Next Article in Journal
Hydroxylated-Benz[a]anthracenes Induce Two Apoptosis-Related Gene Expressions in the Liver of the Nibbler Fish Girella punctata
Previous Article in Journal
Exploring Novel Fungal–Bacterial Consortia for Enhanced Petroleum Hydrocarbon Degradation
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Toxics
Volume 12
Issue 12
10.3390/toxics12120914
toxics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Energy, Aromatic, and Medicinal Plants’ Potential and Prospects for the Remediation of Potentially Toxic Element-Contaminated Agricultural Soils: A Critical Meta-Analysis

by
Evangelia E. Golia
1,*,
Edoardo Barbieri
1,2,
Sotiria G. Papadimou
1,3 and
Dimitrios Alexiadis
1
1
Soil Science Laboratory, School of Agriculture, Faculty of Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Environment, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, University Campus, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece
2
Faculty of Science and Technology, University of the Basque Country, 48940 Leioa, Bizkaia, Spain
3
School of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Agriculture, Crop Production and Rural Environment, University of Thessaly, 38446 Volos, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Toxics 2024, 12(12), 914; https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics12120914
Submission received: 28 October 2024 / Revised: 4 December 2024 / Accepted: 12 December 2024 / Published: 17 December 2024
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
A critical meta-analysis of the past decade’s investigations was carried out with the aim of assessing the use of plant-based techniques for soil remediation. Potentially toxic element (PTE) contaminated soils were selected since these contaminants are considered hazardous and have long-term effects. Furthermore, energy, aromatic, and medicinal plants were studied as their high-value products seem to be affected by PTEs’ existence. Lead (Pb), Cu, Cd, Zn, Cr, Co, Ni, Hg, and As accumulation in different parts of plant species has been investigated using proper indices. Aromatic plants seem to provide high phytoremediation yields. Increasing toxicity levels and the coexistence of many metals enhance the accumulation capacity of aromatic plants, even of toxic Cd. In plants usable as energy sources, antagonistic effects were observed, as the simultaneous presence of Cu and Cd resulted in lower thermic capacity. Finally, in most of the plants studied, it was observed that the phytostabilization technique, i.e., the accumulation of metals mainly in the roots of the plants, was often used, allowing for the aboveground part to be almost completely free of metallic pollutants. Using plants for remediation was proven to be advantageous within a circular economy model. Such a process is a promising solution, both economically and environmentally, since it provides a useful tool for keeping environmental balance and producing safe goods.

1. Introduction

1.1. Mechanisms and Methods of Phytoremediation

Phytoremediation is a technique that uses plants to remove pollutants such as PTEs from contaminated soils [1]. This method is cost-effective, environmentally friendly, and important for soil quality, preventing erosion by wind and water, and enriching soils with organic matter and microorganisms [2,3].
Different plant species have developed different mechanisms and methods to reduce the levels of potentially toxic elements (PTEs) found either in soil, water, or air [4,5,6]. For example, in phytoextraction (or phytoaccumulation), the plant extracts and thus removes the PTEs from soil [7,8]. Genetically modified species of hyperaccumulator plants have shown promising results for this mechanism [9,10]. The primary drawback of this method is its potential toxicity to pollinators, herbivores, and other animal species that come into contact with these plants [6,8,11].
In phytovolatilization, the plant transforms the PTE in the soil into one of its volatile forms and releases it into the atmosphere. PTEs such as As, Hg, and Se [12,13] can be released by different plant species as a result of the chemical transformation of inorganic to more volatile organometallic forms; however, this technique is considered controversial as large amounts of PTEs released into the atmosphere could act as a source of secondary contamination for the environment [7].
In phytostabilization, the plant makes the PTEs in the soil less bioavailable [14,15]; the main aim of phytostabilization is to decrease the soil’s metal toxicity and bioavailability to prevent metal from entering the food chain. The best way to apply phytostabilization in the field is to use native plants or combinations of different species [16,17,18].
In phytofiltration, the plant is grown in hydroponic conditions and absorbs (or adsorbs) PTE ions from the water solution in which it is growing. It can be used as an efficient way to remove PTEs such as As, Cd, and Hg [19,20,21]; however, the lack of suitable plants which can be used for this technology constitutes a major issue [22,23].

1.2. Plant Categories Used for Phytoremediation Purposes

Plants can absorb and adsorb metals through root and foliar systems, preventing further transport and reducing their adverse effects [4,24]. However, the main drawback of this process relies on the possibility of a future use of the contaminated biomass generated from phytoremediation [3] owing to the possibility that PTEs can enter the food chain and lead to dangerous consequences for human health [5]. For instance, using food crops such as grains, legumes, and vegetables for phytoremediation may not be environmentally safe [6,25]. Therefore, the scientific community’s interest turned to providing solutions for phytoremediation with a minor impact on the food chain and human health [5].
The cultivation of non-edible plants with high economic value in industry can be a feasible strategy to use and remediate contaminated soils with PTEs [26,27,28], allowing for environmentally safe and cost-effective phytoremediation [6]. In this regard, the use of ornamental plants for phytoremediation provides environmental and economic benefits [6,29,30]. Industrial plants can also reduce the risk of human exposure to PTEs through the food chain [26,31,32]. Utilizing plants as energy sources [12,33,34] can lead to the production of biomass for bioenergy and the fiber industry, and other valuable applications including the decontamination of soil [35,36,37]. Bioenergy production contributes to green energy production in contaminated soils in which food crops cannot grow [34,38]. Globally, plant biomass is a significant renewable energy source, and national and regional energy policies now place more emphasis on it [39,40] as it plays a progressively vital role in Europe’s energy stability [41]. The utilization of biomass energy offers a promising solution to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and enhance environmental conditions [42]. It is projected that by 2050, bioenergy has the potential to contribute up to 15% of the world’s primary energy supply. Moreover, there is a vast expanse of approximately 1.4 billion hectares worldwide that has been identified as suitable for bioenergy production [34].
Another option is the phytoremediation of contaminated soils with medicinal and aromatic plants grown mainly for their essential oils, reducing the risk of contamination in the food chain as essential oils do not contain PTEs [6,33,43]. Growing aromatic plants for phytoremediation will facilitate restoring the soil and provide economic benefits as essential oils have great value as insect repellents and can be used in perfumery, aromatherapy, food processing, detergents, soaps, and cosmetic industries [44]. Moreover, there are no significant alterations in the essential oil composition that may impair marketability [45], and cultivation in PTE-contaminated soils may lead to an enhanced essential oil yield [25]. The most promising aromatic plant groups found for phytoremediation are Poaceae (e.g., Arundo donax, Chrysopogon zizanioides, Cynodon dactylon, Panicum virgatum, and Phalaris arundinacea), Asteraceae (e.g., Cynara cardunculus and Silybum marianum), and Lamiaceae (e.g., Lavandula spp., Mentha spp., Ocimum basilicum, Ocimum gratissimum, and Rosmarinus officinalis). These are high-value economic crops that provide financial benefits by being grown in polluted regions rather than food crops [33,44].

1.3. Plant Selection for Phytoremediation

The phytoremediation process is significantly affected by the selected plant [1,15,46] as the plants’ mechanisms of element uptake and homeostasis are highly dependent on plant species and environmental factors [47,48,49]. Generally, PTEs cause toxicity to plants, either directly or indirectly, by generating an increased quantity of reactive oxygen species (ROS). ROS, like superoxide radicals (O2), hydroxyl radicals (OH), and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), are produced as byproducts associated with membrane transport activities and other metabolic pathways [50,51,52,53] (Figure 1).
Plants have antioxidant defense systems to protect them from oxidative damage caused by ROS, and detoxifying activities are very complicated and compartmentalized across plant cells [15,28,50]. Physiological, biochemical, and molecular processes play an essential role in stress tolerance, especially the antioxidant enzymes ascorbate peroxidase (APX), superoxide dismutase (SOD) [51], catalase (CAT), peroxidase (POX) [8], guaiacol peroxidase (POD), and glutathione S-transferase (GPX) [30,44], followed by non-enzymatic antioxidants, including glutathione, polyphenols, flavonoids, carotenoids, ascorbic acid, tocopherols, and organic acids [44,54].
In this regard, phytoremediation requires plant species that are contaminant-tolerant and can also be adapted to grow in specific environmental conditions [54]. Plants are classified as indicators, accumulators, or excluders based on their function and reactivity against PTEs [44]. Plants that can take up large amounts of metals are called hyperaccumulators [55]. A common strategy for phytoremediation involves the use of hyperaccumulating plants capable of removing, stabilizing, or immobilizing PTEs in the soil [56]. However, there are restrictions in the selection of plants since numerous hyperaccumulators with a strong metal resistance and a strong acquisition of metal pollutants are much less efficient in their independent commercial operation [29]. In general, hyperaccumulating plants used for remediation can accumulate 100-fold higher metal concentrations than non-accumulator plants under the same growing conditions [57]. However, some non-accumulators can extract a comparative quantity of pollutants as hyperaccumulators owing to their greater biomass production [2]. Potential plants for phytoremediation must have the capability to remove PTEs from contaminated soil and have tolerance to PTE toxicity; they should also have rapid growth with deep and extensive root systems, produce high biomass, have excellent transpiration, and be easy to establish [2,36,58]. The suitability of the plant species also depends on crop requirements such as nutrients, water, average temperature [46], and, ideally, low input needs [38] (Figure 2). Finally, the plant species should be able to grow in the soil and climatic conditions of contaminated areas, and the use of native species is recommended to achieve optimum growth [59]. Therefore, the aim of this study was to highlight the ability of energy, aromatic, and medicinal plants to accumulate PTEs in their plant tissues and to use them for the phytoremediation of contaminated soils, reducing the risk of PTEs entering the food chain.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Methodology for Data Collection

In order to obtain useful data to be used in the following work, a critical meta-analysis of the available research papers regarding the phytoremediation of PTEs-polluted soils was carried out. Various online libraries and search engines, such as Google Scholar, Scopus, and ScienceDirect, were used. As a first step, papers regarding plant species suitable for phytoremediation were searched. Subsequentially, phytoremediation data for each plant species were searched on the internet using the Latin name of the plant followed by the word phytoremediation (e.g., Silybum marianum phytoremediation) for the period 2014–2024 (Figure 3). Therefore, the species which could give the highest amount of experimental data could be considered for this meta-analysis work. In addition to this, general information such as native country of the plant, maximum height, pH, and soil tolerance, as well as life cycle duration, were collected for each considered species. All data about PTEs absorption were standardized in mg of metal per kg of plant dry matter, and the origin of the pollution was specified (natural pollution occurring in the soil or artificial exposure to PTEs).

2.2. PTEs Determination

The process of establishing PTEs concentrations involves two steps: extraction using an appropriate solution or a mixture of extractants followed by the quantitative determination of the metals. Thereafter, it is necessary to identify the actual objectives of the metal quantification, and this will depend entirely on the extraction medium used. It is well known that by using diethylene triamine penta-acetic acid (DTPA) solution, the potentially available concentrations of the microelements Fe, Cu, Mn, and Zn in the plants may be determined [60]. Furthermore, it is evident that this metal concentration is proportional to the soil’s capacity to supply plants with a fraction of the total amount of metals in the soil. However, although DTPA solution extraction is widely used by soil laboratories for all soil types and for all metals, its results present analytical limitations, mainly due to the pH of the solution, which is set at 7.3 [61]. Moreover, the estimated available concentration of metals cannot be generalized for each type of plant for all climatic growing conditions as it depends on critical parameters, including the plant species, the growth stage, and the soil and climatic conditions [62].
The majority of the papers published on this topic focus on total metal concentrations, despite significant scaling and variability. For 44% of the papers reporting on total metal concentrations, extraction is achieved by using mineralization in aqua regia (a mixture of 1:3 HNO3:HCl), but this, explicitly, cannot extract the total metal concentration. This concentration is referred to as “pseudo-total”, which corresponds to the actual concentration, and only 16% of the works explicitly mention this term. In cases where the total amount of PTEs is to be extracted, a mixture of four strong acids (51% of the published papers referring to total metal concentration) is most often used, consisting of aqua regia, enriched with concentrated HClO4 (mainly to destroy the organic matter), and c. HBr (mainly to obtain the fraction of metals bound within the silicate minerals in the soil samples). A very small proportion (3%) of the published studies indicate that the solid residue is obtained after dry combustion with, e.g., HNO3 or, e.g., alkali solution (NaOH). Finally, a small number of published studies also point to the use of H2O2 to degrade the organic matter of soil and to recover the metals bound within it, frequently forming complex compounds (2%).
Except these cases, combinations of these have appeared as investigations have identified both available pseudo-total and total concentrations. Finally, a small category of articles (9%), refers to the determination of metal fractionation using BCR-based methods by referring to, and discriminating among, the concentration that is water-soluble and exchangeable with the soil solid surface (BCR1), the amount bound to Fe/Mn oxides (BCR2), the soil organic matter (BCR3), or the insoluble, undissolved, or residual fraction of the soil samples (BCR4) [63].
Regarding the determination of concentrations in plants, the procedure involves combustion and extraction with an acid solution, such as HCl (56% of published articles) or HNO3 (34%). However, there are cases where aqua regia is used [15,28]. Many of the evaluated papers note that the metals are determined in different plant parts, as Papadimou et al. [27] stated. The plant is dissected, and metals are determined separately both underground (root) and aboveground (shoots, leaves, flowers, and seeds).

3. Results

3.1. Overview of Selected Published Studies

All plant species and studies that are included in the meta-analysis are presented in Table 1.
In Figure 4, the number of published surveys distributed according to country are displayed. Most studies were conducted in India, followed by China, Italy, and Iran. Excluding Italy, the percentage of European countries involved ranged from 1 to 3.9%.
The majority of studies include a quantification of the highly toxic element Cd (Table 1), while a particularly high proportion of studies deal with the discrimination of metal concentrations in different parts of the plant; they determine the metal concentrations and report the results separately for the underground and aboveground parts of the plant. The percentages in the reported survey involving the phytoremediation of polluted soils with varying metal element levels are summarized in Figure 5. Only one metal has been the subject of more than 40% of surveys.

3.2. Pb Accumulation in Plant Parts

Figure 6 presents the average Pb concentration in the different parts of the studied plants, as well as the average total Pb metal concentration per plant species. Cynara cardunculus appears to have the highest average total Pb concentration compared to the other species, reaching 1741.44 mg kg−1 (dw), followed by Lavandula spp., with 985.15 mg kg−1 (dw). On the other hand, the lowest average total Pb concentrations were observed in Ocimum gratissimum, Aloe vera, Cannabis sativa, and Phalaris arundinacea species, with 2.01, 5.75, 6.54 and 9.23 mg kg−1 (dw), respectively.
In the root systems of the studied plants, extremely high average Pb concentrations were identified in Cynara cardunculus (2613.50 mg kg−1 dw), while elevated concentrations were also observed in Panicum virgatum, Lavandula spp., and Rosmarinus officinalis, with 634.41, 331.37 and 202.10 mg kg−1 (dw), respectively. Aloe vera showed the lowest concentration, with a mean Pb concentration of 4.70 mg kg−1 (dw) in the root system.
By comparing the average Pb concentration in the plant shoots, the highest concentration was observed in Lavandula spp. (1638.93 mg kg−1 dw), followed by Silybum marianum and Rosmarinus officinalis, with 487.95 and 122.75 mg kg−1 (dw), respectively. Cannabis sativa, Phalaris arundinacea, Aloe vera, Cynara cardunculus, and Ricinus communis recorded the lowest mean Pb concentrations in their shoots, i.e., at less than 10 mg kg−1 (dw).
Finally, in plant leaves, the maximum mean Pb concentration was observed in Lavandula spp. (2894.65 mg kg−1 dw), followed by Cynara cardunculus and Ocimum basilicum, with 432.23 and 108.36 mg kg−1 (dw), respectively. The average Pb concentration in the leaves of all other examined plant species was below 10 mg kg−1 (dw), with Cynodon dactylon and Ricinus communis species exhibiting the lowest values at 0.78 and 0.38 mg kg−1 (dw), respectively. According to the results, Cynara cardunculus and Lavandula spp. appear to be significant Pb accumulators, while in species like Ocimum gratissimum, Aloe vera, and Cannabis sativa, the lowest Pb concentrations were observed.

3.3. Cu Accumulation in Plant Parts

Figure 7 presents the average Cu concentration in the different parts of the studied plants, as well as the average Cu total concentration per plant species. Linum spp. had the highest mean total Cu concentration among the studied species, with 323.75 mg kg−1 (dw), followed by Arundo donax, with 247.10 mg kg−1 (dw). In all other plant species, the average Cu total concentration was less than 60 mg kg−1 (dw). Chrysopogon zizanioides and Phalaris arundinacea had the lowest concentrations at 9.50 mg kg−1 (dw) and 9.46 mg kg−1 (dw), respectively.
In both the root system and shoot of Linum spp., exceptionally high mean Cu concentrations, i.e., exceeding 300 mg kg−1 (dw), were observed. An elevated average Cu concentration was also observed in the root system of Cynara cardunculus (181.10 mg kg−1 dw). The other species had concentrations below 70 mg kg−1 (dw), with the Lavandula spp. and Phalaris arundinacea root systems exhibiting the lowest values at 7.90 and 7.40 mg kg−1 (dw), respectively. The average Cu level in the shoots of all the plants tested, except for Linus spp., was less than 40 mg kg−1 (dw). Eucalyptus spp. and Chrysopogon zizanioides had the lowest levels, at 6.75 and 4.40 mg kg−1 (dw), respectively.
Finally, Salix spp. had the highest mean Cu concentration in leaves, with 23.36 mg kg−1 (dw), followed by Aloe vera and Lavandula spp., with 17.25 and 17.00 mg kg−1 (dw), respectively. Eucalyptus spp. leaves showed the lowest concentration, with 0.25 mg kg−1 (dw). According to the results, Linum spp. and Arundo donax appear to be significant Cu accumulators, while in species like Chrysopogon zizanioides and Phalaris arundinacea, the lowest Cu concentrations were observed.

3.4. Cd Accumulation in Plant Parts

Figure 8 presents the average Cd concentration in plant tissues, highlighting significant differences across species. Regarding the total average Cd, Eucalyptus spp. leads with an exceptionally high concentration (4323.59 mg kg−1 dw), followed by Ricinus communis and Arundo donax, with 701.50 and 486.23 mg kg−1 dw, respectively. On the contrary, a very low total average Cd concentration (<5 mg kg−1 dw) was detected in species like Populus spp., Ocimum basilicum, Cannabis sativa, Hibiscus rosa-sinesis, Mentha spp., Aloe vera, Phalaris arundinacea, Lavandula spp., and Linum spp.
Cd concentrations in the plant root system are similarly dominated by Eucalyptus spp. (6173.35 mg kg−1 dw), highlighting its significant Cd uptake from soil. Elevated Cd concentrations, ranging from 100 to 500 mg kg−1 (dw), were also detected in the roots of Arundo donax, Mentha spp., Ricinus communis, Ocimum gratissimum, Panicum virgatum, and Cyperus rotundus, while in species like Aloe vera, Cannabis sativa, Phalaris arundinacea, and Lavandula spp. Cd, mean root concentration was below 5 mg kg−1 (dw).
The highest shoot Cd concentration was observed in Eucalyptus spp., with 416.06 mg kg−1 dw, followed by Arundo donax, with 398.50 mg kg−1 (dw). In all other species examined, the mean Cd shoot concentration was found to be below 150 mg kg−1 (dw), while Cannabis sativa, Mentha spp., Phalaris arundinacea, and Lavandula spp. had the lowest mean concentrations (<1 mg kg−1 dw). In plant leaves, the average Cd concentration was exceptionally high in Ricinus communis (700 mg kg−1 dw).
The lowest concentrations (<1 mg kg−1 dw) were observed in the leaves of Cannabis sativa, Rosmarinus officinalis, and Phalaris arundinacea. These observations illustrate the differential ability of plants to accumulate and distribute Cd within their various tissues, which is crucial for selecting species for phytoremediation purposes. Eucalyptus spp. appears to possess the highest Cd concentrations, particularly in roots and shoots, indicating its strong accumulation capacity, while species like Aloe vera, Phalaris arundinacea, and Lavandula spp. show the lowest Cd concentrations overall, suggesting their limited Cd uptake capability.

3.5. Zn Accumulation in Plant Parts

The data in Figure 9 present the average Zn concentration (mg kg−1 dw) in the studied plants, revealing significant variability in Zn concentration across different species and tissues. Cynara cardunculus shows the highest total average Zn concentration at 3538.57 mg kg−1 (dw), followed by Lavandula spp. (1364.65 mg kg−1 dw) and Populus spp. (536.96 mg kg−1 dw). The lowest total average Zn concentrations (<30 mg kg−1 dw) were detected in Panicum virgatum, Chrysopogon zizanioides, and Aloe vera.
Similarly, in Cynara cardunculus, Populus spp., and Lavandula spp., the highest mean Zn root concentrations were observed at 4961.64, 1434.60, and 890.85 mg kg−1 (dw), respectively. Elevated Zn root concentrations were detected in most of the rest species studied, with the only exception being Eucalyptus spp.at 1.79 mg kg−1 dw.
The highest Zn shoot concentrations were observed once again in Cynara cardunculus and Lavandula spp. at 2115.49 and 1838.45 (mg kg−1 dw), respectively, while Mentha spp., Aloe vera, Panicum virgatum, and Chrysopogon zizanioides had the lowest concentrations (<40 mg kg−1 dw). There was a profound limitation with respect to the availability of data on Zn concentration in plant leaves. However, based on the existing data, the highest concentrations were observed in Lavandula spp., Rosmarinus officinalis, and Populus spp., at 1482.30, 301.00, and 299.67 mg kg−1 (dw), respectively, while the lowest concentration (<1 mg kg−1 dw) was observed in the leaves of Eucalyptus spp.
Therefore, Cynara cardunculus and Lavandula spp. appear to be significant Zn accumulators, whereas Aloe vera. Panicum virgatum, and Chrysopogon zizanioides were found to have minimal Zn concentrations in their tissues. A considerable variation was observed across the different species, with plant roots generally showing higher Zn concentrations compared to shoots and leaves, suggesting a higher capacity of the roots for Zn uptake and accumulation.

3.6. Cr Accumulation in Plant Parts

Figure 10 presents the data on the average Cr concentration (mg kg−1 dw) in the studied plant species. The highest total Cr concentration was detected in Chrysopogon zizanioides at 1861.31 mg kg−1 (dw), followed by Lavandula spp., with a notably high concentration of 830.70 mg kg−1 (dw). In all other species studied, the corresponding concentrations were below 120 mg kg−1 (dw), with the lowest concentrations (<10 mg kg−1 dw) observed in Populus spp., Cynara cardunculus, Aloe vera, Hibiscus-rosa sinesis, and Salix spp.
High Cr concentrations were detected in the roots of Chrysopogon zizanioides (1974.61 mg kg−1 dw), Lavandula spp. (817.50 mg kg−1 dw), Cyperus rotundus (400.00 mg kg−1 dw), and Cannabis sativa (107.98 mg kg−1 dw). On the contrary, the lowest concentrations (<5 mg kg−1 dw) were observed in Aloe vera, Salix spp., Hibiscus-rosa sinesis, and Eucalyptus spp.
The highest Cr shoot concentrations were once again detected in Chrysopogon zizanioides and Lavandula spp., with 1748.02 and 843.90 mg kg−1 (dw), respectively. In the remaining species studied, Cr shoot concentration was below 85 mg kg−1 (dw), while the lowest was observed in Populus spp. (0.24 mg kg−1 dw).
Data availability concerning Cr concentration in plant leaves was limited. However, based on the existing data, it is noteworthy that all species were found to have low Cr concentrations (<15 mg kg−1 dw) in their leaves. According to the results, Chrysopogon zizanioides and Lavandula spp. appear to be significant Cr accumulators, while in species like Salix spp., Hibiscus-rosa sinesis, Aloe vera, Cynara cardunculus, and Populus spp., the lowest Cr concentrations were observed.

3.7. Ni Accumulation in Plant Parts

Figure 11 presents the data on the average Ni concentration (mg kg−1 dw) in the studied plant species. The highest total Ni concentration was observed in Mentha spp. (720.09 mg kg−1 dw), indicating a strong ability to accumulate Ni, followed by Arundo donax (176.10 mg kg−1 dw). In contrast, the lower Ni total concentrations (<4 mg kg−1 dw) were detected in Ocimum gratissimum, Aloe vera, Lavandula spp., Populus spp., Cynara cardunculus, Chrysopogon zizanioides, and Linum spp.
Similarly, the highest root Ni concentration was found in Mentha spp. (700.07 mg kg−1 dw), while elevated concentrations were also detected in Phalaris arundinacea and Cyperus rotundus with 133.00 and 114.50 mg kg−1 (dw), respectively. On the other hand, the lowest root Ni concentrations (<10 mg kg−1 dw) were found in Lavandula spp., Populus spp., Chrysopogon zizanioides, Hibiscus-rosa sinesis, and Aloe vera.
Ni concentration in shoots was once again the highest in Mentha spp. (740.12 mg kg−1 dw), followed by Cyperus rotundus (68.00 mg kg−1 dw). In contrast, the lowest Ni shoot concentrations (<4 mg kg−1 dw) were observed in Populus spp., Chrysopogon zizanioides, Lavandula spp., Salix spp., and Cynara cardunculus.
Regarding Ni concentration in plant leaves for species where corresponding data were available, it was below 20 mg kg−1 (dw), with the only exception being Mentha spp. (273.57 mg kg−1 dw). In summary, Mentha spp. consistently shows high Ni concentrations in all tissues, indicating a strong capacity for Ni uptake and accumulation. On the other hand, Aloe vera, Lavandula spp., Populus spp., Cynara cardunculus, and Chrysopogon zizanioides had the lowest Ni concentrations for most tissues.

3.8. Co Accumulation in Plant Parts

Figure 12 presents the average Co concentration in different parts of the studied plants. Data are available only for seven species (Cyperus rotundus, Cannabis sativa, Panicum virgatum, Phalaris arundinacea, Populus spp., Chrysopogon zizanioides, and Ricinus communis). Cyperus rotundus appears to have the strongest Co accumulation capacity since the concentrations detected in all its tissues were by far the highest. In all the remaining species, Co concentrations in tissues were below 12 mg kg−1 (dw), while the lowest (<2 mg kg−1 dw) were observed in Chrysopogon zizanioides and Populus spp.

3.9. Hg Accumulation in Plant Parts

Figure 13 presents the average Hg concentration in different parts of selected plant species (Mentha spp., Aloe vera, Jatropha curcas, Arundo donax, and Eucalyptus spp.) based on data availability. Mentha spp. was found to have the highest total Hg concentration in all its tissues, followed by Aloe vera. Far lower Hg concentrations (<7 mg kg−1 dw) were observed in the tissues of the remaining species, while the lowest were detected in all parts of Eucalyptus spp. (0.01 mg kg−1 dw).

