Abstract
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) have gained increasing concern due to their persistent characteristics, wide distribution, biotoxicity, and bioaccumulative properties. The current remediation technologies for PFOA and PFOS are primarily focused on physical and chemical techniques. Phytoremediation has provided promising alternatives to traditional cleanup technologies due to their low operational costs, low maintenance requirements, end-use value, and aesthetic nature. In this review, uptake, translocation, and toxic effects of PFOS and PFOA are summarized and discussed. Several potential hyperaccumulators of PFOS and PFOA are provided according to the existing data. Biomass, chlorophyll, soluble protein, enzyme activities, oxidative stress, and other variables are assessed for potential indicator of PFOS/PFOA biotoxicity. The various studies on multiple scales are compared for identifying the threshold values. Several important implications and recommendations for future research are proposed at the end. This review provides an overview of current studies on plant uptake of PFOS and PFOA from the perspective of phytoremediation.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) are well known as anthropogenic chemicals applied in a wide range of practical applications for over 60 years (Lindstrom et al. 2011; Xiao 2017). These uses of PFASs have caused a ubiquitous distribution in seawater (Su et al. 2018), municipal wastewater (Gallen et al. 2018; Wang et al. 2016), surface water (Cai et al. 2018; Houtz and Sedlak 2012; Liu et al. 2015; Liu et al. 2017), underground water (Braunig et al. 2017; Liu et al. 2017; Martin et al. 2019), soil (Choi et al. 2017; Rankin et al. 2016; Sun et al. 2017), forests (Dasu et al. 2013), and air (Ahrens et al. 2012; Ahrens et al. 2011; Vierke et al. 2013). Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) are highlighted as the most studied and frequently detected PFASs in various environmental matrices (Mudumbi et al. 2017; Newton et al. 2017; Wang et al. 2017b). Because of their strong carbon-fluorine (C-F bonds) (3.6 eV, 116 kcal/mol) (Kim et al. 2019) and the multiple C-F bonds in close proximity, the decomposition of PFOA and PFOS is extremely difficult. It is evident that the widespread distribution and persistence of PFOA and PFOS (Du et al. 2014; Zareitalabad et al. 2013) have provided the opportunity for bioaccumulation in various plants (Blaine et al. 2014a; Blaine et al. 2014b; Felizeter et al. 2014; Zabaleta et al. 2018) and animals (Ahrens and Bundschuh 2014; Chen et al. 2018; Dorneles et al. 2008; Houde et al. 2008). The bioaccumulation of PFASs has produced toxic effects in human bodies (Coakley et al. 2018; Jusko et al. 2016; Salgado-Freiria et al. 2018). Bioaccumulation of PFOA and PFOS in human bodies could be attributed to food and/or drinking water (Zeng et al. 2019); therefore, techniques to eliminate the trace PFOA and PFOS contamination in the aqueous environment and soils have become urgent.
Scientific methods to remove PFOA and PFOS from aqueous solution and soil by using physical and chemical techniques have included adsorption (Du et al. 2016; Fagbayigbo et al. 2017; Park et al. 2018), coagulation (Bao et al. 2014), reverse osmosis (Tang et al. 2006), thermal treatment (Wang et al. 2013), sonolysis (Cheng et al. 2008, 2010), electron beam (Kim et al. 2018), photocatalysis (Wang et al. 2017a), advanced oxidation/reduction (Trojanowicz et al. 2018), and phytoremediation (Gobelius 2016). The majority of previous studies focused on physical and chemical techniques due to the biorefractory properties of PFOA and PFOS, and these physical and chemical techniques are efficient and economically feasible in high concentrations of PFOA and PFOS in water or soil. In terms of trace concentrations in natural environments, extremely high costs (Nzeribe et al. 2019) and inhibitions of coexisting chemicals (e.g., inorganic ions and humic acids) (Sun et al. 2019) have become the obstacles of full-scale application of physical and chemical techniques. In this case, plant-based remediation (i.e., phytoremediation) could provide an economic and non-inhibitory alternative for PFOA and PFOS removal. Plants have developed strategies to take up chemicals present in soil and aqueous environments (Lan et al. 2018; Pullagurala et al. 2018; Zhang et al. 2016). And phytoremediation has been confirmed as an effective technique in various fields (Dhir 2013; Pullagurala et al. 2018). PFOA and PFOS removal using plant-based remediation is a strategy due to its low cost and broad adaptability, and this technique could act as a supplementary method or process for future physical and chemical techniques.
The selection of plant species for efficient uptake of PFOA and PFOS is critically important for developing successful phytoremediation; therefore, the uptake, translocation, and distribution of these substances in different plants are summarized and discussed. Although there are some studies focusing on the PFAS uptake by agricultural plants (Ghisi et al. 2019), their objectives are mainly connected with food security rather than environmental cleanup. In this study, two parameters, bioconcentration factors (based on root uptake) and translocation factors, are frequently employed to reflect the bioaccumulation ability and transferring property, respectively (Mudumbi et al. 2014; Pi et al. 2017; Zhang et al. 2019). BCF(Log) was introduced to demonstrate the differences in ability of accumulation among plant species clearly. In addition, the toxic effects of PFOS and PFOA on plants are summarized to provide a reference for practical limitations. The aim of this review is to summarize uptake and translocation of PFOA and PFOS by various plant species and analyze the toxic influences of PFOA and PFOS on plants. Implications for future research are provided at the end based on the existing studies and the knowledge of authors.
The ratio of PFOA/PFOS concentration observed in the plant and matrix:
The ratio of the chemical concentration measured in different tissues of plant:
Uptake of PFOS and PFOA by different plant species
Aquatic and wetland plants
Aquatic and wetland plants have been considered as potential plants for PFOS and PFOA uptake from wastewater in the past decade (Table 1). To demonstrate clearly the potential of various plant species for PFOS and PFOA uptake, the BCFs of existing plants were compared with a reference line of average value. In these investigations, plant species were subjected to certain concentrations of PFOS and/or PFOA in wetlands or lab conditions, and various tissues of selected plants were sampled, tested, and calculated for further analysis. According to Fig. 1, it was obvious that the average BCF(Log) of PFOS (2.358) was significantly higher than that of PFOA (0.048). The relative BCF(Log) level of plants could be used to scientifically test potential hyperaccumulators. In addition, several plant species were found capable of taking both PFOS and PFOA from matrixes (including water and soil) (Wilkinson et al. 2018). An investigation on spatial accumulation of organic contaminants, including perfluorinated compounds in river sediment, aquatic plants, and benthic organisms was conducted from several selected river catchments in the UK (Wilkinson et al. 2018). It was found that the starwort Callitriche sp. (Callitriche stagnalis Scop) and the pondweed Potamogeton sp. (Potamogeton distinctus A. Bennett) showed outstanding uptake of both PFOS and PFOA in natural environments (Wilkinson et al. 2018). Other plant species presented efficient uptake of PFOS or PFOA solely (Fig. 1) (Chen et al. 2012; Zhang et al. 2019). In a pilot study, 90 L of a solution containing a concentration of 5 mg/L of PFOA and PFOS was prepared and poured into each pilot tank to simulate the wastewater treatment (Chen et al. 2012). 0.77%~1.58% PFOA and 3.64%~6.05% PFOS were absorbed by the selected four plants (Hygrophila pogonocalyx Hayata, Ipomoea aquatica Forssk, Ludwigia × taiwanensis C. I. Peng, and Eleocharis dulcis Burm, f. Trin. Ex Hensch) at the end of the 15-day experiment (Chen et al. 2012). Though higher BCF(Log) values were observed for PFOS in all of the four plants, those of PFOA were notably higher than the average value of previous studies (Fig. 1), indicating the four plants could be used for PFOA accumulation. In addition, it was observed that the BCF(Log) values of PFOA in Echinodorus horemanii were significantly higher than the average, while those of PFOS just reached the average (Fig. 1) (Pi et al. 2017). Juncus effusus L was also tested to absorb PFOA and PFOS from aqueous solution in a lab-scale study (Zhang et al. 2019). The results indicated that Juncus effusus was more efficient at PFOA than PFOS removal, compared with other species (Zhang et al. 2019). In addition to the above plant species, a list of riparian wetland plants was studied to determine their susceptibility to PFOA accumulation from PFOA-contaminated riparian sediment (Mudumbi et al. 2014). BCF(Log) indicated that the plants’ affinity to PFOA accumulation was Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) solms > Polygonum salicifolium (Mattf.) > Cyperus congestus Vahl > Populus canescens (Ait.) Smith > Persicaria amphibia L > Ficus carica L > Artemisia schmidtiana Maxim > Xanthium strumarium L > Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin > Ruppia maritima L > Schoenoplectus corymbosus (Roth ex Roem. & Schult.) J. Raynal (Mudumbi et al. 2014). Nevertheless, the BCF(Log) values of all of these plants were below the average line as demonstrated in Fig. 1, indicating relative low PFOA uptake efficiency of these plants compared with other plants reported in previous studies. In particular, plants perform differently in various conditions. For example, the BCF(Log) values of E. crassipes (Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) solms) were reported to be −0.44 (sediment) in a wetland study (Mudumbi et al. 2014) and 1.61 (water) in a lab-scale study (Pi et al. 2017), respectively.
Terrestrial plants
For PFOA- and PFOS-contaminated soils, there has been a series of studies focusing on PFOA and PFOS uptake using terrestrial plants (Table 2 and Fig. 2). Based on the average BCF(Log) lines in Fig. 2, the relative capacity of each reported plant could be evaluated for potential further application. It is worth mentioning that several plant species (Tagetes erecta L and Bromus diandrus Roth) were found capable of uptaking both PFOS and PFOA from contaminated soils (García-Valcárcel et al. 2014; Mudumbi et al. 2019). In a lab-scale experiment, approximately 18.1 μg/plant of PFOA and 17.4 μg/plant of PFOS were determined after 20 days, both above the average (Fig. 2) (García-Valcárcel et al. 2014). Similarly, Tagetes sp. was applied in accumulated PFOA and PFOS (Mudumbi et al. 2019). High BCF ranges of 1.30 to 2.57 for PFOA and 13.67 to 72.33 for PFOS were obtained from T. erecta that suggests a bioaccumulation success (Mudumbi et al. 2019). The above results indicate that the annual grass, B. diandrus and T. erecta, could act as potential hyperaccumulators for both PFOA and PFOS uptake. Additionally, there were several plant species presenting significant uptake of PFOA or PFOS compared with other species (Gobelius et al. 2017). Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst) that was growing near a fire training facility where soils had been contaminated with PFASs was investigated to evaluate its phytoremediation potential (Gobelius et al. 2017). PFOS uptake measured in Norway spruce was significantly higher than PFOA uptake (Gobelius et al. 2017). Meanwhile, greenhouse and field experiments indicated that M. truncatula (Medicago truncatula Gaertn) was capable of PFOA uptake in biosolid-amended soils (Lee et al. 2014), while long beechfern (Phegopteris connectilis (Michx.) Watt) showed higher PFOS uptake than that of PFOA. The results provide evidence of certain plants selectivity to bioaccumulate chemicals in soils with PFAS contamination. Other plants have been less selective and showed relative low uptake in soils with PFAS contamination (Gobelius et al. 2017; Yoo et al. 2011). The continued screening of plants, in field applications, that act as hyperaccumulators of PFASs is crucial to remediate contaminated sites.
Potential hyperaccumulators
Figures 1 and 2 provide PCF(Log) values for bioaccumulating aquatic and wetland and terrestrial plants at full, pilot, and lab scale with a calculated average line. In sites of wastewater or sediment contamination, Hygrophila pogonocalyx Hayata, Ipomoea aquatica Forsskal, Ludwigia (x) taiwanensis, E. dulcis, Callitriche stagnalis Scop, Potamogeton sp., Echinodorus horemanii, and J. effusus could act as potential hyperaccumulators for PFOA removal. However, the actual performance needs to be confirmed in further field application studies. Among them, Callitriche sp. and Potamogeton sp. may be capable of PFOS uptake from wastewater or sediment. As for soil remediation, B. diandrus, T. erecta, Norway spruce, and Medicago truncatula could be effective for PFOA uptake from contaminated soils. In addition, T. erecta and F. longipetiolata performed well for PFOS uptake from soils. B. diandrus Roth was observed to be capable of both PFOA and PFOS removal as demonstrated in Fig. 2. These suggestions could provide a reference for future research on PFOS/PFOA phytoremediation.
Particular limitations of the above comparison must be noted as follows. Firstly, the previous studies were conducted in various sites including lab, pilot, and full (field). Uncontrolled external circumstances, such as environmental changes, in pilot and full-scale studies could affect plant uptake performance. Secondly, BCF(Log) is commonly dependent on calculated matrixes. The mass transfer process in lab-scale aqueous solution is undoubtedly higher than that in soils. In this study, soil was chosen as the calculated matrix when both water and soil matrixes existed due to the predominant role of soil adsorption (Chen et al. 2012). Finally, the exposure duration was quite different in various studies, up to 45 days, and BCF(Log) variation may have occurred as time progressed.
Translocation of PFOS and PFOA in plants
Translocation of PFOS and PFOA in reported plants has attracted wide concern due to the substantial connection between phytoremediation potential and pollutant distribution in plant organs. Organic contaminants reach aerial plant organs in two ways: from the air and with the transpiration stream (Huang et al. 2010; Wen et al. 2016). The transpiration stream could be reasonably considered as the crucial mechanism of PFOA/PFOS translocation in plants (Huang et al. 2010, Wen et al. 2016). Plants take up contaminants through roots and transport them to aerial tissues (Madikizela et al. 2018). To assess the translocation potential of PFOA/PFOS in plants, TF (translocation factor) was frequently introduced to quantify the PFOA/PFOS migration (García-Valcárcel et al. 2014; Pi et al. 2017; Wen et al. 2016; Zhang et al. 2019). The plant TFs in previous studies are presented in Table 3. It was obvious that TF was plant species-dependent similar to BCF(Log). For PFOA, TFs of J. effusus (Zhang et al. 2019) and B. diandrus (García-Valcárcel et al. 2014) were notably higher than others, suggesting higher translocation capacity in these plants. It was worth mentioning that these plants were also superior in PFOA uptake (“Potential hyperaccumulators”). Regarding PFOS, B. diandrus presented extremely high TF compared with other species (García-Valcárcel et al. 2014). Meanwhile, B. diandrus was concerned due to efficient PFOA uptake. Based on the above results, it could be inferred that high TFs are beneficial for PFOA/PFOS uptake due to the translocation from the root to aerial organs in plants. And then, more PFOA/PFOS uptake would occur in the root with more PFOA/PFOS translocation. More PFOA/PFOS content in the roots and aerial organs means better cleanup from the environmental view. In addition, the protein content of plant tissue was reported to positively correlate with TF of PFOA/PFOS, suggesting TFs correlate positively with shoot to root protein content ratios (Wen et al. 2016). Overall, the TF analysis and comparison could confirm the effectiveness of potential hyperaccumulators for phytoremediation.
Toxic influences of PFOS and PFOA
Biomass
Qu et al. (2010) found that germination of wheat seedlings was stimulated when PFOS concentration in the solution was 0.1–10 mg/L. When PFOS concentration reached 10 mg/L, the biomass of the roots and leaves was significantly inhibited. Compared with the control, the leaf and root length of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) was decreased by 12% and 84.3%, respectively, when PFOS concentration was 200 mg/L, which showed that the root inhibition observed was significantly greater than leaves under the same PFOS concentration (Qu et al. 2010). A similar phenomenon was observed in the soil for Brassica chinensis L. root using a standardized root length assay (Zhao et al. 2011). It was found that 50% inhibition (EC50) would be observed when the concentrations of PFOS and PFOA reached 95–4200 mg/kg and 107–246 mg/kg in soil, respectively (Zhao et al. 2011). Another phytotoxicity study showed that PFOA suppressed root and shoot biomass to a much greater extent than sodium fluoride (NaF), and thus, PFOA was much more toxic to Arabidopsis thaliana L than inorganic F (Yang et al. 2015). Overall, PFOA and PFOS could inhibit the biomass growth when the concentration reaches a threshold value.
Chlorophyll
Photosynthesis is widely used to characterize a response to various pollutants (Han et al. 2016; Qian et al. 2019; Yang et al. 2017). It was reported that PFOA and PFOS presented negative effects on chlorophyll levels when the concentration reached a threshold value in previous studies (Qian et al. 2019; Qu et al. 2010; Zhao et al. 2017). A previous study showed that the concentration of PFOS (0.1–200 mg/L) was found to decrease the chlorophyll content of wheat; nevertheless, the chlorophyll content was significantly higher than that without PFOS (0 mg/L) after treatment with 0.1–10 mg/L PFOS (Qu et al. 2010). The biosynthesis of chlorophyll (21.92%) in wheat was inhibited after treatment with PFOA (Zhao et al. 2017). Another investigation indicated that the chlorophyll level under the 50 mg/L PFOS treatment decreased by 24.8–38.3%, compared with the control group (Qian et al. 2019). In addition, chlorophyll level did not vary linearly with increasing PFOS concentration (Qian et al. 2019) probably because the chlorophyll variations could be caused by an imbalance between biosynthesis and degradation (Wen et al. 2011).
