Anaerobic digestion of mercury phytoextraction crops with intermediary stage bio-waste polymer treatment

References

• Abdel-Shafy HI, Mansour M. 2014. Biogas production as affected by heavy metals in the anaerobic digestion of sludge. Egypt J Petroleum. 23(4):409–417. doi:10.1016/j.ejpe.2014.09.009.
   Google Scholar
• APHA. 1999. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. 20th ed. Washington DC: American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, Water Environment Federation. Section 2540.
   Google Scholar
• Beauford W, Barber J, Barringe AR. 1977. Uptake and distribution of mercury within higher plants. Physiol Plant. 39(4):261–265. doi:10.1111/j.1399-3054.1977.tb01880.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beckers F, Rinklebe J. 2017. Cycling of mercury in the environment: Sources, fate, and human health implications: a review. Crit Rev Env Sci Tech. 47(9):693–794. doi:10.1080/10643389.2017.1326277.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boening DW. 2000. Ecological effects, transport, and fate of mercury: a general review. Chemosphere. 40(12):1335–1351. doi:10.1016/S0045-6535(99)00283-0.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Budnik LT, Casteleyn L. 2018. Mercury pollution in modern times and its socio-medical consequences. Sci Total Environ. 654:720-734. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.408.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cao Z, Wang S, Wang T, Chang Z, Shen Z, Chen Y. 2015. Using contaminated plants involved in phytoremediation for anaerobic digestion. Int J Phytoremediation. 17(1–6):201–207. doi:10.1080/15226514.2013.876967.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Capone DG, Reese DD, Kiene RP. 1983. Effects of metals on methanogenesis, sulfate reduction, carbon dioxide evolution, and microbial biomas in anoxic salt marsh sediments. Appl Environ Microb. 45(5):1586–1591. doi:10.1128/AEM.45.5.1586-1591.1983.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chalker JM. Personal communication. 6th June 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Cozzolino V, De Martino A, Nebbioso A, Di Meo V, Salluzzo A, Piccolo A. 2016. Plant tolerance to mercury in a contaminated soil is enhanced by the combined effects of humic matter addition and inoculation with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 23(11):11312–11322. doi:10.1007/s11356-016-6337-6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crockett MP, Evans AM, Worthington M, Albuquerque IS, Slattery AD, Gibson CT, Campbell JA, Lewis DA, Bernardes JL, Chalker JM. 2016. Sulfur-limonene polysulfide: a material synthesized entirely from industrial by-products and its use in removing toxic metals from water and soil. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 55(5):1714–1718. doi:10.1002/anie.201508708.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ericksen JA, Gustin MS. 2004. Foliar exchange of mercury as a function of soil and air mercury concentrations. Sci Total Environ. 324(1-3):271–279. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2003.10.034.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Esdaile LJ, Chalker JM. 2018. The mercury problem in artisanal and small-scale gold mining. Chemistry. 24(27):6905–6916. doi:10.1002/chem.201704840.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Union. 1999. Council directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (online) [accessed 2019 Sep 27]. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31999L0031.
   Google Scholar
• Fernandes TV, Klaasse Bos GJ, Zeeman G, Sanders JPM, van Lier JB. 2009. Effects of thermo-chemical pre-treatment on anaerobic biodegradability and hydrolysis of lignocellulosic biomass. Bioresour Technol. 100(9):2575–2579. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2008.12.012.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greger M, Wang Y, Neuschütz C. 2005. Absence of Hg transpiration by shoot after Hg uptake by roots of six terrestrial plant species. Environ Pollut. 134(2):201–208. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2004.08.007.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hossain MK, Strezov V, Nelson PF. 2009. Thermal characterisation of the products of wastewater sludge pyrolysis. J Anal Appl Pyrol. 85(1–2):442–446. doi:10.1016/j.jaap.2008.09.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IPEN. 2016. Guidance on the identification, management and remediation of mercury contaminated sites (online) [accessed 2019 Sep 27]. http://ipen.org/documents/ipen-guidance-identification-management-and-remediation-mercury-contaminated-sites.
   Google Scholar
• John Innes Manufacturer’s Association. 2018. Formulation (online) [accessed 2019 Sep 27]. https://johninnes.info/compost/formulation.html.
