Bioremediation of Pollutants: From Genetic Engineering to Genome Engineering

volumes.

Part I

Phytoremediation

Outline

1 Phytoremediation—a holistic approach for remediation of heavy metals and metalloids

2 Role of potential native weeds and grasses for phytoremediation of endocrine-disrupting pollutants discharged from pulp paper industry waste

3 Transgenic plants in phytoremediation of organic pollutants

4 Progress, prospects, and challenges of genetic engineering in phytoremediation

5 Recent advances in phytoremediation using genome engineering CRISPR–Cas9 technology

1

Phytoremediation—a holistic approach for remediation of heavy metals and metalloids

Sumya Pathak¹, ², Aditya Vikram Agarwal¹, ² and Vimal Chandra Pandey³*,    ¹Department of Biochemistry, University of Lucknow, Lucknow, India,    ²DST—Center for Policy Research, Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Lucknow, India,    ³Department of Environmental Science, Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Lucknow, India*, Corresponding author

Abstract

Anthropogenic mobilization of heavy metals (HMs) and metalloids in the air, water, and soil is a grave threat to human health and the environment. HM and metalloid pollution in soil has emerged as a major concern worldwide due to its far reaching implications of contaminating the food chain. Therefore, there is an urgent need for an effective, economical, sustainable, and environmental-friendly approach to remediate HM and metalloid contaminated soils. Phytoremediation is a plant-based remediation technology, which offers a promising alternative approach to HM and metalloid pollution. This technology utilizes various natural mechanisms including phytoextraction, phytostabilization, phytovolatilization, and phytodegradation to degrade or accumulate metal(loid)s taken up from soil. Phytoremediation is a relatively recent technology as compared to other conventional remediation solutions; however it has gained much popularity due to its convenient and ethnic nature. In this chapter we focus on understanding the biological and physicochemical processes for different phytoremediation mechanisms along with a detailed discussion about factors governing the affectivity of these mechanisms. This chapter also gives insight into various advantages and disadvantages for improving sustainability and economic robustness of different approaches in varied conditions of soil contamination.

Keywords

Metal(loid)s; hyperaccumulators; phytoextraction; phytoremediation mechanism; rhizosphere

1.1 Introduction

During the last century, rapid urbanization and industrialization have acutely disturbed our environmental matrices globally. Unregulated disposal of pollutants, generated via various anthropogenic activities like mining, smelting, burning of fossil fuels, use of fertilizers, military operations, and sewage have casted an irreversible negative effect on all forms of life on Earth including humans (Cristaldi et al., 2017). These environmental pollutants in the form of solid, liquid, and gaseous wastes enter the food chain through various routes of exposure and have become the major cause of increasing health issues across the globe (Muthusaravanan et al., 2018). Uncontrolled production and accumulation of environmental pollutants have critically hampered the soil health too, through soil degradation processes including erosion, salinization, and heavy-metal contamination (da Conceição Gomes et al., 2016).

Elements of the periodic table are classified as heavy metals (HMs) if their density is more than 5 g/cm³. The majority of the transition elements, including copper, lead, zinc, mercury, arsenic, and cadmium, belong to HMs (Laghlimi et al., 2015). HMs naturally exist in the Earth’s crust and are an intrinsic part of soil in many parts of the world with their profile (qualitative and quantitative measures) varying from one place to another. Some HMs (copper, manganese, zinc, etc.) have biological importance acting as micronutrients for most organisms, however, others (cadmium, lead, mercury, and arsenic) are toxic in nature with no known biological relevance (Luo et al., 2016).

The geogenic existence of HMs has never been reported to pose concern for the environment or human health. However, man-made (anthropogenic) activities like the use of agro-chemicals, over-exploitation of underground water, and waste from utensil industries have directed toward magnification of HM accumulation in soil, resulting in deleterious consequences (Clemens, 2006). It has been reported that over recent decades the global discharge of HMs into the environment has reached 22,000 metric ton for cadmium, 939,000 metric ton for copper, 783,000 metric ton for lead, and 1,350,000 metric ton for zinc (de Mello-Farias et al., 2011). This magnitude of enormous discharge results in accumulation of HMs in the agricultural soils and water resources, which eventually pose a threat to human health, due to potential risk of their entry into the food chain (Sarwar et al., 2017). HM contamination of soil has now turned out to be a worldwide menace not just because of unchecked production of metallic waste but also due to its immutable characteristics, persistence, and biomagnifications.

It has been recently brought forth that approximately 10 million people around the world suffer from health issues due to HM pollution in soil (Shakoor et al., 2013). China stands among the worst hit countries with HM contamination of soil. Studies report that more than 15% farmland and agricultural land area in the country have become unusable due to accumulation of HM contamination, exceeding far beyond the limit of environmental quality standards of soil. It has been found out that cadmium tops the chart of metallic contaminants (7%) in soil samples across China. Next to China, soil contamination has become an alarming issue to the European Union with 3.5 million potentially contaminated and 0.5 million highly contaminated sites seeking immediate remediation measures. Several European countries including Germany, Italy, Spain, Denmark, France, Slovakia, and many more have all been affected by soil contamination. In 2012 it was identified that approximately 600,000 ha of brown field sites in America are contaminated with HMs, giving this kind of pollution a cosmopolitan status (Mahar et al., 2016).

Restoration of sites contaminated with these hazardous and persistent pollutants requires cost effective and environmental-friendly ways of remediation. In the last two decades immense efforts have been made toward development of a range of soil-cleaning approaches which are based on physical, chemical, or biological technologies and are further divided into two categories: in situ or ex situ (Lim et al., 2014). Of these, the conventional physicochemical approaches involve soil excavation and transfer to land-filling, washing, extraction using acids, and immobilization of HMs by addition of chemicals, like limestone and EDTA (a chelating agent), to pull down their further spread in the environment (Clemens, 2006). Some of the recent and upcoming approaches include vapor-extraction, thermal desorption, and ion exchange followed by dumping waste products in landfills.

In spite of numerous conventional and recent approaches available, financial and technical challenges have made HM remediation from soil, a cumbersome process. Major limitations of these approaches include labor-intensive procedures, generation of secondary HM pollution during migration, reduction of soil fertility, destruction of natural soil micro-fauna, generation of voluminous hazardous sludge and high operational costs, restricting their exhaustive utilization in developing countries (Ali et al., 2013). According to Tsao (2003), the annual cost of global remediation efforts are between 25 and 50 billion US dollars, out of which approximately 6–8 billion US dollars are used in the United States alone.

In pursuit for an economically, environmentally, and technically feasible approach toward remediation of HMs from soil, biological remediation (bioremediation) has gained much attention in the last decade, due to its ecofriendly nature and has been considered as one of the most adequate approaches available (da Conceição Gomes et al., 2016). This approach includes varied techniques including biodegradation, bio-venting, bio-leaching, bio-augmentation, bio-filtration, bio-stimulation, and phytoremediation (Muthusaravanan et al., 2018).

Phytoremediation, also known as phytocleaning and phytocorrection, is a plant-based technology, which exploits various natural abilities of plants namely selective uptake, translocation, accumulation, and degradation of contaminants, for restoring contaminated land as well as water resources. This relatively recent approach has exhibited enormous potential by employing naturally existing or genetically engineered plants and is being considered a green alternative solution against the global hazard of HM pollution (Leguizamo et al., 2017; Pandey and Bajpai, 2019).

1.2 Heavy metals and metalloids

Environmental pollutants have been divided into two major groups, that is, organic and inorganic pollutants. The organic pollutants include halogenated hydrocarbons, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and nitroaromatics whereas HMs and metalloids are responsible for most of the inorganic pollutions. HMs, being part of the Earth’s crust, are geologically found in trace quantities (less than 1 g/kg) in the soil environment (Wuana and Okieimen, 2011). Pedogenetic processes causing weathering of indigenous and sedimentary rocks lead to the existence of HMs in soil, which are rarely toxic and have also been known to be used toward human welfare (Jaishankar et al., 2014). Anthropogenic activities stand out as the leading cause of their exponential increase and categorization as pollutants for the environment (Table 1.1). Coal-based thermal power station is one of the most important anthropogenic sources that pollutes environment with a number of metal(loid)s such as Pb, As, Hg, Co, Ni, Zn, Cd, and Cr (Pandey et al., 2009, 2011).

