Next Article in Journal
Assessment of the Health Effects of Heavy Metals Pollution of Agricultural Soils in the Iron Ore Mining Area of the Northern Piedmont of Mount Wutai, Shanxi Province, China
Next Article in Special Issue
Cyperus laevigatus L. Enhances Diesel Oil Remediation in Synergism with Bacterial Inoculation in Floating Treatment Wetlands
Previous Article in Journal
Fiscal Decentralization, Pollution and China’s Tourism Revenue
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Application of Floating Aquatic Plants in Phytoremediation of Heavy Metals Polluted Water: A Review

1
Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Government College University, Allama Iqbal Road, Faisalabad 38000, Pakistan
2
Department of Biological Sciences and Technology, China Medical University, Taichung 40402, Taiwan
3
Department of Plant and Animal Production, Kocarli Vocational High School, Aydın Adnan Menderes University, 09100 Aydın, Turkey
4
Department of Field Crops, Faculty of Agriculture, Aydın Adnan Menderes University, 09100 Aydın, Turkey
5
Department of Zoology, College of Science, King Saud University, P.O. Box 2455, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia
6
Pharmacology Department, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Suez Canal University, Ismailia 41522, Egypt
7
Department of Biology, College of Science, Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University, Riyadh 11474, Saudi Arabia
8
Department of Agronomy, Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University, Dhaka 1207, Bangladesh
9
Department of Electronics Engineering, Hellenic Mediterranean University, Chania, 73100 Crete, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2020, 12(5), 1927; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051927
Submission received: 11 February 2020 / Revised: 24 February 2020 / Accepted: 24 February 2020 / Published: 3 March 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Constructed and Floating Wetlands for Sustainable Water Reclamation)

Abstract

:
Heavy-metal (HM) pollution is considered a leading source of environmental contamination. Heavy-metal pollution in ground water poses a serious threat to human health and the aquatic ecosystem. Conventional treatment technologies to remove the pollutants from wastewater are usually costly, time-consuming, environmentally destructive, and mostly inefficient. Phytoremediation is a cost-effective green emerging technology with long-lasting applicability. The selection of plant species is the most significant aspect for successful phytoremediation. Aquatic plants hold steep efficiency for the removal of organic and inorganic pollutants. Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), water lettuce (Pistia stratiotes) and Duck weed (Lemna minor) along with some other aquatic plants are prominent metal accumulator plants for the remediation of heavy-metal polluted water. The phytoremediation potential of the aquatic plant can be further enhanced by the application of innovative approaches in phytoremediation. A summarizing review regarding the use of aquatic plants in phytoremediation is gathered in order to present the broad applicability of phytoremediation.

1. Introduction

Water contaminations, along with limited availability of water, have put a severe burden on the environment. Around 40% population of the world is facing the problem of water scarcity due to climate change, rapid urbanization, food requirement and unchecked consumption of natural resources [1,2]. During the past few decades rapid urbanization, industrialization, agricultural activities, discharge of geothermal waters and olive wastewater especially in olive-cultivating areas enhanced the discharge of polluted wastewater into the environment [3,4,5,6]. Wastewater carrying soaring concentrations of pollutants is immensely noxious for aquatic ecosystem and human health [7,8,9]. Reclamation of wastewater has been the only option left to meet the increasing demand of water in growing industrial and agricultural sectors [10].
Industrial and domestic untreated wastewater contains pesticides, oils, dyes, phenol, cyanides, toxic organics, phosphorous, suspended solids, and heavy metals (HMs) [11]. Heavy metals among these toxic substances can easily be accumulated in the surrounding environment [12]. Commercial activities such as metal processing, mining, geothermal energy plants, automotive, paper, pesticide manufacturing, tanning, dying and plating are held responsible for global contamination of heavy metals [13,14]. Removal of heavy metals from the wastewater is difficult because they exist in different chemical forms. Most metals are not biodegradable, and they can easily pass through different trophic levels to persistently accumulate in the biota [15,16].
Removal of toxic pollutants is extremely important to minize the threat to human health and the surrounding environment. Removal of heavy metals achieved through various techniques such as reverse osmosis [17], ion exchange [18], chemical precipitation [19], adsorption and solvent extraction [20] include enormous operational and maintenance costs and are usually not environmentally friendly [19,20,21,22]. These conventional techniques for the remediation of heavy metals are generally costly and time-consuming. These treatment technologies require high capital investment and in the end, generate the problem of sludge disposal [23]. For the remediation of wastewater polluted with heavy metals contaminants, an environmentally friendly and economical treatment technology is needed [24,25]. The current study illustrates an environment-friendly technique phytoremediation for removal of contaminants on a long term basis. Furthermore, this review article summarizes the potential application of aquatic plants in phytoremediation for the treatment of wastewater.

2. Heavy Metals in the Environment

Anthropogenic and geological activities are the main source of heavy-metal pollution. Activities such as mining, military activities, municipal waste, application of fertilizer, discharge of urban effluent, vehicle exhausts, wastewater, waste incineration, fuel production, and smelting cause the production of metal contaminants [26,27]. Natural sources of heavy-metal pollution include erosion, weathering of rocks and volcanic eruption. Parent material during weathering is the primary and initial natural source of heavy metals [28].
Agricultural pesticides and utilization of fertilizers on agricultural soil have raised the concentration of Cd, Zn, Cu and As in soil [29]. A constantly increasing need for agricultural produce has increased the application of pesticides, fertilizers, and herbicides. This excessive use of these agrochemicals may result in the accumulation of these pollutants in plants and the soil as well [30]. Usage of phosphate fertilizer and inorganic fertilizers to control the diseases of crops, grain and vegetable sometime hold an uneven level of Ni, Pb, Zn, Cd, and Cr [31,32]. An enormous quantity of fertilizers is applied to deliver the K, P and N in order to improve the growth of crops, which in turn increase the incidence of cadmium, lead, iron and mercury in substantial high concentrations. Inputs of heavy metal to agricultural land through the excessive use of fertilizers is increasing apprehension about their probable hazard to the environment [33,34].
Wastewater irrigation leads to the buildup of various heavy metals like cadmium, lead, nickel, zinc, etc. Some of these metals like Zn, Cu, Ni, Cd and Pb are frequently present in the subsurface of the soil irrigated with untreated wastewater. Wastewater irrigation for long periods of time increase the concentration of heavy metal in the soil at toxic levels [35]. The unregulated dumping of municipal solid waste is also another main source of raised soil contamination load. Open dumps and land filling are the common practices using worldwide to dispose of municipal solid waste. Despite being a useful source of nutrients, these wastes are also a source of some harmful toxic metals as well. Precarious and overload applications of fertilizers, pesticides and fungicides are very important sources of metal pollution [36]. Metal contamination can also be caused by transportation. Maintenance and deicing operations on roads also generate groundwater/surface contaminants. Corrosion, tread wear, and brake abrasion are well-recorded sources of heavy metals generation linked to highway traffic [37].

3. Phytoremediation

Phytoremediation is considered an effective, aesthetically pleasing, cost effective and environmental friendly technology for the remediation of potentially toxic metals from the environment. Plants in phytoremediation accumulate contaminants through their roots and then translocate these contaminant in the aboveground part of their body [38,39]. The notion of using metal accumulator plants for the removal of heavy metals and several other contaminants in phytoremediation was first introduced in 1983, but this idea has already been implanted for the last 300 years [40]. Phytoremediation is known by different names such as agro-remediation, green remediation, vegetative remediation, green technology and botano remediation [4,41,42].
Use of vegetation, soil and micro biota along with other agrochemical practices makes the vegetative remediation an appealing green technology for the accumulation of different heavy metals [43,44]. The application of in situ and ex-situ remediation is applicable in a phytoremediation process. In situ application is used more commonly because it reduces the multiplication of contaminant in water and airborne waste, which ultimately minimize the risk to the adjacent environment [45]. More than one type of pollutant can be treated on site by the phytoremediation without the need for a disposal site. It also reduces the spread of contamination by preventing soil erosion and leaching [46]. The clean up cost of phytoremediation is far less than other conventional techniques of remediation, which is the utmost advantage of this technique [47]. Phytoremediation is a relatively straightforward technique as it does not require any highly specific personnel and exclusive equipment. This is applicable for the remediation of large scale area where other conventional techniques prove to be extremely inefficient and costly as well [48].
An enormous number of contaminants can be remediated by phytoremediation technology such as insecticides, chlorinated solvents, Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCBs), petroleum hydrocarbons, radio nucleosides, surfactants, explosive elements and heavy metals [48,49]. There are a number of plant species that have the ability to accumulate significantly higher concentrations of heavy metals in different parts of the body, such as a leaf, stems and root, without showing any sign of toxicity [50,51].

3.1. Characteristics of Phytoremediation Plants

Plants should have the following characteristics in order to make the phytoremediation an eco-sustainable technology: native and quick growth rate, high biomass yield, the uptake of a large amount of heavy metals, the ability to transport metals in aboveground parts of plant, and a mechanism to tolerate metal toxicity [52,53,54,55]. Other factors like pH, solar radiation, nutrient availability and salinity greatly influence the phytoremediation potential and growth of the plant [51,56].

3.1.1. Mechanism of Phytoremediation

Phytoremediation follows different mechanisms such as phytoextraction, phytostabilization, phytovolatilization and rhizofiltration during the uptake or accumulation of heavy metals in the plant [4,41]. The different mechanisms involved in the phytoremediation process are briefly describe below.

Phytoextraction

Phytoextraction is also called phytoaccumulation, and it involves the uptake of heavy metal in the plant roots and then their translocation into an above ground-level portion of the plant like shoots, etc. Once the phytoextraction is done the plant can be harvested and burned for gaining energy and recovering/recycling metal if required from the ash [57,58]. Sometimes phytoremediation and phytoextraction are used synonymously, which is a misconception; phytoextraction is a cleanup technology while phytoremediation is the name of a concept [59]. Phytoextraction is an suitable phytoremediation technique for the remediation of heavy metals from wastewater, sediments and soil [52,60].

Phytostabilization

Phytostabilization involves the use of the plant to restrict the movement of contaminants in the soil. The term phytostabilization is also known as in place deactivation. Remediation of soil, sludge, and sediment can be effectively done by using this technology. It does not interfere with the natural environment and is a much safer alternative option [61,62]. In phytostabilization, plants inhibit or act as a barrier for the percolation of water within the soil. When we need to persevere in our surface water, ground water and restoration of soil quality, this technology is best suited for this purpose because it cuts short the movement of the contaminants [63,64]. Phytostabilization is very effective for a large site, which is heavily affected by the contaminants [65]. Phytostabilization is only a managing approach for inactivating/immobilizing the potentially harmful contaminants. It is not a permanent resolution, because only the movement of metals is restricted, but they continue to stay in the soil [66].

Rhizofiltration

Rhizofiltration involves the use of the plant to ab/adsorb the contaminants, resulting in restricted movement of these contaminants in underground water [67,68]. Roots play a very significant part in rhizofiltration. Factor such as changing pH in the rhizosphere and root exudates helps the precipitation of heavy metal on the surface of the roots. Once the plant has soaked up all the contaminants, they can easily be harvested and disposed [69]. Plants for rhizofiltration should have the ability; to produce a widespread root system, accumulate high concentrations of heavy metals, be easy to handle and have low maintenance cost [42,70]. Both aquatic and terrestrial plants with long fibrous root systems can be used in rhizofiltration [70]. Rhizofiltration is productively used for handling and treatment of the agricultural runoff, industrial discharge, radioactive contaminant, and metals [71]. Heavy metals which are mostly retained in the soil such as cadmium, lead, chromium, nickel, zinc, and copper can be adequately remediated through rhizofiltration [72].

Phytovolatilization

Phytovolatilization is the process in which a plant converts pollutants into a different volatile nature and then their successive release into the surrounding environment with the help of the plant’s stomata [48,73]. Plant species like canola and Indian mustard are useful for the phytovolatilization of selenium. Mercury and selenium are the most favorable contaminants that can be remediated in phytovolatilization [74]. One of the greatest advantages of phytovolatilization is that it does not require any additional management once the plantation is done. Other benefits are minimizing soil erosion, no disturbance to the soil, unrequited harvesting, and the disposal of plant biomass [75]. Bacteria present in the rhizosphere also help in the biotransformation of the contaminant, which eventually boosts the rate of phytovolatilization.

3.2. Advances in Phytoremediation

3.2.1. Chemical Assisted Phytoremediation

The phytoremediation potential depends upon the phyto-availability of different heavy metals present in the soil [76]. The application of specific chemicals has proved to be a successful technique to boost the bioavailability of heavy metals to plants [41]. Organic fertilizers and chelating reagents are commonly used to decrease the pH of soils, which ultimately enhance the bioavailability and bioaccumulation in plants. In tobacco, decreased pH by application of a chelating reagent showed increased accumulation of Cd. The application of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) boosted the phytoextraction and bioaccumulation of Cd, Zn, and Pb in various studies [77,78]. Some other chelating agents, diethylene triamine penta-acetic acid (DTPA) and ethylene glycol tetra-acetic acid (AGTA), also have been proved efficient chelators to enhance the phytoavailability and phytoextraction of heavy metals [79]. Organic acids such as malic acid, acetic acid, citric acid and oxalic acid have been proved effective chelating agents. The phytoremediation potential of plants may also be enhanced by strengthening plants to tolerate heavy-metal stress and toxicity. Application of salicylic acid (SA), has been found effective to alleviate metal stress in the plant, resulting in enhanced phytoremediation potential of plants [80,81].
Application of different chemicals also has some drawbacks. The applied chemical may cause the toxicity in plants, may leach to groundwater, and may disturb the translocation of heavy metals in plants. The applied chemicals often may form complexes with heavy metals, which have non-biodegrade abilities, leading to a source of secondary pollution [82]. The application of chelators may disturb the plant growth and development. It may result in decreased growth of roots, shoot, and biomass due to the toxic effects of chelators [83]. The negative impacts of chelators can be minimized by the application of a proper amount of the chelators, cautious application, and proper understanding of the water seepage mechanism [84]. The organic acids have advantages over synthetic chelators being economical and easily biodegradable and environment-friendly [85,86].

3.2.2. Microbial Assisted Phytoremediation

Plant-associated microorganisms have a key role in the remediation of heavy metals from soils [87]. These microorganisms influence the availability and accumulation of heavy metals in soil and plants. Recently, bio-augmentation of plants with particular and adapted microbes has been extensively studied in phytoremediation [38,53,88]. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) proved to increase biomass production, disease resistance, and reduce metal induced toxicity in bio-augmented plants [89]. Similarly, endophytic bacteria also play a very prominent part in phytoremediation [90,91]. The plant–endophyte interaction, fortify the plants to tolerate both biotic and abiotic stress [92]. Endophytes have developed several mechanisms to alleviate metal toxicity in plants. These methods include efflux of toxic metal ions from the cell, the transformation of metal ions into less-hazardous forms, sequestration, precipitation, adsorption, and biomethylation [93]. Application of rhizospheric and endophytic bacteria in soils/plants improves plant growth and boosts the phytoremediation potential of plants by enhancing metals availability, metals uptake, accumulation, reduced metal stress in plants. Furthermore, the rhizospheric and endophytic bacteria also enhance the phytoremediation potential of plants by enhancing soil fertility by the production of growth regulators and the provision of essential nutrients [94,95,96]. The mycorrhizal fungi in the root zone form an association with the roots of plants, and have a beneficial role in phytoremediation [97]. This plant-fungi association enhance the availability of essential plant nutrients through their hyphal network, modify the root exudates, alter soil pH and stimulate the bioavailability of various heavy metals to associated plants [98,99].

3.2.3. Transgenic Plants

The application of transgenic plants in phytoremediation is a novel approach to enhance the effectiveness of phytoremediation. Specific genes in transgenic plants increase the metabolism, accumulation and uptake of definite pollutants [94,100]. The ideal plant to engineer for phytoremediation should possess characteristics; high biomass yield adopted to local and target environment and well-established transformation protocol. Transgenic plants also enhance the detoxification process of organic pollutants and the addition of toxic compounds in the food chain [100,101]. Firstly, transgenic plants were introduced for the remediation of inorganic pollutants; now they are effectively used to remove organic pollutants from contaminated media [102]. Nicotiana tabaccum and Arabidopsis thaliana are an example of transgenic plants firstly practiced for effective removal of heavy metals, cadmium, and mercury, respectively [103,104]. Transgenic plants have been proved efficient for the treatment of phenolic, chlorinated, and explosives contaminants [105,106].
Plants can be engineered to degrade the organic pollutants in the rhizosphere. In this, transgenic plants do not uptake and accumulate the pollutants; rather, incorporated genes secrete enzymes which degrade organic pollutants in the rhizospheric zone [107]. This approach also solves the problem of plant harvesting and handling loaded with toxic metals, as all the metal detoxification and removal process occurs in the rhizosphere by roots [108]. The transgenic Arabidopsis plants enhanced the degradation of 2,3-dihydroxybiphenyl (2,3-DHB). Similarly, transgenic tobacco plants speed up the detoxification of 1-chlorobuatne in the rhizospheric zone [109]. This ability of transgenic plants is attributed to the increased diversity of the microbial community, increased metabolic activity, the release of root exudates and enzymes and increased contact between roots and contaminants [110,111].

3.2.4. Non-Living Plant Biomass

Non-living plant biomass can be profitably used for metal uptake and metal recovery. Successive use of dried and dead biomass of plants (as simple biosorbent substance) to remove the metals from water has gained popularity over the past few years because it is easy to handle and is a cost-effective natural approach [112,113]. Water hyacinth’s (Eichornia crassipes) dried roots showed the potential to remove cadmium and lead effectively from wastewater [114,115]. Biomass of different aquatic plant species such as Eichhornia crassipes, Potamogetonlucens, and Salvinia herzegoi was reported to be successfully used as an exceptional biosorbent material for the removal of Cr, Ni, Cd, Zn, Cu, and Pb effectively in various studies [116,117].

4. Aquatic Plants and Phytoremediation

The aquatic ecosystem is a cost-effective and resourceful clean up technique for phytoremediation of a large contaminated area. Aquatic plants act as a natural absorber for contaminants and heavy metals [118]. Removal of different heavy metals along with other contaminants through the application of aquatic plants is the most proficient and profitable method [52,119]. Constructed wetlands along with aquatic plants were extensively applied throughout the world for the treatment of wastewater [120,121]. The selection of aquatic plant species for the accumulation of heavy metal is a very important matter to enhance the phytoremediation [71,122].
Over the years, aquatic plants have gained an overwhelming reputation because of their capacity to clean up contaminated sites throughout the world [120,123]. Aquatic plants always develop an extensive system of roots which helps them and makes them the best option for the accumulation of contaminants in their roots and shoots [124,125]. The growth and cultivation of aquatic plants are time-consuming, which may restrict the growing demand of phytoremediation [126]. Nevertheless, this shortcoming is substituted by the number of advantages that this technology possesses for the treatment of wastewater [100,127].

4.1. Types of Aquatic Plants

4.1.1. Free-Floating Aquatic Plants

These are the plants with floating leaves and submerged roots. Some of the free-floating aquatic plants are well recognized for their capability to eliminate the metals from the contaminated environment: water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) [128], water ferns (Salvinia minima) [129], duckweeds (Lemna minor, Spirodelaintermedia), [130,131], water lettuce (Pistiastratoites), [132], water cress (Nasturtium officinale) [133]. The potential of these free floating aquatic plant for the elimination of heavy metals is comprehensively studied in different studies [99,134,135]. Active transport of heavy metals in free-floating aquatic plants occurs from the roots, from where metals are transferred to other parts of the plant body. Passive transport is associated with the direct contact of the plant body with the pollution medium. In passive transport, heavy metals mainly accumulate in upper parts of the plant body [136]. Water hyacinth, duckweed and water lettuce are the most frequently used free-floating plants for the remediation of heavy metals from wastewater [137,138,139,140]. The aptitude of different aquatic plants to mitigate different heavy metals is mentioned in Table 1.

4.1.2. Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia Crassipes)

Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) is a free-floating aquatic plant which belongs to the family of Pontedericeae that is closely correlated with the lily family. Water hyacinth is the most widespread invasive vascular plant of the world. It has an extensive dark blue root system along with curved, straight leaves. The roots contain a stolon from which new plants are produced [169]. Water hyacinth possesses the unique ability to grow in heavily polluted environments and successively extract pollutants [134]. It has the advanced tendency of remediating different pollutants like organic material, heavy metals, total suspended solids, total dissolved solids, and nutrients [170,171,172]. Removal of nutrients and heavy metals are vastly reliant on the optimal growth rate of water hyacinth [169,173].
Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) is recommended to treat industrial wastewater, domestic wastewater, sewage effluents, and sludge ponds because it has (1) high absorption rate of different organic and inorganic contaminants (2) can tolerate an extremely polluted environment and (3) has a gigantic production rate of biomass [174]. Eichhornia crassipes has greater ability to remediate contaminants like arsenic, zinc, mercury, nickel, copper and lead from industrial and domestic wastewater streams [175,176,177].
Water hyacinth’s derived ash and activated carbon showed good accumulation capacity of different HMs like cooper, nickel, zinc and chromium. It also holds the benefit of having the least biological sludge production and creation of bio-sorbent, which facilitate metal recovery [178]. Major industries like paper, food processing, textile, leather, cosmetics, and dyes manufacturing results in the release of dye contaminants into the environments. Dyes are most stable and stand firm against oxidizing agents, which in the end enhance water pollution. The widespread root system and tolerance against these dyes help water hyacinth to effectively accumulate the reactive dyes [114,179]. Water hyacinth shows significance removal efficiency for Cd, Pb, Cu, Zn, Fe, As, Mn, Cr, As, Al and Hg as reported in different recent studies [180,181,182,183]. Shoot powder of water hyacinth removed Cr and Cu by 99.98% and 99.96% when exposed to tannery effluents [184]. Recent research studies conducted to check the removal efficiency of water hyacinth for heavy metals are given in Table 2.

4.1.3. Water Lettuce

Water lettuce (Pistia stratiotes L.) fit in the aracae/arum family. Water cabbage, Nile cabbage, water lettuce, jalkhumbhi, and shellflower are some of the other common names of these plants. It is mostly found in lakes, stream, and ponds [190]. Pistia stratiotes have 20 cm-wide and 10–20 cm-long pale green leaves. Whitish hair covers the lower surface of the plant. It has underwater hanging structure underneath the floating leaves [191]. Water lettuce possesses extraordinary tolerance over an extensive range of pH and temperature [192]. Extension and proliferation of water lettuce occur with the production of daughter plants. P. Stratiotes also produces seeds which remain present in water; their germination occurs during the wet seasons [193].
Water lettuce (P. Stratiotes) is an excellent contender for the phytoremediation of contaminants as it is more prone than other aquatic vegetation [194,195]. The plant has the capacity of reducing/removing nutrients such as biological oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), ammonia (NH3), nitrite (NO2), nitrate (NO3−) and phosphate (PO43−), from drinking and surface water, storm water, sewage water and industrial wastewater [196,197,198]. The small size of P. Stratiotes by contrast with water hyacinth showed better removing capacity for the Zinc and mercury from industrial wastewater stream [199].
Uptake of Cu, Zn, Fe, Cr and Cd does not have any harmful effect on the plant which makes P. stratiotes eligible to be used as a hyperaccumulators plant for the mitigation of organic contaminants and heavy metals from wastewater on a broad scale [200,201]. The biomass of P. stratiotes reduces more than 70% of zinc and cadmium from the contaminated solution during the experiment [202]. Water lettuce is an excellent accumulator of Pb, Zn, Cu, Cd, Mg, Fe, and Mn as reported by different recent studies given in Table 3.

4.1.4. Duck Weed

Duckweed is a free-floating aquatic plant which floats on the surface of slow-moving and still water. This plant belongs to family Araceae but is frequently classified in subfamily Lemnoideae. This family of free-floating plant species consists of five genera such as (1) Wolffia, (2) Wolffiella, (3) Spirodela, (4) Lemna, and (5) Landoltia, having no less than 40 species recognized [205]. Duckweed is also known as a water lens. These are richly found in ditches, canals, and ponds; these are smaller and faster-growing plants on the earth. They can survive in high pH (3.5 to 10.5) and temperature 7 to 35 °C) [206].
The capability of duckweed plant to develop in polluted site with tremendous variation in pH, temperature, nutrient level makes them effective for use in phytoremediation [207]. Duckweed can eliminate a vast variety of different heavy metals, inorganic and organic contaminants, pesticides, nutrients arise from agricultural runoff, sewage, industrial and domestic wastewater [131,138,208]. Duckweed can easily inhibit the growth of algae and fungi in different ponds because it has the ability to cover the ponds due to its widespread high growth rate. They also diminish nitrogen from these ponds by taking up ammonia and denitrification [209]. Removal of the nutrient with the application of duckweed biomass will help to upgrade the quality of water and degradation of water ecology. Duckweed shows higher removal aptitude for chemical oxygen demand (COD), biological oxygen demand (BOD), total nitrogen (TN), total suspended solid (TSS) and NH3-N from wastewater under favorable environmental circumstances [131,207].
Much higher elimination of different HMs such as As, Cr, Cu, Zn, Ag, Hg, Pb and Cd has been done through different species of duck weed including L. minor, L. Trisulca and L. gibba from wastewater [4,210,211] S. polyrhiza, L. gibba and L. minor examined for their remediation efficiency of boron, arsenic, and uranium. Spirodelapolyrhiza was investigated and found to be a good phyto-remediator of arsenic [212], L. gibba was found to be appropriate for the remedy of boron with a lower concentration of 2 mgL−1 without any harmful effect on biomass [213]. It can also accumulate uranium (120%), boron (40%), and arsenic (133%) [214]. L. minor found to be an excellent contender for the remediation of arsenic [215]. In comparison with other macrophytes, duckweed is the most suitable plant for phytoremediation.
Use of duckweed for the remediation of nutrient pollutants and HMs from industrial and agricultural wastewater was reported in previous reports [216,217]. Several researchers have reported that duckweed (L. minor) could take up a huge concentration of heavy metals such as nickel, manganese, zinc, uranium, arsenic, and copper [218]. Lemna minor L shows an increase in chromium uptake percentage of 6.1%, 26.5%, 20.5%, 20.2% at a different exposure concentration of chromium stress [219]. Duckweed has the ability to conserve nature by acting as a hyperaccumulator plant in phytoremediation technology. Table 4 shows recent studies of heavy-metal uptake from wastewater by duckweed.

4.1.5. Salvinia (Water Fern)

Water Fern (Salvinia auriculatais), a small free-floating macrophyte, is extensively scattered in aquatic ecosystems. It has the ability to reproduce quickly and have the ability to settle widespread colonies in areas in no time. Salvinia can double its population within around 3 to 5 days under suitable conditions [228]. A substantial growth rate, ease to handle, wide distribution and sensitivity to various noxious entities support the application of Salvinia for used as a bio-indicator of pollution index and for phytoremediation as well [229].
Water Fern (Salvinia) species, especially S. natans, are potentially used in phytoremediation as it has an enormous capacity for removal of HMs due to the rapid growth rate and tolerance to toxic pollutants [230,231]. It can effectively be used for the treatment of different kinds of wastewater and waste produced in the constructed wetland [232]. Roots of Salvinia have a higher rate of metal accumulation. Accumulation of metal in S. natans and S. minima reduces As, with increasing concentration of phosphate while heavy-metal uptake increase with the addition of sulfur [233].
The presence of favorable environmental conditions along with the existence of certain nutrients and chelators will determine the fate of Salvinia in the hyperaccumulation of heavy metals [234]. Among different species of Salvinia, S. minima shows high bioaccumulation factor (BCF) for the accumulation of cadmium and lead [235]. S. minima has successfully been used for the remediation of high-strength synthetic organic wastewater [236]. Different species of the Salvinia (water fern) are an excellent accumulator of Fe, Cd, Ni, Mn, Zn and Pb as reported by several studies, and their details are given in Table 5.

4.2. Submerged Aquatic Plants

In submerged aquatic plants, leaves are the main part for metal uptake. Passive movement of the cuticle results in the absorption of heavy metals. Polyglalacturonic acid of the cell wall and negatively charged cutin and pectin polymers of cuticle results in the sucking inward of minerals. Movement of Positive metal ions takes place due to this inward enhanced charged density [59]. They have the ability to remove heavy metals from water and sediments [240,241,242]. Some of the famous submerged plants such as parrot feather (Myriophyllum spicatum), coontail or hornwort (Ceratophyllumdemersum), pondweed (Potamogeton Crispus), American pondweed (Potamogetonpectinatus), Mentha Aquatica, Vallisneria spiralis and water mint are well known for their ability to accumulate Zn, Cr, Fe, Cu, Cd, Ni, Hg and Pb [152,154,155,157,243].

4.3. Emergent Aquatic Plants

These plants are usually found on submerged soil where the water table is 0.5 m below the soil. Accumulation of HMs in emergent plants varies from plant to plant, they have the skill to bio-concentrate most of the metals in below ground-level roots from water and sediments, while some of the emergent plants, distribute the burden of metals in aerial parts as well. For example, smooth cordgrass (spartinaalterniflora) take up heavy metals in leaves [164], common reed (Phragmites australis) bears most of the heavy metal burden in the roots of the plant [166]. Sequestration and detoxification of heavy metals occur at the cellular level in these plants [244]. Cattail (Typha latifolia), bulrush (Scirpus spp.), common reed (Phragmites) and smartweed (Polygonumhydropiperoides) are the best emergent aquatic plant that can effectively be used for the phytoremediation of several HMs like Cd, Fe, Pb, Cr, Zn, Ni, Cu [160,167,168].

5. Significance of Aquatic Plants for Phytoremediation of Wastewater

Phytoremediation of heavy metals with aquatic plants has gained significant consideration due to its elegance and cost-effectiveness [39,227]. The earlier worker has demonstrated that aquatic plants have the capability to eliminate HMs from different kinds of wastewater [140,225,245,246]. Aquatic plants remove heavy metals via absorption or through surface adsorption and integrate them into their system, and then accumulation them in certain bounded forms [247,248]. Effluents from wastewater mitigated through the aquatic plants, thus causing less harm to the surrounding environment. A wide array of aquatic plants like water hyacinths, Salvinia sp., water lettuce, giant duckweed, and Azolla sp. have displayed tremendous ability for the phytoremediation of numerous kinds of wastewater [249,250]. This review briefly describes the effectiveness of these aquatic plants for the remediation of different types of wastewater.

5.1. Phytoremediation of Municipal Wastewater

Municipal wastewater possesses significant risk for the aquatic environment as it is a main cause of heavy metal pollution. Zn, Cu, Ni, Pb and Hg are potentially more noxious metals and they may cause chronic and acute health effects, bioaccumulation and phytotoxicity [251,252,253]. Application of aquatic plants for the removal of heavy metals from municipal wastewater, sewage water, spillage areas, and other polluted sites has become a common practice and experimental technique [254,255]. Aquatic plants can be used as bio-accumulators as they have the ability to accumulate high concentrations of HMs in their biomass [256,257]. Root and shoot tissues of Typha domingensis showed maximum accumulation of Zn, Cd, Ni, Fe and Mn during the first 48 h of study, planted in pots filled with municipal wastewater. [258]. L. gibba was studied for the accumulation of arsenic, boron, and uranium from the municipal wastewater as an alternative removal method. Results revealed that U, As and B were rapidly absorbed by the plant during the first 2 days of a 7-day experimental study [214]. Two rooted macrophytes Typha angustifolia and Phragmites australis removed 14–85% of heavy metals such as zinc, lead, arsenic, nickel, iron, copper, aluminum and magnesium from municipal wastewater in a hydroponic study [259]. Similarly, aquatic plants Typha latifolia and Phragmites australis showed excellent removal efficiency of heavy metals from the municipal wastewater. Both these aquatic plants showed higher removal rate for aluminum (96%), copper (91%), lead (88%) and zinc (85%) and slightly less removal rate for iron (44%), boron (40%) and cobalt (31%) [260].

5.2. Phytoremediation of Industrial Wastewater

Discharge of industrial waste into soil and water signifies a more critical threat to human health, living organisms, and other resources [261]. Phytoremediation, along with newly developed engineering and biological strategies, has facilitated the successful removal of HMs from industrial wastewater through both phytostabilization and phytoextraction [262]. Twelve aquatic plants were tested for their phytoremediation capability for different HMs originating from the industrial wastewater in Swabi district, Pakistan. Results demonstrated that these aquatic plants significantly removed heavy metals from industrial wastewater with excellent removal efficiencies: Cd (90%), Cr (89%), Fe (74.1%), Pb (50%), Cu (48.3%) and Ni (40.9%), respectively [263].
Southern cattail (Typha domingensi) showed maximum accumulation of zinc, aluminum, iron, and lead, especially in roots rather than leaves from the industrial wastewater pond. Rhizofiltration was found as dominant mechanisms, which explained the phytoremediation potential of Typha domingensis [264]. Promising aquatic plants showed better strength for the phytoremediation of the industrial effluents than other plants. Aquatic macrophytes Marsileaquadrifolia, Hydrillaverticillata and Ipomeaaquati cashowed much better accumulation potential and translocation factor (TF) value for HMs (Fe, Cr, Zn, Pb, As, Hg, Cd and Cu,) from the industrial effluents as compared to the terrestrial plants Sesbaniacannabina, Eclipta alba and algal species (Phormidiumpapyraceum, Spirulina platensis) [265]. A high diversity of aquatic plants has the following advantages for remediation: high removal efficiency, better habitat, and distribution resilience [47,58]. T. domingensis is such a dominant aquatic plant species having a high tolerance to a toxic environment and proficient in accumulation of HMs. Maine et al. [266] also reported that T. domingensis showed much better survival and removal efficiency for iron, zinc, nickel, and chromium released from industrial wastewater of metallurgy plant over other higher diversified aquatic plants. Such a type of aquatic plant can be used on a large scale to study the long-term removal performance.

5.3. Phytoremediation of Textile Wastewater

Wastewater from the textile industries is considered as most polluted wastewater among other industrial sectors [267]. Printing and dyeing process of textile industry effluents produce both organic and inorganic contaminants. Heavy metals in textile effluents are more toxic as they are more dangerous for public health [268]. Mahmood et al. [269] investigated the feasibility of E. crassipes for the eradication of copper, chromium, and zinc from five different textile industries from Lahore district, Pakistan. E. crassipes effectively removed 94.78% Cr, 96.88% Zn, and 94.44% Cu from the industrial wastewater sample during the investigation period of 96 h. In another study, E. crassipes removed 94.87% of cadmium from the textile wastewater [114]. It is well documented that amongst different aquatic plants, water hyacinth is the superlative contender for the phytoremediation of textile industry effluents [270]. Aquatic plants Pistia stratiotes, Azollapinnata, and Salvinia, molesta were found very competent for the elimination of Fe, Cu and Mn at 25% concentration of the textile effluents [271]. A hairy root system of aquatic plants plays a vital part in the remediation of pollutants from wastewater in phytoremediation [272].
Roy et al. [273] investigated the remediation capability of three free-floating (Eichhornia crassipes, Pistia stratiotes, Spirodelapolyrhiza) aquatic plants for Cu, Pb, As and Cr from textile wastewater effluents. These macrophytes expressed an extensive uptake tendency for heavy metals, and Eichhornia crassipes was detected as the most competent contender in the remediation of HMs due to its fibrous widespread root system. Similarly, Ajayi and Ogunbayo, [274] also reported the effectiveness of water hyacinth in remediation of Fe, Cu, and Cd from textile effluents. High removal percentage (70–90%) for various heavy metals such as copper, chromium, zinc, iron, and lead from textile wastewater was observed with the water hyacinth as reported by different researchers [269,275,276]. Duckweed (Lemna minor) also showed great potential for the removal of Cr, Zn, Pb, and Cd from the textile wastewater [185]. It has been reported previously that the application of an aquatic macrophytes treatment system (AMTS) is beneficial for the remediation of textile wastewater [277].

5.4. Phytoremediation of Mining Effluents

Mining activities harmfully affect the whole environment and put an incredible burden on local fauna and flora. The process of mining operations includes the discharge of an enormous amount of toxic effluents into the aquatic environment [278]. Effluents of mining activities hold a much higher concentration of different pollutants like calcium carbonate, TDS, TSS and heavy metals [279]. Heavy metals originating from the mining effluents are very persistent in nature and can easily accumulate in the soil, water, sediment and also have the ability to enter the food chain via bioaccumulation and assimilation thus affecting the health of human and animals [280]. Various methods have been developed around the world to remove the HMs. Phytoremediation is such a method that showed promising results in the successful remediation of heavy metals originated from the mining effluents by employing aquatic macrophytes [281].
As indicated by Sasmaz et al. [246], aquatic plants were very effective in the removal of remove HMs from mining effluents. Mishra et al. [282] explore the potential of three aquatic plants Spirodela Polyrhiza, Eichhornia crassipes and Lemna minor for the effective elimination of heavy metals. Eichhornia crassipes removed much a higher percentage of heavy metals than the other two macrophytes. Eichhornia crassipes eliminated Fe, Cr, Cu by 70.5%, 69.1%, 76.9% from the mining effluents. Similarly, Eichhornia crassipes effectively removed Cr (VI) by 99.5% from industrial mine effluents in 15 days of the experimental period [283]. Aquatic plant Limnocharis flava significantly remove the Hg from the mining effluents in a pilot scale experimental study of 30 days [284]. Most widely used aquatic plants used in the phytoremediation of mine effluents are floating, submerged and emergent. Emergent plants usually promote the elimination of HMs from the mine effluents via collective processes like retention and uptake of heavy metals over their respective tissues [285]. The emergent plant used in the remediation of heavy metals from mine effluents include Phragmites australis, P. australis, P. karka, P. australis and T. dominguensis [286,287]. Floating aquatic plants cannot improve adsorption via the substrate, however, they promote adsorption process to the plant biomass. Successfully used floating aquatic plants in the treatment of mine effluents include Salvinia natans, Pistia stratiotes, Eichornia crassipes [239,288]. Submerged aquatic macrophytes like Ceratophylum demersum, Cabomba piauhyensis, Egeria densa, Myriophylum spicatum and Hydrilla verticillata are recommended to be used for the phytoremediation of mine effluents as they have shown outstanding ability to accumulate HMs in their whole body biomass [289,290].

5.5. Phytoremediation of Landfill Leachate

Landfilling and open dumping are the most common way of treating municipal solid waste (MSW) worldwide [291]. Leachate forms as a result of interaction among waste in landfill, water from the soil, and different types of other liquid contaminants disposed of in the landfill. Intermittent and non-uniform percolation of moisture content occurrs via solid waste in landfill, which eventually leads towards the generation of landfill leachate [292]. Generated landfill leachate if not properly managed, can easily lead towards numerous adverse health and environmental impacts [293]. One of the major constraint in the management of landfill leachate is the lack of effective treatment methods for the huge amount of landfill leachate generated worldwide [294]. Different chemical and physicochemical approaches have been used to eradicate pollutants from the leachate. Unfortunately, these methods are generally expensive and complicated as well. Economically viable and environmentally friendly option is a priority in landfill leachate management. Jones et al. [295] reported that plant-based remediation technology i.e., phytoremediation is very successful in the treatment of landfill leachate. Aquatic plants such as Gynerium sagittatum (Gs), Colocasia esculenta (Ce), Heliconia psittacorum (He) have shown tremendous phytoremediation potential for the remediation of landfill leachate [296].
Aquatic plants have the ability to withstand the high pollution load of the landfill leachate without showing any sign of a significant cutback in biomass and growth rate [297]. Eichhornia crassipes in a floating system has shown the tremendous capacity of removing diverse HMs such as Cu, Ni, Pb, Cd and Cr from the landfill leachate, thus reducing the pollution density of the landfill leachate [298]. Many researchers have utilized Eichhornia crassipes for the successful eradication of contaminants from the landfill leachate [299,300]. Ugya and Priatamby [301] also reported high removal efficiencies for various heavy metals form the landfill leachate generated from the landfill site with the assistance of Pistia stratiotes. Application of Duckweed (Lemna minor) also showed a significant reduction in copper, zinc, lead, nickel, and iron from landfill leachate [131].
Extensive root systems of aquatic plants enhance the capacity of these aquatic macrophytes to extract large concentration of HMs via the root system and then transport them to aboveground parts of the plant body [302]. The depth of root zone in aquatic plants is a vital impediment in successful phytoremediation of landfill leachate. Extensive root systems of the aquatic plants serve as main entry route of heavy metals, and these plants mostly store these HMs in roots then leaves and stem as observed in earlier reports [282,303]. Grisey et al. [304] reported that P. australis accumulates large concentration of HMs from landfill leachate in its root zone more resourcefully than other part of the body. Similarly P. Cyperus Papyrus also showed maximum accumulation of lead in its root than shoots during the treatment of the Kiteezi landfill site, Uganda [305]. Parallel outcomes were also examined by [306]. Thus it is highly recommended that planting of aquatic plants should be promoted for the treatment of landfill leachate in order to avoid seepage of heavy metals and other contaminants from landfill leachate onto aquifer to contaminate the water bodies during ultimate discharge and runoff of leachate [301].

6. Role of Aquatic Plants in Constructed Wetlands

Remediation of wastewater through constructed wetland has been magnificently executed over the last few decades worldwide as an appropriate management choice for wastewater [307]. Constructed wetlands (CWs) are designed to treat distinct form of wastewater within the controlled environment. A broad range of wastewaters such as agricultural [308], municipal [309], landfill leachate [296], storm water [310] and industrial wastewater [311] can be remediated in constructed wetlands. The constructed wetland provides a comparatively simple and cheap solution for controlling water contamination without disturbing resources of natural wetlands [312]. Aquatic plants are an imperative constituent in CWs for the remediation of wastewater. Aquatic plants in CWs have two significant indirect functions: (1) leaves and stem of the aquatic macrophytes ehance the surface area for significant attachment of microbial communities, (2) aquatic plants have the aptitude to transport gases like oxygen down towards the root zone to allow their roots to subsist in the anaerobic environment [313]. Rhizosphere excessively support the microbial communities that handle the necessary alteration of metallic ions, different compounds, and nutrients [314]. Therefore, the application of aquatic macrophytes in CWs helps in the remediation of wastewater polluted with different contaminants and also acts as a sink for the contaminants [285].
Elimination of heavy metals in CWs depends on the kind of metallic elements, their ionic form, season, substrate condition, and kind of plant species [315]. Dense population of aquatic plants in CWs considerably increased the effectiveness of HM remediation from the wastewater [316,317]. Aquatic plants play a precise and vigorous part in maintaining the biochemistry of wetlands via their active and passive circulation of essential ingredients [318]. Heavy-metal concentration in wetland aquatic macrophytes generally decreased in the following order: root > leaves > stems [319,320]. However, the concentration of heavy metals does not deliver sufficient evidence regarding the uptake of heavy metals in aquatic plants in wetlands. In wetlands, uptake of heavy metals depends heavily upon the biomass of the particular aquatic plant [321]. E. crassipes is one such plant which has the capability to double its biomass within a few days under favorable conditions. Most recently, Rai [322] reported the water hyacinth (E. crassipes) as the most appropriate wetland plant for the phytoremediation of metals from wastewater. Use of E. crassipes in the constructed wetland to remove heavy metals has been recommended as the best choice in order to make use of E. crassipes (nuisance weed) effectively throughout the world. Sukumaran et al. [323] reported the utilization of E. crassipes for the phytoremediation of Cd, Pb, Cu, Ar from industrial discharge by applying constructed wetland technology. E. crassipes showed much higher remediation potential for Cu, Ni, Fe, Cd, Zn, Cr than the other two free-floating aquatic plants Pistia Stratiotes, Spirodela polyrhiza during a 15-day experiment.
Ladislas et al. [324] indicated the accumulation of Cd, Zn and Ni in aquatic floating macrophytes J. effusus and C. riparia growing in wetlands receiving storm water. The ratio of HMs concentration was significant in roots then shoots. Dan et al. [325] examined the accumulation of different HMs such as Fe, Cd, Zn, Ni, Pb and Cr by Juncus effuses and Phragmites australis from landfill leachate through a lab-scale constructed wetland. Both aquatic plants showed much higher removal efficacy for the targeted metals. Similarly, Leung et al. [285] also reported high removal percentages for heavy metals with three aquatic plants (Phragmites australis, Cyperus malaccensis and Typha latifolia,) in CWs receiving wastewater from the mining industries. The phytoremediation potential of three aquatic wetland plants i.e., Cyperus alternifolius, Cynodon dactylon and Typha latifolia, was examined for the transfer and translocation of HMs from the root zone to upper parts of the body in a constructed wetland receiving refinery wastewater. Results affirmed that the highest concentration of Cr, Zn, Cd, Pb and Fe were accumulated by roots of the plants followed by leaves and stem [326]. Similarly, Typha latifolia showed maximum removal efficiency of 96%, 95% and 80% for Cd, Cr and Pb correspondingly in a laboratory-scale constructed wetland unit. [327]. A CW with Phragmites australis was assessed for the phytoremediation of municipal wastewater. Most of the metals were significantly removed from the municipal wastewater with reasonable efficiencies. Results demonstrated that Phragmites australis accumulated most of the heavy metals in their belowground part, and only a minor fraction of metals translocated two aboveground biomass of the plant [328]. Vymazal et al. [329] observed a maximum amount of HMs usually found in belowground biomass, while the lowest concentration of HMs were detected in aboveground biomass of the wetland plants.
Hadad et al. [330] also stated a similar trend of much higher accumulation of HMs in the root zone than upper parts of the plant. Plants frequently tolerate the high concentration of metals because they restrict the accumulation and absorption to the leaves upholding a constant and comparatively low concentration of HMs in aboveground parts of the plant. Research over the past decade has shown aquatic plants contribute significantly in the elimination of heavy metals through constructed wetland technology [266,318,331,332]. Discrepancies with the remediation of HMs through aquatic wetland plants in CWs might be attributed to various aspects including the type of wetland, inflow load of heavy metals and type of wetland plants. Nevertheless, the type of aquatic plant employed in the CW system is one of the main prominent element in the remediation of metals from wastewater [333]. Further investigation is needed to increase the removal efficiency of these aquatic plants within constructed wetlands.

7. Other Advantages of Aquatic Plants

The study of phytoremediation reveals that the aquatic macrophytes have the advantage over other plants in the remediation of heavy metals [71,131,257]. The widespread availability, rapid growth rate, high biomass, cost-effectiveness and tolerance to toxic pollutants make them the best suited, available phytoremediation plants. Purifications system using these aquatic plants have gained more attention worldwide because of their capacity to accumulate and remove of a persistent organic pollutant from water bodies [48,131].
Involvement of appropriate phytoremediation technology needs intervallic harvesting of the plant biomass in order to assimilate and confiscate heavy metals and nutrients from water bodies. Conversion of biomass into exclusive material is the significant factor in promoting this technique for the treatment of contaminants. An aquatic plant’s biomass can latter on be used as animal feed, useful in the production of biogas and compost as reported in many studies [25]. Bio-sorption along with bioaccumulation of Lemna minor biomass was inspected which indicates its possible use as animal feed [131,334]. Aquatic plants possess sugar in the shape of starch, cellulose, and hemicelluloses. Carbohydrate hydrolysis of this fermentable sugar results in the production of lactic acid, ethanol, and other important products. Therefore, sugar present in aquatic plants is a new promising feature supporting their role in the eco-sustainable environment. Aquatic plants i.e., Pistia stratiotes and Eichhornia crassipes, have been reported to produce sugar during their enzymatic hydrolysis process [335]. Free-floating aquatic plants (Azolla spp., Wolffia spp., Spirodela sp. and Duckweeds) can be used as a food source for water bird. They also provide shelter for insect larvae and small mollusks. Fishes also use the mats of these plants as cover and use their shade for reproduction [336]. Aquatic plants can be efficiently used to improve the aquaculture for fishponds. Elimination of nitrogenous waste of aquatic plants is also an added benefit for their application in aquaculture, i.e., Canna generalis L., Typha angustifolia. Echinodoruscordifolius, and Cyperus involucratus removed ammonia, nitrate and nitrite efficiently [337].

8. Conclusions and Future Prospects

Heavy metals in our environment as a persistent pollutant needs absolute elimination for a completely remedial objective. Utilization of phytoremediation seems to be a less disruptive, economical and environmentally sound clean-up technology. Choice of appropriate plant is the most significant feature in phytoremediation. Aquatic plants perform very vibrant roles in the remediation of heavy metals from the polluted site with equal ease to other hyperaccumulator plants. Application of aquatic plants both in bioaccumulation (with living plant biomass) and bio-sorption (with dead plant biomass) can be done successfully for the eradication of heavy metals.
Comprehensive interaction, transport, and chelator activities regulate the storage and accumulation of heavy metals by the aquatic macrophytes. Genetic engineering enhances the accumulation and tolerance capacity of plants, which shows its exceptional application in improving the effectiveness of phytoremediation. In plants, at the molecular level, different extensive steps have been evaluated that favor the transgenic methods in order to plead with the changeover metal fraction of plants. Genetically engineered plants show high tolerance and metal uptake capacity and, as a result, gene manipulation has successfully been investigated in terrestrial plants, but, genetic engineering of aquatic plants to enhance their heavy-metal uptake capacity is in its preliminary phases.
Disposal of plant biomass later on, can be used for the production of biogas and also can be used as animal feed. The application of aquatic plants in phytoremediation like other conventional physical and chemical techniques does not require any post-filtration and can be effectively used to treat a large volume of polluted water and soil. Based on the present review, the benefits of using aquatic plants to treat contaminants are huge, because this technology does not only treat the contaminants but is cost-effective and visually pleasing as well as being advantageous for the sustainability of whole ecosystems.

Funding

The authors are thankful for the financial support from the Government College University, Faisalabad. This research work was funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research at Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University through the Fast-Track Research Funding Program.

Acknowledgments

The authors are thankful for the financial support from the Government College University, Faisalabad. This research work was funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research at Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University through the Fast Track Research Funding Program.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.

References

  1. Calzadilla, A.; Rehdanz, K.; Tol, R.S. Water scarcity and the impact of improved irrigation management: A computable general equilibrium analysis. Agric. Econ. 2011, 42, 305–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Connell, D.W. Pollution in Tropical Aquatic Systems; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  3. Aguliar, M.J. Olive oil mill wastewater for soil nitrogen and carbon conservation. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 2845–2848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Rahman, M.A.; Hasegawa, H. Aquatic arsenic: Phytoremediation using floating macrophytes. Chemosphere 2011, 83, 633–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Renuka, N.; Sood, A.; Ratha, S.S.K.; Prasanna, R.; Ahluwalia, A.S. Evaluation of microalgal consortia for treatment of primary treated sewage effluent and biomass production. J. Appl. Phycol. 2013, 25, 1529–1537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Goncalves, A.L.; Pires, J.C.; Simões, M. A review on the use of microalgal consortia for wastewater treatment. Algal Res. 2017, 24, 403–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ahmed, M.B.; Zhou, J.L.; Ngo, H.H.; Guo, W.; Thomaidis, N.S.; Xu, J. Progress in the biological and chemical treatment technologies for emerging contaminant removal from wastewater: A critical review. J. Hazard Mater. 2017, 323, 274–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Carstea, E.M.; Bridgeman, J.; Baker, A.; Reynolds, D.M. Fluorescence spectroscopy for wastewater monitoring: A review. Water Res. 2016, 95, 205–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Mendoza, R.E.; García, I.V.; de Cabo, L.; Weigandt, C.F.; de Iorio, A.F. The interaction of heavy metals and nutrients present in soil and native plants with arbuscular mycorrhizae on the riverside in the Matanza-Riachuelo River Basin (Argentina). Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 505, 555–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Tee, P.F.; Abdullah, M.O.; Tan, I.A.W.; Rashid, N.K.A.; Amin, M.A.M.; Nolasco-Hipolito, C.; Bujang, K. Review on hybrid energy systems for wastewater treatment and bio-energy production. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 54, 235–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Pakdel, P.M.; Peighambardoust, S.J. A review on acrylic based hydrogels and their applications in wastewater treatment. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 217, 123–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. An, B.; Lee, C.-G.; Song, M.-K.; Ryu, J.-C.; Lee, S.; Park, S.-J.; Lee, S.H. Applicability and toxicity evaluation of an adsorbent based on jujube for the removal of toxic heavy metals. React. Funct. Polym. 2015, 93, 138–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Peligro, F.R.; Pavlovic, I.; Rojas, R.; Barriga, C. Removal of heavy metals from simulated wastewater by in situ formation of layered double hydroxides. Chem. Eng. J. 2016, 306, 1035–1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Raval, N.P.; Shah, P.U.; Shah, N.K. Adsorptive removal of nickel (II) ions from aqueous environment: A review. J. Environ. Manag. 2016, 179, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Gall, J.E.; Boyd, R.S.; Rajakaruna, N. Transfer of heavy metals through terrestrial food webs: A review. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2015, 187, 201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Zhu, C.; Tian, H.; Cheng, K.; Liu, K.; Wang, K.; Hua, S.; Zhou, J. Potentials of whole process control of heavy metals emissions from coal-fired power plants in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 114, 343–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Al-Alawy, A.F.; Salih, M.H. Comparative Study between Nanofiltration and Reverse Osmosis Membranes for the Removal of Heavy Metals from Electroplating Wastewater. J. Eng. 2017, 23, 1–21. [Google Scholar]
  18. Levchuk, I.; Màrquez, J.J.R.; Sillanpää, M. Removal of natural organic matter (NOM) from water by ion exchange—A review. Chemosphere 2018, 192, 90–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Huang, H.; Liu, J.; Zhang, P.; Zhang, D.; Gao, F. Investigation on the simultaneous removal of fluoride, ammonia nitrogen and phosphate from semiconductor wastewater using chemical precipitation. Chem. Eng. J. 2017, 307, 696–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Burakov, A.E.; Galunin, E.V.; Burakova, I.V.; Kucherova, A.E.; Agarwal, S.; Tkachev, A.G.; Gupta, V.K. Adsorption of heavy metals on conventional and nanostructured materials for wastewater treatment purposes: A review. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2018, 148, 702–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kulkarni, P.; Olson, N.D.; Paulson, J.N.; Pop, M.; Maddox, C.; Claye, E.; Mongodin, E.F. Conventional wastewater treatment and reuse site practices modify bacterial community structure but do not eliminate some opportunistic pathogens in reclaimed water. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 639, 1126–1137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Olguín, E.J.; Sánchez-Galván, G. Heavy metal removal in phytofiltration and phycoremediation: The need to differentiate between bioadsorption and bioaccumulation. New Biotechnol. 2012, 30, 3–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Grandclément, C.; Seyssiecq, I.; Piram, A.; Wong-Wah-Chung, P.; Vanot, G.; Tiliacos, N.; Doumenq, P. From the conventional biological wastewater treatment to hybrid processes, the evaluation of organic micropollutant removal: A review. Water Res. 2017, 111, 297–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. González-González, A.; Cuadros, F.; Ruiz-Celma, A.; López-Rodríguez, F. Influence of heavy metals in the biomethanation of slaughterhouse waste. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 65, 473–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Shahid, M.J.; Arslan, M.; Ali, S.; Siddique, M.; Afzal, M. Floating Wetlands: A Sustainable Tool for Wastewater Treatment. Clean-Soil Air Water 2018, 46, 1800120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hargreaves, A.J.; Constantino, C.; Dotro, G.; Cartmell, E. Campo. Fate and removal of metals in municipal wastewater treatment: A review. Environ. Technol. Rev. 2018, 7, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Zhong, L.; Liu, L.; Yang, J. Assessment of heavy metals contamination of paddy soil in Xiangyin county, China. In Proceedings of the 19th World Congress of Soil Science: Soil Solutions for a Changing World, Brisbane, Australia, 1–6 August 2010. Symposium 4.1.2 Management and protection of receiving environments. [Google Scholar]
  28. El-Gammal, M.; Ali, R.; Samra, R.A. Assessing heavy metal pollution in soils of Damietta Governorate, Egypt. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Advances in Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Sciences, Dubai, UAE, 14–15 October 2014; Volume 1, pp. 116–124. [Google Scholar]
  29. Zarcinas, B.A.; Ishak, C.F.; McLaughlin, M.J.; Cozens, G. Heavy metals in soils and crops in Southeast Asia. Environ. Geochem. Health 2004, 26, 343–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Sahibin, A.; Zulfahmi, A.; Lai, K.; Errol, P.; Talib, M. Heavy metals content of soil under vegetables cultivation in Cameron Highland. In Proceedings of the Regional Symposium on Environment and Natural Resources, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 10–11 April 2002. [Google Scholar]
  31. Nagajyoti, P.C.; Lee, K.D.; Sreekanth, T. Heavy metals, occurrence and toxicity for plants: A review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2010, 8, 199–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Uddin, M.K. A review on the adsorption of heavy metals by clay minerals, with special focus on the past decade. Chem. Eng. J. 2017, 308, 438–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Czarnecki, S.; Düring, R.A. Influence of long-term mineral fertilization on metal contents and properties of soil samples taken from different locations in Hesse, Germany. Soil 2015, 1, 23–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Sardar, K.; Ali, S.; Hameed, S.; Afzal, S.; Fatima, S.; Shakoor, M.B.; Tauqeer, H.M. Heavy metals contamination and what are the impacts on living organisms. Greener J. Environ. Manag. Public Saf. 2013, 2, 172–179. [Google Scholar]
  35. Paul, D. Research on heavy metal pollution of river Ganga: A review. Ann. Agrar. Sci. 2017, 15, 278–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Islam, M.A.; Romić, D.; Akber, M.A.; Romić, M. Trace metals accumulation in soil irrigated with polluted water and assessment of human health risk from vegetable consumption in Bangladesh. Environ. Geochem. Health 2018, 40, 59–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Sanchez-Martin, M.; Sanchez-Camazano, M.; Lorenzo, L. Cadmium and lead contents in suburban and urban soils from two medium-sized cities of Spain: Influence of traffic intensity. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2000, 64, 250–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Ashraf, S.; Afzal, M.; Naveed, M.; Shahid, M.; Zahir, Z.A. Endophytic bacteria enhance remediation of tannery effluent in constructed wetlands vegetated with Leptochloa fusca. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2018, 20, 121–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Sharma, S.; Singh, B.; Manchanda, V. Phytoremediation: Role of terrestrial plants and aquatic macrophytes in the remediation of radionuclides and heavy metal contaminated soil and water. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2015, 22, 946–962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Blaylock, M. Phytoremediation of Contaminated Soil and Water: Field Demonstration of Phytoremediation of Lead Contaminated Soils; Lewis Publishers: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  41. Sarwar, N.; Imran, M.; Shaheen, M.R.; Ishaque, W.; Kamran, M.A.; Matloob, A.; Hussain, S. Phytoremediation strategies for soils contaminated with heavy metals: Modifications and future perspectives. Chemosphere 2017, 171, 710–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kushwaha, A.; Hans, N.; Kumar, S.; Rani, R. A critical review on speciation, mobilization and toxicity of lead in soil-microbe-plant system and bioremediation strategies. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2018, 147, 1035–1045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Helmisaari, H.-S.; Salemaa, M.; Derome, J.; Kiikkilä, O.; Uhlig, C.; Nieminen, T. Remediation of heavy metal–contaminated forest soil using recycled organic matter and native woody plants. J. Environ. Qual. 2007, 36, 1145–1153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Mahar, A.; Wang, P.; Ali, A.; Awasthi, M.K.; Lahori, A.H.; Wang, Q.; Zhang, Z. Challenges and opportunities in the phytoremediation of heavy metals contaminated soils: A review. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2016, 126, 111–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ensley, B.D. Phytoremediation of Toxic Metals: Using Plants to Clean up the Environment; John Wiley & s Sons, Incorporated: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  46. Sová, A.H.; Jakabová, S.; Simon, L.; Pernyeszi, T.; Majdik, C. Induced phytoextraction of lead from contaminated soil. Agric. Environ. 2009, 1, 116–122. [Google Scholar]
  47. Gerhardt, K.E.; Gerwing, P.D.; Greenberg, B.M. Opinion: Taking phytoremediation from proven technology to accepted practice. Plant Sci. 2017, 256, 170–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Leguizamo, M.A.O.; Gómez, W.D.F.; Sarmiento, M.C.G. Native herbaceous plant species with potential use in phytoremediation of heavy metals, spotlight on wetlands—A review. Chemosphere 2017, 168, 1230–1247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Hussain, F.; Hussain, I.; Khan, A.H.A.; Muhammad, Y.S.; Iqbal, M.; Soja, G.; Yousaf, S. Combined application of biochar, compost, and bacterial consortia with Italian ryegrass enhanced phytoremediation of petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated soil. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2018, 153, 80–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Bennett, L.E.; Burkhead, J.L.; Hale, K.L.; Terry, N.; Pilon, M.; Pilon-Smits, E.A. Analysis of transgenic Indian mustard plants for phytoremediation of metal-contaminated mine tailings. J. Environ. Qual. 2003, 32, 432–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Reeves, R.D.; Baker, A.J.; Jaffré, T.; Erskine, P.D.; Echevarria, G.; van der Ent, A. A global database for plants that hyperaccumulate metal and metalloid trace elements. New Phytol. 2018, 218, 407–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Ali, H.; Khan, E.; Sajad, M.A. Phytoremediation of heavy metals—Concepts and applications. Chemosphere 2013, 91, 869–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Arslan, M.; Imran, A.; Khan, Q.M.; Afzal, M. Plant–bacteria partnerships for the remediation of persistent organic pollutants. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 4322–4336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Burges, A.; Alkorta, I.; Epelde, L.; Garbisu, C. From phytoremediation of soil contaminants to phytomanagement of ecosystem services in metal contaminated sites. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2018, 20, 384–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Cunningham, S.D.; Ow, D.W. Promises and prospects of phytoremediation. Plant Physiol. 1996, 110, 715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Tewes, L.J.; Stolpe, C.; Kerim, A.; Krämer, U.; Müller, C. Metal hyperaccumulation in the Brassicaceae species Arabidopsis halleri reduces camalexin induction after fungal pathogen attack. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2018, 153, 120–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Erakhrumen, A.A. Phytoremediation: An environmentally sound technology for pollution prevention, control and remediation in developing countries. Educ. Res. Rev. 2017, 2, 151–156. [Google Scholar]
  58. Chandra, R.; Kumar, V.; Tripathi, S.; Sharma, P. Heavy metal phytoextraction potential of native weeds and grasses from endocrine-disrupting chemicals rich complex distillery sludge and their histological observations during in-situ phytoremediation. Ecol. Eng. 2018, 111, 143–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Prasad, M.; Greger, M.; Aravind, P. Biogeochemical cycling of trace elements by aquatic and wetland plants: Relevance to phytoremediation. Trace Elem. Environ. Biogeochem. Biotechnol Bioremediat. 2005, 1, 451–474. [Google Scholar]
  60. Kocoń, A.; Jurga, B. The evaluation of growth and phytoextraction potential of Miscanthus x giganteus and Sida hermaphrodita on soil contaminated simultaneously with Cd, Cu, Ni, Pb, and Zn. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 4990–5000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  61. Cundy, A.B.; Bardos, R.; Church, A.; Puschenreiter, M.; Friesl-Hanl, W.; Müller, I.; Vangronsveld, J. Developing principles of sustainability and stakeholder engagement for “gentle” remediation approaches: The European context. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 129, 283–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Najeeb, U.; Ahmad, W.; Zia, M.H.; Zaffar, M.; Zhou, W. Enhancing the lead phytostabilization in wetland plant Juncus effusus L. through somaclonal manipulation and EDTA enrichment. Arab. J. Chem. 2017, 10, 3310–3317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Jadia, C.D.; Fulekar, M. Phytoremediation of heavy metals: Recent techniques. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2009, 8, 921–928. [Google Scholar]
  64. Labidi, S.; Firmin, S.; Verdin, A.; Bidar, G.; Laruelle, F.; Douay, F.; Sahraoui, A.L.H. Nature of fly ash amendments differently influences oxidative stress alleviation in four forest tree species and metal trace element phytostabilization in aged contaminated soil: A long-term field experiment. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2017, 138, 190–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Mahdavian, K.; Ghaderian, S.M.; Torkzadeh-Mahani, M. Accumulation and phytoremediation of Pb, Zn, and Ag by plants growing on Koshk lead–zinc mining area, Iran. J. Soils Sediments 2017, 17, 1310–1320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Zeng, P.; Guo, Z.; Cao, X.; Xiao, X.; Liu, Y.; Shi, L. Phytostabilization potential of ornamental plants grown in soil contaminated with cadmium. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2018, 20, 311–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Abhilash, P.; Jamil, S.; Singh, N. Transgenic plants for enhanced biodegradation and phytoremediation of organic xenobiotics. Biotechnol. Adv. 2009, 27, 474–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Benavides, L.C.L.; Pinilla, L.A.C.; Serrezuela, R.R.; Serrezuela, W.F.R. Extraction in Laboratory of Heavy Metals Through Rhizofiltration using the Plant Zea Mays (maize). Int. J. Appl. Environ. Sci. 2018, 13, 9–26. [Google Scholar]
  69. Zhu, Y.; Zayed, A.; Qian, J.; De Souza, M.; Terry, N. Phytoaccumulation of trace elements by wetland plants: II. Water hyacinth. J. Environ. Qual. 1999, 28, 339–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Raskin, I.; Ensley, B.D. Phytoremediation of Toxic Metals; John Wiley and Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  71. Galal, T.M.; Eid, E.M.; Dakhil, M.A.; Hassan, L.M. Bioaccumulation and rhizofiltration potential of Pistia stratiotes L. for mitigating water pollution in the Egyptian wetlands. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2018, 20, 440–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Sreelal, G.; Jayanthi, R. Review on phytoremediation technology for removal of soil contaminant. Indian J. Sci. Res. 2017, 14, 127–130. [Google Scholar]
  73. Ghosh, M.; Singh, S. A review on phytoremediation of heavy metals and utilization of it’s by products. Asian J. Energy Environ. 2005, 6, 18. [Google Scholar]
  74. Karami, A.; Shamsuddin, Z.H. Phytoremediation of heavy metals with several efficiency enhancer methods. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2010, 9, 3689–3698. [Google Scholar]
  75. Cristaldi, A.; Conti, G.O.; Jho, E.H.; Zuccarello, P.; Grasso, A.; Copat, C.; Ferrante, M. Phytoremediation of contaminated soils by heavy metals and PAHs. A brief review. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2017, 8, 309–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Lombi, E.; Zhao, F.; Dunham, S.; McGrath, S. Phytoremediation of heavy metal—Contaminated soils. J. Environ. Qual. 2001, 30, 1919–1926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Farid, M.; Ali, S.; Shakoor, M.B.; Bharwana, S.A.; Rizvi, H.; Ehsan, S.; Tauqeer, H.M.; Iftikhar, U.; Hannan, F. EDTA assisted phytoremediation of cadmium, lead and zinc. Int. J. Agron. Plant Prod. 2013, 4, 2833–2846. [Google Scholar]
  78. Hadi., F.; Ali., N.; Ahmad, A. Enhanced phytoremediation of cadmium-contaminated soil by Parthenium hysterophorus plant: Effect of gibberellic acid (GA3) and synthetic chelator, alone and in combinations. Biorem. J. 2014, 18, 46–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Pereira, B.F.F.; Abreu, C.A.D.; Herpin, U.; Abreu, M.F.D.; Berton, R.S. Phytoremediation of lead by jack beans on a Rhodic Hapludox amended with EDTA. Sci. Agric. 2010, 67, 308–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Popova, L.P.; Maslenkova, L.T.; Ivanova, A.; Stoinova, Z. Role of Salicylic Acid in Alleviating Heavy Metal Stress Environmental Adaptations and Stress Tolerance of Plants in the Era of Climate Change; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; pp. 447–466. [Google Scholar]
  81. Shaheen, M.R.; Ayyub, C.M.; Amjad, M.; Waraich, E.A. Morpho-physiological evaluation of tomato genotypes under high temperature stress conditions. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2016, 96, 2698–2704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Nowack, B.; Schulin, R.; Robinson, B.H. Critical assessment of chelant-enhanced metal phytoextraction. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006, 40, 5225–5232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Nedelkoska, T.; Doran, P. Characteristics of heavy metal uptake by plant species with potential for phytoremediation and phytomining. Miner. Eng. 2000, 13, 549–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Navari-Izzo, F.; Quartacci, M.F. Phytoremediation of metals—Tolerance mechanisms against oxidative stress. Minerva Biotecnol. 2001, 13, 73–83. [Google Scholar]
  85. Doty, S.L.; Freeman, J.L.; Cohu, C.M.; Burken, J.G.; Firrincieli, A.; Simon, A.; Blaylock, M.J. Enhanced degradation of TCE on a superfund site using endophyte-assisted poplar tree phytoremediation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 10050–10058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Souza, L.A.; Piotto, F.A.; Nogueirol, R.C.; Azevedo, R.A. Use of non-hyperaccumulator plant species for the phytoextraction of heavy metals using chelating agents. Sci. Agric. 2013, 70, 290–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Ma, Y.; Oliveira, R.S.; Nai, F.; Rajkumar, M.; Luo, Y.; Rocha, I.; Freitas, H. The hyperaccumulator Sedum plumbizincicola harbors metal-resistant endophytic bacteria that improve its phytoextraction capacity in multi-metal contaminated soil. J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 156, 62–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Fang, T.; Bao, S.; Sima, X.; Jiang, H.; Zhu, W.; Tang, W. Study on the application of integrated eco-engineering in purifying eutrophic river waters. Ecol. Eng. 2016, 94, 320–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Afzal, M.; Khan, Q.M.; Sessitsch, A. Endophytic bacteria: Prospects and applications for the phytoremediation of organic pollutants. Chemosphere 2014, 117, 232–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Hussain, Z.; Arslan, M.; Malik, M.H.; Mohsin, M.; Iqbal, S.; Afzal, M. Integrated perspectives on the use of bacterial endophytes in horizontal flow constructed wetlands for the treatment of liquid textile effluent: Phytoremediation advances in the field. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 224, 387–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Khan, M.U.; Sessitsch, A.; Harris, M.; Fatima, K.; Imran, A.; Arslan, M.; Afzal, M. Cr-resistant rhizo-and endophytic bacteria associated with Prosopis juliflora and their potential as phytoremediation enhancing agents in metal-degraded soils. Front. Plant Sci. 2015, 5, 755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  92. Ashraf, S.; Afzal, M.; Rehman, K.; Naveed, M.; Zahir, Z.A. Plant-endophyte synergism in constructed wetlands enhances the remediation of tannery effluent. Water Sci. Technol. 2018, 77, 1262–1270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Ma, Y.; Rajkumar, M.; Zhang, C.; Freitas, H. Beneficial role of bacterial endophytes in heavy metal phytoremediation. J. Environ. Manag. 2016, 174, 14–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Doty, S.L. Enhancing phytoremediation through the use of transgenics and endophytes. New Phytol. 2008, 179, 318–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Phetcharat, P.; Duangpaeng, A. Screening of endophytic bacteria from organic rice tissue for indole acetic acid production. Procedia Eng. 2012, 32, 177–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  96. Zhang, X.; Wang, H.; He, L.; Lu, K.; Sarmah, A.; Li, J.; Huang, H. Using biochar for remediation of soils contaminated with heavy metals and organic pollutants. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2013, 20, 8472–8483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Coninx, L.; Martinova, V.; Rineau, F. Mycorrhiza-assisted phytoremediation. Adv. Bot. Res. 2017, 83, 127–188. [Google Scholar]
  98. Chen, B.; Li, X.; Tao, H.; Christie, P.; Wong, M. The role of arbuscular mycorrhiza in zinc uptake by red clover growing in a calcareous soil spiked with various quantities of zinc. Chemosphere 2003, 50, 839–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Muthusaravanan, S.; Sivarajasekar, N.; Vivek, J.; Paramasivan, T.; Naushad, M.; Prakashmaran, J.; Al-Duaij, O.K. Phytoremediation of heavy metals: Mechanisms, methods and enhancements. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2018, 16, 1339–1359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Koźmińska, A.; Wiszniewska, A.; Hanus-Fajerska, E.; Muszyńska, E. Recent strategies of increasing metal tolerance and phytoremediation potential using genetic transformation of plants. Plant Biotechnol. Rep. 2018, 12, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  101. Van Aken, B. Transgenic plants for phytoremediation: Helping nature to clean up environmental pollution. Trends Biotechnol. 2008, 26, 225–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Pilon-Smits, E. Phytoremediation. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2005, 56, 15–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Misra, S.; Gedamu, L. Heavy metal tolerant transgenic Brassica napus L. and Nicotiana tabacum L. plants. Theor. Appl. Genet. 1989, 78, 161–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Rugh, C.L.; Wilde, H.D.; Stack, N.M.; Thompson, D.M.; Summers, A.O.; Meagher, R.B. Mercuric ion reduction and resistance in transgenic Arabidopsis thaliana plants expressing a modified bacterial merA gene. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1996, 93, 3182–3187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  105. Eapen, S.; Singh, S.; D’souza, S. Advances in development of transgenic plants for remediation of xenobiotic pollutants. Biotechnol. Adv. 2007, 25, 442–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Macek, T.; Kotrba, P.; Svatos, A.; Novakova, M.; Demnerova, K.; Mackova, M. Novel roles for genetically modified plants in environmental protection. Trends Biotechnol. 2008, 26, 146–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Kawahigashi, H. Transgenic plants for phytoremediation of herbicides. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2009, 20, 225–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Darrah, P.; Jones, D.; Kirk, G.; Roose, T. Modelling the rhizosphere: A review of methods for ‘upscaling’to the whole-plant scale. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2006, 57, 13–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Uchida, E.; Ouchi, T.; Suzuki, Y.; Yoshida, T.; Habe, H.; Yamaguchi, I.; Nojiri, H. Secretion of bacterial xenobiotic-degrading enzymes from transgenic plants by an apoplastic expressional system: An applicability for phytoremediation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2005, 39, 7671–7677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Kidd, P.; Prieto-Fernández, A.; Monterroso, C.; Acea, M. Rhizosphere microbial community and hexachlorocyclohexane degradative potential in contrasting plant species. Plant Soil 2008, 302, 233–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Yadav, K.K.; Gupta, N.; Kumar, A.; Reece, L.M.; Singh, N.; Rezania, S.; Khan, S.A. Mechanistic understanding and holistic approach of phytoremediation: A review on application and future prospects. Ecol. Eng. 2018, 120, 274–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Han, Z.; Guo, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Xiao, X.; Xu, Z.; Sun, Y. Adsorption-pyrolysis technology for recovering heavy metals in solution using contaminated biomass phytoremediation. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 2018, 129, 20–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Kaewsarn, P. Biosorption of copper (II) from aqueous solutions by pre-treated biomass of marine algae Padina sp. Chemosphere 2002, 47, 1081–1085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Priya, E.S.; Selvan, P.S. Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes)–An efficient and economic adsorbent for textile effluent treatment—A review. Arab. J. Chem. 2017, 10, 3548–3558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  115. Wang, G.; Fuerstenau, M.; Smith, R. Sorption of heavy metals onto nonliving water hyacinth roots. Min. Proc. Ext. Met. Rev. 1998, 19, 309–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Wang, T.; Weissman, J.; Ramesh, G.; Varadarajan, R. Parameters for removal of toxic heavy metals by water milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum). Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 1996, 57, 779–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Wang, Y.; Meng, D.; Fei, L.; Dong, Q.; Wang, Z. A novel phytoextraction strategy based on harvesting the dead leaves: Cadmium distribution and chelator regulations among leaves of tall fescue. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 650, 3041–3047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Pratas, J.; Paulo, C.; Favas, P.J.; Venkatachalam, P. Potential of aquatic plants for phytofiltration of uranium-contaminated waters in laboratory conditions. Ecol. Eng. 2014, 69, 170–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Guittonny-Philippe, A.; Petit, M.-E.; Masotti, V.; Monnier, Y.; Malleret, L.; Coulomb, B.; Laffont-Schwob, I. Selection of wild macrophytes for use in constructed wetlands for phytoremediation of contaminant mixtures. J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 147, 108–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Gorito, A.M.; Ribeiro, A.R.; Almeida, C.M.R.; Silva, A.M. A review on the application of constructed wetlands for the removal of priority substances and contaminants of emerging concern listed in recently launched EU legislation. Environ. Pollut. 2017, 227, 428–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  121. Mesa, J.; Mateos-Naranjo, E.; Caviedes, M.; Redondo-Gómez, S.; Pajuelo, E.; Rodríguez-Llorente, I. Scouting contaminated estuaries: Heavy metal resistant and plant growth promoting rhizobacteria in the native metal rhizoaccumulator Spartina maritima. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2015, 90, 150–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Fritioff, Å.; Greger, M. Aquatic and terrestrial plant species with potential to remove heavy metals from stormwater. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2003, 5, 211–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Gopal, B. Perspectives on wetland science, application and policy. Hydrobiologia 2003, 490, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Mays, P.; Edwards, G. Comparison of heavy metal accumulation in a natural wetland and constructed wetlands receiving acid mine drainage. Ecol. Eng. 2001, 16, 487–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Stoltz, E.; Greger, M. Accumulation properties of As, Cd, Cu, Pb and Zn by four wetland plant species growing on submerged mine tailings. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2002, 47, 271–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Said, M.; Cassayre, L.; Dirion, J.-L.; Nzihou, A.; Joulia, X. Behavior of heavy metals during gasification of phytoextraction plants: Thermochemical modelling Computer aided. Chem. Eng. 2015, 37, 341–346. [Google Scholar]
  127. Syukor, A.A.; Zularisam, A.; Ideris, Z.; Ismid, M.M.; Nakmal, H.; Sulaiman, S.; Nasrullah, M. Performance of Phytogreen Zone for BOD5 and SS Removal for Refurbishment Conventional Oxidation Pond in an Integrated Phytogreen System. World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2014, 8, 159. [Google Scholar]
  128. Gunathilakae, N.; Yapa, N.; Hettiarachchi, R. Effect of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on the cadmium phytoremediation potential of Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) solms. Groundw. Sustain. Dev. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Iha, D.S.; Bianchini, I., Jr. Phytoremediation of Cd, Ni, Pb and Zn by Salvinia minima. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2015, 17, 929–935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. da-Silva, C.J.; Canatto, R.A.; Cardoso, A.A.; Ribeiro, C.; Oliveira, J.A. Arsenic-hyperaccumulation and antioxidant system in the aquatic macrophyte Spirodela intermedia W. Koch (Lemnaceae). Theor. Exp. Plant Physiol. 2017, 29, 203–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Daud, M.; Ali, S.; Abbas, Z.; Zaheer, I.E.; Riaz, M.A.; Malik, A.; Zhu, S.J. Potential of Duckweed (Lemna minor) for the Phytoremediation of Landfill Leachate. J. Chem. 2018, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  132. Abbas, Z.; Arooj, F.; Ali, S.; Zaheer, I.E.; Rizwan, M.; Riaz, M.A. Phytoremediation of landfill leachate waste contaminants through floating bed technique using water hyacinth and water lettuce. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2019, 21, 1356–1367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  133. Shi, J.; Xiang, Z.; Peng, T.; Li, H.; Huang, K.; Liu, D.; Huang, T. Effects of melatonin-treated Nasturtiumofficinale on the growth and cadmium accumulation of subsequently grown rice seedlings. Int. J. Environ. Anal. Chem. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Maine, M.A.; Duarte, M.V.; Suñé, N.L. Cadmium uptake by floating macrophytes. Water Res. 2001, 35, 2629–2634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Olguín, E.; Hernández, E.; Ramos, I. The effect of both different light conditions and the pH value on the capacity of Salvinia minima Baker for removing cadmium, lead and chromium. Acta Biotechnol. 2002, 22, 121–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Maine, M.A.; Suñé, N.L.; Lagger, S.C. Chromium bioaccumulation: Comparison of the capacity of two floating aquatic macrophytes. Water Res. 2004, 38, 1494–1501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Anaokar, G.; Sutar, T.; Mali, A.; Waghchoure, K.; Jadhav, R.; Walunj, S. Low Cost Municipal Wastewater Treatment Using Water Hyacinth. J. Water Resour. Pollut. Stud. 2018, 3, 2. [Google Scholar]
  138. Chen, G.; Huang, J.; Fang, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Tian, X.; Jin, Y.; Zhao, H. Microbial community succession and pollutants removal of a novel carriers enhanced duckweed treatment system for rural wastewater in Dianchi lake basin. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 276, 8–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Hua, J.; Zhang, C.; Yin, Y.; Chen, R.; Wang, X. Phytoremediation potential of three aquatic macrophytes in manganese-contaminated water. Water Environ. J. 2012, 26, 335–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Singh, D.; Gupta, R.; Tiwari, A. Potential of duckweed (Lemna minor) for removal of lead from wastewater by phytoremediation. J. Pharm. Res. 2012, 5, 1578–1582. [Google Scholar]
  141. Molisani, M.M.; Rocha, R.; Machado, W.; Barreto, R.C.; Lacerda, L.D. Mercury contents in aquatic macrophytes from two reservoirs in the Paraiba do Sul: Guandu river system, SE Brazil. Braz. J. Biol. 2006, 66, 101–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Hu, C.; Zhang, L.; Hamilton, D.; Zhou, W.; Yang, T.; Zhu, D. Physiological responses induced by copper bioaccumulation in Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.). Hydrobiologia 2007, 579, 211–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Miretzky, P.; Saralegui, A.; Cirelli, A.F. Aquatic macrophytes potential for the simultaneous removal of heavy metals (Buenos Aires, Argentina). Chemosphere 2004, 57, 997–1005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  144. Sooknah, H. A review of the mechanisms of pollutant removal in water hyacinth systems. Sci. Technol. Res. J. 2000, 6, 49–57. [Google Scholar]
  145. Suñé, N.; Sánchez, G.; Caffaratti, S.; Maine, M.A. Cadmium and chromium removal kinetics from solution by two aquatic macrophytes. Environ. Pollut. 2007, 145, 467–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Kara, Y. Bioaccumulation of copper from contaminated wastewater by using Lemna minor (Aquatic green plant). Bullet. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2004, 72, 467–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Ater, M.; Ali, A.N.; Kasmi, H. Tolerance and accumulation of copper and chromium in two duckweed species: Lemna minor L. and Lemna gibba L. Rev. Sci. 2006, 19, 57–67. [Google Scholar]
  148. Basile, A.; Sorbo, S.; Conte, B.; Cobianchi, R.C.; Trinchella, F.; Capasso, C.; Carginale, V. Toxicity, accumulation, and removal of heavy metals by three aquatic macrophytes. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2012, 14, 374–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Cardwell, A.; Hawker, D.; Greenway, M. Metal accumulation in aquatic macrophytes from southeast Queensland, Australia. Chemosphere 2002, 48, 653–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Zurayk, R.; Sukkariyah, B.; Baalbaki, R.; Ghanem, D.A. Chromium phytoaccumulation from solution by selected hydrophytes. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2001, 3, 335–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Sivaci, E.R.; Sivaci, A.; Sökmen, M. Biosorption of cadmium by Myriophyllum spicatum L. and Myriophyllum triphyllum orchard. Chemosphere 2004, 56, 1043–1048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  152. Branković, S.; Pavlović-Muratspahić, D.; Topuzović, M.; Glišić, R.; Milivojević, J.; Đekić, V. Metals concentration and accumulation in several aquatic macrophytes. Biotechnol. Biotechnol. Equip. 2012, 26, 2731–2736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  153. Bunluesin, S.; Kruatrachue, M.; Pokethitiyook, P.; Lanza, G.; Upatham, E.; Soonthornsarathool, V. Plant screening and comparison of Ceratophyllum demersum and Hydrilla verticillata for cadmium accumulation. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2004, 73, 591–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  154. El-Khatib, A.; Hegazy, A.; Abo-El-Kassem, A.M. Bioaccumulation potential and physiological responses of aquatic macrophytes to Pb pollution. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2014, 16, 29–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  155. Borisova, G.; Chukina, N.; Maleva, M.; Prasad, M. Ceratophyllum demersum L. and Potamogeton alpinus Balb. From Iset’river, Ural region, Russia differ in adaptive strategies to heavy metals exposure–a comparative study. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2014, 16, 621–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Singh, N.; Pandey, G.; Rai, U.; Tripathi, R.; Singh, H.; Gupta, D. Metal accumulation and ecophysiological effects of distillery effluent on Potamogeton pectinatus L. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2005, 74, 857–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Peng, K.; Luo, C.; Lou, L.; Li, X.; Shen, Z. Bioaccumulation of heavy metals by the aquatic plants Potamogeton pectinatus L. and Potamogeton malaianus Miq and their potential use for contamination indicators and in wastewater treatment. Sci. Total Environ. 2008, 392, 22–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Hejna, M.; Moscatelli, A.; Stroppa, N.; Onelli, E.; Pilu, S.; Baldi, A.; Rossi, L. Bioaccumulation of heavy metals from wastewater through a Typha latifolia and Thelypteris palustris phytoremediation system. Chemosphere 2020, 241, 125018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Qian, J.-H.; Zayed, A.; Zhu, Y.-L.; Yu, M.; Terry, N. Phytoaccumulation of trace elements by wetland plants: III. Uptake and accumulation of ten trace elements by twelve plant species. J. Environ. Qual. 1999, 28, 1448–1455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Sasmaz, A.; Obek, E.; Hasar, H. The accumulation of heavy metals in Typha latifolia L. grown in a stream carrying secondary effluent. Ecol. Eng. 2008, 33, 278–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Kamal, M.; Ghaly, A.; Mahmoud, N.; Cote, R. Phytoaccumulation of heavy metals by aquatic plants. Environ. Int. 2004, 29, 1029–1039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Giri, A.K. Bioaccumulation Potential and Toxicity of Arsenite Using Rooted-Submerged Vallisneria Spiralis in a Hydroponic Culture and its Characterization Studies. J. Adv. Sci. Res. 2019, 10, 17–22. [Google Scholar]
  163. Aksorn, E.; Visoottiviseth, P. Selection of Suitable Emergent Plants for Removal of Arsenic from Arsenic Contaminated Water. Sci. Asia 2004, 30, 105–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Hempel, M.; Botté, S.E.; Negrin, V.L.; Chiarello, M.N.; Marcovecchio, J.E. The role of the smooth cordgrass Spartina alterniflora and associated sediments in the heavy metal biogeochemical cycle within Bahía Blanca estuary salt marshes. J. Soils Sediments 2008, 8, 289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Ganjali, S.; Tayebi, L.; Atabati, H.; Mortazavi, S. Phragmites australis as a heavy metal bioindicator in the Anzali wetland of Iran. Toxicol. Environ. Chem. 2014, 96, 1428–1434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Ha, N.T.H.; Anh, B.T.K. The removal of heavy metals by iron mine drainage sludge and Phragmites australis. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, Bandung, Indonesia, 20–22 September 2016; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2017; Volume 71, p. 012022. [Google Scholar]
  167. Kutty, A.A.; Al-Mahaqeri, S.A. An Investigation of the Levels and Distribution of Selected Heavy Metals in Sediments and Plant Species within the Vicinity of Ex-Iron Mine in Bukit Besi. J. Chem. 2016, 2016, 2096147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  168. Rudin, S.M.; Murray, D.W.; Whitfeld, T.J. Retrospective analysis of heavy metal contamination in Rhode Island based on old and new herbarium specimens. Appl. Plant Sci. 2017, 5, 1600108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Rezania, S.; Ponraj, M.; Din, M.F.M.; Songip, A.R.; Sairan, F.M.; Chelliapan, S. The diverse applications of water hyacinth with main focus on sustainable energy and production for new era: An overview. Renew Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 41, 943–954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Kumar, H.S.; Bose, A.; Raut, A.; Sahu, S.K.; Raju, M. Evaluation of Anthelmintic Activity of Pistia stratiotes Linn. J. Basic Clin. Pharm. 2010, 1, 103. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  171. Muthunarayanan, V.; Santhiya, M.; Swabna, V.; Geetha, A. Phytodegradation of textile dyes by water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) from aqueous dye solutions. Int. J. Environ. Sci. 2011, 1, 1702. [Google Scholar]
  172. Yadav, S.; Jadhav, A.; Chonde, S.; Raut, P. Performance Evaluation of Surface Flow Constructed Wetland System by Using Eichhornia crassipes for Wastewater Treatment in an Institutional Complex. Univers. J. Environ. Res. Technol. 2011, 1, 435–441. [Google Scholar]
  173. Rezania, S.; Din, M.F.M.; Taib, S.M.; Dahalan, F.A.; Songip, A.R.; Singh, L.; Kamyab, H. The efficient role of aquatic plant (water hyacinth) in treating domestic wastewater in continuous system. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2016, 18, 679–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  174. Jafari, N. Ecological and socio-economic utilization of water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes Mart Solms). J. Appl. Sci. Environ. Manag. 2010, 14, 43–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  175. Dixit, S.; Tiwari, S. Effective utilization of an aquatic weed in an eco-friendly treatment of polluted water bodies. J. Appl. Sci. Environ. Manag. 2007, 11, 41–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  176. Hussain, S.T.; Mahmood, T.; Malik, S.A. Phytoremediation technologies for Ni++ by water hyacinth. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2010, 9, 8648–8660. [Google Scholar]
  177. Mahamadi, C. Water hyacinth as a biosorbent: A review. Afr. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 5, 1137–1145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  178. Mahmood, T.; Malik, S.A.; Hussain, S.T. Biosorption and recovery of heavy metals from aqueous solutions by Eichhornia crassipes (water hyacinth) ash. Biol. Resour. 2010, 5, 1244–1256. [Google Scholar]
  179. Shah, R.A.; Kumawat, D.; Singh, N.; Wani, K.A. Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) as a remediation tool for dye effluent pollution. Int. J. Sci. Nat. 2010, 1, 172–178. [Google Scholar]
  180. Shuvaeva, O.V.; Belchenko, L.A.; Romanova, T.E. Studies on cadmium accumulation by some selected floating macrophytes. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2013, 15, 979–990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  181. Aurangzeb, N.; Nisa, S.; Bibi, Y.; Javed, F.; Hussain, F. Phytoremediation potential of aquatic herbs from steel foundry effluent. Braz. J. Chem. Eng. 2014, 31, 881–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  182. Fazal, S.; Zhang, B.; Mehmood, Q. Biological treatment of combined industrial wastewater. Ecol. Eng. 2015, 84, 551–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Mahalakshmi, R.; Sivapragasam, C.; Vanitha, S. Comparison of BOD 5 Removal in Water Hyacinth and Duckweed by Genetic Programming Information and Communication Technology for Intelligent Systems; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 401–408. [Google Scholar]
  184. Sarkar, M.; Rahman, A.; Bhoumik, N. Remediation of chromium and copper on water hyacinth (E. crassipes) shoot powder. Water Resour. Indust. 2017, 17, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Sekomo, C.B.; Kagisha, V.; Rousseau, D.; Lens, P. Heavy metal removal by combining anaerobic upflow packed bed reactors with water hyacinth ponds. Environ. Technol. 2012, 33, 1455–1464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Swarnalatha, K.; Radhakrishnan, B. Studies on removal of Zinc and Chromium from aqueous solutions using water Hyacinth. Pollut 2015, 1, 193–202. [Google Scholar]
  187. Prasad, B.; Maiti, D. Comparative study of metal uptake by Eichhornia crassipes growing in ponds from mining and nonmining areas—A field study. Bioremediat. J. 2016, 20, 144–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Romanova, T.E.; Shuvaeva, O.V.; Belchenko, L.A. Phytoextraction of trace elements by water hyacinth in contaminated area of gold mine tailing. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2016, 18, 190–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Li, Q.; Chen, B.; Lin, P.; Zhou, J.; Zhan, J.; Shen, Q.; Pan, X. Adsorption of heavy metal from aqueous solution by dehydrated root powder of long-root Eichhornia crassipes. Int. J Phytoremediat. 2016, 18, 103–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Quattrocchi, U. CRC World Dictionary of Plant Names: Common Names, Scientific Names, Eponyms, Synonyms, and Etymology; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2017; p. 728. [Google Scholar]
  191. Dipu, S.; Kumar, A.A.; Thanga, V.S.G. Phytoremediation of dairy effluent by constructed wetland technology. Environment 2011, 31, 263–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Lima, L.; Pelosi, B.; Silva, M.; Vieira, M. Lead and chromium biosorption by Pistia stratiotes biomass. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2013, 32, 1045–1050. [Google Scholar]
  193. Acevedo, R.; Nicolson, D. Araceae. Contrib. US Natl. Herb. 2005, 52, 44. [Google Scholar]
  194. Forni, C.; Patrizi, C.; Migliore, L. Floating aquatic macrophytes as a decontamination tool for antimicrobial drugs. In Soil and Water Pollution Monitoring, Protection and Remediation; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2006; pp. 3–23. [Google Scholar]
  195. Yasar, A.; Zaheer, A.; Tabinda, A.B.; Khan, M.; Mahfooz, Y.; Rani, S.; Siddiqua, A. Comparison of Reed and Water Lettuce in Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment. Water Environ. Res. 2018, 90, 129–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Akinbile, C.; Yusoff, M.S. Assessing water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassopes) and lettuce (Pistia stratiotes) effectiveness in aquaculture wastewater treatment. Int. J. Phytoremed. 2012, 14, 201–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Sarwar, T.; Shahid, M.; Khalid, S.; Shah, A.H.; Ahmad, N.; Naeem, M.A.; Bakhat, H.F. Quantification and risk assessment of heavy metal build-up in soil–plant system after irrigation with untreated city wastewater in Vehari, Pakistan. Environ. Geochem. Health 2019, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. Polomski, R.F.; Taylor, M.D.; Bielenberg, D.G.; Bridges, W.C.; Klaine, S.J.; Whitwell, T. Nitrogen and phosphorus remediation by three floating aquatic macrophytes in greenhouse-based laboratory-scale subsurface constructed wetlands. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2009, 197, 223–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  199. Skinner, K.; Wright, N.; Porter-Goff, E. Mercury uptake and accumulation by four species of aquatic plants. Environ. Pollut. 2007, 145, 234–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Eloy, G.-G.; Marta, R.; Gertjan, M.; Miquel, C.; Rosina, G. Quantitative risk assessment of norovirus and adenovirus for the use of reclaimed water to irrigate lettuce in Catalonia. Water Res. 2019, 153, 91–99. [Google Scholar]
  201. Mishra, V.K.; Tripathi, B. Concurrent removal and accumulation of heavy metals by the three aquatic macrophytes. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 7091–7097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  202. Rodrigues, A.C.D.; do Amaral Sobrinho, N.M.B.; dos Santos, F.S.; dos Santos, A.M.; Pereira, A.C.C.; Lima, E.S.A. Biosorption of toxic metals by water lettuce (Pistia stratiotes) biomass. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2017, 228, 156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  203. Farnese, F.; Oliveira, J.; Lima, F.; Leão, G.; Gusman, G.; Silva, L. Evaluation of the potential of Pistia stratiotes L. (water lettuce) for bioindication and phytoremediation of aquatic environments contaminated with arsenic. Braz. J. Biol. 2014, 74, 108–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  204. Volf, I.; Rakoto, N.G.; Bulgariu, L. Valorization of Pistia stratiotes biomass as biosorbent for Lead (II) ions removal from aqueous media. Sep. Sci. Technol. 2015, 50, 1577–1586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  205. Les, D.H.; Crawford, D.J.; Landolt, E.; Gabel, J.D.; Kimball, R.T. Phylogeny and systematics of Lemnaceae, the duckweed family. Syst. Bot. 2002, 27, 221–240. [Google Scholar]
  206. Radić, S.; Stipaničev, D.; Cvjetko, P.; Mikelić, I.L.; Rajčić, M.M.; Širac, S.; Pavlica, M. Ecotoxicological assessment of industrial effluent using duckweed (Lemna minor L.) as a test organism. Ecotoxicology 2010, 19, 216. [Google Scholar]
  207. Krishna, K.B.; Polprasert, C. An integrated kinetic model for organic and nutrient removal by duckweed-based wastewater treatment (DUBWAT) system. Ecol. Eng. 2008, 34, 243–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  208. Mkandawire, M.; Dudel, E.G. Are Lemna spp. effective phytoremediation agents. Bioremediat. Biodivers. Bioavailab. 2007, 1, 56–71. [Google Scholar]
  209. Alaerts, G.; Mahbubar, R.; Kelderman, P. Performance analysis of a full-scale duckweed-covered sewage lagoon. Water Res. 1996, 30, 843–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  210. Obek, E.; Sasmaz, A. Bioaccumulation of aluminum by Lemna gibba L. from secondary treated municipal wastewater effluents. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2011, 86, 217–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. Singh, D.; Tiwari, A.; Gupta, R. Phytoremediation of lead from wastewater using aquatic plants. J. Agric. Technol. 2012, 8, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  212. Rahman, M.A.; Hasegawa, H.; Ueda, K.; Maki, T.; Okumura, C.; Rahman, M.M. Arsenic accumulation in duckweed (Spirodela polyrhiza L.): A good option for phytoremediation. Chemosphere 2007, 69, 493–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  213. Marín, C.M.D.C.; Oron, G. Boron removal by the duckweed Lemna gibba: A potential method for the remediation of boron-polluted waters. Water Res. 2007, 41, 4579–4584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  214. Sasmaz, A.; Obek, E. The accumulation of arsenic, uranium, and boron in Lemna gibba L. exposed to secondary effluents. Ecol. Eng. 2009, 35, 1564–1567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  215. Alvarado, S.; Guédez, M.; Lué-Merú, M.P.; Nelson, G.; Alvaro, A.; Jesús, A.C.; Gyula, Z. Arsenic removal from waters by bioremediation with the aquatic plants Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) and Lesser Duckweed (Lemna minor). Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 8436–8440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  216. Mohedano, R.A.; Costa, R.H.; Tavares, F.A.; Belli Filho, P. High nutrient removal rate from swine wastes and protein biomass production by full-scale duckweed ponds. Bioresour. Technol. 2012, 112, 98–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  217. Zhang, K.; Chen, Y.P.; Zhang, T.T.; Zhao, Y.; Shen, Y.; Huang, L.; Guo, J.S. The logistic growth of duckweed (Lemna minor) and kinetics of ammonium uptake. Environ. Technol. 2014, 35, 562–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  218. Böcük, H.; Yakar, A.; Türker, O.C. Assessment of Lemna gibba L. (duckweed) as a potential ecological indicator for contaminated aquatic ecosystem by boron mine effluent. Ecol. Indic. 2013, 29, 538–548. [Google Scholar]
  219. Sallah-Ud-Din, R.; Farid, M.; Saeed, R.; Ali, S.; Rizwan, M.; Tauqeer, H.M.; Bukhari, S.A.H. Citric acid enhanced the antioxidant defense system and chromium uptake by Lemna minor L. grown in hydroponics under Cr stress. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 17669–17678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  220. Abdallah, M.A.M. Phytoremediation of heavy metals from aqueous solutions by two aquatic macrophytes, Ceratophyllum demersum and Lemna gibba L. Environ. Technol. 2012, 33, 1609–1614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  221. Chaudhuri, D.; Majumder, A.; Misra, A.K.; Bandyopadhyay, K. Cadmium removal by Lemna minor and Spirodela polyrhiza. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2014, 16, 1119–1132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  222. Goswami, C.; Majumder, A.; Misra, A.K.; Bandyopadhyay, K. Arsenic uptake by Lemna minor in hydroponic system. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2014, 16, 1221–1227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  223. Teixeira, S.; Vieira, M.; Marques, J.E.; Pereira, R. Bioremediation of an iron-rich mine effluent by Lemna minor. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2014, 16, 1228–1240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  224. Del Carmen Flores-Miranda, M.; Luna-Gonz alez, A.; Cort es-Espinosa, D.V.; onica Escamilla-Montes, R. Bacterial fermentation of Lemna sp. as a potential substitute of fish meal in shrimp diets. Afr. J. Microbiol. Res. 2014, 8, 1516–1526. [Google Scholar]
  225. Verma, R.; Suthar, S. Lead and cadmium removal from water using duckweed–Lemna gibba L.: Impact of pH and initial metal load. Alexander Eng. J. 2015, 54, 1297–1304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  226. Török, A.; Gulyás, Z.; Szalai, G.; Kocsy, G.; Majdik, C. Phytoremediation capacity of aquatic plants is associated with the degree of phytochelatin polymerization. J. Hazard. Mater. 2015, 299, 371–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  227. Bokhari, S.H.; Ahmad, I.; Mahmood-Ul-Hassan, M.; Mohammad, A. Phytoremediation potential of Lemna minor L. for heavy metals. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2016, 18, 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  228. Henry-Silva, G.G.; Camargo, A.F.M. Efficiency of aquatic macrophytes to treat Nile tilapia pond effluents. Sci. Agric. 2006, 63, 433–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  229. Gardner, J.L.; Al-Hamdani, S.H. Interactive effects of aluminum and humic substances on Salvinia. J. Aquat. Plant Manag. 1997, 35, 30–34. [Google Scholar]
  230. Dhir, B. Salvinia: An aquatic fern with potential use in phytoremediation. Environ. Int. J. Sci. Technol. 2009, 4, 23–27. [Google Scholar]
  231. Dhir, B.; Sharmila, P.; Saradhi, P.P.; Sharma, S.; Kumar, R.; Mehta, D. Heavy metal induced physiological alterations in Salvinia natans. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2011, 74, 1678–1684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  232. Abd-Elnaby, A.; Egorov, M. Efficiency of different particle sizes of dried Salvinia natans in the removing of Cu (II) and oil pollutions from water. J. Water Chem. Technol. 2012, 34, 143–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  233. Hoffmann, T.; Kutter, C.; Santamaria, J. Capacity of Salvinia minima Baker to tolerate and accumulate as and Pb. Eng. Life Sci. 2004, 4, 61–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  234. Olguin, E.; Rodriguez, D.; Sanchez, G.; Hernandez, E.; Ramirez, M. Productivity, protein content and nutrient removal from anaerobic effluents of coffee wastewater in Salvinia minima ponds, under subtropical conditions. Acta Biotechnol. 2003, 23, 259–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  235. Olguín, E.J.; Sánchez-Galván, G.; Pérez-Pérez, T.; Pérez-Orozco, A. Surface adsorption, intracellular accumulation and compartmentalization of Pb (II) in batch-operated lagoons with Salvinia minima as affected by environmental conditions, EDTA and nutrients. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2005, 32, 577–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  236. Olguín, E.J.; Sánchez-Galván, G.; Pérez-Pérez, T. Assessment of the phytoremediation potential of Salvinia minima Baker compared to Spirodela polyrrhiza in high-strength organic wastewater. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2007, 181, 135–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  237. Fuentes, I.I.; Espadas-Gil, F.; Talavera-May, C.; Fuentes, G.; Santamaría, J.M. Capacity of the aquatic fern (Salvinia minima Baker) to accumulate high concentrations of nickel in its tissues, and its effect on plant physiological processes. Aquat. Toxicol. 2014, 155, 142–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  238. Ranjitha, J.; Raj, A.; Kashyap, R.; Vijayalakshmi, S.; Donatus, M. Removal of heavy metals from industrial effluent using Salvinia molesta. Int. J. Chem. Technol. Res. 2016, 9, 608–613. [Google Scholar]
  239. Lakra, K.C.; Lal, B.; Banerjee, T. Decontamination of coal mine effluent generated at the Rajrappa coal mine using phytoremediation technology. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2017, 19, 530–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  240. Keskinkan, O.; Goksu, M.; Yuceer, A.; Basibuyuk, M.; Forster, C. Heavy metal adsorption characteristics of a submerged aquatic plant (Myriophyllum spicatum). Process Biochem. 2003, 39, 179–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  241. Rai, U.; Tripathi, R.; Vajpayee, P.; Pandey, N.; Ali, M.; Gupta, D. Cadmium accumulation and its phytotoxicity in Potamogeton pectinatus L.(Potamogetonaceae). Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2003, 70, 0566–0575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  242. Saygıdeğer, S.; Doğan, M. Lead and Cadmium Accumulation and Toxicity in the Presence of EDTA in Lemna minor L. and Ceratophyllum demersum L. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2004, 73, 182–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  243. Casagrande, G.C.R.; dos Reis, C.; Arruda, R.; de Andrade, R.L.T.; Battirola, L.D. Bioaccumulation and Biosorption of Mercury by Salvinia biloba Raddi (Salviniaceae). Water Air Soil Pollut. 2018, 229, 166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  244. Windham, L.; Weis, J.S.; Weis, P. Patterns and processes of mercury release from leaves of two dominant salt marsh macrophytes, Phragmites australis and Spartina alterniflora. Estuaries 2001, 24, 787–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  245. Tangahu, B.V.; Abdullah, S.R.S.; Basri, H.; Idris, M.; Anuar, N.; Mukhlisin, M. A Review on Heavy Metals (As, Pb, and Hg) Uptake by Plants through Phytoremediation. Int. J. Chem. Eng. 2011, 31, 939161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  246. Sasmaz, A.; Mete, I.; Sasmaz, D.M. Removal of Cr, Ni and Co in the water of chromium mining areas by using Lemna gibba L. and Lemna minor L. Water Environ. J. 2016, 30, 235–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  247. Rai, U.N.; Sinha, S.; Tripathi, R.D.; Chandra, P. Wastewater treatability potential of some aquatic macrophytes: Removal of heavy metals. Ecol. Eng. 1995, 5, 5–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  248. Sas-Nowosielska, A.; Galimska-Stypa, R.; Kucharski, R.; Zielonka, U.; Małkowski, E.; Gray, L. Remediation aspect of microbial changes of plant rhizosphere in mercury contaminated soil. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2008, 137, 101–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  249. Soda, S.; Hamada, T.; Yamaoka, Y.; Ike, M.; Nakazato, H.; Saeki, Y.; Sakurai, Y. Constructed wetlands for advanced treatment ofwastewater with a complex matrix from a metal-processing plant: Bioconcentration and translocation factors ofvarious metals in Acorus gramineus and Cyperus alternifolius. Ecol. Eng. 2012, 39, 63–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  250. Rodríguez, M.; Brisson, J. Pollutant removal efficiency ofnative versus exotic common reed (Phragmites australis) in North American treatment wetlands. Ecol. Eng. 2015, 74, 364–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  251. Alhadrami, H.A.; Mbadugha, L.; Paton, G.I. Hazard and risk assessment of human exposure to toxic metals using in vitro digestion assay. Chem. Spec. Bioavailab. 2016, 28, 78–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  252. Mânzatu, C.; Nagy, B.; Ceccarini, A.; Iannelli, R.; Giannarelli, S.; Majdik, C. Laboratory tests for the phytoextraction of heavy metals from polluted harbor sediments using aquatic plants. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2015, 101, 605–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  253. Wacławek, S.; Lutze, H.V.; Grübel, K.; Padil, V.V.; Černík, M.; Dionysiou, D.D. Chemistry of persulfates in water and wastewater treatment: A review. Chem. Eng. J. 2017, 330, 44–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  254. Akpor, O.; Muchie, M. Remediation of heavy metals in drinking water and wastewater treatment systems: Processes and applications. Int. J. Phy. Sci. 2010, 5, 1807–1817. [Google Scholar]
  255. Carolin, C.F.; Kumar, P.S.; Saravanan, A.; Joshiba, G.J.; Naushad, M. Efficient techniques for the removal of toxic heavy metals from aquatic environment: A review. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2017, 5, 2782–2799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  256. Bonanno, G.; Borg, J.A.; Di Martino, V. Levels of heavy metals in wetland and marine vascular plants and their biomonitoring potential: A comparative assessment. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 576, 796–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  257. Bravo, S.; Amorós, J.; Pérez-de-los-Reyes, C.; García, F.; Moreno, M.; Sánchez-Ormeño, M.; Higueras, P. Influence of the soil pH in the uptake and bioaccumulation of heavy metals (Fe, Zn, Cu, Pb and Mn) and other elements (Ca, K, Al, Sr and Ba) in vine leaves, Castilla-La Mancha (Spain). J. Geochem. Explor. 2017, 174, 79–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  258. Mojiri, A. Phytoremediation of heavy metals from municipal wastewater by Typhadomingensis. Afr. J. Microbiol. Res. 2012, 6, 643–647. [Google Scholar]
  259. Pedescoll, A.; Sidrach-Cardona, R.; Hijosa-Valsero, M.; Bécares, E. Design parameters affecting metals removal in horizontal constructed wetlands for domestic wastewater treatment. Ecol. Eng. 2015, 80, 92–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  260. Morari, F.; Dal Ferro, N.; Cocco, E. Municipal wastewater treatment with Phragmites australis L. and Typha latifolia L. for irrigation reuse. Boron and heavy metals. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2015, 226, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  261. Francová, A.; Chrastný, V.; Šillerová, H.; Vítková, M.; Kocourková, J.; Komárek, M. Evaluating the suitability of different environmental samples for tracing atmospheric pollution in industrial areas. Environ. Pollut. 2017, 220, 286–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  262. Cheraghi, M.; Lorestani, B.; Khorasani, N.; Yousefi, N.; Karami, M. Findings on the phytoextraction and phytostabilization of soils contaminated with heavy metals. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 2011, 144, 1133–1141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  263. Khan, S.; Ahmad, I.; Shah, M.T.; Rehman, S.; Khaliq, A. Use of constructed wetland for the removal of heavy metals from industrial wastewater. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 3451–3457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  264. Hegazy, A.; Abdel-Ghani, N.; El-Chaghaby, G. Phytoremediation of industrial wastewater potentiality by Typha domingensis. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 8, 639–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  265. Ahmad, A.; Ghufran, R.; Zularisam, A. Phytosequestration of metals in selected plants growing on a contaminated Okhla industrial areas, Okhla, New Delhi, India. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2011, 217, 255–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  266. Maine, M.; Hadad, H.; Sánchez, G.; Di Luca, G.; Mufarrege, M.; Caffaratti, S.; Pedro, M. Long-term performance of two free-water surface wetlands for metallurgical effluent treatment. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 98, 372–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  267. Awomeso, J.; Taiwo, A.; Gbadebo, A.; Adenowo, J. Studies on the pollution of water body by textile industry effluents in Lagos, Nigeria. J. Appl. Sci. Environ. Sanit. 2010, 5, 353–359. [Google Scholar]
  268. Soares, P.A.; Souza, R.; Soler, J.; Silva, T.F.; Souza, S.M.G.U.; Boaventura, R.A.; Vilar, V.J. Remediation of a synthetic textile wastewater from polyester-cotton dyeing combining biological and photochemical oxidation processes. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2017, 172, 450–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  269. Mahmood, Q.; Zheng, P.; Islam, E.; Hayat, Y.; Hassan, M.; Jilani, G.; Jin, R. Lab scale studies on water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes Marts Solms) for biotreatment of textile wastewater. Casp. J. Environ. Sci. 2005, 3, 83–88. [Google Scholar]
  270. Sanmuga Priya, E.; Senthamil Selvan, P.; Umayal, A. Biodegradation studies on dye effluent and selective remazol dyes by indigenous bacterial species through spectral characterisation. Desalin. Water Treat. 2015, 55, 241–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  271. Manjunath, S.; Kousar, H. Phytoremediation of Textile Industry Effluent using free floating macrophyte Azolla pinnata. Int. J. Environ. Sci. 2016, 5, 68–71. [Google Scholar]
  272. Majumder, A.; Ray, S.; Jha, S. Hairy Roots and Phytoremediation. Biol. Process. Plant Syst. 2018, 549–572. [Google Scholar]
  273. Roy, C.; Jahan, M.; Rahman, S. Characterization and treatment of textile wastewater by aquatic plants (macrophytes) and algae. Eur. J. Sustain. Dev. Res. 2018, 2, 29. [Google Scholar]
  274. Ajayi, T.O.; Ogunbayo, A.O. Achieving environmental sustainability in wastewater treatment by phytoremediation with water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes). J. Sustain. Dev. 2012, 5, 80–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  275. Kolawole, B.S. Cleaning of Effluent from Textile Industry by Water Hyacinth. Bachelor’s Thesis, University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, Nigeria, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  276. Mokhtar, H.; Morad, N.; Ahmad Fizri, F.F. Hyperaccumulation of copper by two species of aquatic plants. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Environment Science and Engineering, Bali Island, Indonesia, 1–3 April 2011; IACSIT Press: Singapore, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  277. Tusief, M.Q.; Malik, M.H.; Asghar, H.N.; Mohsin, M.; Mahmood, N. Bioremediation of Textile Wastewater through Floating Treatment Wetland System. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2019, 22, 821–826. [Google Scholar]
  278. Goswami, S. Impact of Coal Mining on Environment. Eur. Res. 2015, 92, 185–196. [Google Scholar]
  279. Mishra, V.K.; Tripathi, B.D.; Kim, K. Removal and accumulation of mercury by aquatic. J. Hazard. Mater. 2009, 172, 749–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  280. Ebenebe, P.C.; Shale, K.; Sedibe, M. South African Mine Effluents: Heavy Metal Pollution and Impact on the Ecosystem. Int. J. Chem. Sci. 2017, 15, 198. [Google Scholar]
  281. Mishra, V.K.; Shukla, R. Aquatic Macrophytes for the Removal of Heavy Metals from Coal Mining Effluent. In Phytoremediation; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; Volume 3, pp. 143–156. [Google Scholar]
  282. Mishra, V.K.; Upadhyay, A.R.; Pandey, S.K.; Tripathi, B.D. Concentrations of heavy metals and aquatic macrophytes of Govind Ballabh Pant Sagar an anthropogenic lake affected by coal mining effluent. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2008, 141, 49–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  283. Saha, P.; Shinde, O.; Sarkar, S. Phytoremediation of industrial mines wastewater using water hyacinth. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2016, 19, 87–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  284. Marrugo-Negrete, J.; Enamorado-Montes, G.; Durango-Hernandez, J.; Pinedo-Hernandez, J.; Díez, S. Removal of mercury from gold mine effluents using Limnocharis flava in constructed wetlands. Chemosphere 2017, 167, 188–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  285. Leung, H.M.; Duzgoren-Aydin, N.S.; Au, C.K.; Krupanidhi, S.; Fung, K.Y.; Cheung, K.C.; Wong, Y.K.; Peng, X.L.; Ye, Z.H.; Yung, K.K.L. Monitoring and assessment of heavy metal contamination in a constructed wetland in Shaoguan (Guangdong Province, China): Bioaccumulation of Pb, Zn, Cu and Cd in aquatic and terrestrial components. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2017, 24, 9079–9088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  286. Türker, O.C.; Böcük, H.; Yakar, A. The phytoremediation ability of a polyculture constructed wetland to treat boron from mine effluent. J. Hazard. Mater. 2013, 252, 132–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  287. Younger, P.L.; Henderson, R. Synergistic wetland treatment of sewage and mine water: Pollutant removal performance of the first full-scale system. Water Res. 2014, 15, 74–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  288. Mardalena, M.; Faizal, M.; Napoleon, A. The Absorption of Iron (Fe) and Manganese (Mn) from Coal Mining Wastewater with Phytoremediation Technique Using Floating Fern (Salvinia natans), Water Lettuce (Pistia stratiotes) and Water Hyacinth (Eichornia crassipes). Biol. Res. J. 2018, 4, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  289. Abu Bakar, A.F.; Yusoff, I.; Fatt, N.T.; Othman, F.; Ashraf, M.A. Arsenic, zinc, and aluminium removal from gold mine wastewater effluents and accumulation by submerged aquatic plants (Cabomba piauhyensis, Egeria densa, and Hydrilla verticillata). BioMed Res. Int. 2013, 2013, 890803–890810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  290. Pat-Espadas, A.M.; Portales, R.L.; Amabilis-Sosa, L.E.; Gómez, G.; Vidal, G. Review of Constructed Wetlands for Acid Mine Drainage Treatment. Water 2018, 10, 1685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  291. Nagendran, R.; Selvam, A.; Joseph, K.; Chiemchaisri, C. Phytoremediation and rehabilitation of municipal solid waste landfills and dumpsites: A brief review. Waste Manag. 2006, 26, 1357–1369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  292. Hughes, K.; Christy, A.; Heimlich, J. Landfill Types and Liner Systems; Ohio State University Extension Fact Sheet CDFS-138-05; The Ohio State University: Columbus, OH, USA, 2008; p. 4. [Google Scholar]
  293. Njoku, P.O.; Edokpayi, J.N.; Odiyo, J.O. Health and environmental risks of residents living close to a landfill: A case study of Thohoyandou Landfill, Limpopo Province, South Africa. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  294. Aziz, H.A.; Ramli, S.F. Recent development in sanitary landfilling and landfill leachate treatment in Malaysia. Int. J. Environ. Eng. 2018, 9, 201–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  295. Jones, D.L.; Williamson, K.L.; Owen, A.G. Phytoremediation of landfill leachate. Waste Manag. 2006, 26, 825–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  296. Madera-Parra, C.A.; Peña-Salamanca, E.J.; Peña, M.R.; Rousseau, D.P.L.; Lens, P.N.L. Phytoremediation of Landfill Leachate with Colocasia esculenta, Gynerum sagittatum and Heliconia psittacorum in Constructed Wetlands. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2015, 17, 16–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  297. Jaya, N.; Amir, A.; Mohd-Zaki, Z. Removal of Nitrate by Eichhornia crassipes sp. in Landfill Leachate. In Proceedings of the International Civil and Infrastructure Engineering Conference, Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia, 28 September–1 October 2014; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; pp. 1043–1052. [Google Scholar]
  298. El-Gendy, A.S.; Biswas, N.; Bewtra, J.K. Municipal Landfill Leachate Treatment for Metal Removal Using Water Hyacinth in a Floating Aquatic System. Water Environ. Res. 2006, 78, 951–964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  299. Akinbile, C.O.; Yusoff, M.S.; Shian, L.M. Leachate Characterization and Phytoremediation Using Water Hyacinth (Eichorrnia crassipes) in Pulau Burung, Malaysia. Bioremediat. J. 2012, 16, 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  300. Omondi, E.A.; Ndiba, P.K.; Njuru, P.G. Phytoremediation of Polychlorobiphenyls (PCB’s) in Landfill E-Waste Leachate with Water Hyacinth (E. Crassipes). Int. J. Sci. Technol. Res. 2015, 4, 147–156. [Google Scholar]
  301. Ugya, A.Y.; Priatamby, A. Phytoremediation of Landfill Leachates Using Pistia stratiotes: A Case Study of Kinkinau U/Ma’azu Kaduna, Nigeria. J. Agric. Biol. Environ. Stat. 2016, 2, 60–63. [Google Scholar]
  302. Wani, R.A.; Ganai, B.A.; Shah, M.A.; Uqab, B. Heavy Metal Uptake Potential of Aquatic Plants through Phytoremediation Technique—A Review. J. Bioremediat. Biodegrad. 2017, 8, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  303. Duman, F.; Cicek, M.; Sezen, G. Seasonal changes of metal accumulation and distribution in common club rush (Schoenoplectus lacustris) and common reed (Phragmites australis). Ecotoxicology 2007, 16, 457–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  304. Grisey, E.; Laffray, X.; Contoz, O.; Cavalli, E.; Mudry, J.; Aley, L. The Bioaccumulation Performance of Reeds and Cattails in a Constructed Treatment Wetland for Removal of Heavy Metals in Landfill Leachate Treatment (Etueffont, France). Water Air Soil Pollut. 2012, 223, 1723–1741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  305. Mugisa, D.J.; Banadda, N.; Kiggundu, N.; Asuman, R. Lead uptake of water plants in water stream at Kiteezi landfill site, Kampala (Uganda). Afr. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 9, 502–507. [Google Scholar]
  306. Odong, R.; Kansiime, F.; Omara, J.; Kyambadde, J. The potential of four tropical wetland plants for the treatment of abattoir effluent. Int. J. Environ. Technol. Manag. 2013, 16, 203–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  307. Wang, M.; Zhang, D.Q.; Dong, J.W.; Tan, S.K. Constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment in cold climate—A review. J. Environ. Sci. 2017, 57, 293–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  308. Vymazal, J.; Březinová, T. The use of constructed wetlands for removal of pesticides from agricultural runoff and drainage: A review. Environ. Int. 2015, 75, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  309. Abou-Elela, S.I.; Golinielli, G.; Abou-Taleb, E.M.; Hellal, M.S. Municipal wastewater treatment in horizontal and vertical flows constructed wetlands. Ecol. Eng. 2013, 61, 460–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  310. Griffiths, L.N.; Mitsch, W.J. Removal of nutrients from urban stormwater runoff by storm-pulsed and seasonally pulsed created wetlands in the subtropics. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 108, 414–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  311. Saeed, T.; Muntahaa, S.; Rashid, M.; Sun, G.; Hasna, A. Industrial wastewater treatment in constructed wetlands packed with construction materials and agricultural by-products. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 189, 442–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  312. Rizzo, A.; Bresciani, R.; Martinuzzi, N.; Masi, F. Online Monitoring of a Long-Term Full-Scale Constructed Wetland for the Treatment of Winery Wastewater in Italy. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  313. Brix, H. Do macrophytes play a role in constructed treatment wetlands? Water Sci. Technol. 1997, 35, 11–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  314. Hammer, D.A. Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment: Municipal, Industrial and Agricultural; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  315. Marchand, L.; Mench, M.; Jacob, D.L.; Otte, M.L. Metal and metalloid removal in constructed wetlands, with emphasis on the importance of plants and standardized measurements: A review. Environ. Pollut. 2010, 158, 3447–3461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  316. Baharudin, B.; Shahrel, M. Lead and Cadmium Removal in Synthetic Wastewater Using Constructed Wetland. Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of Chemical & Natural Resources Engineering Universiti, Gambang, Malaysia, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  317. Yeh, T.Y.; Chou, C.C.; Pan, C.T. Heavy metal removal within pilot-scale constructed wetlands receiving river water contaminated by confined swine operations. Desalination 2009, 249, 368–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  318. Brezinová, T.B.; Vymazal, J. Evaluation of heavy metals seasonal accumulation in Phalaris arundinacea in a constructed treatment wetland. Ecol. Eng. 2015, 79, 94–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  319. Vymazal, J.; Kröpfelová, L.; Švehla, J.; Štíchová, J. Can multiple harvest of aboveground biomass enhance removal of trace elements in constructed wetlands receiving municipal sewage? Ecol. Eng. 2010, 36, 939–945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  320. Bonanno, G. Trace element accumulation and distribution in the organs of Phragmites australis (common reed) and biomonitoring applications. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2011, 74, 1057–1064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  321. Bhattacharya, T.; Banerjee, D.; Gopal, B. Heavy metal uptake by Scirpus littoralis schrad. From fly ash dosed and metal spiked soils. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2006, 121, 363–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  322. Rai, P.K. Heavy metals/metalloids remediation from wastewater using free floating macrophytes of a natural wetland. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2019, 15, 100393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  323. Sukumaran, D. Phytoremediation of Heavy Metals from Industrial Effluent Using Constructed Wetland Technology. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Sci. 2013, 1, 92–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  324. Ladislas, S.; Gérente, C.; Chazarenc, F.; Brisson, J.; Andrès, Y. Floating treatment wetlands for heavy metal removal in highway stormwater ponds. Ecol. Eng. 2015, 80, 85–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  325. Dan, A.; Oka, M.; Fujii, Y.; Soda, S.; Ishigaki, T.; Machimura, T.; ke, M. Removal of heavy metals from synthetic landfill leachate in lab-scale vertical flow constructed wetlands. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 584, 742–775. [Google Scholar]
  326. Mustapha, H.I.A.; van Bruggen, J.J.; Lens, P.N.L. Fate of heavy metals in vertical subsurface flow constructed wetlands treating secondary treated petroleum refinery wastewater in Kaduna, Nigeria. Int. J. Phytoreme. 2017, 20, 44–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  327. Githuku, C.R.; Ndambuki, J.M.; Salim, R.W.B.; Adedayo, A. Treatment potential of Typha latifolia in removal of heavy metals from wastewater using constructed wetlands. In Transformation towards Sustainable and Resilient Wash Services; Proceedings of the 41st WEDC International Conference, Nakuru, Kenya, 9–13 July WEDC; Shaw, R.J., Ed.; Loughborough University United Kingdom (UK): Loughborough, UK, 2018; pp. 9–13. [Google Scholar]
  328. Šíma, J.; Svoboda, L.; Šeda, M.; Krejsa, J.; Jahodová, J. The fate of selected heavy metals and arsenic in a constructed wetland. J. Environ. Sci. Health 2019, 54, 56–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  329. Vymazal, J.; Kropfelov, L.; Svehla, J.; Chrastny, V.; Stıchova, J. Trace elements in Phragmites australis growing in constructed wetlands for treatment of municipal wastewater. Ecol. Eng. 2009, 35, 303–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  330. Hadad, H.R.; Maine, M.A.; Bonetto, C.A. Macrophyte growth in a pilot-scale constructed wetland for industrial wastewater treatment. Chemosphere 2006, 63, 1744–1753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  331. Maine, M.A.; Hadad, H.R.; Sánchez, G.; Caffaratti, S.; Pedro, M.C. Kinetics of Cr (III) and Cr (VI) removal from water by two floating macrophytes. Int. J. Phytorem. 2016, 18, 261–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  332. Xu, X.; Mills, G.L. Do constructed wetlands remove metals or increase metal bioavailability? J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 218, 245–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  333. Yeh, T.Y. Removal of metals in constructed wetlands. Pract. Period. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste Manag. 2009, 12, 96–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  334. Cui, W.; Cheng, J. Growing duckweed for biofuel production: A review. Plant Biol. 2015, 17, 16–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  335. Mishima, D.; Tateda, M.; Ike, M.; Fujita, M. Comparative study on chemical pretreatments to accelerate enzymatic hydrolysis of aquatic macrophyte biomass used in water purification processes. Bioresour. Technol. 2006, 97, 2166–2172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  336. Villamagna, A.M. Ecological Effects of Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) on Lake Chapala, Mexico. Ph.D. Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  337. Nakphet, S.; Ritchie, R.J.; Kiriratnikom, S. Aquatic plants for bioremediation in red hybrid tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus × Oreochromis mossambicus) recirculating aquaculture. Aquac. Int. 2017, 25, 619–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Accumulation potential of various aquatic plants.
Table 1. Accumulation potential of various aquatic plants.
Aquatic PlantCommon NameMetals/MetalloidsReference
Eichhornia crassipesWater hyacinthPb, Hg, Cu, Cr, Ni, Zn.Molisani et al. [141]; Hu et al. [142]
Pistia stratiotesWater lettuceCr, Zn, Fe, Mn, CuMaine et al. [136]; Miretzky et al. [143]
Salvinia minimawater spanglesAs, Ni, Cr, CdOlguin et al. [135]; Sooknah, [144]
Salvinia herzogiiWater fernCd, CrMaine et al. [136]; Sunñe et al. [145]
Lemna minorDuckweedCr, As, Ni, Cu, PbKara [146]; Ater et al. [147]; Basile et al. [148]
Spirodela intermediaDuckweedFe, Zn, Mn, Cu, Cr, PbMiretzky et al. [143]; Cardwell et al. [149]
Nasturtium officinaleWater cressCr, Ni, Zn, Cu,Kara [146]; Zurayk et al. [150]
Myriophyllum spicatumParrot feathersPb, Cd, Fe, CuSivaci et al. [151]; Branković et al. [152]
Ceratophyllum demersumHornwortAs, Cd, Cr, PbBunluesin et al. [153]; El-Khatib et al. [154]
Potamogeton crispusPondweedCu, Fe, Ni, Zn, and MnBorisova et al. [155]
Potamogeton pectinatusAmerican pondweedCd, Pb, Cu, ZnSingh et al. [156]; Penga et al. [157]
Typha latifoliacommon cattailZn, Mn, Ni, Fe, Pb, CuHejna et al. [158]; Qian et al. [159]; Sasmaz et al. [160]
Mentha aquaticaWater mintPb, Cd, Fe, CuBranković et al. [152]; Kamal et al. [161]
Vallisneria spiralisTape grassArGiri [162]
spartina alternifloraCordgrassCu. Cr, Zn, Ni, Mn, Cd, Pb, As.Aksorn and Visoottiviseth [163]; Hempel et al. [164]
Phragmites australisCommon reedFe, Cu, Cd, Pb, ZnGanjalia et al. [165]; Ha and Anh, [166]
ScirpusBulrushCd, Fe, Al.Kutty and Al-Mahaqeri [167]
Polygonum hydropiperoidesSmartweedCu, Pb, ZnRudin et al., [168]
Table 2. Recent studies on uptake of heavy metals by water hyacinth.
Table 2. Recent studies on uptake of heavy metals by water hyacinth.
Metals/MetalloidsResultsConditionsReference
NiConcentrations of Ni 1, 2, 3 and 4 mg L−1 concentration of nickel.González et al. [24]
Areal parts-(0.29 ± 0.02 mg/kg)
Roots-(3.34 ± 0.26 mg/kg)
CdInitial concentration of cadmium was 0.3 while Cd in leaves of the plant was 31 ± 3.Cadmium exposure at 1000 and 130 ug/L.Shuvaeva et al. [180]
Al, Pb, AS, Cd, Cu Removal rate:Wastewater from steel effluentsAurangzeb et al. [181]
Al-(73%)
Pb-(73%,)
As-(74%)
Cd-(82.8%)
Cu-(78.6%)
Cd, Hg, Pb, NiRemoval rate:Initial concentrations of Cd: 0.24, Hg: 4.971, Pb: 1.199, Ni: 3.34 in industrial wastewaterFazal et al. [182]
Cd-(97.5%)
Hg-(99.9%)
Pb-(83.4%)
Ni-(95.1%)
Cr, Cu Tannery effluents Removal rate.Sarkar et al. [184]
Cr-(99.98%)
Cu-(99.96%)
Cd, Zn, Cu, PbRemoval rate: Anaerobic packed bed reactors systemSekomo et al. [185].
Cd-(98%)
Zn-(84%)
Cu-(99%)
Pb-(98%)
Cr, ZnRemoval efficiency of Cr.Stock solutionsSwarnalatha and Radhakrishnan [186]
(63%) on 3rd day, (80%) on 9th day
Removal efficiency of Zn.
(67%) on 9th day, (96%) on 12th day, (100%) on 15th day.
Pb, Cu, Mn, CdUptake in leaves Wastewater from mining.Prasad and Maiti [187]
Pb-(3.40–5.06 mg/kg)
Cu-(6.41–13.5 mg/kg)
Mn-(62.9–67.9 mg/kg)
Cd-(0.037–0.13 mg/kg)
Mo, Ag, Ba, Pb, CdTFGold mine waste water.Romanova et al. [188]
Mo-(0.85 ± 0.14)
Ag-(0.18 ± 0.04)
Ba-(0.12 ± 0.03)
Pb-(0.06 ± 0.01)
Cd-(0.65 ± 0.09)
Zn, Cd, Cu, PbRemoval rate:Stock solutions.Li et al. [189]
Zn-(93.5%)
Cd-(95.16%)
Cu-(58.23%)
Pb-(98.33%)
Table 3. Recent studies on uptake of heavy metals by water lettuce.
Table 3. Recent studies on uptake of heavy metals by water lettuce.
Metals/MetalloidsConditionResultsReference
Fe, Mn, Cr, Pb, Cu Zn, Ni, CoThree sites of Al-Sero drain Giza, selected for the collection of plant and water sample.High value of BCF and RP observed positive correlation exist between Fe and Cu with root and shoots of plant.Galal et al. [71]
Cd20 to 50 g of plant applied in container having 10 L river water and cadmium exposure of 1000 and 130 (g/L) concentrations.BCF-(1270 ± 250).
Initial concentration of cadmium was 0, 3 while Cd concentration in leaves of the plants was 32 ± 3.
Shuvaeva et al. [180]
Pb, Cu120 g of plant applied in 10 litre of steel industry effluents. Removal rate:
Pb-(70.7%)
Cu-(66.5%)
Aurangzeb et al. [181]
Fe, Mn, Na, Ni, Pb, Cr, Cu, Zn, Al, Ca, Cd, Co, K, MgPlants covered two storm water detention ponds50% accumulation of Ca, Co, Cd, Mn, Zn and Mg in roots. More than 50% absorbance by roots for Pb, Ni, Cu, Cr and Al.Lu et al. [197]
Cd, ZnInitial concentration of Zinc, 1.8, 18, 50, 79, 105 mg/L, initial concentration of Cadmium 0.01, 0.1, 1, 10 mg/L.Removal rate.
70% reduction for both Zinc and Cadmium.
Rodrigues et al. [202]
AsInitial concentration of As applied 0, 5, 10, 15 and 20 µM. High absorbance of arsenic observed in the roots of the plants.Farnese et al. [203]
Pb (II)Stock solution (2000 mg/L)Removal of Pb (II) 96%.Volf et al. [204]
Table 4. Recent studies on uptake of heavy metals by duckweed species.
Table 4. Recent studies on uptake of heavy metals by duckweed species.
Metals/Metalloids ConditionResultsReferences
Cr 0, 10, 100, 200 μM Cr concentration increase in chromium uptake percentage by L. Minor 6.10%, 26.5%, 20.5%, 20.2%Sallah-ud-Din et al. [219]
Cr, Pb2, 4, 10 and 15 mg/L concentrations with using lab water.Removalrate
Cr-(86.2–94.8%)
Pb-(91.0–96.4%).
Abdallah [220]
Cd0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0 mg/L concentrations applied.Removal rate
Cd-(42–78%)
Chaudhuri et al. [221]
ArInitial artificial concentrations of 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 mg/L.Removal of arsenic more than 70% at 0.5 mg/L on 15th day of experiment.Goswami et al. [222]
FeConcentrations of 100% and 50%, for (7, 14, and 21 days)Maximum recommend = 5 mg/L Fe at 7 days.Teixeira et al. [223]
Co, Cu, Fe, Cd, Ni, Mo, Mn, Zn, Cr, SeMining wastewater in rich with seleniumRemoval rate:
Co-(87%)
Se-(55%)
35–60% removal rate for rest of the heavy metals.
Flores-Miranda et al. [224]
Pb, CdArtificial by concentration of (2, 5 and 10 mg/L)Removal rate
(1) Pb-(98.1%) in 10 mg/L at 7 pH. (60.1%) in 2 mg/L at 9 pH.
(2) Cd-(84.8 %) in 2 mg/L at pH 7. (41.6%) in (10 mg/L at pH 9.
Verma and Suthar [225]
Cu, Zn, CdInitial concentrations Cu-(4.10 mg/L)
Zn-(4.30 mg/L)
Cd-(7.30 mg/L)
Cu-(0.381 ± 0.021 mg/g)
Zn-(0.557 ± 0.009 mg/g)
Cd-(1.251 ± 0.041 mg/g)
Török et al. [226]
Cd, Cu, Pb, NiMunicipal and industrial wastewater.Removal rate
Ni (99%)
80% removal percentage for rest of metals.
Bokhari et al. [227]
Table 5. Recent studies on uptake of heavy metals by Salvinia species.
Table 5. Recent studies on uptake of heavy metals by Salvinia species.
Metals/MetalloidsConditionResultsReference
Cd, Ni, Pb, ZnInitial concentrations Cd-(0.03 mg/L)Removal rate:Iha and Bianchini [129]
Ni-(0.40 mg/L)Zn-(0.4046 mg/m−2)
Pb-(1.00 mg/L)Ni-(0.0595 mg/m−2)
Zn-(1.00 mg/L)Cd-(0.0045 mg/m−2)
Pb-(0.1423 mg/m−2)
Zn, Cu, Ni and Cr15 mg/L initial concentration. 10 g biomass of five plants.Removal rate:Dhir et al. [231]
Zn-(84.8%)
Cu-(73.8%)
Ni-(56.8%)
Cr-(41.4%)
Ni0, 20, 40, 80, 160 M concentrations of NiCl2Accumulation of Ni 16.3 mg/gFuentes et al. [237]
Cu, Cr, Pb, CdInitial concentrationAfter treatmentRanjitha et al. [238]
Cu-(1.092 ± 0.026)Cu-(2.035 ± 0.014)
Cr-(2.201 ± 0.0024)Cr-(1.052 ± 0.022)
Pb-(2.974 ± 0.018)Pb-(1.924 ± 0.012)
Cd-(0.251 ± 0.017)Cd-(0.018 ± 0.018)
Pb, Ni, Cu, Zn, Mn, Fe, Cr, Cdcoal mine effluentsRemoval rateLakra et al. [239]
Pb-(96.96%)
Ni-(97.01%)
Cu-(96.77%)
Zn-(96.38%)
Mn-(96.22%)
Fe-(94.12%)
Cr-(92.85%)
Cd-(80.99%)

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ali, S.; Abbas, Z.; Rizwan, M.; Zaheer, I.E.; Yavaş, İ.; Ünay, A.; Abdel-DAIM, M.M.; Bin-Jumah, M.; Hasanuzzaman, M.; Kalderis, D. Application of Floating Aquatic Plants in Phytoremediation of Heavy Metals Polluted Water: A Review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1927. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051927

AMA Style

Ali S, Abbas Z, Rizwan M, Zaheer IE, Yavaş İ, Ünay A, Abdel-DAIM MM, Bin-Jumah M, Hasanuzzaman M, Kalderis D. Application of Floating Aquatic Plants in Phytoremediation of Heavy Metals Polluted Water: A Review. Sustainability. 2020; 12(5):1927. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051927

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ali, Shafaqat, Zohaib Abbas, Muhammad Rizwan, Ihsan Elahi Zaheer, İlkay Yavaş, Aydın Ünay, Mohamed M. Abdel-DAIM, May Bin-Jumah, Mirza Hasanuzzaman, and Dimitris Kalderis. 2020. "Application of Floating Aquatic Plants in Phytoremediation of Heavy Metals Polluted Water: A Review" Sustainability 12, no. 5: 1927. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051927

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop