# Phytoremediation Potential of Vetiver Grass (Vetiveria Zizanioides) in Two Mixed Heavy Metal Contaminated Soils from the Zoundweogo and Boulkiemde Regions of Burkina Faso (West Africa)

Norbert Ondo Zue Abaga, Sylvie Dousset, Colette Munier-Lamy

► To cite this version:

Norbert Ondo Zue Abaga, Sylvie Dousset, Colette Munier-Lamy. Phytoremediation Potential of Vetiver Grass (Vetiveria Zizanioides) in Two Mixed Heavy Metal Contaminated Soils from the Zoundweogo and Boulkiemde Regions of Burkina Faso (West Africa). Journal of Geoscience and Environment Protection, 2021, 09 (11), pp.73-88. 10.4236/gep.2021.911006. hal-03551686

HAL Id: hal-03551686

https://hal.univ-lorraine.fr/hal-03551686

Submitted on 1 Feb 2022

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Phytoremediation Potential of Vetiver Grass (Vetiveria Zizanioides) in Two Mixed Heavy Metal Contaminated Soils from the Zoundweogo and Boulkiemde Regions of Burkina Faso (West Africa)

Norbert Ondo Zue Abaga<fnref n="1" />*, Sylvie Dousset<fnref n="2" />, Colette Munier-Lamy<fnref n="2" />

**How to cite this paper:** Ondo Zue Abaga, N., Dousset, S., & Munier-Lamy, C. (2021). Phytoremediation Potential of Vetiver Grass (Vetiveria Zizanioides) in Two Mixed Heavy Metal Contaminated Soils from the Zoundweogo and Boulkiemde Regions of Burkina Faso (West Africa). *Journal of Geoscience and Environment Protection, 9*, 73-88.

https://doi.org/10.4236/gep.2021.911006

Received: May 28, 2021

Accepted: November 20, 2021

Published: November 23, 2021

Copyright © 2021 by author(s) and
Scientific Research Publishing Inc.
This work is licensed under the Creative
Commons Attribution International
License (CC BY 4.0).

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Open Access

## Abstract

In the agricultural regions of Burkina Faso, urban solid waste fertilizers were usually applied. This activity is likely to contaminate the soils and expose populations to serious diseases. This study aims to assess rate of heavy metal (Cd, Cu, Mn, Pb, Zn, Ni, Cr) contamination in both agricultural lixisol and vertisol and to evaluate the removal efficiency of heavy metals using Vetiver grass on different two mixed heavy metal contaminated soils. A pot experiment was conducted to compare the metal accumulation and overall efficiency of metal uptake by different plant parts (roots and shoots) on both tropical soils. After 3 and 6 months growing on laboratory conditions, Vetiver grass plants were harvested and heavy metal concentrations in shoot and root parts determined by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectroscopy. The results indicate that at 3 and 6 moths, the shoot and root concentrations of heavy metals in Vetiver grass harvested in lixisol were higher than vertisol. For different plant parts, all metal concentrations were higher in root than in shoot, except Cu and Pb. At the 3 and 6 months, the BCF values > 1 for Cd, Cu and Zn in both soils showed Vetiver grass as an effective phyto-stabilizer for these metals. However, the TF values > 1 for Cd (lixisol), Mn, Zn Ni and Cr (vertisol) indicated the efficiency of Vetiver for phytoextraction. The results of this study showed that Vetiver is more effective in lixisol, but it can be used for remediation of both studied tropical soils from agricultural region of Burkina Faso. Nevertheless, considering the spe-

<footnote n="1">¹Université des Sciences et Techniques de Masuku (USTM), Unité de Recherche en Sciences de la Terre et de l'Environnement (URESTE), Franceville, Gabon</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Université de Lorraine, CNRS, Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire des Environnements Continentaux (LIEC), Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France</footnote>

<footnote>Email: *n_ondo@hotmail.fr</footnote>
cial limitations of the experimental conditions, further field monitoring is
necessary to demonstrate the phytoremediation efficiency of Vetiver in agri-
cultural soils under the climatic conditions of Burkina Faso.

Keywords

Vetiver Grass, Heavy Metals, Lixisol, Vertisol, Phytoextraction,
Phytostabilization, Contamination

**1. Introduction**

Over these last years, soil contamination has received much global attention as it
instigates considerable risks to both human health and the environment (Doran,
2002; Azam, 2016; Gómez-Sagasti et al., 2016). Anthropogenic sources of soil
contamination may include both organic (pesticides, dioxin, poly-chlorinated
biphenyl, halogen) and inorganic (metals and radioactive materials) components
(Storelli, 2008; Ali & Khan, 2017). The major components of inorganic pollu-
tants are heavy metals and metalloids, such as chromium (Cr), manganese (Mn),
nickel (Ni), copper (Cu), zinc (Zn), cadmium (Cd), lead (Pb), mercury (Hg) and
arsenic (As) (Barakat, 2011; Khan et al., 2011). Generally, the term heavy metal
is widely used to indicate a group of natural metals in the periodic table with an
elemental density > 5 g/cm³ and atomic number > 20, often non-biodegradable
and persistent in soils over a long duration (Bradl, 2005; Gomes, 2012; Ali &
Khan, 2018). Heavy metals are released into the environment by human activi-
ties via industrial and agricultural practices and disposal of urban sewage sludge
(Khan, 2005). Some heavy metals, such as Cu, Zn, Fe and Mn, are essential soil
micronutrients required by living organisms in trace amounts for biological me-
tabolic processes (Pilbeam & Barker 2007), and others heavy metals like Cd, Pb,
Cr, Hg and As are non-essential for the growth of living organisms. However, all
heavy metals are hazardous to human health as it easily bio-accumulated via the
food chain due to soil-to-plant transfer of metals (Khan, 2005; Storelli 2008; Mar-
tin & Griswold 2009; Clemens & Ma, 2016; Ali et al., 2019).

Soil rehabilitation seems necessary in order to avoid human health problems
linked to soil pollution. Several physical, chemical and biological assisted me-
thods have been tested to clean up contaminated heavy metals in soils (Garbisu
& Alkorta, 2003; Ghosh & Singh, 2005; Rahman et al., 2016). However, all of
these strategies are expensive, extremely complicated and destructive to the nat-
ural ecosystem. Nonetheless, phytoremediation has evolved to be an alternative
biological assisted method that is cost-effective, non-destructive and environ-
mentally friendly approach for heavy metals soil decontamination (Glass, 2000;
Ali et al., 2013; Mahar et al., 2016). As a consequence, phytoremediation is con-
sidered an innovative, economical and environmentally compatible method for
heavy metals remediation (Antiochia et al., 2007). Phytoremediation is a tech-
nology that transfers pollutants from soils and sediments to the plant tissues
without soil structure degradation and soil productivity decrease (Lombi et al., 2001). Heavy metal uptake by plants is dependent on soil metal concentration, soil nature and is also affected by plant physiology (Chen et al., 2004).

