Phytoremediation of heavy metal-contaminated sites: Eco-environmental concerns, field studies, sustainability issues and future prospects

Environmental contamination due to heavy metals (HMs) is of serious ecotoxicological concern worldwide because of their increasing use at industries. Due to non-biodegradable and persistent nature, HMs cause serious soil/water pollution and severe health hazards in living beings upon exposure. HMs can be genotoxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic, and teratogenic in nature even at low concentration. They may also act as endocrine disruptors and induce developmental as well as neurological disorders and thus, their removal from our natural environment is crucial for the rehabilitation of contaminated sites. To cope with HM pollution, phytoremediation has emerged as a low-cost and eco-sustainable solution to conventional physico-chemical cleanup methods that require high capital investment and labor alter soil properties and disturb soil microflora. Phytoremediation is a green technology wherein plants and associated microbes are used to remediate HM-contaminated sites to safeguard the environment and protect public health. Hence, in view of the above, the present paper aims to examine the feasibility of phytoremediation as a sustainable remediation technology for the management of metals-contaminated sites. Therefore, this paper provides an in-depth review on both the conventional and novel phytoremediation approaches, evaluate their efficacy to remove toxic metals from our natural environment, explore current scientific progresses, field experiences and sustainability issues and revise world over trends in phytoremediation research for its wider recognition and public acceptance as a sustainable remediation technology for the management of contaminated sites in 21st century

Survival, morbidity, growth and developmental delay for babies born preterm in low and middle income countries - a systematic review of outcomes measured.

BackgroundPremature birth is the leading cause of neonatal death and second leading in children under 5. Information on outcomes of preterm babies surviving the early neonatal period is sparse although it is considered a major determinant of immediate and long-term morbidity.MethodsSystematic review of studies reporting outcomes for preterm babies in low and middle income settings was conducted using electronic databases, citation tracking, expert recommendations and "grey literature". Reviewers screened titles, abstracts and articles. Data was extracted using inclusion and exclusion criteria, study site and facilities, assessment methods and outcomes of mortality, morbidity, growth and development. The Child Health Epidemiology Reference Group criteria (CHERG) were used to assess quality.FindingsOf 197 eligible publications, few (10.7%) were high quality (CHERG). The majority (83.3%) report on the outcome of a sample of preterm babies at time of birth or admission. Only 16.0% studies report population-based data using standardised mortality definitions. In 50.5% of studies, gestational age assessment method was unclear. Only 15.8% followed-up infants for 2 years or more. Growth was reported using standardised definitions but recommended morbidity definitions were rarely used. The criteria for assessment of neurodevelopmental outcomes was variable with few standardised tools - Bayley II was used in approximately 33% of studies, few studies undertook sensory assessments.ConclusionsTo determine the relative contribution of preterm birth to the burden of disease in children and to inform the planning of healthcare interventions to address this burden, a renewed understanding of the assessment and documentation of outcomes for babies born preterm is needed. More studies assessing outcomes for preterm babies who survive the immediate newborn period are needed. More consistent use of data is vital with clear and aligned definitions of health outcomes in newborn (preterm or term) and intervention packages aimed to save lives and improve health