Advertisement

Innovative and sustainable approach for phytoremediation of mine tailings: a review

  • Anita PuniaEmail author
Review
  • 166 Downloads

Abstract

A review is designed to innovate a sustainable solution for the treatment of mine tailings using bioremediation and phytoremediation. It emphasizes on achieving the geochemical stability of tailings through the establishment of microbes or plants. It highlights the gaps in achieving the geochemical stability of tailings. Lack of nutrients and low pH discourage the survival of microorganisms and the growth of plants on tailings. Treatment of tailings with agricultural waste (wheat and mustard stalks) would nourish tailings which promote the growth of microorganism and plants. Application of agricultural waste in remediation process is cost-effective. The role of microorganisms such as cyanobacteria, fungi, and algae are well known for mineralogical transformation. Microorganism converts unavailable fraction of nutrient into available form and important initiative to drive tailings towards natural soil. It would support the growth of plants on tailings to achieve successful phytoremediation. Biofuel generation from tailings through high lipid and protein producing plants is important for sustainable development. Phytoremediation will reduce the environmental impact caused by mine tailings. For phytoremediation, use of biofuel producing plants, i.e., Jatropha curcus and Brassica juncea, is recommended.

Keywords

Mine tailings Mineral transformation Geochemical stability Phytoremediation 

Introduction

Mine tailings is a waste left after the beneficiation of minerals from ore. Major environmental problems related to tailings are leaching of heavy metals [1], dispersal of tailing particles with wind [2], tailing dam failure, and seepage of metals [3]. With increasing demand of minerals, the low-quality ore are being extracted which results in generation of huge quantity of tailings [4]. Implementation of low-cost remediation method seems the probable solution to mitigate the environmental impacts of tailings. Bioremediation and phytoremediation are probable solution for the treatment of tailings. In bioremediation, living organisms are being used for accumulation and removal of heavy metals, and in phytoremediation, plants are being used for the same.

Dispersal of tailings with winds contaminates surrounding soil [5] and water resources [6]. Most of studies focus on the implementation of remediation technologies at the contamination sites (heavy-metal contaminated soil) rather than at the source of contamination (heavy-metal enriched tailings). Organic or inorganic amendments, microorganism, or plants are frequently being used for the implementation of sustainable and effective remediation technologies [7, 8, 9]. Biological amendments are used as conditioner or to improve nutrient values of soil [10].

Generation of tailings from mines is increasing continuously which overloads the available resources for their safe disposal. Physical and chemical methods for remediation of tailings are costly and require large quantity of chemicals [11]. It also increases the overall production cost of metal or mineral. The cost-effective way is phytoremediation of tailings. Thus, present review discusses the possible sustainable bioremediation and phytoremediation methods to achieve geochemical stability. Objective(s) of review are to (1) understand the possible methods to achieve sustainable bioremediation and phytoremediation of mine tailings, and (2) to highlight the potential gaps for future studies.

Mine tailings

Tailings are combination of crushed rocks and waste-containing processing fluids from concentrators or mills which remain after the extraction of minerals, economic metals, or mineral fuels [12]. The resources are depleting at faster rate, but demand is increasing continuously. It increases pressure on mining industries to extract low-grade ore which further result in more tailings [4]. The ratio of tailings to concentrate is 200:1 which is very high [13].

Geochemistry of tailings depends on the type of element extracted and process of extraction. In case of gold mining, mercury is generated as a byproduct during ore process [14]. In metallic mines, abundance of heavy metals or unextracted sulfides in tailings is a main concern. Physical and chemical properties of tailings are also important to achieve successful management of tailings. pH, particle size, and temperature also control the leaching of heavy metals from tailings [15]. Additionally, coarser grain size of tailings indicates less extraction efficiency and high toxicity of tailings [5]. Tailings are source of heavy-metal contamination for soil and water resources through leaching and transportation process, as shown in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1

Tailings as a source of contamination of water and soil

Methodology to achieve sustainable bioremediation of tailings

Major hindrance in the application of bioremediation and phytoremediation is absence of nutrients, low pH, and toxic nature of tailings [16, 17]. Studies from literature shows application of organic or inorganic amendments [18], living organisms, i.e., cyanobacteria, fungi, or algae [19, 20], and plants [7] for the bioremediation of tailings. Bioremediation and phytoremediation of tailings shift them towards geochemical stability. Geochemical stability decreases toxicity of tailings by hindering leaching of elements. It also increases bioavailability of elements. Present review suggests a probable bioremediation approach using available studies from literature for the treatment of mine tailings (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2

Feasible/proposed methodology to achieve bioremediation and phytoremediation of tailings

Amendments for facilitating bioremediation

Oxidation of tailings leads to leaching of heavy metals. Adding lime to tailings increases its pH and decreases the leaching of metals. It is temporary solution as addition of new tailings to dam will generate more acidity. It requires huge amount of chemicals which will add monetary value to production cost. The probable solution could be the use of waste rocks from limestone and carbon mines. Waste rocks from these mines have acid neutralization capacity. Additionally, chemicals such as oxalate and citrate are most potent biological weathering agents in the soil [21, 22]. Hence, application of these acids might increase the biological activity in tailings. Tailings are rich in silicate minerals such as feldspars, micas, hornblend, and pyroxene. It is observed that silicate minerals as a source of Ca, Mg, and K and apatite main primary mineral source of P [23].

Agricultural waste contains functional groups such as carboxyl and hydroxyl groups which are suitable sites for the adsorption of metals [24]. Agricultural waste mainly refers to crop stalks and animal manure [25]. Additionally, application of organic materials like woodchips, pulp waste, and beef manure on tailings give positive results for the treatment of acid mine drainage [18, 26]. Along with low cost and renewable nature, they increase microbial quantity and activity [27]. It is found that application of class A biosolids on the mine tailings promotes bacterial growth [28]. Keeping the agricultural waste on tailings for long duration with continuous application of water leads to its degradation or decomposition. Decomposed waste is more effective compared to raw agricultural waste for microbial growth. Composite alters microbial population by changing pH and solubility of metals which increases allochthonous microbial biomass and nutrients [29, 30].

Decomposition of organic matter (wheat and mustard stalks) would increase the available content of nutrients on substrate (tailings). Increase in available fraction of nutrients on tailings would promote and support the better implementation of plants. Mustard stalk acts as a substrate for saccharification [31]. Wheat stalk is converted to organic acid mixtures [32] by microbial activities and also an energy source for biological nitrogen fixation [33]. Microbial establishment generates organic acids [34] and converts unavailable nutrient of tailings into available fraction. Additionally, both wheat and mustard stalks are also used for the removal of heavy metals from solution as they adsorb excessive elements [35, 36]. Application of amendments also increases moisture content which possibly enhances the microbial activity and weathering.

Selection of microorganism for bioremediation

Selection of microorganism is very important criteria for the implementation of bioremediation technology. Single and multiple organelle organisms are successfully grown on heavily contaminated soils. The isolated microbial strains from highly contaminated sites are found highly resistant to heavy-metal toxicity [37]. Isolated bacterial and fungal strains show high resistance and removal capacity for heavy metal.

Bacteria

Bacteria possess adaptive capacity to survive in high abundance of metal concentration environment despite the toxic effects of heavy metals. Bacteria also have the capacity to fix atmospheric nitrogen, solubilize inorganic phosphate, as well as plant growth regulators like siderophores, 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid, indole acetic acid (IAA) gibberellic acid (GA), and cytokinin, which allow greater metal accumulation by host plants [38, 39]. Application of bacterial mixture enhances the efficiency of bioremediation by increasing urease activity, calcite production, and resistance to high concentration of heavy metals [40].

Existence of growth-promoting bacteria such as Arthrobacter sp., Microbacterium sp., and Pseudomonas chlororaphis is observed on tailings [41] which indicates the possible use of bacterial strains in bioremediation. Additionally, iron- and sulfur-oxidizing bacterial genera such as Ferroplasma, Leptospirillum, and Acidithiobacillus are also observed on tailings [42]. Researchers isolate metal (Cu, Cr, Pb, Cd, Sb, and Ni) resistant bacterial strains (Bacillus beringensis, Bacillus sp., Bacillus megaterium, Pseudomonas putida, Acidothiobacillus sp., and Kocuria sp.) from acidic Cu mine tailings of north western China and suggested their possibility for being used for bioremediation [37]. Inoculation of bacterial strains (Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Alcaligenes feacalis, and Bacillus subtilis) increases the biomass production and accumulation of heavy metals in the roots of Brassica juncea [39].

Bacteria (B. subtilis, P. putida, Kocuria flava, Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans, and Sphingomonas sp.) isolated and cultured from copper mine tailings are found potential for the treatment [43]. Cyanobacteria have the capability to grow in low nutrient environment and shows growth on barren copper mine tailings [19, 44]. Cyanobacteria and microalgae are sustainable source for bioenergy [45] and future research is needed.

Fungi

Nowadays, fungi is catching widespread attention in the field of bioremediation because of its high efficiency for heavy-metal sequestration [46, 47]. Aspergillus sp, Penicillium sp, Botrytis sp, Trichoderma sp, Saprolegnia sp, and Neurospora sp are successfully tested for the removal of heavy metals from soil [48, 49]. Fungi have high percentage of cell wall material which results in increase in number of functional groups present on the cell surface for metal binding. It observed involvement of amide, carboxylic acid, and hydroxyl and isocyanate groups of cell surface in the adsorption of lead [50]. Isolated fungal genera (Aspergillus, Fusarium, and Hypocrea) from acidic Cu mine tailings are found potential and effective in bioremediation [37].

Algae

Tailings are solid and dry surface which does not support the growth of algae. Existence of algae is observed in acid drainage from tailings which is also known as acid mine drainage (AMD). AMD is rich in heavy-metal enriched sulfides. Algae (Spirulina sp., Chlorella, Scenedesmus, Cladophora, Oscillatoria, Anabaena, Phaeodactylum, tricornutum) from AMD show high accumulation capacity for heavy metals [51]. In addition, they increase pH of tailings which is essential for precipitation of heavy metals during treatment process [52]. Hence, algae can be successfully used for the bioremediation of AMD generated from tailings. Removal of heavy metals by algae depends on the type of metal, taxon [53] and season [54]. It is observed that promising features regarding the growth and distribution of Lepocinclis sp. and Klebsormidium sp. for AMD treatment [55].

Mechanism of microbial remediation

Capacity of microorganisms to degrade pollutants depends on environmental conditions, i.e., temperature, pH, and moisture [56, 57]. pH affects enzymatic activities of microorganisms following two processes: first, by changing the rate of microbial metabolism [58] and second, by changing the surface charge of the microorganism [59]. Both processes affect the adsorption capacity of microorganisms for heavy metals. Additionally, optimum temperature for different microorganisms is different and mainly varies from 25 to 35 °C [60].

Two basic principles of bioremediation involve reducing the solubility of environmental contaminants and adsorption of contaminants [61]. Adsorption includes complexation of heavy metals on microbial cell surface from where they transfer into cell [62] (Fig. 3). Many functional groups on cell surface such as hydroxyl groups, phosphate groups, carbonyl groups, etc. complexed with metal ions to form stable compound [63]. Organic matter plays an important role in adsorption by increasing the immobilization of metals [64, 65]. Bioremediation depends on the metabolic potential of the microorganisms to degrade environmental pollutants through redox processes [66, 67, 68]. Redox reactions involve chemically transforming harmful contaminants into less mobile or toxic compounds [69, 70, 71, 72].
Fig. 3

Microbial mechanism for the removal of heavy metals from tailings

Biofuel producing plants

Natural oil is one of the main polluters of environment. Production and use of economical viable biofuel are needed for the sustainable development. Major concern nowadays is identification of economical and environmentally friend producer of biofuel. Cyanobacteria [45], algae [51], and plants [8] are found effective producers of biofuel. Biofuel from the mine waste reduces burden of tailings on environment and it will also add economic benefits from the waste. It is well known that the microbial growth depends on the availability of nutrient source. In tailings, the absence of nutrients is major drawback. Plant growth-promoting (PGP) bacteria are suggested as a possible solution for the establishment of plants on tailings [73, 74]. Microbial growth before implanting the biofuel producing plants would transform nutrients in available form on tailings which supports the growth of plants.

The presence of inorganic nutrients in tailing depends on geology or rock type [75] and climatic conditions [76]. Studies have reported that major limiting factor for the growth of microorganism and plant on mine waste is the absence of N2 [11]. Cyanobacteria are natural N2 fixer. Cyanobacteria are photosynthetic prokaryotes with high biomass and can grow on limited nutrients. Bioremediation and biofuel production capacity of microorganism is positively correlated with their biomass quantity. Cyanobacteria also have high heavy-metal sequestration capacity [77] and is considered as a metabolic power house for biofuel production [78]. The cultivation of cyanobacteria on tailings will be a sustainable solution for bioremediation and biofuel production. Additionally, optimize production of renewable energy, i.e., biodiesel from microalgae and bioethanol from cyanobacteria is challenging [79]. Research is needed as microalgae and cyanobacteria require light for energy and inorganic carbon (CO2 or bicarbonate) as carbon source. This makes it as a strong candidate for the bioremediation of tailings as tailings are nutrient deprive.

Similarly, growth and feasibility of biofuel producing plants on tailings are important to study for sustainable development. Studies have reported the phytoremediation of Cu mine tailings [20, 80, 81] using different types of plants. Ricinus communis L. is observed grown naturally on mine tailings and also found a potential source for phytoremediation and produces good quantity of oil [7]. Similarly, good content of linoleic acid in oil produced from R. communis grown on mine tailings which enriches its fuel properties [82]. Phytoextracting plants such as Sesamum indicum and Cyamopsis tetragonoloba are used for bioremediation of Cu-contaminated soil [83]. These plants could be used for the bioremediation of Cu tailings. The successful establishment of economic profitable plant on the tailings would be economical viable for bioremediation. The implantation of local plants should be promoted and needs more research.

Geochemical stability

Microorganism plays an important role in soil genesis and transforms minerals into bioavailable form [84, 85]. Microorganism changes surface chemistry of minerals [86]. Protein content is reported high in bacteria after their interaction with quartz [86]. Type and quantity of polysaccharides and protein secreted by bacteria depend on mineral substrate such as oxides of Al, Fe, and calcium. Microorganism controls metal speciation and mobility [87] which affects the rate of metal leaching from tailings. Thus, growth of microorganism on tailings shifts tailings towards geochemical stability with least content of metals.

Bioweathering is a process of rocks/mineral dissolution by microorganism/plants through physical/chemical processes [88]. Bioweathering is a significant process in soil genesis and mineral transformation [89, 90]. Significant growth of microorganism on tailings would trigger soil formation which will be geochemical stable state. Microorganism is capable of using inorganic nutrients and seems only possible or feasible solution to mitigate the toxicity of tailings. Capability of mycorrhizal fungi to remove organic and inorganic nutrients from soil minerals [91] suggests their suitability to be grown on tailings. Changes in geochemistry and mineral composition will drive the tailings towards the geochemical stability. Geochemical stability leads to decrease in the toxicity of tailing as it stops the leaching of toxic elements. Geochemical stability of tailings will further promote the significant growth of plants and microorganism.

Conclusions and recommendations

In current scenario, disposal of tailings is huge environmental problem due to lack of land. Conventional and chemical methods are costly and needs trained manpower. Bioremediation and phytoremediation of tailings seem as a sustainable solution of problem. Future research should emphasize on achieving the geochemical stable state of tailings. Geochemical stable state triggers soil genesis from tailings which promotes plant growth and stops elemental leaching. The major problem in achieving the geochemical state is lack of nutrients and low pH of tailings which discourages the growth of plants and survival of microorganisms.

Treatment of tailings with agricultural waste (wheat and mustard stalks) would possibly nourish tailings and promote the growth of microorganism. Bioremediation using agricultural waste is cost. Establishment of microorganism on tailing promotes and supports the plants. Role of microorganisms such as cyanobacteria, fungi, and algae are well known for initiating the mineralogical transformation. Mineral transformation and geochemical stability lead towards soil genesis. Microorganisms converts unavailable fraction of nutrient into available form. It would support growth of plants on tailings to achieve successful phytoremediation. Future research should focus for identification of microbial strains for sustainable bioremediation of tailings. Biofuel generation from tailings by planting the high lipid and protein producing plants is feasible. Bioremediation reduces the environmental impact caused due to tailings. Phytoremediation of tailings for biofuel production using Jatropha curcus and B. juncea should be studied.

Future scope for research

To minimize environmental impacts, innovation of sustainable bioremediation method for tailings is important. Interdisciplinary studies covering the geochemistry and microbiology are needed to fill the gaps in implementation of sustainable bioremediation technologies. As per my knowledge, no study has been carried out to assess the geochemical and mineralogical transformation of tailings toward soil using microorganisms. Research gaps are there, microbiologist recommends organism those can be grown on tailings, and geochemist discusses only the elemental mobility. More research should be done focusing the geomicrobiology of tailings to find out the sustainable solution for the remediation of tailings. Implementation of bioremediation techniques would be more effective at the source of contamination than at contamination sites.

Studies should focus on the identification of suitable cyanobacterial strains from tailings for bioremediation. Efficiency of bioremediation method depends on the selection of microbial strain. Role of microorganism in geochemical and mineralogical transformation of tailings is important. In most of studies, it is neglected. Growth of microorganism on tailings transforms minerals and changes elemental mobility in tailings. Studies should be carried out to assess the mobility of nutrients and elements in mine tailings before and after the bioremediation. More focus should be to evaluate biofuel production potential combined with phytoremediation of mine tailings.

Notes

Acknowledgements

No funding was received to carry out the research work.

References

  1. 1.
    Wang P, Sun Z, Hu Y, et al. Leaching of heavy metals from abandoned mine tailings brought by precipitation and the associated environmental impact. Sci Total Environ. 2019;695:33893.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gong X, Chen Z, Luo Z. Spatial distribution, temporal variation, and sources of heavy metal pollution in groundwater of a century-old nonferrous metal mining and smelting area in China. Environ Mon Assess. 2014;186:9101–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hatje V, Pedreira RMA, de Rezende CE, et al. The environmental impacts of one of the largest tailings dam failures worldwide. Sci Rep. 2017;7:10706.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-11143-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mehrabani JV, Noaparast M, Mousavi SM, et al. Process optimization and modelling of sphalerite flotation from a low-grade Zn–Pb ore using response surface methodology. Sep Purif Technol. 2010;72:242–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Punia A, Siddaiah NS, Singh SK. Source and assessment of heavy metal pollution at Khetri copper mine tailings and surrounding soil, Rajasthan, India. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol. 2017;99:633–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sharma RS, Al-Busaidi TS. Groundwater pollution due to tailings dam. Eng Geol. 2001;60:235–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Olivares AR, Carrillo-González R, González-Chávez MCA, et al. Potential of castor bean (Ricinus communis L.) for phytoremediation of mine tailings and oil production. J Environ Manag. 2013;114:316–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Aggangan N, Cadiz N, Llamado A, et al. Jatropha curcas for bioenergy and bioremediation in mine tailing area in Mogpog, Marinduque, Philippines. Energy Proc. 2017;110:471–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lee S, Ji W, Lee W, et al. Influence of amendments and aided phytostabilization on metal availability and mobility in Pb/Zn mine tailings. J Environ Manag. 2014;139:15–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Park JH, Lamb D, Paneerselvam P, et al. Role of organic amendments on enhanced bioremediation of heavy metal(loid) contaminated soils. J Hazard Mater. 2011;185:549–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tordoff GM, Baker AJM, Willis AJ. Current approaches to the revegetation and reclamation of metalliferous mine wastes. Chemosphere. 2000;41:219–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hudson-Edwards KA, Macklin MG, Miller JR, et al. Sources, distribution and storage of heavy metals in the Rio Pilcomayo, Bolivia. J Geochem Explor. 2001;72:229–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lottermoser B. Mine wastes: characterization, treatment and environmental impacts. Berlin: Springer; 2007.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Esdaile LJ, Chalker JM. The mercury problem in artisanal and small-scale gold mining. Chemistry. 2018;24(27):6905–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Guo Y, Huang P, Zhang W, et al. Leaching of heavy metals from Dexing copper mine tailings pond. Trans Nonferrous Met Soc China. 2013;23:3068–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kazakou E, Dimitrakopoulos P, Baker A, et al. Hypotheses, mechanisms and trade-offs of tolerance and adaptation to serpentine soils: from species to ecosystem level. Biol Rev. 2008;83:495–508.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mendez MO, Neilson JW, Maier RM. Characterization of a bacterial community in an abandoned semiarid lead–zinc mine tailing site. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2008;74:3899–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Baker LR, White PM, Pierzynski GM. Changes in microbial properties after manure, lime, and bentonite application to a heavy metal-contaminated mine waste. Appl Soil Ecol. 2011;48:1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Liu M, Zhao X, Zhan J, et al. Cyanobacterial diversity in biological soil crusts on wastelands of copper mine tailings. Shengtai Xuebao Acta Ecol Sin. 2011;31:6886–95.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Babu AG, Shima J, Sheab PJ, et al. Penicillium aculeatum PDR-4 and Trichoderma sp. PDR-16 promote phytoremediation of mine tailing soil and bioenergy production with sorghum-sudangrass. Ecol Eng. 2014;69:186–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ochs M. Influence of humified and non-humified natural organic compounds on mineral dissolution. Chem Geol. 1996;132:119–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Barker WW, Welch SA, Chu S, et al. Experimental observations of the effects of bacteria on aluminosilicate weathering. Am Miner. 1998;83:1551–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Landeweert R, Hoffland E, Finlay RD, et al. Linking plants to rocks: ectomycorrhizal fungi mobilize nutrients from minerals. Trends Ecol Evol. 2001;16:248–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Huang YY. Research progress of wastewater treatment by agricultural wastes as biological adsorbent. Appl Chem Ind. 2017;46(2):372–638.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Liu K. The practical significance and countermeasures of agricultural waste utilization. Environ Dev. 2017;5:254–6.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hulshof AHM, Blowes DW, Gould WD. Evaluation of in situ layers for treatment of acid mine drainage: a field comparison. Water Res. 2006;40:1816–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Seaker E, Sopper WE. Municipal sludge for minespoil reclamation: I. Effects on microbial populations and activity. J Environ Qual. 1988;17:591–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pepper IL, Zerzghi HG, Bengson SA, et al. Bacterial populations within copper mine tailings: long-term effects of amendment with class A biosolids. J Appl Microbiol. 2012;113:569–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Alburquerque J, De La Fuente C, Bernal M. Improvement of soil quality after “alperujo” compost application to two contaminated soils characterised by differing heavy metal solubility. J Environ Manag. 2011;92:733–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Chen M, Xu P, Zeng G, et al. Bioremediation of soils contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, petroleum, pesticides, chlorophenols and heavy metals by composting: applications, microbes and future research needs. Biotechnol Adv. 2015;33:745–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pal S, Banik SP, Khowala S. Mustard stalk and straw: a new source for production of lignocellulolytic enzymes by the fungus Termitomyces clypeatus and as a substrate for saccharification. Ind Crops Prod. 2013;41:283–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Dziga D, Jagiełło-Flasińska D. Wheat straw degradation and production of alternative substrates for nitrogenase of Rhodobacter sphaeroides. Acta Biochim Pol. 2015;62(3):395–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Roper MM. Wheat straw: an energy source for biological nitrogen fixation. In: Veeger C, Newton WE, editors. Advances in nitrogen fixation research. Advances in agricultural biotechnology. Dordrecht: Springer; 1984. p. 4.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Abou-Shanab RAI, Angle JS, Delorme TA, et al. Rhizobacterial effects on nickel extraction from soil and uptake by Alyssum murale. New Phytol. 2003;158:219–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wu Y, Zhang L, Gao C, et al. Adsorption of copper ions and methylene blue in a single and binary system on wheat straw. J Chem Eng Data. 2009;54:3229–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Trivedi NS, Mandavgane SA, Kulkarni BD. Mustard plant ash: a source of micronutrient and an adsorbent for removal of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2016;23(20):20087–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kumari D, Pan X, Achal V, et al. Multiple metal-resistant bacteria and fungi from acidic copper mine tailings of Xinjiang, China. Environ Earth Sci. 2015;74:3113–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rajkumar M, Prasad MNV, Freitas H. Biotechnological applications of serpentine soil bacteria for phytoremediation of trace metals. Crit Rev Biotechnol. 2009;29:120–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Aka RJN, Babalola OO. Effect of bacterial inoculation of strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Alcaligenes feacalis and Bacillus subtilis on germination, growth and heavy metal (cd, cr, and ni) uptake of Brassica juncea. Int J Phytoremediat. 2016;18(2):200–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kanga C, Kwon Y, So J. Bioremediation of heavy metals by using bacterial mixtures. Ecol Eng. 2016;89:64–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sun LN, Zhang YF, He LY, et al. Genetic diversity and characterization of heavy metal-resistant-endophytic bacteria from two copper tolerant plant species on copper mine wasteland. Bioresour Technol. 2010;101:501–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Chen LX, Li JT, Chen YT, et al. Shifts in microbial community composition and function in the acidification of a lead/zinc mine tailings. Environ Microbiol. 2013;15:2431–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Johnson DB, Rolfe S, Hallberg KB, et al. Isolation and phylogenetic characterization of acidophilic microorganisms indigenous to acidic drainage waters at an abandoned Norwegian copper mine. Environ Microbiol. 2001;3:630–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Zhan J, Sun K. Diversity of free-living nitrogen-fixing microorganisms in wastelands of copper mine tailings during the process of natural ecological restoration. J Environ Sci. 2011;23(3):476–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Parmar A, Singh NK, Pandey A, et al. Cyanobacteria and microalgae: a positive prospect for biofuels. Bioresour Technol. 2011;102:10163–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Fazli M, Soleimani N, Mehrasbi M, et al. Highly cadmium tolerant fungi: their tolerance and removal potential. J Environ Health Sci Eng. 2015;13(07):19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Desai H, Patel D, Joshi B. Screening and characterization of heavy metal resistant bacteria for its prospects in bioremediation of contaminated soil. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2016;5(4):652–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Akar T, Tunali S, Kiran I. Botrytis cinerea as a new fungal biosorbent for removal of Pb(II) from aqueous solutions. Biochem Eng J. 2005;25(3):227–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Sun YM, Horng CY, Chang FL, et al. Biosorption of lead, mercury, and cadmium ions by Aspergillus terreus immobilized in a natural matrix. Pol J Microbiol. 2010;59(1):37–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Gururajan K, Belur PD. Screening and selection of indigenous metal tolerant fungal isolates for heavy metal removal. Environ Technol Innov. 2018;9:91–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Bwapwa JK, Jaiyeola AT, Chetty R. Bioremediation of acid mine drainage using algae strains: a review. S Afr J Chem Eng. 2017;24:62–70.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Van Hille RP, Boshoff GA, Rose PD, et al. A continuous process for the biological treatment of heavy metal contaminated acid mine water. Res Conserv Recycl. 1999;27(1):157–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Novis PM, Harding JS. Extreme Acidophiles: freshwater algae associated with acid mine drainage. In: Seckbach J, editor. Algae and cyanobacteria in extreme environment. The Netherlands: Springer; 2007. p. 443–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Brake SS, Hasiotis ST, Dannely HK. Diatoms in acid mine drainage and their role in the formation of iron-rich stromatolites. Geomicrobiol J. 2004;21:331–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Das BK, Roy A, Koschorreck M, et al. Occurrence and role of algae and fungi in acid mine drainage environment with special reference to metals and sulfate immobilization. Water Res. 2009;43(4):883–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Verma JP, Jaiswal DK. Book review: advances in biodegradation and bioremediation of industrial waste. Front Microbiol. 2016;6:1555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Bosso L, Lacatena F, Cristinzio G, et al. Biosorption of pentachlorophenol by anthracophyllum discolor in the form of live fungal pellets. New Biotechnol. 2015;32:21–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Morto-Bermea O, Hernández AE, Gaso I, et al. Heavy metal concentrations in surface soils from Mexico City. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol. 2002;68:383–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Galiulin RV, Galiulina RA. Removing heavy metals from soil with plants. Her Russ Acad Sci. 2008;78:141–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Acar FN, Malkoc E. The removal of chromium (VI) from aqueous solutions by Fagus orientalis L. Bioresour Technol. 2004;94:13–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Jain S, Arnepalli D. Biominerlisation as a remediation technique: a critical review. In: Proceedings of the Indian Geotechnical Conference (IGC2016), Chennai, India, pp 15–17 December 2016.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Danis U, Nuhoglu A, Demirbas A. Ferrous ion-oxidizing in Thiobacillus ferrooxidans batch cultures: influence of pH, temperature and initial concentration of Fe2+. Fresenius Environ Bull. 2008;17:371–7.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Brady D, Duncan JR. Cation loss during accumulation of heavy metal cations by Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Biotechnol Lett. 1994;16:543–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Lozano Cerezo ML, Fernandez Marcos ML, Alvarez Rodriguez E. Heavy metals in mine soils amended with sewage sludge. Land Degrad Dev. 1999;10:555–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Chiu CC, Cheng CJ, Lin TH, et al. The effectiveness of four organic matter amendments for decreasing resin-extractable Cr(VI) in Cr(VI)-contaminated soils. J Hazard Mater. 2009;161:1239–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Jan AT, Azam M, Ali A, et al. Prospects for exploiting bacteria for bioremediation of metal pollution. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol. 2014;44:519–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Rajapaksha AU, Vithanage M, Ok YS, et al. Cr (VI) formation related to Cr(III)-muscovite and birnessite interactions in ultramafic environments. Environ Sci Technol. 2013;47:9722–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Beiyuan J, Awad YM, Beckers F, et al. Mobility and phytoavailability of As and Pb in a contaminated soil using pine sawdust biochar under systematic change of redox conditions. Chemosphere. 2017;178:110–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Tandon PK, Singh SB. Redox processes in water remediation. Environ Chem Lett. 2016;14:15–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Wakao N, Koyatsu H, Komai Y, et al. Microbial oxidation of arsenite and occurrence of arsenite-oxidizing bacteria in acid mine water from a sulfur-pyrite mine. Geomicrobiol J. 1988;6:11–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    He YT, Hering JG. Enhancement of arsenic (III) sequestration by manganese oxides in the presence of iron (II). Water Air Soil Pollut. 2009;203:359–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Chibuike G, Obiora S. Heavy metal polluted soils: effect on plants and bioremediation methods. Appl Environ Soil Sci. 2014.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/752708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Petrisor I, Dobrota S, Komnitsas K, et al. Artificial inoculation-perspectives in tailings phytostabilization. Int J Phytoremediat. 2004;6:1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Mendez MO, Maier RM. Phytostabilization of mine tailings in arid and semiarid environments—an emerging remediation technology. Environ Health Perspect. 2008;116:278–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Lottermoser BG. Mine wastes. Characterization, treatment and environmental impacts, 3rd edn, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg; 2010.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Meza-Figueroa D, Maier RM, O-Villanueva MDL, et al. The impact of unconfined mine tailings in residential areas from a mining town in a semi-arid environment: Nacozari, Sonora, Mexico. Chemosphere. 2009;77:140–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Bhunia B, Uday USP, Oinam G, et al. Characterization, genetic regulation and production of cyanobacterial exopolysaccharides and its applicability for heavy metal removal. Carbohydr Polym. 2018;179:228–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Sarma MK, Kaushik S, Goswami P. Cyanobacteria: a metabolic power house for harvesting solar energy to produce bio-electricity and biofuels. Biomass Bioenergy. 2016;90:187–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Baroukh C, Muñoz-Tamayo R, Steyer J, et al. A state of the art of metabolic networks of unicellular microalgae and cyanobacteria for biofuel production. Metab Eng. 2015;30:49–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Yang T, Liu J, Chen W, et al. Changes in microbial community composition following phytostabilization of an extremely acidic Cu mine tailing. Soil Biol Biochem. 2017;114:52–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Tapia Y, Bustos P, Salazar O, et al. Phytostabilization of Cu in mine tailings using native plant Carpobrotus aequilaterus and the addition of potassium humates. J Geochem Explor. 2017;183:102–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    González-Chávez MCA, Ruíz Olivares A, Carrillo-González R, et al. Crude oil and bioproducts of castor bean (Ricinus communis L.) plants established naturally on metal mine tailings. Int J Environ Sci Technol. 2015;12(7):2263–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Amin H, Arain BA, Abbasi MS, et al. Potential for phytoextraction of Cu by Sesamum indicum L. and Cyamopsis tetragonoloba L.: a green solution to decontaminate soil. Earth Syst Environ. 2018;2:133–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    VanHees PAW, Rosling A, Lundstr¨om US, et al. The biogeochemical impact of ectomycorrhizal conifers on major soil elements (Al, Fe, K and Si). Geoderma. 2006;136:364–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Taylor LL, Leake JR, Quirk J, et al. Biological weathering and the long-term carbon cycle: integrating mycorrhizal evolution and function into the current paradigm. Geobiology. 2009;7:171–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Deo N, Natarajan KA. Interaction of bacillus polymyxa with some oxide minerals with reference to mineral beneficiation and environmental control. Min Eng. 1997;10(12):1339–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Gadd GM. Bioremedial potential of microbial mechanisms of metal mobilization and immobilization. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2000;11:271–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Gadd GM. Geomycology: biogeochemical transformations of rocks, minerals, metals and radionuclides by fungi, bioweathering and bioremediation. Mycol Res. 2007;111(1):3–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Balogh-Brunstad Z, Keller CK, Gill RA, et al. The effect of bacteria and fungi on chemical weathering and chemical denudation fluxes in pine growth experiments. Biogeochemistry. 2008;88:153–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Bonneville S, Smits MM, Brown A, et al. Plant-driven fungal weathering: early stages of mineral alteration at the nanometer scale. Geology. 2009;37:615–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Blum JD, Klaue A, Nezat CA, et al. Mycorrhizal weathering of apatite as important calcium source in base-poor forest ecosystems. Nature. 2002;417:729–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Zhejiang University Press 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringIndian Institute of TechnologyGuwahatiIndia

Personalised recommendations