A Review on the Phytoremediation of Petroleum Hydrocarbon
Oil spillage as a result of petroleum industry activities and pipe-line vandalization by saboteurs is a frequent occurrence in oil-producing regions of the world. Conventional oil spill clean-up techniques involve physical and chemical processes that do more damage to the aquatic ecosystem than the oil spill itself. Consequently, the need arises to evolve or develop a more environment-friendly technique that will not only clean-up the environment but also restore the aquatic ecosystem to its status before the oil spill. Phytoremediation, which involves the use of plant to detoxify polluted site, appears to be promising in this regard. It is environment-friendly as well as cost-effective but may take more time than the conventional methods because it is a natural process.
Received: April 06, 2010;
Accepted: May 13, 2010;
Published: August 05, 2010
It is estimated that between 1.7 and 8.8 million metric tons of crude oil are
released into the worlds water every year (National
Research Council, 1985), of which more than 90% is directly related to human
activities including deliberate waste disposal. Marine oil spills, particularly
large-scale spill accidents, have received great attention due to their catastrophic
damage to the environment. For example, the spill of 37,000 metric tons (11
million gallons) of North Slope crude oil into Prince William Sound, Alaska,
from the Exxon Valdez in 1989 led to the mortality of thousands of seabirds
and marine mammals, a significant reduction in population of many intertidal
and subtidal organisms and many long-term environmental impacts (Spies
et al., 1996).
An even more devastating spill occurred recently due to the explosion of the
Transocean Deepwater Horizon rig on 20th April, 2010 killing 11 people and led
to the British Petroleum (BP) oil spill that threatens coastal Louisiana, Gulf
Coast fisheries, Gulf of Mexico ecosystems and perhaps the East Coast, as the
spill reaches the loop current (The Daily Green, 2010).
The British Petroleum oil spill has now obtained the dubious distinction of
being the worst oil spill in United States history, surpassing the damage done
by the Exxon Valdez tanker. Unlike the Exxon Valdez tragedy, in which a tanker
held a finite capacity of oil, British Petroleum's rig is tapped into an underwater
oil well and could pump more oil into the ocean indefinitely until the leak
is plugged. About $2.65 billion have been spent on clean-up (The
Daily Green, 2010).
Minor oil spills and oil contamination from non-point source discharges (e.g.,
urban run off and boat bilge) are no less threats to public health and the environment,
although they have received much less attention in the past. According to the
report of National Water Quality Inventory reports, non-point source pollution
remains United States largest source of water quality problems (United
States Environmental Protection Agency, 1996, 2000).
It is the main reason that approximately 40% of surveyed rivers, lakes and estuaries
are not clean enough to meet basic uses such as fishing or swimming. However,
in Nigeria, a major cause of oil spill is pipeline vandalisation by saboteurs
(individuals or groups) seeking government attention to correct economic marginalization
and ecological disaster occasioned by many years of unregulated crude oil exploration
and exploitation by foreign companies in the Niger Delta.
Conventional oil spill countermeasures include various physical, chemical and
biological methods. Commonly used physical methods include booming and skimming,
manual removal (wiping), mechanical removal, water flushing, sediment relocation
and tilling (Zhu et al., 2001). Physical containment
and recovery of bulk or free oil is the primary response option of choice in
most parts of the world for clean up of oil spills in marine and freshwater
shoreline environments. Chemical methods, particularly dispersants, have been
routinely used in many countries as a response option. However, chemical methods
have not been extensively used in most parts of the world due to the disagreement
about their effectiveness and the concerns of their toxicity and long-term environmental
effects (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1999).
With the recent development of less toxic chemical dispersants, the potential
for their application may increase. Some studies have also shown that some dispersant
are not as toxic as crude oil (Ndimele et al., 2010).
Environmental pollution arising from oil spill is a multi-facet problem presently
ravaging oil-producing communities all-over the globe; it causes loss of species
diversity, loss of habitat, destruction of breeding grounds of aquatic organisms
and sometimes death of organisms including man (Ndimele, 2008).
The environmental degradation caused by oil spill affects the social and economic
lives of the oil-producing communities because their rivers and other water
bodies can no longer sustain aquatic life and so their primary source of livelihood
is negatively affected. They also cant drink or swim in their rivers as
they used to do before the oil pollution and so their social life is affected.
Oil spillage is a frequent occurrence in oil-producing regions of the world.
Conventional oil spill clean-up techniques involve physical and chemical processes
that do more damage to the aquatic ecosystem than the oil spill itself (Lin
and Mendelssohn, 1998). Consequently, the need arises to evolve or develop
a more environment-friendly technique that will not only clean-up the environment
but also restore the aquatic ecosystem to its status before the oil spill. Phytoremediation,
which involves the use of plant to detoxify polluted site, appears to be promising
in this regard. It is environment-friendly as well as cost-effective but may
take more time than the conventional methods because it is a natural process.
Background on phytoremediation: Remediation is a programme of activities
designed to rehabilitate an impacted ecosystem. Phytoremediation is a form of
bioremediation, which is the use of biological processes to detoxify polluted
sites (Frick et al., 1999). Bioremediation can
also be defined as the enhancing of rehabilitation of an impacted ecosystem
by micro-organisms which have been described by Ekundayo
(1978) as our unseen allies in fight against pollution. Phytoremediation
specifically is the use of plants to remove pollutants from the environment
or render them harmless (Raskin, 1996). Several species
of plants have been shown to have the ability to grow in contaminated soils
and actually extract the pollutant from the growth medium. These plants function
in several different ways. Some plants can hyperaccumulate toxic heavy metals
in their tissues (Ndimele, 2003). Others can converts
the pollutants to less toxic compounds and volatilize them (Terry
and Zayed, 1994; Brooks, 1998). Some aquatic plant
roots can filter contaminants/pollutants from water (Brooks
and Robinson, 1998).
Phytoremediators have been studied for use in cleaning up heavy metals like
aluminium (Al), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr3+ and Cr6+),
copper (Cu), mercury (Hg), nickel (Ni), lead (Pb) and zinc (Zn). Phytoremediation
has also been tested for clean-up of explosives like 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene (TNT),
trichloroethylene (TCE) and other volatile organic chemicals and organic compounds
such as petroleum compounds (Cunningham and Ow, 1996).
If effective, phytoremediation can be an attractive alternative to current remediation
methods because the treatment can be done in situ, the cost of plants
is lower than most other current technologies and it is relatively environmentally
safe. Using this technology lowers the total cost of the clean-up project and
minimizes the disturbance the remediation will cause in the environment. Rock
and Sayre (1998) estimated phytoremediation clean up costs as $162 m-3
compare to $810 m-3 for excavation and incineration.
There are limitations, however. One of the problems associated with phytoremediation
is that the technology is still very new and is not completely understood. The
use of chelators to mobilize the metal ions is necessary in some instances for
uptake by plant roots and the results can be unpredictable (Zhu
et al., 2001). Other major concerns regarding this technology include
dissolution and migration of contaminants, limitation by the toxicity of the
contaminated environments and it being a relatively slow process (Macek
et al., 2000). Cunningham and Ow (1996) reported
that a phytoremediation project may take several years to show results. Another
challenge in phytoremediation is that the plants that are best hyperaccumulators
are very small plants and do not produce high biomass (Banuelos
et al., 1997).
Phytoremediation of petroleum hydrocarbons: Various plants have been
identified for their potential to facilitate the phytoremediation of sites contaminated
with petroleum hydrocarbon. In the majority of studies, grasses and legumes
have been singled out for their potential in this regard (Aprill
and Sims, 1990; Qiu et al., 1997; Gunther
et al., 1996; Reilley et al., 1996).
However, Ndimele (2008) also reported that water hyacinth
(Eichhornia crassipes) significantly accumulated petroleum hydrocarbon.
Prairie grasses are thought to make superior vehicles for phytoremediation because
they have extensive, fibrous root systems. Grass root systems have the maximum
root surface area (per m3of soil) of any plant type and may penetrate
the soil to a depth of up to 3 m (Aprill and Sims, 1990).
They also exhibit an inherent genetic diversity, which may give them a competitive
advantage in becoming established under unfavourable soil condition (Aprill
and Sims, 1990). Legumes are thought to have an advantage over non-leguminous
plants in phytoremediation because of their ability to fix nitrogen; i.e., legumes
do not have to compete with micro-organisms and other plants for limited supplies
of available soil nitrogen at oil-contaminated sites (Gudin
and Syratt, 1975). Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) would also
be a good phytoremediation plant for petroleum hydrocarbon because it also possesses
a fibrous root system like prairie grasses and floats in water where it can
absorb the crude oil while it is still on the surface of the water. The need
to test for the efficacy of a floating aquatic macrophyte like water hyacinth
is important because most of the oil spills occur on water bodies and would
need a floating aquatic plant to absorb the oil. The following is a brief summary
of several studies on the use of plants in the phytoremediation of petroleum
Aprill and Sims (1990) established a mix of eight prairie
grasses in sandy loam soil to determine whether the degradation of four PAHs
(benzo (a) pyrene, benzo (a) anthracene, dibenzo (a, h) anthracene and chrysene)
was stimulated by plant growth. The eight grasses included big bluestem, little
bluestem, Indian grass, switch grass, Canada wide-rhy, side oats grama, blue
grama and western wheat grass. The extent of PAH disappearance was consistently
greater in planted units compared to unplanted controls, indicating that phytoremediation
enhanced the removal of these compounds from contaminated soil. Apparent disappearance
was greatest for benzo(a)anthracene followed by chrysene, benzo(a)pyrene and
finally dibenzo(a,h)anthracene. This ranking correlated with the water solubility
of the PAH compounds, i.e., the more water-soluble the compound, the greater
its disappearance from the soil.
In a three year field plot study, Qiu et al. (1997)
found that prairie buffalo grass accelerated the reduction of naphthalene in
a clay soil compared to unplanted clay soil. The authors conducted a parallel
experiment to assess the performance of 12 warm season grass species to remove
various PAHs from contaminated soil. Results indicated that prairie buffalo
grass, common buffalo grass, Meyer zoysia grass and Verde Klein grass accelerated
the loss of the low molecular weight PAHs naphthalene, fluorine and phenanthrene
compared to an unplanted control. However, only the Verde Kleingrass accelerated
the loss of high molecular weight PAHs, such as pyrene, benzo(a)anthracene and
benzo(a)pyrene compared to the unplanted control. Other authors that have investigated
the potential of various plant species to absorb petroleum hydrocarbon are:
Gunther et al. (1996) who worked on ryegrass
(Lolium perenne L.), Reilley et al. (1996)
on alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.), tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea
Schreb.), Sudan grass (Sorghum vulgare L.) and Switch grass (Panicum
virgatum) and Reynolds and Wolf (1999) on Arctared
red fescue (Festuca rubra var.Arctared) and Annual ryegrass (Lolium
Yateem et al. (2000) investigated the degradation
of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) in the rhizosphere and non-rhizosphere
soil of three domestic plants namely, alfalfa (Medicago sativa), broad
bean (Vicia faba) and rayegrass (Lolium perenne). Although the
three domestic plants exhibited normal growth in the presence of 1% TPH, the
degradation was more profound in the case of leguminous plants. They found that
the soil cultivated with broad bean and alfalfa was 36.6 and 35.8% respectively,
compared with 24% degradation in case of rayegrass. Adams
and Duncan (2002) found that the legume plant (Vicia sativa) was
able to grow in soil contaminated with diesel fuel and the total numbers of
nodules were significantly reduced in contaminated plants as compared to control
plants, but nodules on contaminated plants were more developed than corresponding
nodules on control plants. These authors found that the amount of diesel fuel
remaining after 4 months in the legume plant Vicia sativa was slightly
less than in the rayegrass planted soil.
Rosado and Pichtel (2004) studied the decomposition
of used motor oil in soil as influenced by plant treatment. Soil contaminated
with used motor oil (1.5% w/w) was seeded with soybean (Glycine max),
green bean (Phaseolus vulgaris), sunflower (Helianthus annuus),
Indian mustard (Brassica juncea), mixed grasses/maize (Zea mays)
and mixed clover (Trifoleum partense, L. Trifoleum repense). After
150 days in the clover treatment, the added oil was no longer detected. A total
of 67% of the oil was removed in sunflower/mustard and with addition of NPK
fertilizer, the oil was completely removed. The grass/maize treatment resulted
in a 38% oil reduction, which increased to 67% with fertilizer application.
Based on oil residue and biomass results, the clover and sunflower/mustard treatments
are considered superior to other plant treatments in terms of overall phytodegradation
of used oil hydrocarbons.
Table 1 is a list of plants that have potential to phytoremediate
petroleum hydrocarbon while Table 2 is a list of plant with
a demonstrated potential to tolerate petroleum hydrocarbons. They are mostly
grasses and legumes. The uniqueness of these grasses in phytoremediation stem
from the fact that they have a fibrous root system which increases their contact
with the pollutant because of increase in surface area (Aprill
and Sims, 1990). The legumes are also a good option for phytoremediation
because of their ability to fix atmospheric nitrogen.
||Plants with a demonstrated potential to phytoremediate petroleum
|Source: Frick et al. (1999)
Therefore, they do not compete for the limited nitrogen in the soil with micro-organisms
and other plants and so can grow and have enough biomass which will enhance
their capability to phytoremediate.
Mechanisms for the phytoremediation of petroleum hydrocarbons: There are 3 primary mechanisms by which plants and micro-organisms remediate petroleum contaminated soil and ground water. These mechanisms include:
Degradation: Degradation is the breaking down of a hitherto harmful
substance to less harmful or harmless substances. In petroleum hydrocarbon degradation,
plants and micro-organisms are involved, both directly and indirectly. Some
of the end-products are: alcohol, acids, carbon dioxide and water and these
are generally less toxic and less persistent in the environment than the parent
compounds (Eweis et al., 1998). Though plants and
micro-organisms can degrade petroleum hydrocarbons independently of one another,
Atlas and Bartha (1998) suggests that it is the interaction
between plants and micro-organisms (i.e., the rhizosphere effect) which is the
primary mechanisms responsible for petrochemical degradation in phytoremediation
||Plants with a demonstrated potential to tolerate petroleum
|Source: Frick et al. (1999)
The rhizosphere effect: The rhizosphere is the region of soil closest
to the roots of plants and is, therefore, under the direct influence of the
root system (Frick et al., 1999). Plants provide
root exudates of carbon, energy, nutrients, enzymes and sometimes oxygen to
microbial populations in the rhizosphere (Cunningham et
al., 1996). Root exudates of sugars, alcohol and acids can amount to
10-20% of plant photosynthesis annually (Schnoor et al.,
1995) and provide sufficient carbon and energy to support large numbers
of microbes (e.g., approximately 108-109 vegetative microbes
per gram of soil in the rhizosphere; Erickson et al.,
1995). Due to these exudates, microbial populations and activities are 5
to 100 times greater in the rhizosphere than in bulk soil (i.e., soil not in
contact with plant roots) (Atlas and Bartha, 1998; Gunther
et al., 1996). This plant-induced enhancement of the microbial population
is referred to as the rhizosphere effect (Atlas and Bartha,
1998) and is believed to result in enhanced degradation of organic containment
in the rhizosphere.
However, Frick et al. (1999) noted that a few
experiments suggest that the degradation of petroleum hydrocarbons from soil
may not be enhanced by the rhizosphere effect. Ferro et
al. (1994) reported that crested wheat grass (Agropyron desertorum
(Fisher ex Link) Schultes) had no effect on either the rate or extent of
mineralization of the (14C) phenanthrene when planted and unplanted
systems were compared. For this experiment, the authors speculated that rapid
mineralization of the (14C) phenanthrene by microbes prior to the
establishment of the plant root systems and, therefore, prior to the presence
of a rhizosphere effect in the soil may have resulted in the lack of significant
difference between mineralization in planted and unplanted systems.
The role of plants in degradations
Direct degradation: There is paucity of information on the direct degradation
of petroleum hydrocarbon by plant (Frick et al., 1999).
Durmishidze (1977) reported that corn seedlings, tea
and poplar shoots were able to metabolize methane into various acids. The ability
to assimilate n-alkanes and liberate 14CO2 was identified
in leaves and roots of both whole and cut plants. The general pathway of conversion
for alkanes in plants was generalized as:
Indirect degradation: In contrast to the limited information available on the direct degradation of petroleum hydrocarbon by plants, there is a considerable body of information available regarding the indirect roles played by plants in the degradation of petroleum hydrocarbons. These include:
||The supply of root exudates that cause the rhizosphere effect
and enhanced cometabolic degradation
||The release of root-associated enzymes capable of transforming
||The physical and chemical effects of plants and theirs root
system on soil conditions (Gunther et al., 1996)
Root exudates: Root exudates are the link between plants and microbes
that leads to the rhizosphere effect (Frick et al.,
1999). The type and quantity of root exudate are dependent on plant species
and the stage of plant development. For example, Hegde and
Fletcher (1996) found that the release of total phenolics by the roots of
red mulberry (Morus rubra L.) increased continuously over the life of
the plant with a massive release at the end of the season accompanying leaf
senescence. The type of root exudate is also likely to be site and time specific
(Siciliano and Germida, 1998). Site and time factors
include variables such as soil types, nutrient levels, pH, water availability,
temperature, oxygen status, light intensity and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration-
all of which significantly affect the type and quantity of root exudates (Siciliano
and Germida, 1998).
Cometabolism: Cometabolism is the process by which a compound that cannot
support microbial growth on its own can be modified or degraded when another
growth- supporting substrate is present (Cunningham and
Organic molecules, including plant exudates, can provide energy to support
population of microbes that co-metabolize petroleum hydrocarbons. For example,
Ferro et al. (1997) reported that plant exudates
may have served as co-metabolites during the biodegradation of (14C)
Pyrene in the rhizosphere of crested wheatgrass.
Plant enzymes involved in phytoremediation: The release of enzymes from
roots is yet another indirect role that plants play in the degradation of petroleum
hydrocarbons. These enzymes are capable of transforming organic contaminants
by catalyzing chemical reaction in soil (Frick et al.,
1999). Schnoor et al. (1995) identified plant
enzymes as the causative agents in the transformation of contaminants mixed
with sediment and soil. Isolated enzymes systems included dehalogenase, nitroreductase,
peroxidase, laccase and nitrilase. These findings suggest that plant enzymes
may have significant spatial effects extending beyond the plant itself and temporal
effects continuing after the plant has died (Cunningham
et al., 1996).
The role of micro- organisms in degradation: Bioremediation is the use
of micro - organisms to destroy or immobilize organic contaminants in the absence
of plant (Frick et al., 1999). It is important
to look at the role of micro-organisms in the degradation of petroleum hydrocarbons
in the presence of plants - a mechanism of Phytoremediation. Issues to be considered
include the types of micro-organisms involved in phytoremediation, reasons for
microbial degradation, differences in degradation by various micro-organisms,
characteristics of microbial communities involved in degradation, and the role
micro-organisms play in reducing phytotoxicity to plants.
Table 3 shows a list of bacteria and fungi that can degrade
||Genera of hydrocarbon-degrading microorganisms isolated from
|Source: Frick et al. (1999)
Generally, degradation occurs as result of these organisms using the organic
contaminants for growth and reproduction. The organic contaminants provide the
micro-organisms with the carbon and electron used by the organism to obtain
energy (Frick et al., 1999).
Containment: Containment can be direct or indirect. Direct containment
involves the accumulation of contaminants within the plants, adsorption of contaminants
onto roots and binding of contaminants in the rhizosphere through enzymatic
activities (Cunningham et al., 1996; Frick
et al., 1999). Containment involves using plants to reduce or eliminate
the bioavailability of contaminants to other biota. Contaminants are not necessarily
degraded when they are contained. Indirect containment involves plants supplying
enzymes that bind contaminants into soil organic matter (or humus) in
a process called Humification and by increasing soil organic matter
content, which allows for humification (Cunningham et
Transfer of petroleum hydrocarbons to the atmosphere (phytovolatilization):
The natural ability of a plant to volatilize a contaminant that has been taken
up through its roots can be exploited as a natural air-stripping pump system.
Phytovolatilization is most applicable to those contaminants that are treated
by conventional air-stripping i.e., contaminants with a Henrys constant
KH >10 atm m3 waterA m-3 air, such as BTEX, TCE, vinyl
chloride and carbon tetrachloride. Chemicals with KH < 10 atm m3
waterA m-3 air such as phenol and PCP are not suitable for the air-stripping
mechanism because of their relatively low volatility (Zhang
et al., 2001).
Phytoremediation have shown great promise in the clean up of aquatic environment polluted with crude oil. Though in its infancy and not fully understood yet, it is one remediation strategy that holds tremendous prospects for the future. It will clean up the environment without any of those negative impacts that is associated with physical and chemical processes of oil spill remediation. However, a lot of studies still need to be done on areas like: the mechanisms of phytoremediation by plants as this may vary, site specificity of phytoremediation techniques, the influence of microbial population, the use of genetically modified plants that has greater speed of crude oil absorption.
The author is grateful to Dr. Adetola Jenyo-Oni of Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Management, Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry, University of Ibadan, Nigeria for her constructive criticisms of the original manuscript.
1: Adam, G. and H. Duncan, 2002. Influence of diesel on seed germination. Environ. Pollut., 120: 363-370.
2: Aprill, W. and R.C. Sims, 1990. Evaluation of the use of prairie grasses for stimulating polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon treatment in soil. Chemosphere, 20: 253-265.
CrossRef | Direct Link |
3: Atlas, R.M. and R. Bartha, 1998. Microbial Ecology: Fundamentals and Applications. 4th Edn., Benjamin Cummings, USA., ISBN-13: 9780805306552.
4: Banuelos, G.S., H.A. Ajwa, B. Mackey, L. Wu, C. Cook, S. Akohoue and S. Zambruzuski, 1997. Evaluation of different plant species used for phytoremediation of high soil selenium. J. Environ. Qual., 26: 639-646.
Direct Link |
5: Brooks, R.R., 1998. Phytoremediation by Volatilization. In: Plants that Hyperaccumulate Heavy metals: Their Roles in Phytoremediation, Microbiology, Archaeology, Mineral Exploration and Phytomining, Brooks, R.R. (Ed.). CAB International, Oxon, UK., pp: 289-312.
6: Brooks, R.R. and B.H. Robinson, 1998. Aquatic Phytoremediation by Accumulator Plants. In: Plants that Hyperaccumulate Heavy Metals: Their Roles in Phytoremediation, Microbiology, Archaeology, Mineral Exploration and Phytomining, Brooks, R.R. (Ed.). CAB International, Oxon, UK., pp: 203-226.
7: Cunningham, D.S. and R.W. Berti, 1993. Remediation of contaminated soils with green plants: An overview. In vitro Cell. Dev. Biol.-Plant, 29: 207-212.
CrossRef | Direct Link |
8: Cunningham, S.D. and D.W. Ow, 1996. Promises and prospects of phytoremediation. Plant Physiol., 110: 715-719.
PubMed | Direct Link |
9: Cunningham, S.D., T.A. Anderson, A.P. Schwab and F.C. Hsu, 1996. Phytoremediation of soils contaminated with organic pollutants. Adv. Agron., 56: 55-114.
CrossRef | Direct Link |
10: Rosado, E.D. and J. Pitchel, 2004. Phytoremediation of soil contaminated with used motor oil II GreenHouse studies. Environ. Eng. Sci., 21: 169-180.
CrossRef | Direct Link |
11: Durmishidze, S.V., 1977. Metabolism of certain air-polluting organic compounds in plants. Prikl. Biokhim. Mikrobiol., 13: 646-653.
12: Ekundayo, J.A., 1978. Environmental consequences of pollution of the lagos lagoon. Bull. Sci. Assoc. Nigeria, 3: 290-299.
13: Erickson, L.E., L.C. Davis and M. Narayanan, 1995. Bioenergetics and bioremediation of contaminated soil. Therochimica Acta, 250: 353-358.
14: Eweis, J.F., S.J. Ergas, D.P. Chang and E.D. Schroeder, 1998. Bioremediation Principles. International Editions, McGraw-Hill Book Company Europe, Malaysia, ISBN: 0-07-057732-3.
15: Ferro, A.M., R.C. Sims and B. Bugbee, 1994. Hycrest crested wheatgrass accelerates the degradation of pentachlorophenol in soil. J. Environ. Qual., 23: 272-279.
16: Ferro, A., J. Kennedy, W. Doucette, S. Nelson, G. Jauregui, B. McFarland and B. Bugbee, 1997. Fate of Benzene in Soils Planted with Alfalfa: Uptake, Volatilization and Degradation. In: Phytoremediation of Soil and Water Contaminants, Kruger, E.L., T.A. Anderson and J.R. Coats (Eds.). American Chemical Society, Washington, DC., pp: 223 -237.
17: Frick, C.M., R.E. Farrell and J.J. Germida, 1999. Assessment of phytoremediation as an in situ technique for cleaning oil-contaminated sites. PTAC Petroleum Technology Alliance, Canada, Calgary, pp: 88
18: Gudin, C. and W.J. Syratt, 1975. Biological aspects of land rehabilitation following hydrocarbon contamination. Environ. Pollut., 8: 107-112.
19: Gunther, T., U. Dornberger and W. Fritsche, 1996. Effects of ryegrass on biodegradation of hydrocarbons in soil. Chemosphere, 33: 203-216.
Direct Link |
20: Lin, Q. and I.A. Mendelssohn, 1998. The combined effects of phytoremediation and biostimulation in enhancing habitat restoration and oil degradation of petroleum contaminated wetlands. Ecol. Eng., 10: 263-274.
CrossRef | Direct Link |
21: Macek, T., M. Mackova and J. Kas, 2000. Exploitation of plants for the removal of organics in environmental remediation. Biotechnol. Adv., 18: 23-34.
22: National Research Council, 1985. Oil in the Sea: Inputs, Fates and Effects. National, Academy Press, Washington, DC. pp: 7-10.
23: Ndimele, P.E., 2003. The prospect of phytoremediation of polluted natural wetlands by inhabiting aquatic macrophytes (Water hyacinth). M.Sc. Thesis, University of Ibadan, Nigeria.
24: Ndimele, P.E., 2008. Evaluation of phyto-remediative properties of water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes [Mart.] Solms) and biostimulants in restoration of oil-polluted wetland in the Niger Delta. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Ibadan, Nigeria.
25: Ndimele, P.E., A. Jenyo-Oni and C.C. Jibuike, 2010. Comparative toxicity of crude oil, dispersant and crude oil-plus-dispersant to Tilapia guineensis. Res. J. Environ. Toxicol., 4: 13-22.
CrossRef | Direct Link |
26: Qiu, X., T.W. Leland, S.I. Shah, D.L. Sorensen and E.W. Kendall, 1997. Field Study: Grass Remediation for Clay Soil Contaminated with Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons. In: Phytoremediation of Soil and Water Contaminants, Kruger, E.L., T.A. Anderson and J.R. Coats (Eds.). American Chemcial Society, Washington, DC., pp: 186-199.
27: Raskin, I., 1996. Plant genetic engineering may help with environmental clean-up. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 93: 3164-3166.
Direct Link |
28: Reilley, K.A., M.K. Banks and A.P. Schwab, 1996. Dissipation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the rhizosphere. J. Environ. Qual., 25: 212-219.
CrossRef | Direct Link |
29: Reynolds, C.M. and D.C. Wolf, 1999. Microbial based strategies for assessing rhizosphereenhanced phytoremediation. Proceedings of the Phytoremediation Technical Seminar, May 31-June 1, Calgary, Ottawa, pp: 125-135.
30: Rock, S.A. and P.G. Sayre, 1998. Phytoremediation of hazardous wastes: Potential regulatory acceptability. Remediation J., 8: 5-17.
Direct Link |
31: Schnoor, J.L., L.A. Light, S.C. McCutcheon, N.L. Wolfe and L.H. Carreia, 1995. Phytoremediation of organic and nutrient contaminants. Environ. Sci. Technol., 29: 318A-323A.
CrossRef | Direct Link |
32: Siciliano, S.D. and J.J. Germida, 1998. Mechanisms of phytoremediation: biochemical and ecological interactions between plants and bacteria. Environ. Rev., 6: 65-79.
33: Spies, R.B., S.D. Rice, D.A. Wolfe and B.A. Wright, 1996. The effects of the exxon valdez oil spill on alaskan coastal environment. Proceedings of the 1993 Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Symposium, February 2-5, 1993, Anchorage, Alaska, USA., pp: 1-16.
34: Terry, N. and A.M. Zayed, 1994. Selenium Volatilization by Plants. In: Selenium in the Environment, Frankenberger, W.T. and S. Benson (Eds.). Marcel Dekker, New York, ISBN: 0-8247-8993-8, pp: 343-369.
35: The Daily Green, 2010. The BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill update. http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/gulf-of-mexico-oil-spill.
36: United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1996. A series of fact sheets on Non-Point Source (NPS) pollution. EPA 841–F-96 –004, Office of Water, US. Environmental Protection Agency, pp: 120.
37: United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1999. Understanding oil spills and oil spill response. EPA 540-K–99–007, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, U.S Environmental Protection Agency, pp: 149
38: United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2000. The quality of our nations waters: A summary of the national water quality inventory: 1998 report to congress. EPA 841–S–00–001, Office of Water, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
39: Yateem, A., M.T. Balba, A.S. El-Nawawy and N. Al-Awadhi, 2000. Plants-associated Microflora and the remediation of oil contaminated soil. Int. J. Phytoremediation, 2: 183-191.
Direct Link |
40: Zhang, C., R.C. Daprato, S.F. Nishino, J.C. Spain and J.B. Hughes, 2001. Remediation of dinitrotoluene contaminated soils from former ammunition plants: Soil washing efficiency and effective process monitoring in bioslurry reactors. J. Hazard. Mater., 87: 139-154.
Direct Link |
41: Zhu, X., A.D. Venosa, M.T. Suidan and K. Lee, 2001. Guidelines for the bioremediation of marine shorelines and freshwater wetlands. US Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH.
42: Hegde, R.S. and J.S. Fletcher, 1996. Influence of plant growth stage and season on the release of root phenolics by mulberry as related to development of phytoremediation technology. Chemosphere, 32: 2471-2479.
Direct Link |