Somme plant species have great potential to accumulate metals in both shoot and root (Neisi et al., 2014). Vetiver grass, Vetiveria zizanioides (Linn.) Nash is one of the most promising plants due to its fast growing, deep and extensive root system, high tolerance to environmental stress such as extreme fluctuations of temperature (22°C - 60°C), soil pH (3.0 - 10.5), and most importantly high tolerance to heavy metal stress (Danh et al., 2009; Truong & Danh, 2015; Gnansounou et al., 2017; Darajeh et al., 2019; Ng et al., 2019). Vetiver grass originated in the Indian sub-continent can also be found throughout the tropical and subtropical regions of Africa, Asia, America, Australia, and Mediterranean Europe (Maffei, 2002). Vetiver grass has a very high tolerance for organic and inorganic pollutants and has been used for remediation of soils polluted by pesticides (Ondo Zue Abaga et al., 2014a), phenol, nuclear wastes and protozoa (Singh et al., 2008) and heavy metals (Truong & Danh, 2015; Suelee et al., 2017; Ng et al., 2020).

Limited data are available about soil remediation especially using Vetiver grass in Africa in general, and particularly in Burkina Faso. Nevertheless, Vetiver grass, Vetiver zizanoides has been studied for stabilization and biodegradation of pesticide in the agricultural cotton-soils of Burkina Fasol (Ondo Zue Abaga et al., 2014a) and for phytoaccumulation of both Cu and Cd in agricultural soil (Ondo Zue Abaga et al., 2014b). Therefore, the objectives of this study were to evaluate the accumulation trend and efficiency of metal uptake by Vetiver grass from two mixed form Cd, Cu, Mn, Pb, Zn, Ni and Cr contaminated soils collected in agricultural region of Burkina Faso. Soil nature influence was investigated on metal bioaccumulation in both root and shoot of Vetiver grass in the laboratory conditions.

# 2. Material and Method

## 2.1. Presentation of the Study Area

Located in the Sudanian and Sudano-sahelian zones of Burkina Faso, more precisely in the provinces of Zoundweogo and Boulkiemde, it contains two (2) experimental sites of cotton zone (Figure 1). They are Kaïbo, between latitude 11°49' North and longitude 05°56' West, and Saria between latitude 12°16' North and longitude 02°09' West, respectively. The study area is under a dry tropical climate which alternates between a short rainy season and a long dry season. The country has three distinct climatic zones: the Sahel region in the north receiving less than 600 mm average annual rainfall, the North-Sudanian zone in center with an average annual rainfall between 600 and 900 mm; and the South-Sudanian zone in the south with an average annual rainfall over 900 mm (UNDP, 2021). Annual average temperatures in Burkina Faso range between 27°C - 30°C, with monthly averages ranging from 14°C - 15°C (USAID, 2017). The two experimental stations Kaïbo and Saria are characterized by Vertisol and Lixisol
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1. The geographical location of sampling zone in the study area.</figcaption></figure>

(IUSS Working Group WRB, 2006), respectively. The geological formations of the study area are composed of Precambrian rocks generally characterized by granitic gneisses, and north to northeasterly trending belts of metasediments and metavolcanics (Schlüter, 2008).

## 2.2. Soil Samples and Physic-Chemical Properties
Characterization

Two experimental soils were taken from the soil surface (0 - 20 cm) of two experimental stations, Saria and Kaïbo, in the cotton zone of Burkina Faso (Figure 1). The soil samples were prepared and analyzed as described by Ondo Zue Abaga et al. (2014a). The samples soils were air-dried, sieved to 2-mm, and sent for characterization at the soil analysis laboratory of INRA-Arras in France. The following analyses were carried using the European soils quality standards given in brackets: particle size distribution (NF X 31–107), pH (NF ISO 10390), total organic carbon (NF ISO 10694), N (NF ISO 13878), cation exchange capacity (CEC) (NF X 31–130), and the total major elements (NF X 31–147). A 40-mL volume of the clay fraction (0 - 2 µm) obtained from 6 g of soil per 500 mL of water (soil/solution: 1/83.3) was used to determine the mineralogical composition of the clay. Clay mineral characterization was performed using a Broker® D8 diffractometer (Karlsruhe, Germany), with Co Kαradiation. Diffractograms were recorded from 3° to 40° 2θ, with a step scan of 0.035° 2θ and time per step of 3 s on two preparations: a deposit oriented toward air-dried clays and a deposit oriented toward saturated clays at ambient temperature for 24 h, in ethylene glycol (EG) vapors (Mosser-Ruck & Cathelineau, 2004).

Total metal (Cd, Cu, Mn, Pb, Zn, Ni, Cr) concentrations were determined us-
ing a flame atomic absorption spectrometer (Varian 702-ES). A graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrometer (Varian 220Z model) was used to measure the Cd concentrations below 1 mg/L. The limit of quantification was 0.10 mg/kg dry soil for Cd, 1 for Cu and 4.22 mg/kg dry soil for Mn, Pb, Zn, Ni and Cr. In soil, total metal concentrations do not necessarily correspond with metal bioavailable. Bioavailability is the proportion of the total metals that are available for incorporation into biota (bioaccumulation). It is the interest of bioavailable fraction studies of the major metals listed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of United States (McKinney & Rogers, 1992). The bioavailable fractions of heavy metals were evaluated using a MgCl₂ 0.1 M extractant (Meers et al., 2007). Heavy metals were extracted from 1 g of soil mixed with 40 mL 0.1 M MgCl₂ in a 50-mL polycarbonate vial. The soil suspensions were agitated on a rotary shaker for 1 h and centrifuged for 10 min at 2900 g. The supernatant filtered using Whatman filters (0.45 µm pore size) received 4 ml of 69% nitric acid before the analysis. The heavy metals concentrations were determined by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectroscopy (ICP-AES, Varian 702-ES model) as above with a limit of quantification of 0.25 mg/kg dry soil.

The soil characteristics are given in Table 1. The soil texture was loamy clay for vertisol and sandy loam for lixisol according to Jamagne (1967). The organic carbon (OC) content was higher in vertisol (0.95%) and the pH slightly less acidic (pH 6.1) than in lixisol (OC 0.43% and pH 5.8) (Table 1). Vertisol contained more Al₂O₃ (9.8%) and Fe₂O₃ (4.6%) than lixisol (Al₂O₃, 3.5%; Fe₂O₃, 1.1%). In the vertisol, clays mineral were more abundant: chlorite (4%), Illite (45%), Interstratified Illite/Chlorite (4%), kaolinite (31.5%) and smectite + interstratified Illite/smectite (15.5%) than in lixisol with only Illite (21%) and a low CEC kaolinite (79%). These results could explain the most important CEC in vertisol (10.5 cmol·kg⁻¹) compared to lixisol (<1 cmol·kg⁻¹).

