This review synthesizes evidence from 60 articles (2019–2023) on phytoremediation of mining-contaminated soils identified through searches in Scopus and Web of Science. Screening followed PRISMA principles. Five themes were analyzed: (i) phytotechnology in contaminated soils, (ii) phytotechnology forms, (iii) assisted phytoremediation, (iv) effectiveness, and (v) plant-based applications. Across the included studies, evidence highlight the effectiveness of specific plant species and the use of plant growth-promoting bacteria (PGPB) and other amendments to accelerate metal removal; however, success depends on plant adaptability, accurate contaminant identification, and feasible remediation timeframes. Evidence is dominated by laboratory/greenhouse designs, with comparatively few field-scale validations. We recommend expanding real-scale trials, comparing species and amendments under diverse edaphoclimatic conditions, and deepening research on plant–microorganism interactions, alongside standardized monitoring protocols and multidisciplinary collaboration to optimize practical deployment of phytoremediation in mining soils.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Medrano-Sánchez et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: