Cited by 164Heavy metals in environmentHeavy Metal Pollution RemediationEnvironmental and Analytical Chemistry Studies

A state-of-the-art of phytoremediation approach for sustainable management of heavy metals recovery

Open access
Tan, Hui Wun, Pang, Yean Ling, Lim, Steven, Chong, Woon Chan·2023·Environmental Technology & Innovation

Abstract

Phytoremediation is deemed as an efficient and environmentally friendly alternative which utilizes different types of hyperaccumulator plants known as macrophytes for the removal of heavy metal pollutants from water through different mechanisms including phytoextraction, rhizofiltration, phytovolatilization and phytostabilization. The phytoremediation efficiency is affected by several key factors such as plant species (floating, emergent and submerged), surrounding climate (temperature of about 27 °C with sufficient sunlight and water) and environmental conditions (appropriate amount of sodium chloride, nutrients and chelating agents at pH of 5 to 6). The main problem of phytoremediation is the potential secondary pollution due to the re-released of absorbed contaminants by plants which requires utmost attention. The post-treatment disposal and handling methods of post-phytoremediation plants are reviewed extensively. Heat treatment method is able to produce valuable biochemicals at high temperatures range from 160 to 1600 °C. Extraction treatment can extract up to 99 % of heavy metals, while composting requires relatively low energy usage. Synthesis of nanomaterials from phytoremediated plants reduce the usage of hazardous chemicals but hard to be upscaled. Meanwhile, phytomining is economically feasible (saving of up to $8,710 per hectare of crops) but restricted to certain heavy metal treatment. The major hurdle remains in the capability of these methods to achieve great b…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.eti.2023.103043

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Organic soil amendments (biosolids, sewage sludge, animal manure) and inorganic soil amendments (P fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides) are major sources of PTEs in soil ecosystems.

    “Organic soil amendments, such as biosolids (sewage sludge and animal manure), and inorganic soil amendments, such as P fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides are the major sources of PTEs in soil ecosystems (Tan et al. 2023a, b;Huang et al. 2020).”

    From Sustainable management of post-phytoremediation biomass (2025) · cites this paper as Tan et al. 2023a, b

  • Metal(loid) contaminants phytoextracted into harvestable plant parts can be recovered through agromining and phytomining; bio-ores often have lower sulfur and higher metal(loid) levels than mineral ores; recovery can use pyrometallurgical, hydrometallurgical, and pyrohydrometallurgical processes; revenues range from $US1.8/kg to more than $US39,000/kg depending on element; feasibility depends on植物

    “Metal(loid) contaminants that are phytoextracted into harvestable plant parts can be recovered through agro mining and phytomining processes.”

    From Sustainable management of post-phytoremediation biomass (2025) · cites this paper as Tan et al. 2023a, b

  • Phytoremediation reduces the need for excessive energy inputs compared with traditional remediation techniques.

    “In contrast, phytoremediation operates within the existing ecological framework, reducing the need for excessive energy inputs (Tan et al. 2023a, b).”

    From Sustainable management of post-phytoremediation biomass (2025) · cites this paper as Tan et al. 2023a, b

  • The capability of post-treatment disposal and handling methods to achieve an acceptable balance between economic viability and environmental impacts is a major obstacle for their implementation.

    “However, the capability of these methods to achieve an acceptable balance between economic viability and environmental impacts has been reported to be one of the major obstacles for their implementation (Tan et al. 2023a, b).”

    From Sustainable management of post-phytoremediation biomass (2025) · cites this paper as Tan et al. 2023a, b

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 149 · Cited by 164

Authors
Tan, H. W., Pang, Y. L., Lim, S., & Chong, W. C.
Affiliations
Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman Sungai Long Campus (MY)
Corresponding author
Pang, Yean Ling
Venue
Environmental Technology & Innovation
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-05
Volume
30
Pages
103043
ISSN
2352-1864 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4318954837
Cited by
164
References
149
Citations by year
2026: 47 · 2025: 58 · 2024: 43 · 2023: 16
FWCI
10.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Environmental Technology & Innovation (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia (21Pmy076, FRGS/1/2022/TK05/UTAR/02/34)
  • Kurita Water and Environment Foundation
  • Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman (IPSR/RMC/UTARRF/2020-C2/P01)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Heavy metals in environment
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Heavy Metal Pollution Remediation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Environmental and Analytical Chemistry Studies
Keywords
phytoremediation, heavy metal removal, hyperaccumulator plants, phytoextraction, rhizofiltration, phytovolatilization, phytostabilization, secondary pollution, heat treatment (food and biological processing), composting, phytomining, water pollution, sustainable remediation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review