IntechOpen
IntechOpen

Open access peer-reviewed article

Influence of Soil Properties and Metal Interactions on the Phytoremediation of Impacted Soils by Jatropha gossypiifolia

Agi Michael Ejeh
Godwin Asukwo Ebong
Eno Anietie Moses

This Article is part of Green and Sustainable Chemistry Section

aligned with united nations sdgs

UN SDGs
Related Goals:

aligned with united nations sdgs
aligned with united nations sdgs

Article metrics overview

44 Article Downloads

View Full Metrics

Article Type: Research Paper

Date of acceptance: May 2025

Date of publication: June 2025

DoI: 10.5772/geet.20250005

copyright: ©2025 The Author(s), Licensee IntechOpen, License: CC BY 4.0

Download for free

Table of contents

Introduction
Materials and methods
Results and discussion
Conclusion
Author’s contribution
Funding
Ethical statement
Data availability
Conflict of interest

Abstract

Phytoremediation is a popular technique used for the reduction of toxic substances from impacted soils; however, the influence of soil properties on the process has not been given sufficient attention. This study examined the influence of soil properties and metal interactions on phytoremediation of impacted soils by Jatropha gossypiifolia. Seeds of J. gossypiifolia were cultivated on soils impacted by wastes from dumpsite, paint industry, automobile and electronic shops in polythene pots. These soils were amended with mixed citric and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acids chelants after six weeks; soils without amendment with chelants were used as the control. After twelve weeks, the cultivated J. gossypiifolia were harvested from both amended soil and control, treated, and analysed for Cd, Cu, Pb, and Zn contents. The mean concentrations (mg kg−1) of Cd, Cu, Pb, and Zn in plants from the control soils were 3.00 ± 0.82, 23.85 ± 3.31, 36.10 ± 2.27, and 21.13 ± 2.31, respectively. In the plants from the amended soils, the mean concentrations (mg kg−1) of Cd, Cu, Pb, and Zn were 0.73 ± 0.18, 1.33 ± 0.27, 1.29 ± 0.16, and 1.28 ± 0.55, respectively. Dumpsite soil had higher concentrations of the metals and most of the soil properties which resulted in a more efficient phytoextraction of metals from the soil. Correlation analysis revealed that soil properties and metal interactions can influence the phytoremediation process.

Keywords

  • Jatropha gossypiifolia

  • Nigeria

  • phytoextraction

  • phytoremediation

  • soil pollution

  • trace metals

Author information

Introduction

The accumulation of toxic metals in the soil environment is a serious problem for humans. While, few metals are essential for human life, they become toxic when their concentrations exceed the quantity required by biological cells [1–3]. Edible plants extract these metals from impacted soils and transport them via the food chain to human [4–6]. Metals without any biological significance to human life include mercury, arsenic, lead, and cadmium and are toxic even at the very low concentrations [7, 8]. Studies have indicated that, most of the high concentrations of metals in soil environment are a result of human activities [9, 10]. Thus, in the quest to control the accumulation of metals in the environment and their implications; the use of plants was introduced in the 20th century [11]. This pollution control technique became very popular due to its simplicity and environmental-friendly nature [12]. The process is significantly enhanced by the application of chelating agents [13, 14]. The common chelants used for phytoremediation of impacted soils are ethylenediamine-N,N′-disuccinic acid (EDDS), nitrilotriacetic acid (NTA), ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), L-glutamic acid N,N-diacetic acid (GLDA), and citric acid (CA). EDTA is the most widely used single chelant because of its high solubility. It is unaffected by pH and has a great number of binding sites [14, 15]. Studies have shown that the use of mixed chelants for phytoremediation is more effective than single chelants and the combination of EDTA and CA has been highly recommended [15–17]. Hence, a mixture of EDTA and CA was used in this study for effective phytoextraction process and achievement of optimal results.

Phytoremediation is a plant-based technique and several plants have been employed for the extraction of metals from impacted soils [18]. This study utilized the phytoextraction potential of J. gossypiifolia for the remediation of impacted soils. Jatropha gossypiifolia commonly called bellyache bush is mostly used in Africa and America for its medicinal potency to treat various ailments [19]. This plant grows well in clay soils with proper drainage and can reach a height of 7 meters in a fairly fertile soil [20]. Jatropha gossypiifolia was chosen as an agent for phytoremediation in this study because the plant is common in the study area and has exceptional potential for phytoextraction of metals from impacted soils [21, 22]. Jatropha gossypiifolia also has the capacity to accumulate more Cd, Cr, Mn, Cu, Fe, Ni, Pb and Zn from impacted soil environments [21, 23].

Several studies have established the application of plants for extraction of toxic metals from impacted soils globally. Shehata et al. [24] studied the potential of kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus L) and flax (Linum usitatissimum) on the extraction of Cr, Co, Cd and Mn from impacted soils of Sahl El Husseiniya, Egypt. Results showed that the extraction of metals by kenaf was in a descending order of Cr > Co > Mn > Cd with removal percentages of 50.7, 38.3, 34.0, and 14.4, respectively. Flax phytoremediation efficiency was in a descending order of Mn > Cr > Co > Cd, with removal percentages of 54.36, 36.95, 28.72, and 11.37, respectively. The phytoremediation capacity of Alhagi camelorum for extraction of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), Pb, Cr, Cd, and Ni from oil-contaminated soil in Iran was carried out by Nemati et al. [25]. Results obtained after six weeks showed that 53.6%, 50.0%, 47.6%, 45.4%, and 48.1% of TPH, Pb, Cr, Cd, and Ni, respectively were extracted. Osman et al. [26] investigated the ability of Brassica juncea and Brassica napus in extracting metals from a contaminated Mahd AD’Dahab mine in Saudi Arabia. The results showed that the percentages of Zn, Pb, Ni, Mn, Fe, Cu, and Cd extracted by Brassica juncea were 18%, 27%, 29%, 24%, 23%, 24%, and 28%, respectively. Brassica napus extracted 17%, 27%, 31%, 24%, 21%, 23%, and 26% of Zn, Pb, Ni, Mn, Fe, Cu, and Cd, respectively.

A study on the phytoextraction efficiency of Cd and Pb from artificially contaminated soil using Ageratum conyzoides, Syndrella nodiflora and Cleome rutidosperma plants was carried out in Port Harcourt, Nigeria by Tanee and Abbey-Kalio [27]. These plants were harvested after 13 weeks and the proportions of Cd extracted by Ageratum conyzoides, Cleome rutidosperma, and Syndrella nodiflora, were 35.8%, 55.3%, and 45.1%, respectively. The amounts of Pb extracted by Ageratum conyzoides, Cleome rutidosperma, and Syndrella nodiflora were 68.7%, 24.8% and 27.3%, respectively. The phytoextraction ability of Spinacia oleracea, Tithonia diversifolia, Helianthus annuus, and Eucalyptus camaldulensis for the extraction of Cr, Mn, Fe, Cu, Zn, and Ni from abandoned Tin mine in Barkin Ladi, Plateau State, Nigeria was assessed by Nenman et al. [28]. The concentrations (mg kg−1) of Cr, Mn, Fe, Cu, Zn, and Ni in soil before phytoextraction process were 670.5, 2415.0, 128,956.0, 678.93, 304.94, and 267.47, respectively. The concentrations (mg kg−1) of Cr, Mn, Fe, Cu, Zn, and Ni phytoextracted by the plants ranged as follows: 608.95–1,984.21, 2,633.8–100,704.0, 14,700.0–222,442.0, 1,996.87–9,295.78, 481.48–3,611.11, and 385.47–1,966.67 mg kg−1. These results indicate that the potential of plants to extract metals and other toxic substances from contaminated soils vary with plant species (Eben et al. [29]).

The effects of soil properties on the phytoextraction of metals from the impacted soils by J. gossypiifolia was considered in this study since the properties of soil have significant impact on the phytoremediation process as reported by Kafle et al. [12] and Cui et al. [30]. Studies have shown that the accumulation and availability of metals in soil are influenced by the soil's characteristics [31–34]. Literature has also shown that soil properties such as pH, organic matter, cation exchange capacity (CEC) of soil, clay and others have significant influence on the extraction of metals from impacted soils by plants [30, 35–38]. However, studies done within the study area on phytoremediation of impacted soils never considered soil properties as major factors that can influence the outcome of the process [39–41]. Metal interactions affect the extraction of metals by plants from impacted soils effectively [42, 43]. Studies on phytoremediation of contaminated soils by plants done within the study region have not elucidated the influence of metal's interactions in contaminated soils on the outcome of the process. Consequently, this study was carried out to investigate the influence of soil properties and interaction among metals on the phytoextraction of metals from impacted soils by J. gossypiifolia. The results highlight the necessity of considering the soil properties and interaction among metals during studies on phytoremediation of impacted soils within the study area.

Materials and methods

The procedures of this study were adopted from the methods of Njoku and Nwani [39], and Azorji et al. [44]. Polythene pots with a capacity of 4.5 L were filled separately with 1.50 kg of soil from waste dumpsite soil (WDS), automobile waste-impacted soil (AIS), electronic waste-impacted soil (EWS), and paint waste-impacted soil (PIS) obtained from Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria. Seeds of Jatropha gossypiifolia were cultivated on the soils within the pots and these soils were amended with 20 mL day−1 of mixed citric acid (CA) (99.5% pure, Sigma-Aldrich, EMPLURA® brand, USA) and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) (99.0% pure, Sigma-Aldrich, BioUltra, USA). These pots were placed in an open space and 500 mL of distilled water was used to irrigate the plants daily. Plants cultivated in the amended and control soils were harvested after twelve weeks, prepared properly and preserved for further treatment [45, 46].

Soil pH was determined by mixing 10 g of soil with 10 mL of distilled water and stirred until a soil-water suspension was achieved. The glass electrode of pH meter (Hanna instrument model 211, Italy) was then inserted in the suspension and rotated slightly. The pH reading was recorded after 50 s to the nearest 0.1 unit [47]. Total organic matter (TOM) of the soils was assessed by the use of Walkey-Black procedure of weighing 1.0 g of the sieved soil into a 500 mL Erlenmeyer flask (Thermo Scientific Nalgene, USA) 10 mL of 0.167 M potassium dichromate solution (99.5% pure, Spectrum Chemical, USA) added and the mixture in the flask was swirled gently until uniformity was achieved. Then 20 mL of conc. sulfuric acid (95% pure, Sigma-Aldrich, USA) was added rapidly with care and the flask was swirled again vigorously for 1 min to obtain a proper mixture of the soil and the reagents. The flask was allowed to stand for 30 min before 200 mL of distilled water was added. The mixture was allowed to cool and 10 drops of diphenylamine indicator (99% pure, Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA) added. The solution was then titrated with a standardized ferrous ammonium sulphate (98% pure, Vishnu Priya Chemicals, India) until the colour changed from dull green to bright green. The blank was also prepared using the same procedures but without the soil sample. The organic matter was determined by calculating the difference in the quantity of dichromate consumed in the blank and the soil sample titration [48, 49]. CEC of the studied soils was determined by adding 50 mL of 1M ammonium acetate solution (99% pure, Vinipul Chemicals, India) to 2.5 g of the dried soil sample in a 50 mL centrifuge tube (BKMAM, China) and shaken in a mechanical shaker (Sigma-Aldrich, Laboratory Shaker) for two hours. The supernatant was decanted into a 100 mL volumetric flask using centrifuge (benchtop, Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA) (2,000 rpm) for ten minutes. Another 30 mL of ammonium acetate was added to the residue and shaken for thirty minutes, centrifuged and the leachate transferred to the same volumetric flask. The last procedure was repeated and leachate also transferred to the same volumetric flask. The leachate in flask was then made up to mark with NH4OAc solution and kept for the spectroscopic analysis of calcium, magnesium, potassium and sodium. The values of the cations were added up to obtain the CEC of each soil sample as reported by Mustapha et al. [49] and Nel et al. [50]. The clay content of the studied soils was determined by hydrometer method as described by Mozaffari et al. [51]. A cup containing 50 g of the dried soil was half filled with distilled water and 50 mL of sodium hexametaphosphate reagent (68% pure, Welychem Co. Ltd, China) was added. The cup was placed on a mechanical stirrer (H4000-HS–Benchmark Scientific, Inc., USA) and stirred for ten minutes. The mixture was then transferred to a Bouyoucos cylinder (Analytica, Germany) and filled to the lower mark with distilled water with a hydrometer (ASTM 151H, Gilson Company, USA) in suspension. The hydrometer was removed and the suspension shaken vigorously in a back and front manner. The cylinder was then placed on a table and time was recorded. After 20 s, the hydrometer was carefully inserted and at the expiration of 40 s the reading was taken. Temperature of the suspension was taken and to every degree above 20 °C, 0.36 was added to the hydrometer reading and for every degree below 20 °C, 0.36 was subtracted from the hydrometer reading to compensate for the added dispersing agent. The sand settled to the bottom of the cylinder within 40 s, thus, the 40 s hydrometer reading actually gave the quantity of silt and clay in suspension. The percentage clay was determined by shaking the suspension again and placed on a table for two hours and the corrected hydrometer reading was recorded. At the end of two hours, silt contents in addition to sand had settled. The hydrometer reading taken after 2 hrs represented the grams of clay in the sample. The percentage clay was calculated by dividing this mass by the weight of sample and multiplying by 100.

The harvested plants (J. gossypiifolia) were washed thoroughly with distilled water and dried in the air for three weeks. The plants biomass was then ground and sieved following the procedures of Ejeh et al. [46] and Ebong et al. [52]. The soil samples (both before and after remediation process) were dried under the sun for three days, ground, and sieved using 2 mm diameter mesh as reported by Ebong et al. [52]. Then 1 g of the sieved plant and soil samples were digested by adding 10 mL I:1 (w/v) mixture of HNO3:H2O in a beaker and heated on a hot plate (IKA C-MAG HS IKAMAG, Sigma-Aldrich, USA). The mixture was homogenized, the beaker covered with a watch glass and heated to 95 °C, and then refluxed for 15 min. The mixture was allowed to cooled, and 5 mL conc. HNO3 (65% pure, Merck, Germany) was added and refluxed again for 30 min. The beaker was covered with a ribbed beaker and allowed to evaporate to 5 mL. After this was completed, the mixture was cooled and 2 mL of distilled water and 3 mL 30% H2O2 (30% pure, Merck, Germany) were added. The mixture was heated until effervescence from the peroxide reaction stopped. The mixture was cooled again and 1 mL H2O2 introduced until effervescence was at minimum. The mixture was cooled; then 2 mL conc. HNO3 and 10 mL of distilled water were applied subsequently, the mixture was refluxed for 15 min once again. The mixture was later centrifuged at 4000 rpm for 30 min to separate the filtrate from the residue [53, 54]. The concentrations of Cd, Cr, Ni, and Pb in the samples were analysed with Inductively Coupled Plasma Optical Emission spectroscopy (ICP-OES, Model 4300 DV, Perkin Elmer, USA) using the methods of Njoku and Nwani [39]. The analyses of all the parameters were carried out in triplicate and the mean values obtained were used for interpretations.

Results and discussion

The results of soil properties of the impacted soils assessed are shown in Table 1. Soil pH varied between 6.56 and 7.21; the highest pH level was recorded for PIS, while the lowest was obtained in WDS. The pH of the studied soils varied between weakly acidic and weakly alkaline as reported by Xia et al. [55]. Soil pH is one of the most important properties of the soil that can influence the availability of both the essential and toxic metals for plant uptake [56, 57]. The reported range of soil pH supports metal availability and optimal plants growth [58]. The low pH reported for WDS could be attributed to the high organic matter contents of the soil [59, 60]. The results also revealed that paint-related waste may have increased the soil pH as opined by Orjiakor et al. [61] and Chukwuma et al. [62]. Consequently, the low soil pH in WDS may have resulted in the concentrations of metals obtained [63].

pHCEC (cmol kg−1)TOM (%)Clay (%)
WDS6.5813.1729.5064.20
AIS7.118.0211.2053.28
EWS7.066.538.9034.11
PIS7.219.2610.4030.60
MIN6.586.538.9030.60
MAX7.2113.1729.5064.20

Table 1

Physiochemical properties of the studied impacted soils.

∗WDS = Waste dumpsite soil, AIS = Automobile waste-impacted soil, EWS = Electronic waste-impacted soil, PIS = Paint Waste-impacted soil, MIN = Minimum, MAX = Maximum.

The cation exchange capacity (CEC) of the studied impacted soils ranged from 6.53 to 13.17 cmol kg−1. The highest CEC value was reported for the WDS, while the lowest was obtained in EWS. The reported high CEC in WDS could be attributed to the high organic matter and clay contents of the soil [64, 65]. Similarly, the low CEC obtained in EWS could be attributed to the low organic matter content in the underlying soil as reported by Ocheoibo and Atuanya [66]. The CEC of soil is controlled by the accumulation and availability of metals in soil [67–69]. Hence, the high CEC in WDS may have led to the relatively high concentrations of trace metals reported [70, 71].

Table 1 shows that the TOM contents of the impacted soils ranged from 8.9 to 29.5%. The highest TOM value was recorded for WDS, while the lowest was obtained in EWS. The reported high TOM in WDS was in agreement with the results published by Azuka & Ezeme [72] and Orimisan et al. [73]. Whereas the low TOM obtained in EWS was in agreement with the finding by Adesokan et al. [74]. The reported low TOM in EWS could encourage leaching of metals into the sub soil making them unavailable for plants uptake. The high level of TOM recorded for WDS could be attributed to the high level of organic wastes at the dumpsite [59]. TOM is an important soil property that plays a crucial role in the availability of trace metals for plants uptake [75, 76]. Thus, the high TOM in WDS may have resulted in the high concentrations of metals recorded [77].

The clay contents of the studied soils varied from 34.11 to 64.20% between EWS and WDS. Clay content in soil has the potential of influencing the level of metal availability [57, 69]. Hence, high clay content in soil may result in the availability of metals for plants uptake [78, 79]. Studies have indicated that clay in soil has a direct relationship with the organic matter content [80, 81]. Thus, soils with high TOM may accumulate elevated levels of clay as observed in WDS.

The mean concentrations of trace metals in the studied impacted soils amended with mixed chelants before and after phytoremediation by J. gossypiifolia are shown in Figure 1. The mean concentrations of Cd, Cu, Pb, and Zn obtained before phytoextraction (BFP) were 3.00 ± 0.82 mg kg−1, 23.85 ± 3.31 mg kg−1, 36.10 ± 2.27 mg kg−1, and 21.13 ± 2.31 mg kg−1, respectively. These values, seen in the impacted soils before phytoextraction, are lower than values reported in literature [28, 39, 82]. However, after phytoremediation (AFP), the mean concentrations of Cd, Cu, Pb, and Zn were reduced to 0.69 ± 0.16 mg kg−1, 1.26 ± 0.24 mg kg−1, 1.24 ± 0.13 mg kg−1, and 1.22 ± 0.51 mg kg−1, respectively. The concentrations of Cd, Cu, Pb, and Zn in soils after phytoextraction were lower than 7.63 ± 1.08 mg kg−1, 187.78 ± 4.23 mg kg−1, 169.45 ± 4.97 mg kg−1, and 288.14 ± 36.68 mg kg−1 which were obtained by Njoku and Nwani [39] in soils after extraction by Vigna unguiculata leaf. Thus, J. gossypiifolia has a higher potential to extract metals from contaminated soils than Vigna unguiculata leaf. Consequently, J. gossypiifolia could be very effective for the remediation of impacted soils, provided optimal conditions for the process are provided. The mean concentrations of Cd and Cu that were higher than their recommended limits for soils (0.8 and 10.10 mg kg−1), set by FAO/WHO [83], before phytoextraction were significantly reduced to safe limits after the process. Hence, the environmental and human health risks associated with these metals in impacted soils could be eradicated or reduced by the use of J. gossypiifolia as an agent for phytoremediation.

Figure 1.

Mean concentrations of trace metals in the studied impacted soils before and after phytoremediation process.

 The results of Pearson correlation analysis of parameters determined in the studied impacted soils are shown in Table 2. The interactions among trace metals and physicochemical properties of the soils resulted in the following observed relationships: Cd correlated positively and significantly with Cu at p < 0.01 but; with Pb at p < 0.10 (r values, as shown in Table 2). The relationship between soil pH and Cd was a moderate negative one with r value of −0.489. Accordingly, the high concentrations of Cd obtained in WDS and EWS may have resulted in a corresponding increase in the concentrations of Cu and Pb extracted by J. gossypiifolia. The low pH level at WDS may have resulted in the reported high concentration of Cd extracted from the soil. The results also revealed the high pH levels at AIS and PIS may have contributed to the low concentrations of Cd extracted by J. gossypiifolia from these soils (Table 2). Cd correlated negatively with Zn hence; they can antagonize themselves in the studied soils as reported in literature [84, 85].

CdCuPbZnpHCECTOMClay
Cd 1.000
Cu0.720b1.000
Pb0.568d0.871a 1.000
Zn−0.0270.672c 0.688c 1.000
pH−0.489−0.849a −0.995a −0.741b 1.000
CEC−0.0800.4170.760b 0.743b −0.812a 1.000
TOM 0.2290.695c 0.930a 0.804a −0.960a 0.942a 1.000
Clay 0.1580.799a 0.769a 0.982a −0.806a 0.695c 0.817a 1.000

Table 2

Correlation analysis of the parameters in the studied soils.

∗a (p < 0.01); b (p < 0.02); c (p < 0.05); d (p < 0.10).

Cu showed significant positive relationships with Pb and clay at p < 0.01. However, with Zn and TOM at p < 0.05 (r values in Table 2), Cu exhibited a positive but moderate association with CEC at r value of 0.417 and correlated negatively and strongly with soil pH at p < 0.01 (r = −0.849). Thus, the high concentration of Cu in WDS may have resulted in the elevated levels of Pb and Zn extracted by J. gossypiifolia from the soil (Table 2). The high clay content in WDS, AIS, and EWS may be attributed to the high concentrations of Cu extracted by J. gossypiifolia from these impacted soils (Table 2). Nevertheless, the high pH level in PIS may have led to the low concentration of Cu extracted from the soil.

Pb correlated positively and significantly with TOM and clay at p < 0.01, however, with CEC at p < 0.02 (r values are in Table 2) Pb also correlated positively and significantly with Zn at p < 0.05 but; with pH at p < 0.01 (r values in Table 2). Thus, the high concentrations of Zn, CEC, TOM, and clay, and the low level of pH obtained in WDS may have resulted in the high concentration of Pb extracted. Similarly, the high pH recorded for AIS and PIS may have resulted in the low concentrations of Pb phytoextracted from these soils.

Zn correlated positively and significantly with TOM and clay at p < 0.01, however, with CEC at p < 0.02 (r values in Table 2), Zn correlated negatively and strongly with the pH at p < 0.02 (r = −0.741). Accordingly, the levels of clay, TOM, and CEC content may have contributed positively to the high concentrations of Zn phytoextracted from WDS and AIS. Table 2 also indicates that the low TOM and clay content as well as the high soil pH obtained in EWS and PIS may have caused the low levels of Zn extracted by J. gossypiifolia from these soils.

Soil pH exhibited strong negative correlations with CEC, TOM, and clay contents at p < 0.01 (r values as shown in Table 2). This was similar to the results obtained in other studies [86–88]. Thus, an increase in the pH of the impacted soils could impact negatively on the levels of CEC, TOM, and clay of the impacted soils and vice versa. The pH of the impacted soils also correlated negatively with all the trace metals in the studied soils. Hence, a low pH level could favour the concentrations of trace metals in the impacted soils examined as reported by Aigberua [89] and Wen et al. [90]. Obviously, the low pH recorded for WDS may have caused the high concentrations of most of the metals extracted by J. gossypiifolia. CEC showed significantly positive correlations with TOM and clay contents of the studied soils at p < 0.01 and p < 0.05, respectively (r values in Table 2). This is consistent with the reports published by Kong et al. [91] and Mishra et al. [92]. The key determinants of CEC in soil are organic matter and clay, as both properties have strong negative charges to attract the positively charged metals [93]. TOM of the studied soils exhibited a strong positive association with the clay contents of the soils at p < 0.01 (r = 0.817). This is in agreement with the findings reported by Xue et al. [94] and Zhao et al. [95]. Correlation analysis has confirmed that soil properties can influence the outcome of phytoremediation of impacted soils as reported by Kafle et al. [12].

The concentrations of trace metals extracted from the impacted soils by the entire biomass of J. gossypiifolia are shown in Figure 2. The concentrations of Cd extracted varied between 1.55 and 3.05 mg kg−1. The range of Cd extracted was lower than 0.02 to 65.70 mg kg−1 reported by Alaboudi et al. [82] from the remediation study using Helianthus annuus plant. The highest Cd concentration was extracted from EWS, while the lowest was extracted from PIS. The high concentration of Cd extracted by J. gossypiifolia from EWS corroborates the findings by Han et al. [96] and Ma et al. [97]. The low level of Cd extracted from PIS is a confirmation of low concentration of Cd in the soils contaminated with paint-related wastes as previously reported [98, 99]. The trend of Cd extracted by J. gossypiifolia followed the sequence, EWS > WDS > AIS > PIS.

Figure 2.

Total concentrations of trace metals extracted by J. gossypiifolia from the impacted soils.

 The concentrations of Cu extracted from the studied impacted soils ranged from 18.13 to 26.02 mg kg−1. The obtained range of Cu phytoextracted from the impacted soils was lower than 8.45–35.34 mg kg−1 Cu extracted from a contaminated soils by Sivakumar et al. [100] using Portulaca oleracea L plant. The highest concentration of Cu phytoextracted from the impacted soils was obtained in WDS, while the lowest was recorded in PIS (Figure 2). The reported high concentration of Cu extracted by J. gossypiifolia WDS was similar to the results obtained by Orimisan et al. [73] and Onwukeme and Eze [101]. The quantities of Cu extracted by the studied plant from the impacted soils followed a decreasing order of WDS > EWS > AIS > PIS.

The concentrations of Pb extracted from the impacted soils by J. gossypiifolia ranged between 32.81 and 38.20 mg kg−1 (Figure 2). The values of Pb extracted from impacted soils by J. gossypiifolia were higher than the 23.5 mg kg−1 extracted by Vigna unguiculata from contaminated soils as reported by Yao et al. [102]. The highest level of Pb extracted was from WDS, while the lowest was from PIS. Consequently, the concentration of Pb in the soil of WDS was high as published in literature [103, 104]. The trend for the concentrations of Pb extracted by J. gossypiifolia from the impacted soils was in the order WDS > EWS > AIS > PIS.

Figure 2 indicates that the concentrations of Zn extracted from the impacted soils varied from 17.54 to 22.59 mg kg−1. The levels of Zn extracted from the contaminated soils were consistent with the values reported by Njoku and Nwani [39]; but, higher than 5.212 mg kg−1 obtained by Rolli et al. [105] from related studies. The highest concentration of Zn extracted from the studied soils was in WDS, while lowest was reported in EWS. Hence, WDS accumulated high concentrations of Zn as documented by Afolagboye et al. [103] and Kolawole et al. [106]. The concentrations of Zn extracted from the different impacted soils by J. gossypiifolia followed a decreasing order of WDS > AIS > PIS > EWS. The concentrations of metals extracted by plants during remediation studies depend significantly on the levels of each metal in the contaminated soils. Hence, this may have resulted in the observed values of the results of this study by other authors.

Generally, the highest concentrations of most of the metals were extracted from WDS and EWS. Consequently, waste at municipal dumpsites and electronic shops can pollute the adjoining soil environment as documented by Agbeshie et al. [59] and Houessionon et al. [107].

The proportions of trace metals extracted by J. gossypiifolia from the different impacted soils examined are shown in Figure 3. The results obtained revealed that 75%, 73%, 79%, and 77% of Cd were extracted from WDS, AIS, EWS, and PIS, respectively. The percentages of Cu extracted by J. gossypiifolia from WDS, AIS, EWS, and PIS were 96, 95, 93, and 94, respectively. The quantities of Pb phytoextracted from the studied WDS, AIS, EWS, and PIS were 97%, 96%, 97%, and 96%, respectively. The amounts of Zn extracted by J. gossypiifolia from WDS, AIS, EWS, and PIS were 96%, 94%, 95%, and 90%, respectively. The study revealed that the proportions of the trace metals extracted by J. gossypiifolia were also influenced by their total concentrations in the different soils as opined by Laghlimi et al. [108] and Tan et al. [109]. The proportions of all the metals extracted relative to their concentrations in the impacted are higher than those reported in literature for these metals in similar studies [25–27]. This also confirms the efficiency of J. gossypiifolia for remediation of contaminated soils. As indicated in Figure 3, the concentrations of Pb were the highest in all the impacted soils while Cd had the lowest values in all locations. This is similar to the results of the phytoremediation study undertaken by Nemati et al. [25] and Osman et al. [26], respectively. The study has revealed that J. gossypiifolia can extract more metals from impacted soils amended with mixed citric and EDTA chelants.

Figure 3.

Total percentage of Trace Metals extracted by  J. gossypiifolia.

Conclusion

The research indicated that soil pH, TOM, CEC, and clay of the impacted soils can have significant effect on the phytoremediation process of impacted soils. Consequently, soil properties should be considered when performing remediation study in contaminated soils. This study has also revealed that the initial concentrations of metals and their interactions in the impacted soils may also determine the proportion of these metals extracted by plants from contaminated soils. The results of the study have revealed that the interactions by metals in impacted soils can affect the phytoremediation process. Based on the concentrations of metals extracted from the impacted soils, it can be concluded that the mixed CA and EDTA chelants may be utilized as effective soil amendment materials during remediation process. The concentrations of the metals left in soil after phytoextraction enhanced by the mixed chelants revealed that the technique could be an efficient tool for ameliorating the environmental and health problems related to soils impacted with metals. The outcome of the study also revealed that J. gossypiifolia has the capacity to extract very high proportions of metals from impacted soils; hence, the plant could be effectively used for the remediation of impacted soils. It could be inferred that wastes at municipal dumpsites and electronic shops have the capacity to affect the soil quality significantly. Hence, the cultivation of crops on these impacted soils should be avoided to forestall adverse hazards along the food chain. Nevertheless, the study had few limitations including the disposal of plant materials after the phytoextraction process to avoid additional harm to the environment. The other limitation was the eradication of the chelants introduced into the impacted soils before disposal since chelants may affect the environment negatively if they are not managed properly. Hence, an improved technique that can overcome these limitations should be introduced for a safer environment in future.

Author’s contribution

Ejeh, Agi Michael: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing; Ebong, Godwin Asukwo: Writing – review & editing, Supervision; Moses, Eno Anietie: Writing – review & editing, Supervision.

Funding

This research did not receive external funding from any agencies.

Ethical statement

Not applicable.

Data availability

Source data is not available for this article.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Ebong GA, Offiong OE, Ekpo BO. Pollution indices of trace metals in some Urban dumpsite soils within Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria. Int Res J Pure Appl Chem. 2015;6(2):84–94. doi:10.9734/IRJPAC/2015/15331.
  2. 2.
    Anjembe B, Tyavkase N. Evaluation of heavy metal status, quality and safety of vegetables sold in markets located in Makurdi Metropolis, Nigeria for human consumption. Int J Agric Food Sci. 2021;7(4):1–7. https://gnpublication.org/index.php/afs/article/view/1352.
  3. 3.
    Etuk HS, Ebong GA, Dan EU, Udoh HF. Probability of health risk, bioaccumulation, and geochemical fractions of toxic elements in soils and vegetables impacted by manures in Nigeria. Environ Prot Res. 2022;2(2):75–94. doi:10.37256/epr.2220221485.
  4. 4.
    Ebong GA, Etuk HS, Dan EU. Distribution, pollution index and associated health risk of trace metals in waste-impacted soils within Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria. Geosystem Eng. 2018;21(3):121–134. doi:10.1080/12269328.2017.1376291.
  5. 5.
    Ebong GA, Moses EA, Akpabio OA, Udombeh RB. Physicochemical properties, total concentration, geochemical fractions, and health risks of trace metals in oil-bearing soils of Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria. JMES. 2022;2(4):1–18. doi:10.55455/jmesr.2022.009.
  6. 6.
    Mitra S, Chakraborty AJ, Tareq AM, Emran TB, Nainu F, Khusro A, Impact of heavy metals on the environment and human health: novel therapeutic insights to counter the toxicity. J King Saud Univ–Sci. 2022;34(3):101865. doi:10.1016/j.jksus.2022.101865.
  7. 7.
    Balali-Mood M, Naseri K, Tahergorabi Z, Khazdair MR, Sadeghi M. Toxic mechanisms of five heavy metals: mercury, lead, chromium, cadmium, and arsenic. Front Pharmacol. 2021;12: 643972. doi:10.3389/fphar.2021.643972.
  8. 8.
    Okon AO, Ebong GA, Tombere VP, Anweting IB, Etuk HS, Ambrose I. Toxicity profile of metals in water, sediments and Liza grandisquamis from Iko River, South-South of Nigeria. Int J Front Res Pharma Bio. 2023;02(02):001–016. doi:10.56355/ijfrpbs.2023.2.2.0020.
  9. 9.
    Ebong GA, Moses EA, Akpabio OA, Inam I. Impact of seasonal variations and oil activities on the total concentrations, geochemical fractions, and human health problems of trace metals in soils within the oil-bearing communities of south-south region of Nigeria. Brit J Environ Sci. 2022;10(6):29–65. doi:10.37745/bjes.2013/vol10n62965.
  10. 10.
    Angon PB, Islam MdS, Shreejana KC, Das A, Anjum N, Poudel A, Sources, effects and present perspectives of heavy metals contamination: soil, plants and human food chain. Heliyon. 2024;10(7):e28357. doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e28357.
  11. 11.
    Tonelli FMP, Bhat RA, Dar GH, Hakeem KR. The history of phytoremediation. In: Phytoremediation. Academic Press; 2022. p. 1–18. doi:10.1016/B978-0-323-89874-4.00018-2.
  12. 12.
    Kafle A, Timilsina A, Gautam A, Adhikari K, Bhattarai A, Aryal N. Phytoremediation: mechanisms, plant selection and enhancement by natural and synthetic agents. Environ Adv. 2022;8: 100203. doi:10.1016/j.envadv.2022.100203.
  13. 13.
    Chen L, Liu T, Ma CA. Metal complexation and biodegradation of EDTA and S, S-EDDS: a density functional theory study. J Phys Chem A. 2010;114(1):443–454. doi:10.1021/jp904296m.
  14. 14.
    Yin F, Li J, Wang Y, Yang Z. Biodegradable chelating agents for enhancing phytoremediation: mechanisms, market feasibility, and future studies. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2024;272: 116113. doi:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2024.116113.
  15. 15.
    Yang Y, Liao J, Chen Y, Tian Y, Chen Q, Gao S, Efficiency of heterogeneous chelating agents on the phytoremediation potential and growth of Sasa argenteostriata (Regel) E.G. Camus on Pb-contaminated soil. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2022;238: 113603. doi:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2022.113603.
  16. 16.
    Aghelan N, Sobhanardakani S, Cheraghi M, Lorestani B, Merrikhpour H. Evaluation of some chelating agents on phytoremediation efficiency of Amaranthus caudatus L. and Tagetes patula L. in soils contaminated with lead. J Environ Health Sci Eng. 2021;19(1):503–514. doi:10.1007/s40201-021-00623-y.
  17. 17.
    Shinta YC, Zaman B, Sumiyati S. Citric acid and EDTA as chelating agents in phytoremediation of heavy metal in polluted soil: a review. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci. 2021;896: 012023. doi:10.1088/1755-1315/896/1/012023.
  18. 18.
    Bhat SA, Bashir O, Haq SAUI, Amin T, Rafiq A, Ali M, Phytoremediation of heavy metals in soil and water: an eco-friendly, sustainable and multidisciplinary approach. Chemosphere. 2022;303(1):134788. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.134788.
  19. 19.
    Pande MS, Trivedi N, Kumar B. Review on medicinal properties of Jatropha gossypiifolia L. J Pharm Res Int. 2021;33(46B):505–511. doi:10.9734/jpri/2021/v33i46B32968.
  20. 20.
    Zengin G, Mahomoodally MF, Sinan KI, Ak G, Etienne OK, Sharmeen JB, Chemical composition and biological properties of two Jatropha species: different parts and different extraction methods. Antioxidants. 2021;10(5):792. doi:10.3390/antiox10050792.
  21. 21.
    Lan CNT, Thu HĐT, Đạo P, Lapcik V. Phytoremediation proficiency of Jatropha gossypifolia under the influence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa on metal contaminated soil. Environ Res. 2023;232: 116295. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2023.116295.
  22. 22.
    Devanesan S, Mir MS, AlSalhi MS, Angulo-Bejarano PI. Phytoremediation and genetic adaptation potential of Jatropha curcas on heavy metals enriched mine tailings. J Taiwan Inst Chem Engrs. 2025;166(1):105325. doi:10.1016/j.jtice.2023.105325.
  23. 23.
    Awokunmi EE, Asaolu SS, Ajayi OO, Adebayo OA. The role of EDTA on heavy metals phytoextraction by Jatropha Gossypifolia Grown on soil collected from dumpsites in Ekiti State Nigeria. Int J Environ Clim Change. 2012;2(2):153–162. doi:10.9734/BJECC/2012/1291.
  24. 24.
    Shehata SM, Badawy RK, Aboulsoud YIE. Phytoremediation of some heavy metals in contaminated soil. Bull Natl Res Cent. 2019;43: 189. doi:10.1186/s42269-019-0214-7.
  25. 25.
    Nemati B, Baneshi MM, Akbari H, Dehghani R, Mostafaii G. Phytoremediation of pollutants in oil-contaminated soils by Alhagi camelorum: evaluation and modeling. Sci Rep. 2024;14: 5502. doi:10.1038/s41598-024-56214-y.
  26. 26.
    Osman HE, Quronfulah AS, El-Morsy MH, Alamoudi WM, El-Hamid HTA. Bioenergy crop rotation for phytoremediation of heavy metal contaminated soils at Mahd AD’Dahab mine, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. J Taibah Univ Sci. 2024;18(1):1–14. doi:10.1080/16583655.2024.2357257.
  27. 27.
    Tanee FBG, Abbey-Kalio ID. Phytoextraction trials of cadmium and lead contaminated soil using three weed species. Sci Afr. 2016;15(2):148–159.
  28. 28.
    Nenman DV, Jildawa D, Abel A, Adiya OA, Mathias AL. Phytoremediation of heavy metals by some naturally grown and cultivated plants on and around abandoned mine areas of Barkin Ladi LGA of Plateau State, Nigeria. Nigerian Res J Chem Sci. 2023;11(1):61–80.
  29. 29.
    Eben P, Mohri M, Pauleit S, Duthweiler S, Helmreich B. Phytoextraction potential of herbaceous plant species and the influence of environmental factors–a meta-analytical approach. Ecol Eng. 2024;199: 107169. doi:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2023.107169.
  30. 30.
    Cui X, Mao P, Sun S, Huang R, Fan Y, Li Y, Phytoremediation of cadmium contaminated soils by Amaranthus Hypochondriacus L.: the effects of soil properties highlighting cation exchange capacity. Chemosphere. 2021;283: 131067. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.131067.
  31. 31.
    Ebong GA, Offiong OE, Ekpo BO. Seasonal variations in trace metal levels, speciation and physicochemical determinants of metal availability in dumpsite soils within Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria. Chem Ecol. 2014;30(5):403–417. doi:10.1080/02757540.2013.871272.
  32. 32.
    Ebong GA, Etuk HS, Anweting IB, Bassey IN. Soil characteristics interrelationship with treated soil micronutrients in Nigerian Southern. Chem Sci Int J. 2022;31(6):51–63. doi:10.9734/CSJI/2022/v31i6828.
  33. 33.
    Zhong X, Chen Z, Li Y, Ding K, Liu W, Liu Y, Factors influencing heavy metal availability and risk assessment of soils at typical metal mines in Eastern China. J Hazard Mater. 2020;400: 123289. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.123289.
  34. 34.
    Xu D, Shen Z, Dou C, Li Y, Gao Y, Sun Q. Effects of soil properties on heavy metal bioavailability and accumulation in crop grains under different farmland use patterns. Sci Rep. 2022;12: 9211. doi:10.1038/s41598-022-13140-1.
  35. 35.
    Neina D. The role of soil pH in plant nutrition and soil remediation. Appl Environ Soil Sci. 2019;2019: 5794869. doi:10.1155/2019/5794869.
  36. 36.
    Adamczyk-Szabela D, Wolf WM. The impact of soil pH on heavy metals uptake and photosynthesis efficiency in Melissa officinalis, Taraxacum officinalis, Ocimum basilicum. Molecules. 2022;27: 4671. doi:10.3390/molecules27154671.
  37. 37.
    Akpokodje OI, Uguru H. Phytoremediation of petroleum products contaminated soil. Arch Curr Res Int. 2019;8(1):1–8. doi:10.9734/acri/2019/v18i130127.
  38. 38.
    Babanlungu ZA, Oguh EE, Esomonu I, Audu I. Phytoremediation of lead polluted soil around mechanic workshop in afor oru ahiazu mbaise using waterleaf (Talinum Triangulare). FUTY J Environ. 2021;15(3):1–11.
  39. 39.
    Njoku KL, Nwani SO. Phytoremediation of heavy metals contaminated soil samples obtained from mechanic workshop and dumpsite using Amaranthus spinosus. Sci Afr. 2022;17: e01278. doi:10.1016/j.sciaf.2022.e01278.
  40. 40.
    Ikiriko ME, Chukwumati JA. Phytoremediation potential of ficus benjamina on soils contaminated with crude oil in Rivers State, South-South Nigeria. World J Agric Soil Sci. 2023;8(4):1–6. doi:10.33552/WJASS.2023.08.000693.
  41. 41.
    Udom NR, Ogwo PA, Uchendu UI. Crude oil remediation potentials of Pennisetum purpureum in oil producing communities of Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria. J Health Appl Sci Manage. 2024;7(2):245–254. doi:10.4314/johasam.v7i2.25.
  42. 42.
    Alves ARA, Yin Q, Oliveira RS, Silva EF, Novo LAB. Plant growth-promoting bacteria in phytoremediation of metal-polluted soils: current knowledge and future directions. Sci Total Environ. 2022;838(4):156435. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.156435.
  43. 43.
    Priya AK, Muruganandam M, Ali SS, Kornaros M. Clean-up of heavy metals from contaminated soil by phytoremediation: a multidisciplinary and eco-friendly approach. Toxics. 2023;11(5):422. doi:10.3390/toxics11050422.
  44. 44.
    Azorji JN, Nwachukwu UC, Nwachukwu MO, Ugochukwu MG, Dike KS, Nzenwa PO, Assessment of phytoextraction potentials of three indigenous plant species in soil contaminated with spent engine oil. Fac Nat Appl Sci J Sci Innovations. 2024;5(3):56–62.
  45. 45.
    Waseem M, Khilji SA, Tariq S, Jamal A, Alomrani SO, Javed T. Phytoremediation of heavy metals from industrially contaminated soil using sunflower (Helianthus annus L.) by inoculation of two indigenous bacteria. Plant Stress. 2024;11: 100297. doi:10.1016/j.stress.2023.100297.
  46. 46.
    Ejeh AM, Ebong GA, Moses EA. Phytoremediation potential of Jatropha gossypiifolia for toxic metals in waste-impacted soils amended with citric and ethylenediaaminetetraacetic acids. J Mater Environ Sci. 2025;16(1):68–91.
  47. 47.
    Braus MJ, Whitman TL. Standard and non-standard measurements of acidity and the bacterial ecology of northern temperate mineral soils. Soil Biol Biochem. 2021;160: 108323. doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2021.108323.
  48. 48.
    Gelman F, Binstock R, Halicz L. Application of the Walkley–Black titration for the organic carbon quantification in organic rich sedimentary rocks. Fuel. 2012;96: 608–610. doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2011.12.053.
  49. 49.
    Mustapha AA. Comparison of different methods for the assessment of soil organic carbon in Northern Guinea Savanna Zone of Nigeria. J Sustain Agric Environ. 2020;18(1):36–41.
  50. 50.
    Nel T, Bruneel Y, Smolders E. Comparison of five methods to determine the cation exchange capacity of soil. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci. 2023;186(3):311–320. doi:10.1002/jpln.202200378.
  51. 51.
    Mozaffari H, Moosavi AA, Baghernejad M, Cornelis W. Revisiting soil texture analysis: introducing a rapid single-reading hydrometer approach. Measurement. 2024;228: 114330. doi:10.1016/j.measurement.2024.114330.
  52. 52.
    Ebong GA, Etuk HS, Anweting IB, Ekot AE, Ite AE. Relationship between traffic density, metal accumulation, pollution status, and human health problems in roadside soils and vegetables within the south-south region of Nigeria. Int J Agric Environ Biotechnol. 2023;8(3):65–79. doi:10.22161/ijeab.83.8.
  53. 53.
    Ishak I, Rosli FD, Mohamed J, Ismail MF. Comparison of digestion methods for the determination of trace elements and heavy metals in human hair and nails. Malays J Med Sci. 2015;22(6):11–20.
  54. 54.
    Mohammed E, Mohammed T, Mohammed A. Optimization of an acid digestion procedure for the determination of Hg, As, Sb, Pb and Cd in fish muscle tissue. MethodsX. 2017;4: 513–523. doi:10.1016/j.mex.2017.11.006.
  55. 55.
    Xia Y, Feng J, Zhang H, Xiong D, Kong L, Seviour R, Effects of soil pH on the growth, soil nutrient composition, and rhizosphere microbiome of Ageratina adenophora. Peer J. 2024;12: e17231. doi:10.7717/peerj.17231.
  56. 56.
    Hong S, Gan P, Chen A. Environmental controls on soil pH in planted forest and its response to nitrogen deposition. Environ Res. 2019;172: 159–165. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2019.02.020.
  57. 57.
    Elnajdi A, Berland A, Haeft J, Dowling C. Influence of soil pH, organic matter, and clay content on environmentally available lead in soils: a case study in Muncie, Indiana, USA. Open J Soil Sci. 2023;13: 414–430. doi:10.4236/ojss.2023.1310019.
  58. 58.
    Dewangan SK, Shrivastava SK, Kumari L, Minj P, Kumari J, Sahu R. The effects of soil pH on soil health and environmental sustainability: a review. Int J Emerg Technol Innov Res. 2023;10(6):D611–D616.
  59. 59.
    Agbeshie AA, Adjei R, Anokye J, Banunle A. Municipal waste dumpsite: impact on soil properties and heavy metal concentrations, Sunyani, Ghana. Sci Afr. 2020;8: e00390. doi:10.1016/j.sciaf.2020.e00390.
  60. 60.
    Amadi N, Yabrade M, Nsan-nicholas OH, Gbosidom VL. Physiochemical properties of soil from waste dumpsites within Choba, Alakahia and Rumuosi Communities in Akpor, Rivers State, Nigeria. J Appl Sci Environ Manage. 2024;28(7):2217–2225. doi:10.4314/jasem.v28i7.36.
  61. 61.
    Orjiakor PI, Ikhajiagbe B, Ekhaise FO. Impact of acrylic-based paints effluent on the physicochemical and bacteriological quality of soil in Ado-Ekiti, Nigeria. J Mater Environ Sci. 2020;11(8):1230–1240.
  62. 62.
    Chukwuma OU, Uchenna OM, Ogonna US, Chinedu OS. Effects of effluents’ discharge from some paint industries on soil’s physicochemical properties and bioattenuation of polluted soil. Ind Domest Waste Mgt. 2022;2(2):46–60. doi:10.53623/idwm.v2i2.110.
  63. 63.
    Sintorini MM, Widyatmoko H, Sinaga H, Aliyah N. Effect of pH on metal mobility in the soil. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci. 2021;737(1):012071. doi:10.1088/1755-1315/737/1/012071.
  64. 64.
    Peinemann N, Amiotti NM, Zalba P, Villamil MB. Effect of clay minerals and organic matter on the cation exchange capacity of silt fractions. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci. 2000;163(1):47–52. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1522-2624(200002)163:1<47::AID-JPLN47>3.0.CO;2-A.
  65. 65.
    Purnamasari L, Rostaman T, Widowati LR, Anggria L. Comparison of appropriate cation exchange capacity (CEC) extraction methods for soils from several regions of Indonesia. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci. 2021;648: 012209. doi:10.1088/1755-1315/648/1/012209.
  66. 66.
    Ocheoibo SJ, Atuanya EI. Evaluation of microbial load and physicochemical characteristics of soils in electronic waste dumpsites of Oluku and Osasogie in Benin, Edo State and Alaba in Lagos State, Nigeria. J Appl Sci Environ Manage. 2024;28(3):953–960. doi:10.4314/jasem.v28i3.37.
  67. 67.
    Cao X, Wang X, Tong W, Gurajala HK, Lu M, Hamid Y, Distribution, availability and translocation of heavy metals in soil-oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.) system related to soil properties. Environ Pollut. 2019;252(Pt A):733–741. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2019.05.147.
  68. 68.
    Ikhajiagbe B, Musa SI, Okeme JO. Effect of changes in soil cation exchange capacity on the reclamation of lead by eleusine indica (l.) gaertn. Fudma J Sci. 2023;3(4):176–183. https://fjs.fudutsinma.edu.ng/index.php/fjs/article/view/1636.
  69. 69.
    Wan Y, Liu J, Zhuang Z, Wang Q, Li H. Heavy metals in agricultural soils: sources influencing factors, and remediation strategies. Toxics. 2024;12(1):63. doi:10.3390/toxics12010063.
  70. 70.
    Antonangelo JA, Culman S, Zhang H. Comparative analysis and prediction of cation exchange capacity via summation: influence of biochar type and nutrient ratios. Front Soil Sci. 2024;4: 1371777. doi:10.3389/fsoil.2024.1371777.
  71. 71.
    Yang M, Zhou D, Hang H, Chen S, Liu H, Su J, Effects of Balancing Exchangeable Cations Ca, Mg, and K on the Growth of Tomato Seedlings (Solanum lycopersicum L.) based on increased soil cation exchange capacity. Agronomy. 2024;14(3):629. doi:10.3390/agronomy14030629.
  72. 72.
    Azuka CV, Ezeme C. Influence of municipal solid waste dumpsite on soil physicochemical properties and vertical distribution of heavy metals. J Biores Mgt. 2023;10(3):104–118.
  73. 73.
    Orimisan AE, Olarewaju AJ, Babaniyi BR, Olumuyiwa AO. Heavy metal content in dumpsite soils and vegetables: a case study of Ondo Town, Nigeria. GSC Adv Res Rev. 2024;19(01):097–104. doi:10.30574/gscarr.2024.19.1.0141.
  74. 74.
    Adesokan MD, Adie GU, Osibanjo O. Soil pollution by toxic metals near E-waste recycling operations in Ibadan, Nigeria. J Health Pollut. 2016;6(11):26–33. doi:10.5696/2156-9614-6-11.26.
  75. 75.
    Aljumaily MM, Al-Hamndi HM. Organic matter and heavy metals sorption. Tikrit J Agric Sci. 2022;22(3):158–165. doi:10.25130/tjas.22.3.18.
  76. 76.
    Lawan IB, Mohammed AI, Zaynab M. Assessment of some heavy metals and physiochemical parameters of soil samples from Biu, Biu Local Government Area, Borno State, Nigeria. ChemSearch J. 2024;15(1):72–79.
  77. 77.
    Wiater J. Content of heavy metals and their fractions in organic soils of podlasie. J Ecol Eng. 2019;20(3):179–184. doi:10.12911/22998993/99886.
  78. 78.
    Deng A, Wang L, Chen F, Li Z, Liu W, Liu Y. Soil aggregate-associated heavy metals subjected to different types of land use in subtropical China. Glob Ecol Conserv. 2018;16: e00465. doi:10.1016/j.gecco.2018.e00465.
  79. 79.
    Haghighizadeh A, Rajabi O, Nezarat A, Hajyani Z, Haghmohammadi M, Hedayatikhah S, Comprehensive analysis of heavy metal soil contamination in mining environments: impacts, monitoring techniques, and remediation strategies. Arab J Chem. 2024;17(6):105777. doi:10.1016/j.arabjc.2024.105777.
  80. 80.
    Wei H, Guenet B, Vicca S, Nunan N, Asard H, AbdElgawad H, High clay content accelerates the decomposition of fresh organic matter in artificial soils. Soil Bio Biochem. 2014;77: 100–108. doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.06.006.
  81. 81.
    Jeon I, Chung H, Kim SH, Nam K. Use of clay and organic matter contents to predict soil pH vulnerability in response to acid or alkali spills. Heliyon. 2023;9(6):e17044. doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e17044.
  82. 82.
    Alaboudi KA, Ahmed B, Brodie G. Phytoremediation of Pb and Cd contaminated soils by using sunflower (Helianthus annuus) plant. Ann Agric Sci. 2018;63(1):123–127. doi:10.1016/j.aoas.2018.05.007.
  83. 83.
    FAO/WHO. Food and Agricultural Organization/World Health Organization (FAO/WHO). Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme, Codex Alimentarius Commission, Twenty-third Session, 28 June–3 July 1999, Rome, Italy. Rome; 1999.
  84. 84.
    Sharma RK, Agrawal M. Single and combined effects of cadmium and zinc on carrots: uptake and bioaccumulation. J Plant Nutr. 2006;29(10):1791–1804. doi:10.1080/01904160600899246.
  85. 85.
    Dong Q, Hu S, Fei L, Liu L, Wang Z. Interaction between Cd and Zn on metal accumulation, translocation and mineral nutrition in Tall Fescue (Festuca arundinacea). Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20(13):3332. doi:10.3390/ijms20133332.
  86. 86.
    Yunan D, Xianliang Q, Xiaochen W. Study on cation exchange capacity of agricultural soils. IOP Conf Ser: Mater Sci Eng. 2018;392: 042039. doi:10.1088/1757-899X/392/4/042039.
  87. 87.
    Zhou W, Han G, Liu M, Li X. Effects of soil pH and texture on soil carbon and nitrogen in soil profiles under different land uses in Mun River Basin, Northeast Thailand. Peer J. 2019;7: e7880. doi:10.7717/peerj.7880.
  88. 88.
    Kong XZ, Li DC, Song XD, Zhang GL. Comparison of highly-weathered acid soil CEC determined by NH4OAc (pH = 7.0) exchange method and BaCl2-MgSO4 forced-exchange method. Agri Sci. 2021;12: 917–927. doi:10.4236/as.2021.129059.
  89. 89.
    Aigberua AO. Effects of spatial, temporal and pH changes on fractionated heavy metals in sediments of the Middleton River, Bayelsa State, Nigeria. MOJ Toxicol. 2018;4(6):424–430. doi:10.15406/mojt.2018.04.00140.
  90. 90.
    Wen J, Wu C, Bi X, Zhang S, Ouyang H, Ye J, Soil pH change induced by smelting activities affects secondary carbonate production and long-term Cd activity in subsoils. Appl Geochem. 2023;152: 105663. doi:10.1016/j.apgeochem.2023.105663.
  91. 91.
    Kong X, Li D, Song X, Zhang G. Quantitative estimation of the changes in soil CEC after the removal of organic matter and iron oxides. Agric Sci. 2021;12: 1244–1254. doi:10.4236/as.2021.1211079.
  92. 92.
    Mishra G, Sulieman MM, Kaya F, Francaviglia R, Keshavarzi A, Bakhshandeh E, Machine learning for cation exchange capacity prediction in different land uses. CATENA. 2022;216(A):106404. doi:10.1016/j.catena.2022.106404.
  93. 93.
    Aprile F, Lorandi R. Evaluation of cation exchange capacity (CEC) in tropical soils using four different analytical methods. J Agric Sci. 2012;4(6):278–289. doi:10.5539/jas.v4n6p278.
  94. 94.
    Xue B, Huang L, Li X, Lu J, Gao R, Kamran M, Effect of clay mineralogy and soil organic carbon in aggregates under straw incorporation. Agronomy. 2022;12(2):534. doi:10.3390/agronomy12020534.
  95. 95.
    Zhao M, Zhang Z, Li M, Gao C, Zhang J, He N. Soil mineral-associated organic carbon and its relationship to clay minerals across grassland transects in China. Appl Sci. 2024;14: 2061. doi:10.3390/app14052061.
  96. 96.
    Han Y, Tang Z, Sun J, Xing X, Zhang M, Cheng J. Heavy metals in soil contaminated through e-waste processing activities in a recycling area: implications for risk management. Process Saf Environ Prot. 2019;125: 189–196. doi:10.1016/j.psep.2019.03.020.
  97. 97.
    Ma J-Y, Bao X-C, Tian W, Cui D-L, Zhang M-Y, Yang J, Effects of soil-extractable metals Cd and Ni from an e-waste dismantling site on human colonic epithelial cells Caco-2: mechanisms and implications. Chemosphere. 2022;292: 133361. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.133361.
  98. 98.
    Bandow N, Simon FG. Significance of cadmium from artists’ paints to agricultural soil and the food chain. Environ Sci Eur. 2016;28: 12. doi:10.1186/s12302-016-0077-6.
  99. 99.
    Kinuthia GK, Ngure V, Beti D, Lugalia R, Wangila A, Kamau L. Levels of heavy metals in wastewater and soil samples from open drainage channels in Nairobi, Kenya: community health implication. Sci Rep. 2020;10: 8434. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-65359-5.
  100. 100.
    Sivakumar S, Prabha D, Velmurugan P, Hong SC, Yi PI, Jang SH, Phytoremediation of Cu and Cd-contaminated roadside soils by using stem cuttings of Portulaca oleracea L. Environ Chem Ecotoxicol. 2020;2: 201–204. doi:10.1016/j.enceco.2020.10.004.
  101. 101.
    Onwukeme VI, Eze VC. Identification of heavy metals source within selected active dumpsites in southeastern Nigeria. Environ Anal Health Toxicol. 2021;36(2):e2021008. doi:10.5620/eaht.2021008.
  102. 102.
    Yao X, Saikawa E, Warner S, D’Souza PE, Ryan PB, Barr DB. Phytoremediation of lead-contaminated soil in the Westside of Atlanta, GA. GeoHealth. 2023;7: e2022GH000752. doi:10.1029/2022GH000752.
  103. 103.
    Afolagboye LO, Ojo AA, Talabi AO. Evaluation of soil contamination status around a municipal waste dumpsite using contamination indices, soil-quality guidelines, and multivariate statistical analysis. SN Appl Sci. 2020;2: 1864. doi:10.1007/s42452-020-03678-y.
  104. 104.
    Ojiego BO, Ilo OP, Okolo JC, Igborgbor JC, Ishaku T, Abdullahi SA, Concentrations of heavy metals in soil samples from dumpsites located at Kuje and Kwali area councils, Abuja, Nigeria. J Mater Environ Sci. 2022;13(09):1037–1046.
  105. 105.
    Rolli NM, Nadagouda MG, Giriyappanavar BS, Taranath TC. Phytoremediation of zinc by Spirodela polyrrhiza (L.) Schleiden. Nat Environ Pollut Technol. 2007;6(1):41–44.
  106. 106.
    Kolawole TO, Iyiola O, Ibrahim H, Isibor RA. Contamination, ecological and health risk assessments of potentially toxic elements in soil around a municipal solid waste disposal facility in Southwestern Nigeria. J Trace Elem Mineral. 2023;5: 100083. doi:10.1016/j.jtemin.2023.100083.
  107. 107.
    Houessionon MGK, Ouendo ED, Bouland C, Takyi SA, Kedote NM, Fayomi B, Environmental heavy metal contamination from electronic waste (E-waste) recycling activities worldwide: a systematic review from 2005 to 2017. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(7):3517. doi:10.3390/ijerph18073517.
  108. 108.
    Laghlimi M, Baghdad B, Hadi H, Bouabdli A. Phytoremediation mechanisms of heavy metal contaminated soils: a review. Open J Ecol. 2015;5: 375–388. doi:10.4236/oje.2015.58031.
  109. 109.
    Tan HW, Pang YL, Lim S, Chong WC. A state-of-the-art of phytoremediation approach for sustainable management of heavy metals recovery. Environ Technol Inno. 2023;30: 103043. doi:10.1016/j.eti.2023.103043.

Written by

Agi Michael Ejeh, Godwin Asukwo Ebong and Eno Anietie Moses

Article Type: Research Paper

•

Date of acceptance: May 2025

Date of publication: June 2025

•

DOI: 10.5772/geet.20250005

Copyright: The Author(s), Licensee IntechOpen, License: CC BY 4.0

Download for free

© The Author(s) 2025. Licensee IntechOpen. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Impact of this article

44

Downloads

53

Views

Share this article

Join us today!

Submit your Article