   Google Scholar
• Kerafast. 2019. Polysulfide mercury sorbent (microporous) (online) [accessed 2019 Sep 27]. https://www.kerafast.com/PDF/Polysulfide%20Polymer%20Mercury%20Sorbent%20(Porous).pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Kovacs H, Szemmelveisz K. 2017. Disposal options for polluted plants grown on heavy metal contaminated brownfield lands - a review. Chemosphere. 166:8–20. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.09.076.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee J, Park KY, Cho J, Kim JY. 2018. Releasing characteristics and fate of heavy metals from phytoremediation crop residues during anaerobic digestion. Chemosphere. 191:520–526. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.10.072.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leonard TL, Taylor GE, Gustin MS, Fernandez G. 1998. Mercury and plants in contaminated soils: 1. Uptake, partitioning, and emission to the atmosphere. Environ Toxicol Chem. 17(10):2063–2071. doi:10.1002/etc.5620171024.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liao L, Selim HM, DeLaune RD. 2009. Mercury adsorption-desorption and transport in soils. J Environ Qual. 38(4):1608–1616. doi:10.2134/jeq2008.0343.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lingle JW, Hermann ER. 1975. Mercury in anaerobic sludge digestion. J Water Pollut Control Fed. 47(3 pt 1):466–471.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lomonte C, Wang Y, Doronila A, Gregory D, Baker AJM, Siegele R, Kolev S. 2014. Study of the spatial distribution of mercury in roots of vetiver grass (Chrysopogon zizanioides) by micro-pixe spectrometry. Int J Phytoremediation. 16(7–12):1170–1182. doi:10.1080/15226514.2013.821453.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• López FA, López-Delgado A, Padilla I, Tayibi H, Alguacil FJ. 2010. Formation of metacinnabar by milling of liquid mercury and elemental sulfur for long term mercury storage. Sci Total Environ. 408(20):4341–4345. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.07.008.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mbanga O, Ncube S, Tutu H, Chimuka L, Cukrowska E. 2019. Mercury accumulation and biotransportation in wetland biota affected by gold mining. Environ Monit Assess. 191(3):186–198. doi:10.1007/s10661-019-7329-z.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meagher RB, Heaton A. 2005. Strategies for the engineered phytoremediation of toxic element pollution: mercury and arsenic. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol. 32(11–12):502–513. doi:10.1007/s10295-005-0255-9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moestedt J, Malmborg J, Nordell E. 2015. Determination of methane and carbon dioxide formation rate constants for semi-continuously fed anaerobic digesters. Energies. 8(1):645–655. doi:10.3390/en8010645.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Obrist D, Agnan Y, Jiskra M, Olson CL, Colegrove DP, Hueber J, Moore CW, Sonke JE, Helmig D. 2017. Tundra uptake of atmospheric elemental mercury drives arctic mercury pollution. Nature. 547(7662):201–216. doi:10.1038/nature22997.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oji LN. 1998. Mercury disposal via sulfur reductions. J Env Eng. 124(10):945–952. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(1998)124:10(945).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oleszkiewicz JA, Sharma VK. 1990. Stimulation and inhibition of anaerobic processes by heavy metals - a review. Biol Waste. 31(1):45–67. doi:10.1016/0269-7483(90)90043-R.