Soluble protein
Soluble proteins could be employed to reflect plant senescence and photosynthetic intensity (Liao et al. 2000; Majumdar et al. 2014; Qu et al. 2010). The influences of PFOS and PFOA on soluble proteins usually depend on the exposure concentrations (Qian et al. 2019; Qu et al. 2010). It was reported that 0.1–1.0 mg/L PFOS notably accelerated the syntheses of soluble proteins, with a 39.0% increase in under 0.1 mg/L PFOS (Qu et al. 2010). At the 1 mg/L level, the soluble protein content in all samples increased notably in the initial stage probably due to the generation of some stress proteins in plant cells (Qian et al. 2019). However, when PFOS concentration reached to 100–200 mg/L, the soluble protein contents were inhibited significantly (Qu et al. 2010). Similarly, it was observed that PFOS inhibited the foliage in various plants (Qian et al. 2019). Soluble protein content decreased notably compared with the controls when the PFOS concentration increased gradually (Qian et al. 2019).
Enzyme activity
Antioxidant enzymes have crucial roles in plant metabolism, including the responses to external environmental variations. Influences of PFOS or PFOA on antioxidant enzymes were discussed in several previous studies (Qu et al. 2010; Zhang et al. 2019; Zhao et al. 2017). The most frequently reported antioxidant enzymes were superoxide dismutase (SOD), peroxidase (POD), and catalase (CAT). In a J. effusus exposure study, the activities of SOD and CAT presented different trends between shoots and roots (Zhang et al. 2019). The activity of SOD in the shoots exposed to perfluorinated substances (including PFOA and PFOS) was significantly higher than that in control shoots on day 21 (Zhang et al. 2019). However, the roots exposed to PFOA and PFOS (10 times dosage) on day 21 had significantly lower SOD activity than the control and the roots (perfluorinated substances at 1 time dosage) (Zhang et al. 2019). As for CAT, a similar phenomenon was observed in the shoots and roots (Zhang et al. 2019). SOD activities in wheat samples were stimulated within the 0.1–10 mg/L PFOS level (Qu et al. 2010). However, when the concentration increased to 200 mg/L, PFOS presented negative influence on the activity of SOD (12.6%) (Qu et al. 2010). Similar trends were observed in POD variations. Positive effects were observed for POD activities in roots with 0.1–10 mg/L PFOS addition (Qu et al. 2010). When the concentration reached 10–200 mg/L, the POD activities were inhibited (Qu et al. 2010). Similarly, the activities of SOD (97.9%) and POD (93.8%) in wheat were inhibited with PFOA addition in a lab-scale study (Zhao et al. 2017). Generally, the inhibition on antioxidant enzymes was more significant in the roots or at high PFOS/PFOA addition.
Oxidative stress
By-products, including reactive oxygen species, are constantly generated during the plant metabolisms (Qian et al. 2019). A dynamic equilibrium for the content of reactive oxygen species was believed to exist in the complicated system (Majumdar et al. 2014). Reactive oxygen species are usually detrimental to plants when the levels increase to a harmful concentration (50 mg/L) (Qian et al. 2019). Malonaldehyde (MDA) is a by-product of lipid peroxidation and thus could be used for measuring oxidative stress (Qian et al. 2019). It has been confirmed that PFOS and PFOA have a negative effect on plant oxidative stress (Yang et al. 2015). Exposure to 725 μmol/L F (from PFOA) significantly increased shoot MDA concentration by 45% compared with the control in Arabidopsis thaliana, whereas no significant effect was observed in the NaF treatment (Qian et al. 2019; Yang et al. 2015; Zhao et al. 2017). The biosynthesis of MDA (60.65%) in rapeseed (Brassica napus) was enhanced with mixed PFOA and PFOS addition of 300 ng/g soil (Zhao et al. 2017); however, it was worth mentioning that different plant species had different MDA sensibilities to PFOS and PFOA. It was reported that the biosynthesis of MDA (19.37%) in wheat was inhibited with mixed PFOA and PFOS addition of 300 ng/g soil (Zhao et al. 2017). Nevertheless, most studies still show that PFOA/PFOS aggravates the oxidative stress of plants.
Others
In addition to the above parameters, other variables were used to assess the toxic influences of PFOS and PFOA on plants. The permeability of root cells was investigated under PFOS contamination. The permeability of wheat root cells increased slightly as the PFOS concentration increased from 0.1 to 100 mg/L, whereas the influence increased when the concentration applied was 100–200 mg/L (Qu et al. 2010). Low PFOS concentration could enhance the permeability of wheat root cells slightly, which might be caused by the fact that PFOS was a surfactant which could generally increase the permeability of the plant cell membrane (Qu et al. 2010), and some similar experimental phenomenon had been reported in previous studies (Knoche and Bukovac 2004; Wild and Jones 1992). In addition, integrated biomarker response (IBR) was introduced to evaluate the toxic influences of PFOS/PFOA based on several variables (Qian et al. 2019). The IBR value provides an intuitive evaluation of the organism health (Hou et al. 2016; Qian et al. 2019). Low concentrations of PFOS resulted in greater IBR values than those of the control groups of both species, while inhibition was observed under high concentrations of PFOS (10 mg/L and 50 mg/L) (Qian et al. 2019).
Implications and recommendations for future research
The research on plant uptake of PFOS and PFOA is not extensive, and more detailed studies are necessary for developing efficient phytoremediation technologies. Based on the existing studies, there are several potential research fields.
(1) The disposal to land of biomass wastes containing PFOS and PFOA may become an issue if phytoremediation is practiced as a plant-based solution. A scientific-based cost-effective management solution to reduce any secondary pollution needs to be considered and put in place as a secure technique in the near future.