Table 1.1

aEPA, Environmental Protection Agency.

Source: Peralta-Videa, J.R., Lopez, M.L., Narayan, M., Saupe, G., Gardea-Torresdey, J., 2009. The biochemistry of environmental heavy metal uptake by plants: implications for the food chain. Int. J. Biochem. Cell Biol. 41, 1665–1677; Tchounwou, P.B., Yedjou, C.G., Patlolla, A.K., Sutton, D.J., 2012. Heavy metal toxicity and the environment. In: Molecular, Clinical and Environmental Toxicology. Springer, pp. 133–164; Dixit, R., Malaviya, D., Pandiyan, K., Singh, U., Sahu, A., Shukla, R., et al., 2015. Bioremediation of heavy metals from soil and aquatic environment: an overview of principles and criteria of fundamental processes. Sustainability 7, 2189–2212; Ayangbenro, A., Babalola, O., 2017. A new strategy for heavy metal polluted environments: a review of microbial biosorbents. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 14, 94.

HMs exist in various forms in the soil including free metal ions, soluble metal complexes, carbonate and silicate minerals, which make them more bioavailable for the environment (Lasat, 1999). The redox properties and chemically similar complexes of these pollutants allow them to be easily transported, compartmentalized, and integrated into cellular milieu (Bañuelos et al., 2015). HMs displace essential metals from their natural binding sites on proteins thereby disturbing the homeostasis of the cell. They accumulate in the tissue of organisms (bioaccumulation) and enter the food chain, thereby affecting other organisms that are not directly involved, leading to biomagnifications of the pollutant (Pandey et al., 2015).

1.3 Bioremediation

Bioremediation offers an environmentally sustainable way to biologically remove, degrade, or immobilize a pollutant, under controlled ambience, so as to bring down its levels below the defined regulatory limits. It employs living organisms by exploiting their natural ability, thereby reclaiming HM contaminated soil without impacting the environment. In simplified terms, bioremediation utilizes special microorganisms (bacteria and fungi) and plants that work together to breakdown pollutants present in soil or water bodies (Vijayalakshmi et al., 2018). Bioremediation can be performed by either treating the contaminants directly on the site (in situ) or by collecting, followed by treating them somewhere else (ex situ) (Ramachandran et al., 2013). Some of remediation mechanisms involved are extracellular-complexation, precipitation, leaching, intracellular-accumulation, and biosorption. Moreover, siderophores and biosurfactants produced by specialized microorganisms, act as chelating and complex forming agents respectively, thereby reducing the solubility and bioavailability of HMs from bioaccumulation (Cristaldi et al., 2017).

1.4 Phytoremediation

In this type of bioremediation approach, contaminants along with essential nutrients, are taken up and sequestered inside plants at the contaminated site. Although, a systematic economic analysis is unavailable (Wan et al., 2016), implementation of this approach has been rising considerably due to the possibility of low-cost remediation. In the past two decades enormous efforts have been made in accessing terrestrial and aquatic plant species for their bio-accumulative potential and remediation capabilities under various hazardous conditions. Phytoremediation can be further categorized according to the mechanism involved in HM uptake, which includes phytoextraction, phytofiltration, phytostabilization, phytovolatilization, and phytotransformation (Halder and Ghosh, 2014; Pandey and Bajpai, 2019). Several potential plant species (i.e., Ipomea carnea, Azolla caroliniana, Ricinus communis, Typha latifolia, Saccharum munja, and Thelypterys dentata) have been identified to remediate metal(loid)s from fly ash polluted sites or fly ash dumpsites (Pandey, 2012a,b, 2013; Pandey et al., 2012, 2014; Kumari et al., 2013).

1.5 Strategies for phytoremediation

Phytoextraction is one of the most useful techniques of phytoremediation approach and involves the removal of metals and metalloids from polluted soils through their extraction and accumulation in harvestable tissues of the plant. However, success of this technique depends critically on the properties of the metal contaminants and the soil they are present in, for example, the redox state of contaminant and bioavailability in soil (Ali et al., 2013). Phytostabilization, another useful technique of phytoremediation, runs on the mechanism of converting metal pollutants to less bioavailable forms, thereby preventing their migration from the contamination site. As the pollutant becomes stabilized in the plant rhizosphere, chances of erosion, leaching, and run-off of pollutants are minimized (Tamburini et al., 2017). Phytovolatilization, a contentious technique, works by transferring the metalloids from one environment (soil) to another environment (atmosphere) through converting the pollutants into volatile forms along with exchanging other necessary gases by the plant (Sarma, 2011). Phytotransformation, also termed phytodegradation, results in immobilization, deactivation, or degradation of contaminants through chemical modifications by enzymatic activity inside the plant root or shoot. This mechanism of remediation requires a comparatively longer duration of time and is many times assisted with bacterial-, yeast-, and fungal-based degradation processes in the soil (da Conceição Gomes et al., 2016) (Fig. 1.1).

Figure 1.1 Schematic representation of various phytoremediation strategies.

1.6 Biological mechanism of heavy-metal phytoremediation

The exposure of plants to pollutants triggers detoxification strategies in the forms of diverse cellular and molecular perturbations. These strategies involve different plant parts and proceed through a more or less common pathway of uptake, transport, sequestration, and detoxification of pollutants (Pilon-Smits and Freeman, 2006). Moreover, plant–microbe interactions in the rhizosphere as well as plant-chelator-based sequestrations also form part of the biological machinery. As HMs are found in the soil, uptake of these contaminants by plants is the primary task for remediation process. For enhanced uptake of metals, plants release nutrients, organic materials, oxygen, and moisture in the soil. This not only alters the pH, osmotic potential, and redox potential but also creates a rich environment for microbial activity thereby enhancing the tolerance of plants toward pollutants and at the same time making the pollutant bioavailable for uptake by the plant (Sharma et al., 2013). HMs enter the root cells via two routes, that is, apoplastic and symplastic pathways marking the first step in phytoremediation (Salt and Rauser, 1995). Being in direct physical contact with the soil, root cells are the primary site of HM accumulation.

Next, transport of HMs involve specialized transmembrane transporters which carry out the process of moving metals inside various intracellular compartments as well as translocating them across cells to maintain homeostasis (Colangelo and Guerinot, 2006; Tangahu et al., 2011). It has been found that some plant species can carry out the initial uptake process, many times faster than other plant species, and are termed as hyperaccumulators. Although no dedicated transporters for HMs have been identified in the plant system, it is anticipated that enhanced uptake by hyperaccumulators is due to the overexpression of metal transporters (Krämer, 2010). Further, the HMs are exported from roots to aerial parts of the plant through symplastic movement and transpiration pull inside xylem vessels.

Once they reach the aerial parts of the plant, the pollutants are destined toward sequestration and detoxification. The sequestration and detoxification properties, acquired during evolution, are survival strategies of plants against toxic and detrimental effects of HMs accumulated in different plant parts. In a plant cell, the cell wall, vacuoles, and Golgi bodies form major sites of HM sequestration. Accumulation in the cell wall reduces entry of metal inside cytoplasm which decreases their metabolic interaction and further translocation. Some of the cell wall components, namely suberin and pectin, bind to HMs and sequester them in the cell wall (Chen et al., 2013). Sequestration inside vacuoles and Golgi apparatus are other means of restricting HM-mediated enzyme inactivation and other biochemical disturbances inside cells. Detoxification mechanisms also include metal chelating agents and antioxidants which act as effective means of reducing metal-induced toxicity in the cytoplasm of plant cells. Several transcriptional and translational modifications are also part of detoxification strategies at the molecular level inside plant cells (Rodriguez-Hernandez et al., 2015).

1.7 Factors affecting heavy-metal phytoremediation

Having read about various biological mechanisms, it seems evident that phytoremediation critically depends on the bioavailability of the metal for the plant, that is, phytoavailability. Different components involved in phytoremediation, including the pollutants, soil, microorganisms, plant species, and the downstream cascade of events together control this complex phenomenon of phytoavailability of HMs.

Soil properties like soil pH, texture, electrical conductivity, and the presence of organic matter directly influence the plant uptake by affecting the solubilization of metal in soil solution. The chemical form/speciation of metals in soil has a significant impact on their mobility toward plant uptake. Depending on their mobility, HMs have been classified into four groups, (1) weakly soluble in soil, (2) relatively easily absorbed through roots but sparsely transported to shoots, (3) easily absorbed and transported to shoots, and (4) potential risk to the food chain. Environmental conditions have been found to have a profound effect on accumulation mechanisms. Several reports reveal substantial influence of higher temperature, and components of sedimentary rocks (lignite and lime) in the soil, on phytoavailability. The organic soil matter also plays a significant role in metal uptake by altering the cation exchange capacity and sorption capabilities of soil. Comparative studies suggest that the addition of organic matter (compost) in soil containing HMs reduces the availability of metals for the plant (Laghlimi et al., 2015).

Rhizospheric conditions are another important factor for HM phytoavailability. Root exudates including phytosiderophores (metal solubilizing compounds), enzymes, and H+ released by roots into the soil enhance metal solubility in the soil. Similarly, rhizospheric microorganisms have been well characterized for their ability to enhance HM bioavailability and uptake by plants (da Conceição Gomes et al., 2016). Finally, various characteristics of plant such as its growth rate in local conditions, root architecture and surface transporters, xylem loading efficiency, ability to detoxify the contaminant, and ease of maintenance in field, largely determine the uptake and accumulation of HMs. Phytoavailability of HMs therefore is critical for phytoremediation and is dependent on several diverse factors which determine the success or failure of the technique.

1.8 Plants used for phytoremediation

Selection of plant species for the process of phytoremediation is based on their ability to tolerate, accumulate, stabilize and degrade the contaminant of interest like HMs and metalloids. In the last few decades, about 500 species of plants have been identified with traits of accumulating extraordinary high levels of HMs in aerial parts. These plants termed as hyperaccumulators are being extensively exploited for HM remediation through phytomining and phytoextraction. Hyperaccumulators are capable of accumulating up to 500 times higher concentrations of HMs in different plant parts as compared to that present in soil. Herbaceous plants are the most preferred hyperaccumulating species due to their intrinsic properties of rapid growth, high accumulation capacity for HM, and adaptation on varying kind of soils (Cappa and Pilon-Smits, 2014). However, due to limited biomass, total HM accumulated in aerial parts of herbaceous plants remains very limited. Fast growing woody plants, in spite of being not-so-good hyperaccumulators as compared to herbaceous plant, offer another suitable option for effective phytoremediation due to their large aboveground biomass and extensive root system. Comparative studies have demonstrated greater advantage of using fast growing woody plants over hyperaccumulating herbaceous plants for remediating HMs from contaminated soils (Luo et al., 2016). Some studies have suggested the use of mixed vegetation, that is, combined use of herds, shrubs and trees, for sustained remediation programs in which specialized species play role at specific stage of remediation process (Laghlimi et al., 2015).

1.9 Enhancing phytoremediation

Traditional phytoremediation approaches propose a feasible way to remove HMs from soil by engaging naturally available mechanisms; however the technique has a number of limitations too. Hyperaccumulating plants need a long standing time to uptake HMs from soil and are able to remediate a limited amount of contamination available in the vicinity of their rhizosphere. Moreover, use of hyperaccumulating plants is restricted only for remediation purposes in low and moderately contaminated soils and not at highly contaminated locations. Further, the unexplored spectrum of food chain contamination due to mismanaged agronomic practices and plant predators, impose a serious threat to traditional phytoremediation techniques (Luo et al., 2016; Mahar et al., 2016). This pressing need for alternative approaches that have fast and large scale utility, led the scientific community to look into other chemical and biological possibilities. Consequently a number of recent advancements have been made toward enhancing phytoremediation techniques, which are discussed below.