   Google Scholar
• Paulo LM, Stams AJM, Sousa DZ. 2015. Methanogens, sulphate and heavy metals: a complex system. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol. 14(4):537–553. doi:10.1007/s11157-015-9387-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pat-Espadas AM, Loredo Portales R, Amabilis-Sosa L, Gómez G, Vidal G. 2018. Review of constructed wetlands for acid mine drainage treatment. Water. 10(11):1685–1625. doi:10.3390/w10111685.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rascio N, Navari-Izzo F. 2011. Heavy metal hyperaccumulating plants: How and why do they do it? And what makes them so interesting? Plant Sci. 180(2):169–181. doi:10.1016/j.plantsci.2010.08.016.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ripley LE, Boyle WC, Converse JC. 1986. Improved alkalimetric monitoring for anaerobic digestion of high strength wastes. Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation. 58 (5):406–411.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sasmaz M, Akgül B, Yildirim D, Sasmaz A. 2016. Mercury uptake and phytotoxicity in terrestrial plants grown naturally in the Gumuskoy (Kutahya) mining area, Turkey. Int J Phytoremediation. 18(1):69–76. doi:10.1080/15226514.2015.1058334.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sas-Nowosielska A, Kucharski R, Małkowski E, Pogrzeba M, Kuperberg JM, Kryński K. 2004. Phytoextraction crop disposal-an unsolved problem. Environ Pollut. 128(3):373–379. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2003.09.012.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smolinska B, Leszczynska J. 2015. Influence of combined use of iodide and compost on Hg accumulation by Lepidium sativum L. J Environ Manage. 150:499–507. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.12.043.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smolinska B, Rowe S. 2015. The potential of Lepidium sativum L. for phytoextraction of Hg-contaminated soil assisted by thiosulphate. J Soils Sediments. 15(2):393–400. doi:10.1007/s11368-014-0997-y.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smolinska B, Szczodrowska A. 2017. Antioxidative response of Lepidium sativum L. during assisted phytoremediation of Hg contaminated soil. N Biotechnol. 38(Pt B):74–83. doi:10.1016/j.nbt.2016.07.004.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Streets DG, Horowitz HM, Jacob DJ, Lu Z, Levin L, ter Schure AFH, Sunderland EM. 2017. Total mercury released to the environment by human activities. Environ Sci Technol. 51(11):5969–5977. doi:10.1021/acs.est.7b00451.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suszcynsky EM, Shann JR. 1995. Phytotoxicity and accumulation of mercury subjected to different exposure routes. Environ Toxicol Chem. 14(1):61–67. doi:10.1002/etc.5620140108.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tian Y, Zhang H. 2016. Producing biogas from agricultural residues generated during phytoremediation process: possibility, threshold, and challenges. Intl J Green Energy. 13(15):1556–1563. doi:10.1080/15435075.2016.1206017.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• UNEP 2013. Global Mercury Assessment 2013: sources, emissions, releases and environmental transport (online). United Nations Environment Programme [accessed 2019 Sep 27]. http://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/7984?show=full.
   Google Scholar
• United Nations Environment Programme. 2017. Minamata convention on mercury, text and annexes. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme. p. 1–67.
   Google Scholar
• Van Slycken S, Witters N, Meers E, Peene A, Michels E, Adriaensen K, Ruttens A, Vangronsveld J, Du Laing G, Wierinck I, et al. 2013. Safe use of metal-contaminated agricultural land by cultivation of energy maize (Zea mays). Environ Pollut. 178:375–380. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2013.03.032.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang J, Feng X, Anderson CWN, Xing Y, Shang L. 2012. Remediation of mercury contaminated sites – a review. J Hazard Mater. 221–222:1–18. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2012.04.035.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Willscher S, Mirgorodsk D, Jablonski L, Ollivier D, Merten D, Büchel G, Wittig J, Werner P. 2013. Field scale phytoremediation experiments on a heavy metal and uranium contaminated site, and further utilization of the plant residues. Hydrometallurgy. 131-132:46–53. doi:10.1016/j.arabjc.2013.08.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Worthington MJH, Kucera RL, Albuquerque IS, Gibson CT, Sibley A, Slattery AD, Campbell JA, Alboaiji SFK, Muller KA, Young J, Adamson N, et al. 2017. Laying waste to mercury: inexpensive sorbents made from sulfur and recycled cooking oils. Chemistry. 23(64):16219–16230. doi:10.1002/chem.201704108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu J, Garcia Bravo A, Lagerkvist A, Bertilsson S, Sjöblom R, Kumpiene J. 2015. Sources and remediation techniques for mercury contaminated soil. Environ Int. 74:42–53. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2014.09.007.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yenigün O, Demirel B. 2013. Ammonia inhibition in anaerobic digestion: a review. Process Biochem. 48(5–6):901–911. doi:10.1016/j.procbio.2013.04.012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang H, Tian Y, Wang L, Zhang L, Dai L. 2013. Ecophysiological characteristics and biogas production of cadmium-contaminated crops. Bioresour Technol. 146:628–636. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2013.07.148.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar