DOI: 10.3303/CET25121028 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Paper Received: 16 July 2025; Revised: 25 September 2025; Accepted: 02 December 2025 
Please cite this article as: Medrano-Sanchez E.J., Sotomayor C.N., 2025, Phytoremediation as a Strategic Alliance Between Nature and Mining 
for a More Sustainable Future: a Literature Review, Chemical Engineering Transactions, 121, 163-168  DOI:10.3303/CET25121028 
  

 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING TRANSACTIONS  
 

VOL. 121, 2025 

A publication of 

 

The Italian Association 
of Chemical Engineering 
Online at www.cetjournal.it 

Guest Editors: Petar S. Varbanov 

Copyright © 2025, AIDIC Servizi S.r.l. 

ISBN 979-12-81206-22-9; ISSN 2283-9216 

Phytoremediation as a Strategic Alliance Between Nature and 

Mining for a More Sustainable Future: a Literature Review  

Emilio J. Medrano-Sáncheza,*, Caroline N., Sotomayorb 

aUniversidad Tecnológica del Perú, Lima, Perú 
bUniversidad Privada Antenor Orrego, Trujillo, Perú 

c16602@utp.edu.pe  

This review synthesizes evidence from 60 articles (2019–2023) on phytoremediation of mining-contaminated 

soils identified through searches in Scopus and Web of Science. Screening followed PRISMA principles. Five 

themes were analyzed: (i) phytotechnology in contaminated soils, (ii) phytotechnology forms, (iii) assisted 

phytoremediation, (iv) effectiveness, and (v) plant-based applications. Across the included studies, evidence 

highlight the effectiveness of specific plant species and the use of plant growth-promoting bacteria (PGPB) and 

other amendments to accelerate metal removal; however, success depends on plant adaptability, accurate 

contaminant identification, and feasible remediation timeframes. Evidence is dominated by 

laboratory/greenhouse designs, with comparatively few field-scale validations. We recommend expanding real-

scale trials, comparing species and amendments under diverse edaphoclimatic conditions, and deepening 

research on plant–microorganism interactions, alongside standardized monitoring protocols and 

multidisciplinary collaboration to optimize practical deployment of phytoremediation in mining soils. 

1. Introduction 

Mining is one of the primary activities driving Peru’s economic and industrial development 21 Cruzado-Tafur et 

al., 2021; Reboredo et al., 2021), yet its expansion can affect natural vegetation and trigger persistent 

environmental impacts linked to heavy metals (Madejón et al., 2022; Wu et al., 2021). These contaminants 

degrade soils, water and crops and pose risks to human health (Heredia et al., 2022; Zheng et al., 2022), 

underscoring the need for effective remediation strategies. 

Remediation approaches include physical, chemical and biological methods (Gascó et al., 2019; Ortúzar et al., 

2020; Liu et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2021). Conventional options such as vitrification, electrokinetics and soil 

washing, can be viable (Heredia et al., 2022) but are often costly, may leave persistent residues and can 

irreversibly alter soil properties (Wu et al., 2021; Singh, Singh and Dhal, 2022). In recent years, more sustainable 

and cost-effective alternatives have gained traction (Gascó et al., 2019), with phytoremediation standing out. 

Phytoremediation relies on plant capacities to absorb, transfer, stabilize, concentrate and/or degrade 

contaminants (Pusz, Wiśniewska and Rogalski, 2021; Heredia et al., 2022), helping to reduce erosion and 

leaching while contributing to soil fertility (Pandey et al., 2021). It is widely regarded as a strategic, cost-effective 

and environmentally sustainable measure applicable to various contaminants (Cruzado-Tafur et al., 2021; 

Opeña et al., 2022). Nonetheless, its performance depends on (i) plant adaptability, (ii) accurate contaminant 

identification and (iii) the time required for remediation (Pandey et al., 2021), and it can be enhanced with 

supporting inputs such as plant growth–promoting bacteria, compost or manure. 