The results of heavy metals analyses indicated that total Cu, Mn, Zn, Ni and Cr concentrations were significantly (*P* < 0.05) higher in vertisol compared to lixisol (Table 1). For Cd, and Pb, no significant difference was observed between the two soils. However, the total exchangeable metal was similar in both soils for Cd, Mn, Pb, Zn, Ni and Cr. Only the extractable-Cu concentration was significantly higher (*P* < 0.05) in lixisol than in vertisol. Finally, the soil content of available trace metals (Cu, Mn, Pb, Zn, Ni, Cr) depends on different factors, including the content of organic carbon (MacFarlane et al., 2003), clay content and CEC (Baran et al., 2014; Nunes et al., 2014). These observed values may be attributed to the clay, organic carbon, CEC and oxide (Al₂O₃ and Fe₂O₃) contents (Table 1) higher in vertisol than in lixisol and promoted the retention of metals, especially of Cu. These results are in agreement with those of Nunes et al. (2014).

## 2.3. Pot Experiments

### 2.3.1. Experimental Design and Soil Treatments

The experiments were conducted out under controlled conditions in a phytotoxic chamber located at Nancy, Interdisciplinary Laboratory of Continental
<table><caption>**Table 1.** Physico-chemical properties of the experimental soils. The Newman-Keuls statistical validity test was used for significant differences of each metal content among both experimental soils at the 95% level of confidence. Significant differences were noted by *P* < 0.05 (significant), **P* < 0.01 (highly significant), ***P* < 0.001 (very highly significant) and ns (not significant).</caption><thead><tr><th>Characteristics</th><th>Vertisol (VS)</th><th>Lixisol (LS)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Soil texture</td><td>loamy clay</td><td>sandy loam</td></tr><tr><td>Sand (%)</td><td>25.9</td><td>68.6</td></tr><tr><td>Silt (%)</td><td>44.8</td><td>21.6</td></tr><tr><td>Clay (%)</td><td>29.3</td><td>9.5</td></tr><tr><td>Soil pH</td><td>6.1</td><td>5.8</td></tr><tr><td>Organic carbon (OC) (%)</td><td>0.95</td><td>0.43</td></tr><tr><td>Al<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub></td><td>9.8</td><td>3.5</td></tr><tr><td>Fe<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub></td><td>4.6</td><td>1.1</td></tr><tr><td>Cation exchange capacity (cmol/kg)</td><td>10.5</td><td>&lt;1</td></tr><tr><td>Clay minerals (%)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>chlorite</td><td>4</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Illite</td><td>45</td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td>Interstratified Illite/ Chlorite</td><td>4</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>kaolinite</td><td>31.5</td><td>79</td></tr><tr><td>smectite + interstratified Illite/ smectite</td><td>15.5</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Metal contents (mg/kg): Total (available)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Cadmium (Cd): ns (ns)</td><td>2.80 ± 0.08 (2.53 ± 0.11)</td><td>2.86 ± 0.12 (2.65 ± 0.01)</td></tr><tr><td>Copper (Cu): ** (*)</td><td>136.27 ± 5.46 (5.90 ± 1.44)</td><td>103.78 ± 3.47 (37.11 ± 0.21)</td></tr><tr><td>Manganese (Mn): *** (ns)</td><td>619.52 ± 77.44 (10.53 ± 1.16)</td><td>154.88 ± 0.30 (14.92 ± 0.15)</td></tr><tr><td>Lead (Pb): ns (ns)</td><td>17.88 ± 2.51 (2.84 ± 0.05)</td><td>12.15 ± 2.24 (2.71 ± 0.01)</td></tr><tr><td>Zinc (Zn): ** (ns)</td><td>51.58 ± 3.82 (1.62 ± 0.10)</td><td>28.14 ± 0.75 (1.50 ± 0.08)</td></tr><tr><td>Nickel (Ni): ** (ns)</td><td>36.71 ± 2.92 (2.23 ± 0.12)</td><td>16.29 ± 1.18 (1.80 ± 0.01)</td></tr><tr><td>Chromium (Cr): ** (ns)</td><td>87.12 ± 10.42 (0.58 ± 0.03)</td><td>45.43 ± 3.11 (0.59 ± 0.01)</td></tr><tr><td>Mean ± standard deviation</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Environments, University of Lorraine in France, under the following conditions: 24°C/16°C temperature at day/night, 70% humidity, 12 h day, 22.7 × 10³ cd m⁻² light intensity. Top soil (0 - 20 cm depth) collected from two experimental stations in the cotton zone of Burkina Faso and experimental soils were air-dried, sieved through 2 mm mesh and mixed to obtain a homogenous soil sample. The soils samples underwent a preliminary physico-chemical soil assessment (Table 1) prior to the preparation of pot experiment. Vetiver plants were transplanted into plastic pots containing 1 kg of 2 mm-sieved lixisol or vertisol. Each pot received a single three-month old Vetiver plant with leaves and roots cut at 14 cm and 5 cm length, respectively. For both soil types, the unplanted control pots were monitored under the same conditions as the planted pots throughout the
6-month period of the experiment. The soil moisture content was maintained at 60% of the field water capacity by adding distilled water every three days. All samples were fertilized by adding a mixture of N/P/K (3/1/1) every 2 weeks (Chen et al., 2004). The study was conducted under the randomized design with three replications. Plants and soils were sampled three (T3) and six months (T6) after Vetiver growth for analyses.

### 2.3.2. Heavy Metals Analyses and Statistical

At 3-month (T3) and 6-month (T6) of experiment, all freshly harvested plants were washed with tap water then rinsed several times with deionized water to remove any adhering soil particles especially at root part. Shoots and roots tissue, previously air-dried for 72 h, were oven-dried at 60°C for 48 h. The dry biomass was weighed, ground to a fine powder (Retsch ZM 1) and sieved through a 2-mm mesh. For metal extraction, the microwave digestion method used and 200 mg of plant material was digested using an acid mixture of 69% HNO₃ and 30% H₂O₂ (2:1 v/v) into a pressure-resistant PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene) vessel (Saydut, 2010; Güven & Akinci, 2011). Metal-concentrations (Cd, Cu, Mn, Pb, Zn, Ni, Cr) in plant tissue were analyzed by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectroscopy (ICP-AES, Varian 702-ES model) as above with a limit of quantification of 0.63 mg/kg dry weight.

All experimental data analyzed by performing two-ways analysis of variance (ANOVA), using statistical XLSTAT software, to evaluate the metal accumulation in Vetiver growing under different types of soils. The means of different concentrations were compared by Newman-Keuls's least significant difference tests at the 95% level of confidence.

### 2.3.3. Determination of Phytoremediation Quotient

The ability of Vetiver grass for metal accumulation and translocation upwards were evaluated by determining the biological accumulation coefficient (BAC), biological concentration factor (BCF) and translocation factor (TF) (Yoon et al., 2006; Ali et al., 2013; Ng et al., 2020), as follows:

BAC = Concentration of heavy metals in tillers/Concentration of heavy metals in soil;

BCF = Concentration of heavy metals in roots/Concentration of heavy metals in soil;

TF = Concentration of heavy metals in shoot/Concentration of heavy metals in roots.