1.9.1 Enhancement using chemicals

Synthetic chelating agents and surfactants like Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), Ethylenebis(oxyethylenenitrilo)tetraacetic acid (EGTA), 1,2-cyclohexylenedinitrilotetraacetic acid (CDTA), Diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (DTPA), and citric acid have been shown to enhance the absorption rate of HMs by making them more bioavailable for plants. An increase in the mobility of metals in soil due to these chemicals, compensates for the relatively low absorption capacity of nonhyperaccumulators thereby improving their overall uptake potential and utility. As of now the use of chemical agents is restricted due to a number of related issues including large expenses, environmental hazards, and plant toxicity (Souza et al., 2013).

1.9.2 Enhancement using agronomic techniques

Various agronomic techniques like using soil additives, adopting of specific cultivation practices, and employing energy crops, are other means of improving phytoremediation. Soil additives like fertilizers, biochars, and inoculation with microbes, are known to increase the plant growth and biomass which tends toward increased uptake and accumulation of HMs from soil (Liu et al., 2013). Land farming practices devised for improved light and air exposure to soil are another means of escalating plant growth. Energy crops also offer a means of enhancing the phytoremediation practices. These have been identified as perennial crops which can be used for phytoremediation purposes as well as bioenergy production. Some of the examples of energy crops are Populous and Jatropha (Bauddh and Singh, 2012).

1.9.3 Enhancement using transgenic plants

A lot of scientific efforts have gone toward plants that can generate huge biomass under hazardous soil conditions and also uptake, translocate, sequester, and detoxify HMs in their aerial parts. Genetic engineering offers a completely unexplored horizon for enhancing the capability of plants toward remediation of HMs from soil. Altering the genetic structure of hyperaccumulator plants by over-expressing native genes/introducing foreign genes to enhance their tolerance and accumulation capabilities has turned out to be a promising strategy toward improving phytoremediation (Cherian and Oliveira, 2005). In the past decade, understanding regulatory control of uptake and translocation, identification of transporter proteins and metal-chelators, as well as unique genes from other organisms through molecular biology tools has empowered scientists to develop effective and economic transgenic plants which are better equipped for phytoremediation (Kotrba et al., 2009; Fasani et al., 2018).

1.10 Advantages and disadvantages of phytoremediation

A number of studies suggest phytoremediation as the best alternative for removing contaminants from soil, however there are certain issues that need to be taken care of before embarking on the approach. Numerous advantages of using phytoremediation approaches have been discussed in literature including its inexpensive installation, capability to treat large area, generation of recyclable metal-enriched plant product, prevention against soil erosion, and its aesthetic character making it acceptable for society (Pandey and Bajpai, 2019; Pandey and Souza-Alonso, 2019). However, it is also equally important to analyze the concurrent disadvantages related with the approach. It has been indicated through a number of studies that phytoremediation approaches show typical limitations that create bottlenecks in the success of these measures. The prime limitation of phytoremediation is the incomplete removal of contaminants from soil because plant roots can only uptake contaminants present in their vicinity and cannot reach the deep levels of soil. Another major limitation of phytoremediation is the long duration of time needed by plants to extract contaminants from soil (Leguizamo et al., 2017). Moreover, it has been observed in many cases that soil contains multiple contaminants at the same time whereas the plants employed for remediation in such soil may not be tolerant to or hyperaccumulator for all the contaminants thereby making the process ineffective (de Mello-Farias et al., 2011; Muthusaravanan et al., 2018).

1.11 Conclusion

Anthropogenic accumulation of HMs in soil is a serious environmental concern worldwide, demanding immediate implementation of effective remediation efforts. Conventional physiochemical remediation methods are fast and efficient, however they are expensive and they also cause environmental hazards if used at large scales. Phytoremediation strategies are quite recent and show an unprecedented potential for removing HMs and metalloids contaminations from soil. Phytoremediation is considered a green technology as it does not employ harmful substances and can be economically utilized at large scales for long durations (Laghlimi et al., 2015).

Hyperaccumulator plants have been demonstrated to effectively extract HMs and metalloids from soil, however their dependence on various environmental factors like soil pH, moisture, micro-fauna, and type of metal species cripples down the efficiency. This drawback calls for larger efforts toward understanding of mechanisms behind uptake, accumulation, and detoxification processes inside plants. Moreover, efforts need to be made to identify critical interactions between rhizospheric components, that is, roots, microbes, soil, and HM contaminants, so as to make the uptake process more efficient (Sarwar et al., 2017). The transgenic approach for enhancing phytoremediation, proposes a completely different dimension of research where characterization, transformation, and overexpression of key genes involved in HM hyperaccumulation, can be used to maximize remediation process. Along with collective endeavors toward effective and efficient phytoremediation techniques, it is of equal importance to manage the disposal strategies of enriched toxicants as well as, critical assessment of cost–benefit ratio keeping in mind the social aspects related to it.

Acknowledgments

SP and AVA acknowledge DST for NPDF as well as STI-PDF grant. Financial assistance given to Dr. V.C. Pandey under the Scientist’s Pool Scheme [Pool No. 13 (8931-A)/2017] by the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, Government of India is gratefully acknowledged.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Ali H, Khan E, Sajad MA. Phytoremediation of heavy metals—concepts and applications. Chemosphere. 2013;91:869–881.

2. Ayangbenro A, Babalola O. A new strategy for heavy metal polluted environments: a review of microbial biosorbents. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017;14:94.

3. Bañuelos GS, Arroyo I, Pickering IJ, Yang SI, Freeman JL. Selenium biofortification of broccoli and carrots grown in soil amended with Se-enriched hyperaccumulator Stanleya pinnata. Food Chem. 2015;166:603–608.

4. Bauddh K, Singh RP. Cadmium tolerance and its phytoremediation by two oil yielding plants Ricinus communis (L.) and Brassica juncea (L.) from the contaminated soil. Int J Phytoremediat. 2012;14:772–785.

5. Cappa JJ, Pilon-Smits EA. Evolutionary aspects of elemental hyperaccumulation. Planta. 2014;239:267–275.

6. Chen G, Liu Y, Wang R, Zhang J, Owens G. Cadmium adsorption by willow root: the role of cell walls and their subfractions. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2013;20:5665–5672.

7. Cherian S, Oliveira MM. Transgenic plants in phytoremediation: recent advances and new possibilities. Environ Sci Technol. 2005;39:9377–9390.

8. Clemens S. Toxic metal accumulation, responses to exposure and mechanisms of tolerance in plants. Biochimie. 2006;88:1707–1719.

9. Colangelo EP, Guerinot ML. Put the metal to the petal: metal uptake and transport throughout plants. Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2006;9:322–330.

10. Cristaldi A, Conti GO, Jho EH, et al. Phytoremediation of contaminated soils by heavy metals and PAHs A brief review. Environ Technol Innov. 2017;8:309–326.

11. da Conceição Gomes MA, Hauser-Davis RA, de Souza AN, Vitória AP. Metal phytoremediation: general strategies, genetically modified plants and applications in metal nanoparticle contamination. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2016;134:133–147.

12. de Mello-Farias, P.C., Chaves, A.L.S., Lencina, C.L., 2011. Transgenic plants for enhanced phytoremediation—physiological studies. Genetic Transformation. IntechOpen.

13. Dixit R, Malaviya D, Pandiyan K, et al. Bioremediation of heavy metals from soil and aquatic environment: an overview of principles and criteria of fundamental processes. Sustainability. 2015;7:2189–2212.

14. Fasani E, Manara A, Martini F, Furini A, DalCorso G. The potential of genetic engineering of plants for the remediation of soils contaminated with heavy metals. Plant Cell Environ. 2018;41:1201–1232.

15. Halder S, Ghosh S. Wetland macrophytes in purification of water. Int J Environ Sci. 2014;5:432–437.

16. Jaishankar M, Tseten T, Anbalagan N, Mathew BB, Beeregowda KN. Toxicity, mechanism and health effects of some heavy metals. Interdiscip Toxicol. 2014;7:60–72.

17. Kotrba P, Najmanova J, Macek T, Ruml T, Mackova M. Genetically modified plants in phytoremediation of heavy metal and metalloid soil and sediment pollution. Biotechnol Adv. 2009;27:799–810.

18. Krämer U. Metal hyperaccumulation in plants. Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2010;61:517–534.

19. Kumari A, Pandey VC, Rai UN. Feasibility of fern Thelypteris dentata for revegetation of coal fly ash landfills. J Geochem Explor. 2013;128:147–152.

20. Laghlimi M, Baghdad B, El Hadi H, Bouabdli A. Phytoremediation mechanisms of heavy metal contaminated soils: a review. Open J Ecol. 2015;5:375.

21. Lasat M. Phytoextraction of metals from contaminated soil: a review of plant/soil/metal interaction and assessment of pertinent agronomic issues. J Hazard Subst Res. 1999;2:5.

22. Leguizamo MAO, Gómez WDF, Sarmiento MCG. Native herbaceous plant species with potential use in phytoremediation of heavy metals, spotlight on wetlands—a review. Chemosphere. 2017;168:1230–1247.

23. Lim K, Shukor M, Wasoh H. Physical, chemical, and biological methods for the removal of arsenic compounds. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014.

24. Liu X, Zhang A, Ji C, et al. Biochar’s effect on crop productivity and the dependence on experimental conditions—a meta-analysis of literature data. Plant Soil. 2013;373:583–594.

25. Luo Z-B, He J, Polle A, Rennenberg H. Heavy metal accumulation and signal transduction in herbaceous and woody plants: paving the way for enhancing phytoremediation efficiency. Biotechnol Adv. 2016;34:1131–1148.

26. Mahar A, Wang P, Ali A, et al. Challenges and opportunities in the phytoremediation of heavy metals contaminated soils: a review. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2016;126:111–121.

27. Muthusaravanan S, Sivarajasekar N, Vivek J, et al. Phytoremediation of heavy metals: mechanisms, methods and enhancements. Environ Chem Lett. 2018;16:1339–1359.

28. Pandey VC. Phytoremediation of heavy metals from fly ash pond by Azolla caroliniana. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2012a;82:8–12.

29. Pandey VC. Invasive species based efficient green technology for phytoremediation of fly ash deposits. J Geochem Explor. 2012b;123:13–18.

30. Pandey VC. Suitability of Ricinus communis L cultivation for phytoremediation of fly ash disposal sites. Ecol Eng. 2013;57:336–341.

31. Pandey VC, Bajpai O. Phytoremediation: from theory towards practice. In: Pandey VC, Bauddh K, eds. Phytomanagement of Polluted Sites. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2019;1–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-813912-7.00001-6.

32. Pandey VC, Souza-Alonso P. Market opportunities in sustainable phytoremediation. In: Pandey VC, Bauddh K, eds. Phytomanagement of Polluted Sites. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2019;51–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-813912-7.00002-8.

33. Pandey VC, Abhilash PC, Singh N. The Indian perspective of utilizing fly ash in phytoremediation, phytomanagement and biomass production. J Environ Manag. 2009;90:2943–2958.

34. Pandey VC, Singh JS, Singh RP, Singh N, Yunus M. Arsenic hazards in coal fly ash and its fate in Indian scenario. Resour Conserv Recy. 2011;55:819–835.

35. Pandey VC, Singh K, Singh RP, Singh B. Naturally growing Saccharum munja on the fly ash lagoons: a potential ecological engineer for the revegetation and stabilization. Ecol Eng.