Using Trees to Clean Up Pollution Cristina Negri

Eye Opening Discussion on Phytoremediation- the stuff that was most appealing to me started at 31:00 and talks about phytoremediation of Heavy Metals and Nuclides: like the ones that are causing the cancer, respiratory issues, extra rare forms of cancer, lymphoma, etc for the Residents of St Louis Region.

DuckDuckGo Web Search

Cancer Cluster in North St Louis, MO

#ColdwaterCreek and #WestlakeLandfill

1. Presenter Instructs for Safety Keep It Out of the Food Chain [which is exactly the opposite that was done when Republic Services grew Soybeans on the landfill a few years ago and then took the soybeans to the local grain elevator]
2. At 31:00 part of discussion about Phytoremediation and Radionuclides.
1. 31:10 Radionuclides Stay where they are at, they don't degrade, you have to move them from one place to another.
2. 31:30 yes it will get into the food chain, uses Chernobyl for an example.
3. [talking about phytotechnologies and cleanup] She says: can’t get enough of it in one area to justify the expense. Bioaccumulation. Granted this is an older video from 2012 and many cleanup scenarios hopefully have changed and have acknowledged a few ways that Scientist have discovered to get the toxic radiation to bioaccumulate such as #Electrokinetics as used in the ElectroHemp BioRad Hazardous Waste Disposal Environmental Startup
4. She talks about Grass will phytoremediate the radionuclides because it was in the Milk from the grass the cows ate [Chernobyl] [Many plant species have the ability to phytoremediate the heavy metals and toxins- Industrial Hemp is a favorite and mentioned frequently at the Hemp Environmental Forum as well as the Kyoto Hemp Forum].
3. 32:15 Condensing Rads to one area is preferred [chalk one up for Electro Hemp who accomplish this by Electrokinetics]
4. 36:36 Q: What was working at Chernobyl? Listen to what she says about the people and the desperation “ No hope- because they were not in control of their lives” “Unsettling feeling”.
5. 38:33 Q: Future of phytoremediation.
6. 39:00 "Invest money" "Keep Working" "No Recovery Is Made Without Funding"
7. 39:36 Ground Source Pollution removal works for plants
8. 39:54 Q: is it too much for large scale Fukushima radiation poisoning?
9. 40:12 A: All Depends...may well be the only choice for certain areas- phytoremediation once again solution for widespread cleanup...work with the [eco] system, you can't be digging everything up...
10. 40:54 Audience Questions start
11. 41:36 Wolves, Birds supposedly healthy? 1, 2, 3: I have read counter to that. The healthy animals that are seen in the Inclusion Zone are new animals that migrated in. Existing Animals have genetic defects per videos I've seen that didn't come from government sources, like the one with the Moose's neck growing out sideways of its body as well as the mutilated birds. [Radiation causes mutations and alters genes in plants and animals]
12. 42:39 Q: what to do with trees once they are cut down after phytoremediation? "Hyperaccumulation of toxins in the plants varies by the growing season. They don't expect the radiation to be in the tree and will mulch it onsite. With Heavy Metals contamination has to be measured before figuring out what to do with it. KEY: when utilizing plants there is less volume at the end. vs scoop, haul, and store. Its preferred that if storage is needed the smaller the mess the better.
13. 44:10 Q: Rapid Reuse of Sites with Heavy Metal Contamination- some sites cleaned up by various techniques: water, vapor...get the easy stuff. A: Metals tuff issue they need a solution for metals ...discussion just to leave them alone but need to measure the risk: leave alone or remove...discussion then goes on and states minimization of the toxins (depending on end use of land). With lead keep it away from kids... double stated Heavy Metals are very hard to remove... [ the guy who questioned her said someone then built a children's playground next to the site. Isn't that the airport site in #StLouis... the lady just shrugs? image map]
14. 45:59 Presentation Leader adds stuff on the first question: What are end goals in re to Mountain. Q: Primary objective- clean land, Secondary objective- beautification or Reuse. A: Eventual Reuse of land, with main objective to reduce Health Hazard to the people who might be exposed nearby- is the number 1 issue- Mentions: numerous studies to determine what is acceptable dose.
15. Phytoremediation for Fracking- been studied and discussed
16. Goes on to discuss removing coal ash by phytoremediation, hydrocarbons definately, problem with ash is the ph combinations that might not be compatible with plants.
17. In re to chicago river phytoremediation: how to use the specific plants in combination and how to design the system- have to get others involved...Wastewater Treatment uses a natural process using microbes.
18. 49:24 Q: Who are the teams/groups of people working on land remediation at Chernobyl. A: She then goes on to mention the needed team members for a multidisciplinary group: Agronomist, Environmentalist, Hydrogeologist- all work together to determine where to plant the trees. Risk Assessment Personal (Safety for personal), Air Modelers to determine what goes into the air and if it is an issue, and Money Managers.
19. 52:17 Mentions work done by a Naval person who developed plants that act as a canary in the coal mine. These plants turn white when exposed to nasty compound (type unknown). When planted around a site they would potentially warn everyone that the toxins are present.
20. 53:03 Q: where to get educated. Google Phytoremediation and go to EPA "Citizen's Guide to Phytoremediation" EPA is a strong proponent of this technique
21. 54:48 Q: Contaminants when translocated into the plant what happens? A: Some gets released, some is broken down in the plant-degraded, some, when transpired, is killed by UV light. Q2: Are some contaminants released into the atmosphere and we do not want that? A: majority of chemicals that make it to the air get broken down by sunlight...when it is exposed to air is very minute concentrations in parts per billion if not parts per trillion range- very very tiny amounts that will get destroyed, they don't accumulate up,
22. 56:24 Q1: Of the phytoremediation techniques that work has there be done a survey where it can be used at? A1: look at EPA gis data on brownfields, tools like decision trees will help figure out what is the best remedy for the land, Q2: Roundup because it kills weeds...A2: using roundup for no till farming has drawbacks and advantages

Update Sep 2, 2017 

Is this what happened to all the Milk they didn't use at Chernobyl? 

Diabetes & African-Americans https://t.co/imx6gVhA6s Update Sep 2, 2017
Is this what happened to all the Milk they didn't use at Chernobyl?

— Scotty (@StLHandyMan) September 3, 2017

MOhemp Energy Kyoto Hemp Forum Presentation Notes

MOhemp Energy Kyoto Hemp Forum Presentation Notes

MOhemp Energy Kyoto Presentation Notes

Hats off to the everyone who has been working behind the scenes at the 1st Annual Hemp Environmental Forum as well as the Sponsors and Presenters who have been sharing the groundbreaking discoveries, inventions, news, and advancements that the Hemp Industry is experiencing.

Many thanks Nayer and Takashi and the other great minds of the Kyoto Hemp Forum for welcoming and including the discoveries and inventions the MOhemp Energy Team has made.

• Yes its faster and better than phytoremediation alone 
• While working on a Startup Business http:electrohemp.org that will save lives in the St Louis Region. I approached a Startup Group who works in a well known St Louis College. They are interested in the ‪#‎biotech‬, ‪#‎cleantech‬, and ‪#‎Agriculture‬ inventions the Team has developed and developing.

The "ElectroHemp's" Teams goals: are to save lives and help our immediate community by improving 

the quality of life for those affected by the Nuclear Waste that is illegally buried at ‪#‎WestlakeLandfill‬  

and the ‪#‎ColdwaterCreek‬ areas of the Region.

 The team has figured out how to cycle the toxins from the 
ground faster than has been previously done with a 
Natural System. And then dispose of these toxins which are 
made inert ie: "non hazardous". This process is accomplished 
by using natural and organic resources.

 It’s truly an Honor and personally humbling to be given an opportunity to share and add our teams voice to the 1st Annual International Hemp Forum and how

Hemp is The Lifeline to the Future.

In these troubling times mankind is facing from the effects of Climate Change.  Believe it or not, there are many ways that the cannabis plant will be instrumental in negating the environmental destruction that is wreaking havoc on our Planet.  Hemp is one of the few plants that can be grown all around the world that addresses and nullifies so many problems that threaten mankind's continued existence on this planet.

Because of Hemp’s ability to

• absorb the toxins in the soil and water by phytoremediation or
• Hemp’s ability to cycle the CO2 emissions from the air we breathe or
• all the sustainable products made from Hemp.  

Hemp will be a energy efficient income driver for local communities by

• creating energy efficient building products
• such as Hempcrete and
• Hemp Fiber Insulation as well as a
• sustainable Biomass Energy Provider champion.  

There is no better time than the present for the World to recognize that Hemp is the Lifeline to the Future.

However you are viewing the First Annual Hemp International Forum rest assured that all of the

"Hemp Industry Pros really do have solutions to correct the wrongs that mankind has brought on this world we live in.  

You have been given a front row seat and are witnessing the early stages of reviving an age old industry that will bring many future advancements to our World, I’m sure you too will realize it’s a no brainer that the great Cannabis plant should be grown and utilized everywhere.

Hemp is the Lifeline to the Future.  If you don’t believe me just keep watching and taking notes and you too will have the ah-hah moment.

ElectroHemp Cost Comparison Table

Financial Cost Comparisons

Table 2 demonstrates how ElectroHemp compares in financial costs with existing technologies.  ElectroHemp is a cheaper option than existing capping technologies or scoop and haul.

ElectroHemp Cost Comparison Table 2 Table 2 demonstrates how ElectroHemp is a cheaper option than existing capping technologies, scoop and haul, does not factor in Hazmat Soil Expenses for ease of comparison Description Cost / Sq Ft 4,800 sqft $ Costs ElectroHemp $4.17 / Sq Ft $20,000 Scoop Haul Only (SH) $125.67- $156.27 $24,952 (177 cu yd) Cap with Concrete 4 in $5.87 $28,176 Cap with concrete 6 in $6.99 $33,552 Notes: $5.87 per square foot (4 inch reinforced slab)(Range: $4.69 - $7.04) $6.99 per square foot (6 inch reinforced slab)(Range: $5.63 - $8.34) Dirt Removal Cost Calculator (Non Toxic Normal Dirt) 4,800sq ft x 12 in deep = 177.77 cu yards of dirt ElectroHemp offers the Cheapest $$ Solution to eliminate the toxic waste- not just digging it up for relocation to another area.

Contain and Control BioRad 5 Stage Treatment Train

Contain and Control

Are major concerns when dealing with Nuclear Radiation.  

The following table demonstrates the safety avenues used in the BioRad 5 stage treatment train.

ElectroHemp Pilot Study Safety Solutions Table 1 The ElectroHemp Table 1 below demonstrates how ElectroHemp BioRad  5 Stage Treatment Train works as a system and process while addressing the safety and concerns. Concerns Solutions Plant-based biological limitation ElectroHemp System addresses these concerns Low plant tolerance Lack of contaminant translocation from root to Shoot Small size of remediating plants Use plants that tolerate toxins Containment central location is housed in greenhouse or hoophouse, Proper plant species selection and increased soil vitality increases translocation into the plant. If containment was concentrated in the root zone of the plant.  Removing the root systems in a field would require a “potato” type harvesting machine.  In a Greenhouse because of scale Elbow Grease and a Shovel will suffice. Disposal is same as fiber Many plant species are proven Regulatory limitations Phytoremediation & Electro-Horticulture is recognized solution by: EPA, FUSRAP, Governing Bodies, etc Lack of cost and performance data Regulators unfamiliarity with the technology Disposal of contaminated plant waste Risk of food chain contamination Agree Performance Data is lacking.  Disagree Cost has been determined $20,000.  Compared to other treatment systems.  Phytoremediation is the least expensive option. Agree as well as a great percentage of the Public Disposal of Contaminated waste is handled in-situ (on site) in sealed containers. Food chain contamination eliminated with project housed inside hoophouse or greenhouses Other Limitations Limitation Addressed Contaminant beneath root zone Lengthy process Contaminant in biologically unavailable form Lack of remediating plant species ElectroHemp directs the heavy metal toxins to a central point located in a Greenhouse, Hoophouse, Fenced in or protected area- where plants phyto-extract the toxins. Electro-Horticulture increases soil vitality and heavy metal movement- which allows plants to grow bigger, healthier, and cycle more toxins from the soil. By utilizing Indoor Grow operations increases growing opportunities: length of growing seasons and increases the use of plant species not suited to existing climates.   3 plant cycle rotations per year minimum, with the possibilities of 3-6 forage harvest opportunities (dual cutting) bioavailability of heavy metals in soil can also be increased by adding chelating agents such as EDTA, ammonium sulfate, critic acid and elemental sulfur, mulch, and erosion control in addition to Electrokinetics. Hemp, Kenaf, Rape, Sunflowers, and  many other species and strains of plants will perform the needed phytoremediation techniques desired.  Note: Greenhouse/Hoophouse give additional options for greater adoption of plant species. Ref: The Use of Plants for the Removal of Toxic Metals from Contaminated Soil

ElectroHemp BioRad Disposal will work for Lead too!

In this science paper shares information about Water Lettuce grown in contaminated water in Labratory Conditions in which the Scientist determined:

The overall metal uptake in plant system was higher under EAPR system than one compared with phytoremediation process.

Electrokinetics water lettuce phytoremediation science lab project.

Abstract: The combination used electro-assisted system and hydroponic phytoremediation which is hereinafter referred as hydroponic EAPR system for rapid removal of Pb2+ and Cu2+ from contaminated water which has been demonstrated in a laboratory-scale experiment. A hydroponic setting was used to evaluate the potential rapid removal and uptake of lead and copper concentration by water lettuce (Pistia stratiotes Linn.). The effectiveness of two-dimensional (2D) of cathode-pot electrode was introduced in this study. The results obtained from hydroponic EAPR system were compared with the plants exposed in the contaminated lead and copper water by using phytoremediation for 7 d process. The results showed that the accumulation of lead and copper were high in the plant roots. Analysis of chlorophyll content in treated plant with high lead concentration for EAPR system has showed that water lettuce could cope with lead and copper stress. The overall metal uptake in plant system was higher under EAPR system than one compared with phytoremediation process.

Removal of Lead and Copper from Contaminated Water Using EAPR System and Uptake by Water Lettuce (Pistia Stratiotes L.)

Electrokinetic Remediation and Phytoremediation of Metal Contaminated Soils

Coupled Electro-kinetic Remediation and Phytoremediation of Metal(loid)Contaminated Soils 

Xinyu Mao 1,2,
Fengxiang X. Han 2 *,
Xiaohou Shao 1 and
Yi Su 3
1-College of Water Conservancy and Hydropower Engineering, Hohai University, China
2-Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Jackson State University, USA
3-Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Texas A&M University-Texarkana, USA

 Coupled Electro-kinetic Remediation and Phytoremediation of Metal(loid) Contaminated Soils. J Bioremed Biodeg 6: e163. doi:10.4172/2155-6199.1000e163 Volume 6 • Issue 2 • 1000e163 J Bioremed Biodeg ISSN: 2155-6199 JBRBD, an open access journal

Soil contamination with heavy metals and metalloids has become a serious environmental problem with rapid industrialization and urbanization [1-3]. Generally, the contamination is resulted from anthropogenic activities such as mining, domestic waste discharge, agricultural production and industrial activities. Heavy metals and metalloids such as Cd, Pb, Cr, Cu, Hg, Cs, Se, Zn and As enter the food chain and have adverse effects on human health [1-3]. As the increasing concern on the environmental risk, numerous remediation technologies have been developed while very few methods had been proved to be efficient for cleaning up of heavy metal(loid)s due to their characteristics of persistence and non-degradation in contaminated sites [1,4-10].

Phytoremediation is a cost-effective and environmental-friendly remediation technology for the remediation of heavy metal(loid)d in soils [4-6]. It promotes water and soil conservation as well as microbial activity improvement. Thus it has proved to be efficient for large area treatment with low pollutant concentration. However, several limitations such as the remediation period, the climatic condition, the root depth, the biomass production and the variety of the contaminants are existed in actual applications [11]. Therefore, selection of plants with high accumulation capacity of contaminants and new technologies for increasing soil heavy metal(loid) bioavailability should be developed.

Electro-kinetic remediation (EKR) which involves a low intensity electric field has been proposed to enhance phytoremediation. It produces conditions to solubilize metal(loid)s in soils based on the combined mechanisms of electro-osmosis, electromigration and electrophoresis [12]. As a consequence of driving force generated by the passage of current, metal(loid) ions and metal complex migrated from anodes to cathodes could be easily absorbed by plants. Since soil pH polarizations caused by electrolytic decomposition at electrodes, control of soil pH and some key electronic parameters are important for the remediation efficiency [13].

This paper reviews the current development on coupled electrokinetic phytoremediation (EK-phytoremediation) technology, including the selection principles of plants for the technology and interactions between heavy metal(loid) input and their bioavailability in soils. Furthermore, assisted amendments and key electronic parameters for the improvement of soil physical-chemical properties and plants remediation effects are also discussed in the paper.

Coupled EK-phytoremediation Technology 

Generally, coupled EK-phytoremediation techniques contain the application of a low intensity electric field adjoined to growing plants in contaminated soil. Significant variables which can affect the technology include the electric field intensity, use of AC or DC current, mode of voltage application, electrodes configurations and facilitating amendments. Lemstrom first applied electric fields on growing plants and found treated plants were greener and experienced an increase in yield [14] The removal of contaminants by plants in coupled EK-phytoremediation technology are enhanced by increasing the bioavailability of the contaminants through the effect of electric field. Increased soluble heavy metals are drive to the plant roots which might bring stress condition for the plants. Therefore, hyperaccumulators are the best choice for the coupled remediation [15]. It has been proposed sequential use of phytoremediation after EKR is beneficial for the cleanup of residue contaminants and recovery of soil properties damage caused by EKR [16]. However, coupled EK-phytoremediation technology has been proved to be more efficient and effective than the sequential use of these technologies.

Plant Selection

Phytostabilization and phytoextraction are often used for the cleaning up of contaminants. Compared to phytoextraction, phytostablization is not a permanent strategy since the contaminants remain in environment. Therefore, phytoextraction becomes the most promising and commercial application for heavy metal(loid) cleaning up in soils. Plants that suitable for phytoextraction possibly should have the features with high growth rate, high resistance to pathogens and pests, highly developed root system, large biomass production of aerial parts, high tolerance to trace metal(loid), great accumulation and translocation ability and good environment adaptability [17].

Metals accumulation and biomass are two critical factors for determination of plant species for phytoextraction purpose. Hyperaccumulators often with comparatively low over-ground biomass, accumulate greater amount of target metals. Other plants such as Indian mustard accumulates less metal but produces more over-ground biomass so that the overall accumulation is comparable to that of hyperaccumulators. Hyperaccumulation and hypertolerance are more important than high biomass in phytoremediation. In addition, compared with nonaccumulators, hyperaccumulators with high accumulation of metals in small volume of biomass are easier and more economic to operate for either metals recovery or safe disposal [18]. Plants with multiple harvests in a single growth period have great potentials for phytoextraction. In addition, due to the high growth rate, great adaptability and high biomass, grasses are more favorable than shrubs and trees in phytoremediation [19].

Bioavailability of Heavy Metals in Soils

Bioavailability of trace metal(loid)s in soil is a determining factor which influencing the efficiency of phytoextraction. Only a part of metal in soil is bioavailable for plants uptake. Processes like precipitation or strong binding to soil particles make a large part of soil metals insoluble and unavailable for plants extraction. Metal(loid)s in soil are divided into three categories according to their bioavailability: readily bioavailable (Cd, Ni, Zn, As, Se, Cu); moderately bioavailable (Co, Mn, Fe) and least bioavailable (Pb, Cr, U) [20] Low bioavailability constrains the phytoextraction effects of heavy metals while the changes of soil physical-chemical properties may enhance the bioavailability and mobility of metals. Secretion of H+ ions by roots will be able to demobilize more metals around rhizosphere. Moreover, activities of rhizospheric microbes significantly increase labile metals in soil. Except enhanced in natural phytoextraction, bioavailability of heavy metals in soil can also be increased by adding chelating agents such as EDTA, ammonium sulfate, critic acid and elemental sulfur et al. in induced phytoextraction [9].

Key Electronic Parameters for EK-phytoremediation Technology 

Significant electronic parameters are electric field intensity, use of AC/DC current, mode of voltage application and electrodes configurations. Electric field intensity has a determining influence on the effectiveness of EK-phytoremediation. Low voltage was beneficial for Indian mustard growth while the biomass production was decreased as the increase of voltage [21]. However, the increasing bioavailability of heavy metals at elevated voltage and the negative effects of the voltage on the plant development were comprised at an intermediate voltage of 2V with the best metal removal and accumulation on plant tissues [21].

Soil pH was reported to decrease from initial pH 6.5 to 3 near the anode and increased to 8 near the cathode with application of DC electric field with potato [22]. Heavy metals had a migration from anode to cathode and an accumulation in the middle of the pot where the pH was 5. On the contrary, no transportation and soil pH change was observed with application of AC electric current. Moreover, potato had 72% increase whereas 27% decline in biomass production under AC and DC electric field, respectively. Overall, test using AC electric field showed higher metals accumulation in both plant roots and shoots than the control test and the DC test [22]. Soil pH changes which resulted from the electrolysis of water were induced by the use of continuous DC electric field. In order to avoid the negative effects, switching the polarity of the DC electric field every 3 h eliminated pH changes and comparable phytoremediation efficiency between the DC and AC tests were achieved [23].

 The effectiveness of coupled EK-phytoremediation was influenced by electrode configurations. An vertical DC electric field or several electrode arrangements were extended with phytoremediation depth, preventing leaching of Pb [24,25]. The configuration with the cathode in the center surrounded with anodes showed greater potential to metals accumulation [25] Recently a 2D electrode configuration with cathode were placed on the surface of the soil and anodes was vertically installed in four corners of a rectangular chamber. The results showed enhancement in both metal accumulation in roots and shoots and metal translocation towards the shoots [26].

Amendments for EK-phytoremediation 

In order to improve metals bioavailability, control soil pH with the favorable range and facilitate plants growth, amendments are added, including chelating or complexing agents, organic amendments and fertilizers etc. Chelants enhance EK-phytoremediation by forming strong water-soluble complex which desorbs metal(loid)s from soil particle surface. EDTA is most frequently used chelant and has been proved to be effective on mobilization of metals like Cr, Fe, Cu, Pb and Zn [9]. The factors included metals species, metal/chelate ratio, presence of competing cations and soil pH et al. In addition, EDTA showed some phytotoxicicty to plants [9]. Complexing agents such as I−, Cl−, NH4 + may form soluble complexes with metal ions. Ammonium thiosulphate could result in the solubilization of Hg enhancing accumulation in plant roots and shoots [27]. Furthermore, acetic acid and lactic acid is used to neutralize the electrolysis product at the cathode and keep the electrolyte pH within a certain range. Ammonium acetate was beneficial for increasing Cu solubility and removal rate [28] Organic amendments such as sewage sludge and green waste composts improve plant growth by enhancing the physicochemical and biological conditions of soils. They also directly or indirectly alter the distribution and availability of soil metals. Several reports revealed that amended compost increased As mobility due to the competing effect of DOC and soluble P component with As for sorption sites. Moreno-Jimenez et al. discovered the mobilization of As, Cu and Se in flooded soils after the application of olive mill waste compost. In contrast, reports also indicated that the bioavailability of Pb was decreased when added compost [27]. Clemente et al. [29] found an increase in mobility of As and Sb after the two years application of compost mulch in soil which enhanced the uptake by lettuce and sunflower [29].

 Conclusion 

The coupled EK-phytoremediation technology is promising for the clean-up of heavy metal(loid)s in contaminated soils. More research is necessary for its practical design and application before applying at field scale. The research directions are suggested in following aspects such as: determine the distribution, translocation and environmental risks of heavy metal(loid)s and their influence on plants metal(loid) s accumulation; test and select the hyper accumulators which possess remarkable metal(loid)s accumulation ability for this coupled technology; test the remediation efficiency of the coupled technology in sites with both organic and inorganic contaminants; try to apply assisted amendments of natural or biodegradable products; elucidate the mechanisms and influence of electronic parameters on metabolism and growth of plant as well as uptake and translocation of metal(loid)s.

Acknowledgement

This research was supported by U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC– HQ-12-G-38-0038), NOAA-ECSC grant (NA11SEC4810001), NIH-RCMI grant (G12MD007581), the Jiangsu Scientific Research Innovation Program of Ordinary Higher Education Graduate (China) (KYZZ0156), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (China) (2014B00114).

References 1. Han FX, Arieh Singer (2007) Biogeochemistry of Trace Elements in Arid Environments. Springer.
 2. Han FX, Banin A, Su Y, Monts DL, Plodinec MJ, et al. (2002) Industrial age anthropogenic inputs of heavy metals into the pedosphere. Naturwissenschaften 89: 497-504.
3. Han FX, Su Y, Monts DL, Plodinec MJ, Banin A, et al. (2003) Assessment of global industrial-age anthropogenic arsenic contamination. Naturwissenschaften 90: 395-401.
4. Shiyab S, Chen J, Han FX, Monts DL, Matta FB, et al. (2009) Phytotoxicity of mercury in Indian mustard (Brassica juncea L.). Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 72: 619-625.
5. Chen J, Shiyab S, Han FX, Monts DL, Waggoner CA, et al. (2009) Bioaccumulation and physiological effects of mercury in Pteris vittata and Nephrolepis exaltata. Ecotoxicol 18 (1): 110-121.
6. Su Y, Han FX, Chen J, Sridhar BBM, Monts DL (2008) Phytoextraction and accumulation of mercury in three plant species: Indian mustard (Brassica juncea), Beard grass (Polypogon monospeliensis), and Chinese brake fern (Pteris vittata). Int J Phytorem 10: 547-560.
 7. Su Y, Sridhar BB, Han FX, Diehl SV, Monts DL (2007) Effects of bioaccumulation of Cs and Sr natural isotopes on foliar structure and plant spectral reflectance of Indian mustard (Brassica Juncea). Water Air Soil Pollut 180: 65-74.
8. Su Y, Han FX, Sridhar BBM, Monts DL (2005) Phytotoxicity and phytoaccumulation of trivalent and hexavalent chromium in brake fern. Environ Toxicol Chem 24: 2019-2026.
9. Han FX, Su Y, Monts DL, Sridhar BBM (2004) Distribution, transformation and bioavailability of trivalent and hexavalent chromium in contaminated soil. Plant Soil 265: 243-252.
10. Han FX, Sridhar BBM, Monts DL, Su Y (2004) Phytoavailability and toxicity of trivalent and hexavalent chromium to Brassica juncea L. Czern. New Phytol 162: 489-499.
11. Rungwa S, Arpa G, Sakulas H, Harakuwe A, Timie D (2013) Phytoremediationan eco-friendly and sustainable method of heavy metal removal from closed mine environments in Papua New Guinea. Procedia Earth Planet Sci 6: 269- 277.
12. Cameselle C, Reddy KR (2012) Development and enhancement of electroosmotic flow for the removal of contaminants from soils. Electrochim Acta 86: 10-22.
13. Reddy KR, Cameselle C (2009) Electrochemical remediation technologies for polluted soils, sediments and groundwater, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, USA.
14. Lemstrom S (1904) Electricity in agriculture and horticulture. The Electrician Printing & Publishing, London, UK.
15. Vamerali T, Bandiera M, Mosca G (2010) Field crops for phytoremediation of metal-contaminated land. A review. Environ Chem Lett 8: 1-17.
16. Wan QF, Deng DC, Bai Y, Xia CQ (2012) Phytoremediation and electrokinetic remediation of uranium contaminated soils: a review. He-Huaxue yu Fangshe Huaxue/ J Nucl Radiochem 34: 148-156.
17. Pulford ID, Watson C (2003) Phytoremediation of heavy metal-contaminated land by trees-a review. Environ Int 29: 529-540.
18. Chaney RL, Malik KM, Li YM, Brown SL, Brewer EP, et al. (1997) Phytoremediation of soil metals. Curr Opin Biotechnol 8: 279-284.
19. Ebbs SD, Kochian LV (1997) Toxicity of zinc and copper to Brassica species: implications for phytoremediation. J Environ Qual 26: 776-781.
20. Zhang C, Yu ZG, Zeng GM, Jiang M, Yang ZZ, et al. (2014) Effects of sediment geochemical properties on heavy metal bioavailability. Environ Int 73: 270-281.
21. Cang L, Wang QY, Zhou DM, Xu H (2011) Effects of electrokinetic-assisted phytoremediation of a multiple-metal contaminated soil on soil metal bioavailability and uptake by Indian mustard. Sep Purif Technol. 79: 246-253.
22. Aboughalma H, Bi R, Schlaak M (2008) Electrokinetic enhancement on phytoremediation in Zn, Pb, Cu and Cd contaminated soil using potato plants. J Environ Sci Health Part A 43: 926-933.
23. Bi R, Schlaak M, Siefert E, Lord R, Connolly H (2011) Influence of electrical fields (AC and DC) on phytoremediation of metal polluted soils with rapeseed (Brassica napus) and tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum). Chemosphere 83: 318- 326.
24. Zhou DM, Chen HF, Cang L, Wang YJ (2007) Ryegrass uptake of soil Cu/Zn induced by EDTA/EDDS together with a vertical direct-current electrical field. Chemosphere 67: 1671-1676.
 25. Hodko D, Hyfte JV, Denvir A, Magnuson JW (2000) Methods for enhancing phytoextraction of contaminants from porous media using electrokinetic phenomena.
26. Putra RS, Ohkawa Y, Tanaka S (2013) Application of EAPR system on the removal of lead from sandy soil and uptake by Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis L.). Sep Purif Technol. 102: 34-42.
27. Moreno FN, Anderson CWN, Stewart RB, Robinson BH, Ghomshei M, et al. (2005) Induced plant uptake and transport of mercury in the presence of sulphur-containing ligands and humic acids. New Phytol 166: 445-454.
28. Chen JL, Yang SF, Wu CC, Ton S (2011) Effect of ammonia as a complexing agent on electrokinetic remediation of copper-contaminated soil, Sep Purif Technol 79: 157-163.
29. Clemente R, Hartley W, Riby P, Dickinson NM, Lepp NW (2010) Trace element mobility in a contaminated soil two years after field-amendment with a green waste compost mulch. Environ Pollut. 158: 1644-1651.