This paper reviews key aspects of phytoremediation technology and the biological mechanisms underlying phytoremediation. Current knowledge regarding the application of phytoremediation in alleviating heavy metal toxicity is summarized highlighting the relative merits of different options. The results reveal a cutting edge application of emerging strategies and technologies to problems of heavy metals in soil. Progress in phytoremediation is hindered by a lack of understanding of complex interactions in the rhizosphere and plant based interactions which allow metal translocation and accumulation in plants. The evolution of physiological and molecular mechanisms of phytoremediation, together with recently-developed biological and engineering strategies, has helped to improve the performance of both heavy metal phytoextraction and phytostabilization. The results reveal that phytoremediation includes a variety of remediation techniques which include many treatment strategies leading to contaminant degradation, removal (through accumulation or dissipation), or immobilization. For each of these processes, we review what is known for metal pollutants, gaps in knowledge, and the practical implications for phytoremediation strategies.

No abstract

Concentrations and isomer profiles for 24 per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) were monitored over 5 months (February-June, 2010) in municipal landfill leachate. These data were used to assess the role of perfluoroalkyl acid (PFAA) precursor degradation on changes in PFAA concentrations over time. The influence of total organic carbon, total suspended solids, pH, electrical conductivity (EC), leachate flow rates, and meteorological data (precipitation, air temperature) on leachate PFAS concentrations was also investigated. Perfluoropentanoate and perfluorohexanoate were typically the dominant PFASs in leachate, except for March-April, when concentrations of perfluorooctane sulfonate, perfluorooctanoate, and numerous PFAA-precursors (i.e., (N-alkyl) perfluorooctane sulfonamides and fluorotelomer carboxylic acids) increased by a factor of 2-10 (~4 μg/L to ~36 μg/L ΣPFASs). During this time, isomer profiles of PFOA became increasingly dominated by the linear isomer, likely from transformation of linear, telomer-manufactured precursors. While ΣPFAA-precursors accounted for up to 71% of ΣPFASs (molar basis) in leachate from this site, leachate from a second landfill displayed only low concentrations of precursors (<1% of ΣPFASs). Overall, degradation of PFAA-precursors and changes in leachate pH, EC, and 24-h precipitation were important factors controlling PFAS occurrence in leachate. Finally, 8.5-25 kg/yr (mean 16 kg/yr) of ΣPFASs was estimated to leave the landfill via leachate for subsequent treatment at a wastewater treatment plant.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract