Plant and Soil

, Volume 424, Issue 1–2, pp 607–617 | Cite as

Effect of electrode configurations on phytoremediation efficiency and environmental risk

  • Jie Luo
  • Lin Ye
  • Shihua Qi
  • Jian Wu
  • X. W. Sophie Gu
Regular Article



Some experiments were designed to evaluate the influences of field directions and voltages on the remediation efficiency and environmental risk during the chelator assisted phytoremediation processes.


Biomass production, metal accumulation and transportation and leachate interception under different electrode arrangements with varied voltages were compared.


Biomass yield increased from 2.71 kg in control to 3.45 kg in low voltage (2 V) treatments and then decreased to 3.12 and 2.66 kg in moderate (4 V) and high (10 V) voltage treatments, respectively. Metal uptake and transportation of the species were affected by field directions and voltages. Electric fields can strengthen the promoting effect of chelator for phytoremediation and alleviate even eliminate the environmental risk caused by chemical amendment, as manifested by the significantly decreased volume of leachate ranging from 56 mL in vertical field treatment with high voltage to 401 mL in horizontal field treatment with low voltage. Voltages had greater impact on the metal decontamination capacity of the species relative to electric field directions, but the prevention of leaching depended more on electrode arrangements than voltages.


Vertical electric field with moderate voltage achieved the optimal effect on metal decontamination and leachate interception in the phytoremediation processes.


Phytoremediation Electric field direction Voltage Leaching risk Eucalyptus globulus 



The authors wish to thank the Natural Science Foundation of Hubei Province of China (Project No. 2015CFB603), Science & Technology Project of Education Department, Hubei Province, China, and State Key Laboratory of Organic Geochemistry, GIGCAS for the financial support of this study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. Aboughalma H, Bi R, Schlaak M (2008) Electrokinetic enhancement on phytoremediation in Zn, Pb, Cu and Cd contaminated soil using potato plants. J Environ Sci Health Part A 43:926–933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alorro RD, Mitani S, Hiroyoshi N, Ito M, Tsunekawa M (2008) Recovery of heavy metals from MSW molten fly ash by carrier-in-pulp method: Fe powder as carrier. Miner Eng 21:1094–1101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Antoniadis V, Polyzois T, Golia EE, Petropoulos SA (2017) Hexavalent chromium availability and phytoremediation potential of Cichorium spinosum as affect by manure, zeolite and soil ageing. Chemosphere 171:729–734CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Arriagada CA, Herrera MA, Ocampo JA (2007) Beneficial effect of saprobe and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on growth of Eucalyptus globulus co-cultured with Glycine max in soil contaminated with heavy metals. J Environ Manag 84:93–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bi R, Schlaak M, Siefert E, Lord R, Connolly H (2010) Alternating current electrical field effects on lettuce (Lactuca sativa) growing in hydroponic culture with and without cadmium contamination. J Appl Electrochem 40:1217–1223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bi R, Schlaak M, Siefert E, Lord R, Connolly H (2011) Influence of electrical fields (AC and DC) on phytoremediation of metal polluted soils with rapeseed (Brassica napus) and tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum). Chemosphere 83:318–326CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Brennan A, Jimenez EM, Puschenreiter M, Alburquerque JA, Switzer C (2014) Effects of biochar amendment on root traits and contaminant availability of maize plants in a copper and arsenic impacted soil. Plant Soil 379:351–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cameselle C, Reddy KR (2012) Development and enhancement of electro-osmotic flow for the removal of contaminants from soils. Electrochim Acta 86:10–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cang L, Wang QY, Zhou DM, Xu H (2011) Effects of electrokinetic-assisted phytoremediation of a multiple-metal contaminated soil on soil metal bioavailability and uptake by Indian mustard. Sep Purif Technol 79:246–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cang L, Zhou DM, Wang QY, Fan GP (2012) Impact of electrokinetic-assisted phytoremediation of heavy metal contaminated soil on its physicochemical properties, enzymatic and microbial activities. Electrochim Acta 86:41–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clemente R, Walker DJ, Bernal MP (2005) Uptake of heavy metals and as by Brassica juncea grown in a contaminated soil in Aznalcollar (Spain): the effect of soil amendments. Environ Pollut 138:46–58CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Cherian S, Oliveira MM (2005) Transgenic plants in phytoremediation: recent advances and new possibilities. Environ Sci Technol 39:9377–9390CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Chirakkara RA, Reddy KR, Cameselle C (2015) Electrokinetic amendment in phytoremediation of mixed contaminated soil. Electrochim Acta 181:179–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cho MR, Thatte HS, Silvia MT, Golan DE (1999) Transmembrane calcium influx induced by ac electric fields. J Fed Am Soc Exp Biol 13:677–683Google Scholar
  15. Cui LM, Wang YG, Gao L, Hu LH, Yan LG, Wei Q, Du B (2015) EDTA functionalized magnetic graphene oxide for removal of Pb(II), Hg(II) and Cu(II) in water treatment: adsorption mechanism and separation property. Chem Eng J 281:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Delgado A, Gonzalez-Caballero F, Hunter R, Koopal L, Lyklema J (2007) Measurement and interpretation of electrokinetic phenomena. J Colloid Interface Sci 309:194–224CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Dipu S, Kumar AA, Thanga SG (2012) Effect of chelating agents in phytoremediation of heavy metals. Remediat J 22:133–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dumbrava A, Birghila S, Munteanu M (2015) Contributions on enhancing the copper uptake by using natural chelators, with applications in soil phytoremediation. Int J Environ Sci Technol 12:929–938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Durand A, Piutti S, Rue M, Morel JL, Echevarria G, Benizri E (2016) Improving nickel phytoextraction by co-cropping hyperaccumulator plants inoculated by plant growth promoting rhizobacteria. Plant Soil 399:179–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Egamberdieva D (2009) Alleviation of salt stress by plant growth regulators and IAA producing bacteria in wheat. Acta Physiol Plant 31:861–864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fester T (2013) Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in a wetland constructed for benzene-, methyl tert-butyl ether- and ammonia-contaminated groundwater bioremediation. Microb Biotechnol 6:80–84CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Fuentes A, Almonacid L, Ocampo JA, Arriagada C (2016) Synergistic interactions between a saprophytic fungal consortium and Rhizophagus irregularis alleviate oxidative stress in plants grown in heavy metal contaminated soil. Plant Soil 407:355–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gomes MP, Marques TCLLSM, Carneiro MMLC, Soares ÂM (2012) Anatomical characteristics and nutrient uptake and distribution associated with the Cd-phytoremediation capacity of Eucalyptus camaldulenses Dehnh. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr 12:481–495Google Scholar
  24. Ghosh SK, Debnath B, Baidya R, De D, Li JH, Ghosh SK, Zheng LX, Awasthi AK, Liubarskaia MA, Ogola JS (2016) Waste electrical and electronic equipment management and Basel convention compliance in Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) nations. Waste Manag Res 34:693–707CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Gonneau C, Genevois N, Frerot H, Sirguey C, Sterckeman T (2014) Variation of trace metal accumulation, major nutrient uptake and growth parameters and their correlations in 22 populations of Noccaea caerulescens. Plant Soil 384:271–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hahladakis JN, Latsos A, Gidarakos E (2016) Performance of electroremediation in real contaminated sediments using a big cell, periodic voltage and innovative surfactants. J Hazard Mater 320:376–385CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Hua J, Zhang C, Yin Y, Chen R, Wang X (2012) Phytoremediation potential of three aquatic macrophytes in manganese-contaminated water. Water Environ J 26:335–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Iannicelli-Zubiani EM, Giani MI, Recanati F, Dotelli G, Puricelli S, Cristiani C (2017) Environmental impacts of a hydrometallurgical process for electronic waste treatment: a life cycle assessment case study. J Clean Prod 140:1204–1216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jabeen R, Ahmad A, Iqbal M (2009) Phytoremediation of heavy metals: physiological and molecular mechanisms. Bot Rev 75:339–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jomova K, Valko M (2011) Advances in metal-induced oxidative stress and human disease. Toxicology 283:65–87CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Jones DL, Prabowo AM, Kochian LV (1996) Kinetics of malate transport and decomposition in acid soils and isolated bacterial populations - the effect of microorganisms on root exudation of malate under Al stress. Plant Soil 182:239–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. King DJ, Doronila AI, Feenstra C, Baker AJM, Woodrow IE (2008) Phytostabilisation of arsenical gold mine tailings using four Eucalyptus species: growth, arsenic uptake and availability after five years. Sci Total Environ 406:35–42CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Li JH, Duan HB, Shi PX (2011) Heavy metal contamination of surface soil in electronic waste dismantling area: site investigation and source-apportionment analysis. Waste Manag Res 29:727–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lievens C, Yperman J, Vangronsveld J, Carleer R (2008) Study of the potential valorisation of heavy metal contaminated biomass via phytoremediation by fast pyrolysis: part I. Influence of temperature, biomass species and solid heat carrier on the behaviour of heavy metals. Fuel 87:1894–1905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lim JM, Jin B, Butcher DJ (2012) A comparison of electrical stimulation for electrodic and EDTA-enhanced phytoremediation of lead using Indian mustard (Brassica juncea). Bull Kor Chem Soc 33:2737–2740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lim JM, Salido AL, Butcher DJ (2004) Phytoremediation of lead using Indian mustard (Brassica juncea) with EDTA and electrodics. Microchem J 76:3–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lotfy SM, Mostafa AZ (2014) Phytoremediation of contaminated soil with cobalt and chromium. J Geochem Explor 144:367–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Luo J, Qi SH, Gu XWS, Wang JJ, Xie XM (2016) An evaluation of EDTA additions for improving the phytoremediation efficiency of different plants under various cultivation systems. Ecotoxicology 25:646–654CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Mao XY, Han FXX, Shao XH, Guo K, McComb J, Arslan Z, Zhang ZY (2016) Electro-kinetic remediation coupled with phytoremediation to remove lead, arsenic and cesium from contaminated paddy soil. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 125:16–24CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Mena E, Villasenor J, Rodrigo MA, Canizares P (2016) Electrokinetic remediation of soil polluted with insoluble organics using biological permeable reactive barriers: effect of periodic polarity reversal and voltage gradient. Chem Eng J 299:30–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mishra VK, Upadhyaya AR, Pandey SK, Tripathi BD (2008) Heavy metal pollution induced due to coal mining effluent on surrounding aquatic ecosystem and its management through naturally occurring aquatic macrophytes. Bioresour Technol 99:930–936CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Nadeem SM, Zahair ZA, Naveed M, Arshad M (2007) Preliminary investigations on inducing salt tolerance in maize through inoculation with rhizobacteria containing ACC deaminase activity. Can J Microbiol 53:1141–1149CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Nalla S, Hardaway CJ, Sneddon J (2012) Phytoextraction of selected metals by the first and second growth seasons of Spartina Alterniflora. Instrum Sci Technol 40:17–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Olguin EJ, Sanchez-Galvan G (2010) Aquatic phytoremediation: novel insights in tropical and subtropical regions. Pure Appl Chem 82:27–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Perez S, Renedo CJ, Ortiz A, Manana M (2008) Energy potential of waste from 10 forest species in the north of Spain (Cantabria). Bioresour Technol 99:6339–6345CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Putra RS, Ohkawa Y, Tanaka S (2013) Application of EAPR system on the removal of lead from sandy soil and uptake by Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis L.) Sep Purif Technol 102:34–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pyatt FB (2001) Copper and lead bioaccumulation by Acacia retinoides and Eucalyptus torquata in sites contaminated as a consequence of extensive ancient mining activities in Cyprus. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 50:60–64CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Quan SX, Yan B, Lei C, Yang F, Li N, Xiao XM, Fu JM (2014) Distribution of heavy metal pollution in sediments from an acid leaching site of e-waste. Sci Total Environ 499:349–355CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Reddy KR, Chinthamreddy S, Hamdan AA (1997) Synergistic effects of multiple metal contaminants on electrokinetic remediation of soils. Remediation 200:85–109Google Scholar
  50. Reimann C, Garrett RG (2005) Geochemical background—concept and reality. Sci Total Environ 350:12–27CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Römkens P, Bouwman L, Japenga J, Draaisma C (2002) Potentials and drawbacks of chelate-enhanced phytoremediation of soils. Environ Pollut 116:109–121CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Saravanan VS, Madhaiyan M, Thangaraju M (2007) Solubilization of zinc compounds by the diazotrophic, plant growth promoting bacterium Gluconacetobacter diazotrophicus. Chemosphere 66:1794–1798CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Shao JF, Fujii-Kashino M, Yamaji N, Fukuoka S, Shen RF, Ma JF (2017) Isolation and characterization of a rice line with high Cd accumulation for potential use in phytoremediation. Plant Soil 410:357–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sims REH, Senelwa K, Maiava T, Bullock BT (1999) Eucalyptus species for biomass energy in New Zealand—part II: coppice performance. Biomass Bioenergy 17:333–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Song QB, Li JH (2014) Environmental effects of heavy metals derived from the e-waste recycling activities in China: a systematic review. Waste Manag 34:2587–2594CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Tahmasbian I, Sinegani AAS (2016) Improving the efficiency of phytoremediation using electrically charged plant and chelating agents. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23:2479–2486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Thewys T, Kuppens T (2008) Economics of willow pyrolysis after phytoextraction. Int J Phytoremediation 10:561–583CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Tiago I, Teixeira I, Silva S, Chung P, Veríssimo A, Manaia C (2004) Metabolic and genetic diversity of mesophilic and thermophilic bacteria isolated from composted municipal sludge on poly-epsilon-caprolactones. Curr Microbiol 49:407–414CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Wang HH, Shan XQ, Liu T, Xie YN, Wen B, Zhang SZ, Han F, Genuchten v, Martinus T (2007) Organic acids enhance the uptake of lead by wheat roots. Planta 225:1483–1494CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Wischut M, Theuws PAW, Duchhart I (2013) Phytoremediative urban design: transforming a derelict and polluted harbour area into a green and productive neighbourhood. Environ Pollut 183:81–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zhao WT, Ding L, Gu XW, Jie L, Liu YL, Guo L, Huang T, Cheng SG (2015) Levels and ecological risk assessment of metals in soils from a typical e-waste recycling region in southeast China. Ecotoxicology 24:1947–1960CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Zhou DM, Cang L, Alshawabkeh AN, Wang YJ, Hao XZ (2006) Pilot-scale electrokinetic treatment of a cu contaminated red soil. Chemosphere 63:964–971CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Zhou DM, Chen HF, Cang L, Wang YJ (2007) Ryegrass uptake of soil Cu/Zn induced by EDTA/EDDS together with a vertical direct-current electrical field. Chemosphere 67:1671–1676CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jie Luo
    • 1
    • 2
  • Lin Ye
    • 1
  • Shihua Qi
    • 2
  • Jian Wu
    • 2
  • X. W. Sophie Gu
    • 3
  1. 1.College of Resources and EnvironmentYangtze UniversityWuhanChina
  2. 2.China University of GeosciencesWuhanChina
  3. 3.The University of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations