Rahman - 2022 - IOP - Conf. - Ser. - Earth - Environ. - Sci. - 963 - 012040

IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science
PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- Characterization of Sludge Generated
Comparison of different phytoremediation from Acid Mine Drainage Treatment Plants
N. Amanda and S. S. Moersidik
strategies for acid mine drainage (AMD) - Phytoremediation Potential of Pistia
stratiotes to Reduce High Concentration of
Copper (Cu) in Acid Mine Drainage
To cite this article: R A Rahman et al 2022 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 963 012040 VZ Novita, SS Moersidik and CR Priadi
- Acid mine drainage removal by mixed

bacteria culture of Pseudomonas
aeruginosa and Brevibacterium sp.
A N Putri, R Ratnaningsih and A Rinanti
View the article online for updates and enhancements.
This content was downloaded from IP address 114.124.239.176 on 06/04/2022 at 01:43

International Bioprocessing Association Subject Conference (IBASC 2021) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 963 (2022) 012040 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/963/1/012040
Comparison of different phytoremediation strategies for acid

mine drainage (AMD)
R A Rahman1*, J Wintoko1, A Prasetya1

1
Department of Chemical Engineering, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Jl Grafika 2, 55281
Yogyakarta, Indonesia
*Corresponding author: rizqi.a.r@mail.ugm.ac.id
Abstract. Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) is a severe environmental problem that results from
mining industry activities around the world. Water pollution from acid mine drainage not only
damages the quality of water and soil but also affects a sustainable environment such as plants
and animals in a mining area. Mining water typically has acid with highly toxic heavy metal
concentrations. Remediation is one of the technologies that can be used to reduce heavy metal
pollutant water from mine drainage water. There were many researches about remediation in
the past, but phytoremediation has attracted various researchers' attention. Phytoremediation is
a remediation pollutants method using a plant as a media that has the advantages of being effi-
cient, economical, and eco-friendly. The most significant important aspect for the successful
phytoremediation method is a selection of the plant species. Aquatic plants have a high level of
efficiency in reducing organic and inorganic pollutants in water. The efficiency of aquatic
plants can be improved with innovative approaches. This review focuses on the comparison
characteristic of aquatic plants in the phytoremediation method to reduce heavy metals in pol-
lutant water. Comparison served to support innovations to improve efficiency phytoremedia-
tion application research challenge for acid mine drainage issues in the near future.
1. Introduction
Acid Mine Drainage or AMD is the result of ongoing activities even closeure and abandoned mining
area operations around the world that appears to be an important environmental problem. AMD is
considered by the United Nation to be the second biggest environmental problem global warming [1].
Han (2015) in Kafeni et al., (2017) explained that with the character of AMD that possess high acid
and heavy metal concentration, it causes the enviroment quality such as soil and water in the AMD
area to be damaged and affects water and soil life [2].
The reaction of pyrite (FeS2) with oxygen and water is the main source of AMD. The oxidation
reaction of pyrite is represented under a variety of different conditions [2]. Reaction (1) until (6) is
general, and the main rection of pyrite oxidation has been explained by Chen et al. (2015), Neculita et
al. (2007), Pierre Louis et al., (2015) in Kafeni et al., (2017) [2]. Reaction (1) occurs at neutral pH and
shows the oxidation of pyrite with oxygen molecules in excess water. Reaction (1) shows that the Fe2+
ion produced then reacts with O2 to form Fe3+ as facilitated by microbes (sulfur-oxidizing bacteria)
e.g. Thiobacillus thiooxidans and Thiobacillus ferooxidans, where energy for their metabolism is from
reaction (2) [3]. Reaction (4) represented the overall pyrite oxidation (reactions (1) - (3)). The reaction
(5) or pyrite oxidation rate is faster than oxidation reaction (1) and shows that ferric have a role as the
oxidizing agent in the complete oxidation of pyrite. Production of H+ ion makes the pH value drop
dramatically and becomes high acid [3]. Precipitation of Fe3+ will form Fe(OH)3 when the pH of the
Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
system remains over 3.5 - 4.0 and turn into brown-yellow-orange colored substance known as
“yellowboy” [3]. Reaction (6) is the complete pyrite oxidation in presence of low water content.
FeS2 + O2 + H2O → Fe2+ + 2 SO42- + 2 H+ (1)

Fe2+ + O2 + H+ → Fe3+ + H2O (2)
Fe3+ + 3 H2O → Fe(OH)3 + 3 H+ (3)
FeS2 + O2 + H2O → Fe(OH)3 + 2 SO42- + 4 H+ (4)
FeS2 + 14 Fe3+ + 8 H2O → 15 Fe2+ + 2 SO42- + 16 H+ (5)
FeS2 + O2 + H2O → Fe3+ + 2 SO42- + H+ (6)
There are many types of remediation technologies for AMD contaminated water, but many
remediation technologies leads into generating new secondary waste and adds to the cost of treating
the secondary waste [4]. An example is a direct treatment with limestone (CaCO3) and NaOH.
Limestone is known as a cheap agent but less soluble in water, and NaOH requires more handling, so
that when it’s excessive it will occur, which will become a problem in water bodies [3]. Therefore, it is
necessary to select and design the right AMD treatment technology. One of the alternative
technologies for treating heavy metals in AMD water that is cheap and environmentally friendly is
phytoremediation, with plants such as hyperaccumulators to remove heavy metals [5].
2. Materials and method

