8.8 Conclusion
Several mechanisms and biochemical interactions, and their role in bioremediation
have been detailed, with an attempt to expose the practicality of chemical- and
bio-remediation strategies and their effect on the scaled-up remediation processes.
As it is time consuming, generates harmful byproducts, and a costly proposition,
chemical approach has slowly taken a backseat in the recent technological advancements. In that place, biological strategies for arsenic removal are slowly gaining
popularity as they are eco-friendly. Plants and microbes have their own adaptive
mechanisms to survive and sustain in contaminated soils and waters. Microbes
bioremediate by oxidation, reduction, biosorption, and degradation of metals with
the help of extracellular transformation and phytoremediation is based on
phytoextraction and phytovolatilisation which have been very useful. Nevertheless,
a bioremediation to be better accomplished would require friendly environmental
conditions. Phytoremediation depends on the concentration of the contaminant, and
the physical and chemical properties of soil.
Acknowledgements The technical, logistics and administrative support received by the authors
from their respective affiliated organisations are duly acknowledged.
Declaration Authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
Adeniji A (2004) Bioremediation of arsenic, chromium, lead, and mercury. National network of
environmental management studies fellow for US Environmental Protection Agency Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response Technology Innovation Office, Washington, DC, pp
14–19
Ahmed I, Hayat S, Pichtel J (2005) Heavy metal contamination of soil: problems and remedies.
Science Publishers Inc, Enfield
Akhtar MS, Chali B, Azam T (2013) Bioremediation of arsenic and lead by plants and microbes
from contaminated soil. Res Plant Sci 1(3):68–73
Aksornchu P, Prasertsan P, Sobhon V (2008) Isolation of arsenic-tolerant bacteria from arseniccontaminated soil. Sonklanakarin J Sci Technol 30(1):95–102
Angelova VR, Perifanova-Nemska M, Uzunova G, Ivanov K, Lee H (2016) Potential of sunflower
(Helianthus annuus L.) for phytoremediation of soils contaminated with heavy metals. World. J
Sci Eng Technol 10:1–11. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1126371
Anyanwu CU, Ugwu CE (2010) Incidence of arsenic resistant bacteria isolated from a sewage
treatment plant. Int J Basic Appl Sci 10:64–78
Atteia O, Estrada EDC, Bertin H (2013) Soil flushing: a review of the origin of efficiency
variability. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol 12:379–389. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-0139316-0
Ayangbenro AS, Babalola OO (2017) A new strategy for heavy metal polluted environments: a
review of microbial biosorbents. Int J Environ Res Public Health 14:94. https://doi.org/10.3390/
ijerph14010094
8 Arsenic Contamination: Sources, Chemistry and Remediation Strategies
233
Several mechanisms and biochemical interactions, and their role in bioremediation
have been detailed, with an attempt to expose the practicality of chemical- and
bio-remediation strategies and their effect on the scaled-up remediation processes.
As it is time consuming, generates harmful byproducts, and a costly proposition,
chemical approach has slowly taken a backseat in the recent technological advancements. In that place, biological strategies for arsenic removal are slowly gaining
popularity as they are eco-friendly. Plants and microbes have their own adaptive
mechanisms to survive and sustain in contaminated soils and waters. Microbes
bioremediate by oxidation, reduction, biosorption, and degradation of metals with
the help of extracellular transformation and phytoremediation is based on
phytoextraction and phytovolatilisation which have been very useful. Nevertheless,
a bioremediation to be better accomplished would require friendly environmental
conditions. Phytoremediation depends on the concentration of the contaminant, and
the physical and chemical properties of soil.
Acknowledgements The technical, logistics and administrative support received by the authors
from their respective affiliated organisations are duly acknowledged.
Declaration Authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
Adeniji A (2004) Bioremediation of arsenic, chromium, lead, and mercury. National network of
environmental management studies fellow for US Environmental Protection Agency Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response Technology Innovation Office, Washington, DC, pp
14–19
Ahmed I, Hayat S, Pichtel J (2005) Heavy metal contamination of soil: problems and remedies.
Science Publishers Inc, Enfield
Akhtar MS, Chali B, Azam T (2013) Bioremediation of arsenic and lead by plants and microbes
from contaminated soil. Res Plant Sci 1(3):68–73
Aksornchu P, Prasertsan P, Sobhon V (2008) Isolation of arsenic-tolerant bacteria from arseniccontaminated soil. Sonklanakarin J Sci Technol 30(1):95–102
Angelova VR, Perifanova-Nemska M, Uzunova G, Ivanov K, Lee H (2016) Potential of sunflower
(Helianthus annuus L.) for phytoremediation of soils contaminated with heavy metals. World. J
Sci Eng Technol 10:1–11. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1126371
Anyanwu CU, Ugwu CE (2010) Incidence of arsenic resistant bacteria isolated from a sewage
treatment plant. Int J Basic Appl Sci 10:64–78
Atteia O, Estrada EDC, Bertin H (2013) Soil flushing: a review of the origin of efficiency
variability. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol 12:379–389. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-0139316-0
Ayangbenro AS, Babalola OO (2017) A new strategy for heavy metal polluted environments: a
review of microbial biosorbents. Int J Environ Res Public Health 14:94. https://doi.org/10.3390/
ijerph14010094
8 Arsenic Contamination: Sources, Chemistry and Remediation Strategies
233