Bioindicators and Biomonitors: Use

of Organisms to Observe the Influence

of Chemicals on the Environment*

Bernd Markert and Simone Wünschmann

Abstract For a number of years “classical” programs for environmental monitoring

are being supplemented by bioindication measures already. Here, investigations on
living organisms or their remains (e.g. peat) are used to indicate the environmental
situation in either qualitative (bioindication) or quantitative (biomonitoring) terms.
This provides pieces of information on environmental burdens of a region at a given
point of time or on its changes with time (trend analysis). Classical bioindication
often deals with observation and measurements of chemical noxae (both inorganic
and organic ones) in well-defined bioindicator plants or animals (including man).
In terms of analytical procedures and results there are parallel developments
between progresses in bioindication and innovation in analytical methods. After
some 30 years of development in bioindication there are now following lines of
further development: 1) more frequent inclusion of multi-element total analyses
for a thorough investigation of mutual correlations in the sense of the Biological
System of Elements, 2) more work on (analytical) speciation issues to proceed into
real effect-oriented environmental sciences, and 3) there should and must be a focus
on integrative bioindication methods because for a large number of environmental
monitoring problems a single bioindicator will not provide any meaningful infor-
mation: a single bioindicator is about as good as none at all. Integrative concepts

*
This article is in parts related to B. Markert, S. Wuenschmann, R. Herzig and Ph. Quevauviller,
2010: Bioindicateurs et biomoniteurs dans l´environnment: Définitions, stratégies et applications,
Editions Techniques de l`Ingénieur, P 4 170, p. 1-16; Markert B.A., Breure A.M., and Zechmeister
H.G., eds., 2003: Bioindicators and Biomonitors – Principles, Concepts and Applications, Elsevier,
Amsterdam, New York, Tokyo; Markert B 1996: Instrumental Element and Multielement Analysis
of Plant Samples, Wiley, Chichester, New York.
B. Markert (*)
Former director of the Internationales Hochschulinstitut Zittau, Lehrstuhl für
Umweltverfahrenstechnik, Markt 23, 02763 Zittau, Germany
e-mail: [email protected]
B. Markert and S. Wünschmann
Fliederweg 17, D-49733, Haren/Erika, Deutschland

P. Schröder and C.D. Collins (eds.), Organic Xenobiotics and Plants: From Mode 217
of Action to Ecophysiology, Plant Ecophysiology 8, DOI 10.1007/978-90-481-9852-8_10,
© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011
218 B. Markert and S. Wünschmann

such as the Multi-Markered Bioindication Concept (MMBC) provide basic means

to get into precautionary environmental protection effects drawing upon such a
second-generation bioindication methodology.

Introduction

Investigations on living organisms are used to indicate the environmental situation

in either qualitative (bioindication) or quantitative (biomonitoring) terms.
Bioindication/biomonitoring often deals with observation and measurements of
chemical noxae (both inorganic and organic ones) in well-defined bioindicator/
biomonitoring plants (including microbes) or animals (including man). According to
the extracted conclusion, that the use of only one bioindicator/biomonitor is as good
as none at all, an integrative approach (the Multi-Markered-Bioindication-Concept,
MMBC) is presented and the final goal is focussed towards an absolutely essential
need of international teaching campaigns.
At all times, plants have served as particularly interesting and important objects
of scientific investigation. This is seen even in Greek biology, in the works of
Aristotle or Theophrastus, which were devoted to plant taxonomy. Other later
examples are the studies of Linnaeus on taxonomy and evolution, and those on
yield-based economy and agricultural chemistry for the nourishment of mankind,
starting with “Gesetz des Minimums” by Justus von Liebig, as well as the general
target of biological and chemical basic research at the molecular biological level as
done by Calvin and Krebs, for example (Markert 1996).
Interest in new scientific knowledge has increased exponentially in the last 50 years
of plant research. There are essentially three reasons for this (Markert 1996).
1. Plants make up more than 99% of the total biomass of the earth. The protection
and conservation of the species and of the diversity of species, particularly in tropi-
cal and subtropical areas, has been elevated to one of the most important ecologi-
cal, economical and cultural demands in national and international politics.
2. Plants are responsible for the most important reaction on earth, photosynthesis,
producing carbohydrates from water and carbon dioxide in a complicated, light
driven reaction, and oxygen at the same time. Life on earth in its present form
would not be possible without the production of carbohydrates and the oxygen
which is necessary for the breakdown of carbohydrates in the respiratory chain.
A system which diffuses into a state of imbalance, one that is fed constantly
increasing CO2 emissions and the simultaneous indiscriminate destruction of
tropical rain forests in particular, represents a great ecological and economical
challenge for mankind today due to the resultant greenhouse effect.
3. With respect to their effect on the flow of matter and of energy in the food chain,
plants represent an important link between the atmosphere and the soil on the
one hand and between consumers from the first (microbes) to the highest order
(animals and man) on the other. Frequently, pollutants are introduced into the
food chain via plants which have taken them up, and these pollutants often cause
Bioindicators and Biomonitors 219

irreversible damage of individual organisms to entire biological communities as

a result of accumulation and exclusion processes.
Point 3, in particular, places high demands on modern analytical chemistry.
Through the development of increasingly sensitive analytical methods, today it is
practically possible to quantify most of chemicals. In cooperation with associated
disciplines such as geology, physics, and medicine, this has led to the situation
where biological trace research has become very dynamic. Figure 1 gives the average
concentration of 82 naturally occurring elements in plants and in the earth’s crust
as a function of their atomic mass.

Fig. 1 Average concentration of 82 naturally occurring elements in earth´s crust and plants as a
function of their atomic mass (Markert 1996)
220 B. Markert and S. Wünschmann

The largest portion of the fresh weight of living plants (showing active metabo-
lism) consists of 85–90% water. The dried matter of the plant is made up mostly of
the following elements: carbon (44.5%), oxygen (42.5%), hydrogen (6.5%), nitro-
gen (2.5%), phosphorus (0.2%), sulfur (0.3%), and the alkali or alkaline earth metals:
potassium (1.9%), calcium (1.0%), and magnesium (0.2%). Thus, in contrast to the
earth’s crust, the main mass of organic life consists largely of non-metals. There are
also microelements, which are present in plants in reduced concentrations and
which are vital for most plants. These microelements are chlorine (2,000 mg/kg dry
material), silicon (1,000 mg/kg), manganese (200 mg/kg), sodium (150 mg/kg),
iron (150 mg/kg), zinc (50 mg/kg), boron (40 mg/kg), copper (10 mg/kg), chro-
mium (1.5 mg/kg), molybdenum (0.5 mg/kg), and cobalt (0.2 mg/kg).
Macro- and microelements are plant nutrients necessary for the growth and normal
development of the plant. Therefore they are essential (Fig. 2). With respect to inor-
ganic environmental chemistry one can roughly envision that about every 2 years one
of the chemical elements in the periodic table will change its former status.
The developmental history of selenium is a classical example. In 1930, Se and
its compounds were generally felt to be highly toxic. After 1943 they were also
classed as carcinogenic. In 1957 it was recognized that selenium is required by
some organisms, and in 1966 certain Se compounds were successfully used in

Fig. 2 The periodic table of the elements with indicators on elements that are essential and that
have been quantitatively determined (Markert 1996). A so called Biological System of the
Elements (BSE) is given in Markert (1994) and Fränzle & Markert (2002)
Bioindicators and Biomonitors 221

c­ ancer therapy. In 1990 Prof. Braetter´s research group in Berlin characterized and
isolated already a second Se protein and described its function.

General Information on the Environment

Bioindication and biomonitoring must supply information on the extent of pollu-

tion or degradation of ecosystems. Two different forms of information are available
from bioindication: firstly, general ones which oversimplify matters, e.g. plant
damage, and secondly highly specific ones which latter is provided in a very
detailed, objective, reproducible and precise manner. For example, a certain pollut-
ant may be linked to one physiological reaction in a bioindicator organism in order
to obtain some more general information on the environment.
When data and information obtained by bioindication are extrapolated to pro-
vide some higher knowledge the subjectivity of interpretation increases with the
complexity and dynamics of a system. This increase in subjectivity linked to an
increase in knowledge is depicted by the “staircase of knowing” (Roots 1992). On
the first step of this staircase (Fig. 3), observations and measurements become data
when verified according to agreed standards.

Fig. 3 The staircase of “knowing” (modified after Roots 1992)

222 B. Markert and S. Wünschmann

When data are properly selected, tested and related to subject areas they can
become (pieces of) information: In turn information, once being organized and inter-
preted or applied to areas of interest or concern, can become established knowledge.
If assimilated and mentally assessed and backed by additional information, this
knowledge may be comprehended and integrated into a basis of facts and notions
assimilated before, eventually leading to understanding. And understanding com-
bined with judgement according to certain values can become wisdom. In general,
by moving up the staircase, the material and ideas become increasingly subjective,
with increasing human value added (Roots 1996).

Specific Information on the Environment

Specific and detailed information of systems are essential within bioindication

to draw clear-cut conclusions e.g. in between a pollutant and an effect of an
organism (bioindicator). Figure 4 gives a simplified representation of complex
(eco-)system interrelations being influenced by some pollution, and of the
­consequences of changes as revealed by bioindication and biomonitoring
(Markert 1996).
As a rule, it is assumed that a pollutant affects an organism which latter is taken
as bioindicator or biomonitor. Both the organism and the pollutant interact closely
with other ecosystem compartments (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4 Simplified representation of complex (eco-)system interrelations with regard to a pollutant,

and consequences for bioindication and biomonitoring (Markert 1996)
Bioindicators and Biomonitors 223

The life activity of the organism is therefore influenced by a great number of

abiotic and biotic factors and may often be subject to joint action of several pollutants,
especially under “natural” field conditions (subjective selection of references of the
large amount of literature by the authors of this article: Adriano 1992; Broadley et al.
2007, 2008; Cakmak 2008; Chaney et al. 2008; De Bruyn et al. 2009; Fargašová and
Beinrohr 1998; Fraenzle 2009; Fraenzle and Markert 2002, 2007; Fraenzle et al.
2007, 2008; Franzering and van der Eerden 2000; Golan-Goldhirsh et al. 2004;
Greger 2008; Herzig 1993, 2005; Hanikenne et al. 2008; Hartley and Lepp 2008;
Herzig and Bieri 2002; Irtelli and Navari-Izzo 2008; Lepp and Madejon 2007; Li
et al. 2008; Lux et al. 2004; Markert 1993, 1994, 1996, 2007; Markert and Weckert
1993; Markert et al. 2010; Marmiroli and Maestri 2008; Mench et al. 2006; Mohr
2007; Poschenrieder et al. 2008; Prasad 2008; Quartacci et al. 2007; Quevauviller
and Maier 1999; Quevauviller et al. 2008; Rasemann and Markert 1998; Renella
et al. 2004; Rezek et al. 2008; Schröder et al. 2007; Schröder et al. 2008a, b;
Schwitzguébel et al. 2008; Smeets et al. 2008; Smodis 2003; Szárazová et al. 2008;
Trapp et al. 2008; Verbruggen et al. 2008; Verkleij 2008; Wuenschmann et al. 2001,
2002, 2008).
With regard to the interpretation of the “information” given by the bioindicator/
biomonitor, often the problem arises from where changes observed or measured by
the bioindicator/biomonitor really originate. Even a combined multi-functional and
multi-structural view of the various ecosystem compartments often left the specific
operative mechanisms unaccounted for. What makes matters even more difficult is
that the pollutant to be monitored is closely connected to all other environmental
compartments. So it is by no means certain, although rather probable, that pollutant
A does not interact synergistically or antagonistically with pollutant B (Fig. 4).
Moreover, the absorption pathway, sites of actions and metabolisms of both
A and B usually are not yet adequately described. Nevertheless pollutant A may
also affect other biota which may react even more sensitively to A than the bioin-
dicator itself. If this sensitivity alters the population density of a more sensitive
organism the abundance of the very bioindicator may also be affected, at least if
the former is in direct or indirect competition with the latter. It is an unsettled issue
whether a statement about the current condition of an entire ecosystem can be
obtained by examining a single bioindicator (Markert 1996).
With respect to the age of “information technologies”, Lieth (1998) tries to render
the “digitalized bit world” more efficient for ecosystem research. According to Lieth
we have to ask: what is the crucial point of ecosystem research? What information
does an ecosystem offer? Given the information content of all its parts an ecosystem
readily compares to the level of an intelligent system. Toxicological implications
often involve the flow of information as the cause of significant changes in material
fluxes and energy fluxes in the system. Plants may produce chemicals to protect
themselves against animal grazing. Animals may produce toxic chemicals as weap-
ons; humans may produce toxic chemicals to kill each other. Each process is con-
trolled by “bits of information” which flow from one point in the ecosystem to
another, so-called biobits (Markert et al. 2002, 2003b). A detailed description of this
straightforward concept for further study is given in Lieth (1998).
224 B. Markert and S. Wünschmann

Definitions

It seemed clear from the start that bioindication and biomonitoring are promising
(and possibly cheap) methods of observing the impact of external factors on eco-
systems and their development over a long period, or of differentiating between one
location (e.g. an unpolluted site) and another (polluted site) (Markert et al. 2002,
2003a, b). The overwhelming enthusiasm shown in developing these methods has
resulted in a problem that is still unsolved: the definitions of bioindication and
biomonitoring respectively, and therefore the expectations associated with these
methods, have never led to a common approach by the international scientific
community, so that different definitions (and expectations!) now exist simultane-
ously (Markert et al. 2002, 2003a, b). A fine overview of the various definitions is
given by Wittig (1993). As a first starting point for the difficult use of bioindication
methods following literature might be helpful (subjective selection of the large
amount of literature by the authors: Altenburger and Schmitt 2003; Arndt 1992;
Bacchi et al. 2000; Bargagli 1998; Bode et al. 2000; Breulmann et al. 1998; Carreras
et al. 1998; Djingova and Kuleff 2000; Elias et al. 2006; Farago, 1994; Figueiredo
et al. 2001; Fraenzle O 1993; Fraenzle and Markert 2002, 2007; França et al. 2005,
2007; Freitas et al. 2006, 1999; Garty 1998; Genßler et al. 2001; Herpin et al.
1997, 2001; Herzig 1993, 2005; Jeran et al., 1993; Klumpp et al. 2000; Kostka-
Rick et al. 2001; Lieth 1998; Loppi and Bonini 2000; Markert 1993, 1994, 1996,
2007; Pacheco et al. 2003; Saiki et al. 1997; Schroeder et al. 2008a, b; Shtangeeva
et al. 2005; Siewers and Herpin 1998; Siewers et al. 2000; Stoeppler et al. 1982;
Suchara et al. 2007; Vtorova et al. 2001; Vutchkov 2001; Wolterbeek 2002;
Wolterbeek et al. 1995; Zechmeister et al. 2007).
In the following some definitions will be given that have been developed and used
by us over the last 20 years (Markert et al. 1999, 2003b), since they differentiate clearly
between bioindication and biomonitoring using the qualitative/quantitative approach
to chemical substances in the environment. This makes bioindicators directly com-
parable to instrumental measuring systems (Markert et al. 2003a, b). From that
angle it is possible to distinguish clearly between active and passive bioindication
(biomonitoring). Especially where the bioindication of metals is concerned, the
literature often makes a distinction between “accumulation indicators” and “effect
indicators” in respect of the reaction of the indicator/monitor to changes in environ-
mental conditions. Here we should bear in mind that this differentiation does not
imply a pair of opposites; it merely reflects two aspects of analysis. As the accu-
mulation of a substance by an organism already constitutes a reaction to exposure
to this substance which – at least in the case of high accumulation factors – is mea-
surably reflected in at least one of the parameters used in defining the term “effect
indicator/monitor” (e.g. morphological changes at the cellular level; formation of
metal-containing intracellular granules in many invertebrates after metal accumula-
tion), we should discuss whether it is worthwhile distinguishing between accumula-
tion and effect indicators or whether both terms fall under the more general
expression “reaction indicator”. Often, too, it is not until a substance has been
Bioindicators and Biomonitors 225

Fig. 5 Illustration of the terms reaction, accumulation and effect/impact indicator (Markert et al.
1997). Explanations are given in the text

accumulated in organisms that intercellular or intracellular concentrations are

attained that produce effects which are then analyzed in the context of effect and
impact monitoring (Fig. 5).
From these preliminaries we come to the following definitions, firstly summa-
rized in Markert et al. 1997 and 1999: A bioindicator is an organism (or part of an
organism or a community of organisms) that contains information on the quality of
the environment (or a part of the environment). A biomonitor, on the other hand,
is an organism (or a part of an organism or a community of organisms) that contains
information on the quantitative aspects of the quality of the environment.
A biomonitor is always a bioindicator as well, but a bioindicator does not necessarily
meet the requirements for a biomonitor.
Both, bioindication and biomonitoring are referred to as “active”, when test
organisms bred in laboratories are exposed in a standardized form in the field for a
defined period of time. At the end of this exposure time the reactions provoked are
recorded or the xenobiotics taken up by the organism are analyzed. In the case of
passive biomonitoring, organisms already occurring naturally in the ecosystem are
examined for their reactions. This classification of organisms (or communities of
these) is according to their “origin”.
A classification of organisms (or communities of these) according to their
“mode of action” (Fig. 5) is as follows: Accumulation indicators/monitors are
organisms that accumulate one or more elements and/or compounds from their
environment. Effect or impact indicators/monitors are organisms that demon-
strate specific or unspecific effects in response to exposure to a certain element or
compound or a number of substances. Such effects may include changes in their
morphological, histological or cellular structure, their metabolic-biochemical pro-
cesses, their behavior or their population structure. In general the term “reaction
indicator” also includes accumulation indicators/monitors and effect or impact
indicators/monitors as described above.
226 B. Markert and S. Wünschmann

When studying accumulation processes it would seem useful to distinguish

between the paths by which organisms take up elements/compounds. Various
mechanisms contribute to overall accumulation (bioaccumulation), depending on
the species-related interactions between the indicators / monitors and their biotic
and abiotic environment. Biomagnification is the term used for absorption of the
substances from nutrients via the epithelia of the intestines. It is therefore limited
to heterotrophic organisms and is the most significant contamination pathway for
many land animals except in the case of metals that form highly volatile compounds
(e.g. Hg, As) and are taken up through the respiratory organs, (e.g. trachea, lungs).
Bioconcentration means the direct uptake of the substances concerned from the
surrounding media, i.e. the physical environment, through tissues or organs (including
the respiratory organs). Besides plants, that can only take up substances in this way
(mainly through roots or leaves), bioconcentration plays a major role in aquatic
animals. The same may also apply to soil invertebrates with a low degree of solar-
ization when they come into contact with the water in the soil.
Besides the classic floristic, faunal and biocoenotic investigations that primarily
record rather unspecific reactions to pollutant exposure at higher organizational
levels of the biological system, various newer methods have been introduced as
instruments of bioindication. Most of these are biomarkers and biosensors.
Biomarkers are measurable biological parameters at the suborganismic (genetic,
enzymatic, physiological, morphological) level in which structural or functional
changes indicate environmental influences in general and the action of pollutants in
particular in qualitative and sometimes also in quantitative terms. Examples: plant
and animal enzyme or substrate induction of cytochrome P-450 and other Phase I
enzymes by various halogenated hydrocarbons; the incidence of forms of industrial
melanism as markers for air pollution; tanning of the human skin, but also protective
colouring of plant leaves caused by UV radiation; changes in the morphological,
histological or ultra-structure of organisms or monitor organs (flowers, chloro-
plasts, etc.) following exposure to pollutants.
A biosensor is a measuring device that produces a signal in proportion to the
concentration of a defined group of substances through a suitable combination of a
selective biological system, e.g. enzyme, antibody, membrane, organelle, cell or tis-
sue, and a physical transmission device (e.g. potentiometric or amperometric elec-
trode, optical or optoelectronic receiver). Examples: toxiguard bacterial toximeter;
EuCyano bacterial electrode. Biotest (bioassay): routine toxicological-pharmacolog-
ical procedure for testing the effects of agents (environmental chemicals, pharma-
ceuticals) on organisms, usually in the laboratory but occasionally in the field, under
standardized conditions (with respect to biotic or abiotic factors). In the broader
sense this definition covers cell and tissue cultures when used for testing purposes,
enzyme tests and tests using microorganisms, plants and animals in the form of
single-species or multi-species procedures in model ecological systems (e.g. micro-
cosms and mesocosms). In the narrower sense the term only covers single-species
and model system tests, while the other procedures may be called suborganismic
tests. Bioassays use certain biomarkers or – less often – specific biosensors and can
be used in bioindication or biomonitoring.
Bioindicators and Biomonitors 227

With regard to genetic and non-genetic adaptation of organisms and communi-

ties to environmental stress we have to differentiate between the terms tolerance,
resistance and sensitivity.
Tolerance (Oehlmann and Markert 1997): desired resistance of an organism or
community to unfavorable abiotic (climate, radiation, pollutants) or biotic factors
(parasites, pathogens), where adaptive physiological changes (e.g. enzyme induc-
tion, immune response) can be observed.
Resistance, unlike tolerance, is a genetically derived ability to withstand stress
(Oehlmann and Markert 1997).This means that all tolerant organisms are resistant,
but not all resistant organisms are tolerant. However, in ecotoxicology the dividing
line between tolerance and resistance is not always so clear. For example, the phe-
nomenon of PICT (pollution induced community tolerance) is described as the
phenomenon of community shifts towards more tolerant communities when con-
taminants are present. It can occur as a result of genetic or physiological adaptation
within species or populations, or through the replacement of sensitive organisms by
more resistant organisms (Blanck et al. 1988; Rutgers et al. 1998).
Sensitivity of an organism or a community means its susceptibility to biotic or
abiotic change. Sensitivity is low if the tolerance or resistance to an environmental
stressor is high, and sensitivity is high if the tolerance or resistance is low.
A fruitful example for a country-wide investigation by passive biomonitoring
with lichen is the comparison of the POP burden in areas with different types of
land use shows that the burden emanating from Switzerland, particularly in conur-
bations, is considerably greater than the amount transported over long-ranges and
across national boundaries. However, the latter category certainly contributes to the
background level of contamination. The first country-wide POP study established
a representative and spatially differentiated biomonitoring network and a reference
archive of samples in Switzerland. A monitoring instrument of this kind can also
be used to document the success of efforts to reduce burden over time (Herzig and
Bieri 2002; and chapter 3 in this book).
Other stimulating examples of bioindication and biomonitoring studies for
­controlling organic pollutants are given amongst others in Schwarz and Jonas (1997).

Further Studies and Outlook: MMBC and Teaching Guidelines

Bioindication and biomonitoring must supply information on the degree of pollu-

tion or degradation of ecosystems. For integrative approaches bioindication is not
an “environmental monitoring machine” for a specific constellation of factors; ideally,
it is an integrated consideration of various bioindicative test systems which
attempts, in conjunction with other environmental parameters, to produce a definite
picture of a pollution situation and its development in the interests of prophylactic
care of health and the environment.
Figure 6 is a diagram of a complete dynamic environmental monitoring system
supported by bioindication which depicts how tightly bioindication is coupled to
228 B. Markert and S. Wünschmann

Public Health

Diagnosis and prognosis for

prophylactic health care

1 INTEGRATED APPROACH 1
2 2

Singular use of TESTS and MONITORS

TOOLBOX TOOLBOX
Singular use of TESTS

MED ECO

TOOLBOX TOOLBOX
HSB ESB

data/trends of 2
TRE
SPECIMEN BANKING 2

basic data of system 1

DAT
under investigation 1

HUMANTOXICOLOGY ECOTOXICOLOGY

HUMAN ECOSYSTEM
SET OF
? ? TOOLBOX TESTS,
DATA or
TRENDS
POLLUTANT

Fig. 6 Multi-Markered-Bioindication-Concept (MMBC): Possible hierarchical structure of a

bioindicative toolbox model for integrative approaches in human- and ecotoxicology. The tool-
boxes MED and ECO contain single sets of tests that can be combined functionally to allow an
integrated approach to any frame of reference or a specific scientific problem. The toolboxes HSB
(human specimen banking) and ESB (environmental specimen banking) represent years of results
from international environmental sample banks specializing in environmental and human toxicol-
ogy. In addition to MED and ECO they provide important information on ecotoxicology and
human toxicology of environmental chemicals. In the integrated approach, all results obtained are
substantiated by existing basic data available from (eco-) systems research, toxicology and envi-
ronmental sample banks. The parameter constellations necessary for this are taken from the tool-
boxes TRE and DAT (Markert et al. 2003b)

human toxicology. Hence biomonitoring is an important contribution to public

health. It can re-combine its measurement parameters according to the particular
system to be monitored or the scientific frame of reference. The two main subjects
of investigation – man and the environment – and the disciplines human toxicology
and ecotoxicology derived from them are associated with various “toolboxes” and
sets of tests (“tools”, e.g. bioassays) for integrated environmental monitoring.
The system shown in Fig. 6 consists of six toolboxes. The first two are derived
mainly from environmental research: DAT (for data) and TRE (for trend). DAT
contains, as a set, all the data available from the (eco-)system under investigation,
i.e. including data acquired by purely instrumental means, for example from the
meteorological sphere. DAT also contains maximum permissible concentrations of
Bioindicators and Biomonitors 229

substances in drinking water, food or air at the workplace and the data for the rel-
evant ADI (“acceptable daily intake”) and NO(A)EL (“no observed (adverse) effect
level”). The toolbox TRE contains data on trends; these have been compiled mainly
from years of investigations by national environmental sample banks, or informa-
tion available from long-term national and international studies (e.g. Duvigneaud
and Denayer-De Smet 1973; Ellenberg et al. 1986; Likens et al. 1977).
Specific conclusions and trend forecasts can then be prepared using the subse-
quent toolboxes HSB (human specimen banking) and ESB (environmental speci-
men banking) (see also Kettrup 2003). The toolbox MED (medicine) contains all
the usual methods employed in haematological and chemical clinical investigations
of subchronic and chronic toxicity, whereas ECO is largely made up of all the bio-
indicative testing systems and monitors relevant to ecosystems which may be com-
bined to suit the particular situation to be monitored.
The data from all the toolboxes must interact with each other in such a way that it is
possible to assess the average health risk for specific groups of the population or deter-
mine a future upper limit of risk from pollutants by forming networks. This risk assess-
ment ultimately makes use of all the toxicological limits that take the nature of the effect
and dose–effect relationships into account according to the current status of scientific
knowledge. Since toxicological experiments cannot be carried out on human beings,
recourse has to be made to experience at the workplace and cases of poisoning in order
to permit an evaluation and risk assessment. Besides examining reports on individual
cases, greater efforts must be made to reveal the effects of substances as a cause of
disease by means of epidemiological surveys with exposed groups as compared to a
control group. The development and use of simulation models supported by informa-
tion technology, taking all the data collected into account, will play an important role
here, since a large number of parameters that do not interact directly have to be com-
bined. They include various data from the field of epidemiology, from mutagenicity
studies, toxicokinetics, metabolism research and structure–effect relationships.
The conclusions of such networking in between different tool boxes can be used for
a whole concept of bioindication in general, outlined in the so called Multi-Markered-
Bioindication-Concept (MMBC), which is outlined in Markert et al. (2002, 2003b).
In conclusion there is very much interest on integrated monitoring which will
require an interdisciplinary design and formation of research groups in future sur-
veys, too. This would permit rapid and flexible adjustment of the working groups
to the particular frame of reference and enable a quick exchange of information
between the individual disciplines.
To come closer to a prophylactic health care system between ecotoxicologists
and medical doctors we should follow a common integrative way, and we should
not work along parallel paths and thus separately as was most often done in the past
20 years. To this end, it could be worthwhile to have a look at the former ideas of
combination of geoscientific ecology and medical sciences, which have some tradi-
tion in the German landscape ecology (Jusatz 1958; Jusatz and Flohn 1937; Mueller
1980; Schweinfurth 1974). Additionally, we should be aware of the interrelation-
ships between culture, environmental quality and human health (Dansereau 1971;
Warren and Harrison 1984).
230 B. Markert and S. Wünschmann

Table 1 Possible tracks to follow from environmental monitoring to human health (Markert
et al. 2008). In the past, a gap of scientific collaboration between analytical scientists, ecotoxi-
cologists and people concerned with environmental medicine (human toxicology) was obvious.
This can be in the present overcome by developing a more intensive collaboration by communi-
cation and defining common goals in research and education. To reach a common scientific
interest in the future, different specific research methods should be used for similar problems,
which mean a common learning by doing research on the same interdisciplinary problems (sym-
bolized by the middle column between present and future status). MMBC: Multi-Markered-
Bioindication-Concept, a newly developed multidisciplinary system including integrated and
functional “windows” of prophylactic healthcare
Past (1980) Present (2000) Future (2020)
Classical Interdiscipling Integrated
International
Interregional
Intercultural
Goal Qualitative and Developing the link Developing a
quantitative between environmental prophylactic health
measurement biomonitoring to human care approach
of environmental health
parameters
Methods Comparison of own Defining common research MMBC-concept
results with interests between and some others
“others” eco- and human- available on the
toxicology scientific market
Mental driving Knowledge Education, communication Quality
forces
Tools Instrumental and Language cooperation Common science and
bioindicative common goals education, success
measurements and acceptance

Table 1 tries to symbolise the “dilemma” of what blocks at the moment a fast
development from present eco- and humantoxicological bioindication methods
towards a more integrated understanding. Obviously, there exists a lack of intensive
discussion and collaboration between ecologists and human medical people.
Simply one example, which is obviously present in our day by day work. In the fine
and most recent “Lehrbuch der Toxikologie [Treatise on Toxicology]” by Marquard
and Schaefer (2004), an excellent content is given by around 100 scientists includ-
ing most relevant topics in our common scientific field, but scientific findings of the
ecotoxicologists (for example, nationally and internationally organized in SETAC)
have more or less not been taken into account. To overcome this discrepancy there
are two important issues that must be considered:
1. Common education of “toxicologists” at universities by integrative textbooks
(for example, Fomin et al.’s, textbook on practical use of biotests published in
2003)
2. Common scientific projects as for example given in Table. 1 (Markert et al. 2008)
Bioindicators and Biomonitors 231

Especially for topic two, an interdisciplinary language, common goals and methods
have to be developed and finally successful research should be initiated.

Acknowledgements We would like to thank all colleagues, friends, clients and students of
numerous field studies worldwide for their critical and intensive discussions on our common
topic (bioindication and biomonitoring) since a lot of years. A lot of their thoughts have influ-
enced our MS.

References

Adriano DC (1992) Biogeochemistry of trace. Metals Lewis, Boca Raton, FL

Altenburger R, Schmitt M (2003) Predicting toxic effects of contaminants in ecosystems using
single species investigations. In: Markert B, Breure A, Zechmeister H (eds) Bioindicators and
biomonitors: principles, concepts and applications. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 153–198
Arndt U (1992) Key reactions in forest disease used as effects criteria for biomonitoring. In:
McKenzie DH, Hyatt DE, McDonald VJ (eds) Ecological indicators. Proceedings of the inter-
national symposium Fort Lauderdale USA, Oct 1990, pp 16–19. Elsevier, Applied Science
Publications, London, pp 829–840
Bacchi MA, De Nadai Fernandes EA, Oliveira H (2000) Brazilian experience on K0-standardized
neutron activation analysis. Radio Nucl Chem Budapest 245(1):217–222
Bargagli R (ed) (1998) Trace elements in terrestrial plants – an ecophysiological approach to
biomonitoring and biorecovery. Springer, Heidelberg
Blanck H, Wängberg SA, Molander S (1988) Pollution-induced community tolerance. A new
ecotoxicological tool. In: Cairns JJ, Pratt JR (eds) Functional testing of aquatic biota for esti-
mating hazards of chemicals, ASTM STP 988. American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, PA, pp 219–230
Bode P, De Nadai Fernandes EA, Greenberg RR (2000) Metrology for chemical measurements
and the position of INAA. J Radioanal Nucl Chem Budapest 245(1):109–114
Breulmann G, Ogino K, Ninomiya I, Ashton PS, La Frankie JV, Leffler U, Weckert V, Lieth H,
Konschak R, Markert B (1998) Chemical characterisation of Dipterocarpaceae by use of chemical
fingerprinting – a multielement approach at Sarawak, Malaysia. Sci Total Environ 215:85–100
Broadley MR, White PJ, Hammond JP, Zelko I, Lux A (2007) Zinc in plants. New Phytol
173(4):677–702
Broadley MR, Hammond JP, King GJ, Astley D, Bowen HC, Meacham MC, Mead A, Pink DAC,
Teakle GR, Hayden RM, Spracklen WP, White PJ (2008) Shoot calcium and magnesium
­concentrations differ between subtaxa, are highly heritable, and associate with potentially
pleiotropic loci in Brassica oleracea. Plant Physiol 146(4):1707–1720
Cakmak I (2008) Enrichment of cereal grains with zinc: agronomic or genetic biofortification?
Plant Soil 302(1–2):1–17
Carreras HA, Gudino GL, Pignata ML (1998) Comparative biomonitoring of atmospheric quality
in five zones of Cordoba city (Argentina) employing the transplanted lichen Usnea sp. Environ
Pollut 103:317
Chaney RL, Chen KY, Li YM, Angle JS, Baker AJM (2008) Effects of calcium and nickel toler-
ance and accumulation in Alyssum species and cabbage grown in nutrient solution. Plant Soil
311(1–2):131–140
Dansereau P (1971) Dimensions of environmental quality, Sarracenia no. 14. University of
Montréal, Montréal
De Bruyn U, Linders HW, Mohr K (2009) Epiphytische Flechten im Wandel von Immissionen und
Klima – Ergebnisse einer Vergleichskartierung 1989/2007 in Nordwestdeutschland.
Umweltwissenschaften Schadstoff-Forschung 21:63–75
232 B. Markert and S. Wünschmann

Djingova R, Kuleff I (2000) Instrumental techniques for trace analysis. In: Markert B, Friese K
(eds) Trace elements, their distribution and effects in the environment. Elsevier, Amsterdam,
The Netherlands, pp 137–185
Duvigneaud P, Denayer-De Smet S (1973) Biological cycling of minerals in temperate deciduous
forests. Ecol Stud 1:199
Elias C, De Nadai Fernandes EA, França EJ, Bacchi MA (2006) Seleção de epifitas acumuladoras
de elementos químicos na Mata Atlãntica. Biota Neotropica, Campinas, 6, 1. Disponível em:
www.biotaneotropica.org.br/v6n1/pt/abstract?article+bn021106012006>. Acesso em: 29 maio
2006
Ellenberg H, Mayer R, Schauermann J (1986) Ökosystemforschung, Ergebnisse des Solling
­Projektes. Ulmer, Stuttgart
Fargašová A, Beinrohr E (1998) Metal-metal interactions in accumulation of V5+, Ni2+, Mo6+, Mn2+,
and Cu2+ in under- and above-ground parts of Sinapis alba. Chemosphere 36:1305–1317
Farago ME (ed) (1994) Plants and the chemical elements. VCH, Weinheim
Figueiredo AMG, Saiki M, Ticianelli RB, Domingos M, Alves ES, Markert B (2001)
Determination of trace elements in Tillandsia usneoides by neutron activation analysis for
environmental biomonitoring. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 249(2):391–395
Fomin A, Oehlmann J, Markert B (2003) Praktikum zur Ökotoxikologie. Grundlagen und
Anwendungen biologischer Testverfahren. Ecomed Verlagsgesellschaft, Landsberg
Fraenzle O (1993) Contaminants in terrestrial environments. Springer, Berlin
Fraenzle S, Markert B (2002) The biological system of the elements (BSE) – a brief introduction
into historical and applied aspects with special reference on “ecotoxicological identity cards”
for different element species (e.g. As and Sn). Environ Pollut 120(1):27–45
Fraenzle S, Markert B (2007) Metals in biomass: from the biological system of elements to
­reasons of fractionation and element use. Environ Sci Pollut Res 6:404–413
Fraenzle S, Markert B, Wuenschmann S (2007) Dynamics of trace metals in organisms and
­ecosystem: prediction of metal bioconcentration in different organisms and estimation of
exposure risks. Environ Pollut 150:22–33
Fraenzle S, Markert B, Fraenzle O, Lieth H (2008) The biological system of elements: trace
­element concentration and abundance in plants give hints on biochemical reasons of sequestra-
tion an essentiality. In: Prasad MNV (ed) Trace elements – nutritional benefits, environmental
contamination, and health implications. Wiley, New York, pp 1–22
Fraenzle S (2009) Prinzipien und Mechanismen der Verteilung und Essentialität von chemischen
Elementen in pflanzlicher Biomasse – Ableitungen aus dem Biologischen System der
Elemente. Habilitation Thesis, University of Vechta
França EJ, De Nadai Fernandes EA, Bacchi MA, Rodrigues RR, Verburg TG (2005) Inorganic
chemical composition of native trees of the Atlantic Forest. Environ Monitor Assess Dordrecht
102:349–357
França EJ, De Nadai Fernandes EA, Bacchi MA, Tagliaferro FS, Saiki M (2007) Soil-leaf transfer
of chemical elements for the Atlantic Forest. Radio Nucl Chem 271(2):405–411
Franzering J, Van der Eerden LJM (2000) Accumulation of persistent organic pollutants (POPs)
in plants. Basic Appl Ecol 1:25–30
Freitas MC, Reis M, Alves LC, Wolterbeek HT (1999) Distribution in Portugal of some pollutants
in the lichen Parmelia sulcata. Environ Pollut 106:229
Freitas MC, Pacheco AMG, Vieira BJ, Rodrigues AF (2006) Neutron activation analysis of
­atmospheric biomonitors from the Azores: a comparative study of lower and higher plants.
Radio Nucl Chem 270:21–27
Garty J (1998) Airborne elements, cell membranes, and chlorophyll in transplanted lichens.
Environ Qual 27:973
Genßler L, Rademacher J, Rammert U (2001) Arbeitskreis der Landesanstalten und -ämter:
Konzeption der künftigen Aufgabenbereiche. Z Umweltchem Ökotox 13(6):375
Golan-Goldhirsh A, Barazani O, Nepovim A, Soudek P, Smrcek S, Dufkova L, Krenkova S, Yrjala
K, Schroeder P, Vanek T (2004) Plant response to heavy metals and organic pollutants in cell
culture and at whole plant level. Soil Sediments 4:133–140
Bioindicators and Biomonitors 233

Greger M (2008) Trace elements and radionuclides in edible plants, Chapter 6. In: Prasad MNV
(ed) Trace elements – nutritional benefits, environmental contamination, and health implica-
tions. Wiley, New York, pp 121–136
Hanikenne M, Talke IN, Haydon MJ, Lanz C, Nolte A, Motte P, Kroymann J, Weigel D, Kraemer
U (2008) Evolution of metal hyperaccumulation required cis-regulatory changes and triplica-
tion of HMA4. Nature 453(7193):391–396
Hartley W, Lepp NW (2008) Remediation of arsenic contaminated soils by iron-oxide application,
evaluated in terms of plant productivity, arsenic and phytotoxic metal uptake. Sci Total Environ
390(1):35–44
Herpin U, Markert B, Weckert V, Berlekamp J, Friese K, Siewers U, Lieth H (1997) Retrospective
analysis of heavy metal concentrations at selected locations in the Federal Republic of
Germany using moss material from herbarium. Sci Total Environ 205:1–12
Herpin U, Siewers U, Kreimes K, Markert B (2001) Biomonitoring – evaluation and assessment
of heavy metal concentrations from two German moss surveys. In: Burga CA, Kratochwil A (eds)
General and applied aspects on regional and global scales, vol 35, Tasks for vegetation science.
Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp 73–95
Herzig R (1993) Multi-residue analysis with passive biomonitoring: a new approach for volatile multi-
element contents, heavy metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons with lichens in Switzerland
and the principality of Liechtenstein. In: Markert B (ed) Plants as biomonitors for heavy metal
pollution in the terrestrial environment. VCH-Verlagsgesellschaft, Weinheim, pp 285–328
Herzig R, Bieri C (2002) Persistente organische Luftschadstoffe (POPs) in der Schweiz.
Umweltmaterialien Nr. 146 Luft, Schweiz, Bundesamt für Umwelt, BAFU, CH-3003 Bern.
www.buwalshop.ch
Herzig R (2005) Erfolgskontrolle zur Luftreinhaltung in der Stadt Bern 2004 Wiederholung der
Untersuchungen mit Flechten nach 14 Jahren. Schlussbericht, 20.10.05 Stadt Bern Amt für
Umweltschutz und Lebensmittelkontrolle, Bern: Switzerland
Irtelli B, Navari-Izzo F (2008) Uptake kinetics of different arsenic species by Brassica carinata.
Plant Soil 303(1):105–113
Jeran Z, Smodis B, Jacimovic R (1993) Multielemental analysis of transplanted lichens (Hypogymnia
physodes, L. Nyl.) by instrumental neutron activation analysis. Acta Chim Slov 40:289–299
Jusatz HJ (1958) Die Bedeutung der landschaftsökologischen Analyse für geographisch-
medizinische Forschung. Erdkunde XII:284–289
Jusatz HJ, Flohn H (1937) Geomedizin und Geographie. Petermanns Geogr Mitt 83:1–5
Kettrup A (2003) Environmental specimen banking. In: Markert B, Breure A, Zechmeister H (eds)
Bioindicators and biomonitors. Principles, concepts and applications. Elsevier, Amsterdam,
pp 775–796
Klumpp A, Domingos M, Pignata ML (2000) Air pollution and vegetation damage in South
America – state of knowledge and perspectives. In: Agrawal SB, Agrawal MA (eds)
Environmental pollution and plant responses. Lewis, Boca Raton, FL/London
Kostka-Rick R, Leffler US, Markert B, Herpin U, Lusche M, Lehrke J (2001) Biomonitoring zur
wirkungsbezogenen Ermittlung der Schadstoffbelastungen in terrestrischen Ökosystemen.
Konzeption, Durchführung und Beurteilungsmaßstäbe im Rahmen von Genehmigungs-
verfahren. UWSF-Z Umweltchem Ökotox 13(1):5–12
Lepp NW, Madejon P (2007) Cadmium and zinc in vegetation and litter of a voluntary woodland
that has developed on contaminated sediment-derived soil. J Environ Qual 36(4):1123–1131
Li HF, McGrath SP, Zhao FJ (2008) Selenium uptake, translocation and speciation in wheat
­supplied with selenate or selenite. New Phytol 178(1):92–102
Lieth H (1998) Ecosystem principles for ecotoxicological analyses. In: Schüürmann G, Markert
B (eds) Ecotoxicology – ecological fundamentals, chemical exposure and biological effects.
Wiley/Spectrum Akademischer Verlag, New York/Stuttgart, pp 17–73
Likens GE, Bormann FH, Pierce RS, Eaton JS, Johnson NM (1977) Bio-geochemistry of a
­forested ecosystem. Springer, Berlin
Loppi S, Bonini I (2000) Lichens and mosses as biomonitors of trace elements in areas with
­thermal springs and fumarole activity (Mt. Amiata, Italy). Chemosphere 41:1333–1336
234 B. Markert and S. Wünschmann

Lux A, Šottníková A, Opatrná J, Greger M (2004) Differences in structure of adventitious roots

in Salix clones with contrasting characteristics of Cd accumulation and sensitivity. Physiol
Plantarum 120:537–545
Markert B (ed) (1993) Plants as biomonitors – indicators for heavy metals in the terrestrial
­environment. VCH, Weinheim
Markert B, Weckert V (1993) Time-and-site integrated long-term biomonitoring of chemical
­elements by means of mosses. Toxicol Environ Chem 40:43–56
Markert B (1994) The biological system of the elements (BSE) for terrestrial plants (glycophytes).
Sci Total Environ 155:221–228
Markert B (ed) (1996) Instrumental element and multi-element analysis of plant samples. Wiley-
VCH, Weinheim
Markert B, Oehlmann J, Roth M (1997) General aspects of heavy metal monitoring by plants and
animals. In: Subramanian G, Iyengar V (eds) Environmental biomonitoring – exposure assessment
and specimen banking, ACS Symposium, vol 654. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC
Markert B, Wappelhorst O, Weckert V, Herpin U, Siewers U, Friese K, Breulmann G (1999) The
use of bioindicators for monitoring the heavy-metal status of the environment. Radio Nucl
Chem 240:425–429
Markert B, Fraenzle S, Fomin A (2002) From the biological system of the elements to biomonitor-
ing. In: Merian E, Anke M, Ihnat M, Stoeppler M (eds) Elements and their compounds in the
environment, 2nd edn. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim
Markert B, Breure A, Zechmeister H (eds) (2003a) Bioindicators and biomonitors. Principles,
concepts and applications. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Markert B, Breure A, Zechmeister H (2003b) Definitions, strategies and principles for
­bioindication / biomonitoring of the environment. In: Markert B, Breure A, Zechmeister H
(eds) Bioindicators and biomonitors. Principles, concepts and applications. Elsevier,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp 3–39
Markert B (2007) Definitions and principles for bioindication and biomonitoring of trace metals
in the environment. J Trace Elements Med Biol 21(1):77–82
Markert B, Wuenschmann S, Fraenzle S, Wappelhorst O, Weckert V, Breulmann G, Djingova R,
Herpin U, Lieth H, Schroeder W, Siewers U, Steiness E, Wolterbeek B, Zechmeister H (2008)
On the road from environmental biomonitoring to human health aspects: monitoring atmospheric
heavy metal deposition by epiphytic/epigeic plants: present status and future needs. Environ
Pollut 32(4):486–498
Markert B, Wuenschmann S, Herzig R, Quevauviller P (2010) Bioindicateurs et biomoniteurs dans
l´environnment: définitions, stratégies et applications, (ed) Techniques de l`Ingénieur 4170:1–16.
Marmiroli N, Maestri E (2008) Health implications of trace elements in the environment and the
food chain, Chapter 2. In: Prasad MNV (ed) Trace elements – nutritional benefits, environmen-
tal contamination, and health implications. Wiley, New York, pp 23–54
Marquard H, Schaefer S (eds) (2004) Lehrbuch der Toxikologie. Wissenschaftliche
Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, Stuttgart, p 1348
Mench M, Vangronsveld J, Beckx C, Ruttens A (2006) Progress in assisted natural remediation of
an arsenic contaminated agricultural soil. Environ Pollut 144(1):51–61
Mohr K (2007) Biomonitoring von Stickstoffimmissionen – Möglichkeiten und Grenzen von
­Bioindikationsverfahren. Umweltwiss Schadst Forsch 19:255–264
Mueller P (1980) Biogeographie. UTB, Ulmer-Verlag, Stuttgart
Oehlmann J, Markert B (1997) Humantoxikologie. Eine Einführung für Apotheker, Ärzte, Natur-
und Ingenieurwissenschaftler. Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, Stuttgart
Pacheco AMG, Freitas MC, Reis MA (2003) Trace-element measurements in atmospheric
biomonitors – a look at the relative performance of INAA and PIXE on olive-tree bark. Nucl
Instrum Methods Phys Res A 505:425–429
Poschenrieder C, Allué J, Tolra R, Llugany M, Barcelo J (2008) Trace elements and plant second-
ary metabolism: quality and efficacy of herbal products, Chapter 5. In: Prasad MNV (ed) Trace
elements – nutritional benefits, environmental contamination, and health implications. Wiley,
New York, pp 99–120
Bioindicators and Biomonitors 235

Prasad MNV (ed) (2008) Trace elements as contaminants and nutrients. Consequences in ecosys-
tems and human health. Wiley, New York, p 778
Quartacci MF, Irtelli B, Baker AJM, Navari-Izzo F (2007) The use of NTA and EDDS for
enhanced phytoextraction of metals from a multiply contaminated soil by Brassica carinata.
Chemosphere 68(10):1920–1928
Quevauviller P, Maier EA (1999) Interlaboratory studies and certified reference materials for
environmental analysis – the BCR approach. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Quevauviller P, Borchers U, Thompson C, Simonart T (eds) (2008) The Water Framework Directive.
Ecological and chemical status monitoring water quality measurements. Wiley, New York
Renella G, Mench M, Van der Lelie D, Pietramellara G, Ascher J, Ceccherini MT, Landi L,
Nannipieri P (2004) Hydrolase activity, microbial biomass and community structure in long-
term Cd-contaminated soils. Soil Biol Biochem 36:443–451
Rasemann W, Markert B (1998) Industrial waste dumps – sampling and analysis. In: Meyers R
(ed) Encyclopedia of environmental analysis and remediation, vol 4. Wiley, New York, pp
2356–2373
Rezek J, in der Wiesche C, Mackova M, Zadrazil F, Macek T (2008) The effect of ryegrass
(Lolium perenne) on decrease of PAH content in long term contaminated soil. Chemosphere
70(9):1603–1608
Roots EF (1992) Environmental information – a step to knowledge and understanding. Environ
Monitor Assess 50(4):87–94
Roots EF (1996) Environmental information – autobahn or maze? In: Schroeder W, Fraenzle O,
Keune H, Mandy P (eds) Global monitoring of terrestrial ecosystem. Ernst & Sohn für
Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH, Berlin, pp 3–31
Rutgers M, Van’t Verlaat I, Wind B, Posthuma L, Breure AM (1998) Rapid method for assessing
pollution-induced community tolerance in contaminated soil. Environ Toxicol Chem 17:2210
Saiki M, Chaparro CG, Vasconcellos MBA, Marcelli MP (1997) Determination of trace elements
in lichens by instrumental neutron activation analysis. Radioanal Nucl Chem Budapest
217(1):111–115
Schroeder P, Navarro-Avino J, Azaizeh H, Golan-Goldhirsh A, Di Gregorio S, Komives T,
Langergraber G, Lenz A, Maestri E, Memon AR, Ranalli A, Sebastiani L, Smrcek S, Vanek T,
Vuilleumier S, Wissing F (2007) Using phytoremediation technologies to upgrade waste water
treatment in Europe. Environ Sci Pollut Res 14(7):490–497
Schroeder P, Daubner D, Maier H, Neustifter J, Debus R (2008a) Phytoremediation of organic
xenobiotics – glutathione dependent detoxification in Phragmites plants from European
­treatment sites. Bioresour Technol 99(15):7183–7197
Schroeder P, Herzig R, Bojinov B, Ruttens A, Nehnevajova E, Stamatiadis S, Memon A, Vassilev
A, Caviezel M, Vangronsveld J (2008b) Bioenergy to save the world – producing novel energy
plants for growth on abandoned land. Environ Sci Pollut Res 15(3):196–204
Schroeder W, Hornsmann I, Pesch R, Schmidt G, Fraenzle S, Wuenschmann S, Heidenreich H,
Markert B (2008c) Moosmonitoring als Spiegel der Landnutzung? Stickstoff- und
Metallakkumulation zweier Regionen Mitteleuropas. Z Umweltchem Ökotox 20(1):62–74
Schwarz OJ, Jonas WL (1997) Bioaccumulation of xenobiotic organic chemicals by terrestrial
plants, Chapter 14. In: Wang W, Gorsuch JW, Hughes J (eds) Plants for environmental studies.
CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp 417–449
Schweinfurth U (1974) Geoökologische Überlegungen zur geomedizinischen Forschung.
Fortschritte der geomedizinischen Forschung, Geogr Z Beihefte 1974:30–43
Schwitzguébel JP, Braillard S, Page V, Aubert S (2008) Accumulation and transformation of
­sulfonated aromatic compounds by higher plants – toward the phytotreatment of wastewater
from dye and textile industries, Chapter 16. In: Khan NA, Singh S, Umar S (eds) Sulfur assimi-
lation and abiotic stress in plants. Springer-Verlag, Berlin
Shtangeeva I, Ayrault S, Jain J (2005) Thorium uptake by wheat at different stages of plant growth.
Environ Radioact Bark 81:283–293
Siewers U, Herpin U (1998) Schwermetalleinträge in Deutschland. Moos-Monitoring 1995/96.
Geol Jb, Sonderheft SD, Hannover 2:1–200
236 B. Markert and S. Wünschmann

Siewers U, Herpin U, Strassburg S (2000) Schwermetalleinträge in Deutschland. Teil 2: Moos-

Monitoring 1995/1996Geol Jb, Sonderheft SD, Hannover, 3:1–121
Smeets K, Ruytinx J, Van Belleghem F, Semane B, Lin D, Vangronsveld J, Cuypers A (2008)
Critical evaluation and statistical validation of a hydroponic culture system for Arabidopsis
thaliana. Plant Physiol Biochem 46(2):212–218
Smodis B (2003) IAEA approaches to assessment of chemical elements in atmosphere. In:
Markert BA, Breure AM, Zechmeister HG (eds) Bioindicators and biomonitors. Principles,
concepts and applications. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp 875–902
Stoeppler M, Duerbeck HW, Nuernberg HW (1982) Environmental specimen banking. Talanta
29:963
Suchara I, Sucharova J, Hola M (2007) Bio-Monitoring of the atmospheric deposition of elements
using moss analysis in the Czech Republic. Acta Pruhoniciana 87:186
Szárazová K, Fargašová A, Hiller E, Velická Z, Pastierová J (2008) Phytotoxic effects and
­translocation of Cr and Ni in washing wastewaters from cutlery production line to mustard
(Sinapis alba L.) seedlings. Fresenius Environ Bull 17:58–65
Trapp S, Feificova D, Rasmussen NF, Bauer-Gottwein P (2008) Plant uptake of NaCl in relation
to enzyme kinetics and toxic effects. Environ Exp Bot 64(1):1–7
Vtorova V, Kholopova L, Markert B, Leffler U (2001) Multi-elemental composition of tropical
plants and bioindication of the environmental status. In: Biogeochemistry and geochemical
ecology: selected presentations of the 2nd Russian School of Thought: Geochemical Ecology
and the Biogeochemical Study of Taxons of the Biosphere, Moscow, 25–29 Jan 1999,
pp 177–189
Vutchkov M (2001) Biomonitoring of air pollution in Jamaica through trace-element analysis of
epiphytic plants using nuclear and related analytical techniques. In: Co-ordinated research
project on validation and application of plants as biomonitors of trace element atmospheric
pollution, analyzed by nuclear and related techniques, IAEA, NAHRES-63, Vienna
Verbruggen N, Hermans Ch, Schat H (2008) Molecular mechanisms of metal hyperaccumulation
and tolerance in plants. New Phytol. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2998.02748x
Verkleij JAC (2008) Mechanisms of metal hypertolerance and (hyper)accumulation in plants.
Agrochimica 52(3):167–188
Warren A, Harrison CM (1984) People and the ecosystem: biogeography as a study of ecology
and culture. Geoforum 15:365–381
Wittig R (1993) General aspects of biomonitoring heavy metals by plants. In: Markert B (ed)
Plants as biomonitors – Indicators for heavy metals in the terrestrial environment. VCH,
Weinheim, pp 3–27
Wolterbeek HT, Kuik P, Verburg TG, Herpin U, Markert B, Thöni L (1995) Moss interspecies
comparisons in trace element concentrations. Enviro Moni Assess 35:263–286
Wolterbeek B (2002) Biomonitoring of trace element air pollution: principles, possibilities and
perspectives. Environ Pollut London 120:11–21
Wuenschmann S, Oehlmann J, Delakowitz B, Markert B (2001) Untersuchungen zur Eignung
wildlebender Wanderratten (Rattus norvegicus) als Indikatoren der Schwermetallbelastung,
Teil 1. UWSF-Z Umweltchem Ökotox 13(5):259–265
Wuenschmann S, Oehlmann J, Delakowitz B, Markert B (2002) Untersuchungen zur Eignung
wildlebender Wanderratten (Rattus norvegicus) als Indikatoren der Schwermetallbelastung,
Teil 2. UWSF-Z Umweltchem Ökotox 14(2):96–103
Wuenschmann S, Fränzle S, Markert B, Zechmeister H (2008) Input and transfer of trace metals
from food via mothermilk to the child: bioindicative aspects to human health, Chapter 22. In:
Prasad MNV (ed) Trace elements – nutritional benefits, environmental contamination, and
health implications. Wiley, New York, pp 555–592
Zechmeister HG, Dullinger S, Hohenwallner D, Riss A, Hanus-Illnar Scharf S (2007) Pilot study on
road traffic emissions (PAHs, heavy metals) measured by using mosses in a tunnel experiment.
Austria Embv Sci Poll Res 13:398–404