Advertisement

Effectiveness of phytoremediation to the removal of heavy metals using absorbents: wastewater treatment

  • M. G. Prathap
  • C. ZainUlIbad
  • S. Hemanth Ram
  • P. Vivek
  • M. Rajasekaran
  • J. S. Sudarsan
  • S. NithiyananthamEmail author
Short Communication
  • 22 Downloads

Abstract

The main aim of this research is to conduct the main of sustainability and efficiency of the current trends of high costing in conserving the environment by plants such as shrub on surface soil with lesser expenses. The technique is contamination using technology of phytoremediation in real situation of containing by means of removing, relocating, and stabilizing. Phytoremediation technology has been receiving more attention largely, and the result from trials indicated a cost saving compared to existing treatment. In India, the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) is playing double role in which it seeks to save human from health issues and the environment damaged with waste such as hazardous, meanwhile encouraging the new type of technologies might be having efficient clean and green of sites. The pH, COD, and BOD values tested for each time. The domestic wastewater and soils samples were subjected to various analysis such as impact on soil, absorption analysis through atomic absorption spectroscopy (AAS), and digital spectrophotometer. The plant removal efficiency of heavy metals is absorbed by mustard more rather than Indian grass

Keywords

AAS Indian grass Mustard Pollutants Soil Wastewater 

Abbreviations

AAS

Atomic absorption spectroscopy

AAstandard

Atomic absorption standard

TNT

Trinitro toluene

TPH

Total petroleum hydrocarbon

PCP

Pentachlorophenol

PAH

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

BOD

Biological oxygen demand

COD

Chemical oxygen demand

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank all who assisted in conducting this work.

References

  1. Ali, A. A. (2010). Reuse of waste water for irrigation in Saudi Arabia and its effect on soil and plant. In World congress of soil science, soil solutions for a changing world, (pp. 163–166). Brisbane, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  2. Ali, M. F., & Shakrani, S. A. (2011). Soil and soilless cultivation influence on nutrients and heavy metals availability in soil and plant uptake. International Journal of Applied Science and Technology, 1(5), 154–160.Google Scholar
  3. Banuelos, G., Terry, N., Leduc, D., Pilon-Smits, E. A. H., & Mackey, B. B. (2005). Environmental science and technology, transgenic mustard plants absorbs in selenium. Environental Science and Technology, 39(6), 1771–1777.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es049035f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Belimov, A. A., Hontzeas, N., Safronova, V. I., Demshinskaya, S. V., Pilluzza, G., Pullitta, S., et al. (2005). Cadmium-tolerant plant growth-promoting bacteria associated with the roots of Indian mustard. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 37(2), 241–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennett, L. E., Burkhead, J. L., Hale, K. L., Terry, N., Pilon, M., & Pilon-smuts, E. A. H. (2003). Analysis of transgenic Indian Mustard plants for phytoremediation of metals contaminated mine tailings. Journal of Environmental Quality, 32, 432–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bozorgi, M., Abbasizadeh, S., Samani, F., & Mousavi, S. E. (2018). Performance of synthesized cast and electrospun PVA/chitosan/ZnO-NH2 nano-adsorbents in single and simultaneous adsorption of cadmium and nickel ions from wastewater. Environmental Science Pollution Research International, 25(18), 17457–17472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Braz, J. (2005). Analysis of transgenic Indian mustard plants for phytoremediation of metal. Brazilian Journal of Plant Physiology, 17(1), 53–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bruce, E. P. (2001). Ground water issue, phytoremediation of contaminated soil and ground water at hazardous waste sites, EPA/540/S-01/500.Google Scholar
  9. Cempel, M., & Nikel, G. (2006). Nickel: A review of its sources and environmental toxicology. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 15, 375–382.Google Scholar
  10. EPA. (2000). Introduction to phytoremediation. EPA/600/ R-99/107. Office of Research and Development, US, Washington, DC. February 2000.Google Scholar
  11. Garba, S. T., Osemeahon, A. S., Humphrey, M., & Barminas, J. T. (2012). Ethylene DiamineTetraacetic Acid (EDTA)—assisted phytoremediation of heavy metal contaminated soil by Eleusineindica L. Gearth. Journal of Environmental Chemistry and Ecotoxicology, 4, 103–109.Google Scholar
  12. Gašpariková, E., Kapusta, Š., Bodík, I., Derco, J., & Kratochvíl, K. (2005). Valuation of anaerobic-aerobic wastewater treatment plant operations. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 14(1), 29–34.Google Scholar
  13. Gaur, A., & Adholeya, A. (2004). Prospects of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in phytoremediation of heavy metal contaminated soils. Current Science, 86, 528–534.Google Scholar
  14. Gohre, V., & Paszkowski, U. (2006). Contribution of the ArbuscularMycorrhizal symbiosis to heavy metal phytoremediation. Planta, 223, 1115–1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gupta, A., & Sujatha, P. (1996). Treatment of tannery wastewater by water hyacinth application. Journal of Ecology Environmental Monitoring., 6, 209.Google Scholar
  16. Jae-Min, L., Arthur, L. S., & David, J. (2001). Butcher, Phytoremediation of lead using Indian mustard (Brassica juncea) with EDTA and electrodics. Microchemical Journal, 76(1–2), 3–9.Google Scholar
  17. Khalighi Sheshdeh, R., Abbasizadeh, S., Reza Khosravi Nikou, M., & Badii, K. (2014). Liquid phase adsorption kinetics and equilibrium of toluene by novel modified-diatomite. Journal of Environmental Health Science and Engineering, 12, 148.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40201-014-0148-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Meriem, L., Bouamar, B., El Hassan, H., & Abdelhak, B. (2015). Phytoremediation mechanisms of heavy metal contaminated soils: A review. Open Journal of Ecology, 2015, 375–388.Google Scholar
  19. Modaresi Tehrani, M., Abbasizadeh, S., Alamdaric, A., & Ebrahim Mousavi, S. (2017). Prediction of simultaneous sorption of copper(II), cobalt(II) and zinc(II) contaminants from water systems by a novel multi-functionalized zirconia nanofiber. Desalination and Water Treatment, 62, 403–417.  https://doi.org/10.5004/dwt.2017.20135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Peijnenburg, W. J. G. M., & Jager, T. (2003). Monitoring approaches to assess bioaccessibility and bioavailability of metals: Matrix issues. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 56, 63–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Prathap, M. G., Sudarsan, J. S., Moitraiyee, M., Justus Reymond, D., & Nithiyanantham, S. (2015). Constructed wetland—an easy and cost-effective alternative for the treatment of leachate. International Journal of Energy Technology and Policy, 11(4), 371–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Quartacci, M. F., Argilla, A., Baker, A. J. M., & Navari-izzo, F. (2006). Phytoremediation of metal from a multiply contaminated soil by indian mustard. Chemosphere, 63(6), 918–925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rowe, D. R., & Abdel Magid, I. M. (1995). Handbook of wastewater reclamation and reuse (p. 550). Cambridge: CRC Press Inc.Google Scholar
  24. Rylott, E. L., & Bruce, N. C. (2008). Plants disarm soil: Engineering plants for the phytoremediation of explosives. Trends in Biotechnology, 27, 73–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schmidt, U. (2003). Enhancing phytoextraction: The effects of chemical soil manipulation on mobility, plant accumulation, and leaching of heavy metals. Journal of Environmental Quality, 32, 1939–1954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sinha, S., Mishra, R. K., Sinam, G., Mallick, S., & Gupta, A. K. (2013). Comparative evaluation of metal phytoremediation potential of trees, grasses and flowering plants from tannery wastewater contaminated soil in relation with physico-chemical properties. Soil and Sediment Contamination: An International Journal, 22, 958–983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sripanomtanakorn, S., & Polprasert, C. (2002). Plant available nitrogen from anaerobically digested sludge and septic tank sludge applied to crops grown in the tropis. Waste Management and Research, 20, 143–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Talebi, M., Abbasizadeh, S., & RezaKeshtkar, A. (2017). Evaluation of single and simultaneous thorium and uranium sorption from water systems by an electrospun PVA/SA/PEO/HZSM5 nanofiber. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 109, 340–356.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2017.04.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ukpong, E. C. (2013). Performance evaluation of activated sludge wastewater treatment plant (ASWTP) At QIT, Ibeno Local Government Area of AkwaIbom State, Nigeria. The International Journal of Engineering and Science, 2(7), 1–13.Google Scholar
  30. Vajpayee, P., Rai, U. N., Simha, S., Tripathi, R. D., & Chandra, P. (1995). Bioremediation by tannery effluent by aquatic macrobytes. Bulletin of Environmental Contamintion and Toxicology, 55, 546.Google Scholar
  31. Xu, M., & Lu, N. (2012). Research on removing heavy metals from mine tailings. Disaster Advances, 5, 116–120.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Islamic Azad University (IAU) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. G. Prathap
    • 1
  • C. ZainUlIbad
    • 1
  • S. Hemanth Ram
    • 1
  • P. Vivek
    • 1
  • M. Rajasekaran
    • 1
  • J. S. Sudarsan
    • 2
  • S. Nithiyanantham
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringSaveetha Engineering CollegeChennaiIndia
  2. 2.National Institute of Construction Management and Research (NICMAR)PuneIndia
  3. 3.Post Graduate and Research Department of PhysicsThiruvarurIndia

Personalised recommendations