## 3. Results and Discussion

### 3.1. Heavy Metal Concentration in Shoots and Roots of Vetiver

Table 2 shows the concentration of Cd, Cu, Mn, Pb, Zn, Ni and Cr accumulation in roots and shoots for Vetiver grass. Generally, Vetiver grass takes up heavy metals in vertisol and lixisol. Metal concentrations in both the roots and shoots did not increased with time (between 3 and 6 months Vetiver growing), but were
<table><caption>Table 2. Heavy metal concentrations in the roots and shoots of Vetiver (mg/kg dry matter) harvested at T3 and T6 months.</caption><thead><tr><th>Samples</th><th>Cd</th><th>Cu</th><th>Mn</th><th>Pb</th><th>Zn</th><th>Ni</th><th>Cr</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="8" style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;">Shoots (mg/kg DW)</td></tr><tr><td>VS_T3</td><td>1.53 ± 0.88<sup>b</sup></td><td>23.15 ± 12.30<sup>b</sup></td><td>103.62 ± 39.13<sup>b</sup></td><td>6.08 ± 6.08<sup>a</sup></td><td>23.66 ± 2.91<sup>a</sup></td><td>67.98 ± 20.33<sup>a</sup></td><td>134.45 ± 10.43<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td>LS-T3</td><td>22.16 ± 9.81<sup>a</sup></td><td>331.83 ± 130.94<sup>a</sup></td><td>425.78 ± 110.67<sup>a</sup></td><td>1.72 ± 0.62<sup>a</sup></td><td>29.25 ± 9.83<sup>a</sup></td><td>65.23 ± 55.84<sup>a</sup></td><td>133.0 ± 118.18<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td>VS_T6</td><td>2.25 ± 0.87<sup>b</sup></td><td>44.08 ± 15.93<sup>b</sup></td><td>284.17 ± 4.02<sup>ab</sup></td><td>0.83 ± 0.07<sup>a</sup></td><td>22.83 ± 10.53<sup>a</sup></td><td>126.88 ± 63.24<sup>a</sup></td><td>227.50 ± 108.9<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td>LS-T6</td><td>21.28 ± 11.38<sup>a</sup></td><td>304.71 ± 94.38<sup>a</sup></td><td>386.67 ± 129.93<sup>a</sup></td><td>0.96 ± 0.07<sup>a</sup></td><td>33.46 ± 12.20<sup>a</sup></td><td>135.04 ± 53.71<sup>a</sup></td><td>245.83 ± 92.08<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td colspan="8" style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;">Roots (mg/kg DW)</td></tr><tr><td>VS_T3</td><td>4.55 ± 1.11<sup>b</sup></td><td>145.19 ± 79.55<sup>c</sup></td><td>124.19 ± 116.97<sup>a</sup></td><td>2.43 ± 0.46<sup>a</sup></td><td>25.50 ± 4.66<sup>a</sup></td><td>5.06 ± 1.77<sup>a</sup></td><td>4.72 ± 1.75<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td>LS-T3</td><td>15.82 ± 2.33<sup>a</sup></td><td>709.64 ± 227.5<sup>ab</sup></td><td>178.90 ± 56.72<sup>a</sup></td><td>2.46 ± 1.19<sup>a</sup></td><td>24.87 ± 5.26<sup>a</sup></td><td>3.07 ± 1.04<sup>ab</sup></td><td>3.27 ± 1.57<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td>VS_T6</td><td>6.42 ± 1.31<sup>b</sup></td><td>499.17 ± 72.68<sup>b</sup></td><td>151.67 ± 6.41<sup>a</sup></td><td>2.29 ± 0.31<sup>a</sup></td><td>24.04 ± 4.13<sup>a</sup></td><td>3.58 ± 0.75<sup>ab</sup></td><td>4.50 ± 1.15<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td>LS-T6</td><td>14.88 ± 4.11<sup>a</sup></td><td>637.50 ± 83.88<sup>a</sup></td><td>171.67 ± 36.26<sup>a</sup></td><td>3.00 ± 2.20<sup>a</sup></td><td>27.59 ± 8.58<sup>a</sup></td><td>1.84 ± 0.31<sup>b</sup></td><td>2.42 ± 1.15<sup>a</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

Mean ± standard deviation and for shoots and roots, value in the same column with different superscript are significantly different at *P* < 0.05.

depended on the soil type. At 3 months, Vetiver grass tended to accumulate higher concentrations of heavy metals on lixisol. Vetiver growing on lixisol recorded significantly higher (*P* < 0.05) accumulation of Cd, Cu and Mn in both shoots (22.16, 331.83 and 425.78 mg/kg) and roots (15.82, 709.64 and 178.9 mg/kg) compared to the Vetiver growing on vertisol (Table 2). For Mn, Pb, Zn, Ni and Cr accumulation in shoot and root parts, not significant difference were found between both experimental soil types. The accumulation especially for Cd, Cu and Mn were significantly greater for lixisol than vertisol in relation to the negligible lixisol CEC compared to the vertisol CEC (Table 1). The highest organic carbon content increases the CEC of the vertisol which retains metallic elements and reduces significantly the heavy metals bioavailability. These findings are in agreement with Ondo Zue Abaga et al. (2014b) study that reported that Cu and Cd adsorption were significantly higher in vertisol compared to lixisol. However, at 3 an 6 months, accumulate concentrations of Ni and Cr were higher in shoots than in roots of Vetiver grass in both vertisol and lixisol (Table 2). In root part, higher Ni and Cr accumulation was found in vetiver growing on vertisol compared on lixisol. This result may be attributed to the total initial Ni and Cr concentrations significantly higher in vertisol than lixisol (Table 1). The findings were in line with previous studies that amount of metals uptake by plant root increased as initial concentration of heavy metals increased (Roong-tanakiat & Chairoj, 2001; Ghosh & Singh, 2005). This suggests that Vetiver grass can be considered like a rhizofiltrator for Ni and Cr due to higher absorption of most heavy metals by root at different metal concentrations (Truong, 2000).

For both types of soil, time did not seem to have a significant impact in metals concentrations stored in Vetiver shoots and roots (Table 2). Heavy metal adsorption and their accumulation in Vetiver grass were important following a growth period of three months. Whereas, the accumulation was lower for a
growth period ranging from 3 to 6 month, probably due to the weak concentrations of initial metal-bioavailable in soils. This could be related to our experimental conditions such as soil weight (1 kg per pot) combined with the experiment duration (6 months) which may constitute limiting factors in this study. Generally, phytoremediation studies of heavy metal contaminated soils using Vetiver grass are often carried out with at least 2 kg of soil per pot and the experiment duration between 2 and 3 moths (Jampasri & Saeng-Ngam, 2019; Ng et al., 2020), and Vetiver growth is often by nutrients, EDTA to promote metal uptake and accumulation in plant tissues (Aksorn & Chitsomboon, 2013; Ng et al., 2016). Under these experimental conditions, plant growth is fast, its root density becomes more important and increase surface area for metal absorption by plant roots (Suelee et al., 2017).

Although the metal absorption by Vetiver grass is shown in the both studied soils, the highest concentrations were found in plant tissues grown on lixisol for T3 and T6, in the following order Cu > Mn > Zn > Cd > Cr > Ni > Pb in roots and Mn > Cu > Cr > Ni > Zn > Cd > Pb in shoots (Table 2). The observed variation in the amount of metals accumulated by Vetiver in their various parts in the various soils is an indication that metal uptake by Vetiver is primarily dependent on the soil quality and metal concentrations in their habitual soil environment (Chunilall et al., 2005). Indeed, metal adsorption in soil increases with high soil properties such as organic carbon, clay minerals content, Al₂O₃, Fe₂O₃ and CEC (Covelo et al., 2007; Cerqueira et al., 2011) higher in vertisol compared to lixisol (Table 1) reducing their bioavailability. This would explain the lower metal content accumulated in vetiver generally harvested in vertisol. Thus, Vetiver is shown to be more effective for lixisol remediation.

## 3.2. Translocation and Bioaccumulation Factors

The association of the different heavy metals accumulated from the tropical soils into the roots and shoots for Vetiver grass, in terms of BAC, BCF and TF are summarized in Table 3. A critical value greater than one (>1) for plants' BAC, BCF and TF is used to evaluate the potentials of plant species for phytoremediation method such as stabilization and extraction processes (Yoon et al., 2006; Cui et al., 2007; Li et al., 2007). The results showed that Vetiver had BAC > 1 at three months for Cu, Mn and Cr mainly in lixisol (LS), and at six months for Cd, Cu, Mn, Zn, Ni and Cr in both soil types, with the higher values in the lixisol 14.9, 9.5, 1, 1.5, 5.9 and 2, respectively. These results indicate that Vetiver grass can be used for Cd, Cu, Mn, Zn, Ni and Cr phytoremediation, especially in the lixisol. Plants with well-developed cellular mechanisms for heavy metal detoxification and tolerance (BAC > 1) are used as an indicator of high heavy metals accumulator plant species (Ghosh & Singh, 2005).

A good phytoremediator species possesses BCF value of greater than 1 (Zhang et al., 2002). Noticeably, after six months growing, the BCF values were greater than 1 for Cd and Cu in the both soils and for Zn in lixisol. The observed values indicate a great absorption of Cd, Cu and Zn in the lixisol, with the higher BCF
<table><caption>**Table 3.** Biological Accumulation Coefficient (BAC), Biological Coefficient Factor (BCF) and Translocation Factor (TF) of Vetiver grass sampled after 3 months (T3) and 6 months (T6) growing in the vertisol (VS) and lixisol (LS).</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Metal</th><th rowspan="2">Soil type</th><th colspan="2">BAC</th><th colspan="2">BCF</th><th colspan="2">TF</th></tr><tr><th>T3</th><th>T6</th><th>T3</th><th>T6</th><th>T3</th><th>T6</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Cd</td><td>VS</td><td>nd</td><td><b>2.0 ± 0.3</b></td><td>nd</td><td><b>3.4 ± 0.9</b></td><td>0.3 ± 0.1</td><td>0.4 ± 0.2</td></tr><tr><td>LS</td><td>nd</td><td><b>14.9 ± 6.8</b></td><td>nd</td><td><b>11.8 ± 4.7</b></td><td><b>1.4 ± 0.7</b></td><td><b>1.4 ± 0.5</b></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Cu</td><td>VS</td><td>0.6 ± 0.3</td><td><b>3.5 ± 0.8</b></td><td><b>1.2 ± 0.7</b></td><td><b>8.1 ± 1.8</b></td><td>0.2 ± 0.1</td><td>0.1 ± 0.0</td></tr><tr><td>LS</td><td><b>6.1 ± 1.8</b></td><td><b>9.5 ± 2.1</b></td><td><b>9.6 ± 3.7</b></td><td><b>14.5 ± 3.1</b></td><td>0.5 ± 0.3</td><td>0.5 ± 0.1</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Mn</td><td>VS</td><td>0.1 ± 0.0</td><td>0.2 ± 0.0</td><td>0.2 ± 0.1</td><td>0.1 ± 0.0</td><td><b>1.2 ± 0.6</b></td><td><b>1.9 ± 0.1</b></td></tr><tr><td>LS</td><td><b>2.2 ± 0.6</b></td><td><b>1.0 ± 0.3</b></td><td><b>1.2 ± 0.4</b></td><td>0.6 ± 0.1</td><td><b>2.4 ± 0.2</b></td><td><b>2.4 ± 1.3</b></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Pb</td><td>VS</td><td>nd</td><td>0.0 ± 0.0</td><td>nd</td><td>0.1 ± 0.1</td><td>0.6 ± 1.1</td><td>0.1 ± 0.2</td></tr><tr><td>LS</td><td>nd</td><td>0.1 ± 0.1</td><td>nd</td><td>0.2 ± 0.3</td><td>0.2 ± 0.4</td><td>0.0 ± 0.1</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Zn</td><td>VS</td><td>nd</td><td>0.4 ± 0.2</td><td>nd</td><td>0.5 ± 0.2</td><td><b>1.0 ± 0.3</b></td><td><b>1.0 ± 0.6</b></td></tr><tr><td>LS</td><td>nd</td><td><b>1.5 ± 0.8</b></td><td>nd</td><td><b>1.4 ± 0.7</b></td><td><b>1.2 ± 0.3</b></td><td><b>1.3 ± 0.5</b></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Ni</td><td>VS</td><td>nd</td><td><b>2.2 ± 0.9</b></td><td>nd</td><td>0.1 ± 0.1</td><td><b>15.8 ± 10.1</b></td><td><b>34.5 ± 11.3</b></td></tr><tr><td>LS</td><td>nd</td><td><b>5.9 ± 2.7</b></td><td>nd</td><td>0.1 ± 0.0</td><td><b>23.4 ± 21.6</b></td><td><b>75.5 ± 31.3</b></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Cr</td><td>VS</td><td><b>1.1 ± 0.5</b></td><td><b>1.33 ± 0.7</b></td><td>0.1 ± 0.0</td><td>0.0 ± 0.0</td><td><b>34.9 ± 25.9</b></td><td><b>50.7 ± 18.3</b></td></tr><tr><td>LS</td><td>nd</td><td><b>2.0 ± 0.9</b></td><td>nd</td><td>0.0 ± 0.0</td><td><b>45.5 ± 38.6</b></td><td><b>121.5 ± 70.7</b></td></tr></tbody></table>

values of 11.8, 14.5 and 1.4, respectively (Table 3), exhibiting firstly that the Cu accumulation was higher than the Cd, Zn and secondly that the metal accumulation potential of Vetiver was higher in the lixisol than in the vertisol. These heavy metals showed a preferential accumulation in the roots of Vetiver after their absorption from soils. In case of soil weight is more than 1 kg (case of our study), the more important root density of Vetiver would be more efficiency for metal accumulation due to increased surface area for metal absorption by plant roots (Suelee et al., 2017). Elevated concentrations of heavy metals in roots of plants species and low translocation into above ground parts (BCF) indicate their suitability for phytostabilization (Ghosh & Singh, 2005).

Translocation factor (TF) is the ratio that indicates the relative transportation of metals from roots to shoots of the plants (Mellem et al., 2012). TF values > 1 indicate the greater translocation of metals from root to the shoot part of the plant. In contrast, TF values < 1 mean that metals are largely stored in the root part of plants (Mellem et al., 2012). High root to shoot translocation (TF > 1) as observed for Cd in the lixisol and for Mn, Zn, Ni and Cr in the both studied soils. These results showed the ability of Vetiver to translocate heavy metals to easily harvestable parts (shoots). Similar TF values were obtained at three and six months for Cd, Mn and Zn in the lixisol (1.4, 2.4 and 1.2) and in vertisol (0.3, 1.2 and 1.0), respectively (Table 3). Generally, metals such as Cd, Pb and Cu preferentially accumulate in roots and often show low TF values (Aksorn & Chitsomboon, 2013; Jampasri & Saeng-Ngam, 2019). However, in comparison with Ng et al. (2016), our study shows low metal translocation. This observation can
be explained by the application of soil amendments EDTA, elemental S and N-fertilizer significantly increasing metal accumulation in the shoots in plant, with metal TF generally > 1.72 (Rahman et al., 2013; Ng et al., 2016).

Cadmium (Cd), Mn and Zn translocation decrease after three months growing of Vetiver. These TF values are lower compared to those of Ni (15.8 to 75.5) and Cr (34.9 to 121.5), with the highest TF being obtained in lixisol following a 6-month growth period. This result is an indication that Vetiver grass has vital characteristics to be used in phytoextraction (Malik et al., 2010). The observed high Ni and Cr translocation quotient may be attributed to well-developed metal detoxification mechanism based on sequestration in the tolerant plant species (Ghosh & Singh, 2005; Cui et al., 2007).

According to Yoon et al. (2006), a plant is considered as a hyperaccumulator of ETM when its translocation factor (TF) is greater than 1. Based on that definition, Vetiver can be considered as a hyperaccumulator of Cd in lixisol and Mn, Zn, Ni and Cr in both soil types, with a more important hyperaccumulation in lixisol. However, according to Baker & Brooks (1989), a plant is said to be a hyperaccumulator if it is capable of storing in its aerial parts more than 100 mg/kg dry plant of Cd and As, 1000 mg/kg of Co, Cu, Cr and Pb, and 10000 mg/kg of Mn, Zn and Ni (Watanabe, 1997; Baker & Brooks, 1989). According to our results, none of the heavy metals accumulated in Vetiver shoots exceeds those limits. This finding could be explained by weak ETM concentrations in the soil sampled.

Despite the low accumulation of heavy metal found in the root and shoot, the observed values of BAC, BCF and FT showed that Vetiver exhibited varying levels of phytoaccumulation potentials. Results from the present study suggested that Vetiver grass could effectively act as phytostabilizer for Cd in vertisol and Cu in lixisol and vertisol with BCF values greater than 1 and TF values of less than 1. However, despite the experimental duration, Vetiver is more favorable for phytoextraction of Cd in lixisol and Mn, Zn, Ni and Cr in the both vertisol and lixisol due to TF > 1.

## 4. Conclusion

Vetiver grass (*Vetiveria zizanioides*) was found effective in heavy metals (Cd, Cu, Mn, Pb, Zn, Ni, Cr) accumulation in both studied tropical soils, but the rate of metal accumulation depends on the soil nature. Vetiver grass is a better accumulator of heavy metals in lixisol than vertisol at T3 and T6, in the order of Cu > Mn > Zn > Cd > Cr > Ni > Pb in roots and Mn > Cu > Cr > Ni > Zn > Cd > Pb in shoots, due to soil physic-chemical properties limiting the metal bioavailability in vertisol. In terms of different plant parts, at T3 and T6 plant growing, the shoots exhibited a strong tendency for greater uptake and accumulation of all heavy metals, except Cu and Pb with higher accumulation in roots than shoots. Vetiver grass may be considered as a promising Cd, Cu and Zn phyto-stabilizer due to its high BCF values of >1 in both soils. However, Vetiver is
more favorable for phytoextraction of Cd in lixisol and Mn, Zn, Ni and Cr in vertisol due to high TF values > 1. Our study demonstrated that Vetiver grass can be considered as a suitable candidate for the remediation of both tropical soils contaminated with heavy metal under laboratory test conditions. Future research may need to investigate metal uptake mechanisms, accumulation and tolerance of Vetiver grass in natural conditions on agricultural soils in Burkina Faso in order to have additional data on the growth of Vetiver and its up-take metals capacity according to climatic seasons in this country.

## Acknowledgements

This work was financially supported in part by a CORUS II Project and a Gabonese Government Fellowship. The authors thank the Botanical Garden of Montet (Villers-les-Nancy, 54 France) for material support and for providing the Vetiver plants. We also thank Paul SAVADOGO (INERA, Ouagadougou, Burkina-Faso) for providing the studied soils and Regine MOSSER-RUCK (GeoResources, Nancy 54 France) for the clay mineralogical compositions.

## The Author's Contributions

All authors contributed to the research design, analysis data, and the manuscript's writing.

## Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

## References

Aksorn, E., & Chitsomboon, B. (2013). Bioaccumulation of Heavy Metal Uptake by Two Different Vetiver Grass (Vetiveria zizanioides and Vetiveria nemoralis) Species. *Afri-can Journal of Agricultural Research, 8*, 3166-3171.

Ali, H., & Khan, E. (2017). Environmental Chemistry in the Twenty-First Century. *Envi-ronmental Chemistry Letters, 15*, 329-346.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-016-0601-3

Ali, H., Khan, E., & Ilahi, I. (2019). Environmental Chemistry and Ecotoxicology of Hazardous Heavy Metals: Environmental Persistence, Toxicity, and Bioaccumulation. *Journal of Chemistry, 2019*, Article ID: 6730305. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/6730305

Ali, H., Khan, E., & Sajad, M. A. (2013). Phytoremediation of Heavy Metals—Concepts and Applications. *Chemosphere, 91*, 869-881.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.01.075

Ali, H., & Khan, E. (2018). What Are Heavy Metals? Long-Standing Controversy over the Scientific Use of the Term “Heavy Metals”: Proposal of a Comprehensive Definition. *Toxicological & Environmental Chemistry, 100*, 6-19.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02772248.2017.1413652

Antiochia, R., Luigi, C., & Paola, G. K. M. (2007). The Use of Vetiver for Remediation of Heavy Metal Soil Contamination. *Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 388*, 947-956.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-007-1268-1
Azam, M. M. (2016). Soil Contamination and Remediation Measures: Revisiting the Relevant Laws and Institutions. In *Environmental Remediation Technologies for Metal-Contaminated Soils* (pp. 99-124). Springer.

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-4-431-55759-3_5

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-55759-3_5

Baker, A. J. M., & Brooks, R. R. (1989). Terrestrial Higher Plants Which Hyperaccumulate Metallic Elements. A Review of Their Distribution, Ecology and Phytochemistry. *Biorecovery, 1*, 81-126.

Barakat, M. A. (2011). New Trends in Removing Heavy Metals from Industrial Wastewater. *Arabian Journal of Chemistry, 4*, 361-377.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arabjc.2010.07.019

Baran, A., Czech, T., & Wieczorek, J. (2014). Chemical Properties and Toxicity of Soils Contaminated by Mining Activity. *Ecotoxicology, 23*, 1234-1244.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-014-1266-y

Bradl, H. B. (2005). Heavy Metals in the Environment. In H. B. Bradl (Ed.), *Sources and Origins of Heavy Metals* (pp. 1-27). Elsevier Academic Press.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S1573-4285(05)80020-1

Cerqueira, B., Covelo, E. F., Andrade, L., & Vega, F. A. (2011). The Influence of Soil Properties on the Individual and Competitive Sorption and Desorption of Cu and Cd. *GeoDerma, 16*, 20-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2010.08.013

Chen, Y., Shen, Z., & Li, X. (2004). The Use of Vetiver Grass (*Vetiveria zizanioides*) in the Phytoremediation of Soils Contaminated with Heavy Metals. *Applied Geochemistry, 19*, 1553-1565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeochem.2004.02.003

Chunilall, V., Kindness, A., & Johnalagada, S. B. (2005). Heavy Metal Uptake by Two Edible *Amaranthus* Herbs Grown on Soils Contaminated with Lead, Mercury, Cadmium, and Nickel. *Journal of Environmental Science and Health, 40*, 375-385.

https://doi.org/10.1081/PFC-200045573

Clemens, S., & Ma, J. F. (2016). Toxic Heavy Metal and Metalloid Accumulation in Crop Plants and Foods. *Annual Review of Plant Biology, 67*, 489-512.

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-arplant-043015-112301

Covelo, E. F., Vega, F. A., & Andrade, M. L. (2007). Simultaneous Sorption and Desorption of Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb, and Zn in Acid Soils I. Selectivity Sequences. *Journal of Hazardous Materials, 147*, 852-861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2007.01.123

Cui, S., Zhou, Q., & Chao, L. (2007). Potential Hyper-Accumulation of Pb, Zn, Cu and Cd in Endurant Plants Distributed in an Old Cemetery, Northeast, China. *Environmental Geology, 51*, 1043-1045. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-006-0373-3

Danh, L. T., Truong, P., Mammucari, R., Tran, T., & Foster, N. (2009). Vetiver Grass, *Vetiveria zizanioides*: a Choice Plant for Phytoremediation of Heavy Metals and Organic Wastes. *International Journal of Phytoremediation, 11*, 664-691.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15226510902787302

Darajeh, N., Truong, P., Rezania, S., Alizadeh, H., & Leung, D. W. (2019). Effectiveness of Vetiver Grass versus Other Plants for Phytoremediation of Contaminated Water. *Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques, 7*, 485-500.

Doran, J. W. (2002). Soil Health and Global Sustainability: Translating Science into Practice. *Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 88*, 119-127.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00246-8

Garbisu, C., & Alkorta, I. (2003). Basic Concepts on Heavy Metal Soil Bioremediation. *European Journal of Mineral Processing and Environmental Protection, 3*, 58-66.
Ghosh, M., & Singh, S. P. (2005). A Review of Phytoremediation of Heavy Metals and Utilization of Its By-Products. *Applied Ecology and Environmental Research, 3*, 1-18.
https://doi.org/10.15666/aeer/0301_001018

Glass, D. J. (2000). Economic Potential of Phytoremediation. In I. Raskin, & B. D. Ensley (Eds.), *Phytoremediation of Toxic Metals: Using Plants to Clean Up the Environment* (pp. 15-31). John Wiley.

Gnansounou, E., Alves, C. M., & Raman, J. K. (2017). Multiple Applications of Vetiver Grass—A Review. *International Journal of Environmental Sciences, 2*, 125-141.

Gomes, H. I. (2012). Phytoremediation for Bioenergy: Challenges and Opportunities. *Environmental Technology Reviews, 1*, 59-66.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2012.696715

Gómez-Sagasti, M. T., Epelde, L., Alkorta, I., & Garbisu, C. (2016). Reflections on Soil Contamination Research from a Biologists Point of View. *Applied Soil Ecology, 105*, 207-210.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2016.04.004

Güven, D. E., & Akinci, G. (2011). Comparison of Acid Digestion Techniques to Determine Heavy Metals in Sediment and Soil Samples. *Gazi University Journal of Science, 24*, 29-34.

IUSS Working Group WRB (2006). *World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2006*. World Soils Resources Reports No. 103, FAO.

Jamagne, M. (1967). Bases et techniques d'une cartographie des sols. *Annales Agronomiques, 18*, 1-142.

Jampasri, K., & Saeng-Ngam, S. (2019). Phytoremediation and Accumulation of Cadmium from Contaminated Saline Soils by Vetiver Grass. *Environmental Control in Biology, 57*, 61-67.
https://doi.org/10.2525/ecb.57.61

Khan, T., Muhammad, S., Khan, B., & Khan, H. (2011). Investigating the Levels of Selected Heavy Metals in Surface Water of Shah Alam River (A Tributary of River Kabul, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa). *Journal of Himalayan Earth Sciences, 44*, 71-79.

Khan, A. G. (2005). Role of Soil Microbes in the Rhizospheres of Plants Growing on Trace Metal Contaminated Soils in Phytoremediation. *Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology, 18*, 355-364.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtemb.2005.02.006

Li, M. S., Luo, Y. P., & Su, Z. Y. (2007). Heavy Metals Concentrations in Soils and Plant Accumulation in a Restored Manganese Mine Land in Guangxi, South China. *Environmental Pollution, 147*, 168-175.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2006.08.006

Lombi, E., Zhao, F. J., Dunham, S. J., & McGrath, S. P. (2001). Phytoremediation of Heavy Metal-Contaminated Soils. *Journal of Environmental Quality, 30*, 1919-1926.
https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2001.1919

MacFarlane, G. R., Pulkownik, A., & Burchett, M. D. (2003). Accumulation and Distribution of Heavy Metals in the Grey Mangrove, *Avicennia marina* (Forsk.) Vierh: Biological indication Potential. *Environmental Pollution, 123*, 139-151.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0269-7491(02)00342-1

Maffei, M. (2002). Introduction to the Genus *Vetiveria*. In M. Maffei (Ed.), *Vetiveria. The Genus Vetiveria* (pp. 1-18). Taylor and Francis Publishers.
https://doi.org/10.1201/9780203218730

Mahar, A., Wang, P., Ali, A., Awasthi, M. K., Lahori, A. H., Wang, Q., Li, R., & Zhang, Z. (2016). Challenges and Opportunities in the Phytoremediation of Heavy Metals Contaminated Soils: A Review. *Ecotoxicology Environmental Safety, 126*, 111-121.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2015.12.023

Malik, R. N., Husain, S. Z., & Nazir, I. (2010). Heavy Metal Contamination and Accumu-
lation in Soil and Wild Plant Species from Industrial Area of Islamabad, Pakistan. *Pa-kistan Journal Botany*, **42**, 291-301.

Martin, S., & Griswold, W. (2009). Human Health Effects of Heavy Metals. *Environmen-tal Science and Technology Briefs Citizens*, **15**, 1-6.

McKinney, J., & Rogers, J. (1992). Metal Bioavailability. *Environmental Science and Technology*, **26**, 1298-1299. https://doi.org/10.1021/es00031a603

Meers, E., Samson, R., Tack, F. M. G., Ruttens, A., Vandegehuchte, M., Vangronsveld, J., & Verloo, M. G. (2007). Phytoavailability Assessment of Heavy Metals in Soils by Single Extractions and Accumulation by *Phaseolus vulgaris*. *Environmental and Experimen-tal Bototany*, **60**, 385-396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2006.12.010

Mellem, J. J., Baijnath, H., & Odhav, B. (2012). Bioaccumulation of Cr, Hg, As, Pb, Cu and Ni with the Ability for Hyperaccumulation by *Amaranthus dubius*. *African Journal of Agricultural Research*, **7**, 591-596. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR11.1486

Mosser-Ruck, R., & Cathelineau, M. (2004). Experimental Transformation of Na, Ca-Smectite under Basic Conditions at 150°C. *Applied Clay Science*, **26**, 259-273.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2003.12.011

Neisi, A., Vosoughi, M., Mohammadi, M. J., Ohammadi, B., & Naeimabadi, A. (2014). Phytoremediation of by Helianthus Plant. *Journal of Torbat Heydariyeh University of Medical Sciences*, **2**, 55-65.

Ng, C. C., Boyce, A. N., Abas, M. R., Mahmood, N. Z., & Han, F. (2019). Phytoassessment of Vetiver Grass Enhanced with EDTA Soil Amendment Grown in Single and Mixed Heavy Metal-Contaminated Soil. *Environmental Monitoring and Assessment*, **191**, 1-16.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-019-7573-2

Ng, C. C., Boyce, A. N., Abas, M. R., Mahmood, N. Z., & Han, F. (2020). Evaluation of Vetiver Grass Uptake Efficiency in Single and Mixed Heavy Metal Contaminated Soil. *Environmental Processes*, **7**, 207-226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40710-019-00418-2

Ng, C. C., Boyce, A. N., Rahman, M. M., & Abas, M. R. (2016). Effects of Different Soil Amendments on Mixed Heavy Metals Contamination in Vetiver Grass. *Bulletin of En-vironmental Contamination and Toxicology*, **97**, 695-701.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00128-016-1921-5

Nunes, J. R., Ramos-Miras, J., Lopez-Piñeiro, A., Loures, L., Gil, C., Coelho, J., & Loures, A. (2014). Concentrations of Available Heavy Metals in Mediterranean Agricultural soils and Their Relation with Some Soil Selected Properties: A Case Study in Typical Mediterranean Soils. *Sustainability*, **6**, 9124-9138. https://doi.org/10.3390/su6129124

Ondo Zue Abaga, N., Dousset, S., Mbengue, S., & Munier-Lamy, C. (2014b). Is Vetiver Grass of Interest for the Remediation of Cu and Cd to Protect Marketing Gardens in Burkina-Faso? *Chemosphere*, **113**, 42-47.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.04.010

Ondo Zue Abaga, N., Dousset, S., Munier-Lamy, C., & Billet, D. (2014a). Effectiveness of Vetiver Grass (*Vetiveria zizanioides* L. Nash) for Phytoremediation of Endosulfan in Two Cotton Soils from Burkina Faso. *International Journal of Phytoremediation*, **16**, 95-108. https://doi.org/10.1080/15226514.2012.759531

Pilbeam, D. J., & Barker, A. V. (2007). *Handbook of Plant Nutrition*. CRC Press.

Rahman, M. A., Reichman, S. M., Luigi De Filippis, Sany, S. B. T., & Hasegawa, H. (2016). Phytoremediation of Toxic Metals in Soils and Wetlands: Concepts and Applications. In H. Hasegawa, I. Md. M. Rahman, & M. A. Rahman (Eds.), *Environmental Remediation Technologies for Metal-Contaminated Soils* (pp. 161-195). Springer Japan KK.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-55759-3_8
Rahman, M. M., Azirun, S. M., & Boyce, A. N. (2013). Enhanced Accumulation of Copper and Lead in Amaranth (*Amaranthus paniculatus*), Indian Mustard (*Brassica juncea*) and Sunflower (*Helianthus annuus*). *PLoS ONE*, *8*, e62941.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0062941

Roongtanakiat, N., & Chairoj, P. (2001). Uptake Potential of Some Heavy Metals by Vetiver Grass. *Kasersart Journal: Natural Science*, *3*, 46-50.

Saydut, A. (2010). Microwave Acid Digestion for the Determination of Metals in Subbittumnious Coal Bottom Ash by ICP-OES. *Energy Exploration & Exploitation, 28*, 105-115.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/26160896
https://doi.org/10.1260/0144-5987.28.2.105

Schlüter, T. (2008). *Geological Atlas of Africa: With Notes on Stratigraphy, Tectonics, Economic Geology, Geohazards, Geosites and Geoscientific Education of Each Country* (2nd ed., p. 50). Springer-Verlag.

Singh, S., Melo, J. S., Eapen, S., & D'Souza, S. F. (2008). Potential of Vetiver (*Vetiveria zizanoides* L. Nash) for Phytoremediation of Phenol. *Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety*, *71*, 671-676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2007.10.023

Storelli, M. M. (2008). Potential Human Health Risks from Metals (Hg, Cd, and Pb) and Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) via Seafood Consumption: Estimation of Target Hazard Quotients (THQs) and Toxic Equivalents (TEQs). *Food and Chemical Toxicology*, *46*, 2782-2788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2008.05.011

Suelee, A. L., Hasan, S. N. M. S., Kusin, F. M., Yusuff, F. M., & Ibrahim, Z. Z. (2017). Phytoremediation Potential of Vetiver Grass (*Vetiveria zizanioides*) for Treatment of Metal-Contaminated Water. *Water, Air, & Soil Pollution*, *228*, 158.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-017-3349-x

Truong, P., & Danh, L. T. (2015). *The Vetiver System for Improving Water Quality: Prevention and Treatment of Contaminated Water and Land* (2nd ed.). The Vetiver Network International. https://www.vetiver.org/TVN_Water质量%202%20ed.pdf

Truong, P. N. V. (2000). The Global Impact of Vetiver Grass Technology on the Environment. In *Proceedings of the Second International Vetiver Conference PRVN/ORDPB* (pp. 48-61).

UNDP (2021). *Climate Change Adaptation: Burkina Faso*. https://www.adaptation-undp.org/explore/western-africa/burkina-faso

USAID (United States Agency of International Development) (2017). *Burkina Faso*.

Watanabe, M. E. (1997). Phytoremediation on the Brink of Commercialization. *Environmental Sciences and Technology*, *31*, 182-186. https://doi.org/10.1021/es972219s

Yoon, J., Cao, X., Zhou, Q., & Ma, L. K. (2006). Accumulation of Pb, Cu, and Zn in Native Plants Growing on a Contaminated Florida Site. *Science of the Total Environment*, *368*, 456-464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2006.01.016

Zhang, W., Cai, Y., Tu, C., & Ma, L. Q. (2002). Arsenic Speciation and Distribution in an Arsenic Hyperaccumulating Plant. *Science of Total Environment*, *300*, 167-177.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-9697(02)00165-1