(2) An understanding of the variability of PFOS and PFOA translocation in plants is urgently needed. Though differences in plant species have been widely investigated and compared, the detailed translocation mechanisms of PFOS and PFOA are still unclear. As the only channel for the migration and uptake of substances in the soil is plant roots, any rhizosphere process affects the availability of PFOA and PFOS directly, changing their stability in the soil, so the effects of rhizosphere microorganisms and root exudates on phytoremediation should be further explored.
(3) The internal metabolic pathways of PFOS and PFOA in plants are not well understood. The mass balance calculation should be designed and carried out to track the movement of the pollutant, either in solution or the soil, and to track the fate and uptake in the functional organs of the receiving plants or environment.
(4) The synergistic treatment of PFOS and PFOA combining phytoremediation and other physical and chemical techniques is promising. Treatment train approaches may prove more successful than single technologies (Kucharzyk et al. 2017).
(5) The connections between soil-porewater-microbe-plants for soil remediation are extremely complicated and elusive. The comprehensive system could be used for explaining the natural processes of PFOS and PFOA.
(6) The evaluating methods normally depend on the uptake variable (BCF) and translocation variable (TF). These variables are built up based on concentration differences rather than total contents. It is undisputed that there are huge differences of biomass among various plants. Therefore, both biomass and concentration should be taken into consideration during the evaluation of phytoremediation efficiencies such as loading that can be used to evaluate the proportion of chemical in various tissues of plant.
where Ci is the chemical concentration, Pi is the percentage of a plant tissue, and i is the corresponding plant tissue.
(7) Economic feasibility should be evaluated before PFOS and PFOA phytoremediation is implemented. Other than physical and chemical techniques, energy and equipment costs are little involved. Thus, the economic cost needs to be rationally assessed with novel methods.
Conclusions
This review summarizes and analyzes the uptake, translocation, distribution, and toxic effects of PFOS and PFOA based on previous studies. It has been demonstrated that Callitriche sp. and Potamogeton sp. are both capable of PFOS and PFOA removal from wastewater or sediment. As for soil remediation, T. erecta, B. diandrus, Norway spruce, and M. truncatula could be effective for PFOA uptake from contaminated soils. Meanwhile, T. erecta and F. longipetiolata performed well for PFOS uptake from soils. Translocation analysis indicates that high TFs are beneficial for PFOA/PFOS uptake due to the translocation from the root to aerial organs in plants. In the toxicity investigation, biomass, chlorophyll, soluble protein, enzyme activities, oxidative stress, and other variables are discussed. PFOA and PFOS exerted a negative effect on plant physiology and morphology. Symptoms of PFOA and PFOS include growth inhibition of shoots and roots, decreasing the content of chlorophyll per cell, impairment of photosynthesis, and decreasing soluble protein expression. In addition, the inhibition of PFOA and PFOS on the antioxidant enzymes was more significant in the roots than shoots. It is common that PFOA/PFOS concentrations above the threshold values would cause notable damage to plants. Eventually, implications for future research are provided as a reference for further work. Overall, plant uptake is a promising choice for PFOA/PFOS removal for environmental remediation and cleanup.
Data availability
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Ahrens L, Bundschuh M (2014) Fate and effects of poly-and perfluoroalkyl substances in the aquatic environment: A review. Environ Toxicol Chem 33:1921–1929
Ahrens L, Shoeib M, Harner T, Lee SC, Guo R, Reiner EJ (2011) Wastewater treatment plant and landfills as sources of polyfluoroalkyl compounds to the atmosphere. Environ Sci Technol 45:8098–8105
Ahrens L, Harner T, Shoeib M, Lane DA, Murphy JG (2012) Improved characterization of gas–particle partitioning for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in the atmosphere using annular diffusion denuder samplers. Environ Sci Technol 46:7199–7206
Bao YP, Niu JF, Xu ZS, Gao D, Shi JH, Sun XM, Huang QG (2014) Removal of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) from water by coagulation: mechanisms and influencing factors. J Colloid Interface Sci 434:59–64
Blaine AC, Rich CD, Sedlacko EM, Hundal LS, Kumar K, Lau C, Mills MA, Harris KM, Higgins CP (2014a) Perfluoroalkyl acid distribution in various plant compartments of edible crops grown in biosolids-amended soils. Environ Sci Technol 48:7858–7865
Blaine AC, Rich CD, Sedlacko EM, Hyland KC, Stushnoff C, Dickenson ERV, Higgins CP (2014b) Perfluoroalkyl acid uptake in lettuce (Lactuca sativa) and strawberry (Fragaria ananassa) irrigated with reclaimed water. Environ Sci Technol 48:14361–14368
Braunig J, Baduel C, Heffernan A, Rotander A, Donaldson E, Mueller JF (2017) Fate and redistribution of perfluoroalkyl acids through AFFF-impacted groundwater. Sci Total Environ 596:360–368
Cai YZ, Wang XH, Wu YL, Zhao SH, Li YY, Ma LY, Chen C, Huang J, Yu G (2018) Temporal trends and transport of perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in a subtropical estuary: Jiulong River Estuary, Fujian, China. Sci Total Environ 639:263–270
Chen Y-C, Lo S-L, Lee Y-C (2012) Distribution and fate of perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) in a pilot constructed wetland. Desalin Water Treat 37:178–184
Chen FJ, Wei CY, Chen QY, Zhang J, Wang L, Zhou Z, Chen MJ, Liang Y (2018) Internal concentrations of perfluorobutane sulfonate (PFBS) comparable to those of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) induce reproductive toxicity in Caenorhabditis elegans. Ecotox Environ Safe 158:223–229
Cheng J, Vecitis CD, Park H, Mader BT, Hoffmann MR (2008) Sonochemical degradation of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) in landfill groundwater: environmental matrix effects. Environ Sci Technol 42:8057–8063
Cheng J, Vecitis CD, Park H, Mader BT, Hoffmann MR (2010) Sonochemical degradation of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) in groundwater: kinetic effects of matrix inorganics. Environ Sci Technol 44:445–450
Choi GH, Lee DY, Jeong DK, Kuppusamy S, Lee YB, Park BJ, Kim JH (2017) Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) concentrations in the South Korean agricultural environment: a national survey. J Integr Agric 16:1841–1851
Coakley J, Bridgen P, Mueller J, Douwes J, Mannetje A t (2018) Polybrominated diphenyl ethers and perfluorinated alkyl substances in blood serum of New Zealand adults, 2011-2013. Chemosphere 208:382–389
Dalahmeh S, Tirgani S, Komakech AJ, Niwagaba CB, Ahrens L (2018) Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in water, soil and plants in wetlands and agricultural areas in Kampala, Uganda. Sci Total Environ 631-632:660–667
Dasu K, Lee LS, Turco RF, Nies LF (2013) Aerobic biodegradation of 8:2 fluorotelomer stearate monoester and 8:2 fluorotelomer citrate triester in forest soil. Chemosphere 91:399–405
Dhir B (2013) Phytoremediation: role of aquatic plants in environmental clean-up. Springer, India, New Delhi
Dorneles PR, Lailson-Brito J, Azevedo AF, Meyer J, Vidal LG, Fragoso AB, Torres JP, Malm O, Blust R, Das K (2008) High accumulation of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) in marine tucuxi dolphins (Sotalia guianensis) from the Brazilian coast. Environ Sci Technol 42:5368–5373
Du Z, Deng S, Bei Y, Huang Q, Wang B, Huang J, Yu G (2014) Adsorption behavior and mechanism of perfluorinated compounds on various adsorbents—a review. J Hazard Mater 274:443–454
Du ZW, Deng SB, Liu DC, Yao XL, Wang Y, Lu XY, Wang B, Huang J, Wang YJ, Xing BS, Yu G (2016) Efficient adsorption of PFOS and F53B from chrome plating wastewater and their subsequent degradation in the regeneration process. Chem Eng J 290:405–413
Fagbayigbo BO, Opeolu BO, Fatoki OS, Akenga TA, Olatunji OS (2017) Removal of PFOA and PFOS from aqueous solutions using activated carbon produced from Vitis vinifera leaf litter. Environ Sci Pollut R 24:13107–13120
Felizeter S, McLachlan MS, De Voogt P (2014) Root uptake and translocation of perfluorinated alkyl acids by three hydroponically grown crops. J Agric Food Chem 62:3334–3342
Gallen C, Eaglesham G, Drage D, Nguyen TH, Mueller JF (2018) A mass estimate of perfluoroalkyl substance (PFAS) release from Australian wastewater treatment plants. Chemosphere 208:975–983
García-Valcárcel AI, Molero E, Escorial MC, Chueca MC, Tadeo JL (2014) Uptake of perfluorinated compounds by plants grown in nutrient solution. Sci Total Environ 472:20–26
Ghisi R, Vamerali T, Manzetti S (2019) Accumulation of perfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS) in agricultural plants: a review. Environ Res 169:326–341
Gobelius L 2016 Uptake of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances by plants. Master Thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden and Hohenheim, Germany
Gobelius L, Lewis J, Ahrens L (2017) Plant uptake of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances at a contaminated fire training facility to evaluate the phytoremediation potential of various plant species. Environ Sci Technol 51:12602–12610
Han G, Cui BX, Zhang XX, Li KR (2016) The effects of petroleum-contaminated soil on photosynthesis of Amorpha fruticosa seedlings. Int J Environ Sci Technol 13:2383–2392
Hou J, You G, Xu Y, Wang C, Wang P, Miao L, Dai S, Lv B, Yang Y (2016) Antioxidant enzyme activities as biomarkers of fluvial biofilm to ZnO NPs ecotoxicity and the integrated biomarker responses (IBR) assessment. Ecotox Environ Safe 133:10–17
Houde M, Czub G, Small JM, Backus S, Wang XW, Alaee M, Muir DCG (2008) Fractionation and bioaccumulation of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) isomers in a Lake Ontario food web. Environ Sci Technol 42:9397–9403
Houtz EF, Sedlak DL (2012) Oxidative conversion as a means of detecting precursors to perfluoroalkyl acids in urban runoff. Environ Sci Technol 46:9342–9349
Huang H, Zhang S, Christie P, Wang S, Xie M (2010) Behavior of decabromodiphenyl ether (BDE-209) in the soil−plant system: uptake, translocation, and metabolism in plants and dissipation in soil. Environ Sci Technol 44:663–667
Jusko TA, Oktapodas M, Palkovičová Murinová L’, Babinská K, Babjaková J, Verner MA, DeWitt JC, Thevenet-Morrison K, Čonka K, Drobná B, Chovancová J, Thurston SW, Lawrence BP, Dozier AM, Järvinen KM, Patayová H, Trnovec T, Legler J, Hertz-Picciotto I, Lamoree MH (2016) Demographic, reproductive, and dietary determinants of perfluorooctane sulfonic (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) concentrations in human colostrum. Environ Sci Technol 50:7152–7162
Kim TH, Yu S, Choi Y, Jeong TY, Kim SD (2018) Profiling the decomposition products of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) irradiated using an electron beam. Sci Total Environ 631-632:1295–1303
Kim TH, Lee SH, Kim HY, Doudrick K, Yu S, Kim SD (2019) Decomposition of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) using a hybrid process with electron beam and chemical oxidants. Chem Eng J 361:1363–1370
Knoche M, Bukovac MJ (2004) Effect of Triton X-100 concentration on NAA penetration through the isolated tomato fruit cuticular membrane. Crop Prot 23(2):141–146
Kucharzyk KH, Darlington R, Benotti M, Deeb R, Hawley E (2017) Novel treatment technologies for PFAS compounds: a critical review. J Environ Manag 204:757–764
Lan Z, Zhou M, Yao Y, Sun H (2018) Plant uptake and translocation of perfluoroalkyl acids in a wheat–soil system. Environ Sci Pollut R 25:30907–30916
Lee H, Tevlin AG, Mabury SA, Mabury SA (2014) Fate of polyfluoroalkyl phosphate diesters and their metabolites in biosolids-applied soil: biodegradation and plant uptake in greenhouse and field experiments. Environ Sci Technol 48:340–349
Liao X, Chen J, Zhou Y, Zhao H, Song L, Wang J, Du J, Chen P (2000) Effect of salicylic acid on the isozymes of peroxidase and catalase in cells of wheat callus. J Triticeae Crop 20:66–68
Lindstrom AB, Strynar MJ, Libelo EL (2011) Polyfluorinated compounds: past, present, and future. Environ Sci Technol 45:7954–7961
Liu SJ, Lu YL, Xie SW, Wang TY, Jones KC, Sweetman AJ (2015) Exploring the fate, transport and risk of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) in a coastal region of China using a multimedia model. Environ Int 85:15–26
Liu ZY, Lu YL, Wang P, Wang TY, Liu SJ, Johnson AC, Sweetman AJ, Baninla Y (2017) Pollution pathways and release estimation of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) in central and eastern China. Sci Total Environ 580:1247–1256
Madikizela LM, Ncube S, Chimuka L (2018) Uptake of pharmaceuticals by plants grown under hydroponic conditions and natural occurring plant species: A review. Sci Total Environ 636:477–486
Majumdar S, Peralta-Videa JR, Bandyopadhyay S, Castillo-Michel H, Hernandez-Viezcas J-A, Sahi S, Gardea-Torresdey JL (2014) Exposure of cerium oxide nanoparticles to kidney bean shows disturbance in the plant defense mechanisms. J Hazard Mater 278:279–287
Martin D, Munoz G, Mejia-Avendano S, Duy SV, Yao Y, Volchek K, Brown CE, Liu JX, Sauve S (2019) Zwitterionic, cationic, and anionic perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances integrated into total oxidizable precursor assay of contaminated groundwater. Talanta 195:533–542
Mudumbi JBN, Ntwampe SKO, Muganza M, Okonkwo JO (2014) Susceptibility of riparian wetland plants to perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) accumulation. Int J Phytoremediat 16:926–936
Mudumbi JBN, Ntwampe SKO, Matsha T, Mekuto L, Itoba-Tombo EF (2017) Recent developments in polyfluoroalkyl compounds research: a focus on human/environmental health impact, suggested substitutes and removal strategies. Environ Monit Assess 189:402
Mudumbi JBN, Daso AP, Okonkwo OJ, Ntwampe SKO, Matsha TE, Mekuto L, Itoba-Tombo EF, Adetunji AT, Sibali LL (2019) Propensity of Tagetes erecta L., a medicinal plant commonly used in diabetes management, to accumulate perfluoroalkyl substances. Toxics 7:18
Newton S, McMahen R, Stoeckel JA, Chislock M, Lindstrom A, Strynar M (2017) Novel polyfluorinated compounds identified using high resolution mass spectrometry downstream of manufacturing facilities near Decatur, Alabama. Environ Sci Technol 51:1544–1552
Nzeribe BN, Crimi M, Mededovic Thagard S, Holsen TM (2019) Physico-chemical processes for the treatment of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS): a review. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 49:866–915
Park S, Zenobio JE, Lee LS (2018) Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) removal with Pd-0/nFe(0) nanoparticles: adsorption or aqueous Fe-complexation, not transformation? J Hazard Mater 342:20–28
Pi N, Ng JZ, Kelly BC (2017) Uptake and elimination kinetics of perfluoroalkyl substances in submerged and free-floating aquatic macrophytes: results of mesocosm experiments with Echinodorus horemanii and Eichhornia crassipes. Water Res 117:167–174
Pullagurala VLR, Rawat S, Adisa IO, Hernandez-Viezcas JA, Peralta-Videa JR, Gardea-Torresdey JL (2018) Plant uptake and translocation of contaminants of emerging concern in soil. Sci Total Environ 636:1585–1596
Qian J, Lu B, Chen H, Wang P, Wang C, Li K, Tian X, Jin W, He X, Chen H (2019) Phytotoxicity and oxidative stress of perfluorooctanesulfonate to two riparian plants: Acorus calamus and Phragmites communis. Ecotox Environ Safe 180:215–226
Qu B, Zhao H, Zhou J (2010) Toxic effects of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) on wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) plant. Chemosphere 79:555–560
Rankin K, Mabury SA, Jenkins TM, Washington JW (2016) A North American and global survey of perfluoroalkyl substances in surface soils: Distribution patterns and mode of occurrence. Chemosphere 161:333–341
Salgado-Freiria R, Lopez-Doval S, Lafuente A (2018) Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) can alter the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis activity by modifying CRF1 and glucocorticoid receptors. Toxicol Lett 295:1–9
Su C, Song S, Lu YL, Liu SJ, Giesy JP, Chen DL, Jenkins A, Sweetman AJ, Yvette B (2018) Potential effects of changes in climate and emissions on distribution and fate of perfluorooctane sulfonate in the Bohai Rim, China. Sci Total Environ 613:352–360
Sun TF, Xiang L, Chen L, Xiao T, Mo CH, Li YW, Cai QY, Hu GC, He DC (2017) Research progresses of determination of perfluorinated compounds in environmental water and solid samples. Chin J Anal Chem 45:601–609
Sun Q, Zhao C, Frankcombe TJ, Liu H, Liu Y (2019) Heterogeneous photocatalytic decomposition of per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances: a review. Crit Rev Env Sci Tec 50:523–547
Tang CYY, Fu QS, Robertson AP, Criddle CS, Leckie JO (2006) Use of reverse osmosis membranes to remove perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) from semiconductor wastewater. Environ Sci Technol 40:7343–7349
Trojanowicz M, Bojanowska-Czajka A, Bartosiewicz I, Kulisa K (2018) Advanced oxidation/reduction processes treatment for aqueous perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS) – a review of recent advances. Chem Eng J 336:170–199
Vierke L, Ahrens L, Shoeib M, Palm W-U, Webster EM, Ellis DA, Ebinghaus R, Harner T (2013) In situ air–water and particle–water partitioning of perfluorocarboxylic acids, perfluorosulfonic acids and perfluorooctyl sulfonamide at a wastewater treatment plant. Chemosphere 92:941–948
Wang F, Shih K, Lu XW, Liu CS (2013) Mineralization behavior of fluorine in perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS) during thermal treatment of lime-conditioned sludge. Environ Sci Technol 47:2621–2627
Wang XX, Zhang RB, Zhang H, He L, Shen JC, Chai ZF, Yang B, Wang YP (2016) Impact of biological treatment techniques on perfluoroalkyl acids emissions in municipal sewage. Water Air Soil Pollut 227:149
Wang SN, Yang Q, Chen F, Sun J, Luo K, Yao FB, Wang XL, Wang DB, Li XM, Zeng GM (2017a) Photocatalytic degradation of perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonate in water: a critical review. Chem Eng J 328:927–942
Wang ZY, Boucher JM, Scheringer M, Cousins IT, Hungerbuhler K (2017b) Toward a comprehensive global emission inventory of C-4-C-10 perfluoroalkanesulfonic acids (PFSAs) and related precursors: focus on the life cycle of C-8-based products and ongoing industrial transition. Environ Sci Technol 51:4482–4493
Wen Y, Chen H, Shen C, Zhao M, Liu W (2011) Enantioselectivity tuning of chiral herbicide dichlorprop by copper: roles of reactive oxygen species. Environ Sci Technol 45:4778–4784
Wen B, Wu Y, Zhang H, Liu Y, Hu X, Huang H, Zhang S (2016) The roles of protein and lipid in the accumulation and distribution of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) in plants grown in biosolids-amended soils. Environ Pollut 216:682–688
Wild SR, Jones KC (1992) Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon uptake by carrots grown in sludge-amended soil. J Environ Qual 21(2):217–225
Wilkinson JL, Hooda PS, Swinden J, Barker J, Barton S (2018) Spatial (bio)accumulation of pharmaceuticals, illicit drugs, plasticisers, perfluorinated compounds and metabolites in river sediment, aquatic plants and benthic organisms. Environ Pollut 234:864–875
Xiao F (2017) Emerging poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances in the aquatic environment: a review of current literature. Water Res 124:482–495
Yang X, Ye C, Liu Y, Zhao F-J (2015) Accumulation and phytotoxicity of perfluorooctanoic acid in the model plant species Arabidopsis thaliana. Environ Pollut 206:560–566
Yang L, Sun T, Liu Y, Guo H, Lv L, Zhang J, Liu C (2017) Photosynthesis of alfalfa (Medicago sativa) in response to landfill leachate contamination. Chemosphere 186:743–748
Yoo H, Washington JW, Jenkins TM, Ellington JJ (2011) Quantitative determination of perfluorochemicals and fluorotelomer alcohols in plants from biosolid-amended fields using LC/MS/MS and GC/MS. Environ Sci Technol 45:7985–7990
Zabaleta I, Bizkarguenaga E, Nunoo DBO, Schultes L, Leonel J, Prieto A, Zuloaga O, Benskin JP (2018) Biodegradation and uptake of the pesticide sulfluramid in a soil–carrot mesocosm. Environ Sci Technol 52:2603–2611
Zareitalabad P, Siemens J, Hamer M, Amelung W (2013) Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) in surface waters, sediments, soils and wastewater – a review on concentrations and distribution coefficients. Chemosphere 91:725–732
Zeng ZT, Song B, Xiao R, Zeng GM, Gong JL, Chen M, Xu PA, Zhang P, Shen MC, Yi H (2019) Assessing the human health risks of perfluorooctane sulfonate by in vivo and in vitro studies. Environ Int 126:598–610
Zhang H, Wen B, Hu X, Wu Y, Pan Y, Huang H, Liu L, Zhang S (2016) Uptake, translocation, and metabolism of 8:2 fluorotelomer alcohol in soybean (Glycine max L. Merrill). Environ Sci Technol 50:13309–13317
Zhang W, Zhang D, Zagorevski DV, Liang Y (2019) Exposure of Juncus effusus to seven perfluoroalkyl acids: uptake, accumulation and phytotoxicity. Chemosphere 233:300–308
Zhao H, Chen C, Zhang X, Chen J, Quan X (2011) Phytotoxicity of PFOS and PFOA to Brassica chinensis in different Chinese soils. Ecotox Environ Safe 74:1343–1347
Zhao SY, Fan ZY, Sun LH, Zhou T, Xing YL, Liu LF (2017) Interaction effects on uptake and toxicity of perfluoroalkyl substances and cadmium in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and rapeseed (Brassica campestris L.) from co-contaminated soil. Ecotox Environ Safe 137:194–201
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers of Environmental Science and Pollution Research for invaluable comments. We also thank Alan Leckie at Scion, New Zealand, for improving this manuscript.
Funding
This work was financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51878523, No. U1703120, and No. 51508430), the Recruitment Program of Global Experts (Young Professionals), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (WUT: 193108003, 2019IVA032, and 215208002), and the Scottish Government’s Rural and Environment Science and Analytical Service Division (RESAS).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Data collection and analysis were performed by Yulong Li, Liuyang He, Lixin Lv, and Jianming Xue. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Yulong Li, and Lie Yang critically revised the work. All authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Responsible Editor: Elena Maestri
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Li, Y., He, L., Lv, L. et al. Review on plant uptake of PFOS and PFOA for environmental cleanup: potential and implications. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28, 30459–30470 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14069-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14069-0