vesicular arbuscular mycorrhizae enhance metal uptake of non-hyperaccumulating species.[7] On the other hand, some mycorrhizae increase metal tolerance by decreasing metal uptake in some low-accumulating species. Mycorrhizae thus assists Calluna in avoiding Cu and Zn toxicity.[12] Most roots need about 100 times the amount of carbon than do the hyphae of its associated ectomycorrhizae in order to develop across the same amount of soil.[13] It is therefore easier for hyphae to acquire elements that have a low mobility than it is for plant roots. Cesium-137 and strontium-90 both have low mobilities.[14]

Mycorrhizal fungi depend on host plants for carbon, while enabling host plants to absorb the soil's nutrients and water with more efficiency.[15] In mycorrhizae, nutrient uptake is enhanced for the plants while they provide energy-rich organic compounds to the fungus.[16] Although certain plant species that are normally symbiotic with mycorrhizal fungi can exist without the fungal association, the fungus greatly enhances the plant’s growth. Hosting mycorrhizae is much more energy effective to the plant than producing plant roots.[17]

The Brassicaceae family reportedly forms few mycorrhizal associations.[16] But Hopkins (1987)[18] notes mycorrhizae associated with Streptanthus glandulosus Hook. (Brassicaceae), a non-accumulator. Some fungi tolerate easily the generally elevated metal contents of serpentine soils. Some of these fungal species are mycorrhizal.[19] High levels of phosphate in the soil inhibit mycorrhizal growth.[20]

The uptake of radionuclides by fungi depends on its nutritional mechanism (mycorrhizal or saprophytic).[21] Pleurotus eryngii absorbs Cs best over Sr and Co, while Hebeloma cylindrosporum favours Co. But increasing the amount of K increases the uptake of Sr (chemical analogue to Ca) but not that of Cs (chemical analogue to K). Moreover, the uptake of Cs decreases with Pleurotus eryngii (mycorrhizal) and Hebeloma cylindrosporum (saprophytic) if the Cs content is increased, but that of Sr increases if its content is increased – this would indicate that the uptake is independent from the nutritional mechanism.

2 - Pollen and seed dispersal

Some animals obtain food from the plant (nectar, pollen, or fruit pulp - Howe & Westley 1988). Animals feeding from hyperaccumulors high in metal content must either be metal-tolerant or dilute it with a mixed diet. Alternatively hyperaccumulators may rely on abiotic vectors or non-mutualistic animal vectors for pollen or seed transport, but we lack information on seed and pollen dispersal mechanisms for hyperaccumulating plants.

Jaffré & Schmid 1974; Jaffré et al. 1976; Reeves et al. 1981; have studied metal contents of entire flowers and/or fruits. They have recorded elevated metal levels in these. We find an exception with Walsura monophylla Elm. (Meliaceae), originating from the Philippines and showing 7000 mg/kg Ni in leaves but only 54 mg/kg in fruits.[22] Some plants may thus have a mechanism by which metal or other contaminants is excluded from their reproductive structures.

[edit] Commensalism

This is an interaction benefiting one organism while being of neutral value to another. The most likely one with hyperaccumulators would be epiphytism. But this is most noticeable in humid habitats, whereas only a few detailed field studies of hyperaccumulators have been conducted in such habitats, and those studies (mostly to do with humid tropical forests on serpentine soils) pay little or no attention to that point (e.g., Proctor et al. 1989; Baker et al. 1992). Proctor et al. (1988) studied the tree Shorea tenuiramulosa, which can accumulate up to 1000 mg Ni/kg dry weight in leaf material. They estimated covers of epiphytes on the boles of trees in Malaysia, but did not report values for individual species. Boyd et al. (1999) studied the occurrence of epiphytes on leaves of the Ni hyperaccumulating tropical shrub Psychotria douarrei (Beauvis.). Epiphyte load increased significantly with increasing leaf age, up to 62% for the oldest leaves. An epiphyte sample of leafy liverworts removed from P. douarrei, was found to contain 400 mg Ni /kg dry weight (far less than the host plant, whose oldest and most heavily epiphytized leaves contained a mean value of 32,000 mg Ni/kg dry weight). High doses of Ni therefore do not prevent colonization of Psychotria douarrei by epiphytes.

Chemicals that mediate host-epiphyte interactions are most likely to be located in the outermost tissues of the host (Gustafsson & Eriksson 1995). Also, most of the metal accumulates in epidermal or subepidermal cell walls or vacuoles (Ernst & Weinert 1972; Vazquez et al. 1994; Mesjasz- Rzybylowicz et al. 1996; Gabrielli et al. 1997). These findings suggest that epiphytes would experience higher metal levels when growing on hyperaccumulator leaves. But Severne (1974) measured the release of metal via leaching of leaves from the Ni hyperaccumulator Hybanthus floribundus (Lindl.) F. Muell. (Violaceae) from western Australia; he concluded that its leaves do not easily leach Ni.

In theory another commensal interaction could exist, if the high metal content of the soil under hyperaccumulator plants was needed for another plant species to establish itself. No evidence is known showing such effect.

