Azam Noori
Hamidreza Sharifan
Andrés Rodríguez-Seijo- 1Department of Natural Sciences, Merrimack College, North Andover, MA, United States
- 2Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP), El Paso, TX, United States
- 3Environmental Science and Engineering Program, University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX, United States
- 4Sharifarm LLC, Research & Development, El Paso, TX, United States
- 5Departament of Plant Biology and Soil Science, Faculty of Sciences, Universidade de Vigo, Ourense, Spain
- 6Instituto de Agroecoloxía e Alimentación (IAA), Universidade de Vigo, Ourense, Spain
Editorial on the Research Topic
Molecular and physiological mechanisms driving phytoremediation
Phytoremediation is increasingly being repositioned from a low-input remediation option to a mechanistically informed, systems-based strategy for managing complex environmental contamination under contemporary stressors. Advances in plant molecular biology, rhizosphere ecology, and environmental chemistry have shifted the field toward a mechanistic understanding of how physiological regulation, gene networks, and plant–microbe interactions govern contaminant uptake, transformation, and stabilization across soil–water–plant continua. This renewed focus is driven by the growing prevalence of emerging pollutants, multi-contaminant mixtures, and climate-related stresses that challenge conventional remediation technologies (Kishk et al., 2025). Modern phytoremediation frameworks integrate mechanisms such as rhizodegradation, phytodegradation, phytoextraction, rhizofiltration, phytovolatilization, and rhizostabilization as interacting, mutually reinforcing functions within adaptive, nature-based remediation systems designed to deliver cost-effective and environmentally resilient outcomes (Sharma et al., 2023).
Interest in these approaches has increased in recent years because they are nature-based solutions that use plants to remediate contaminants in air, water and soils, and can be further enhanced by rhizosphere bacteria (Wang et al., 2022) or fungi (Khalid et al., 2021). Most of these species have strong potential both as biomass for energy generation and as resources for contaminant recovery through phytomining, a process increasingly highlighted in the context of a circular economy (Clemente et al., 2025; Ranđelović et al., 2025).
Despite advancements in phytotechnology, critical knowledge gaps continue to limit the predictive, scalable application of phytoremediation. Our understanding of how contaminants are transported, transformed, and sequestered at molecular, cellular, and whole-plant levels remains incomplete, particularly for emerging pollutants such as PFAS, nanomaterials, and antibiotic residues. Moreover, the interactive effects of multiple contaminants, plant genotype, and abiotic stressors, especially drought and elevated temperature, are poorly characterized, even though they fundamentally reshape contaminant bioavailability and plant physiological responses. The limited integration of omics-driven molecular insights with field-relevant physiological data also constrains our ability to design or engineer plants with enhanced remediation efficiency. Addressing these gaps is essential for moving from proof-of-concept experimentation toward reliable, climate-resilient phytoremediation strategies.
The contributions to this Research Topic address a range of technologies for reducing soil and water contamination through phytoremediation practices. Noori et al. evaluated the ability of duckweed (Lemna minor), a floating freshwater macrophyte, to remediate perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), one of the top five PFAS (Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) of concern, classified as a long-chain PFAS (C8) with an approximate half-life of 3.5 years in human blood. PFAS have gained increasing attention as emerging pollutants (Glüge et al., 2020) because of their widespread but incompletely characterized environmental distribution and their documented adverse effects on biota and humans, leading to their inclusion in multiple environmental guidelines. Noori et al. observed significant effects of PFOA exposure on duckweed, including toxicity symptoms such as reduced growth and chlorosis. Nonetheless, they also reported promising uptake of PFOA by duckweed, indicating its potential utility in aquatic phytoremediation.
Furthermore, two studies in this Research Topic examined aided metal phytoremediation using bacterial inoculants. Karna et al. assessed the role of Bacillus cereus, isolated from topsoil and rhizosphere of rabbitfoot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis), in enhancing selenium (Se) volatilization within soil-Indian mustard (Brassica juncea) systems, demonstrating the importance of plant-microbe interactions for effective Se phytoremediation. Building on similar principles, Kong et al. conducted pot experiments using soils from a copper mine to compare the effects of plant growth-promoting bacteria (PGPB) with non-PGPB inoculants on the indigenous rhizosphere and bulk-soil microbiomes of Indian mustard in heavy metal-contaminated soil. Their results showed that PGPB inoculants not only persisted in the rhizosphere but also actively integrated into microbial networks, strengthening associations with indigenous bacterial taxa.
Finally, Wang et al. investigated plant-specific B3 family genes in pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum) under drought and high-temperature stress. Because these abiotic stresses can elicit physiological responses similar to those observed in plants exposed to high contaminants level, their findings may inform future applications of P. glaucum in both inorganic (Dias et al., 2024) and organic (Silva et al., 2023) phytoremediation.
Ranđelović et al. (2025) recently highlighted several key research directions for advancing metal phytoremediation, including: i) elucidating physiological and molecular mechanisms in higher plants; ii) developing and optimizing assisted phytoremediation using diverse techniques and approaches; iii) conducting long-term studies under authentic field conditions, or iv) valorizing biomass generated from phytoremediation.
Further research is needed to address emerging contaminants, such as antibiotics, plant protection products, and PFAS, in both aquatic and terrestrial environments. Equally important is the expansion of experimental work simulated global-warming conditions including drought and elevated temperatures. Such stressors can markedly influence contaminant adsorption-desorption dynamics, alter key soil processes, and modify plant performance, ultimately reshaping the effectiveness of phytoremediation strategies.
Collectively, the contributions to this Research Topic highlight the expanding toolbox of molecular, physiological, and biotechnological approaches available to advance phytoremediation. By integrating mechanistic studies, plant–microbe interactions, genetic engineering, and field-oriented investigations, this Research Topic underscores the transformative potential of modern plant science to address global contamination challenges. We hope this Research Topic will catalyze new collaborations, inspire innovative methodologies, and provide a foundation for developing resilient, nature-based solutions capable of meeting the demands of an increasingly complex environmental landscape.
Author contributions
AN: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. HS: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AR-S: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. A.N. was supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF; award No: 2231905). H.S. was supported by the USDA-NIFA Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) Competitive Grant (Award No. 2024-67022-42827, Program Code A1511: Nanotechnology for Agricultural and Food Systems). Additional support was provided by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science and Technology (S&T) Directorate, Office of University Programs, through the Summer Research Team Program for Minority Serving Institutions, administered by ORISE under a DOE-DHS interagency agreement (Grant No. DE-SC0014664). A.R.S. was supported by a JdCi research contract (IJC2020-044197-I/MICIU/AEI/10.13039/501100011033) funded by Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación of Spain, the European Union Next-Generation EU/PRTR and the University of Vigo.
Acknowledgments
A.N. gratefully acknowledges support from the Demers Professorship Fund, which enabled her to serve as an editor for this Research Topic and to write this editorial letter.
Conflict of interest
Author HS was employed by the company Sharifarm LLC.
The remaining author(s) declared that this work was conductedin the absence of any commercial or financial relationships thatcould be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. Author AN declared they were a Review editor and a Guest Associate Editor for Frontiers in Plant Science. Author HS declared they were a Guest Associate Editor for Frontiers in Plant Science and an Associate editor for Frontiers in Environmental Science. Author AR-S declared they were an Associate editor and Review editor for Frontiers in Soil Science and a Guest Associate editor for Frontiers in Soil Science.This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Clemente, R., Álvarez-Robles, M. J., Lacalle, R. G., Fernández-Guerrero, A., and Bernal, M. P. (2025). A circular approach for the phytostabilization of soils containing potentially toxic elements at different levels of contamination. J. Hazard. Mater. 496, 139276. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2025.139276
Dias, O. B. S., Borgo, L., Silva, D., Souza, A., Tezotto, T., Vangronsveld, J., et al. (2024). Screening high-biomass grasses for cadmium phytoremediation. Plants 13, 3450. doi: 10.3390/plants13233450
Glüge, J., Scheringer, M., Cousins, I. T., DeWitt, J. C., Goldenman, G., Herzke, D., et al. (2020). An overview of the uses of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Environ. Sci. Process Impacts. 22, 2345–2373. doi: 10.1039/d0em00291g
Khalid, M., Ur-Rahman, S., Hassani, D., Hayat, K., Zhou, P., and Hui, N. (2021). Advances in fungal-assisted phytoremediation of heavy metals: A review. Pedosphere 31, 475–495. doi: 10.1016/S1002-0160(20)60091-1
Kishk, M., Rahmeh, R., Asiri, F., Karam, H., Al-Muhanna, K., Hejji, A. B., et al. (2025). Substrate-specific microbial community shifts during mesophilic biodegradation of polymers in compost amended soil. Biodegradation 36, 93. doi: 10.1007/s10532-025-10190-w
Ranđelović, D., Jakovljević, K., Zeremski, T., Pošćić, F., Baltrėnaitė-Gedienė, E., Noulas, C., et al. (2025). Phytoremediation potential of metallophytes in Europe: Progress, enhancement strategies, and biomass utilisation. J. Environ. Manage. 391, 126516. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.126516
Sharma, J. K., Kumar, N., Singh, N. P., and Santal, A. R. (2023). Phytoremediation technologies and their mechanism for removal of heavy metal from contaminated soil: An approach for a sustainable environment. Front. Plant Sci. 14. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2023.1076876
Silva, C. T., Rojas-Chamorro, J. A., Barroso, G. M., Santos, M. V., Evaristo, A. B., da Silva, L. D., et al. (2023). Crops with potential for diclosulam remediation and concomitant bioenergy production. Int. J. Phytoremediation. 25, 275–282. doi: 10.1080/15226514.2022.2074363
Keywords: emerging contaminant, heavy metal, PFAS, remediation, sustainable remediation
Citation: Noori A, Sharifan H and Rodríguez-Seijo A (2026) Editorial: Molecular and physiological mechanisms driving phytoremediation. Front. Plant Sci. 16:1770267. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2025.1770267
Received: 17 December 2025; Accepted: 26 December 2025; Revised: 26 December 2025;
Published: 20 January 2026.
Edited and reviewed by:
Maurizio Ruzzi, University of Tuscia, ItalyCopyright © 2026 Noori, Sharifan and Rodríguez-Seijo. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Andrés Rodríguez-Seijo, YW5kcmVzcm9kcmlndWV6c2Vpam9AdXZpZ28uZ2Fs