Biochar applications for treating potentially toxic elements (PTEs) contaminated soils and water: a review

Abstract

Environmental pollution with potentially toxic elements (PTEs) has become one of the critical and pressing issues worldwide. Although these pollutants occur naturally in the environment, their concentrations are continuously increasing, probably as a consequence of anthropic activities. They are very toxic even at very low concentrations and hence cause undesirable ecological impacts. Thus, the cleanup of polluted soils and water has become an obligation to ensure the safe handling of the available natural resources. Several remediation technologies can be followed to attain successful remediation, i.e., chemical, physical, and biological procedures; yet many of these techniques are expensive and/or may have negative impacts on the surroundings. Recycling agricultural wastes still represents the most promising economical, safe, and successful approach to achieving a healthy and sustainable environment. Briefly, biochar acts as an efficient biosorbent for many PTEs in soils and waters. Furthermore, biochar can considerably reduce concentrations of herbicides in solutions. This review article explains the main reasons for the increasing levels of potentially toxic elements in the environment and their negative impacts on the ecosystem. Moreover, it briefly describes the advantages and disadvantages of using conventional methods for soil and water remediation then clarifies the reasons for using biochar in the clean-up practice of polluted soils and waters, either solely or in combination with other methods such as phytoremediation and soil washing technologies to attain more efficient remediation protocols for the removal of some PTEs, e.g., Cr and As from soils and water.

1 Introduction

Pollution is a global challenge that negatively affects life on Earth (Huang et al., 2019; Chen et al., 2020; Zheng et al., 2020). It is responsible for spreading many diseases and approximately 16% of premature death worldwide (Münzel et al., 2022). Since soil is the main terrestrial ecosystem (Qi et al., 2023) then soil pollution can threaten its biodiversity (Lu et al., 2020). Saving soil is essential to save the whole Earth (Gautam et al., 2023). This may take place via monitoring levels of contaminants in the environment and following up effective remediation routes to attain better environmental conditions.

Many contaminants undergo biodegradation while others are relatively stable in soil and water such as potentially toxic elements (PTEs) (Matin et al., 2020). Thus, these contaminants persist in soils for years (Zhang et al., 2020; Zhong et al., 2020) and can have devastating consequences on human health and the surrounding ecosystem (Gui et al., 2023), particularly on children (Egendorf et al., 2020). A point to note is that PTEs may further have negative impacts on female fertility and reproduction (Rashtian et al., 2019).

Environmental risks related to soil pollutants with PTEs should not be appraised only through soil screening levels but also by assessing their bio-available contents in soil (Galán et al., 2019). Mobile fractions of PTEs find their way to the groundwater (Farid et al., 2020) and transfer long distances via the hydraulic continuity of groundwater over vast areas to reach new lands which are not directly subjected to soil pollutants (Bassouny et al., 2020; Farid et al., 2020). Thus, following effective remediation methods could eliminate further environmental contamination with PTEs (Liu et al., 2020). These procedures include physical and chemical remediation methods, e.g., soil washing, encapsulation, soil replacement electrokinetic methods (Chen et al., 2020), amending soils with iron nanomaterials (Baragaño et al., 2020) or hydroxyapatite (Ibrahim et al., 2020)

Water pollution is also of growing concern (Kumar et al., 2019; Dar and Bhat, 2020) because it is a vital resource for all living organisms (Saini et al., 2020). Its decontamination is a requirement to attain better environmental conditions (Singh et al., 2020) following effective and safe remediation procedures (Sahoo and Swain, 2020), e.g., membrane filtration, reverse osmosis, and chemical precipitation (Saini et al., 2020). In spite of that, many of these methods are expensive (Koffi and Okabe, 2020). Otherwise, introducing low-cost materials of high sorptivity might be the optimum choice for water decontamination (Tauqeer et al., 2020). For example, biochar (Zheng et al., 2020) can effectively remove PTEs from contaminated waters within short time periods (Senthilkumar et al., 2020). Its mode of action is via 1) decreasing the solubility of inorganic pollutant ions in soil (Zheng et al., 2020) and water (Shaheen et al., 2019b) because of its alkaline nature (Shi et al., 2020) and it may also form metal ion-chelators (Naveed et al., 2020) of high solubility (Elshony et al., 2019); 2) binding contaminants with the functional groups of biochar to become less mobile or even immobile (Bandara et al., 2020); 3) increasing glomalin-related soil protein (GRSP) content in soil (Dubey et al., 2020) which sustains soil quality and minimizes contaminants transfer from soil to aquatic ecosystems (Wang et al., 2020); and 4) stimulating the activity of soil bacteria (Lévesque et al., 2020), especially endophytes (Waqas et al., 2017), to assist host plants to survive under high levels of organic and inorganic pollutants in soil (He et al., 2020).

More details on the advantages and disadvantages of the conventional physical and chemical remediation techniques that are used in decontaminating soils and waters are discussed further. This review also addresses the feasibility of using biochar as a safe organic resource to remediate contaminated soils and water and possible challenges that may affect PTEs binding with biochar to attain successful remediation procedures.

2 Environment

The environment is defined as “the sum of all surroundings, including natural resources and other factors that may affect growth and development of living organisms. It is the place (soils, water, air and food) that needs to be protected and restored.” However, unmanaged handling of the environmental resources has resulted in their contamination with PTEs (Abdelhafez and Li, 2014; Abdelhafez and Li, 2015; Abdelhafez et al., 2016; ElShazly et al., 2019a; ElShazly et al., 2019b; Ali et al., 2023; Farid et al., 2023).

2.1 Environmental contamination with PTEs

The term “environmental contamination” signifies the existence of unwanted constituents (contaminants) of any type from industrial, municipal, and agricultural wastes in the natural environment (Katayama et al., 2010). They usually originate from anthropogenic sources. Heavy metal “is a general collective term, which refers to the group of metals and metalloids of atomic density greater than 4,000 kg m^-3, or in other terms their densities are five times more than water” (Nagajyoti et al., 2010). These contaminants are not biodegradable and thus adversely affect the environment (Jinping et al., 2010; Abbas and Abdelhafez, 2013; Abdelhafez and Li, 2014). Generally, most heavy metals are non-essential, e.g., Pb, Cd, Cr, Hg, and As while others, e.g., Fe, Cu, and Zn, are essential for several organisms (known as trace elements). Thus, the term “heavy metals” is vague and meaningless with no chemical or toxicological basis (Duffus, 2002). Alternatively, the term “Potentially Toxic Elements, PTEs” is in use, which is applicable only to the non-essential elements, e.g., Pb and Cd (Nagajyoti et al., 2010).

2.2 Sources of contamination with PTEs

The major sources of environmental pollution are probably anthropogenic activities that result from unmanaged practices (Yaron et al., 2012; Abdelhafez and Li, 2014).

2.2.1 Natural sources of PTEs

During rock weathering, many contaminants find their way to surface water and/or groundwater hence possessing potential threats to the surroundings (Ma et al., 2019).

2.2.2 Agricultural practices and PTEs

Agricultural agrochemicals for fertilization and pesticides are widely used worldwide in food production (Abdelhafez et al., 2012) to satisfy the needs of the growing population (Abbas and Meharg, 2008; Abdelhafez et al., 2012; Eid et al., 2019; Mohamed et al., 2019; Abdelhafez et al., 2021). These agrochemicals contaminate agricultural soils with PTEs (Nagajyoti et al., 2010), representing potential ecological risk factors. Likewise, organic fertilizers such as animal manures and sewage sludge enrich soils with Mn, Zn, Cu, Co, Cr, Pb, Ni, and Cd upon their extensive use as fertilizers or amendments (Verklejim, 1993).

2.2.3 Industrial sources of PTEs

Rapid urbanization and industrialization, particularly in developing countries discharge PTEs into rivers and soils. These effluents may change the physical, chemical, and biological conditions of water bodies (Sangodoyin, 1991) while increasing the potential risk associated with using these waters. In the Jinxi River in China, anthropogenic activities were the major source of contamination of water streams with PTEs (Abdelhafez and Li, 2014; Abdelhafez and Li, 2015). Table 1 shows the abundance of metals in effluents from different industrial activities (Abdelhafez et al., 2009; Abdelhafez et al., 2010).

Other activities such as mining, refining, smelting, and metal grinding may bring considerable concentrations of PTEs to the surrounding environment (Herawati et al., 2000; Yanqun et al., 2005; Abdelhafez et al., 2016; Mohamed et al., 2018).

Metal ions may be emitted into the atmosphere in the forms of particulates and vapor when subjected to high temperatures and then react with water vapors forming aerosols which finally find their way to soil and water through dry deposition (dispersion by wind) or wet deposition (precipitated in rainfall). In shooting range and smelting operation soils, the levels of Pb sometimes exceeded 1% (Abdelhafez et al., 2014; Abdelhafez et al., 2016).

2.2.4 Soil pollution in relation to domestic and industrial effluents

Many water streams have become contaminated with PTEs via the discharge of industrial and domestic wastes. These contaminants find their way to the topsoil of the surrounding arable lands. Once they come in contact with soil particles, they become sorbed and this process is controlled by diffusion (Abbas and Bassouny, 2018). Considerable amounts of PTEs may go deeper into the soil through common agricultural practices, e.g., plowing and tillage (Hashim et al., 2017). Moreover, hydraulic continuity that exists between ground waters transfers contaminants to locations not directly irrigated with wastewater (Farid et al., 2020).

2.2.5 Aerosols and PTEs

Tiny solid or liquid particles suspended in the Earth’s atmosphere are known as aerosols (Seinfeld and Pandis, 2016). Generally, aerosols are of special importance on a global scale. In this concern, volcanic eruptions are a geothermal source of atmospheric contamination (Gudmundsson et al., 2019). The transportation and deposition of these aerosols increase the potentiality of PTE dispersion in the environment (Soltani et al., 2017). The transmitted fine particulates may be blown over a great distance and accelerated by downpours or snowfall (Behera et al., 2015; ElShazly et al., 2019a).

2.2.6 Other sources of environmental pollution with PTEs

Burning, landfills, incineration, and transportation (automobiles, diesel-powered vehicles, and aircraft) are additional sources of environmental pollution that add Cd, Co, Zn, Cr, Cu, Pb, Hg, Mn, Ni, Al, Fe, and Ti to the environment (Verklejim, 1993; Al-Hiyaly et al., 1998; Hashim et al., 2017). Chromated copper arsenate (CCA) treated wood structures are another source of PTEs when CCA is used as a wood preservative against bacteria, fungi, and termites (Abdelhafez et al., 2009; Abdelhafez et al., 2010).

3 Plant response to PTEs

Plants stop growing or even die when grown on soils highly contaminated with PTEs. High levels of PTEs increase the formation of free radicals and reactive oxygen species that cause oxidative stress and cellular damage in plants (Goyal et al., 2020). To survive under such stressful conditions, plants secrete low molecular mass substances such as organic acids and glutathione that bind with PTEs and lessen their mobility in soil. Also, pectin in plant cell walls limits PTE absorption by plants (Feng et al., 2021). Once contaminants enter plant cells, they become sequestered within cellular compartments such as vacuoles and limit their translocation to areal plant parts (Goyal et al., 2020). Tolerant or even hyperaccumulator plants display further mechanisms for controlling these contaminants, nevertheless, they exhibit very slow growth rates and small biomasses (Khan, 2020). Instead, using plant growth-promoting bacteria and mycorrhizae can further improve plant-based remediation strategies (Khan, 2020). Bacteria such as Alcaligenes faecalis, Bacillus cereus, and A. faecalis (Zainab et al., 2021) stimulate the activities of anti-oxidative enzymes such as catalase, peroxidase, and superoxide dismutase (El-Meihy et al., 2019) which scavenge reactive oxygen species (Kaur et al., 2021) and thus help plants to cope with PTE stress and enhance plant growth (Zainab et al., 2021). Non-enzymatic antioxidants, e.g., ascorbate, and metal-binding peptides may also help to lessen metal toxicity within plants (Kaur et al., 2021). Mycorrhizae also retain contaminants in roots and decrease their translocation within plants (Adeyemi et al., 2021).

Phytohormones are chemical messengers that sustain plant growth under PTE stress (Sytar et al., 2019). For example, indole acetic acid (IAA) increases energy trapping capacity in photosystem II (PSII) reaction centers (Ouzounidou and Ilias, 2005). Salicylic acid decreases the levels of free oxygen radicals while increasing plant chlorophyll content (Sytar et al., 2019).

4 Impact of PTEs on human health

4.1 PTEs exposure pathways

Humans are exposed to PTEs through different routes: i) ingestion (oral), which includes drinking water, intake of fruit, vegetables, meat and dairy products, and fish and shellfish; ii) inhalation of dust and chemicals volatilized in the air; and iii) dermal contact between human skin and chemicals or soil (Abdelhafez and Li, 2015; Megido et al., 2017). According to Chan et al. (1995), PTEs transmit to humans mainly through inhalation and ingestion routes.Figure 1.

FIGURE 1

Ingestion is a common exposure route to PTEs (Abdelhafez et al., 2012; Abdelhafez and Li, 2015). It is worth noting that previous studies did not include the distribution pattern of PTEs within the fine fractions of agricultural soil, which presents potential hazards for human health. In this context, fine soil particles of diameters of 10 or 2.5 µm may adhere easily to the skin, carrying PTEs to the human body (Madrid et al., 2008; Kong et al., 2012; Abdelhafez and Li, 2015). These contaminants settle in the higher respiratory tract and the alveolar areas of the lungs (Ajmone-Marsana et al., 2008).

4.2 Health effects of PTEs on human health

When these contaminants enter the food chain they have negative implications even at very low levels (Memon and Schröder, 2009). For more details see Table 2. The most problematic PTEs for human health are As, Cr, Cd, Cu, Pb, Zn, Cu, Hg, and Sn (Ghosh, 2010). In particular, As and Cr cause cancer, and Cd, Pb, and Ni lead to kidney failure and other symptoms (Kurniawan et al., 2006; Tripathi et al., 2007; Abbas and Bassouny, 2018). Accordingly, proper remediation protocols should be followed to improve and sustain the environment.

5 Remediation technologies of PTEs-contaminated water and soils

5.1 Remediation technologies of PTEs-contaminated water

There are several remediation protocols that can be followed for decontaminating wastewater, i.e., chemical (chemical precipitation and ion exchange and adsorption), physical (filtration and clarification), and biological (biosorption, biodegradation, and phytoremediation) remediation technologies. These techniques should be applied before water disposal from industries and municipalities into the surrounding environment.

5.1.1 Chemical remediation

Chemical precipitation protocols are broadly utilized for decontaminating wastewater containing high levels of PTEs. These procedures change the soluble contaminants into insoluble forms, thereby enabling their subsequent removal from the liquid phase by physical means, such as clarification and filtration (Arora et al., 2008). For instance, coagulants and flocculants enable the formation of particulate-sized aggregates, and their quantities depend on the pH and alkalinity of the treated water (Nomanbhay and Palanisamy, 2005). Granulated lime and calcium carbonate are efficient coagulants for the removal of As, Ni, Zn, and Cd from groundwater (Song et al., 2005; Lee et al., 2007). In addition, clay minerals can be used effectively to decontaminate aqueous solutions (ElShazly et al., 2019b).

Surface functional groups play an important role in removing metal ions from water by using specific sorbent materials. Table 3 shows some of these functional groups. Herein, more natural and artificial biosorbent materials are examined as adsorbents for the removal of different PTEs from aqueous solutions. Table 4 presents the adsorbent capacities of different biosorbents for PTEs. The adsorption efficiency depends on the pH, sorbent dosage, contact time, temperature, and concentration of metal ions (Abdelhafez and Li, 2016; ElShazly et al., 2019b). Under low pH value, H⁺ competes with metal ions on surface functional groups of the sorbent material hence the removal efficiencies of metal ions decrease considerably (Arief et al., 2008).

5.1.2 Physical remediation

Water decontamination can take place via using filtration, air stripping, granular activated carbon absorption, or their combination (Wilson and Clarke, 1993). However, more attention should be paid when using washing technology to remove PTEs due to the leachability of major nutrients (N, P, and K).

5.1.3 Biological remediation

The use of biological remediation technologies is thought to be the optimum tool for remediating contaminated waters/soils.

FIGURE 2

5.2 Soil remediation technologies

Soil remediation is performed to achieve one of the following goals: 1) removal/extraction of the PTEs from contaminated soils by electrokinetic and/or washing procedures, which is an expensive procedure and might not be applicable for decontaminating vast areas of contaminated soils (Ko et al., 2006; Dermont et al., 2008) or 2) reducing metal mobility with “in situ” technologies such as stabilization by different amendments (organic or inorganic) (Chen et al., 2006; Sunarso and Ismadji, 2009) but the contaminants still exist in the soil. Overall, in situ soil remediation technologies are directed toward reducing the risk of PTEs in soils and can be classified into four main categories.

5.2.1 Excavation

Excavation is the oldest remediation technology for decontaminating soils, in which contaminated soil layers are replaced by clean ones (Lanphear et al., 2003). However, this method leads to the transfer of contaminants from one place to another, the spread of dust particles, and the transport of contaminated soil to other regions. As a matter of fact, excavation is considered the most expensive method of soil remediation (Lambert et al., 2014; González-Martínez et al., 2019).

5.2.2 Soil washing

Soil washing is a common technique for remediating soils contaminated with PTEs (Khan et al., 2004) in the presence of synthetic complexing agents, using chelators such as ethylene di amine tetra acetic acid (EDTA) and nitrilotriacetate (NTA) to enhance further removal efficiencies of soil contaminants (Arwidsson et al., 2010). However, the low decomposition rates of chelators in soil may cause toxicity and stress to soil biota (Nowack, 2002).

5.2.3 Phytoremediation

Some plants can take up and accumulate contaminants in their aboveground parts (Ebrahimbabaie et al., 2020; Lee et al., 2021), thus limiting their negative consequences to the surroundings (Tusher et al., 2021). This green technology is preferable to other conventional methods because it preserves substrate fertility and, at the same time, reduces the costs of remediation (Riaz et al., 2022). Moreover, it is a suitable eco-friendly solution for remediating large areas, besides being economical (Saxena et al., 2019). The major techniques of phytoremediation are phytostabilization, phytoextraction, and phytovolatilization.

Many plant species have been shown to be efficient in remediating soils and waters contaminated with inorganic (Saxena et al., 2019; Edgar et al., 2021) and organic pollutants (Karaś et al., 2021) (Table 5) yet this process requires long time periods to lessen contaminants to attain acceptable public levels (Mustafa et al., 2022). Adding chelation agents could help in improving the efficiency of this process (Gavrilescu, 2022). Generally, edible crops are not suitable as phytoextractors for potentially toxic elements from contaminated sites (Saxena et al., 2019). Alternatively, aromatic plants can absorb and accumulate high concentrations of PTEs in the harvestable foliage while their oil is free from the risk of PTE accumulation (Lajayar et al., 2017). Also, plants grown for biofuel production are guaranteed for the phytoextraction process of PTEs from soils (Edgar et al., 2021; Rheay et al., 2021).

The removal of PTEs from soil takes place by selecting tolerant plants which have the ability to accumulate PTEs within their aboveground tissues (shoots) (Ali et al., 2013), at concentrations exceeding 0.1% for Cu, Cr, Ni, or Pb, or >1% for Mn or Zn (Yoon et al., 2006). PTEs may also be physically stabilized in soil and this method lessens their translocations to areal plant parts (phytostabilization). Otherwise, PTEs can be transformed into a gaseous form via leaves (phytovolatilization). The main mechanisms of the phytoremediation technique for remediating PTEs contaminated soils are shown in Figure 2.

5.3 Stabilization/solidification (S/S)

The stabilization/solidification method is used to lessen the solubility of PTEs using non-toxic materials (organic or inorganic) (Chen et al., 2006; Sunarso and Ismadji, 2009; Abdelhafez et al., 2014), especially in land with high contamination levels. Sorption and/or precipitation are the main routes for decreasing PTE bioavailability in soil (Basta and McGowen, 2004). These amendments include organic additives, phosphates, alkaline agents, and biosolids (Table 6).

Table 7 shows a comparison between the conventional remediation technologies. Clearly, the stabilization/solidification (S/S) technique seems to be one of the most efficient methods because it is a cost-effective method that has rapid outcomes (USEPA, 2004). It is therefore recognized as the “best demonstrated available technology (BDTA)” by the USEPA for land disposal of most PTEs (Singh and Pant, 2005) in highly contaminated soil. From the aforementioned information, it seems obvious that the reuse of organic wastes is essential to remediate the PTE-contaminated water and soils.

6 Organic wastes and biochar

Every year, a huge amount of organic waste is produced annually without being properly recycled, especially in developing countries. For example, the amount of sugar cane and orange waste which is produced annually in China is estimated to be 123 and 32.7 million mega-grams (Abdelhafez et al., 2016). The corresponding amounts produced annually in Egypt exceed 44.0 million mega-grams. These residues should be recycled to be used in sustaining the environment rather than polluting it. In particular, biochar is a carbon-rich material product manufactured through pyrolysis of plant residues, i.e., wood or plant leaves at a relatively low temperature (<700°C) in the absence of oxygen or under limited oxygen conditions (Abdelhafez et al., 2014; Lehmann and Joseph, 2015; Abdelhafez et al., 2016; Abdelhafez and Li, 2016; Farid et al., 2022; Khalil et al., 2023).

6.1 Biochar for CO₂ mitigation and improving soil fertility

Biochar has gained significant attention within the last few years because of its positive role in lessening CO₂ emissions when used as an amendment to improve soil quality (Jeffery et al., 2011; Kookana et al., 2011; Abdelhafez et al., 2014; Abdelhafez et al., 2016). It is thought that biochar significantly reduces the readily available C fraction to microbes, thus, it slightly or insignificantly induces the activities of microbes and soil enzymes. This, in turn, enhances long-term carbon sequestration. Also, the dominance of aromatic organic carbon, which is very stable in the environment, guarantees its long-term existence in soil (Lehmann, 2007; Abdelhafez et al., 2017). For years, extensive human activities have caused degradation in soil quality and fertility. This negatively affects food production in many regions around the world. Accordingly, improving soil characteristics is necessary to overcome the lack of food production, especially in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, where the malnutrition percentages ranged from 32% to 22% of the total population, respectively (FAO, 2019). The solution is biochar as it can be used successfully to restore soil fertility and improve the soil’s physical, chemical, and hydrological properties (Novak et al., 2009; Free et al., 2010).

6.2 The potentiality of biochar for remediating PTE-contaminated water and soils

The role of biochar in improving soil fertility is not well-identified and is still being intensively studied. Only limited studies have investigated the potentiality of biochar derived from different organic sources in remediating soil and water contaminated with PTEs. Because of its porous structure (Abdelhafez et al., 2017), high cation exchange sites density, and net negative charge (Jing et al., 2019) biochar has a high capability to sorb PTEs (Jing et al., 2019) which diffuse into its micropores (Nguyen et al., 2008). This may further contribute to PTE precipitation in soils (Jing et al., 2019). The stabilization of PTEs in soil owing to biochar application can be attributed to the alkaline nature of biochar (Abdelhafez et al., 2017; Buss et al., 2019) which allows the functional groups of biochar to protonate and dissociate, replacing H⁺ in the solution with cationic PTEs (e.g., Pb and Cd) (Shaheen et al., 2019b). Also, increasing pH decreases the solubility and mobility of PTEs in soil (Shaheen et al., 2019b). With time, the exchangeable forms of PTEs co-precipitate in the form of inner-sphere complexes (Abdelhafez et al., 2016; Abdelhafez et al., 2017; Penido et al., 2019; Yuan et al., 2019) and change into less labile organic and residual fractions (Mohamed et al., 2018; Matin et al., 2020).

Although, this organic source may contain PTEs, the elevated pyrolysis temperature transforms PTEs into more stable and less toxic forms (de Souza et al., 2019). Thus, biochar acts as an efficient biosorbent for PTEs in contaminated soil (Mohamed et al., 2018) and water (Shaheen et al., 2019b). Biochar can also remove high amounts of herbicides from solutions by coating the dissolvable surfaces. It can therefore be used effectively to boost the health and nutrient status of the soil, particularly in the arid calcareous soil. Recent studies have shown the success of utilizing biochars in remediating water and soils contaminated with PTEs (Table 8).

The effect of biochar application on mobilizing metal ions in soil is confusing, for example, Abdelhafez et al. (2010; 2016) found that biochar increased the availability of Cu and As in biochar-treated soil. In addition, Alaboudi et al. (2019) explained that the addition of wood biomass biochar led to the transformation of Cr(III) into Cr(VI) due to increasing soil pH; consequently, its uptake was increased by maize plants. Furthermore, Shaheen et al. (2019a) reported that biochar applications increased the mobility of some PTEs in soil, such as Cu and As, through association with dissolved organic carbon. However, Lomaglio, et al. (2016) found that the addition of biochar decreased the labile concentration of Pb while increasing As and Sb solubility. Therefore, the role of biochar in stabilizing PTEs is still not well understood.

The degree of biochar stability depends mainly on the dose of applied biochar in addition to its mode of action period (Wang et al., 2019). In this regard, microbial and enzymatic activities (dehydrogenase, acidic and alkaline phosphatase, and urease) were higher in soils mixed with aged biochar than in fresh biochar soil (Yadav et al., 2019).

A point to note is that application of biochar not only increases the non-enzymatic antioxidants (soluble phenolic compounds and free proline) that increase plant tolerance to PTE stress (Kumar et al., 2022) but also stimulates the activities of metal-tolerant plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (Zhou et al., 2022) and mycorrhizae (Ortaş, 2016). Moreover, biochar increases plant growth promoting hormones to alleviate salt stress (Farhangi-Abriz and Torabian, 2018). This could be useful to increase the phytohormones which are responsible for alleviating PTE stress in plants.

Thus, future studies are required to investigate the effects of aging (from fresh to old) on the physiochemical properties of biochars in soils (differing in types) under field conditions. In addition, the effect of biochar on PTE solubility, especially, Cr, Cu, and As, is still a matter of concern.

7 Feasibility of the biochar/phytoremediation technique as a sustainable approach to manage PTEs polluted soils

Phytoremediation utilizes the natural ability of plants to uptake and accumulate contaminants from the media. Plants can hyperaccumulate PTEs, and certain species have shown remarkable tolerance and efficacy in remediating contaminated soils (Zheng et al., 2020). With the application of biochar, the efficiency of the phytoremediation process increases, e.g., its application enhanced plant growth, and increased metal sequestration. The biochar/phytoremediation technique operates through various mechanisms. Biochar improves soil properties by enhancing water retention, increasing nutrient availability, and stabilizing soil pH (Park et al., 2011). It acts as a sorbent for PTEs, reducing their mobility and bioavailability. In combination with plants, biochar provides a stable environment for root development and facilitates the uptake and translocation of PTEs by plants. It is worth noting that the biochar/phytoremediation technique offers several environmental benefits. It promotes carbon sequestration, as biochar remains longer in soils. This helps mitigate climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, the technique minimizes soil erosion, enhances soil fertility, and promotes biodiversity by creating a favorable habitat for soil organisms. Despite its promise, the biochar/phytoremediation technique faces certain challenges. The selection of suitable plant species, biochar properties, and application rates requires careful consideration (Cao et al., 2009). Long-term monitoring is essential to evaluate the persistence of remediation effects. Furthermore, the economic feasibility and scalability of the technique need to be assessed to encourage its widespread implementation.

8 Precautions while selecting appropriate remediation technology for PTEs

9 Future outlook and conclusion

Potentially toxic metals are released into the environment mainly through anthropogenic activities as well as geological sources. These contaminants are responsible for spreading many diseases and almost 16% of premature deaths worldwide. A number of remediation techniques can therefore be followed to ameliorate PTE-contaminated soil and water, among which the immobilization technique is considered the best approach due to its easy availability and cost-effectiveness. In particular, the immobilization or removal of PTEs from soil and water with biochar has several advantages owing to its specific surface area, porous structure, and high selectivity for all the PTEs. We have reviewed more than 200 articles to compare the efficiency of existing technologies and biochar application in the remediation of contaminated soils and waters. Generally, the major mechanisms involved in PTE binding with biochar are complexation, precipitation, and adsorption.

Biochar acts as an efficient biosorbent for many PTEs in soil and water. It may, however, increase the mobility of other PTEs such as Cu and As via association with dissolved organic carbon. The degree of stability of biochar-PTEs in soil depends on the dose of applied biochar as well as its aging. More research is therefore needed to clarify this relationship in both soil and water. Furthermore, biochar can remove high amounts of herbicides from solutions. Thus, future studies should focus on the role of functional groups of biochar in the PTE remediation process, considering successive applications and long-term field investigations. The combination of different immobilizing agents in improving the phytoremediation efficiency of PTEs with biochar and also their consequences on the growth of plants by adding the required essential elements could be a matter of concern in future research.

Overall, the biochar/phytoremediation technique could have a significant impact as a sustainable approach for managing PTEs-polluted soils Its synergistic effects enhance PTE immobilization, reduce environmental risks, and promote ecosystem restoration. Although challenges exist, ongoing research and technological advancements are expected to address these limitations, further improving the feasibility and effectiveness of this technique.

References

• 1

  AbbasM. H. H.AbdelhafezA. A. (2013). Role of EDTA in arsenic mobilization and its uptake by maize grown on an As-polluted soil. Chemosphere90, 588–594. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2012.08.042

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 2

  AbbasM. H. H.BassounyM. (2018). Implications of long term irrigation with wastewater on the contents and retention kinetics of potentially toxic elements in Typic Torripsamment soils. Egypt J. Soil Sci.58 (4), 0–357. 10.21608/ejss.2018.4232.1183

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 3

  AbbasM. H. H.MehargA. A. (2008). Arsenate, arsenite and dimethyl arsinic acid (DMA) uptake and tolerance in maize (Zea mays L). Plant Soil304 (1), 277–289. 10.1007/s11104-008-9549-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  AbdelhafezA. A.AbbasH. H.Abd-El-AalR. S.KandilN. F.LiJ.MahmoudW. (2012). Environmental and health impacts of successive mineral fertilization in Egypt. Clean. (Weinh)40 (4), 356–363. 10.1002/clen.201100151

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 5

  AbdelhafezA. A.AbbasM. H. H.HamedM. H. (2016). “Biochar: A solution for soil lead (Pb) pollution,” in The 8th int. Conference for development and the environment in the arab world (Egypt: Assiut University).

  • Google Scholar

• 6

  AbdelhafezA. A.AbbasM. H. H.LiJ. (2017). “Biochar: the black diamond for soil sustainability, contamination control and agricultural production,” in Engineering applications of biochar (London, United Kingdom: IntechOpen), 7–27.

  • Google Scholar

• 7

  AbdelhafezA. A.AbbasM. H. H.LiL. (2014). Feasibility of biochar manufactured from organic wastes on the stabilization of heavy metals in a metal smelter contaminated soil. Chemosphere117, 66–71. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.05.086

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  AbdelhafezA. A.AwadY. M.Abd El-AzeemS. A. M.KimM. S.HamK. J.LimK. J.et al (2010). Leaching of chromium, copper and arsenic in soils and rapid identification of CCA-treated woods using modified PAN stain. Korean J. Soil. Sci. Fert.43 (1), 60–67. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:138161890.

