4.6 Article

Phytoremediation of PAH- and Cu-Contaminated Soil by Cannabis sativa L.: Preliminary Experiments on a Laboratory Scale

Journal

SUSTAINABILITY
Volume 15, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su15031852

Keywords

hemp; phytoremediation; soil; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; copper

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study explores the phytoremediation potential of Cannabis sativa L. in contaminated soil containing phenanthrene (PHE), pyrene (PYR), and copper (Cu). The results reveal that the removal efficiency of PHE and PYR ranged from 93% to 98% and 36% to 61%, respectively, while the highest Cu extraction reached 58 mg center dot kg(-1). The growth of C. sativa L. was significantly inhibited by the presence of contaminants, with reductions in biomass ranging from 25% to 71%. These findings contribute to the understanding of C. sativa L. as a potential phytoremediation tool for further field-scale investigations.
This study proposes the phytoremediation of phenanthrene (PHE)-, pyrene (PYR)-, and copper (Cu)-contaminated soil by Cannabis sativa L. The experimental campaign was conducted in 300 mL volume pots over a 50 d period using different initial polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) concentrations, i.e., 100 (PC1), 200 (PC2), and 300 (PC3) mg.PAHs kg(-1) dry weight of soil, while maintaining a constant Cu concentration of 350 mg center dot kg(-1). PHE and PYR removal was 93 and 61%, 98 and 48%, and 97 and 36% in PC1, PC2, and PC3, respectively, in the greenhouse condition. The highest Cu extraction amounted to 58 mg center dot kg(-1). In general, the growth of C. sativa L. under the PC1, PC2, and PC3 conditions decreased by approximately 25, 65, and 71% (dry biomass), respectively, compared to the uncontaminated control. The present study is aimed at highlighting the phytoremediation potential of C. sativa L. and providing the preliminary results necessary for future field-scale investigations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available