This paper is a mini-review from previous researches in AMD phytoremediation research. The fo-
cuses are on the different plants that have been used, along with their effectiveness, advantages, and
drawbacks during the phytoremediation trial.
3. Result and discussion

Various types of aquatic plants for phytoremediation applications are effective in reducing the amount
of organic or inorganic contaminants present in water. According to Du et al. (2014) [6], the
advantages and disadvantages of phytoremediation technologies have been discussed in table 1. One
of the shortcomings of phytoremediation based on table 1 is the need for several years for
contaminated sites. To cover this shortcoming, the option of making a constructed wetland system in
the remediation of pollutants in wastewater can be improved by involving supporting components
such as sediment (e.g. soil, rock, gravel, organic matter), microorganisms (e.g., soil and rhizome
bacteria), sunlight (energy source of the plant), and also water in a system with less maintenance [7–
9].
Plants as components in the constructed wetlands have a symbiosis with bacteria that promotes the
mechanism of reduction, adsorption, and metal deposition [9]. Munawar (2017) in Hindersah et al.
(2018) explained about other functions of plants (apart from metal accumulation) such as substrate
consolidation by plant roots, thereby increasing the residence time of water in wetlands; Plant roots
become a place for microbes to stimulate processes such as removing oxygen and providing a source
of organic matter for heterotrophic microbes [10].
United States of Environmental Protection Agencies or USEPA in DuPoldt et al. (1996) [11]
describes the advantages and disadvantages of constructed wetlands compared to conventional
mechanical treatment processes. The advantages of a constructed wetland system are: it is an effective
treatment in a passive manner, less needful of mechanical equipment and energy, usually cheap to
construct and operation also maintainance compared to mechanical treatment processes with the same
effluent quality, and doesn’t require treatment for residual sludges. And the disadvantages of
constructed wetlands are: it requires a large land area, the pollutants (like phosphorus, metals, or
organic pollutants) that was removed in the system accumulated over time in wetland sediments, and
in cold climates, the ability of pollutant removal is reduced [11].
2
Table 1. Advantages and Disadvantages of Phytoremediation Technologies.

Advantages Disadvantages
Capable to treat various organic and inorganic The pollutants concentration cannot exceed the
pollutants. plants tolerance.
Can be applied both in situ and ex situ. Climate can be a challenging factor.
Does not require sophisticated and expensive Plants need time to grow, therefore it can take
technologies. longer time to be effective in reducing the
pollutants.
The biomass produced has a potential to be used Biomass produced is contaminate d by the
as fuel or other applications. pollutants therefore it may be categorized as
hazardous material and limit its use.
3.1. Phytoremediation mechanism in constructed wetland

The quality of contaminated water with inorganic and organic matter, also micropollutants can be
reduced or removed by the wetland system using physical and chemical process because there are
microbial and plant activities [8], [9]. Various types of aquatic plants for phytoremediation
applications in the wetland are successful and effective in reducing the amount of organic or inorganic
contaminants present in water by combining physical, chemical, and biological methods [12], [13].
Tahir et al. (2016) explained that the main mechanism of phytoremediation in the wetland is as
follows [14]:
3.1.1. Phytoaccumulation. Phytoaccumulation or phytoextraction or phytoabsorption or phytoseques-

tration is the contaminant uptake, translocation, and accumulation from media (water or soil) by roots
above ground, i.e., tissue or shoots [13,15–18]. Md Sa’at et al., (2017) [13] explained that the
mechanism of phytoaccumulation is one of the important aspects in the mechanism of improving
water quality through the nutrients present in plants. The content of nutrients in plants can be
determined through the acid digestion method by analyzing the total concentration of nitrogen and
phosphorus. The selection of plants is very important in this technology with consideration of metal
tolerance and the ability to accumulate pollutants [19]. Zhuang et al. (2007) generally describes about
plants that produce high amounts of biomass in accumulating high concentrations of pollutants
compared to ordinary plants [20].
3.1.2. Phytovolatilization. Phytovolatilization is the process of absorption or uptake of pollutants from

media (soil, sludge, sediments, water) by plants and release them to air by evaporation [19,21].
Bioconversion in the different parts of the plant, especially leaves, can release metals into the
atmosphere in gas forms [19]. The pollutants that are absorbed in roots, transported through the xylem,
and are released to the atmosphere is less toxic and volatile compound, as a result form modification
from plant metabolism [22–24]. According to a review by Laghlimi et al., (2015), there are advantages
and disadvantages for this mechanism [21] (see table 2.). The fact that incomplete removal of pollutant
and transfer process from media to atmosphere is the limitation of this mechanism makes the
mechanism of phytoremediation controversial [25].
3.1.3. Phytofiltration. Phytofiltration may be defined as the mechanism where plant roots or seedlings
have a role to filter, absorb, concentrate and/or precipitate harmful pollutants from aqueous streams
[13,19,26]. Mechanisms involved in biosorption include chemical and physical processes into the
biosurface and surface adsorption [19,21,27]. In this mechanism, plant grows hydroponically, and
plant roots move to polluted media when they have developed a dense root system [25]. Some aquatic
3
plants (floating or rootless macrophytes) have a high phytofiltration ability to remove heavy metals
pollutants from water [28,29].
Table 2. Advantages and Disadvantages of Phytovolatilization.

Advantages Disadvantages
Highly toxic compounds can be metabolized The hazardous contaminants can be passed on to
into less hazardous ones. fruits or other plants parts.
The volatilized compound may be easier to The released contaminant to the atmosphere can
degrade in gaseous forms be hazardous even though it is easier to degrade.
3.1.4. Phytodegradation. Phytodegradation or phytotransformation is the degradation of the pollutant

inside plants through metabolism, or through roots outside with enzymes (such as dehalogenases,
nitroreductases, and peroxidases) which transform them into simple molecules (such as CO2 and H2O)
[30–32]. Some plants make their own enzymes to make degradation process faster [32]. Other plants
have the ability to accumulate and detoxify with metabolism activities [26]. Activation and
transformation, conjugation with metabolism system, and storage or elimination of organic compound
in the cell [33]. Because of the ability accumulate and detoxify of pollutants, green plants can be
called as ‘‘Green Liver’’, but they have limitations towards the removal of heavy metals pollutants
since they are nonbiodegradable [26].
3.1.5. Rhizodegradation. Rhizodegradation or phytostimulation is the mechanism that increases of

microbial and fungal activity in the rhizosphere and breaks down organic pollutants with plant roots.
However, the process rate is slower than phytodegradation [6]. Plants release organic compounds (e.g.,
sugar, amino acid, phenol, enzymes) through roots and stimulates about 10–100 times of microbial
and fungal activity in the rhizosphere to degrade organic pollutants [26,34]. Plant roots release nutrient
exudates, provides carbon and nitrogens source to microbes, and facilitates microbial activity
stimulation [26]. Plant growth promoting bacteria (PGPB) that lives and colonizes different part of
roots have the ability to degrade pollutants more effectively than a single species/strain [35].
Rhizobacteria (e.g. Achromobacter, Pseudomonas, and Streptomyces) have a beneficial effect on
plants because they can reduce the metal toxicity by biosorption and bioaccumulation in metal
contaminated environments [36, 37].
3.2. Constructed Wetland Types

Flow direction is the most used classification of Constructed Wetlands (CW) system [38]. There are
two general types based on the flow path in the CW system, Free Water Surface (FWS) and
Subsurface Flow (SSF).
3.2.1. Free Water Surface (FWS). Water plants are planted in media with shallow basins and
containing a soil layer with 30 to 40 cm thicknesses, and the water level is slightly above the media to
expose water to the atmosphere and sunlight radiation [38]. Commonreeds (Phragmites australis),
Cattails (Typha spp.), Bulrush (Scirpus spp.), and Herbs (Juncus spp.) is a common plant that belongs
in this type [39]. Compared with SSF type, USEPA explained that the advantages for this type are:
they are efficient for BOD, TSS, COD, metals, organics pollutants, also nitrogen and phosphorus
removal in waters with a reasonable detention time. But the disadvantages for this type are animals
like mosquitoes or insects, which can be a problem[40].
3.2.2. Subsurface Flow (SSF). Compared with free water surface type, USEPA explained that the
advantages is in cold climates, which provides better thermal protection, animals such as mosquitoes
or similar insects are not a problem, and the risk of contact by human and pet can be reduced. And the
disadvantages are: the high-cost construction because it uses gravel as medium for the layer [41].
4
Based on flow operation, subsurface flow is classified as horizontal, vertical, and hybrid (combination
of vertical and horizontal). Horizontal types have the substrate layer thickness varies from 30 up to
100 cm and a lower area demand compared to the free water surface and also less electrical energy
needed, if compared to vertical type [38,42].
The most common setup for vertical type is a basin and layer of gravel and sand with the total
thickness around 30 to 180 cm [38]. Compared with the horizontal type, the vertical type has less
clogging and space and also has the ability to nitrify due to good oxygen transfer [43].
Hybrid type is the combination of vertical and horizontal type to achieve high effectiveness by
using advantages of each individual system. Hybrid types operation has been widely used are in many
countries around the world, especially when ammonia-N and total-N is required to be removed [38].
Hybrid types have treat waste well, especially for nitrogen, because they have advantages that differ-
ent filters combinations has and is also stable. However, they require large space to prevent clogging
[44].
3.3. Aquatic Plant Types for Phytoremediation

Aquatic plants have a natural ability as absorbers of organic and inorganic pollutants [45]. Heavy met-
al removal with aquatic plants is the most profitable application in terms of cost and environment
[26,45,46]. Constructed wetlands with aquatic plants as the main actors have been widely applied as a
method to treat water or wastewater in the world [47,48]. The root system of aquatic plants has always
played an important role in cleaning contaminanted areas [49,50]. Aquatic plants takes time to grow,
but with many advantages, they can cover these shortcomings [51,52]. The selection of aquatic plants
depending on the charactertics of water or wastewater is an important factor in this method to increase
the effectiveness of phytoremediation [53,54].
Table 3. pH Tolerance of Aquatic Plants.

Aquatic Plant Common Name Lowest pH tolerance References
Lemna minor Duckweed 2–4 [55]
Wedelia trilobata Yellow Daisy 2.5 [56]
Spirodela intermedia Duckweed 3 [55]
Eleocharis dulcis Chinese Water 3 [57]
Chestnut
Eichhornia crassipes Water hyacinth 3–4 [58]
4 [59]
Vetiveria zizanioides Vetiver grass 3.3 [60]
Juncus effusus Common rush 3.5 [61]
Polygonum hydropip- Smartweed 3.5 and 4.5 [62]
eroides
Typha latifolia Cattail 3.5 [63]
5.8 [64]
Azolla caroliniana Water Fern 3.5 [65]
Iris pseudacorus Yellow flag 3.6 [66]
Ceratophyllum demer- Hornwort 4 [67]
sum
Myriophyllum spicatum Parrot feathers 4 [62]
5.4 [68]
Pistia stratiotes Water lettuce 4 [69]
Colocasia esculenta Coco yam 4.2 [70]
Ipomea aquatic Water spinach 4.3 [71]
Sida hermaphrodita Virginia Mallow 4.3 [72]
Potamogeton pectinatus American pondweed 4.4 and 5.0 [62]
spartina alterniflora Cordgrass 4.5 [73]
5
Aquatic Plant Common Name Lowest pH tolerance References

Phragmites australis Common reed 4.8 [74]
Vallisneria spiralis Tape grass 5.5 and 6.5 [62]
Scripus Bulrush 5.25 [62]
Salvinia minima Water spangles 5–6 [73]
Salvinia herzogii Water fern 5 [75]
Scirpus tabernaemon- softstem bulrus 5.4 [76]
tani
Hydrilla vercilata Hydrilla 5.5 [77]
Azolla pinnata Mosquito Fern 5 [78]
Cyperus alternifolius Umbrella Plant 5.5 [79]
Echinodorus palaefolius Mexican Sword-Plant 5.5 [62]
eleocharis acicularis Needle spikerush 5.5 [62]
Potamogeton crispus Pondweed 5.6 and 5.4 [62]
3.3.1. Submerged Aquatic Plant. Leaves are the main part of metal accumulation in this plant [46].
Polyglalacturonic acid, which appears inside cell walls has a negative charge, thus attracts metal ions
that have positive ions to move into the cell wall [80]. The following is a list of submerged plants that
have metal uptake capabilities:
Table 4. Metal Uptake of Submerged Aquatic Plants.

Aquatic Plant Metal Uptake and Result Times References
Sida hermaphrodi- Bioaccumulation Factor (BF) in contaminated 2 years [81]
ta loam soil:
Cd (0.83); Cu (0.19); Pb (0.14); Zn (0.93)
Vetiveria zizani- Metal removal from AMD-Impacted water: 364 years (with [82]
oides Fe (81%); Al (11%); Mn (27%); Zn (35%); plant replaced
Ni (38%); Cu (8%); Pb (81%); Cr (21%) after 168 days)
Juncus effusus Metal accumulation in electroplate 7 days [83]
wastewater (mg/g, per gram dry weight):
Cr (45.92); Fe (19.38); Cu (1.38); Zn (18.69)
Iris pseudacorus Metal accumulation in electroplate 7 days [83]
wastewater (mg/g, per gram dry weight):
Cr (45.32); Fe (142.11); Cu (1.86); Zn
(14.88)
Eleocharis dulcis Removal (%): 9 days (Mn), 60 [84]
Hg (97.88), Mn (79.88) days (Hg), 30 [85]
Metal accumulation in AMD (mg/kg): days (Fe) [86]
Fe (54.7)
Cyperus alternifo- Metal accumulation in electroplate 7 days [83]
lius wastewater (mg/g, per gram dry weight):
Cr (31.34); Fe (30.57); Cu (1.98); Zn (17.45)
Wedelia trilobata Metal ion adsorbtion: 3 days [87]
Cd, Co, Pb, Mn, Zn, Fe
Scirpus tabernae- Metal Uptake (ppm dry wt): 90 days [88]
montani Mn (494.92), Ni (56.37), Cu (144.98), Zn
(207.95) and Pb (93.08)
Colocasia esculen- Metal Accumulation (mg/kg): 15 days [89]
ta Cd (18.64), Zn (33.85)
Echinodorus Metal accumulation (mg/kg): [90]
palaefolius Pb (4,87)
6
3.3.2. Emergent Aquatic Plants. This type of plant is generally found on wet soil or submerged in
water with a depth of 0.5 m below the ground [46]. This plant has the ability to concentrate most of the
metal inside roots of the soil surface or sediment, and some other species have the ability to distribute
metals into the atmosphere [46]. Metal uptake and detoxification occur in plants [91]. The following is
a list of submerged plants that have metal uptake capabilities.
Table 5. Metal Uptake of Emergent Aquatic Plant.

Aquatic Plant Metal Uptake Times References
Hydrilla verticil- Cd (7.9 mg/ml) 7 days [92]
lata
Eleocharis acicu- Accumulation (mg/kg): 11 months [93]
laris Fe (59500), Pb (1120),
Zn (964), Mn (388), Cr
(265), Cu (235) and Ni
(47.4)
3.3.3. Floating Aquatic Plants. This type of plant has floating leaves and submerged roots. Active
transport of metals from water starts from the roots and is transferred to other parts of the plant body,
such as stems and leaves. Passive metal transport occurs in these plants by direct contact between
metal-contaminated media and plant bodies and accumulates on plant tops [94]. The following is a list
of submerged plants that have metal uptake capabilities.
Table 6. Metal Uptake of Floating Aquatic Plant

Eichhornia cras- Removal rate in wastewater steel 30 days [95]
sipes effluent:
Al (73%); Pb (73%,); As-(74%); Cd
(82.8%); Cu (78.6%)
Pistia stratiotes Metal removal average in different 15 days [96]
concentration (%):
Zn (89); Fe (81); Mn (94); Cu (81);
Cr (93); Pb (95)
Salvinia minima Metal Removal at pH 5 (%): 24 hours [75]
Pb (89.96); Cd (84.50)
Salvinia herzogii Metal removal average in different 31 days [94]
concentration (%):
Cr (90.9)
Lemna minor Metal removal (%): 15 days [96]
Zn (97.56); Fe (78.47); Mn (95.2); Cu
(90.41); Cr (96.94); Pb (98.55)
Spirodela interme- Metal removal (%): 15 days [96]
dia Zn (95.73); Fe (80.23); Mn (96.91);
Cu (91.71); Cr (33.88); Pb (98.22)
Myriophyllum spi- Ratio concentration metal between 3 months [97]
catum plant and in sediment:
Fe (130.18); Mn (32.76); Cu (15.79);
Pb (3.24)
Ceratophyllum Pb Removal and accumulation in 7 days [98]
demersum Plant:
92.8 % and 164.26 mg/g.dw
7

Potamogeton cris- bioconcentration factor (BCF): - [99]
pus Cu (1886), Fe (1644), Ni (2897), Zn
(3298), Mn (5614)
Potamogeton pec- The average removal efficiencies %: 2 hours [100]
tinatus Cd (92); Pb (79); Mn (86); Zn (67);
Cu (70),
Typha latifolia Highest Removal (%) in Variation of [101]
Treatment:
Fe (93.37); Mn (85.21)
Vallisneria spiralis Ar Accumulation: 20 days [102]
40.34 mg/kg
spartina alterniflo- Metal concentration in Plant (µg/g): - [103]
ra Cd (0.1); Pb (<0.12); Cu (13); Zn
(27); Cr (<0.02); Ni (5.0); Mn (57);
Fe (365)
Phragmites austra- Metal accumulation in electroplate 7 days [83]
lis wastewater (mg/g, per gram dry
weight):
Cr (45.96); Fe (26.78); Cu (0.65); Zn
(18.41)
Scripus Metal concentration in Root Plant - [104]
(µg/g):
Al (378); Pb (9.79); Cd (0.28); Fe
(8010)
Polygonum hy- Identified can reduce heavy metal - [105]
dropiperoides (Cu, Pb, Zn) contamination ex mining
site
Ipomea aquatic Removal Effeciency (%): 10 days [106]
Fe (38); Al (87)
Azolla caroliniana Metal Concentration in plant (mg kg- 12 days [107]
1 dm):
Hg2+ (578); Cr3+ (964); Cr4+ 356
Azolla pinnata Removal Efficiency (%): 7 days [108]

Cr (81); Ni (56); Cd (83); Pb (85)
3.4. Case study

The case study of phytoremediation using a constructed wetland system was carried out at Kristine-
berg mine site in Sweden by Nyquist and Greger (2006) [109] using Phragmites australis, Carex ros-
trata, and Eriophorum angustifolium for five months. The discussion based on the results obtained in
this case study is that constructing a wetland above mine tailings is expected to prevent the formation
of AMD, but the results of this study showed that the pH decreased and sulfate concentration
increased, indicating that the formation of sulfide mineral oxidation was the source of AMD. The met-
al removal mechanism in this case study is by metal sedimentation process. In the case of Fe removal,
Fe precipitates because it forms secondary Fe from reactions that occur in the wetlands. Although the
absorption of metals by plants in this case study has little effect on the wetland system, plants have
other functions such as increasing the metal sedimentation ability by preventing a decrease in pH, in-
creasing the redox potential in sediments to stabilize metals in the substrate, and increasing the surface
area for metal adsorption in the wetlands. Before conducting a study with an emergent plant, the pre-
vious experiment was carried out with a submerged plant, but it could not survive because Fe deposits
coated and covered the surface of the plant.
8
The important role of the mechanism of sedimentation in metal removal process in wetlands is the
same as the case study in Peru by Migel et al. (2013) [110], with natural wetland plants dominated by
Calamagrostis ligulata and Juncus imbricatus for eight months. Under acidic conditions, each metal
partition will turn into an ionic phase to be available in sediment and roots. In addition, in the case of
aluminium, the acidity of the wetland affects the mobilization and solubility of Al which allows the
increase of metal uptake by roots. In this case study, there is assumption that the two dominant species
in the wetlands can absorb and accumulate heavy metals due to the adaptation of plant metabolism
related to physiological and morphological tolerance and unknown geochemical biotransformations.
Indications of an increase in acidity levels that affect metal solubility, thereby increasing Al uptake,
are also found in a case study for treating coal mine effluent in the USA by Karathanasis and Johnson
(2003) [111] with a constructed wetland system using dominant plants Typha latifolia, Scirpus vali-
dusm, and Tickseed sunflower for two years. The decrease in Al accumulation in this case study is
indicated by the high Al concentration in the substrate, which triggers plants to inhibit absorption at
the bottom (roots and rhizomes) because it detects the presence of toxic properties. In addition, Al and
Fe cannot be absorbed properly by plants as evidenced by the high concentration of Al and Fe inside
roots compared to the leaves. In contrast to Mn, which can be absorbed well as indicated by the pres-
ence of high concentrations of Mn inside leaves on the root wall, which indicates that Mn is in the
three dominant plants that can be absorbed and distributed to other plant tissues well.
4. Conclusion
Several lessons learned from the review that has been done are:
1. Various aquatic plants can be utilized for phytoremediation e.g. emergent, submerged, and
floating plants.
2. The pH in AMD and climate condition can be the limiting factor in the plants’ species choice.
3. Metallic substances are passed through and accumulated in different plants’ parts.
4. The phytoremediation techniques can be applied in various climate conditions with proper
plants choice.
5. References
[1] Marchildon J 2017 The UN Has Called This The Second Biggest Environmental Problem
Facing Our World Accessed from https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/acid-drainage/
[2] Kefeni K K, Msagati T A M, and Mamba B B 2017 J. Clean. Prod., 151 475–493
[3] RoyChowdhury A, Sarkar D, and Datta R 2015 Curr. Pollut. Reports, 1 131–141
[4] Das P K 2018 Def. Life Sci. J. 3 190
[5] Alifa D, Moersidik S S, and Priadi C R IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci., 355 2019
[6] Du H, Huang M, Zhang Z, and Cheng S 2014 Euphytica, 198 115–126
[7] Vymazal J 2010 Water (Switzerland) 2 530–549
[8] Seadira T, Baloyi J, Raphulu M, Moutloalo R and Ochieng A 2014 Int. Conf. Chem. Integr.
Waste Manag. Environ. Eng. (ICCIWEE’2014). 15-16 April 2014 131–137
[9] Pat-Espadas A M, Portales R L, Amabilis-Sosa L E, Gómez G, and Vidal G 2018 Water
(Switzerland), 10 1–25
[10] Hindersah R, Handyman Z, Indriani F N, Suryatmana P, and Nurlaeny N 2018 J. Degrad. Min.
L. Manag. 5 2502–2458
[11] DuPoldt C, Edwards R, Garber L, Isaacs B, and Lapp J 1996 Ecol. Eng. 1 53
[12] Ansari A A, Naeem M, Gill S S, and AlZuaibr F M 2020 Egypt. J. Aquat. Res. 46 371–376
[13] Md Sa’at S K and Zamana N Q 2017 Eng. Herit. J. 1 49–50
[14] Tahir U, Yasmin A, and Khan U H 2016 J. King Saud Univ. - Sci. 28 119–130
[15] Ghosh M and Singh S 2005 Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 3 153–179
[16] Kotrba P, Najmanova J, Macek T, Ruml T, and Mackova M 2009 Biotechnol. Adv. 27 799–
810
[17] Garbisu C and Alkorta I, ejmp ep (European J. Miner. Process. Environ. Prot.) 3 58–66
[18] Mahar A, Wang P, Ali A, Awasthi M K, Lahori A H, Wang Q, Li R, Zhang Z 2016 Ecotoxicol.
Environ. Saf. 126 111–121
9
[19] Sharma S, Singh B, and Manchanda V K 2015 Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 22 946–962
[20] Zhuang P, Ye Z H, Lan C Y, Xie Z W, and Shu W S 2005 Plant Soil, 276 153–162
[21] Laghlimi M, Baghdad b, El Hadi H, and Bouabdli A 2015 Open Jour. of Eco. 5 375–388
[22] Xie L and van Zyl D 2020 Chemosphere 252 126446
[23] Marques A P G C, Rangel A O S S, and Castro P M L 2009 Crit. Rev. in Envir. Sci. and Tech.
39 622-654
[24] Awa S H and Hadibarata T 2020 Water. Air. Soil Pollut. 231 2020
[25] Padmavathiamma P K and Li L Y 2007 Water. Air. Soil Pollut., 184 105–126
[26] Ali H, Khan E, and Anwar M 2013 Chemosphere 91 869–881
[27] Gardea-Torresdey J L, De La Rosa G, and Peralta-Videa J R 2004 Pure Appl. Chem. 76 801–
813
[28] Zhang X, Hu Y, Liu Y, and Chen B 2011 J. Environ. Sci., 23 601–606
[29] Xie W Y, Huang Q, Li G, Rensing C, and Zhu Y G 2013 Int. J. Phytoremediation 15 385–
397
[30] Gajić G, Djurdjević L, Kostić O, Jarić S, Mitrović M, and Pavlović P 2018 Front. Environ. Sci.
6 1–24
[31] Nedjimi B 2021 SN Appl. Sci. 3 1–19
[32] Irhamni, Pandia S, Purba E, and Hasan W J. Serambi Engeneering 3 344–351
[33] Burken J G 2004 Phytoremediation 1 59–84
[34] Ma Y, Prasad M N V, Rajkumar M, and Freitas H 2011 Biotechnol. Adv. 29 248–258
[35] Kuiper I, Lagendijk E L, Bloemberg G V, and Lugtenberg B J J 2004 MPMI 17 6–15
[36] Tokala R K, Strap J L, Jung C M, Crawford D L, Salove M H, Deobald L A, Bailey J F, Morra
M J 2002 Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 68 2161–2171
[37] Dimkpa C O, Merten D, Svatoš A, Büchel G, and Kothe E 2009 J. Appl. Microbiol. 107
1687–1696
[38] Stefanakis A I 2018 Constr. Wetl. Ind. Wastewater Treat. 7 1–21
[39] Vymazal J 2013 Ecol. Eng 61 582–592
[40] United States Environmental Protection Agency 2000 Environ. Prot. Agency, pp. 1–8
[41] USEPA, “Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet Wetlands: Subsurface Flow,” Environ. Prot
Agency 1-7
[42] SSWM Horizontal Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetland accessed from
https://sswm.info/content/horizontal-subsurface-flow-constructed-wetland
[43] SSWM Vertical Flow Constructed Wetland accessed from https://sswm.info/pt-
pt/taxonomy/term/3934/vertical-flow-constructed-wetland
[44] SSWM Hybrid Constructed Wetland accessed from https://sswm.info/water-nutrient-
cycle/wastewater-treatment/hardwares/semi-centralised-wastewater-treatments/hybrid-
constructed-wetland
[45] Guittonny-Philippe A, Petit M E, Masotti V, Monnier Y, Malleret L, Coulomb B, Combroux I,
Baumberger T, Viglione J and Laffont-Schwob I 2015 J. Environ. Manage. 147 108–123
[46] Ali S, Abbas Z, Rizwan M, Zaheer I E, Yavaş İ, Ünay A, Abdel-DAIM M M, Bin-Jumah M,
Hasanuzzaman M, Kalderis D 2020 Sustain. 12 1–33
[47] Gorito A M, Ribeiro A R, Almeida C M R, and Silva A M T 2017 Environ. Pollut. 227 428–
443
[48] Mesa J, Mateos-Naranjo E, Caviedes M A, Redondo-Gómez S, Pajuelo E, and Rodríguez-
Llorente I D 2015 Mar. Pollut. Bull. 90 150–159
[49] Mays P A and Edwards G S 2001 Ecol. Eng 16 487–500
[50] Stoltz E and Greger M 2002 Environ. Exp. Bot. 47 271–280
[51] Koźmińska A, Wiszniewska A, Hanus-Fajerska E, and Muszyńska E 2018 Plant Biotechnol.
Rep. 12(1) 0
[52] Razak A S A, Wahid Z A, Zakaria I, Said M I M, Nakmal H M, Sulaiman S, Hasmanie A H
Norsita S and Nasrullah M 2014 Inter. Jour. of Enviro., Eco., Geo., and Geophys. Eng. 8
164–169
[53] Farid M, Ali S, Shakoor M, Bharwana S, Rizvi H, Ehsan S, Tauqeer H M, Iftikhar U and
10
Hannan F 2013 Int. J. Agron. Plant Prod. 4 2833–2846

[54] Fritioff A and Greger M 2003 Int J Phytoremediation 5 211-24
[55] McLAY C L 1976 Freshw. Biol. 6 125–136
[56] Wang R, Rehman S, Liang X, Song Y, Su Y, Baerson S and Zeng R 2012 Allelopath. J. 30
23–32
[57] CABI Invasive Species Compendium accessed from https://www.cabi.org/isc/
[58] Chadwick M J and Obeid M 1966 J. Ecol. 54 563
[59] El-Gendy A S, Biswas N, and Bewtra J K 2004 Environ. Technol. 25 833–840
[60] Danh L T, Truong P, Mammucari R, Tran T, and Foster N 2009 Int. J. Phytoremediation 11
664–691
[61] McCorry M and Renou F 2003 For. Ecosyst. Res. Gr. Rep. 69
[62] Warrington P D, The pH Tolerance Of Aquatic Plants Of British Columbia (Water Management
Branch)
[63] Brix H, Dyhr-Jensen K and Lorenzen B 2002 J. Exp. Bot., 53 441–2450
[64] McNaughton S J, Folsom T C, Lee T, Park F, Price C, Roeder D, Schmitz J and Stockwell C
1974 Ecology 55 1163–1165
[65] Feedipedia 2019 Azolla accessed from https://www.feedipedia.org/node/565
[66] Richards O W 1942 J. Anim. Ecol. 11 288
[67] Ulli Kadaria S I A 2017 J. Teknol. Lingkung. Lahan Basah 5
[68] Halpop J 2018 Species Profile - Myriophyllum spicatum (Great Lakes Aquatic Nonindigenous
Species Information System)
[69] Novita V Z, Moersidik S S, and Priadi C R 2019 IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 355
[70] CABI Colocasia esculenta (taro) accessed from https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/17221
[71] I. S. Compendium 2017 Ipomoea aquatica ( swamp morning - glory ) pp. 1–16
[72] Cumplido-Marin L 2020 et al. Agronomy 10 928
[73] CABI Invasive Species Compendium accessed from http://www.cabi.org/isc/
[74] PFAF Phragmites australis - (Cav.)Trin. ex Steud accessed from
https://pfaf.org/User/Plant.aspx?LatinName=Phragmites+australis
[75] Olguín E J, Hernández E and Ramos I 2002 Acta Biotechnol. 22 121–131
[76] L&H SEEDS Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani (softstem bulrush) accessed
from http://www.lhseeds.com/schoenoplectus-tabernaemontani-softstem-bulrush
[77] Song Y, He X J, Chen M, Zhang L L, Li J, and Deng Y 2018 Russ. J. Plant Physiol. 65 611–
619
[78] Moretti A and Gigliano G S 1988 Biol. Fertil. Soils 6 131–136
[79] Pink A 2004 Gardening for the Million (Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation)
[80] Prasad M, Greger M, and Aravind P 2005 Biogeochemical Cycling of Trace Elements by
Aquatic and Wetland Plants no. October
[81] Kocoń A and Jurga B 2017 Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 24 4990–5000
[82] Kiiskila J D, Sarkar D, Panja S, Sahi S V and R. Datta 2019 Ecol. Eng. 129 97–108
[83] Sun H, Wang Z, Gao P and Liu P 2013 Acta Physiol. Plant. 35 355–364
[84] Prihatini N S and Iman M S 2016 Jukung (Jurnal Tek. Lingkungan) 1 2016.
[85] Putri S, Nasoetion N, and Muhtadi M 2020 Sci. Environ. J. Postgrad. 2 1–11
[86] Wulan S N, Apriadi T, and Melani W R 2020 Limnotek Perair. darat Trop. di Indones. 27
67–78
[87] Dissanayake U S, Tennakoon K U, and Priyantha N 2002 Ceylon J. Sci. (Bio. Sci.) 29 1–11
[88] Bhattacharya T, Banerjee D K, and Gopal B 2006 Environ. Monit. Assess. 121 361–378
[89] Schott C L and Lam C 2015 36 1179–1183
[90] Caroline J and Moa G A 2015 Semin. Nas. Sains dan Teknol. Terap. III 10 733–744
[91] Windham L, Weis J S, and Weis P 2001 Estuaries 24 787–795
[92] Bunluesin S, Kruatrachue M, Pokethitiyook P, Lanza G R, Upatham E S, and
Soonthornsarathool V 2004 Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 73 591–598
[93] Ha N T H, Sakakibara M, Sano S, Hori R S, and Sera K 2009 Clean - Soil, Air, Water 37
203–208
11
[94] Maine M A, Suñé N L, and Lagger S C 2004 Water Res. 38 1494–1501

[95] Aurangzeb N, Nisa S, Bibi Y, Javed F, and Hussain F 2014 Brazilian J. Chem. Eng. 31 881–
886
[96] Miretzky P, Saralegui A, and Cirelli A F 2004 Chemosphere 57 997–1005
[97] Branković S, Pavlović-Muratspahić D, Topuzović M, Glišić R, Milivojević J, and Dekić V 2012
Biotechnol. Biotechnol. Equip. 26 2731–2736
[98] El-Khatib A A, Hegazy A K, and Abo-El-Kassem A M 2014 Int. J. Phytoremediation. 16
29–45
[99] Borisova G, Chukina N, Maleva M, and Prasad M N V 2014 Int. J. Phytoremediation 16
621–633
[100] Peng K, Luo C, Lou L, Li X, and Shen Z 2008 Sci. Total Environ. 392 22–29
[101] Ibrahim R, Zubair A, Selintung M, and Dwirachma A R 2020 IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng.
875
[102] Balakrishnan A 2012 … Adv. Sci. … 1 19–23
[103] Hempel M, Botté S E, Negrin V L, Chiarello M N, and Marcovecchio J E 2008 J. Soils
Sediments 8 289–297
[104] Kutty A A and Al-Mahaqeri S A 2016 J. Chem. 2016
[105] Rudin S M, Murray D W and Whitfeld T J S 2017 Appl. Plant Sci. 5 p.1600108
[106] Hanafiah M M, Zainuddin M F, Nizam N U M, Halim A A and Rasool A 2020 Appl. Sci. 10
[107] Bennicelli R, Stȩpniewska Z, Banach A, Szajnocha K and Ostrowski J 2004 Chemosphere 55
141–146
[108] Lokuge U M L 2016 J. Trop. For. Environ. 6
[109] Nyquist J and Greger M 2009 Ecol. Eng. 35 630–642
[110] Miguel B, Edell A, Edson Y and Edwin P 2013 Environ. Monit. Assess. 185 323–334
[111] Karathanasis A D and Johnson C M 2003 Mine Water Environ. 22 22–30
12

Rahman - 2022 - IOP - Conf. - Ser. - Earth - Environ. - Sci. - 963 - 012040

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rahman - 2022 - IOP - Conf. - Ser. - Earth - Environ. - Sci. - 963 - 012040

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- Acid mine drainage removal by mixed

This content was downloaded from IP address 114.124.239.176 on 06/04/2022 at 01:43

Comparison of different phytoremediation strategies for acid

R A Rahman1*, J Wintoko1, A Prasetya1

*Corresponding author: rizqi.a.r@mail.ugm.ac.id

FeS2 + O2 + H2O → Fe2+ + 2 SO42- + 2 H+ (1)

2. Materials and method

3. Result and discussion

Table 1. Advantages and Disadvantages of Phytoremediation Technologies.

3.1. Phytoremediation mechanism in constructed wetland

3.1.1. Phytoaccumulation. Phytoaccumulation or phytoextraction or phytoabsorption or phytoseques-

3.1.2. Phytovolatilization. Phytovolatilization is the process of absorption or uptake of pollutants from

Table 2. Advantages and Disadvantages of Phytovolatilization.

3.1.4. Phytodegradation. Phytodegradation or phytotransformation is the degradation of the pollutant

3.1.5. Rhizodegradation. Rhizodegradation or phytostimulation is the mechanism that increases of

3.2. Constructed Wetland Types

3.3. Aquatic Plant Types for Phytoremediation

Table 3. pH Tolerance of Aquatic Plants.

Aquatic Plant Common Name Lowest pH tolerance References

Table 4. Metal Uptake of Submerged Aquatic Plants.

Table 5. Metal Uptake of Emergent Aquatic Plant.

Table 6. Metal Uptake of Floating Aquatic Plant

Aquatic Plant Metal Uptake Times References

Azolla pinnata Removal Efficiency (%): 7 days [108]

3.4. Case study

Hannan F 2013 Int. J. Agron. Plant Prod. 4 2833–2846

[94] Maine M A, Suñé N L, and Lagger S C 2004 Water Res. 38 1494–1501

You might also like