In this context, the present review analyses and synthesizes evidence on the efficiency of phytoremediation for 

removing heavy metals from mining soils, drawing on articles published between 2019 and 2023 in Scopus and 

Web of Science. The research question guiding this work is: What are the most used elements in 

phytoremediation that have demonstrated the highest effectiveness in the removal of heavy metals according 

to the existing literature? This approach allows the identification of patterns and knowledge gaps to orient future 

applications and research. 

163



2. Methodology  

We conducted a literature review of primary research articles addressing “phytoremediation” and “mining”. 

Searches were run in Scopus and Web of Science for publications between 2019 and June 2023, targeting 

records that included “phytoremediation” and “contaminated soils” in the title, abstract, or keywords. Screening 

followed PRISMA 2020 principles. From 118 records identified (all in Scopus; no results in Web of Science), 

three screening criteria were applied: duplication, title relevance, and abstract relevance. Title screening 

retained all 118 records. Abstract screening excluded 57 articles due to incompatibility with the study objective 

(n = 43), absence of phytoremediation (n = 2), exclusive focus on soil, water, or other elements unrelated to 

phytoremediation (n = 8), or a purely chemical scope (n = 4), yielding 61 eligible articles. Full-text assessment 

excluded one study (Li et al., 2020) because it is a prior systematic review; it was kept as a background 

reference. Finally, 60 articles were included for qualitative synthesis and full-text analysis. 

3. Results  

Given the importance of phytoremediation as a sustainable strategy for mitigating heavy metal pollution in mining 

areas, this study used a systematic approach to identify the main research topics and the most notable 

contributions in this field, creating two figures, one showing the thematic distribution of the 60 articles analyzed 

and the other showing the 88 proposals and/or contributions extracted from the documents analyzed. Both visual 

resources serve as a starting point for presenting the key results of this work. 

3.1 Main Research Topics on Phytoremediation in Mining 

Across the 60 studies, five research topics were identified (Figure 1). In phytotechnology in contaminated soils 

(n = 5), evidence covers: afforestation trials on legacy coal-mine soils contaminated with Zn, Cd, Mn, Pb and 

Cu (Lan et al., 2020); endophytic Micromonospora producing metallophores for bacterial-assisted 

bioremediation (Ortúzar et al., 2020); plant growth-promoting bacteria applied in Cd-contaminated mining areas 

(Liu et al., 2021); cowpea genotypes tested in Hg-contaminated soils (Marrugo-Negrete et al., 2020); and 

manure-derived hydrochars/biochar evaluated for heavy-metal removal (Cárdenas-Aguiar et al., 2020). 

 
Figure 1. Grouping of Research Topics on Phytoremediation in Mining. 

In forms of phytotechnology (n = 7), studies address microalgae for bioremediation (Vela-García, Guamán-

Burneo and González-Romero, 2019); rhizobacteria-tolerant plants applied to phytoremediation (Madline, 

Benidire and Boularbah, 2021); rhizosphere microbiomes under Hg/Cd contamination (Saldarriaga et al., 2023); 

mercury-resistant biofilm bacteria with local plants (Nurfitriani, Arisoesilaningsih and Nuraini, 2023); 

simultaneous application of clay minerals (Otunola et al., 2023); incorporation of low-molecular-weight organic 

acids (Zheng et al., 2022); and tilapia growth as a phytoremediation approach (Maharani et al., 2022). 

In assisted phytoremediation (n = 11), three lines are distinguished: amendments applied and evaluated within 

aided phytoremediation (Simiele et al., 2020; Lebrun et al., 2021; Pandey et al., 2021; Pérez et al., 2021; 

Shahrokh et al., 2023); heavy-metal behaviour determined in amended mining soils (Nandillon et al., 2019; 

Norini et al., 2019; Baragaño, Gallego and Forján, 2021; Madejón et al., 2022); and biochar effects investigated 

as a remediation tool (Gascó et al., 2019; Alhar, Thompson and Oliver, 2021). 

In efficacy of phytoremediation (n = 11), the first group tests vegetation and/or biochar in contaminated soils 

(Benidire et al., 2021; Štofejová, Fazekaš and Fazekašová, 2021; Wu et al., 2021; Singh, Singh and Dhal, 2022); 

the second analyses comparative strategies for heavy-metal removal in mining areas (Lebrun et al., 2021; Bhat 

et al., 2022; Bortnikova et al., 2022; Matei et al., 2022; Singh, Singh and Dhal, 2022); and the third evaluates 

164



species-level efficacy in mining-derived substrates (Opeña et al., 2022; Zhenggang et al., 2022; Watts et al., 

2023). 

Finally, in application of plants in phytoremediation (n = 26), four strands appear: use of native/dominant species 

in mining-contaminated soils (Chen et al., 2019; Vela-García, Guamán-Burneo and González-Romero, 2019; 

Cai et al., 2020; Hasnaoui et al., 2020; Pidlisnyuk et al., 2020; Shi, Veiga and Anderson, 2020; Băbău et al., 

2021; Petrović et al., 2021; Pusz, Wiśniewska and Rogalski, 2021; Reboredo et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2022; 

Wibowo et al., 2022); assessments of plant capacity within phytoremediation (Cai et al., 2021; Cruzado-Tafur 

et al., 2021; Desai et al., 2019; Heredia et al., 2022; R. Li et al., 2020; Li et al., 2019); comparative effects of 

different plants in contaminated soils (Garau et al., 2021; Matanzas et al., 2021; Webber et al., 2021; Berkaoui 

et al., 2022; Durante-Yánez et al., 2022); and identification of plants capable of rehabilitating such soils 

(Hoseinpour et al., 2020; Opoku et al., 2020; Lu et al., 2021). 

3.2 Main Contributions and Proposals on Phytoremediation in Mining 

As a result of reviewing the articles, between two and three proposals and/or contributions per article were 

identified in relation to phytoremediation in mining. These proposals and/or contributions, which total 88, were 

categorized and classified according to their frequency of occurrence (see Figure 2). 

 
Figure 2. Frequency of Proposals and/or Contributions Made in the Articles. 

Among the proposals and/or contributions with the highest frequency is “Effectiveness of Plants in 

Phytoremediation,” with a frequency of 30. This proposal and/or contribution refers to the selection and 

application of plants as an ecological and sustainable means for the remediation of soils contaminated by heavy 

metals. Another proposal and/or contribution with high frequency is “Phytoremediation as a Strategic Action,” 

which has a frequency of 29. This proposal and/or contribution describes phytoremediation as an ecological, 

economic, and sustainable solution for the reduction and/or elimination of heavy metals in contaminated soils, 

thereby ensuring environmental sustainability. This coincides with what (Chen et al., 2019; Lebrun et al., 2021; 

Pusz, Wiśniewska and Rogalski, 2021) noted, who state that phytoremediation is an ecological and economic 

method that allows for the reduction of risks present in contaminated soils and, at the same time, ensures their 

rehabilitation. 

4. Discussion 

The reviewed literature shows that phytoremediation has become established as an economic, sustainable, and 

ecological alternative for the recovery of soils contaminated with heavy metals. However, the analyzed studies 

differ in the depth of their theoretical approaches and in the practical validation of the applied methods. While 

some authors highlight its economic and environmental feasibility (Cai et al., 2021; Reboredo et al., 2021; 

Otunola et al., 2023), others note that its effectiveness depends on the correct identification of contaminants, 

species adaptability, and remediation time. This diversity reveals that the proper execution of the process still 

faces methodological challenges that limit its predictability. 

Conceptually, two main approaches prevail, the first aims to demonstrate the capacity of plants to remove heavy 

metals (Chen et al., 2019; Li et al., 2020; Opoku et al., 2020; Pusz et al., 2021), and the second focuses on 

developing strategies to optimize this capacity through planned actions (Vela-García et al., 2019; Cruzado-Tafur 

et al., 2021; Singh et al., 2022). Both approaches are complementary, yet the literature shows that most studies 

remain at a theoretical-experimental level, with limited field validation. This suggests a gap between 

experimental knowledge and its practical application in real mining contexts. 

165



Regarding the selection of species and amendments, there is general agreement on prioritizing plant 

adaptability as a key success factor (Singh et al., 2022); however, other authors argue that the integration of 

microorganisms can enhance efficiency and shorten treatment times (Madline et al., 2021; Nurfitriani et al., 

2023; Saldarriaga et al., 2023). This comparison suggests a shift from traditional plant-based approaches toward 

microbial alternatives that broaden the biotechnological spectrum of phytoremediation. 

Likewise, recent literature has explored the use of organic residues and compost as alternative inputs. Garau 

et al. (2021) and Baragaño et al. (2021) highlight their contribution as nutrient sources and their potential to 

improve soil structure, while Cárdenas-Aguiar et al. (2020) emphasize their role in enhancing the sustainability 

of the process. However, Bortnikova et al. (2022) warn that the limited number of trials makes it difficult to 

generalize results, reinforcing the need for more comparative studies. This tension between innovation and 

empirical evidence defines the current state of knowledge. 

Overall, the reviewed studies show convergence toward the search for low-cost and highly sustainable solutions, 

although they diverge in terms of empirical validation and scale of application. The evidence indicates that, 

beyond methodological diversity, phytoremediation remains a promising alternative whose consolidation 

depends on integrating theoretical progress with a critical evaluation of experimental results. 

5. Conclusions 

Firstly, the phytoremediation can be considered an effective and sustainable alternative for mitigating heavy 

metal contamination in soils in mining areas. Throughout the 60 analyzed studies, it is evident that plants 

(especially those with hyperaccumulating characteristics), plant growth-promoting bacteria (PGPB), and various 

organic amendments (such as compost and biochars) constitute the main elements employed to optimize the 

decontamination process. This evidence directly addresses the research question, as it highlights the most used 

inputs in phytoremediation and corroborates their relevance in the removal of heavy metals. 

Secondly, it is observed that the effectiveness of these strategies largely depends on the adaptability of the 

selected plant species, the suitability of the applied bacteria, and the accurate characterization of the 

contaminants present in the soil. While most studies agree on the importance of appropriately selecting plants 

and bacteria, as well as incorporating amendments that enhance their action, empirical gaps still exist related 

to the optimization of dosages, application timings, and specific edaphoclimatic conditions of each mining zone. 

Phytoremediation offers a promising approach to mining soil remediation, as it is more economical and 

environmentally friendly than conventional methods. However, further field-scale research is recommended, as 

well as the integration of new monitoring and evaluation technologies, in order to refine application protocols 

and ensure successful soil rehabilitation. 

References 

Alhar M.A.M., Thompson D.F., Oliver I.W. (2021), “Mine spoil remediation via biochar addition to immobilise 

potentially toxic elements and promote plant growth for phytostabilisation,” Journal of Environmental 

Management, 277. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111500. 
Băbău A.M.C. et al. (2021), “Sustainable Ecological Restoration of Sterile Dumps Using Robinia pseudoacacia,” 

Sustainability, 13(24), p. 14021. DOI: 10.3390/su132414021. 

Baragaño D., Gallego J.L.R., Forján R. (2021), “Short-term experiment for the in situ stabilization of a polluted 

soil using mining and biomass waste,” Journal of Environmental Management, 296. DOI: 

10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113179. 

Benidire L. et al. (2021), “Synergistic effect of organo-mineral amendments and plant growth-promoting 

rhizobacteria (PGPR) on the establishment of vegetation cover and amelioration of mine tailings,” 

Chemosphere, 262. DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.127803. 

Bhat S.A. et al. (2022), “Phytoremediation of heavy metals in soil and water: An eco-friendly, sustainable and 

multidisciplinary approach,” Chemosphere, 303. DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.134788. 

Bortnikova S.B. et al. (2022), “results of phytoremediation experiments with sowing oats (avena sativa) on 

different types of mine tailings,” Bulletin of the Tomsk Polytechnic University, Geo Assets Engineering, 

333(11), pp. 7–23. DOI: 10.18799/24131830/2022/11/3762. 

Cai X. et al. (2020), “Comparison of lead tolerance and accumulation characteristics of fourteen herbaceous 

plants,” Nature Environment and Pollution Technology, 19(4), pp. 1547–1555. DOI: 

10.46488/NEPT.2020.v19i04.021. 

Cárdenas-Aguiar E. et al. (2020), “Improving Mining Soil Phytoremediation with Sinapis alba by Addition of 

Hydrochars and Biochar from Manure Wastes,” Waste and Biomass Valorization, 11(10), pp. 5197–5210. 

DOI: 10.1007/s12649-020-00999-2. 

166



Cruzado-Tafur E. et al. (2021), “Accumulation of as, ag, cd, cu, pb, and zn by native plants growing in soils 

contaminated by mining environmental liabilities in the peruvian andes,” Plants, 10(2), pp. 1–23. DOI: 

10.3390/plants10020241. 

Desai M., Haigh M., Walkington H. (2019), “Phytoremediation: Metal decontamination of soils after the 

sequential forestation of former opencast coal land,” Science of the Total Environment, 656, pp. 670–680. 

DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.327. 

Durante-Yánez E. V et al. (2022), “Phytoremediation of Soils Contaminated with Heavy Metals from Gold Mining 

Activities Using Clidemia sericea D. Don,” Plants, 11(5). DOI: 10.3390/plants11050597. 

Garau M. et al. (2021), “Evaluation of Cynara cardunculus L. and municipal solid waste compost for aided 

phytoremediation of multi potentially toxic element–contaminated soils,” Environmental Science and 

Pollution Research, 28(3), pp. 3253–3265. DOI: 10.1007/s11356-020-10687-2. 

Gascó G. et al. (2019), “Combining phytoextraction by Brassica napus and biochar amendment for the 

remediation of a mining soil in Riotinto (Spain),” Chemosphere, 231, pp. 562–570. DOI: 

10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.05.168. 

Hasnaoui S.E. et al. (2020), “Screening of native plants growing on a Pb/Zn mining area in eastern Morocco: 

Perspectives for phytoremediation,” Plants, 9(11), pp. 1–23. DOI: 10.3390/plants9111458. 

Heredia B. et al. (2022), “Phytoextraction of Cu, Cd, Zn and As in four shrubs and trees growing on soil 

contaminated with mining waste,” Chemosphere, 308. DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.136146. 

Lan M.-M. et al. (2020), “Phytostabilization of cd and pb in highly polluted farmland soils using ramie and 

amendments,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(5). DOI: 

10.3390/ijerph17051661. 

Lebrun M. et al. (2021), “Effects of biochar, ochre and manure amendments associated with a metallicolous 

ecotype of Agrostis capillaris on As and Pb stabilization of a former mine technosol,” Environmental 

Geochemistry and Health, 43(4), pp. 1491–1505. DOI: 10.1007/s10653-020-00592-5. 

Li R. et al. (2020), “Characterization of arsenic and uranium pollution surrounding a uranium mine in 

southwestern china and phytoremediation potential,” Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 29(1), pp. 

173–185. DOI: 10.15244/pjoes/103446. 

Liu S. et al. (2021), “Role of two plant growth-promoting bacteria in remediating cadmium-contaminated soil 

combined with miscanthus floridulus (Lab.),” Plants, 10(5). DOI: 10.3390/plants10050912. 

Lu N. et al. (2021), “Phytoremediation potential of four native plants in soils contaminated with lead in a mining 

area,” Land, 10(11). DOI: 10.3390/land10111129. 

Madejón P. et al. (2022), “Assessment of the phytoremediation effectiveness in the restoration of uranium mine 

tailings,” Ecological Engineering, 180. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2022.106669. 

Madline A., Benidire L., Boularbah A. (2021), “Alleviation of salinity and metal stress using plant growth-

promoting rhizobacteria isolated from semiarid Moroccan copper-mine soils,” Environmental Science and 

Pollution Research, 28(47), pp. 67185–67202. DOI: 10.1007/s11356-021-15168-8. 

Maharani H.W. et al. (2022), “Growth performance of Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) cultivated in water from 

ex-sand pit lakes by phytoremediation treatments,” Journal of Degraded and Mining Lands Management, 

9(2), pp. 3237–3245. DOI: 10.15243/jdmlm.2022.092.3237. 

Marrugo-Negrete J. et al. (2020) “Transfer and bioaccumulation of mercury from soil in cowpea in gold mining 

sites,” Chemosphere, 250. DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.126142. 

Matei O.-R. et al. (2022), “Study of Chemical Pollutants and Ecological Reconstruction Methods in the Tismana 

I Quarry, Rovinari Basin, Romania,” Sustainability (Switzerland), 14(12). DOI: 10.3390/su14127160. 

Nandillon R. et al. (2019), “Capability of amendments (biochar, compost and garden soil) added to a mining 

technosol contaminated by Pb and As to allow poplar seed (Populus nigra L.) germination,” Environmental 

Monitoring and Assessment, 191(7). DOI: 10.1007/s10661-019-7561-6. 

Norini M.-P. et al. (2019), “Mobility of Pb, Zn, Ba, As and Cd toward soil pore water and plants (willow and 

ryegrass) from a mine soil amended with biochar,” Journal of Environmental Management, 232, pp. 117–

130. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.11.021. 

Nurfitriani S., Arisoesilaningsih E., Nuraini Y. (2023) “Mercury-resistant biofilm-forming bacteria and local plants 

in phytoremediation of small-scale gold mine tailings in Lombok Island, Indonesia,” Journal of Degraded and 

Mining Lands Management, 10(3), pp. 4305–4313. DOI: 10.15243/jdmlm.2023.103.4305. 

Opeña J.L. et al. (2022), “Phytoremediation of Potential Toxic Elements by Native Tree Species in Mined-

Spoiled Soils in Mátraszentimre, Hungary,” Journal of Environmental Science and Management, 25(2), pp. 

51–62. DOI: 10.47125/jesam/2022_2/06. 

Opoku P. et al. (2020), “Removal of selected heavy metals and metalloids from an artisanal gold mining site in 

ghana using indigenous plant species,” Cogent Environmental Science, 6(1). DOI: 

10.1080/23311843.2020.1840863. 

167



Ortúzar M. et al. (2020), “Micromonospora metallophores: A plant growth promotion trait useful for bacterial-

assisted phytoremediation?,” Science of the Total Environment, 739. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139850. 

Pandey B. et al. (2021), “Phytostabilization of coal mine overburden waste, exploiting the phytoremedial efficacy 

of lemongrass under varying level of cow dung manure,” Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 208. DOI: 

10.1016/j.ecoenv.2020.111757. 

Pérez R. et al. (2021), “Interactive effect of compost application and inoculation with the fungus Claroideoglomus 

claroideum in Oenothera picensis plants growing in mine tailings,” Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 

208. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2020.111495. 

Petrović J. V. et al. (2021), “Chemometric characterization of heavy metals in soils and shoots of the two pioneer 

species sampled near the polluted water bodies in the close vicinity of the copper mining and metallurgical 

complex in Bor (Serbia): Phytoextraction and biomonitoring contexts,” Chemosphere, 262, p. 127808. DOI: 

10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.127808. 

Pidlisnyuk V. et al. (2020), “Potential role of plant growth-promoting bacteria in Miscanthus x giganteus 

phytotechnology applied to the trace elements contaminated soils,” International Biodeterioration and 

Biodegradation, 155. DOI: 10.1016/j.ibiod.2020.105103. 

Pusz A., Wiśniewska M., Rogalski D. (2021), “Assessment of the accumulation ability of Festuca rubra L. And 

alyssum saxatile L. tested on soils contaminated with Zn, Cd, Ni, Pb, Cr, and Cu,” Resources, 10(5). DOI: 

10.3390/resources10050046. 

Reboredo F.H. et al. (2021), “The tolerance of eucalyptus globulus to soil contamination with arsenic,” Plants, 

10(4). DOI: 10.3390/plants10040627. 

Shahrokh V. et al. (2023), “Efficiency of large-scale aided phytostabilization in a mining pond,” Environmental 

Geochemistry and Health [Preprint]. DOI: 10.1007/s10653-023-01520-z. 

Shi P., Veiga M., Anderson C. (2020) “Geochemical assessment of platinum group metals for phytomining,” 

Revista Escola de Minas, 73(1), pp. 85–91. DOI: 10.1590/0370-44672019730038. 

Singh B.S.M., Singh D., Dhal N.K. (2022), “Enhanced phytoremediation strategy for sustainable management 

of heavy metals and radionuclides,” Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering, 5. DOI: 

10.1016/j.cscee.2021.100176. 

Vela-García N., Guamán-Burneo M.C., González-Romero N.P. (2019) “Biorremediación eficiente de efluentes 

metalúrgicos mediante el uso de microalgas de la amazonía y los andes del Ecuador,” Revista Internacional 

de Contaminacion Ambiental, 35(4), pp. 917–929. DOI: 10.20937/RICA.2019.35.04.11. 

Wang L. et al. (2022), “Accumulation of potentially toxic trace elements (PTEs) by native plant species growing 

in a typical gold mining area located in the northeast of Qinghai-Tibet Plateau,” Environmental Science and 

Pollution Research, 29(5), pp. 6990–7000. DOI: 10.1007/s11356-021-16076-7. 

Watts B.A. et al. (2023), “Uncharted risk measures for the management of sustainable mining,” Integrated 

Environmental Assessment and Management [Preprint]. DOI: 10.1002/ieam.4769. 

Webber Z.R. et al. (2021), “Diné citizen science: Phytoremediation of uranium and arsenic in the Navajo Nation,” 

Science of the Total Environment, 794. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148665. 

Wibowo Y.G. et al. (2022), “Alternative Low-Cost Treatment for Real Acid Mine Drainage: Performance, 

Bioaccumulation, Translocation, Economic, Post-Harvest, and Bibliometric Analyses,” Sustainability 

(Switzerland), 14(22). DOI: 10.3390/su142215404. 

Wu B. et al. (202), “Evaluation of phytoremediation potential of native dominant plants and spatial distribution of 

heavy metals in abandoned mining area in Southwest China,” Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 220. 

DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2021.112368. 

Zheng Y. et al. (2022), “Effect of Low-Molecular Organic Acids on the Migration Characteristics of Nickel in 

Reclaimed Soil from The Panyi Mine Area in China,” Toxics, 10(12). DOI: 10.3390/toxics10120798. 

Zhenggang X. et al. (2022), “Broussonetia papyrifera fruits as a potential source of functional materials to 

develop the phytoremediation strategy,” Environmental Challenges, 7. DOI: 10.1016/j.envc.2022.100478. 

 

 

  

 

168


	499Medrano-Sanchez-PAGATO.pdf
	Phytoremediation as a Strategic Alliance Between Nature and Mining for a More Sustainable Future: a Literature Review