Journal of Ecology and Environment

The Ecological Society of Korea (한국생태학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Phytoremediation of Heavy-Metal-Contaminated Soil in a Reclaimed Dredging Area Using Alnus Species

  • Lee, Deok-Beom (Gwangyang Landscape Co., Ltd.) ;
  • Nam, Woong (Gwangyang Landscape Co., Ltd.) ;
  • Kwak, Young-Se (Department of Environment Research, Research Institute of Industrial Science & Technology (RIST)) ;
  • Cho, Nam-Hoon (Department of Landscape Architecture, Sunchon National University) ;
  • Lee, Sang-Suk (Department of Landscape Architecture, University of Seoul)
  • Published : 2009.11.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

To investigate the possible applications of plants to remediate heavy-metal-contaminated soil, a pilot experiment was performed for four years in a reclaimed dredging area using two Alnus species, i.e., Alnus firma and Alnus hirsuta. In a comparison of phytomass of the two species at two different planting densities, the phytomass of Alnus planted at low density was twice as high as that of Alnus planted at high density after four years. The Alnus species showed active acclimation to the heavy-metal-contaminated soil in a reclaimed dredging area. A. hirsuta showed greater accumulation of phytomass than A. firma, indicating that it is the better candidate for the phytoremediation of heavy-metal-contaminated soils. In the pilot system, Alnus plants took metals up from the soil in the following order; Pb > Zn > Cu > Cr > As > Cd. Uptake rates of heavy metals per individual phytomass was higher for Alnus spp. planted at low density than those planted at high density in the pilot system. Low plant density resulted in higher heavy metal uptake per plant, but the total heavy metal concentration was not different for plants planted at low and high density, suggesting that the plant density effect might not be important with regard to total uptake by plants. The quantity of leached heavy metals below ground was far in excess of that taken up by plants, indicating that an alternative measurement is required for the removal of heavy metals that have leached into ground water and deeper soil. We conclude that Alnus species are potential candidates for phytoremediation of heavy-metal- contaminated surface soil in a reclaimed dredging area.

Keywords

References

  1. Baker AJM, Brooks RR. 1989. Terrestrial higher plants which hyperaccumulate metallic elements. A review of their distribution, ecology and phytochemistry. Biorecovery 1: 81-126
  2. Becerra A, Zak MR, Horton TR, Micolini J. 2005. Ectomycorrhizal and arbuscular mycorrhizal colonization of Alnusacuminate Calilegua National Park (Argentina). Mycorrhiza 15: 525-531 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00572-005-0360-7
  3. Bhandari A, Surampalli RY, Champagne P, Ong SK, Tyagi RD, Lo IMC. 2007. Remediation technologies for soils and ground water. ASCE, New York
  4. Bowen HJM. 1979. Environmental chemistry of the elements. Academic press, New York
  5. Eapen S, Singh S, Dsouza SF. 2007. Phytoremediation of metals and radionuclides. In Environmental bieremediation technologies (Singh SN and Tripathic RD, eds). Springer. India, pp 189-209
  6. Han FX, Banin A, Kingery WL, Triplrtt GB, Zhou LX, Zheng SL, Ding WX. 2003. New approach to studies of heavy metal redistribution in soil. Adv Env Res 8: 113-120 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1093-0191(02)00142-9
  7. Khade SW, Adgoleya A. 2007. Feasible bioremediation through arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi imparting heavy metal tolerance: a retrospective. Bioremediation J 1: 33-43
  8. Lee DB, Nam W, Kwak YS, Lee SS. 2009. Growth of landscape tree species at two planting densities in a planting pilot system for reclaimed dredging area. J Korean Inst Landscape Architect 37(2): 114-123
  9. Lombs E, Zhao FJ, Dunham SJ, McGrath SP. 2001. Phytoremediation of heavy metal contaminated soils; natural hyperaccumulation versus chemically enhanced phytoextraction. J Environ Qual 30: 1919-1926 https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2001.1919
  10. Martin M, Dowling D, Thomas M. 2007. Phytoremediation rhizoremediation. Springer Verlag, India
  11. McCutcheon SC, Schnoor JL, Zehnder AJB. 2003. Phytoremediation: transformation and control of contaminants. WileyInterscience, New Jersey
  12. Ministry of environment. 2005. Standard method of soil analysis, Seoul
  13. Paraskiewicz K, Dlugonski J. 2007. Remediation of heavy metalcontaminated soil by microbial surfactants. Biotechnologia (2): 81-94
  14. Sauerbeck D. 1982. Welche Schwermetallgehalte in Pflanzen diirfen nicht iiberschritten warden, urn Wachstums beeintrachtigung zu vermeiden? Landw Forsch Sonderh 39: 108-129
  15. Scott AJ. 2000. Phytoremediation of contaminated soil and water. Timeca, New York
  16. Singh SN, Tripathi RD. 2007. Environmental bioremediation technologies. Springer, Heidelberg
  17. Sheehan D. 1997. Bioremediation protocols. Humana Press, New Jersey
  18. Thangavel P, Subbhuraam CV. 2004. Phytoextraction; Role of hyperaccumulators in metal contaminated soils. Proc Indian Natn Sci Acad B70: 109-130
  19. Wang J, Zhao FJ, Meharg AA, Raab A, Feldmann J, McGrath SP. 2002. Mechanism of arsenic hyperaccumulation in Pteris vittata. Uptake kinetics, interactions with phosphate and arsenic speciation. Plant Physiol 30: 1552-1561
  20. Whittaker RH, Marks PL. 1975. Methods of assessing terrestrial productivity. In Primary production of the biosphere (Lieth H. and Wittaker RH, eds). Springer, Berlin, pp 55-118
  21. Willey N. 2007. Phytoremediation, Method and Reviews. Humana press, New Jersey
  22. Zhuang X, Chen J,Shim H, Bai Z. 2007. New advances in plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria for bioremediation. Environ Internat 33(3): 406-413 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2006.12.005

Cited by

  1. From Tolerance to Acute Metabolic Deregulation: Contribution of Proteomics To Dig into the Molecular Response of Alder Species under a Polymetallic Exposure vol.12, pp.11, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1021/pr400590d
  2. ) exposed to varying air pollutant levels vol.96, pp.12, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1139/cjb-2018-0085