BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research

libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research.
Ecological Remediation of Hydrocarbon Contaminated Soils with Weed Plant
Author(s): Zhou Qixing, Cai Zhang, Zhang Zhineng and Liu Weitao
Source: Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2(2):97-105. 2011.
Published By: Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of
Sciences
URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.3969/j.issn.1674-764x.2011.02.001
BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, and
environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books published
by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses.
Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of
BioOnes Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use.
Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiries
or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder.
J. Resour. Ecol. 2011 2(2) 97-105
DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1674-764x.2011.02.001
www.jorae.cn
June, 2011 Journal of Resources and Ecology
Received: 2010-11-05 Accepted: 2011-01-24
Foundation: National Natural Science Foundation of China (40930739; 21037002).
* Corresponding author:ZHOU Qixing. Email: zhouqx@nankai.edu.cn.
Vol.2 No.2
Article
1 Introduction
Petroleum hydrocarbons (PHCs) usually consist of
alkanes (linear or branched), cycloalkanes, aromatic
hydrocarbons or more complex chemicals like asphaltenes
(Zhou et al. 2004; Pernar et al. 2006). As a major pillar of
energy sources in the world, availability of petroleum is
a critical concern for many nations. By the end of 2007,
the output of global petroleum had reached 2.7 billion
barrels (19702007). During the processes of exploration,
refining, transporting and marketing petroleum products,
an increasing number of sites have been polluted by
PHCs. The Deepwater Horizon oil spill in April 2010,
the largest marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum
industry, particularly caused extensive damage to marine
and wildliIe habitats in China, where oil felds are widely
exploited, PHC contamination has become a critical
environmental issue (Wang et al. 2010; Zhu et al. 2010).
The accumulation of PHCs is now seriously affecting
the safety of ecosystems and human health (Harvey et
al. 2002; Liste et al. 2006; Meagher 2000). Thus, the
remediation of PHC contaminated soils has attracted world
wide attention (Chaudhry et al. 2005; Euliss et al. 2008;
Vaajasaari and Joutti 2006).
In comparison with conventional ex situ methods,
such as incineration, off-site storage, soil washing and in
situ capping for stabilization, in situ phytoremediation as
a polishing green technology that uses higher plants to
degrade, transform, assimilate, metabolize, or detoxify
hazardous pollutants from environments has a lot of
advantages (Chaudhry et al. 2005; Schrder 2003; Susarla
et al. 2002; Trapp and Karlson 2001; Zhou et al. 2004).
It has been well documented that the estimated cost to
phytoremedy a ton of soil is significantly lower than the
cost of other alternative remediation technologies, such as
soil washing and incineration (Schnoor 1997; Smits et al.
Ecological Remediation of Hydrocarbon Contaminated Soils
with Weed Plant
ZHOU Qixing*, CAI Zhang, ZHANG Zhineng and LIU Weitao
Key Laboratory of Pollution Processes and Environmental Criteria (Ministry of Education), College of Environmental Science and Engineering,
Nankai University, Tianjin 300071, China
Abstract: Considerable efforts have been undertaken to accelerate the breakdown of existing anthropogenic
petroleum hydrocarbons (PHCs) by appropriate in situ remediation technologies. In situ phytoremediation,
using higher plants to remove, stabilize, degrade, and/or metabolize hazardous contaminants, has emerged
as a promising green technology for cleaning up environments contaminated with PHCs. Weed plants are
_cncrall_ oon:dcrcd o lavc _rca pocnal Ior u:c n pl_orcmcdaon duc o lcr cxcn:vc fhrou:
root systems and relatively robust characteristics, thus helping establish a strong rhizosphere through
contaminated soils. In this review, some important mechanisms involved in phytoremedation of PHC
contaminated soils, including phytoaccumulation, phytostabilization, phytodegradation, phytovolatilization,
and rhizodegradation, were summarized and discussed. In recent years, a large number of laboratory
approaolc: lavc hccn dcvclopcd o Iurlcr cnlanoc lc pl_orcmcdaon cIfocno_ oI !HC oonamnacd
soils. The success of these laboratory studies has encouraged researchers to attempt phytoremediation
oI !HC oonamnacd :ol: n lc fcld. Hovcvcr. man_ lmaon: :ll cx: n ordcr o :uooc::Iull_ appl_
lahoraor_ cxpcrmcn: o ral: n lc fcld.
Key words: Petroleum hydrocarbons (PHCs); weed plants; phytoremediation; contaminated soil; review
Journal of Resources and Ecology Vol.2 No.2, 2011 98
2006) (Table 1). The cost to maintain phytoremediation
is also minimal after completing initial soil planting and
preparation. This plant-based green technology does not
contribute to deterioration of soil quality and there is
no secondary pollution when compared with traditional
techniques (Cai et al. 2010). There is no size limitation for
sites using in situ phytoremediation, thus this technology
can be employed in any geographic region as long as it can
support the growth of a plant. Nutrients and oxygen are
also added into the soil through plant growth and microbial
metabolic processes, which can improve the overall
quality and texture of the soil during phytoremediation.
Furthermore, phytoremediation is easily accepted by the
public as it offers aesthetically pleasing results and is
an environmentally friendly approach for the cleanup of
polluted sites (Zhou et al. 2004).
In many restoration sites, in situ phytoremediation is
generally considered to be a terminal process following
the initial physico-chemical treatments of high and
extremely high-polluted sites. In moderately polluted
sites, phytoremediation may be the most cost-effective
technology (Jones 1991). However, phytoremediation
applied elsewhere cannot be readily transferred to local
habitats due to signifcant diIIerences in diIIerent natural
environments, soil types and environmental regulation
performance criteria (Michael et al. 2007; Zhou et al.
2004). In recent years, native plant species were screened
for phytoremediation of PHCs in local contaminated
sites. Identification of native plant species used for
phytoremediation has been carried out in Brachiaria
decumbens (Australian native grass) (Gaskin et al.
2008) and Vetiveria zizanioides (L.) (Venezuelan native
grass) (Brandt et al. 2006; Merkl et al. 2005). Among
the selection of candidate plants for phytoremediaiton of
PHCs, weed plants (Wei et al. 2005; Wei et al. 2006) are
generally considered to be the best potential plant species
due to their extensive fbrous root system oIIering a large
root surface to establish a strong rhizosphere through the
contaminated soil. A variety of common weed species
used in the cleanup of PHC compounds include tall fescue
(Festuca arundinacea) (Besalatpour et al. 2008; Liu et al.
2010; Schwab et al. 1998; Siciliano et al. 2003), ryegrass
(Lolium perenne) (Meng et al. in press; Cheema et al.
2010; Hutchinson et al. 2001; Rezek et al. 2008; White
et al. 2006), alfalfa (Brassica campestris) (Wei and Pan
2010; Kirk et al. 2005; Muratova et al. 2008; Schwab
et al. 2006; Wiltse et al. 1998), smooth meadowgrass
(poapretensis) (Palmroth et al. 2006), crabgrass (Digitaria
sanguinalis (L.) Scop.) (Klomjek and Nitisoravut 2005),
bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers) (White et al.
2003), and switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) (Chen et al.
2003).
Although there are a number of review papers
on phytoremediation, a review of the latest research
concerning phytoremediation of PHC contaminated soil
with weed plants is lacking. This paper reviews recent
approaches and mechanisms involved in phytoremediation
of PHC contaminated soils, including phytoaccumulation,
phytostabilization, phytodegradation, phytovolatilization,
and rhizodegradation. Laboratory-scale and field-
scale enhancement for the phytoremediation of PHC
contaminated soils are emphatically summarized and
discussed.
2 Mechanisms of phytoremediation of PHC
contaminated soils
2.1 Phytoaccumulation
Phytoaccumulation is the process whereby plant roots
directly uptake contaminants from the soil and translocate
them to aboveground tissues (Fig. 1) (Wei et al. 2006).
In comparison with phytoextraction of heavy metals,
direct uptake of organic pollutants relies mainly on the
physicochemical characteristics of the target compounds,
such as the log K
ow
factor (compounds with an optimal
uptake between log K
ow
0.5 and 3 are easily transported to
the xylem and translocated to the shoot) and the octanol-
water partition coefficient, among others (Alkorta et al.
2001). These factors contribute to the bioavailability of the
pollutants for uptake and translocation in plant tissues.
In field-scale phytoremediation of PHCs with grasses,
both the toxicity and hydrophobic nature of PHCs prevent
their bioavailability and extractability in soils. Palmroth
et al. (2002) found that PHCs accumulate in grass roots.
In the rhizosphere, plant-microbe association may
play an important role in making PHCs more available
for uptake by grasses, thus accumulating more PHCs,
specifically long-chain PHCs called polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), in grass tissues (Euliss et al. 2008;
Liste et al. 2006). Radwan et al. (2000) have confirmed
that long-chain PHCs accumulate in Vicia faba (L.). GC-
MS analysis of plant tissues indicated that a low amount
of PAHs (25.50 mg kg
-1
dry biomass) were detected in
goose grass roots growing in the contaminated soil (Lu et
al. 2010). PAH accumulation in the roots was most likely
the result of high sorption of PAHs to the roots or uptake
Alternative remediation technologies Cost ($ ton
-1
soil)
Phytoremediation 1035
In situ bioremediation 50150
Soil washing 80200
Soil venting 20220
Stabilization 240340
Solvent extraction 360440
Incineration 2001500
Table 1 Cost comparison of alternative remediation
technologies for soil contaminated with organic compounds
(Schnoor 1997).
ZHOU Qixing, et al.: Ecological Remediation of Hydrocarbon Contaminated Soils with Weed Plant 99
into plant tissues. Plants have been shown to accumulate
diesel-range compounds in the range of 10 g kg
-1
dry plant
matter in the roots of fescue, and ryegrass (Palmroth et
al. 2002). If phytoaccumulation of PHCs remains in plant
roots, harvesting biomass for subsequent treatment may
be difficult. Moreover, contaminants may still remain in
the soil. It is most desirable for the tolerant grasses to
translocate PHCs to the aboveground tissues (Nellessen et
al. 1993) (Fig. 1).
2.2 Phytostabilization
Phytostabilization is a process where certain plants are
used to mechanically immobilize pollutants and reduce
pollutant transfer to other ecosystems and food webs
(Cunningham et al. 1995). Pollutants are absorbed and
accumulated by the roots, adsorbed onto the root surface or
precipitated in the rhizosphere. This process will prevent
migration of the target pollutants into groundwater, thus
preventing adverse effects on the ecosystem. When applied
to the remediation of organic compounds however, this
process is of minor significance when compared with
rhizodegradation.
2.3 Phytodegradation
Phytodegradation is the process where the partial or
complete degradation of contaminants takes place inside
the plant or within the rhizosphere and is driven by
plant enzymes. This form of phytoremediation has been
demonstrated numerous times (Chen et al. 2003; Corseuil
et al. 2001). In the process of phytodegradation, plant
enzymes act on organic compounds and mineralize them
either completely into inorganic compounds, such as CO
2
and water, or into stable molecules which can be stored
in plant tissues, such as lignin (Cunningham et al. 1995).
For example, Chen et al. (2003) using
14
C-labeled pyrene
as target pollutant found that the mineralization of pyrene
was 37.7% and 30.4% in tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea)
and switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.), respectively,
compared with 4.3% in unplanted soil. Plant enzymes
involved in phytodegradation include Cytochrome P450s,
peroxidases, peroxygenases, laccases, phosphatases,
nitroreductases and dehalogenases (Schnoor et al. 1995).
However, further processes regarding phytodegradation
still need to be studied, especially involving tolerant weed
species.
2.4 Phytovolatilization
In the process of phytovolatilization the metabolic
activity of plants and their associated microbes are
employed to transform pollutants into volatile compounds
and then release them into the atmosphere (Wenzel
2009). As phytovolatilization of pollutants occurs, it
simultaneously dilutes and disperses the soil pollutants,
thus assisting the plant and its associated microbes to
degrade target pollutants in a reduced stress environment.
Agamuthu et al. (2010) suggested that the mechanism of
hydrocarbon removal by the Jatropha plants may be via
phytovolatilizaion or rhizodegradation. However, Gnther
et al. (1996) studied the phytoremediation of hydrocarbons
using ryegrass and found that abiotic loss of hydrocarbons
by evaporation was oI minor signifcance, and elimination
of pollutants was accompanied by an increase in microbial
numbers and activities. In other words, biodegradation
of hydrocarbons in the rhizosphere is stimulated by plant
roots.
2.5 Rhizodegradation
In polluted sites many of the restrictions to the remediation
of organic contaminants can be overcome by the
dynamic synergism that exists between plant roots and
microorganisms in the rhizosphere. It is well documented
that rhizodegradation is responsible for the enhanced
removal of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHs) from soil
by annual and perennial species such as ryegrass (Lolium
perenne), switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), sedge (Carex
stricta), arrowhead (Sagitaria latifolia), eastern gamagrass
(Tripsacum dactyloides), willow (Salix exigua) and poplar
(Populus spp.) (Thygesen and Trapp 2002; Euliss et al.
2008; Rezek et al. 2008). Uptake and bioavailability of
petroleum hydrocarbons may be restricted by both their
hydrophobic nature and toxicity. The synergy existing
between plant roots and soil microorganisms plays an Fig. 1 Overview of phytoremediation mechanisms.
Journal of Resources and Ecology Vol.2 No.2, 2011 100
important role in the phytoremediation of petroleum
contaminants (Lafrance et al. 1998). This stimulation
of microbial transformations is driven by the abundant
energy offered by root exudates and oxygen from the
roots (El-Shatnawi et al. 2001). The molecules exuded
by plant roots include carbohydrates, amino acids, fatty
acids, nucleotides, organic acids, phenolics, plant growth
regulators, putrescines, sterols and vitamins (Kang et
al. 2010). Evidence suggests that the activities of soil
microorganisms in the rhizosphere may be controlled by
plants in return for the provision of root exudates and
oxygen. In addition, microorganisms beneft the plant by
supplying vitamins, amino acids, auxins and cytokinins
that stimulate plant growth (Atlas et al. 1998) and lead to
enhanced TPH degradation. Convincing evidence for this
argument comes from consistent findings that microbial
numbers in a rhizosphere are generally several orders of
magnitude greater than those in a non-vegetated soil (Cai
et al. 2010).
3 Laboratory scale enhancement of
phytoremedying PHC contaminated soils
Despite the fact that remediation of PHC contaminated
soil with weed plants has shown significant potential,
phytoremediation is still in its infancy. The use of living
weeds alone is generally considered to be a restrictive factor
for phytoremediation. A large number of the latest studies
have paid more attention to relative technologies used to
enhance phytoremediation eIfcacy at the laboratory scale.
3.1 Soil amendment for enhancing phytoremediation
The application of soil amendment appears to be a valuable
option for the phytoremediation of PHC contaminated
soil. It enables great vegetative coverage and increases the
rate of PHC removal in soil. For example, the addition of
compost to soil helps reduce the negative effects of PHCs
on ryegrass growth and increases PHC removal from
the soil (Vouillamoz et al. 2001). Palmroth et al. (2006)
confrmed that in soil amended with NPK Iertilizer 65 oI
hydrocarbons were removed and the addition of municipal
biowaste compost removed 60% of hydrocarbons over
39 months; hydrocarbons did not significantly decline in
non-amended soil. Adding Jatropha curcas amended with
organic wastes (BSG) to soil greatly increases the removal
of waste lubricating oil to 89.6% and 96.6% in soil
contaminated with 2.5% and 1.0% oil, respectively. A loss
of 56.6% and 67.3% was recorded in the corresponding
planted soils without organic amendment over 180 days
(Agamuthu et al. 2010).
Though conventional amendments such as NPK
fertilizer have contributed to plant productivity and
effective degradation of PHC pollutants, when overused
the soil-remaining fertilizers not taken up by the
plants usually burn the plants and can even cause
environmental problems (Kang et al. 2010). Naturally-
produced biosurfactants (rhamnolipids), which have
no phytotoxicity to plants and can increase PHC
bioavailability, are proven to enhance PHC degradation
(Zhang et al. 1997) and may be a better application for the
remediation of contaminated soil. Previous studies have
shown that rhamnolipids can enhance the uptake of PAHs
by ryegrass roots and the degradation of PAHs by alfalfa
(Zhang et al. 2010; Zhu et al. 2008). The advantages of
using biosurfactants indicate that biosurfactant-enhanced
phytoremediation has the potential to become promising
technology for remediation of contaminated soil.
3.2 Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria for
enhancing phytoremediation
Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) are bacteria
capable of promoting plant growth by colonizing the
plant root surface and the closely adhering soil interface
(Kloepper et al. 1980, Kloepper et al. 1981). PGPR strains
can produce indoleacetic acid (an auxin), siderosphores
and enzyme 1-amino-cyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid
(ACC) deaminase. Soil contamination generally stimulates
ethylene production in plants, leading to plant growth
retardation. Enzyme ACC deaminase can consume
ACC, the precursor of ethylene into 2-oxobutanoate and
ammonia (Glick 2005). Decreased ethylene levels allow
plants used in phytoremediation to grow and survive better
in heavily contaminated soils. Moreover, PGPR strains can
act as bio-control agents, protecting the rhizosphere from
pathogenic microbes (Compant et al. 2005; Whipps 2001).
The introduction of PGPR strains in phytoremediation
can provide better plant growth and thereby increase plant
resistance to contaminants in the soil than using plants
alone (Huang et al. 2004b; Kang et al. 2010; Koo et al.
2010). As a result, PGPR can help accelerate degradation
of contaminants.
According to Huang et al. (2004a; 2004b) during a
greenhouse experiment the germination frequency for wild
rye increased by 61% with PGPR at 0.5 g kg
-1
of creosote.
For tall fescue, plant germination frequency increased
by 40% with PGPR at 3 g kg
-1
of creosote. Moreover,
the introduction of PGPR greatly enhanced the PHC
(polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) and creosote removal
when compared with phytoremediation alone. PGPR
strains can enhance the grass germination frequency and
stimulate grasses to grow better in heavily contaminated
soils, thus promoting decontamination of PHCs. Table 2
shows recent studies on phytoremediation of PHCs by
tolerant grasses with the assistance of PGPR.
3.3 Inoculation of plants with microbes for enhancing
phytoremediation
Weeds with a fibrous root system such as grasses are
preferred for phytoremediation due to their large root
ZHOU Qixing, et al.: Ecological Remediation of Hydrocarbon Contaminated Soils with Weed Plant 101
surface area, which can help establish active microbial
activity and populations (Aprill et al. 1990). Euliss et
al. (2008) suggested that different plants may enhance
rhizosphere degradation by selecting for a variety of
microbial communities. Fang et al. (2001) found that
microbes isolated from grass planted soils were more
effective at degrading PHCs than those from non-
vegetated soils. Thus, inoculation of plants with microbes
in rhizosphere may not only protect plant roots from
pollutant toxicity (Robert et al. 2008), but also enhance
phytoremediation efficacy. Recently, more studies have
been devoted to enhancing rhizodegradation eIfciency by
inoculating microbes, particularly indigenous microbes
isolated from contaminated habitats. Autochthonous
microbes are more compatible with local contaminated
sites than allochthonous microbes, which do not occupy
a functional niche (Atlas et al. 1998). For example, the
indigenous microbial population present in Hong Kong
soil degraded diesel oil more eIfciently than the microbial
consortium introduced from Long Beach soil (Bento et
al. 2005). Cyperus laxus Lam., a native plant growing in
swamps, inoculated with autochthonous microbial strains
isolated from C. laxus rhizosphere degraded PHCs two
times higher than non-inoculated plants after 60 days in
culture. Furthermore, the root biomass of C. laxus was
1.6 times greater than non-inoculated plants (Escalante-
Espinosa et al. 2005). Efficient hydrocarbon-degrading
bacterial strains that can compete with the native habitat
and are closely linked to plants are also promising
candidates for phytoremediation. For instance, Italian
ryegrass (Lolium multiorum var. Taurus) in combination
with an alkane-degrading strain (BTRH79) showed higher
hydrocarbon degradation than that in other treatments
(Yousaf et al. 2010).
Previ ous l i t erat ure has focused on i nocul at i on
using hydrocarbon-degrading bacteria to enhance
phytoremediation. However, plants with added fungal
strains are also more effective at increasing PHC
decontamination than phytoremediation alone (Hashem
2007). The addi t i on of fungal st rai ns (Fusari um
acuminatum, F. equiseti, F. oxysporum, F. solani, and F.
reticulatum) to Polygonum avicular L., a plant native to
Iran, provided a greater removal of PHCs than using P.
avicular alone (Mohsenzadeh et al. 2010). Mutual benefts
between plants and inoculated hydrocarbon-degrading
microbes greatly promote phytoremediation of PHC.
Plant characteristics and phytoremediation efficiency
can be greatly improved with the addition of these
special microbes. The inoculation of plants with special
microbial strains may be a promising alternative for the
bioremediation of PHC contaminated soils.
3.4 Genetic engineering technology for enhancing
phytoremediation
The utilization of plants for the cleanup of toxic compound
contaminated soils is limited by the slow growth rate of
the plants, meaning several years is often required for the
restoration oI contaminated sites. The eIfciency oI using
plants can be substantially improved through genetic
engineering technologies (Bennett et al. 2003; Kawahigashi
2009). The first transgenic plants for phytoremediation
were developed for remedying heavy metal contaminated
sites. Transgenic Arabidopsis thaliana seeds expressing
merApe9, a mercuric ion reductase, evolved considerable
amounts of inert metallic mercury (Hg) relative to control
plants (Rugh et al. 1996). In recent years, researchers have
Huang et al.
2005
Gurska et al.
2009
PGPR strain Latin name Common name Contaminants Result Reference
Pseudomonas
putida UW3
Azospirillum
brasilense Cd
Enterobacter
cloacae CAL 2
Festuca arundinacea,
Elymus triticoides,
Poa pratensis
Tall fescue,
Wild rye,
Kentucky
bluegrass
Polycyclic
aromatic
hydrocarbons
(PAHs),
Creosote
Increased
plant tolerance
to PAHs and creosote
Enhanced PAH and
creosote removal
Huang et al.
2004a; b
Enterobactor
cloacae UW4
Enterobacter
cloacae CAL 2
Festuca
arundinacea
Tall fescue Total petroleum
hydrocarbons
(TPHs)
Promoted plant growth
and increased plant
tolerance to TPHs
Pseudomonas
sp. UW3
Pseudomonas
putida UW4
Lolium perenne,
Festuca arundinacea,
Secale cereale,
Hordeum vulgare
Annual
Ryegrass,
Tall fescue,
Fall rye,
Barley
Total petroleum
hydrocarbons
(TPHs)
Increased
plant biomass
via alleviation
of plant stress
Table 2 Examples of bioremediation of PHCs by weeds with the assistance of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR).
Journal of Resources and Ecology Vol.2 No.2, 2011 102
devoted more effort to developing transgenic plants for
phytoremediation of organic contaminates. For example,
the expression of human cytochrome P450 genes in
rice became more tolerant toward herbicides than non-
transgenic ones (Kawahigashi et al. 2006). Transgenic
poplar (Populus spp.) showed increased removal rates
of trichloroethylene, chloroform and benzene from
hydroponic solution (Doty et al. 2007). Other organic
compounds including explosives, carbon tetrachloride and
halogenated hydrocarbons have been widely remedied
by transgenic plants (Doty et al. 2000; Van Aken 2008,
2009). Despite these findings, little research has focused
on using transgenic weeds for phytoremediation of PHC
contaminated soils. The utilization of transgenic plants,
especially transgenic weeds, requires further study in order
to increase the eIfciency oI phytoremediation.
3.5 Combined approaches for enhancing
phytoremediation
In many cases, remediation technology using plants and one
enhancement approach and plants may still be ineIfcient.
For a phytoremediation system to be more effective plant
tolerance and TPH degradation needs to be improved by
use of a combination of the approaches outlined above. A
multi-process phytoremediation system (MPPS) has been
suggested to combine agronomic treatment, inoculation
with contaminant degrading bacteria, and the growth of
the contaminant-tolerant plants such as tall fescue (Festuca
arundinacea) with plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria
(PGPR). Huang et al. (2004a, 2005) showed that during
the frst Iour months in culture, the removal oI TPHs and
16 priority PAHs by MPSS was twice that of agronomic
treatment, 50% more than inoculation with microbes,
and 45% more than phytoremediation alone. A combined
approach consisting of phytoremediation, surfactant
flushing and microbial degradation effectively dissipates
oil pollutants from loess soil and is recommended for
restoration of PHC contaminated sites (Zhu et al. 2010).
Zhang et al. (2010) have introduced a multi-technique
phytoremediation system consisting of mycorrhizal
fungi, aromatic hydrocarbon degrading bacteria (ARDB)
and rhamnolipids for the bioremediation of PAHs. After
90 days, the total PAH removal by the multi-technique
phytoremediation system was 251.83% greater than that of
phytoremediation alone. These studies show that applying
one approach alone is not very efficient, but combining
multiple processes can remedy defects. Therefore,
phytoremediation in conjunction with multiple approaches
may be an optimal solution for enhancing PHC removal.
4 Field scale phytoremediation of PHC
contaminated soils
Initial phytoremediation results have shown great
promi se for cost -effect i ve remedi al t echnol ogy,
prompting international efforts to focus on transitioning
experiments from the laboratory to the field (Liste et al.
2006; Palmroth et al. 2006). For example, a two-year
field trial was conducted at a weathered hydrocarbon
flare-pit site in southeastern Saskatchewan, Canada.
Significant differences were observed in degradation
trends for the first growing season, with Altai wild rye
(Elymus angustus Trin.) promoting greater than 50% TPH
degradation (Phillips et al. 2009). The phytoremediation
treatment decreased TPH by 30%, twice that of non-
planted soils, after a two year field trial (Siciliano et al.
2003). Gurska et al. (2009) used plant growth-promoting
rhizobacteria enhanced phytoremediation to successfully
lower TPH from 130 g/kg to approximately 50 g/kg
over a three year period. However, a three year field
study conducted at the Jones Island disposal facility in
Milwaukee, USA showed planted treatments including
black willow (Salix nigra) (SX61), prairie cord grass
(Spartina pectinata), lake sedge (Carex aquatalis),
annual rye (Lolium multiflorum), and bulrush (Scirpus
fluviatilis) did not enhance PAH dissipation relative to
those without plants (Smith et al. 2008). Differences
between laboratory and field experiments include
precipitation, temperature, plant nutrients and plant
pathogens and may affect seed germination and plant
growth and thus negatively impacting phytoremediation
efficiency. Moreover, the accumulation of pollutants in
plants will likely be released into the environment anew in
feld scale studies. Management options, such as Iencing,
could help minimize pollutant entry into food webs.
Potential problems surrounding the widespread application
of phytoremediation in field trials needs to be further
explored.
5 Conclusions and future prospects
Although numerous studies on phytoremediation have
been conducted at the laboratory scale under short-term
controlled conditions, more research is still needed to gain
a better understanding of the performance and potential for
phytoremediation with weed plants over a longer-term and
in the feld. To reduce the potential ecological risk on local
ecosystems posed by non-native weed species (transgenic
weed species included), more effective native weeds
that are compatible with local habitats are preferred and
need to be tested for use in phytoremediation. Successful
phytoremediation is dependent on a high production
of root biomass and high translocation of pollutants
from the roots to aboveground tissues. Environmentally
friendly enhancement approaches in conjunction with
phytoremediation are proposed to promote healthy plant
growth by overcoming plant stress. In addition, the
mechanisms of PHC phytoremediation by weeds should
be further investigated, especially the complex interactions
involving roots, root exudates, rhizosphere soils and
ZHOU Qixing, et al.: Ecological Remediation of Hydrocarbon Contaminated Soils with Weed Plant 103
microbes. Standard protocols, such as those developed
by the Remediation Technologies Development Forum
(http://www.clu-in.org/download/rtdf/542f06005.pdf), will
be necessary to assess the eIfciency oI phytoremediation
si t es. New prot ocol s are al so needed i n order t o
appropriately interpret data from remediation sites. While
there is still much to be investigated, phytoremediation
associated with environmentally friendly processes
has emerged as a cost-effective technology for PHC
remediation.
References
Agamuthu P, O P Abioye, A A Aziz. 2010. Phytoremediation of soil
contaminated with used lubricating oil using Jatropha curcas. Journal of
Hazardous Materials, 179: 891894.
Alkorta I, C Garbisu. 2001. Phytoremediation of organic contaminants in soils.
Bioresource Technology, 79: 273276.
Aprill W, R C Sims. 1990. Evaluation of the use of prairie grasses for
stimulating polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons treatment in soil.
Chemosphere, 20: 253265.
Atlas R M, R Bartha. 1998. Microbial ecology: Fundamentals and
applications. Redwood City, CA: Cummings Science Publishing.
Bennett L E, J L Burkhead, K L Hale, N Terry, M Pilon, E A Pilon-Smits.
2003. Analysis of transgenic Indian mustard plants for phytoremediation of
metal-contaminated mine tailings. Journal of Environmental Quality, 32:
432440.
Bento F M, F A O Camargo, B C Okeke, W T Frankenberger. 2005.
Comparative bioremediation of soils contaminated with diesel oil by natural
attenuation, biostimulation and bioaugmentation. Bioresource Technology,
96: 10491055.
Besalatpour A, A H Khoshgoftarmanesh, M A Hajabbasi, M Afyuni. 2008.
Germination and growth of selected plants in a petroleum contaminated
calcareous soil. Soil Sediment Contamination, 17: 665676.
Brandt R, N Merkl, R Schultze-Kraft, C Infante, G Broll. 2006. Potential of
vetiver (Vetiveria zizanioides (L.) Nash) for phytoremediation of petroleum
hydrocarbon-contaminated soils in Venezuela. International Journal of
Phytoremediation, 8: 273284.
Cai Z, Zhou Q X, Peng S W, Li K N. 2010 Promoted biodegradation and
microbiological effects of petroleum hydrocarbons by Impatiens balsamina
L. with strong endurance. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 183(1-3): 731
737.
Chaudhry Q, M Blom-Zandstra, S Gupta, E J Joner. 2005. Utilising the
synergy between plants and rhizosphere microorganisms to enhance
breakdown of organic pollutants in the environment. Environmental Science
Pollution Research, 12: 3448.
Cheema S A, M I Khan, Shen C F, Tang X J, M Farooq, Chen L, Zhang C K,
Chen Y X. 2010. Degradation of phenanthrene and pyrene in spiked soils
by single and combined plants cultivation. Journal of Hazardous Materials,
177: 384389.
Chen Y C, M K Banks, A P Schwab. 2003. Pyrene degradation in the
rhizosphere of tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea) and switchgrass (Panicum
virgatum L.). Environmental Science & Technology, 37: 57785782.
Compant S, B Duffy, J Nowak, C Clement, E A Barka. 2005. Use of plant
growth-promoting bacteria for biocontrol of plant diseases: principles,
mechanisms of action, and future prospects. Applied and Environmental
Microbiology, 71: 49514959.
Corseuil H X, F N Moreno. 2001. Phytoremediation potential of willow trees
for aquifers contaminated with ethanol-blended gasoline. Water Research,
35: 30133017.
Cunningham S D, W R Berti, J W Huang. 1995. Phytoremediation of
contaminated soils. Trends in Biotechnology, 13: 393397.
Doty S L, C A James, A L Moore, A Vajzovic, G L Singleton, Ma C, Z Khan,
Xin G, Kang J W, A Y Park, R Meilan, S H Strauss, J Wilkerson, F Farin,
S E Strand. 2007. Enhanced phytoremediation of volatile environmental
pollutants with transgenic trees. P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 104: 1681616821.
Doty S L, Shang T Q, A M Wilson, J Tangen, A D Westergreen, L A Newman,
S E Strand, M P Gordon. 2000. Enhanced metabolism of halogenated
hydrocarbons in transgenic plants containing mammalian cytochrome P450
2E1. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 97:
62876291.
El-Shatnawi M K J, I M Makhadmeh. 2001. Ecophysiology of the plant-
rhizosphere system. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 187: 19.
Escalante-Espinosa E, M E Gallegos-Martinez, E Favela-Torres, M Gutierrez-
Rojas. 2005. Improvement of the hydrocarbon phytoremediation rate by
Cyperus laxus Lam. inoculated with a microbial consortium in a model
system. Chemosphere, 59: 405413.
Euliss K, Ho C H, A P Schwab, S Rock, M K Banks. 2008. Greenhouse and
field assessment of phytoremediation for petroleum contaminants in a
riparian zone. Bioresource Technology, 99: 19611971.
Fang C W, M Radosevich, J J Fuhrmann. 2001. Atrazine and phenanthrene
degradation in grass rhizosphere soil. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 33:
671678.
Gaskin S, K Soole, R Bentham. 2008. Screening of Australian native
grasses for rhizoremediation of aliphatic hydrocarbon-contaminated soil.
International Journal of Phytoremediation, 10: 378389.
Glick B R. 2005. Modulation of plant ethylene levels by the bacterial enzyme
ACC deaminase. FEMS Microbiology Letters, 251: 17.
Gnther T, U Dornberger, W Fritsche. 1996. Effects of ryegrass on
biodegradation of hydrocarbons in soil. Chemosphere, 33: 203215.
Gurska J, Wang W X, K E Gerhardt, A M Khalid, D M Isherwood, Huang X
D, B R Glick, B M Greenberg. 2009. Three year feld test oI a plant growth
promoting rhizobacteria enhanced phytoremediation system at a land farm
for treatment of hydrocarbon waste. Environmental Science & Technology,
43: 44724479.
Harvey P J, B F Campanella, P M L Castro, H Harms, E Lichtfouse, A R
Schaffner, S Smrcek, D Werck-Reichharts. 2002. Phytoremediation of
polyaromatic hydrocarbons, anilines and phenols. Environmental Science
Pollution Research, 9: 2947.
Hashem A R. 2007. Bioremediation of petroleum contaminated soils in the
Arabian Gulf region: a review. Kuwait Journal of Science & Engineering,
19: 8191.
Huang X D, Y El-Alawi, J Gurska, B R Glick, B M Greenberg. 2005. A multi-
process phytoremediation system for decontamination of persistent total
petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHs) from soils. Microchemical Journal, 81:
139147.
Huang X D, Y El-Alawi, D M Penrose, B R Glick, B M Greenberg. 2004a. A
multi-process phytoremediation system for removal of polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons from contaminated soils. Environmental Pollution, 130:
465476.
Huang X D, Y El-Alawi, D M Penrose, B R Glick, B M Greenberg. 2004b.
Responses of three grass species to creosote during phytoremediation.
Environmental Pollution, 130: 453463.
Hutchinson S L, M K Banks, A P Schwab. 2001. Phytoremediation of aged
petroleum sludge: effect of inorganic fertilizer. Journal of Environmental
Quality, 30: 395403.
Jones K C. 1991. Organic contaminants in the environment. Elsevier Applied
Science, New York, NY, USA.
Kang B G, Kim W T, Yun H S, Chang S C. 2010. Use of plant growth-
promoting rhizobacteria to control stress responses of plant roots. Plant
Biotechnology Reports, 4: 179183.
Kawahigashi H. 2009. Transgenic plants for phytoremediation of herbicides.
Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 20: 225230.
Kawahigashi H, S Hirose, H Ohkawa, Y Ohkawa. 2006. Phytoremediation of
the herbicides atrazine and metolachlor by transgenic rice plants expressing
human CYP1A1, CYP2B6, and CYP2C19. Journal of Agricultural and
Food Chemistry, 54: 29852991.
Kirk J L, J N Klironomos, Lee H, J T Trevors. 2005. The effects of perennial
ryegrass and alfalfa on microbial abundance and diversity in petroleum
contaminated soil. Environmental Pollution, 133: 455465.
Kloepper J W, J Leong, M Teintze, M N Schroth. 1980. Enhanced plant
growth by siderophores produced by plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria.
Nature, 286: 885886.
Kloepper J W, M N Schroth. 1981. Relationship of in vitro antibiosis of plant
growth-promoting rhizobacteria to plant growth and the displacement of
root microfora. Phytopathology, 71: 10201024.
Klomjek P, S Nitisoravut. 2005. Constructed treatment wetland: a study of
eight plant species under saline conditions. Chemosphere, 58(5): 585593.
Koo S Y, Hong S H, Ryu H W, Cho K S. 2010. Plant growth-promoting trait
Journal of Resources and Ecology Vol.2 No.2, 2011 104
of rhizobacteria isolated from soil contaminated with petroleum and heavy
metals. Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology, 20: 587593.
Lafrance P, M Lapointe. 1998. Mobilization and co-transport of pyrene in
the presence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa UG2 biosurfactants in sandy soil
columns. Ground Water Monit Remediation, 18: 139147.
Liste H H, D Felgentreu. 2006. Crop growth, culturable bacteria, and
degradation of petrol hydrocarbons (PHCs) in a long-term contaminated
feld soil. Applied Soil Ecology, 31: 4352.
Liu W X, Luo Y M, Teng Y, Li Z G. 2010. Phytoremediation oI oilfeld sludge
after prepared bed bioremediation treatment. International Journal of
Phytoremediation, 12: 268278.
Lu M, Zhang Z Z, Sun S S, Wei X F, Wang Q F, Su Y M. 2010. The Use
of Goosegrass (Eleusine indica) to Remediate Soil Contaminated with
Petroleum. Water Air and Soil Pollution, 209: 181189.
Meagher R B. 2000. Phytoremediation of toxic elemental and organic
pollutants. Current Opinion in Plant Biology, 3: 153162.
Meng L, Qiao M, P H H Arp. 2011. Phytoremediation eIfciency oI a PAH-
contaminated industrial soil using ryegrass, white clover, and celery as
mono- and mixed cultures. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 11: 482-490.
Merkl N, R Schultze-Kraft, C Infante. 2005. Assessment of tropical grasses
and legumes for phytoremediation of petroleum-contaminated soils. Water
Air and Soil Pollution, 165: 195209.
Michael R, Yuen S, A Baker, W Laidlaw. 2007. A sustainable approach for
hydraulic control of landfills using quarry scalpings and native plants.
Australian Journal of Multi-Disciplinary Engineering, 5: 3947.
Mohsenzadeh F, S Nasseri, A Mesdaghinia, R Nabizadeh, D Zafari, G
Khodakaramian, A Chehregani. 2010. Phytoremediation of petroleum-
polluted soils: Application of Polygonum aviculare and its root-associated
(penetrated) fungal strains for bioremediation of petroleum-polluted soils.
Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 73: 613619.
Muratova A Y, T V Dmitrieva, L V Panchenko, O V Turkovskaya. 2008.
Phytoremediation of oil-sludge-contaminated soil. International Journal of
Phytoremediation, 10: 486502.
Nellessen J E, J S Fletcher. 1993. Assessment of published lierature on the
uptake, accumulation, and translocation of heavy metal by vascular plants.
Chemosphere, 27: 669680.
Palmroth M R, J Pichtel, J A Puhakka. 2002. Phytoremediation of subarctic
soil contaminated with diesel fuel. Bioresource Technology, 84: 221228.
Palmroth M R T, P E P Koskinen, J Pichtel, K Vaajasaari, A Joutti, T A
Tuhkanen, J A Puhakka. 2006. Field-scale assessment of phytotreatment of
soil contaminated with weathered hydrocarbons and heavy metals. Journal
of Soils and Sediments, 6: 128136.
Pernar N, D Baksic, O Antonic, M Grubesic, I Tikvic, M Trupcevic. 2006. Oil
residuals in lowland forest soil after pollution with crude oil. Water Air and
Soil Pollution, 177: 267284.
Phillips L A, C W Greer, R E Farrell, J J Germida. 2009. Field-scale
assessment of weathered hydrocarbon degradation by mixed and single
plant treatments. Appl Soil Ecology, 42: 917.
Radwan S S, H Al - Awadhi , I M El - Nemr. 2000. Cr oppi ng as a
phytoremediation practice for oily desert soil with reference to crop safety
as food. International journal of phytoremediation, 24: 383396.
Rezek J, C I D Wiesche, M Mackova, F Zadrazil, T Macek. 2008. The effect
of ryegrass (Lolium perenne) on decrease of PAH content in long term
contaminated soil. Chemosphere, 70: 16031608.
Robert F M, Sun W H, M Toma, R K Jones, Tang C S. 2008. Interactions
among buffelgrass, phenanthrene and phenanthrene-degrading bacteria in
gnotobiotic microcosms. Journal of Environmental Science and Health A,
43: 10351041.
Rugh C L, H D Wilde, N M Stack, D M Thompson, A O Summers, R B
Meagher. 1996. Mercuric ion reduction and resistance in transgenic
Arabidopsis thaliana plants expressing a modified bacterial merA gene.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 93: 3182
3187.
Schnoor J L. 1997. Phytoremediation. Technology Evaluation Report TE-97-
01, National Environmental Technology Applications Center, Pittsburgh.
Schnoor J L, L A Licht, S C McCutcheon, N L Wolfe, L H Carriera. 1995.
Phytoremediation: an emerging technology for contaminated sites.
Environmental Science & Technology, 29: 318323.
Schrder P. 2003. Phytoremediation. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 3(4):
228.
Schwab A P, A A Al-Assi, M K Banks. 1998. Adsorption of naphthalene onto
plant roots. Journal of Environmental Quality, 27: 220224.
Schwab P, M K Banks, W A Kyle. 2006. Heritability of phytoremediation
potential for the alfalfa cultivar Riley in petroleum contaminated soil. Water
Air and Soil Pollution, 177: 239249.
Siciliano S D, J J Germida, K Banks, C W Greer. 2003. Changes in microbial
community composition and function during a polyaromatic hydrocarbon
phytoremediation feld trial. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 69:
483489.
Smith K E, A P Schwab, M K Banks. 2008. Dissipation of PAHs in saturated,
dredged sediments: A feld trial. Chemosphere, 72: 16141619.
Smits E A H P, J L Freeman. 2006. Environmental cleanup using plants:
Biotechnological advances and ecological considerations. Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment, 4: 203210.
Susarla S, V F Medina, S C McCutcheon. 2002. Phytoremediation: An
ecological solution to organic chemical contamination. Ecological
Engineering, 18: 647658.
Thygesen R, S Trapp. 2002. Phytotoxicity of polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons to willow trees. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 2(2): 7782.
Trapp S, U Karlson. 2001. Aspects of phytoremediation of organic pollutants.
Journal of Soils and Sediments, 1(1): 3743.
Vaajasaari K, A Joutti. 2006. Field-scale assessment of phytotreatment of soil
contaminated with weathered hydrocarbons and heavy metals. Journal of
Soils and Sediments, 6(3): 128136.
Van Aken B. 2008. Transgenic plants for phytoremediation: helping nature to
clean up environmental pollution. Trends in Biotechnology, 26: 225227.
Van Aken B. 2009. Transgenic plants for enhanced phytoremediation of toxic
explosives. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 20: 231236.
Vouillamoz J, M W Milke. 2001. Effect of compost in phytoremediation of
diesel-contaminated soils. Water Science Technology, 43: 291295.
Wang X Y, Feng J, Zhao J M. 2010. Effects of crude oil residuals on soil
chemical properties in oil sites, Momoge Wetland, China. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment, 161: 271280.
Wei S, Pan S. 2010. Phytoremediation for soils contaminated by phenanthrene
and pyrene with multiple plant species. Journal of Soils and Sediments,
10(5): 886894.
Wei S H, Zhou Q X, Wang X, Zhang K S, Guo G L, Ma L Q. 2005. A newly-
discovered Cd-hyperaccumulator Solanum nigrum L. Chinese Science
Bulletin, 50: 3338.
Wei S H, Zhou Q X. 2006. Phytoremdiation of cadmium-contaminated soils
by Rorippa globosa using two-phase planting. Environmental Science and
Pollution Research, 13: 151155.
Wenzel W W. 2009. Rhizosphere processes and management in plant-assisted
bioremediation (phytoremediation) of soils. Plant and Soil, 321: 385408.
Whipps J M. 2001. Microbial interactions and biocontrol in the rhizosphere.
Journal of Experimental Botany, 52: 487511.
White P M, D C WolI, G J Thoma, C M Reynolds. 2003. Infuence oI organic
and inorganic soil amendments on plant growth in crude oil-contaminated
soil. International Journal of Phytoremediation, 5: 381397.
White P M, D C Wolf, G J Thoma, C M Reynolds. 2006. Phytoremediation
of alkylated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in a crude oil-contaminated
soil. Water Air and Soil Pollution, 169: 207220.
Wiltse C C, W L Rooney, Chen Z, A P Schwab, M K Banks. 1998. Greenhouse
evaluation of agronomic and crude oil phytoremediation potential among
alfalfa genotypes. Journal of Environmental Quality, 27: 169173.
World Primary Energy Production by Source (1970-2007). http://www.eia.
doe.gov/aer/txt/ ptb1101.html
Yousaf S, K Ripka, T G Reichenauer, V Andria, M Afzal, A Sessitsch. 2010.
Hydrocarbon degradation and plant colonization by selected bacterial
strains isolated from Italian ryegrass and birdsfoot trefoil. Journal of
Applied Microbiology, 109(4): 13891401.
Zhang J, Yin R, Lin X G, Liu W W, Chen R R, Li X Z. 2010. Interactive
effect of biosurfactant and microorganism to enhance phytoremediation
for removal of aged polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from contaminated
soils. Journal of Health Science, 56: 257266.
Zhang Y, W J Maier, R M Miller. 1997. Effect of rhamnolipids on the
dissolution, bioavailability, and biodegradation of phenanthrene.
Environmental Science & Technology, 31: 22112217.
Zhou Q X, Song Y F. 2004. Principles and Methods of Contaminated Soil
Remediation. Beijing, China: Science Press.(in Chinese)
Zhu K, Chen H, Nan Z. 2010. Phytoremediation of loess soil contaminated by
organic compounds. NATO Science for Peace and Security, 159176.
ZHOU Qixing, et al.: Ecological Remediation of Hydrocarbon Contaminated Soils with Weed Plant 105
Zhu L Z, Zhang M. 2008. Effect of rhamnolipids on the uptake of PAHs by
ryegrass. Environmental Pollution, 156: 4652. _/|([qjq_
)(, , , /-,
)fj||[.fj,|)Q[|,_.( 300071
@: |.v+.'^||("^;v/';);)j'`v.`vl+'.'";
|./'";.",_".'|7l++,|)jj,`"v..:).``V|
;v(j)v(),"(j;v+`v|."}j`..-
;v!.|";.'-()!;v,('(.``.";v-{(|#.
|")"|7"l+"|_+!l+|".|#+)`.|-'.``.v
";=.'.?;#~v".:/.}",v)!,'[;v\.'}')
'^|\..``.v";.'"-{jv,:,.j;{|)||()/l+'".j
)^.".`)^v,`"v_()\v!".
3@): .`(PHCs), ,", ";, `.,