[edit] The biofilm

This section will shortly be developed. See relevant articles on biofilm and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. A biofilm is a layer of organic matter and microorganism formed by the attachment and proliferation of bacteria on the surface of the object. biofilm are characterised by the presence bacterial extracellular polymers glyocalyx that create a thin visible slimy layer on solid surface

[edit] Table of hyperaccumulators

A comprehensive literature survey of hyperaccumulating plants and their uses was started by Stevie Famulari for her students at the University of New Mexico. It is now considerably increased in size and has had to be split into 3 sections:

[edit] References

  1. ^ a b c d e [1] R.S. Boyd and S.N. Martens. The significance of metal hyperaccumulation for biotic interactions. Chemoecology 8 (1998) pp.1–7
  2. ^ a b A.J.M. Baker, R.R. Brooks. Terrestrial higher plants which hyperaccumulate metallic elements – A review of their distribution, ecology and phytochemistry. Biorecovery (1989), 1:81–126
  3. ^ [2] M.A. Davis, J.F. Murphy, and R.S. Boyd. Nickel Increases Susceptibility of a Nickel Hyperaccumulator to Turnip mosaic virus. J. Environ. Qual., Vol. 30, January–February 2001
  4. ^ D. Mishra, M. Kar. Nickel in plant growth and metabolism. Bot Rev (1974), 40:395–452
  5. ^ S.P. Hopkin. Ecophysiology of Metals in Terrestrial Invertebrates. GB-London: Elsevier Applied Science (1989)
  6. ^ P.L. Klerks. Adaptation to metals in animals. pp 313–321 in Shaw AJ (ed.) Heavy Metal Tolerance in Plants: Evolutionary Aspects. Boca Raton:FL: CRC Press (1990)
  7. ^ a b M.T. Brown et I.R. Hall. Ecophysiology of metal uptake by tolerant plants. Pp 95–104 in Shaw AJ (ed.) Heavy Metal Tolerance in Plants: Evolutionary Aspects. Boca Raton: FL: CRC Press (1990)
  8. ^ R.D. MacNicol, P.H.T. Beckett. Critical tissue concentrations of potentially toxic elements. Plant Soil, 1985. 85:107–129
  9. ^ R. Gabrielli, C. Mattioni, O. Vergnano. Accumulation mechanisms and heavy metal tolerance of a nickel hyperaccumulator. Plant Nutr (1991). 14:1067–1080
  10. ^ J.B. Wilson, A.D.Q. Agnew. Positive-feedback switches in plant communities. Adv Ecol Res (1992), 23:263–336
  11. ^ T.L. Rost, M.G. Barbour, C. R. Stocking and T.M. Murphy, The root system. Plant Biology, 1998. (pp. 68-84). California: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Cited in Westhoff99.
  12. ^ R. Bradley, A.J. Burt et D.J. Read, The biology of mycorrhizal infection in the Ericaceae. VIII. The role of mycorrhizal infection in heavy metal tolerance. New Phytol 1982, 91:197–209.
  13. ^ J.L. Harley, The significance of mycorrhizae. Mycological Research 1989. 92: 129-134.
  14. ^ G.J.D. Kirk and S. Staunton. On predicting the fate of radioactive caesium in soil beneath grassland. Journal of Soil Science, 1989. 40: 71-84
  15. ^ [3] J.A. Entry, L.S. Watrud and M. Reeves, Accumulation of cesium-137 and strontium-90 from contaminated soil by three grass species inoculated with mycorrhizal fungi. Environmental Pollution, 1999. 104: 449-457. Cited in Westhoff99.
  16. ^ a b M.F. Allen. The Ecology of Mycorrhizae. New York: Cambridge University Press (1991). Cité dans Boyd 1998.
  17. ^ Marshall and Perry 1987
  18. ^ N.A. Hopkins. Mycorrhizae in a Californian serpentine grassland community. Can Bot 1987, 65:484–487
  19. ^ J.L. Maas et D.E. Stuntz. Mycoecology on serpentine soil. Mycologia 61:1106–1116 (1969). Cited in Boyd 98.
  20. ^ K. Killham. Ecology of polluted soils. Soil Ecology, 1995. (pp. 175-181) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  21. ^ [4] A. Baeza, J. Guillen, S. Hernandez, A. Salas, M. Bernedo, J.L. Manjon, G. Moreno. Influence of the nutritional mechanism of fungi (mycorrhize/saprophyte) on the uptake of radionuclides by mycelium. Radiochimica acta, 2005. vol. 93, no4, pp. 233-238
  22. ^ A.J.M. Baker, J. Proctor, M.M.J. van Balgooy, R.D. Reeves. Hyperaccumulation of nickel by the flora of the ultramafics of Palawan, Republic of the Philippines. Pp 291–304 in Baker AJM, Proctor J, Reeves RD (eds) The Vegetation of Ultramafic (Serpentine) Soils. GB-Andover: Intercept (1992)

[edit] See also

[edit] External links

[edit] Bibliography

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/h/y/Phytoremediation.html"
In other languages