3.10. As Accumulation in Plant Parts

Figure 14 presents the average As concentrations across different plant species and their tissues. Arundo donax demonstrates the highest total As concentration at 14.80 mg kg−1 (dw), followed by Cynara cardunculus at 7.50 mg kg−1 (dw). All the remaining species had total concentrations below 4 mg kg−1 (dw), whereas the lowest (<1 mg kg−1 dw) were detected in Rosmarinus officinalis, Populus spp., and Ocimum gratissimum.
In root tissues, Eucalyptus spp. presents a comparable high concentration of 69.17 mg kg−1 (dw), which is significantly higher than the other species, with Cynara cardunculus following at 30.76 mg kg−1 (dw). The lowest As root concentrations were observed in Populus spp. and Rosmarinus officinalis, with 1.11 and 1.34 mg kg−1 (dw), respectively.
As concentration in all plants’ shoots, based on existing data, was found to be below 2.50 mg kg−1 (dw). The higher shoot concentrations, ranging between 2.00 and 2.50 mg kg−1 (dw), were detected in Cynara cardunculus, Ricinus communis, and Salix spp.
Finally, considering the limited data availability, the highest As concentration in plant leaves was observed in Eucalyptus spp. (5.83 mg kg−1 dw), followed by Cynara cardunculus (1.70 mg kg−1 dw), while in the remaining species, the corresponding concentrations were found to be below 0.70 mg kg−1 (dw). Therefore, Eucalyptus spp. and Cynara cardunculus appear to be significant As accumulators, in contrast to Populus spp. and Ocimum gratissimum, where the lowest As concentrations were observed.

4. Conclusions

A critical meta-analysis of the absorption of PTEs by energy, medicinal, and aromatic plants described in the literature over the last decade was conducted to draw helpful conclusions about the possible use of these plants for phytoremediation. Most studies were conducted in Asian countries, followed by European countries, and mainly involved a single metal or a combination of metals and metalloids. In total, nine PTEs were studied, with Cd being the most extensively investigated. The accumulation and distribution of Pb, Cu, Cd, Zn, Cr, Co, Ni, Hg, and As in different parts of plant species was surveyed, concluding that the highest concentration of PTEs was observed in the plant roots. Some species seemed to be more efficient in the accumulation of certain PTEs. Specifically, Cynara cardunculus and Lavandula spp. may function as Pb accumulators; Linum spp. and Arundo donax as Cu may function as accumulators, whereas Eucalyptus spp. appears to have the strongest Cd accumulation; Cynara cardunculus and Lavandula spp. may function as Zn accumulatorsl Chrysopogon zizanioides and Lavandula spp. May function as significant Cr accumulator; and Mentha spp. may function as a strong accumulator of Ni and Hg. Cyperus rotundus appears to have the strongest Co accumulation capacity, while Eucalyptus spp. and Cynara cardunculus may function as arsenic accumulators.
Energy, medicinal, and aromatic plants have proved to be suitable candidates for the remediation of PTE-contaminated soils, decreasing the risk of PTE entrance to the food chain. Phytoremediation is suggested as a cost-effective and eco-friendly method, serving two distinct functions: it contributes to contaminated soil restoration, as well as to the high energy value oils, secondary metabolites, fiber, and bioenergy production, following a kind of a circular economy model.
Future work should be carried out to obtain comprehensive knowledge of the phytoremediation potential for energy, aromatic, and medicinal plants. In addition, it will serve as a guide to the utilization and management of the plant tissue, resulting from the use of phytoremediation to reduce the environmental footprint. The costs of various phytoremediation approaches should also be investigated, allowing for a comparison with other methods utilized for the remediation of PTE-contaminated soils.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.Β., S.G.P., D.A. and E.E.G.; methodology, E.Β. and E.E.G.; software, E.B., S.G.P. and D.A.; validation, E.Β., S.G.P. and E.E.G.; formal analysis, E.Β., S.G.P., D.A. and E.E.G.; investigation, E.Β., S.G.P. and E.E.G.; data curation, E.Β., D.A., S.G.P. and E.E.G.; writing—original draft preparation, E.Β., S.G.P., D.A. and E.E.G.; writing—review and editing, E.Β., S.G.P., D.A. and E.E.G.; visualization, E.Β., D.A., S.G.P. and E.E.G.; supervision, E.E.G., project administration, E.E.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Guo, Y.; Qiu, C.; Long, S.; Wang, H.; Wang, Y. Cadmium Accumulation, Translocation, and Assessment of Eighteen Linum usitatissimum L. Cultivars Growing in Heavy Metal Contaminated Soil. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2020, 22, 490–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Luo, J.; Qi, S.; Peng, L.; Xie, X. Enhanced Phytoremediation Capacity of a Mixed-Species Plantation of Eucalyptus Globulus and Chickpeas. J. Geochem. Explor. 2017, 182, 201–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Álvarez-Mateos, P.; Alés-Álvarez, F.-J.; García-Martín, J.F. Phytoremediation of Highly Contaminated Mining Soils by Jatropha curcas L. and Production of Catalytic Carbons from the Generated Biomass. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 231, 886–895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Chem, E.O. Accumulation of Heavy Metal in Soil and Their Transfer to Leafy Vegetables with Phytoremediation Potential. Am. J. Chem. 2015, 5, 125–131. [Google Scholar]
  5. Arena, C.; Figlioli, F.; Sorrentino, M.C.; Izzo, L.G.; Capozzi, F.; Giordano, S.; Spagnuolo, V. Ultrastructural, Protein and Photosynthetic Alterations Induced by Pb and Cd in Cynara cardunculus L., and Its Potential for Phytoremediation. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2017, 145, 83–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Angelova, V.R.; Grekov, D.F.; Kisyov, V.K.; Ivanov, K.I. Potential of Lavender (Lavandula vera L.) for Phytoremediation of Soils Contaminated with Heavy Metals. Int. J. Agric. Eng. 2015, 9, 522–529. [Google Scholar]
  7. Sakakibara, M.; Watanabe, A.; Inoue, M.; Sano, S.; Kaise, T. Phytoextraction and Phytovolatilization of Arsenic from As-Contaminated Soils by Pteris Vittata. Proc. Annu. Int. Conf. Soils 2010, 12, 26. [Google Scholar]
  8. Saleem, M.H.; Kamran, M.; Zhou, Y.; Parveen, A.; Rehman, M.; Ahmar, S.; Malik, Z.; Mustafa, A.; Ahmad Anjum, R.M.; Wang, B.; et al. Appraising Growth, Oxidative Stress and Copper Phytoextraction Potential of Flax (Linum usitatissimum L.) Grown in Soil Differentially Spiked with Copper. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 257, 109994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Aderholt, M.; Vogelien, D.L.; Koether, M.; Greipsson, S. Phytoextraction of Contaminated Urban Soils by Panicum virgatum L. Enhanced with Application of a Plant Growth Regulator (BAP) and Citric Acid. Chemosphere 2017, 175, 85–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ng, C.C. Phytoaccumulation of Heavy Metals from Contaminated Soils by Vetiver Grass (Vetiveria zizanioides) in Malaysia. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  11. Suman, J.; Uhlik, O.; Viktorova, J.; Macek, T. Phytoextraction of Heavy Metals: A Promising Tool for Clean-Up of Polluted Environment? Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 1476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Jeguirim, M.; Dorge, S.; Trouvé, G. Thermogravimetric Analysis and Emission Characteristics of Two Energy Crops in Air Atmosphere: Arundo donax and Miscanthus giganthus. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101, 788–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Nokande, S.E.; Razavi, S.M.; Mohammadian, M.A. The Capacity of Heavy Metal Remediation by Cyperus alternifolius, Chrysopogon zizanioides (L.) Roberty, and Aloe vera (L.) Burm. f. under Industrial and Urban Wastewater Treatment. Chiang Mai Univ. J. Nat. Sci. 2022, 21, e2022057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ye, L.-L.; Chen, Y.-S.; Chen, Y.-D.; Qian, L.-W.; Xiong, W.-L.; Xu, J.-H.; Jiang, J.-P. Phytomanagement of a Chromium-Contaminated Soil by a High-Value Plant: Phytostabilization of Heavy Metal Contaminated Site. BioResources 2020, 15, 3545–3565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Papadimou, S.G.; Barbayiannis, Ν.; Golia, E.E. Preliminary Investigation of the Use of Silybum marianum (L.) Gaertn. as a Cd Accumulator in Contaminated Mediterranean Soils: The Relationships among Cadmium (Cd) Soil Fractions and Plant Cd Content. Euro Mediterr. J. Environ. Integr. 2024, 9, 405–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Epelde, L.; Becerril, J.M.; Mijangos, I.; Garbisu, C. Evaluation of the Efficiency of a Phytostabilization Process with Biological Indicators of Soil Health. J. Environ. Qual. 2009, 38, 2041–2049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Frérot, H.; Lefèbvre, C.; Gruber, W.; Collin, C.; Dos Santos, A.; Escarré, J. Specific Interactions between Local Metallicolous Plants Improve the Phytostabilization of Mine Soils. Plant Soil 2006, 282, 53–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zine, H.; Midhat, L.; Hakkou, R.; El Adnani, M.; Ouhammou, A. Guidelines for a Phytomanagement Plan by the Phytostabilization of Mining Wastes. Sci. Afr. 2020, 10, e00654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Abhilash, P.C.; Pandey, V.C.; Srivastava, P.; Rakesh, P.S.; Chandran, S.; Singh, N.; Thomas, A.P. Phytofiltration of Cadmium from Water by Limnocharis flava (L.) Buchenau Grown in Free-Floating Culture System. J. Hazard. Mater. 2009, 170, 791–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Huang, J.W.; Poynton, C.Y.; Kochian, L.V.; Elless, M.P. Phytofiltration of Arsenic from Drinking Water Using Arsenic-Hyperaccumulating Ferns. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 38, 3412–3417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Moreno, F.N.; Anderson, C.W.N.; Stewart, R.B.; Robinson, B.H. Phytofiltration of Mercury-Contaminated Water: Volatilisation and Plant-Accumulation Aspects. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2008, 62, 78–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Gardea-Torresdey, J.L.; de la Rosa, G.; Peralta-Videa, J.R. Use of Phytofiltration Technologies in the Removal of Heavy Metals: A Review. Pure Appl. Chem. 2004, 76, 801–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Islam, S.; Ueno, Y.; Sikder, T.; Kurasaki, M. Phytofiltration of Arsenic and Cadmium from the Water Environment Using Micranthemum umbrosum (J.F. Gmel) S.F. Blake as a Hyperaccumulator. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2013, 15, 1010–1021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Khan, S.; Dilawar, S.; Hassan, S.; Ullah, A.; Yasmin, H.; Ayaz, T.; Akhtar, F.; Gaafar, A.-R.Z.; Sekar, S.; Butt, S. Phytoremediation of Cu and Mn from Industrially Polluted Soil: An Eco-Friendly and Sustainable Approach. Water 2023, 15, 3439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Fattahi, B.; Arzani, K.; Souri, M.K.; Barzegar, M. Effects of Cadmium and Lead on Seed Germination, Morphological Traits, and Essential Oil Composition of Sweet Basil (Ocimum basilicum L.). Ind. Crops Prod. 2019, 138, 111584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Wang, B.; Wang, Y.; Yuan, X.; Jiang, Y.; Zhu, Y.; Kang, X.; He, J.; Xiao, Y. Comparative Transcriptomic Analysis Provides Key Genetic Resources in Clove Basil (Ocimum gratissimum) under Cadmium Stress. Front. Genet. 2023, 14, 1224140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Papadimou, S.G.; Golia, E.E.; Barbayiannis, N.; Tsiropoulos, N.G. Dual Role of the Hyperaccumulator Silybum marianum (L.) Gaertn. in Circular Economy: Production of Silymarin, a Valuable Secondary Metabolite, and Remediation of Heavy Metal Contaminated Soils. Sustain. Chem. Pharm. 2024, 38, 101454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Vasilou, C.; Tsiropoulos, N.G.; Golia, E.E. Phytoremediation & Valorization of Cu-Contaminated Soils Through Cannabis sativa (L.) Cultivation: A Smart Way to Produce Cannabidiol (CBD) in Mediterranean Soils. Waste Biomass Valorization 2024, 15, 1711–1724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Thanh, N.C.; Narayanan, M.; Saravanan, M.; Chinnathambi, A.; Alahmadi, T.A.; Brindhadevi, K.; Sharma, A.; Pugazhendhi, A. Hibiscus Rosa-Sinensis as a Potential Hyperaccumulator in Metal Contaminated Magnesite Mine Tailings. Chemosphere 2023, 339, 139738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Rasouli, F.; Hassanpouraghdam, M.B.; Pirsarandib, Y.; Aazami, M.A.; Asadi, M.; Ercisli, S.; Mehrabani, L.V.; Puglisi, I.; Baglieri, A. Improvements in the Biochemical Responses and Pb and Ni Phytoremediation of Lavender (Lavandula angustifolia L.) Plants through Funneliformis mosseae Inoculation. BMC Plant Biol. 2023, 23, 252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Golia, E.E.; Bethanis, J.; Ntinopoulos, N.; Kaffe, G.G.; Komnou, A.A.; Vasilou, C. Investigating the Potential of Heavy Metal Accumulation from Hemp. The Use of Industrial Hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) for Phytoremediation of Heavily And and Moderated Polluted Soils. Sustain. Chem. Pharm. 2023, 31, 100961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Golia, E.E.; Angelaki, A.; Giannoulis, K.D.; Skoufogianni, E.; Bartzialis, D.; Cavalaris, C.; Vleioras, S. Evaluation of Soil Properties, Irrigation and Solid Waste Application Levels on Cu and Zn Uptake by Industrial Hemp. Agron. Res. 2021, 19, 92–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Pandey, V.C.; Bajpai, O.; Singh, N. Energy Crops in Sustainable Phytoremediation. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 54, 58–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Parra, C.R.; Ramirez, A.D.; Navas-Gracia, L.M.; Gonzales, D.; Correa-Guimaraes, A. Prospects for Bioenergy Development Potential from Dedicated Energy Crops in Ecuador: An Agroecological Zoning Study. Agriculture 2023, 13, 186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Bona, E.; Marsano, F.; Cavaletto, M.; Berta, G. Proteomic Characterization of Copper Stress Response in Cannabis sativa Roots. Proteomics 2007, 7, 1121–1130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Barbosa, B.; Boléo, S.; Sidella, S.; Costa, J.; Duarte, M.P.; Mendes, B.; Cosentino, S.L.; Fernando, A.L. Phytoremediation of Heavy Metal-Contaminated Soils Using the Perennial Energy Crops Miscanthus spp. and Arundo donax L. BioEnergy Res. 2015, 8, 1500–1511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Korzeniowska, J.; Stanislawska-Glubiak, E. Phytoremediation Potential of Phalaris arundinacea, Salix viminalis and Zea mays for Nickel-Contaminated Soils. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 16, 1999–2008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Garau, M.; Castaldi, P.; Patteri, G.; Roggero, P.P.; Garau, G. Evaluation of Cynara cardunculus L. and Municipal Solid Waste Compost for Aided Phytoremediation of Multi Potentially Toxic Element–Contaminated Soils. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 3253–3265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Gabriele, I.; Bianco, F.; Race, M.; Papirio, S.; Esposito, G. Phytoremediation of PAH- and Cu-Contaminated Soil by Cannabis sativa L.: Preliminary Experiments on a Laboratory Scale. Sustainability 2023, 15, 1852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ţîţei, V.; Gadibadi, M.; Guţu, A.; Daraduda, N.; Mazăre, V.; Armaş, A.; Cerempei, V. Biomass Quality of Hemp, Cannabis sativa L., and Prospects of Its Use for Various Energy Purposes; Institutional Repository of the Technical University of Moldova: Chisinau, Moldova, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  41. Sawicka, B.; Skiba, D.; Kiełtyka-Dadasiewicz, A.; Danilčenko, H. Jerusalem Artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) as Energy Raw Material. In Rural Development: Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference; Latvia University of Life Sciences and Technologies: Jelgava, Latvia, 2019; pp. 336–342. https://doi.org/10.15544/RD.2019.042.Material. In Rural Development: Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference; Latvia University of Life Sciences and Technologies: Jelgava, Latvia, 2019; pp. 336–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Gao, K.; Zhang, Z.; Zhu, T.; Coulter, J.A. The Influence of Flower Removal on Tuber Yield and Biomass Characteristics of Helianthus tuberosus L. in a Semi-Arid Area. Ind. Crops Prod. 2020, 150, 112374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Prapagdee, B.; Khonsue, N. Bacterial-Assisted Cadmium Phytoremediation by Ocimum gratissimum L. in Polluted Agricultural Soil: A Field Trial Experiment. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 12, 3843–3852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Mishra, B.; Chandra, M. Evaluation of Phytoremediation Potential of Aromatic Plants: A Systematic Review. J. Appl. Res. Med. Aromat. Plants 2022, 31, 100405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Youssef, N.A. Changes in the Morphological Traits and the Essential Oil Content of Sweet Basil (Ocimum basilicum L.) as Induced by Cadmium and Lead Treatments. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2021, 23, 291–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Capozzi, F.; Sorrentino, M.C.; Caporale, A.G.; Fiorentino, N.; Giordano, S.; Spagnuolo, V. Exploring the Phytoremediation Potential of Cynara cardunculus: A Trial on an Industrial Soil Highly Contaminated by Heavy Metals. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 9075–9084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Thomas, G.; Sheridan, C.; Holm, P.E. Co-Cropping Vetiver Grass and Legume for the Phytoremediation of an Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) Impacted Soil. Environ. Pollut. 2024, 341, 122873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Cristaldi, A.; Oliveri Conti, G.; Cosentino, S.L.; Mauromicale, G.; Copat, C.; Grasso, A.; Zuccarello, P.; Fiore, M.; Restuccia, C.; Ferrante, M. Phytoremediation Potential of Arundo donax (Giant Reed) in Contaminated Soil by Heavy Metals. Environ. Res. 2020, 185, 109427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Pietrini, F.; Passatore, L.; Patti, V.; Francocci, F.; Giovannozzi, A.; Zacchini, M. Morpho-Physiological and Metal Accumulation Responses of Hemp Plants (Cannabis sativa L.) Grown on Soil from an Agro-Industrial Contaminated Area. Water 2019, 11, 808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Manikandan, R.; Sahi, S.V.; Venkatachalam, P. Impact Assessment of Mercury Accumulation and Biochemical and Molecular Response of Mentha arvensis: A Potential Hyperaccumulator Plant. Sci. World J. 2015, 2015, 715217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Rajendran, M.; An, W.; Li, W.; Perumal, V.; Wu, C.; Sahi, S.V.; Sarkar, S.K. Chromium Detoxification Mechanism Induced Growth and Antioxidant Responses in Vetiver (Chrysopogon zizanioides (L.) Roberty). J. Cent. South Univ. 2019, 26, 489–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Liu, Z.; Wang, L.; Xu, J.; Ding, S.; Feng, X.; Xiao, H. Effects of Different Concentrations of Mercury on Accumulation of Mercury by Five Plant Species. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 106, 273–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. El Rasafi, T.; Pereira, R.; Pinto, G.; Gonçalves, F.J.M.; Haddioui, A.; Ksibi, M.; Römbke, J.; Sousa, J.P.; Marques, C.R. Potential of Eucalyptus globulus for the Phytoremediation of Metals in a Moroccan Iron Mine Soil—A Case Study. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 15782–15793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Pistelli, L.; D’Angiolillo, F.; Morelli, E.; Basso, B.; Rosellini, I.; Posarelli, M.; Barbafieri, M. Response of Spontaneous Plants from an Ex-Mining Site of Elba Island (Tuscany, Italy) to Metal (Loid) Contamination. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 7809–7820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Atma, W.; Larouci, M.; Meddah, B.; Benabdeli, K.; Sonnet, P. Evaluation of the Phytoremediation Potential of Arundo donax L. for Nickel-Contaminated Soil. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2017, 19, 377–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Zemiani, A.; Boldarini, M.T.B.; Anami, M.H.; de Oliveira, E.F.; da Silva, A.F. Tolerance of Mentha crispa L. (Garden Mint) Cultivated in Cadmium-Contaminated Oxisol. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 42107–42120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Marrugo-Negrete, J.; Durango-Hernández, J.; Pinedo-Hernández, J.; Olivero-Verbel, J.; Díez, S. Phytoremediation of Mercury-Contaminated Soils by Jatropha curcas. Chemosphere 2015, 127, 58–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Zhang, C.; Guo, J.; Lee, D.K.; Anderson, E.; Huang, H. Growth Responses and Accumulation of Cadmium in Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) and Prairie Cordgrass (Spartina pectinata Link). RSC Adv. 2015, 5, 83700–83706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Charvalas, G.; Solomou, A.D.; Giannoulis, K.D.; Skoufogianni, E.; Bartzialis, D.; Emmanouil, C.; Danalatos, N.G. Determination of Heavy Metals in the Territory of Contaminated Areas of Greece and Their Restoration through Hyperaccumulators. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 3858–3863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Golia, E.E.; Aslanidis, P.S.C.; Papadimou, S.G.; Kantzou, O.D.; Chartodiplomenou, M.A.; Lakiotis, K.; Androudi, M.; Tsiropoulos, N.G. Assessment of Remediation of Soils, Moderately Contaminated by Potentially Toxic Metals, Using Different Forms of Carbon (Charcoal, Biochar, Activated Carbon), Impacts on contamination, metals availability and soil indices. Sustain. Chem. Pharm. 2022, 28, 100724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Alloway, B.J. Sources of Heavy Metals and Metalloids in Soils. In Heavy Metals in Soils; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 11–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Kabata-Pendias, A. Trace Elements in Soils and Plants; CRC Press: Abingdon, UK, 2010; ISBN 9780429192036. [Google Scholar]
  63. Golia, E.E.; Diakoloukas, V. Soil Parameters Affecting the Levels of Potentially Harmful Metals in Thessaly Area, Greece: A Robust Quadratic Regression Approach of Soil Pollution Prediction. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 29544–29561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Fatima, A.; Shabaan, M.; Ali, Q.; Malik, M.; Asghar, H.N.; Aslam, M.; Zulfiqar, U.; Hameed, A.; Nazim, M.; Mustafa, A.E.-Z.M.A.; et al. Integrated Application of Metal tolerant P. Fluorescens and Press Mud for Conferring Heavy Metal Tolerance to Aloe Vera (Aloe barbadensis). Plant Stress 2024, 11, 100333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Shokri, F.; Ziarati, P.; Mousavi, Z. Removal of Selected Heavy Metals from Pharmaceutical Effluent by Aloe vera L. Biomed. Pharmacol. J. 2016, 9, 705–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Khankhane, P.J.; Tabassum, A.; Patel, A. Cadmium Tolerance and Its Enhanced Accumulation Potential of Arundo donax by EDTA. J. Environ. Biol. 2017, 38, 327–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Parihar, J.K.; Parihar, P.K.; Pakade, Y.B.; Katnoria, J.K. Bioaccumulation Potential of Indigenous Plants for Heavy Metal Phytoremediation in Rural Areas of Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Punjab (India). Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 2426–2442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. De Vos, B.; Souza, M.F.; Michels, E.; Meers, E. Industrial Hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) in a Phytoattenuation Strategy: Remediation Potential of a Cd, Pb and Zn Contaminated Soil and Valorization Potential of the Fibers for Textile Production. Ind. Crops Prod. 2022, 178, 114592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Wielgusz, K.; Praczyk, M.; Irzykowska, L.; Świerk, D. Fertilization and Soil PH Affect Seed and Biomass Yield, Plant Morphology, and Cadmium Uptake in Hemp (Cannabis sativa L.). Ind. Crops Prod. 2022, 175, 114245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Angelini, L.; Tavarini, S.; Cestone, B.; Agrochimica, C.B. Variation in Mineral Composition in Three Different Plant Organs of Five Fibre Hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) Cultivars. Agrochimica 2014, 58, 1–18. [Google Scholar]
  71. Ćaćić, M.; Perčin, A.; Zgorelec, Ž.; Kisić, I. Evaluation of Heavy Metals Accumulation Potential of Hemp (Cannabis sativa L.). J. Cen. Eur. Agric. 2019, 20, 700–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Canu, M.; Mulè, P.; Spanu, E.; Fanni, S.; Marrone, A.; Carboni, G. Hemp Cultivation in Soils Polluted by Cd, Pb and Zn in the Mediterranean Area: Sites Characterization and Phytoremediation in Real Scale Settlement. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Ferrarini, A.; Fracasso, A.; Spini, G.; Fornasier, F.; Taskin, E.; Fontanella, M.C.; Beone, G.M.; Amaducci, S.; Puglisi, E. Bioaugmented Phytoremediation of Metal-Contaminated Soils and Sediments by Hemp and Giant Reed. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 645893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Otunola, B.; Aghoghovwia, M.P.; Thwala, M.; Ololade, O.O. A Mesocosm Study on the Use of Clay Minerals to Improve Heavy Metal Phytoremediation Capacity of Vetiver Grass (Chrysopogon zizanioides L. Roberty). S. Afr. J. Sci. 2023, 119, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Delgado, M.; Miralles de Imperial, R.; Gonzalez, I.; Lobo, C.; Plaza, A.; Martinez, S.; Martin, J.V. Phytoremediation Potential of Thistle (Cynara cardunculus L.) and Its Ability to Remove Heavy Metals from Polluted Soils with High Rates of Sewage Sludge. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2017, 26, 1935–1941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Sabo, A.; Ladan, M. Phytoremediation Potential of Some Indigenous Herbaceous Plant Species Growing on Metalliferous Mining Site at Nahuta, Bauchi State, Nigeria. IOSR J. Environ. Sci. 2014, 12, 747–755. [Google Scholar]
  77. Mazumdar, K.; Das, S. Phytoremediation of Pb, Zn, Fe, and Mg with 25 Wetland Plant Species from a Paper Mill Contaminated Site in North East India. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2015, 22, 701–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Song, X.; Li, C.; Chen, W. Phytoremediation Potential of Bermuda Grass (Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers.) in Soils Co-Contaminated with Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Cadmium. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2022, 234, 113389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Shuaibu, L.; Abdullahi, U.; Yaradua, A.I.; Bungudu, J.I. Phytoremediation Potentials of Cynodon dactylon on Heavy Metal Contaminated Soils from Challawa Industrial Estate, Kano-Nigeria. Asian J. Appl. Chem. Res. 2021, 9, 25–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Garba, S.T.; Gudusu, M.; Inuwa, L.B. Accumulation Ability of the Native Grass Species, Cyperus rotundus for the Heavy Metals; Zinc (Zn), Cadmium (Cd), Nickel (Ni) and Lead (Pb). Int. Res. J. Pure Appl. Chem. 2018, 17, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Ilyas, S.; Sabo, A.; Akomolafe, G.F. Assessment of Metal Accumulation in Plant and Soil at Eggon Community Mining Site, Nasarawa, Nigeria. J. Res. For. Wildl. Environ. 2021, 13, 11–21. [Google Scholar]
  82. Shingadgaon, S.S.; Chavan, B.L. Evaluation of Bioaccumulation Factor (BAF), Bioconcentration Factor (BCF), Translocation Factor (TF) and Metal Enrichment Factor (MEF) Abilities of aquatic macrophyte species exposed to metal contaminated wastewater. Int. J. Innov. Res. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2019, 8, 329–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Subhashini, V.; Swamy, A.V.V.S. Phytoremediation of Cadmium and Chromium Contaminated Soils by Cyperus rotundus L. Am. Int. J. Res. Sci. Technol. Eng. Math. 2014, 6, 97–101. [Google Scholar]
  84. de Oliveira Araújo, S.; Neiva, D.M.; de Cássia Carneiro, A.; Esteves, B.; Pereira, H. Potential of Mild Torrefaction for Upgrading the Wood Energy Value of Different Eucalyptus Species. Forests 2018, 9, 535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Pietrini, F.; Iori, V.; Bianconi, D.; Mughini, G.; Massacci, A.; Zacchini, M. Assessment of Physiological and Biochemical Responses, Metal Tolerance and Accumulation in Two Eucalypt Hybrid Clones for Phytoremediation of Cadmium-Contaminated Waters. J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 162, 221–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Reboredo, F.H.; Pelica, J.; Lidon, F.C.; Pessoa, M.F.; Silva, M.M.; Guerra, M.; Leitão, R.; Ramalho, J.C. The Tolerance of Eucalyptus globulus to Soil Contamination with Arsenic. Plants 2021, 10, 627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Shahin, S.; Mahmoud, A.; Said, R. To What Extent Can Rose of China (Hibiscus rosa-sinensis, L.) Transplants Tolerate Toxicity of Some Heavy Metals in Combinations? Egypt. J. Agric. Res. 2020, 98, 645–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Chang, F.C.; Ko, C.H.; Tsai, M.J.; Wang, Y.N.; Chung, C.Y. Phytoremediation of Heavy Metal Contaminated Soil by Jatropha curcas. Ecotoxicology 2014, 23, 1969–1978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Awotedu, O.L.; Ogunbamowo, P.O. Comparative Heavy Metal Uptake and Phytoremediation Potential of Three Jatropha Species. Environ. Ecosyst. Sci. 2019, 3, 26–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Devanesan, S.; Mir, M.S.; AlSalhi, M.S.; Angulo-Bejarano, P.I. Phytoremediation and Genetic Adaptation Potential of Jatropha curcas on Heavy Metals Enriched Mine Tailings. J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. 2024, 166, 105325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Khan, A.; Khan, A.A.; Irfan, M.; Sayeed Akhtar, M.; Hasan, S.A. Lead-Induced Modification of Growth and Yield of Linum usitatissimum L. and Its Soil Remediation Potential. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2023, 25, 1067–1076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Zhang, Y.; Liu, G.; Gao, S.; Zhang, Z.; Huang, L. Effect of Humic Acid on Phytoremediation of Heavy Metal Contaminated Sediment. J. Hazard. Mater. Adv. 2023, 9, 100235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Mohseni, A.; Reyhanitabar, A.; Najafi, N.; Oustan, S.; Bazargan, K. Phytoremediation Potential and Essential Oil Quality of Peppermint Grown in Contaminated Soils as Affected by Sludge and Time. J. Agric. Sci. Techn. 2022, 24, 723–737. [Google Scholar]
  94. Alamo-Nole, L.; Su, Y.F. Translocation of Cadmium in Ocimum Basilicum at Low Concentration of CdSSe Nanoparticles. Appl. Mater. Today 2017, 9, 314–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Zahedifar, M.; Moosavi, A.A.; Zarei, Z.; Shafigh, M.; Karimian, F. Heavy Metals Content and Distribution in Basil (Ocimum basilicum L.) as Influenced by Cadmium and Different Potassium Sources. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2019, 21, 435–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Choden, D.; Pokethitiyook, P.; Poolpak, T.; Kruatrachue, M. Phytoremediation of Soil Co-Contaminated with Zinc and Crude Oil Using Ocimum gratissimum (L.) in Association with Pseudomonas putida MU02. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2021, 23, 181–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Bisht, M.; Pande, C.; Tewari, G.; Bhatt, S.; Triphati, S. Effect of Zinc on the Growth and Essential Oil Composition of Ocimum gratissimum L. J. Essent. Oil Bear. Plants 2019, 22, 441–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Guo, Z.; Gao, Y.; Cao, X.; Jiang, W.; Liu, X.; Liu, Q.; Chen, Z.; Zhou, W.; Cui, J.; Wang, Q. Phytoremediation of Cd and Pb Interactive Polluted Soils by Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.). Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2019, 21, 1486–1496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Polechońska, L.; Klink, A. Trace Metal Bioindication and Phytoremediation Potentialities of Phalaris arundinacea L. (Reed Canary Grass). J. Geochem. Explor. 2014, 146, 27–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Xu, J.; Zheng, L.; Xu, L.; Wang, X. Uptake and Allocation of Selected Metals by Dominant Vegetation in Poyang Lake Wetland: From Rhizosphere to Plant Tissues. Catena 2020, 189, 104477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Mayerová, M.; Petrová, Š.; Madaras, M.; Lipavský, J.; Šimon, T.; Vaněk, T. Non-Enhanced Phytoextraction of Cadmium, Zinc, and Lead by High-Yielding Crops. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 14706–14716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. El-Mahrouk, E.-S.M.; Eisa, E.A.-H.; Hegazi, M.A.; Abdel-Gayed, M.E.-S.; Dewir, Y.H.; El-Mahrouk, M.E.; Naidoo, Y. Phytoremediation of Cadmium-, Copper-, and Lead-Contaminated Soil by Salix mucronata (Synonym Salix safsaf). HortScience 2019, 54, 1249–1257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Kubátová, P.; Hejcman, M.; Száková, J.; Vondráčková, S.; Tlustoš, P. Effects of Sewage Sludge Application on Biomass Production and Concentrations of Cd, Pb and Zn in Shoots of Salix and Populus Clones: Improvement of Phytoremediation Efficiency in Contaminated Soils. BioEnergy Res. 2016, 9, 809–819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Hussain, S.; Akram, M.; Abbas, G.; Murtaza, B.; Shahid, M.; Shah, N.S.; Bibi, I.; Niazi, N.K. Arsenic Tolerance and Phytoremediation Potential of Conocarpus erectus L. and Populus deltoides L. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2017, 19, 985–991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Romeo, S.; Francini, A.; Ariani, A.; Sebastiani, L. Phytoremediation of Zn: Identify the Diverging Resistance, Uptake and Biomass Production Behaviours of Poplar Clones under High Zinc Stress. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2014, 225, 1813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Ancona, V.; Caracciolo, A.B.; Campanale, C.; Rascio, I.; Grenni, P.; Di Lenola, M.; Bagnuolo, G.; Uricchio, V.F. Heavy Metal Phytoremediation of a Poplar Clone in a Contaminated Soil in Southern Italy. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 2020, 95, 940–949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Hadi, F.; Arifeen, M.Z.U.; Aziz, T.; Nawab, S.; Nabi, G. Phytoremediation of Cadmium by Ricinus communis L. in Hydrophonic Condition. Cell 2015, 92, 8112741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Kİran, B.R.; Prasad, M.N.V. Responses of Ricinus communis L. (Castor Bean, Phytoremediation Crop) Seedlings to Lead (Pb) Toxicity in Hydroponics. Selcuk J. Agric. Food Sci. 2017, 31, 73–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Palanivel, T.M.; Pracejus, B.; Victor, R. Phytoremediation Potential of Castor (Ricinus communis L.) in the Soils of the Abandoned Copper Mine in Northern Oman: Implications for Arid Regions. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 17359–17369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Ardalan, F.; Vakili, M.; Kourepaz, S. Lead Phytoremediation of Rosmarinus officinalis and Its Effect on the Plant Growth. Int. J. Biosci. 2014, 4, 75–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Ardalan, F.; Vakili, M.; Samadiyan-Sarbangholi, V.; Ardalan, M. Cadmium Uptake and Accumulation Ability of Rosmarinus officinalis and Its Growth Changes. J. Biodivers. Environ. Sci. 2015, 6, 83–87. [Google Scholar]
  112. Affholder, M.-C.; Laffont-Schwob, I.; Coulomb, B.; Rabier, J.; Borla, A.; Boudenne, J.-L.; Demelas, C.; Prudent, P. Implication of Phytometabolites on Metal Tolerance of the Pseudo-Metallophyte—Rosmarinus officinalis—in a Mediterranean Brownfield. Chemosphere 2020, 249, 126159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Abbaslou, H.; Bakhtiari, S.; Hashemi, S.S. Rehabilitation of Iron Ore Mine Soil Contaminated with Heavy Metals Using Rosemary Phytoremediation-Assisted Mycorrhizal Arbuscular Fungi Bioaugmentation and Fibrous Clay Mineral Immobilization. Iran. J. Sci. Technol. Trans. A Sci. 2018, 42, 431–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Parra, A.; Zornoza, R.; Conesa, E.; Gómez-López, M.D.; Faz, A. Seedling Emergence, Growth and Trace Elements Tolerance and Accumulation by Lamiaceae Species in a Mine Soil. Chemosphere 2014, 113, 132–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Shi, X.; Wang, S.; Sun, H.; Chen, Y.; Wang, D.; Pan, H.; Zou, Y.; Liu, J.; Zheng, L.; Zhao, X.; et al. Comparative of Quercus spp. and Salix spp. for Phytoremediation of Pb/Zn Mine Tailings. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 3400–3411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Urošević, J.; Stanković, D.; Jokanović, D.; Trivan, G.; Rodzkin, A.; Jović, Đ.; Jovanović, F. Phytoremediation Potential of Different Genotypes of Salix alba and S. Viminalis. Plants 2024, 13, 735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. El-Mahrouk, E.S.M.; Eisa, E.A.E.H.; Ali, H.M.; Hegazy, M.A.E.N.; El-Sayed, M.; Abd El-Gayed, M.E.S. Populus nigra as a Phytoremediator for Cd, Cu, and Pb in Contaminated Soil. BioResources 2020, 15, 869–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Papadimou, S.G.; Golia, E.E. Green and Sustainable Practices for an Energy Plant Cultivation on Naturally Contaminated versus Spiked Soils. The Impact of Ageing Soil Pollution in the Circular Economy Framework. Environ. Res. 2024, 246, 118130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Angelova, V.; Perifanova-Nemska, M.N.; Krustev, L.K.; Uzunova, G.P. Potential of Silybum marianum L. for Phytoremediation of Soils Contaminated with Heavy Metals. J. Int. Sci. Publ. Ecol. Saf. 2018, 12, 267–282. [Google Scholar]
  120. Hammami, H.; Alaie, E.; Dastgheib, S.M.M. The Ability of Silybum marianum to Phytoremediate Cadmium and/or Diesel Oil from the Soil. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2018, 20, 756–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Razanov, S.F.; Tkachuk, O.P.; Razanova, A.M.; Bakhmat, M.I.; Bakhmat, O.M. Intensity of Heavy Metal Accumulation in Plants of Silybum marianum L. in Conditions of Field Rotation. Ukr. J. Ecol. 2020, 10, 131–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Toxics 12 00914 g001
Figure 1. Effect of PTEs on plants.
Figure 1. Effect of PTEs on plants.
Toxics 12 00914 g001
Toxics 12 00914 g002
Figure 2. Potential plants for phytoremediation.
Figure 2. Potential plants for phytoremediation.
Toxics 12 00914 g002
Toxics 12 00914 g003
Figure 3. Scheme of data collection methodology-filters used to gather the published information.
Figure 3. Scheme of data collection methodology-filters used to gather the published information.
Toxics 12 00914 g003
Toxics 12 00914 g004
Figure 4. Countries where phytoremediation studies of PTEs-contaminated soils have been carried out.
Figure 4. Countries where phytoremediation studies of PTEs-contaminated soils have been carried out.
Toxics 12 00914 g004
Toxics 12 00914 g005
Figure 5. Percentages of the studies showing different metal element counts.
Figure 5. Percentages of the studies showing different metal element counts.
Toxics 12 00914 g005
Toxics 12 00914 g006
Figure 6. Average Pb concentration (mg kg−1 dw) in plant tissues.
Figure 6. Average Pb concentration (mg kg−1 dw) in plant tissues.
Toxics 12 00914 g006
Toxics 12 00914 g007
Figure 7. Average Cu concentration (mg kg−1 dw) in plant tissues.
Figure 7. Average Cu concentration (mg kg−1 dw) in plant tissues.
Toxics 12 00914 g007
Toxics 12 00914 g008
Figure 8. Average Cd concentration (mg kg−1 dw) in plant tissues.
Figure 8. Average Cd concentration (mg kg−1 dw) in plant tissues.
Toxics 12 00914 g008
Toxics 12 00914 g009
Figure 9. Average Zn concentration (mg kg−1 dw) in plant tissues.
Figure 9. Average Zn concentration (mg kg−1 dw) in plant tissues.
Toxics 12 00914 g009
Toxics 12 00914 g010
Figure 10. Average Cr concentration (mg kg−1 dw) in plant tissues.
Figure 10. Average Cr concentration (mg kg−1 dw) in plant tissues.
Toxics 12 00914 g010
Toxics 12 00914 g011
Figure 11. Average Ni concentration (mg kg−1 dw) in plant tissues.
Figure 11. Average Ni concentration (mg kg−1 dw) in plant tissues.
Toxics 12 00914 g011
Toxics 12 00914 g012
Figure 12. Average Co concentration (mg kg−1 dw) in plant tissues.
Figure 12. Average Co concentration (mg kg−1 dw) in plant tissues.
Toxics 12 00914 g012
Toxics 12 00914 g013
Figure 13. Average Hg concentration (mg kg−1 dw) in plant tissues.
Figure 13. Average Hg concentration (mg kg−1 dw) in plant tissues.
Toxics 12 00914 g013
Toxics 12 00914 g014
Figure 14. Average As concentration (mg kg−1 dw) in plant tissues.
Figure 14. Average As concentration (mg kg−1 dw) in plant tissues.
Toxics 12 00914 g014
Table 1. Published studies related to energy, aromatic, and medicinal plants used for phytoremediation purposes.
Table 1. Published studies related to energy, aromatic, and medicinal plants used for phytoremediation purposes.
Plant SpeciesPTEsCountriesReferences
Aloe veraPb, Cu, Cd, Zn, Cr, Ni, HgIran, Pakistan, China[13,52,64,65]
Arundo donaxPb, Cu, Cd, Zn, Cr, Ni, Hg, AsAlgeria, Portugal, Italy, India[12,36,48,55,66]
Cannabis sativaPb, Cu, Cd, Zn, Cr, Co, NiIndia, Belgium, Poland, Italy, Croatia[39,40,49,67,68,69,70,71,72,73]
Chrysopogon zizanioidesPb, Cu, Cd, Zn, Cr, Co, Ni, AsChina, Iran, Malesia, South Africa[8,10,13,47,74]
Cynara cardunculusPb, Cu, Cd, Zn, Cr, Ni, AsItaly, Spain[5,38,46,75]
Cynodon dactylonPb, Cu, Cd, Zn, Cr, NiNigeria, India, China, Pakistan[76,77,78,79]
Cyperus rotundusPb, Cu, Cd, Zn, Cr, Co, NiNigeria, India[76,80,81,82,83]
Eucalyptus spp.Cu, Cd, Zn, Cr, Hg, AsMorocco, China, Italy, Portugal[2,53,84,85,86]
Hibiscus rosa-sinesisPb, Cd, Cr, NiEgypt[29,87]
Jatropha curcasPb, Cu, Cd, Zn, Cr, Ni, HgColombia, Taiwan, Spain, Nigeria, India[3,57,88,89,90]
Lavandula spp.Pb, Cu, Cd, Zn, Cr, NiBulgaria, Iran, China, Italy[6,14,30,54,86]
Linum spp.Pb, Cu, Cd, NiIndia, China, Pakistan[1,8,55,91]
Mentha spp.Pb, Cu, Cd, Zn, Ni, HgIndia, Brazil, China, Iran, Pakistan[50,56,66,92,93]
Ocimum basilicumPb, Cd, ZnBulgaria, USA, Iran, Egypt[25,45,94,95]
Ocimum gratissimumPb, Cu, Cd, Zn, Ni, AsThailand, Nigeria, India, China[4,43,96,97]
Panicum virgatumPb, Cu, Cd, Zn, Cr, CoIndia, China, USA[9,58,67,98]
Phalaris arundinaceaPb, Cu, Cd, Zn, Cr, Co, NiPoland, China, Czech Republic[37,99,100,101]
Populus spp.Pb, Cu, Cd, Zn, Cr, Co, Ni, AsEgypt, Czech Republic, Pakistan, Italy[102,103,104,105,106]
Ricinus communisPb, Cu, Cd, Zn, Cr, Co, AsOman, Pakistan, India[67,77,107,108,109]
Rosmarinus officinalisPb, Cu, Cd, Zn, AsIran, France, Spain[110,111,112,113,114]
Salix spp.Pb, Cu, Cd, Zn, Cr, Ni, AsPoland, Czech Republic, Serbia, China, Egypt[37,103,115,116,117]
Silybum marianumPb, Cu, Cd, ZnGreece, Iran, Bulgaria, Ukraine[15,27,118,119,120,121]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Golia, E.E.; Barbieri, E.; Papadimou, S.G.; Alexiadis, D. Energy, Aromatic, and Medicinal Plants’ Potential and Prospects for the Remediation of Potentially Toxic Element-Contaminated Agricultural Soils: A Critical Meta-Analysis. Toxics 2024, 12, 914. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics12120914

AMA Style

Golia EE, Barbieri E, Papadimou SG, Alexiadis D. Energy, Aromatic, and Medicinal Plants’ Potential and Prospects for the Remediation of Potentially Toxic Element-Contaminated Agricultural Soils: A Critical Meta-Analysis. Toxics. 2024; 12(12):914. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics12120914

Chicago/Turabian Style

Golia, Evangelia E., Edoardo Barbieri, Sotiria G. Papadimou, and Dimitrios Alexiadis. 2024. "Energy, Aromatic, and Medicinal Plants’ Potential and Prospects for the Remediation of Potentially Toxic Element-Contaminated Agricultural Soils: A Critical Meta-Analysis" Toxics 12, no. 12: 914. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics12120914

APA Style

Golia, E. E., Barbieri, E., Papadimou, S. G., & Alexiadis, D. (2024). Energy, Aromatic, and Medicinal Plants’ Potential and Prospects for the Remediation of Potentially Toxic Element-Contaminated Agricultural Soils: A Critical Meta-Analysis. Toxics, 12(12), 914. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics12120914

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

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop