Phytoremediation and Bioremediation of Pesticide-Contaminated Soil

Tarla, D. N.; Erickson, Larry E.; Hettiarachchi, Ganga M.; Amadi, Sixtus I.; Galkaduwa, Madhubhashini B.; Davis, Lawrence C.; Nurzhanova, Asil; Pidlisnyuk, Valentina

doi:10.3390/app10041217

Cited by 71 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 202 publications

(286 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Phytoextraction or phytoaccumulation consists in absorbing pollutants by the root system and eventually translocate them to the aerial organs, ensuring the permanent decontamination of the site. This technique has been extensively applied to remove metals but also pesticides (Gasco et al 2019 ; Tarla et al 2020 ). Rhizofiltration is typical not only of aquatic plant species which uptake pollutants from aquatic environments but also of terrestrial plants, such as sunflower or hemp, that have an extended root system and large root surface area (Gerhardt et al 2009 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Single and combined use of Cannabis sativa L. and carbon-rich materials for the removal of pesticides and endocrine-disrupting chemicals from water and soil

Loffredo

Picca

Parlavecchia

2020

Environ Sci Pollut Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) seedlings were used to remove from water the fungicide metalaxyl-M and the endocrine disruptor (EDC) bisphenol A (BPA) at concentrations ranging from 2 to 100 μg mL−1. In 7 days of exposure, despite the phytotoxicity of each compound that reduced elongation and biomass, the seedlings were able to remove between 67 and 94% of metalaxyl-M and between 86 and 95% of BPA. The amounts of metalaxyl-M and BPA extracted from plant dry biomass were in the range of 106–3861 μg g−1 and 16–101 μg g−1, respectively, and resulted positively correlated to both the dose of compound added (P ≤ 0.01) and the amount removed by the plants (P ≤ 0.01). Plant uptake and transformation were the main mechanisms involved in the removal of the compounds. In another set of experiments, hemp was used to remove a mixture of two pesticides, metalaxyl-M and metribuzin, and three EDCs, BPA, 17β-estradiol (E2), and 4-tert-octylphenol (OP), at concentrations of 10, 10, 10, 10, and 1 μg g−1, respectively, from soil column not added and added with 2.5% (w/w) of a green compost (CM) or a wood biochar (BC). In 25 days, plants did not alter considerably the distribution of the compounds along the soil profile and were capable of removing, on average, 12, 11, 10, 9, and 14% of metalaxyl-M, metribuzin, BPA, E2, and OP, respectively. During growth, hemp transformed the compounds and accumulated part of them (except OP) mainly in the shoots. CM and, especially, BC significantly protected the plants from the toxicity of the compounds and enhanced the retention of the latter in soil, contrasting leaching. Thus, the single or synergistic use of hemp and amendments deserves attention being a very low-cost and eco-sustainable strategy to remediate water and soil.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Single and combined use of Cannabis sativa L. and carbon-rich materials for the removal of pesticides and endocrine-disrupting chemicals from water and soil

Loffredo

Picca

Parlavecchia

2020

Environ Sci Pollut Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With this mind-set, they apply all these toxic agricultural chemicals in order to improve crop yields which they can sell and make more money. Studies carried out by some researchers (Manfo et al, 2019;Mfopou et al, 2017;Asanga-Fai et al, 2019;Tarla et al, 2013;Tarla et al, 2014;Yengoh and Ardo, 2014;Tarla et al, 2015;Nkemleke, 2019;Tarla et al, 2020;Yengoh and Ardo, 2014;Tarla et al, 2015;Nkemleke, 2019;Tarla et al, 2020) have generally shown that most of the farmers involved in market gardening, apply a lot of toxic agricultural chemicals in order to improve crop productivity and increase farm income.…”

Section: Toxic Agricultural Chemicals Used By Agroforestry and Non-agroforestry Practicing Farmersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies undertaken across Cameroon, Africa and the world have shown that toxic agricultural chemicals applied on farms, are regularly washed from crop fields into streams, lakes, rivers and oceans, polluting soils, potable water sources, and affecting aquatic life (MINADER, 2013;Abang et al, 2014;Nkemleke, 2019;Tarla et al, 2013Tarla et al, , 2015Asanga-Fai et al, 2017;Kenko et al, 2017;Tarla et al, 2020). The hazardous use of toxic agricultural chemicals on farms has attracted the attention of environmentalists, scientists and policy makers who seek to make agriculture more sustainable and environmental friendly.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparative analysis of agrochemical use among agroforestry and non-agroforestry practicing farmers in South west Cameroon: The examples of insecticides, fungicides and herbicides

Tsufac¹,

Awazi²,

Yerima³

2021

Afr. J. Agric. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The abusive use of toxic agricultural chemicals (insecticides, fungicides and herbicides in particular) by farmers has attracted a lot of attention from environmentalists, scientists and policy makers. The use of these toxic agricultural chemicals not only contributes to environmental deterioration but equally poses major health risks to farmers and the general public. It is therefore incumbent on policy makers to take measures geared towards limiting the use of toxic agricultural chemicals. Some of these measures could be the vulgarization of agro-ecological farming practices like agroforestry. It is in this light that this study comparatively examined the use of toxic agricultural chemicals by agroforestry practicing and non-agroforestry practicing farmers in a bid to identify the most sustainable and viable option. Both primary and secondary data were collected for the study, and analysis was done using the statistical software Microsoft Excel 20007 and SPSS 17.0. It was found that the main crops grown by agroforestry practicing farmers were food and cash crops while non-agroforestry practicing farmers cultivated mainly market gardening crops and to some extent, food crops. Toxic agricultural chemicals (mainly fungicides, herbicides and insecticides) were used in large quantities and frequently by a majority (over 50%) of non-agroforestry practicing farmers, while less than 40% of agroforestry practicing farmers used toxic agricultural chemicals, mostly in small quantities and less frequently. A significant direct non-cause-effect and cause-effect relationship (p<0.05) existed between the noncause-effect and cause-effect relationship (p<0.05) between the non-practice of agroforestry and the use of toxic agricultural chemicals, while a significant inverse non-cause-effect and cause-effect relationship (p<0.05) was found to exist between the practice of agroforestry and the use of toxic agricultural chemicals. This implies that the practice of agroforestry can play a major role in reducing the use of toxic agricultural chemicals by farmers. It is recommended that policy makers should formulate policies geared towards fast-tracking agroforestry into the mainstream as a sustainable and viable pathway to limiting the use of toxic agricultural chemicals by farmers.

show abstract

“…Durante la biodegradación del DDT se producen diferentes metabolitos, dependiendo de la ruta de degradación, así en la biodegradación aerobia del DDT hay deshidrocloración y el metabolito que se obtiene es el diclorodifenildicloroetileno (DDE), mientras que en la biodegradación anaerobia hay una descloración reductiva y se obtiene el diclorodifenildicloroetano (DDD) (Figura 1). Muchas de las enzimas de detoxificación y metabolismo de plaguicidas son similares en plantas y microorganismos (Van Eerd, Hoagland & Hall, 2003;Tarla et al, 2020). Se conoce que las plantas tienen la capacidad de acumular y degradar DDT.…”

Section: El Caso Particular Del Dicloro Difenil Tricloroetano (Ddt)unclassified

Fitorremediación: Alternativa biotecnológica para recuperar suelos contaminados con DDT. Una revisión

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

El DDT (Dicloro Difenil Tricloroetano o 1,1,1-tricloro-2,2-bis-etano) representa un riesgo importante para la salud humana, debido a que se asocia con enfermedades como cáncer de mama, Alzheimer, Parkinson y su acumulación en sangre. Los recientes hallazgos del uso clandestino del DDT como agroquímico hacen necesaria la implementación de tecnologías de recuperación de suelos agrícolas contaminados con este compuesto. La fitorremediación es una tecnología sustentable, que utiliza el potencial de las plantas para remover contaminantes orgánicos e inorgánicos. Esta tecnología es mejorada con la inoculación de microorganismos rizosféricos que median el transporte de nutrientes y degradan compuestos orgánicos como el DDT. Esta revisión recopila información científica de los últimos diez años sobre: fitorremediación y fitorremediación asistida por microorganismos en sitios contaminados por DDT, y sus metabolitos diclorodifenildicloroetileno (DDE) y diclorodifenildicloroetano (DDD. Además, se resaltan los puntos más importantes que hacen de la fitorremediación una estrategia para la recuperación de suelos contaminados con DDT, DDE y DDD.

show abstract

Phytoremediation and Bioremediation of Pesticide-Contaminated Soil

Cited by 71 publications

References 202 publications

Single and combined use of Cannabis sativa L. and carbon-rich materials for the removal of pesticides and endocrine-disrupting chemicals from water and soil

Single and combined use of Cannabis sativa L. and carbon-rich materials for the removal of pesticides and endocrine-disrupting chemicals from water and soil

A comparative analysis of agrochemical use among agroforestry and non-agroforestry practicing farmers in South west Cameroon: The examples of insecticides, fungicides and herbicides

Fitorremediación: Alternativa biotecnológica para recuperar suelos contaminados con DDT. Una revisión

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About