바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

  • KOREAN
  • P-ISSN2287-8327
  • E-ISSN2288-1220
  • SCOPUS, KCI

ISSN : 2287-8327

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.32 No.4

Citation Share

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

Journal of Ecology and Environment / Journal of Ecology and Environment, (P)2287-8327; (E)2288-1220
2009, v.32 no.4, pp.267-275





& (2009). Phytoremediation of Heavy-Metal-Contaminated Soil in a Reclaimed Dredging Area Using Alnus Species. Journal of Ecology and Environment, 32(4), 267-275.

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
Alnus species, Density, Heavy metal, Phytoremediation, Reclaimed dredging area, Alnus species, Density, Heavy metal, Phytoremediation, Reclaimed dredging area

Reference

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 Alnus acuminate Calilegua National Park (Argentina). Mycorrhiza 15: 525-531.

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 bioremediation 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.

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.

10.

Martin M, Dowling D, Thomas M. 2007. Phytoremediation rhizoremediation. Springer Verlag, India.

11.

McCutcheon SC, Schnoor JL, Zehnder AJB. 2003. Phytoremedia-tion: transformation and control of contaminants. Wiley-Interscience, New Jersey.

12.

Ministry of environment. 2005. Standard method of soil analysis. Seoul.

13.

Paraskiewicz K, Dlugonski J. 2007. Remediation of heavy metal-contaminated soil by microbial surfactants. Biotechnologia (2): 81-94.

14.

Sauerbeck D. 1982. Welche Schwermetallgehalte in Pflanzen dürfen nicht überschritten warden, um Wachstums beeinträchtigung 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.

Journal of Ecology and Environment

e-Submission OA Policy