  • Google Scholar

• 9

  AbdelhafezA. A.AwadY. M.KimM. S.HamK. J.LimK. L.JooJ. H.et al (2009). Environmental monitoring of heavy metals and arsenic in soils adjacent to CCA-treated wood structures in Gangwon Province, South Korea. Korean J. Environ. Agric.28 (4), 340–346. 10.5338/kjea.2009.28.4.340

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10

  AbdelhafezA. A.EidK. E.El-AbeidS. E.AbbasM. H. H.AhmedN.MansourR. R. M. E.et al (2021). Application of soil biofertilizers to a clayey soil contaminated with Sclerotium rolfsii can promote production, protection and nutritive status of Phaseolus vulgaris. Chemosphere271, 129321. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.129321

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11

  AbdelhafezA. A.LiJ. (2015). Environmental monitoring of heavy metal status and human health risk assessment in the agricultural soils of the Jinxi River area, China. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess.21 (4), 952–971. 10.1080/10807039.2014.947851

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  AbdelhafezA. A.LiJ. (2014). Geochemical and statistical evaluation of heavy metal status in the region around Jinxi River, China. Soil Sediment. Contam.23 (8), 850–868. 10.1080/15320383.2014.887651

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 13

  AbdelhafezA. A.LiL. (2016). Removal of Pb(II) from aqueous solution by using biochars derived from sugar cane bagasse and orange peel. J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng.61, 367–375. 10.1016/j.jtice.2016.01.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14

  AdeyemiN. O.AtayeseM. O.SakariyawoO. S.AzeezJ. O.Abayomi SobowaleS. P.OlubodeA.et al (2021). Alleviation of heavy metal stress by arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis in Glycine max (L) grown in copper, lead and zinc contaminated soils. Rhizosphere18, 100325. 10.1016/j.rhisph.2021.100325

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 15

  AhnS.WernerD.LuthyR. G. (2005). Physicochemical characterization of coke-plant soil for the assessment of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon availability and the feasibility of phytoremediation. Environ. Toxicol. Chem.24, 2185–2195. 10.1897/04-564R.1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16

  Ajmone-MarsanaF.BiasioliaM.KraljbT.GrčmanbH.DavidsoncC. M.HursthousedA. S.et al (2008). Metals in particle-size fractions of the soils of five European cities. Environ. Pollut.152 (1), 73–81. 10.1016/j.envpol.2007.05.020

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17

  Al-HiyalyS. A.McNeillyT.BradshawA. D. (1998). The effects of zinc contamination from electricity pylons - evolution in a replicated situation. New Phytol.110 (4), 571–580. 10.1111/j.1469-8137.1988.tb00297.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 18

  AlaboudiK. A.AhmedB.BrodieG. (2019). Effect of biochar on Pb, Cd and Cr availability and maize growth in artificial contaminated soil. Ann. Agric. Sci.64 (1), 95–102. 10.1016/j.aoas.2019.04.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  AliA.FaridI. M.AbbasM. H. H. (2023). Evaluating the removal efficiency of potentially toxic elements (PTEs) from a shale deposit by citric acid. Egypt. J. Soil Sci.63 (2), 0–150. 10.21608/ejss.2023.148878.1567

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 20

  AliH.KhanE.SajadM. A. (2013). Phytoremediation of heavy metals—concepts and applications. Chemosphere81 (7), 869–881. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.01.075

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21

  AriefV. O.TrilestariK.SunarsoJ.IndraswatiN.IsmadjiS. (2008). Recent progress on biosorption of heavy metals from liquids using low cost biosorbents: characterization, biosorption parameters and mechanism studies. Clean. (Weinh)36 (12), 937–962. 10.1002/clen.200800167

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22

  AroraM.KiranB.RaniS.RaniA.KaurB.MittaN. (2008). Heavy metal accumulation in vegetables irrigated with water from different sources. Food Chem.111 (4), 811–815. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2008.04.049

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23

  ArwidssonZ.Elgh-DalgrenK.KronhelmT. V.SjöbergR.AllardB.van HeesB. (2010). Remediation of heavy metal contaminated soil washing residues with amino polycarboxylic acids. J. Hazard Mater173 (1-3), 697–704. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.08.141

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  BandaraT.FranksA.XuJ.BolanN.WangH.TangC. (2020). Chemical and biological immobilization mechanisms of potentially toxic elements in biochar-amended soils. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol.50 (9), 903–978. 10.1080/10643389.2019.1642832

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25

  BaragañoD.AlonsoJ.GallegoJ. R.LoboM. C.Gil-DíazM. (2020). Zero valent iron and goethite nanoparticles as new promising remediation techniques for As-polluted soils. Chemosphere238, 124624. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.124624

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26

  BassounyM.AbbasM.MohamedI. (2020). Environmental risks associated with the leakage of untreated wastewater in industrial areas. Egypt J. Soil Sci.60 (2), 0–128. 10.21608/ejss.2019.18787.1319

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  BastaN. T.McGowenS. L. (2004). Evaluation of chemical immobilization treatments for reducing heavy metal transport in a smelter-contaminated soil. Environ. Pollut.127 (1), 73–82. 10.1016/S0269-7491(03)00250-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28

  BeesleyL.MarmiroliM. (2011). The immobilisation and retention of soluble arsenic, cadmium and zinc by biochar. Environ. Pollut.159 (2), 474–480. 10.1016/j.envpol.2010.10.016

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  BeheraS. N.ChengJ.HuangX.ZhuQ.LiuP.BalasubramanianR. (2015). Chemical composition and acidity of size-fractionated inorganic aerosols of 2013-14 winter haze in Shanghai and associated health risk of toxic elements. Atmos. Environ.122, 259–271. 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.09.053

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30

  BehmE.GrossM.QuesenberryD. (1997). Groundwater pollution primer in situ vitrification. Available At: https://www.des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/water/dwgb/wrpp/documents/primer_chapter4.pdf.

  • Google Scholar

• 31

  BordoloiN.GoswamiR.KumarM.KatakiR. (2017). Biosorption of Co (II) from aqueous solution using algal biochar: kinetics and isotherm studies. Bioresour. Technol.244, 1465–1469. 10.1016/j.biortech.2017.05.139

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  BradlH. B. (2004). Adsorption of heavy metal ions on soils and soils constituents. J. Colloid Interface Sci.277 (1), 1–18. 10.1016/j.jcis.2004.04.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  BrownS.ChristensenB.LombiE.McLaughlinM.McGrathS.ColpaertJ.et al (2005). An inter-laboratory study to test the ability of amendments to reduce the availability of Cd, Pb, and Zn in situ. Environ. Pollut.138 (1), 34–45. 10.1016/j.envpol.2005.02.020

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34

  BussW.JanssonS.MašekO. (2019). Unexplored potential of novel biochar-ash composites for use as organo-mineral fertilizers. J. Clean. Prod.208, 960–967. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.189

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  CaoX.MaL.GaoB.HarrisW. (2009). Dairy-manure derived biochar effectively sorbs lead and atrazine. Environ. Sci. Technol.43 (9), 3285–3291. 10.1021/es803092k

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36

  ChanH. M.KimC.KhodaK.ReceveurO.KuhnleinH. V. (1995). Assessment of dietary exposure to trace metals in Baffin Inuit food. Environ. Health Perspect.103 (7-8), 740–746. 10.1289/ehp.95103740

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37

  ChenS. B.ZhuY. G.MaY. B.McKayG. (2006). Effect of bone char application on Pb bioavailability in a Pb-contaminated soil. Environ. Pollut.139 (3), 433–439. 10.1016/j.envpol.2005.06.007

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38

  ChenX.KumariD.CaoC. J.PlazaG.AchalV. (2020). A review on remediation technologies for nickel-contaminated soil. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. Int. J.26 (3), 571–585. 10.1080/10807039.2018.1539639

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  ChoppalaG. K.BolanN. S.MallavarapuM.ChenZ.NaiduR. (2012). The influence of biochar and black carbon on reduction and bioavailability of chromate in soils. J. Environ. Qual.41 (4), 1175–1184. 10.2134/jeq2011.0145

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 40

  CiccuR.GhianiM.SerciA.FaddaS.PerettiR.ZuccaA. (2003). Heavy metal immobilization in the mining-contaminated soils using various industrial wastes. Min. Eng.16 (3), 187–192. 10.1016/S0892-6875(03)00003-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  CongeevaramS.DhanaraniS.ParkJ.DexilinM.ThamaraiselviK. (2007). Biosorption of chromium and nickel by heavy metal resistant fungal and bacterial isolates. J. Hazard Mater146 (1-2), 270–277. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2006.12.017

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42

  CukiermanA. L. (2007). Metal ion biosorption potential of lignocellulosic biomasses and marine algae for wastewater treatment. Adsorp Sci. Technol.25 (3-4), 227–244. 10.1260/026361707782398182

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  DahiyaS.TripathiR. M.HegdeA. G. (2008). Biosorption of heavy metals and radionuclide from aqueous solutions by pretreated arca shell biomass. J. Hazard Mater150 (2), 376–386. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2007.04.134

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44

  DarS. A.BhatR. A. (2020). “Aquatic pollution stress and role of biofilms as environment cleanup technology,” in Fresh water pollution dynamics and remediation. Editors QadriH.BhatR.MehmoodM.DarG. (Singapore: Springer), 293–318.

  • Google Scholar

• 45

  de SouzaE. S.DiasY. N.da CostaH. S. C.PintoD. A.de OliveiraD. M.FalçãoN. P. D.et al (2019). Organic residues and biochar to immobilize potentially toxic elements in soil from a gold mine in the Amazon. Ecotox Environ. Safe169, 425–434. 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2018.11.032

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46

  DermontG.BergeronM.MercierG.Richer-LaflecheM. (2008). Soil washing for metal removal: A review of physical/chemical technologies and field applications. J. Hazard Mater152 (1), 1–31. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2007.10.043

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47

  DubeyR. K.DubeyP. K.ChaurasiaR.SinghH. B.AbhilashP. C. (2020). Sustainable agronomic practices for enhancing the soil quality and yield of Cicer arietinum L. under diverse agroecosystems. J. Environ. Manage2, 110284. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110284

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48

  DuffusJ. H. (2002). Heavy metals-a meaningless term. Pure Appl. Chem.74 (5), 793–807. 10.1351/pac200274050793

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  EbrahimbabaieP.MeeinkuirtW.PichtelJ. (2020). Phytoremediation of engineered nanoparticles using aquatic plants: mechanisms and practical feasibility. J. Environ. Sci.93, 151–163. 10.1016/j.jes.2020.03.034

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50

  EdgarV. N.FabiánF. L.MarioP. C. J.IleanaV. R. (2021). Coupling plant biomass derived from phytoremediation of potential toxic-metal-polluted soils to bioenergy production and high-value by-products—a review. Appl. Sci.11 (7), 2982. 10.3390/app11072982

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51

  EgendorfS. P.GaileyA. D.SchachterA. E.MielkeH. W. (2020). Soil toxicants that potentially affect children's health. Curr. Prob Pediatr. Ad50 (1), 100741. 10.1016/j.cppeds.2019.100741

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  EidK. E.AbbasM. H. H.MekawiE. M.ElNagarM. M.AbdelhafezA. A.AminB. H.et al (2019). Arbuscular mycorrhiza and environmentally biochemicals enhance the nutritional status of Helianthus tuberosus and induce its resistance against Sclerotium rolfsii. Ecotox Environ. Safe186, 109783. 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2019.109783

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  El-MeihyR. M.Abou-AlyH. E.YoussefA. M.TewfikeT. A.El-AlksharE. A. (2019). Efficiency of heavy metals-tolerant plant growth promoting bacteria for alleviating heavy metals toxicity on sorghum. Environ. Exp. Bot.162, 295–301. 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2019.03.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54

  ElangovanR.PhilipL.ChandrarajK. (2008). Biosorption of chromium species by aquatic weeds: kinetics and mechanism studies. J. Hazard Mater152 (1), 100–112. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2007.06.067

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  ElShazlyA. A. A.AbbasM. H. H.FaridI. M.RizkM.AbdelhafezA. A.AbbasH. H.et al (2019a). Depthprofile distribution of Cs and its toxicity for canola plants grown on arid rainfed soils as affected by increasing K-inputs. Ecotox Environ. Safe183, 109529. 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2019.109529

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 56

  ElShazlyA. A. A.AbbasM. H. H.FaridI. M.RizkM.MohamedI.AbbasH. H.et al (2019b). Feasibility of using natural mineral ores for removing Cs and Sr from contaminated water. Ecotox Environ. Safe175, 173–180. 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2019.03.044

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57

  ElshonyM.FaridI.AlkamarF.AbbasM. H. H.AbbasH. (2019). Ameliorating a sandy soil using biochar and compost amendments and their implications as slow release fertilizers on plant growth. Egypt J. Soil Sci.59 (4), 0–322. 10.21608/ejss.2019.12914.1276

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  EseuderoC.GabaldonC.MarzalP.VillaescusaI. (2008). Effect of EDTA on divalent metal adsorption onto grape stalk and exhausted coffee wastes. J. Hazard Mater152 (2), 476–485. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2007.07.013

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59

  FAO (2019). The state of food insecurity in the world 2019. Rome: United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, FAO. Available At: www.fao.org/docrep/009/a0750e/a0750e00.htmm (Accessed June 16, 2019).

  • Google Scholar

• 60

  Farhangi-AbrizS.TorabianS. (2018). Biochar increased plant growth-promoting hormones and helped to alleviates salt stress in common bean seedlings. J. Plant Growth Regul.37 (2), 591–601. 10.1007/s00344-017-9756-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  FaridI.AbbasM.BassounyM.GameelA.AbbasH. (2020). Indirect impacts of irrigation with low-quality water on the environmental safety. Egypt. J. Soil Sci.60 (1), 0–15. 10.21608/ejss.2019.15434.1294

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62

  FaridI. M.AhmedM.AbbasM. H. H.ElshazlyA. (2023). The efficiency of using Na EDTA and DTPA to extract different fractions of soil strontium. Egypt. J. Soil Sci.63 (3), 0–286. 10.21608/ejss.2023.208549.1589

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 63

  FaridI. M.SiamH. S.AbbasM. H. H.MohamedI.MahmoudS. A.TolbaM.et al (2022). Co-Composted biochar derived from rice straw and sugarcane bagasse improved soil properties, carbon balance, and zucchini growth in a sandy soil: A trial for enhancing the health of low fertile arid soils. Chemosphere292, 133389. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.133389

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  FawzyE. M. (2008). Soil remediation usingin situimmobilisation techniques. Chem. Ecol.24 (2), 147–156. 10.1080/02757540801920154

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65

  FelletG.MarchiolL.Delle VedoveG.PeressottiA. (2011). Application of biochar on mine tailings: effects and perspectives for land reclamation. Chemosphere83 (9), 1262–1267. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2011.03.053

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66

  FengZ.JiS.PingJ.CuiD. (2021). Recent advances in metabolomics for studying heavy metal stress in plants. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem.143, 116402. 10.1016/j.trac.2021.116402

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 67

  FreeH. F.McGillC. R.RowarthJ. S.HedleyM. J. (2010). The effect of biochar on maize (Zea mays) germination. New Zeal J. Agr. Res.53 (1), 1–4. 10.1080/00288231003606039

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68

  GalánE.Romero-BaenaA. J.AparicioP.GonzálezI. (2019). A methodological approach for the evaluation of soil pollution by potentially toxic trace elements. J. Geochem Explor203, 96–107. 10.1016/j.gexplo.2019.04.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69

  GautamK.SharmaP.DwivediS.SinghA.GaurV. K.VarjaniS.et al (2023). A review on control and abatement of soil pollution by heavy metals: emphasis on artificial intelligence in recovery of contaminated soil. Environ. Res.225, 115592. 10.1016/j.envres.2023.115592

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70

  GavrilescuM. (2022). Enhancing phytoremediation of soils polluted with heavy metals. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol.74, 21–31. 10.1016/j.copbio.2021.10.024

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 71

  GhoshM.SinghS. P. (2005). A review on phytoremediation of heavy metals and utilization of its byproducts. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res.3 (1), 1–18. 10.15666/aeer/0301_001018

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 72

  GhoshS. (2010). Wetland macrophytes as toxic metal accumulators. Int. J. Environ. Sci.1 (4), 523–528. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:87051767.

  • Google Scholar

• 73

  González-MartínezA.de Simón-MartínM.LópezR.Táboas-FernándezR.Bernardo-SánchezA. (2019). Remediation of potential toxic elements from wastes and soils: analysis and energy prospects. Sustainability11 (12), 3307. 10.3390/su11123307

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74

  GoyalD.YadavA.PrasadM.SinghT. B.ShrivastavP.AliA.et al (2020). “Effect of heavy metals on plant growth: an overview,” in Contaminants in agriculture: sources, impacts and management. Editors NaeemM.AnsariA. A.GillS. S. (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 79–101.

  • Google Scholar

• 75

  GudmundssonG.FinnbjornsdottirR. G.JohannssonT.RafnssonV. (2019). Air pollution in Iceland and the effects on human health. Review. Laeknabladid105 (10), 443–452. 10.17992/lbl.2019.10.252

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 76

  GuiH.YangQ.LuX.WangH.GuQ.MartínJ. D. (2023). Spatial distribution, contamination characteristics and ecological-health risk assessment of toxic heavy metals in soils near a smelting area. Environ. Res.222, 115328. 10.1016/j.envres.2023.115328

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 77

  GuoX.ZhangS.ShanX. (2008). Adsorption of metal ions on lignin. J. Hazard Mater151 (1), 134–142. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2007.05.065

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 78

  HasanS. H.SinghK. K.PrakashO.TalatM.HoY. S. (2008). Removal of Cr(VI) from aqueous solutions using agricultural waste ‘maize bran. J. Hazard Mater152 (1), 356–365. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2007.07.006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 79

  HashimT. A.AbbasH. H.FaridI. M.El-HusseinyO. H. M.AbbasM. H. H. (2017). Accumulation of some heavy metals in plants and soils adjacent to Cairo – Alexandria agricultural highway. Egypt. J. Soil Sci.57 (2), 0–232. 10.21608/ejss.2016.281.1047

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 80

  HashimotoY.TakiT.SatoT. (2009). Extractability and leachability of Pb in a shooting range soil amended with poultry litter ash: investigations for immobilization potentials. J. Environ. Sci. Health A Tox Hazard Subst. Environ. Eng.44 (6), 583–590. 10.1080/10934520902784617

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 81

  HeW.MegharajM.WuC. Y.SubashchandraboseS. R.DaiC. C. (2020). Endophyte-assisted phytoremediation: mechanisms and current application strategies for soil mixed pollutants. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol.40 (1), 31–45. 10.1080/07388551.2019.1675582

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 82

  HerawatiN.SuzukiS.HayashiK.RivaiI. F.KoyomaH. (2000). Cadmium, copper and zinc levels in rice and soil of Japan, Indonesia and China by soil type. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.64 (1), 33–39. 10.1007/s001289910006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 83

  HoY. S.OfomajaA. E. (2006). Pseudo-second-order model for lead ion sorption from aqueous solutions onto palm kernel fiber. J. Hazard Mater129 (1-3), 137–142. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2005.08.020

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 84

  HuangY.WangL.WangW.LiT.HeZ.YangX. (2019). Current status of agricultural soil pollution by heavy metals in China: A meta-analysis. Sci. Total Environ.651 (2), 3034–3042. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.185

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 85

  IbrahimM.LabakiM.GiraudonJ. M.LamonierJ. F. (2020). Hydroxyapatite, a multifunctional material for air, water and soil pollution control: A review. J. Hazard Mater383, 121139. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121139

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 86

  InyangM.GaoB.YaoY.XueY.ZimmermanA. R.PullammanappallilP.et al (2012). Removal of heavy metals from aqueous solution by biochars derived from anaerobically digested biomass. Bioresour. Technol.110, 50–56. 10.1016/j.biortech.2012.01.072

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 87

  JefferyS.VerheijenF. G. A.van der VeldeaM.BastosA. C. (2011). A quantitative review of the effects of biochar application to soils on crop productivity using meta-analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.144 (1), 175–187. 10.1016/j.agee.2011.08.015

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 88

  JiangJ.XuR. K.JiangT. Y.LiZ. (2012). Immobilization of Cu (II), Pb (II) and Cd (II) by the addition of rice straw derived biochar to a simulated polluted Ultisol. J. Hazard Mater229-230, 145–150. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2012.05.086

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 89

  JingF.YangZ.ChenX.LiuW.GuoB.LinG.et al (2019). Potentially hazardous element accumulation in rice tissues and their availability in soil systems after biochar amendments. J. Soils Sediments19, 2957–2970. 10.1007/s11368-019-02296-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 90

  JinpingJ.LonghuaW.NaL.YongmingL.LingL.QiguoZ.et al (2010). Effects of multiple heavy metal contamination and repeated phytoextraction by Sedum plumbizincicola on soil microbial properties. Eur. J. Soil Biol.46 (1), 18–26. 10.1016/j.ejsobi.2009.10.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 91

  KaraśM. A.Wdowiak-WróbelS.SokołowskiW. (2021). Selection of endophytic strains for enhanced bacteria-assisted phytoremediation of organic pollutants posing a public health hazard. Int. J. Mol. Sci.22 (17), 9557. 10.3390/ijms22179557

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 92

  KatayamaA.BhulaR.BurnsG. R.CarazoE.FelsotA.HamiltonD.et al (2010). Bioavailability of xenobiotics in the soil environment. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.204, 1–86. 10.1007/978-1-4419-1352-4_1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 93

  KaurR.DasS.BansalS.SinghG.SardarS.DharH.et al (2021). Heavy metal stress in rice: uptake, transport, signaling, and tolerance mechanisms. Physiol. Plant.173 (1), 430–448. 10.1111/ppl.13491

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 94

  KhalidS.ShahidM.NiaziN. K.MurtazaB.BibiI.DumatC. (2017). A comparison of technologies for remediation of heavy metal contaminated soils. J. Geochem Explor182, 247–268. 10.1016/j.gexplo.2016.11.021

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 95

  KhalilF. W.Abdel-SalamM.AbbasM. H. H.AbuzaidA. S. (2023). Implications of acidified and non-acidified biochars on N and K availability and their uptake by maize plants. Egypt. J. Soil Sci.63 (1), 0–112. 10.21608/ejss.2023.184654.1560

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 96

  KhanA. G. (2020). Promises and potential of in situ nano-phytoremediation strategy to mycorrhizo-remediate heavy metal contaminated soils using non-food bioenergy crops (Vetiver zizinoides and Cannabis sativa). Int. J. Phytoremediation22 (9), 900–915. 10.1080/15226514.2020.1774504

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 97

  KhanF. I.HusainT.HejaziH. (2004). An overview and analysis of site remediation technologies. J. Environ. Manage71 (2), 95–122. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.02.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 98

  KhanM. J.JonesD. L. (2009). Effect of composts, lime and diammonium phosphate on the phytoavailability of heavy metals in a copper mine tailing soil. Pedosphere19 (5), 631–641. 10.1016/S1002-0160(09)60158-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 99

  KhormaeiM.NasernejadB.EdrisiM.EslamzadehT. (2007). Copper biosorption from aqueous solutions by sour orange residue. J. Hazard Mater149 (2), 269–274. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2007.03.074

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 100

  KoI. W.LeeC. H.LeeK. P.LeeS. W.KimK. W. (2006). Remediation of soil contaminated with arsenic, zinc, and nickel by pilot-scale soil washing. Environ. Prog. Sustain Energy25 (1), 39–48. 10.1002/ep.10101

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 101

  KoffiN. J.OkabeS. (2020). Domestic wastewater treatment and energy harvesting by serpentine up-flow MFCs equipped with PVDF-based activated carbon air-cathodes and a low voltage booster. Chem. Eng. J.380, 122443. 10.1016/j.cej.2019.122443

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 102

  KongS.LuB.JiY.ZhaoX.BaiZ.XuY.et al (2012). Risk assessment of heavy metals in road and soil dusts within PM2.5, PM10 and PM100 fractions in Dongying city, Shandong Province, China. J. Environ. Monit.14 (3), 791–803. 10.1039/c1em10555h

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 103

  KookanaR. S.SarmahA. K.Van ZwietenL.KrullE.SinghB. (2011). Chapter three-biochar application to soil: agronomic and environmental benefits and unintended consequences. Adv. Agron.112, 103–143. 10.1016/B978-0-12-385538-1.00003-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 104

  KumarA.BorisovaG.MalevaM.TriptiShiryaevG.TugbaevaA. (2022). Biofertilizer based on biochar and metal-tolerant plant growth promoting rhizobacteria alleviates copper impact on morphophysiological traits in Brassica napus L. Microorganisms10 (11), 2164. 10.3390/microorganisms10112164

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 105

  KumarV.PariharR. D.SharmaA.BakshiP.SidhuG. P. S.BaliA. S.et al (2019). Global evaluation of heavy metal content in surface water bodies: A meta-analysis using heavy metal pollution indices and multivariate statistical analyses. Chemosphere236, 124364. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.124364

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 106

  KurniawanT. A.ChanG. Y. S.LoW.BabelS. (2006). Comparisons of low-cost adsorbents for treating wastewaters laden with heavy metals. Sci. Total Environ.366 (2-3), 409–426. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2005.10.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 107

  LajayarB. A.GhorbanpourbM.NikabadiS. (2017). Heavy metals in contaminated environment: destiny of secondary metabolite biosynthesis, oxidative status and phytoextraction in medicinal plants. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf.145, 337–390. 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2017.07.035

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 108

  LambertM.LevenB. A.GreenR. M. (2014). New methods of cleaning up heavy metal in soils and water. U. S. Pat. Appl.13/200, 968. https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/display.files/fileID/14295.

  • Google Scholar

• 109

  LanphearB. P.SuccopP.RodaS.HenningsenG. (2003). The effect of soil abatement on blood lead levels in children living near a former smelting and milling operation. Public Health Rep.118 (2), 83–91. 10.1016/S0033-3549(04)50223-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 110

  LeeJ.KaundaR. B.SinkalaT.WorkmanC. F.BazilianM. D.CloughG. (2021). Phytoremediation and phytoextraction in sub-saharan Africa: addressing economic and social challenges. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf.226, 112864. 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2021.112864

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 111

  LeeM.PaikI. S.KimI.KangH.LeeS. (2007). Remediation of heavy metal contaminated groundwater originated from abandoned mine using lime and calcium carbonate. J. Hazard Mater144 (1-2), 208–214. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2006.10.007

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 112

  LehmannJ. (2007). A handful of carbon. Nature447 (7141), 143–144. 10.1038/447143a

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 113

  LehmannJ.JosephS. (2015). “Biochar for environmental management: an introduction,” in Biochar for environmental management-Science, technology and implementation. Editors LehmannJ.JosephS. (London: Routledge), 1–14.

  • Google Scholar

• 114

  LévesqueV.JeanneT.DoraisM.ZiadiN.HogueR.AntounH. (2020). Biochars improve tomato and sweet pepper performance and shift bacterial composition in a peat-based growing medium. Appl. Soil Ecol.153, 103579. 10.1016/j.apsoil.2020.103579

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 115

  LevonmakiM.HartikainenH.KairesaloT. (2006). Effect of organic amendment and plant roots on the solubility and mobilization of lead in soils at a shooting range. J. Environ. Qual.35 (4), 1026–1031. 10.2134/jeq2005.0354

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 116

  LinC. F.LoS. S.LinH. Y.LeeY. (1998). Stabilization of cadmium contaminated soils using synthesized zeolite. J. Hazard Mater60, 217–226. 10.1016/S0304-3894(98)00092-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 117

  LiuG.ShiY.GuoG.ZhaoL.NiuJ.ZhangC. (2020). Soil pollution characteristics and systemic environmental risk assessment of a large-scale arsenic slag contaminated site. J. Clean. Prod.251, 119721. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119721

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 118

  LomaglioT.Hattab-HambliN.BretA.MiardF.TrupianoD.ScippaG. S.et al (2016). Effect of biochar amendments on the mobility and (bio) availability of As, Sb and Pb in a contaminated mine technosol. J. Geochem. Explor.182 (B), 138–148. 10.1016/j.gexplo.2016.08.007

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 119

  LuQ.WangS.BaiX.LiuF.LiC.DengY.et al (2020). Quantitative assessment of human health risks under different land uses based on soil heavy metal pollution sources. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess.27 (2), 327–343. 10.1080/10807039.2019.1710811

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 120

  MaQ.HanL.ZhangJ.ZhangY.LangQ.LiF.et al (2019). Environmental risk assessment of metals in the volcanic soil of Changbai mountain. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health16 (11), 2047. 10.3390/ijerph16112047

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 121

  MadridF.Díaz-BarrientosE.MadridL. (2008). Availability and bio-accessibility of metals in the clay fraction of urban soils of Sevilla. Environ. Pollut.156 (3), 605–610. 10.1016/j.envpol.2008.06.023

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 122

  MalkocE.NuhogluY. (2007). Potential of tea factory waste for chromium(VI) removal from aqueous solutions: thermodynamic and kinetic studies. Sep. Purif. Technol.54 (3), 291–298. 10.1016/j.seppur.2006.09.017

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 123

  MatinN. H.JalaliM.BussW. (2020). Synergistic immobilization of potentially toxic elements (PTEs) by biochar and nanoparticles in alkaline soil. Chemosphere241, 124932. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.124932

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 124

  MegidoL.Suárez-PeñaB.NegralL.CastrillónL.Fernández-NavaY. (2017). Suburban air quality: human health hazard assessment of potentially toxic elements in PM10. Chemosphere177, 284–291. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.03.009

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 125

  MehmoodT.LiuC.NiaziN. K. N.GauravG. K.AshrafA.BibiI. (2021). Compost-mediated arsenic phytoremediation, health risk assessment and economic feasibility using Zea mays L. in contrasting textured soils. Int. J. Phytoremediation23 (9), 899–910. 10.1080/15226514.2020.1865267

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 126

  MemonA. R.SchröderP. (2009). Implications of metal accumulation mechanisms to phytoremediation. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int.16 (2), 162–175. 10.1007/s11356-008-0079-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 127

  MéndezA.GómezA.Paz-FerreiroJ.GascóG. (2012). Effects of sewage sludge biochar on plant metal availability after application to a Mediterranean soil. Chemosphere89 (11), 1354–1359. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2012.05.092

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 128

  MohamedI.AliM.AhmedN.AbbasM. H. H.AbdelsalamM.AzabA.et al (2018). Cow manure-loaded biochar changes Cd fractionation and phytotoxicity potential for wheat in a natural acidic contaminated soil. Ecotox Environ. Safe162, 348–353. 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2018.06.065

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 129

  MohamedI.EidK. E.AbbasM. H. H.SalemA. A.AhmedN.AliM.et al (2019). Use of plant growth promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR) and mycorrhizae to improve the growth and nutrient utilization of common bean in a soil infected with white rot fungi. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf.171, 539–548. 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2018.12.100

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 130

  MohanD.PittmanC. U.BrickaM.YanceyB.MohammadJ. (2007). Sorption of arsenic, cadmium, and lead by chars produced from fast pyrolysis of wood and bark during bio-oil production. J. Colloid Interface Sci.310 (1), 57–73. 10.1016/j.jcis.2007.01.020

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 131

  MulliganC. N.YongR. N.GibbsB. F. (2001). Remediation technologies for metal-contaminated soils and groundwater: an evaluation. Eng. Geol.60 (1-4), 193–207. 10.1016/S0013-7952(00)00101-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 132

  MünzelT.HahadO.DaiberA.LandriganP. J. (2022). Soil and water pollution and human health: what should cardiologists worry about?Cardiovasc. Res.119 (2), 440–449. 10.1093/cvr/cvac082

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 133

  MustafaH. M.HayderG.MustapaS. I. M. (2022). Circular economy framework for energy recovery in phytoremediation of domestic wastewater. Energies15 (9), 3075. 10.3390/en15093075

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 134

  NagajyotiP. C.LeeK. D.SreekanthT. V. M. (2010). Heavy metals, occurrence and toxicity for plants: A review. Environ. Chem. Lett.8, 199–216. 10.1007/s10311-010-0297-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 135

  NaveedM.RamzanN.MustafaA.SamadA.NiamatB.YaseenM.et al (2020). Alleviation of salinity induced oxidative stress in Chenopodium quinoa by Fe biofortification and biochar—endophyte interaction. Agronomy10, 168. 10.3390/agronomy10020168

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 136

  NguyenB. T.LehmannJ.KinyangiJ.SmernikR.RihaS. J.EngelhardM. H. (2008). Long-term black carbon dynamics in cultivated soil. Biogeochemistry89, 295–308. 10.1007/s10533-008-9220-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 137

  NiB.HuangQ.WangC.NiT.SunJ.WeiW. (2019). Competitive adsorption of heavy metals in aqueous solution onto biochar derived from anaerobically digested sludge. Chemosphere219, 351–357. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.12.053

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 138

  NomanbhayS. M.PalanisamyK. (2005). Removal of heavy metal from industrial wastewater using chitosan coated oil palm shell charcoal. Electron J. Biotechn8 (1), 43–53. 10.2225/vol8-issue1-fulltext-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 139

  NovakJ. M.LaridD. L.AhmednaM.WattsD. W.NiandouM. A. S. (2009). Impact of biochar amendment on fertility of a Southeastern Coastal Plain soil. Soil Sci.174 (2), 105–112. 10.1097/SS.0b013e3181981d9a

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 140

  NowackB. (2002). Environmental chemistry of aminopolycarboxylate chelating agents. Environ. Sci. Technol.36 (19), 4009–4016. 10.1021/es025683s

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 141

  OkY. S.OhS.AhmadM.HyunS.KimK.MoonD. H.et al (2010). Effects of natural and calcined oyster shells on Cd and Pb immobilization in contaminated soils. Environ. Earth Sci.61 (6), 1301–1308. 10.1007/s12665-010-0674-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 142

  Ortaşİ. (2016). “The role of mycorrhizae and biochar in plant growth and soil quality,” in Biochar: A regional supply chain approach in view of climate change mitigation. Editors UzunB. B.Apaydın VarolE.LiuJ.BruckmanV. J. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 336–350.

  • Google Scholar

• 143

  OuzounidouG.IliasI. (2005). Hormone-induced protection of sunflower photosynthetic apparatus against copper toxicity. Biol. Plant.49 (2), 223–228. 10.1007/s10535-005-3228-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 144

  OzdemirG.OzturkT.CeyhanN.IslerR.CosarT. (2003). Heavy metal biosorption by biomass of Ochrobactrum anthropi producing exopolysaccharide in activated sludge. Bioresour. Technol.90 (1), 71–74. 10.1016/s0960-8524(03)00088-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 145

  PadmavathiammaP. K.LiL. Y. (2007). Phytoremediation technology: hyperaccumulation metals in plants. Water Air Soil Pollut.184 (1-4), 105–126. 10.1007/s11270-007-9401-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 146

  PandeyJ.VermaR. K.SinghS. (2019). Suitability of aromatic plants for phytoremediation of heavy metal contaminated areas: A review. Int. J. Phytoremediation21 (5), 405–418. 10.1080/15226514.2018.1540546

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 147

  ParkJ. H.ChoppalaG. K.BolanN. S.ChungJ. W.ChuasavathiT. (2011). Biochar reduces the bioavailability and phytotoxicity of heavy metals. Plant Soil348 (1-2), 439–451. 10.1007/s11104-011-0948-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 148

  PenidoE. S.MartinsG. C.MendesT. B. M.MeloL. C. A.GuimarãesL. R. G.GuilhermeL. R. G. (2019). Combining biochar and sewage sludge for immobilization of heavy metals in mining soils. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf.172, 326–333. 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2019.01.110

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 149

  PlumL. M.RinkL.HaaseH. (2010). The essential toxin: impact of zinc on human health. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health7 (4), 1342–1365. 10.3390/ijerph7041342

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 150

  PugaA. P.AbreuC. A.MeloL. C. A.BeesleyL. (2015). Biochar application to a contaminated soil reduces the availability and plant uptake of zinc, lead and cadmium. J. Environ. Manage159, 86–93. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.05.036

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 151

  QiZ.HanY.AfraneS.LiuX.ZhangM.CrittendenJ.et al (2023). Patent mining on soil pollution remediation technology from the perspective of technological trajectory. Environ. Pollut.316, 120661. 10.1016/j.envpol.2022.120661

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 152

  QianT.WuP.QinQ.HuangY.WangY. (2019). Screening of wheat straw biochars for the remediation of soils polluted with Zn (II) and Cd (II). J. Hazard Mater362, 311–317. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2018.09.034

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 153

  RashtianJ.ChavkinD. E.MerhiZ. (2019). Water and soil pollution as determinant of water and food quality/contamination and its impact on female fertility. Reprod. Biol. Endocrinol.17, 5. 10.1186/s12958-018-0448-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 154

  RheayH. T.OmondiE. C.BrewerC. E. (2021). Potential of hemp (Cannabis sativa L) for paired phytoremediation and bioenergy production. GCB Bioenergy13, 525–536. 10.1111/gcbb.12782

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 155

  RiazU.AtharT.MustafaU.IqbalR. (2022). “Chapter 23 - economic feasibility of phytoremediation,” in Phytoremediation. Editors BhatR. A.TonelliT. M. P.DarG. H.HakeemK. (Amsterdam, Netherland), 481–502.

  • Google Scholar

• 156

  Rodríguez-JordaM. P.GariddoF.García-GonzálezM. T. (2010). Potential use of gypsum and lime rich industrial by-products for induced reduction of Pb, Zn and Ni leachability in an acid soil. J. Hazard Mater175 (1-3), 762–769. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.10.074

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 157

  SahooM. M.SwainJ. B. (2020). Modified heavy metal Pollution index (m-HPI) for surface water Quality in river basins, India. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.27, 15350–15364. 10.1007/s11356-020-08071-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 158

  SainiS.GillJ. K.KaurJ.SaikiaH. R.SinghN.KaurI.et al (2020). “Biosorption as environmentally friendly technique for heavy metal removal from wastewater,” in Fresh water pollution dynamics and remediation. Editors QadriH.BhatR.MehmoodM.DarG. (Singapore: Springer), 167–181.

  • Google Scholar

• 159

  SajadM. A.KhanM. S.BahadurS.NaeemA.AliH.BatoolF.et al (2020). Evaluation of chromium phytoremediation potential of some plant species of Dir Lower, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Acta Ecol. Sin.40 (2), 158–165. 10.1016/j.chnaes.2019.12.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 160

  SalemZ.AlliaK. (2008). Cadmium biosorption on vegetal biomass. Int. J. Chem. React. Eng.6 (1), 1542–6580. 10.2202/1542-6580.1448

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 161

  SangodoyinA. Y. (1991). Groundwater and surface water pollution by open refuse dump in Ibadan, Nigeria. J. Discov. Innov.3 (1), 37–43.

  • Google Scholar

• 162

  SariA.TuzenM. (2008). Biosorption of Pb(II) and Cd(II) from aqueous solution using green alga (Ulva lactuca) biomass. J. Hazard Mater152 (1), 302–308. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2007.06.097

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 163

  SaxenaG.PurchaseD.MullaS. I.SarataleG. D.BharagavaR. N. (2019). “Phytoremediation of heavy metal-contaminated sites: eco-environmental concerns, field studies, sustainability issues, and future prospects,” in Reviews of environmental contamination and toxicology. Editor de VoogtP. (Cham: Springer), 71–131.

  • Google Scholar

• 164

  SeinfeldJ. H.PandisS. N. (2016). Atmospheric chemistry and physics: From air pollution to climate change. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons,Inc.

  • Google Scholar

• 165

  SenthilkumarR.Reddy PrasadD. M.GovindarajanL.SaravanakumarK.Naveen PrasadB. S. (2020). Synthesis of green marine algal-based biochar for remediation of arsenic(V) from contaminated waters in batch and column mode of operation. Int. J. Phytoremediation22 (3), 279–286. 10.1080/15226514.2019.1658710

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 166

  ShaheenS. M.El-NaggarA.WangJ.HassanN. E. E.NiaziN. K.WangH.et al (2019a). “Biochar as an (Im)mobilizing agent for the potentially toxic elements in contaminated soils,” in Biochar from biomass and waste. Editors OkY. S.TsangD. C. W.BolanN.NovakJ. M. (Amsterdam, Netherland), 255–274.

  • Google Scholar

• 167

  ShaheenS. M.NiaziN. K.HassanN. E. E.BibiI.WangH.TsangD. C. W.et al (2019b). Wood-based biochar for the removal of potentially toxic elements in water and wastewater: A critical review. Int. Mater. Rev.64 (4), 216–247. 10.1080/09506608.2018.1473096

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 168

  ShenZ.HouD.JinF.ShiJ.FanX.TsangD. C. W.et al (2019). Effect of production temperature on lead removal mechanisms by rice straw biochars. Sci. Total Environ.655, 751–758. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.282

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 169

  ShiR. Y.NiN.NkohJ. N.DongN.ZhaoW. R.PanX. Y.et al (2020). Biochar retards Al toxicity to maize (Zea mays L) during soil acidification: the effects and mechanisms. Sci. Total Environ.719, 137448. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137448

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 170

  SinghJ.YadavP.PalA. K.MishraV. (2020). “Water pollutants: origin and status,” in Sensors in water pollutants monitoring: Role of material. Advanced functional materials and sensors. Editors PoojaD.KumarP.SinghP.PatilS. (Singapore: Springer), 5–20.

  • Google Scholar

• 171

  SinghT. S.PantK. K. (2005). Solidification/stabilization of arsenic containing solid wastes using Portland cement, fly ash and polymeric materials. J. Hazard Mater131 (1-3), 29–36. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2005.06.046

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 172

  SmithL. A.MeansJ. L.ChenA.AllemanB.ChapmaC. C.TixierJ. S.et al (1995). Remedial option for metals-contaminated sites. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 173

  SoltaniN.KeshavarziB.MooreF.SorooshianA.AhmadiM. R. (2017). Distribution of potentially toxic elements (PTEs) in tailings, soils, and plants around Gol-E-Gohar iron mine, a case study in Iran. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.24, 18798–18816. 10.1007/s11356-017-9342-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 174

  SongN.LeeY.LeeM. (2005). Remediation process by using lime and calcium carbonate for heavy metal contaminated groundwater originated from landfills. Econ. Environ. Geol.38, 273–284. in Korean. https://www.kseeg.org/journal/download_pdf.php?spage=273andvolume=38andnumber=3.

  • Google Scholar

• 175

  SunarsoJ.IsmadjiS. (2009). Decontamination of hazardous substances from solid matrices and liquids using supercritical fluids extraction: A review. J. Hazard Mater161 (1), 1–20. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.03.069

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 176

  SuppaditT.PhubpholA.NeumnoiP. (2012). Effect of quail litter biochar on productivity of four new physic nut varieties planted in cadmium-contaminated soil. Chil. J. Agr. Res.72 (1), 125–132. 10.4067/S0718-58392012000100020

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 177

  SytarO.KumariP.YadavS.BresticM.RastogiA. (2019). Phytohormone priming: regulator for heavy metal stress in plants. J. Plant Growth Regul.38 (2), 739–752. 10.1007/s00344-018-9886-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 178

  TauqeerM.AhmadM. S.MohammadA.BaigM. T. (2020). “Nanocomposite materials for wastewater decontamination,” in Modern age waste water problems. Editors OvesM.AnsariM.Zain KhanM.ShahadatM. (Cham: Springer), 23–46.

  • Google Scholar

• 179

  TongX.XuR. (2013). Removal of Cu(II) from acidic electroplating effluent by biochars generated from crop straws. J. Environ. Sci.25 (4), 652–658. 10.1016/S1001-0742(12)60118-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 180

  TrakalL.KomárekM.SzákováJ.ZemanováV.TlustošP. (2011). Biochar application to metal contaminated soil: evaluating of Cd, Cu, Pb and Zn sorption behavior using single- and multi-element sorption experiment. Plant Soil Environ.57 (8), 372–380. 10.17221/155/2011-PSE

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 181

  TripathiR. D.SrivastavaS.MishraS.SinghN.TuliR.GuptaD. K.et al (2007). Arsenic hazards: strategies for tolerance and remediation by plants. Trends Biotechnol.25 (4), 158–165. 10.1016/j.tibtech.2007.02.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 182

  TusherT. R.SarkerM. E.NasrinS.KormokerT.ProshadR.IslamM. S.et al (2021). Contamination of toxic metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in rooftop vegetables and human health risks in Bangladesh. Toxin Rev.40 (4), 736–751. 10.1080/15569543.2020.1767650

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 183

  USEPA (2004). Treatment technologies for site cleanup. 11th ed. United States: EPA.

  • Google Scholar

• 184

  VallsM.LorenzoV. D. (2002). Exploiting the genetic and biochemical capacities of bacteria for the remediation of heavy metal pollution. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol.26 (4), 338–327. 10.1111/j.1574-6976.2002.tb00618.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 185

  VerklejimJ. A. S. (1993). “The effects of heavy metals stress on higher plants and their use as bio monitors,” in Plant as bioindicators: Indicators of heavy metals in the terrestrial environment. Editor MarkertB. (New York: VCH), 415–424.

  • Google Scholar

• 186

  VijayaraghavanK.PalaniveluK.VelanM. (2006). Biosorption of copper(II) and cobalt(II) from aqueous solutions by crab shell particles. Bioresour. Technol.97 (12), 1411–1419. 10.1016/j.biortech.2005.07.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 187

  VilarV. J. P.BotelhoC. M. S.BoaventuraR. A. R. (2007). Chromium and zinc uptake by algae gelidium and agar extraction algal waste: kinetics and equilibrium. J. Hazard Mater149 (3), 643–649. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2007.04.023

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 188

  WangJ.FengX.AndersonC. W. N.XingY.ShangL. (2012). Remediation of mercury contaminated sites - a review. J. Hazard Mater221-222, 1–18. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2012.04.035

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 189

  WangM.RenL.WangD.CaiZ.XiaX.DingA. (2019). Assessing the capacity of biochar to stabilize copper and lead in contaminated sediments using chemical and extraction methods. J. Environ. Sci.79, 91–99. 10.1016/j.jes.2018.11.007

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 190

  WangQ.LuH.ChenJ.JiangY.WilliamsM. A.WuS.et al (2020). Interactions of soil metals with glomalin-related soil protein as soil pollution bioindicators in mangrove wetland ecosystems. Sci. Total Environ.709, 136051. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.136051

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 191

  WangY. M.ChenT. C.YehK. J.ShueM. F. (2001). Stabilization of an elevated heavy metal contaminated site. J. Hazard Mater88 (1), 63–74. 10.1016/S0304-3894(01)00289-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 192

  WaqasM.KimY. H.KhanA. L.ShahzadR.AsafS.HamayunM.et al (2017). Additive effects due to biochar and endophyte application enable soybean to enhance nutrient uptake and modulate nutritional parameters. J. Zhejiang Univ. Sci. B18 (2), 109–124. 10.1631/jzus.B1500262

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 193

  WilsonD. J.ClarkeA. N. (1993). “Soil vapor stripping,” in Hazardous waste site soil remediation: Theory and application of innovative technologies. Editors WilsonD. J.ClarkeA. N. (New York, NY: CRC Press), 171–242.

  • Google Scholar

• 194

  XiaoR.AliA.WangP.LiR.TianX.ZhangZ. (2019). Comparison of the feasibility of different washing solutions for combined soil washing and phytoremediation for the detoxification of cadmium (Cd) and zinc (Zn) in contaminated soil. Chemosphere230, 510–518. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.05.121

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 195

  XuX.CaoX.ZhaoL.WangH.YuH.GaoB. (2013). Removal of Cu, Zn, and Cd from aqueous solutions by the dairy manure-derived biochar. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int.20 (1), 358–368. 10.1007/s11356-012-0873-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 196

  XuanZ.TangY.LiX.LiuY.LuoF. (2006). Study on the equilibrium, kinetics and isotherm of biosorption of lead ions onto pretreated chemically modified orange peel. Biochem. Eng. J.31 (2), 160–164. 10.1016/j.bej.2006.07.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 197

  YadavV.JainS.MishraP.KhareP.ShuklaA. K.KarakT.et al (2019). Amelioration in nutrient mineralization and microbial activities of sandy loam soil by short term field aged biochar. Appl. Soil Ecol.138, 144–155. 10.1016/j.apsoil.2019.01.012

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 198

  YanqunZ.YuanL.JianjunC.HaiyanC.LiQ.SchratzC. (2005). Hyper accumulation of Pb, Zn and Cd in herbaceous grown on lead-zinc mining area in Yunnan, China. Environ. Int.31 (5), 755–762. 10.1016/j.envint.2005.02.004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 199

  YaronB.DrorI.BerkowitzB. (2012). “Chapter 3, properties and behavior of selected inorganic and organometallic contaminants,” in Soil-Subsurface change, Chemical pollutants impacts (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag), 39–74.

  • Google Scholar

• 200

  YinC.MahmudH. B.ShaabanM. G. (2006). Stabilization/solidification of lead-contaminated soil using cement and rice husk ash. J. Hazard Mater137 (3), 1758–1764. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2006.05.013

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 201

  YoonJ.CaoX.ZhouQ.MaL. Q. (2006). Accumulation of Pb, Cu, and Zn in native plants growing on a contaminated Florida site. Sci. Total Environ.368 (1-3), 456–464. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2006.01.016

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 202

  YuanP.WangJ.PanY.ShenB.WuC. (2019). Review of biochar for the management of contaminated soil: preparation, application and prospect. Sci. Total Environ.659, 473–490. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.400

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 203

  YuncuB.SaninF. D.YetisU. (2006). An investigation of heavy metal biosorption in relation to C/N ratio of activated sludge. J. Hazard Mater137 (2), 990–997. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2006.03.020

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 204

  ZainabN.AmnaS.KhanA. A.AzeemM. A.AliB.WangT.et al (2021). PGPR-mediated plant growth attributes and metal extraction ability of Sesbania sesban L. In industrially contaminated soils. Agronomy11 (9), 1820. 10.3390/agronomy11091820

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 205

  ZhangJ.CaoX.YaoZ.LinQ.YanB.CuiX.et al (2021). Phytoremediation of Cd-contaminated farmland soil via various sedum alfredii-oilseed rape cropping systems: efficiency comparison and cost-benefit analysis. J. Hazard. Mater.419, 126489. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.126489

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 206

  ZhangW.ZengZ.LiuZ.HuangJ.XiaoR.ShaoB.et al (2020). Effects of carbon nanotubes on biodegradation of pollutants: positive or negative?Ecotox Environ. Safe189, 109914. 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2019.109914

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 207

  ZhengH.ZhangC.LiuB.LiuG.ZhaoM.LuoX.et al (2020). “Biochar for water and soil remediation: production, characterization, and application,” in A new paradigm for environmental chemistry and toxicology. Editors JiangG.LiX. (Singapore: Springer), 163–196.

  • Google Scholar

• 208

  ZhongC.ZhaoJ.ChenW.WuD.CaoG. (2020). Biodegradation of hydrocarbons by microbial strains in the presence of Ni and Pb. 3 Biotech.10, 18. 10.1007/s13205-019-2011-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 209

  ZhouX.ZhangX.MaC.WuF.JinX.Dini-AndreoteF.et al (2022). Biochar amendment reduces cadmium uptake by stimulating cadmium-resistant PGPR in tomato rhizosphere. Chemosphere307, 136138. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.136138

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 210

  ZouboulisA. I.LoukidouM. X.MatisK. A. (2004). Biosorption of toxic metals from aqueous solutions by bacteria strains isolated from metal-polluted soils. Process Biochem.39 (8), 909–916. 10.1016/S0032-9592(03)00200-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar