Research ArticlePhytoremediation Potential of Vetiver System Technology forImproving the Quality of Palm Oil Mill Effluent
Negisa Darajeh,1 Azni Idris,1 Paul Truong,2 Astimar Abdul Aziz,3
Rosenani Abu Bakar,4 and Hasfalina Che Man5
1Department of Chemical and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Putra Malaysia,43300 Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia2The Vetiver Network International, Asia and Oceania, Brisbane 4069, Australia3Malaysian Palm Oil Board (MPOB), Agro Product Unit, Engineering and Processing Division, Jalan Sekolah,Pekan Bangi Lama, 43000 Kajang, Selangor, Malaysia4Department of Land Management, Faculty of Agriculture, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43300 Serdang,Selangor, Malaysia5Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Putra Malaysia,43300 Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia
Palm oil mill effluent (POME), a pollutant produced by the palm oil industry, was treated by the Vetiver system technology (VST).This technology was applied for the first time to treat POME in order to decrease biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and chemicaloxygen demand (COD). In this study, two different concentrations of POME (low and high) were treated with Vetiver plants for2 weeks. The results showed that Vetiver was able to reduce the BOD up to 90% in low concentration POME and 60% in highconcentration POME, while control sets (without plant) only was able to reduce 15% of BOD.The COD reduction was 94% in lowconcentration POMEand 39% in high concentration POME,while control just shows reduction of 12%.Morphologically,maximumroot and shoot lengths were 70 cm, the number of tillers and leaves was 344 and 86, and biomass production was 4.1 kgm−2. Theseresults showed that VST was effective in reducing BOD and COD in POME. The treatment in low concentration was superior tothe high concentration. Furthermore, biomass of plant can be considered as a promising raw material for biofuel production whilehigh amount of biomass was generated in low concentration of POME.
1. Introduction
Clean water has increasingly become one of the rare valuableresources. Fast industrialization causes the production andrelease of considerable amounts of wastes in the watersources. The conventional water sources are easily contami-nated by industries wastewater [1, 2]. The palm oil industry,over the last four decades, has become one of the majoragroindustries in Malaysia [3, 4]. The palm oil industrycaused negative impact on the environment and it maycontribute to the alarming increase in the environmentalpollution [5]. The processing of palm oil produces largequantities of polluted wastewater commonly named as palm
oil mill effluent (POME). POME is the liquid waste in theprocessing of oil extraction, washing, and cleaning processes.Up to 1.5m3 of water is used to process one tone of freshfruit bunch (FFB). From this quantity, about 50% of the waterresults in the POME, the other 50% being lost as steam,mainly through sterilizer exhaust, piping leakages, and washwaters [6–9].
POME has been identified as the main sources of waterpollution in Malaysia due to high biochemical oxygendemand (BOD) and chemical oxygen demand (COD) thatcauses reduction of the biodiversity and ability of aquaticecosystems. Department of Environment (DOE) enforces
Hindawi Publishing CorporationAdvances in Materials Science and EngineeringVolume 2014, Article ID 683579, 10 pageshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/683579
2 Advances in Materials Science and Engineering
a regulation under the Environmental Quality Act (1997)for the discharge of effluent from the palm oil industry.DOE requires an effective management system in orderto treat and dispose of POME with the goal of environ-mental conservation and increasing the quality of riverwater.
Several treatment technologies have been developed andapplied by palm oil mills to treat POME, such as anaer-obic digestion [10, 11], membrane technology [12], aerobicactivated sludge reactor [3], and evaporation method [13].These conventional treatment systems frequently encounterproblems associated to their long hydraulic retention time(HRT) and large space requirement; these could be prob-lems with increasing production of POME. The challengeof environmental engineers and scientists is to developeffective and simple methods for treatment of industrialwastewater.
Nowadays phytoremediation as a green technology isone of the main environmentally friendly technologies thatscientists are using in their researches. Phytoremediationis the direct use of green plants to clean up contaminatedwater, soils, or sediments. Phytoremediation is a new, costeffective, aesthetically pleasing, and low cost suitable solutionfor many environmental problems across the world [14–16].Suitable plant species used for phytoremediation should havehigh uptake of both organic and inorganic pollutants, growwell in polluted water, and be easily controlled in quantityspreading dispersion. Furthermore, the plants should notonly accumulate, reduce, or volatilize the contaminants butalso grow fast in a range of different conditions and lends toharvesting easily [17, 18].
Vetiver grass (Chrysopogon zizanioides L.) belongs tothe same grass family as maize, sorghum, sugarcane, andlemon grass (Figure 1). It was first used for soil and waterconservation purposes by the World Bank. However, in thelast two decades, Vetiver role has been successfully extendedto environmental protection, particularly in the field ofwastewater treatment, due to its prominent morphologicaland physiological characteristics and tolerance to adverseconditions [19].
Application of the Vetiver system for wastewater treat-ment is a new and innovative phytoremedial technology. Itis a green and environmental friendly wastewater treatmenttechnology as well as a natural recycling method. In theprocess of treatment, the Vetiver plant absorbs essential plantnutrients such as nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and cationsand stores them for other uses.
The end product has provided high nutrient material foranimal feed, mulch for gardens, roof thatching, handicrafts(ropes, mats, hats, and baskets) rawmaterial formaking pulp,and paper and material for organic farming [20] and recentlyextended to biofuel and carbon sequestration. Despite thepotential advantages of Vetiver grass for the treatment ofwastewaters, there has been very little information publishedto date about hydroponic treatment performance by Vetiver.The novelty of this work is the use of Vetiver grass for the firsttime for treatment of POME. In the present work, Vetiver firstwas grown on hydroponic solution to obtain well-developed
roots and then transfer them to two different concentrationsof POME, to demonstrate the potential of Vetiver grass inreducing the biological oxygen demand (BOD) and chemicaloxygen demand (COD) and investigate biomass production.
2. Materials and Chemical
2.1. Batch Studies. The experiment consisted of two sets ofthree rectangular plastic containers (0.3m length × 0.3mwidth × 0.5m depths), capacity of 45 L and surface areaof 0.09m2. One set contained undiluted POME (high con-centration POME) and another set had the POME diluted(low concentration POME) with tap water in a 1 (POME) : 9(water) ratio. Both diluted and undiluted treatments con-sisted of three subtreatments. These included culture ofVetiver with density of 15 tillers, culture of Vetiver with 30tillers, and a container with no Vetiver, referred to as control.Vetivers were obtained from a commercial nursery, Humibox(M) Sdn. Bhd, Malaysia. To allow for some adaption, Vetiverswere grown in a hydroponic solution (N, P, K, 18 : 18 : 18), forfive weeks until adequate roots and shoots development wereobtained (Figure 2). Polystyrene sheets with a dimension of29×29×5 cm (length ×width × thickness) were placed on theplastic containers surface as the floating platform to supportVetiver plants.
Vetiver slips were planted into the hole of the polystyreneplatform with approximately 8 cm of roots submerged inPOME (Figure 3). Aeration facilitates aerobic degradation oforganicmaterials bymaintaining oxygen concentration in thewastewater. Several studies have been conducted to improvethe quality of effluent from industrial sources using aeratedsystems [21–23]. Due to this reason, this setup continuouslyprovided 3mgL−1 oxygen to the solution to maintain goodbacterial growth. The experiment was carried out with aer-obic condition for two weeks, in which observations weremade of changes in appearance and growth of Vetiver plants.
Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 3
Figure 2: Vetiver planting slips in hydroponic solution.
Figure 3: Vetivers after five weeks ready for experimentation.
The aeration was carried out using aquarium pump with aporous stone diffuser that was put at the bottom of container.The POME was collected from anaerobic treated pond atLabu Palm Oil Mill in Labu, Negri Sembilan, Malaysia.The characteristic is presented in Table 1. The characteris-tics of POME highly depend on the operation process in
Table 2: Treatment combinations.
POME concentration LCP∗ HCP∗ ControlVetiver density V30/V15∗∗ V30/V15 Control∗Low concentration POME; high concentration POME; ∗∗number ofVetiver tillers.
the mill and seasonal changes in the palm crops. Table 2shows the treatment combinations, where low concentratedPOME (LCP) and high concentrated POME (HCP) arePOME concentration and V30 and V15 are the number ofVetiver tillers.
At the beginning of the study whole Vetiver plants werecollected; leaves were cut at surface level of polystyrene andrinsed thoroughly with deionized water, and used papertoweling to wiped leaves, and then they were weighed. Plantleaves were placed on the tray and dried in oven whichwas set at 70∘C. They were dried for 72 hours, then cooled
4 Advances in Materials Science and Engineering
16
62
54
0
20
40
60
80
100
Control HCP/V30 HCP/V15
Redu
ctio
n (%
)
BOD
(a)
15
96
72
0
20
40
60
80
100
Control LCP/V30 LCP/V15
Redu
ctio
n (%
)
BOD
(b)
Figure 4: Reduction of BOD%: (a) high concentration POME (HCP) and (b) low concentration POME.
in a desiccators jar, and reweighed. Biomass for leaves wascalculated by the following formula:
Standing Biomass =Dry Weight (kg)Surface area (m2)
. (1)
The morphological parameters such as the number of tillers,height of shoots, and length of roots were recorded andanalyzed at the end of experimental period (14 days).
Reduction efficiencies of treatment system were calcu-lated based on the following formula:
where 𝐶inf is initial parameter concentration and 𝐶eff is finalparameter concentration.
2.2. Analytical Method. The treatments were evaluated bymeasuring parameters, which were consistently taken duringmidmorning. Samples were obtained by dipping a 100mLgraduated cylinder at three places across the surface of thecontainer and combining them. The wastewater in eachcontainer was sampled 8 times over 14-day period, on days 0,2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 14. Chemical oxygen demand (COD) andbiological oxygen demand (BOD) were measured accordingto standard methods (APHA.1998).
3. Result and Discussion
3.1. Organic Reduction. The organic compounds reduc-tion takes place with biological decomposition processesby microorganisms. Plant rhizosphere stimulates microbialactivity and community density by providing root surface
Table 3: Reduction of BOD in high concentration POME withdifferent Vetiver density.
POME/Vetiver BOD day 0 BOD after 14days
BODreduction %
Control 348 292 16HCP/V30 350 133 62HCP/V15 356 163.7 54
area for their growth [24, 25]. The organic strength ofwastewater measured as biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)and chemical oxygen demand (COD). BOD assessmentis one of the most widely used criteria for water quality[26]. BOD is the amount of dissolved oxygen (DO) thatis used by microbial activity for the biochemical degra-dation of organic matter in water in a given time (usu-ally 5 days) at a certain temperature (20∘C) in the darkplace [27]. Effects of two parameters’ concentration andVetiver density on BOD reduction were investigated asfollows.
3.2. Effect of Concentration on BOD Reduction. The level ofcontaminants will affect its uptake by Vetiver plant as shownin Figure 4. After two weeks of remediation, the highestreduction BOD was LCP, with 96% of BOD reduction, whilethe HCP reduction was lower than LCP; it showed 62% ofBOD reduction.
3.3. Effect of Vetiver Density on BOD Reduction. The numberof Vetiver tillers will affect BOD reduction efficiency, asshown in Tables 3 and 4 after two weeks of remediationin both concentrations; reduction of BOD with 30 tillers of
Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 5
10
39
30
0
20
40
60
80
100
Control HCP/V30 HCP/V15
Redu
ctio
n (%
)
COD
(a)
12
94
74
0
20
40
60
80
100
Control LCP/V30 LCP/V15
Redu
ctio
n (%
)
COD
(b)
Figure 5: Reduction of COD%: (a) high concentration POME and (b) low concentration POME.
Table 4: Reduction of BOD in low concentration POME withdifferent Vetiver density.
POME/Vetiver BOD day 0 BOD after 14days
BODreduction %
Control 56 47.6 15LCP/V30 52 2 96LCP/V15 56 15.7 72
Vetiver was higher than 10 Vetiver tillers. On concentrationof LCP, with 15 tillers of Vetiver the reduction was 72%, whilein the same concentration but with 30 tillers of Vetiver theBOD reduction was 96%. Also in concentration of HCP with15 Vetiver tillers the reduction was 54%, while it was 62%for 30 Vetiver tillers. So it is shown that with the increase ofthe number of initial Vetiver tillers the uptake will increase,because more root surface is available for bacterial growth,and also the plant can absorb more nutrients.
Chemical oxygen demand (COD) is oxygen requirementto decompose organic and inorganic materials throughchemical pathways. High COD level indicates the toxiccondition and the presence of biologically resistant organicsubstances. Effects of two parameters’ concentration andVetiver density on COD reduction were investigated asfollows.
3.4. Effect of Concentration on COD Reduction. The CODreduction increased significantly during the growing time,because the root systemdevelopedwell. As shown in Figure 5,LCP had the highest COD reduction, up to 90%, whilephytoremediation in HCP showed lower COD reduction upto 30%. Phytoremediation in LCP was more effective than inHCP as it shows more reduction of BOD and COD duringremediation.
Table 5: Reduction of COD in high concentration POME withdifferent Vetiver density.
POME/Vetiver COD day 0 COD after 14days
CODreduction %
Control 763 686 10HCP/V30 721 440.3 39HCP/V15 784 548.2 30
Table 6: Reduction of COD in low concentration POME withdifferent Vetiver density.
POME/Vetiver COD day 0 COD after 14days
CODreduction %
Control 114 100.3 12LCP/V30 102 6.1 94LCP/V15 113 29.3 74
3.5. Effect of Vetiver Density on COD Reduction. As shownin Tables 5 and 6 the highest reduction of COD was forLCP with 30 Vetivers tiller, with 94% removed, while atthe same concentration but with 15 Vetiver tillers the CODreduction was 74%. Same as BOD results, with increasingVetiver tillers the reduction efficiency increased. InHCP,with15 Vetiver tillers the COD reduction was 30%, while at thisconcentration with 30 Vetiver tillers the reduction increasedto 39%.
During the entire time series analysis, it can be shownthat the concentration of BOD and CODof experimental setsplanted with Vetiver was lower than that of the control set.This clearly shows the beneficial effect of Vetiver in treatingPOME. Comparing results with other studies showed that
6 Advances in Materials Science and Engineering
the range of COD reduction is between 16.5 and 98%, fordifferent types of wastewater and macrophytes.
None of the reported studies have used Vetiver on aerobicPOME treatment. Due to the lack of studies in the fieldof Vetiver wastewater treatment, the results were comparedwith other studies published between 1997 to 2014, that havebeen used different macrophytes such as: Typha angustifolia,Canna, Phragmites australis, Cyperus papyrus, Typha orien-talis, Zizania aquatica, Iris australis, Scirpusgrossus, Phrag-maties mauritianus, Canna iridiflora, for the treatment ofindustrial or domestic wastewater such as: pig farm, dairy,sugar factory, textile, tannery, septic tank, municipal, blackwater and grey water.
Kantawanichkul et al. [28] planted Vetiver to treat dilutedsettled pig farm wastewater in Thailand. They reported 78.8reduction percent of COD. Jiang and Xinyuan [29] usedfloating and submerged and emerged plants in the zoowastewater and they reported 44% reduction of COD. Ji et al.[30] studied treatment of oil products wastewater in China,with Phragmites australis; they reported 80%COD reduction.Ahmed et al. [31] reported 72% COD reduction for treatmentof municipal sludge, in India, with Phragmites australis. Chanet al. [32] conducted a study in China, for treatment ofmunicipal secondary wastewater, with Cyperus alternifolius;they reported 83.6% COD reduction. Abdel-Shafy et al. [33]studied treatment of secondary greywater in Egypt, withPhragmites australis; they reported 65.9% reduction of COD.Song et al. [34] reported 62.2% COD reduction for municipalwastewater treatment in China with Phragmites australis andTypha orientalis. Katsenovich et al. [35] studied treatment ofsecondary municipal wastewater treatment in El Salvador,with Typha angustifolia; they reported 65.18% reduction ofCOD. Zhai et al. [36] conducted a study for treatment of sec-ondary wastewater treatment in China with Cyperus alterni-folius; they reported 83.6–84.1% COD reduction. Changet al. [37] studied COD reduction of secondary municipalwastewater treatment with Typha latifolia and Canna indica,in China; they reported 64.15% COD reduction. Saeed et al.[38] studied secondary Tannery wastewater treatment withPhragmites australis, in Bangladesh; they reported 98% CODreduction. Abou-Elela et al. [39] reported 92.2% COD reduc-tion for treatment of municipal wastewater in Egypt, withCanna, Phragmites, and Cyperus. Liao et al. [40] conducteda study with Vetiver and Cyperus alternifolius, in China, fortreatment of pig farm wastewater; they reported 64% CODreduction. Kaseva [41] reported 60% of COD reduction fortertiary municipal sludge treatment, with Typha latifolia andPhragmites mauritianus, in Tanzania. Chan et al. [32] studiedtreatment of secondary municipal wastewater, with Cyperusalternifolius, in China; they reported 70% COD reduction.Abdel-Shafy et al. [33] used Phragmites australis, for treat-ment of secondary black water, in Egypt; they reported83.5% COD reduction. Song et al. [34] studied municipalwastewater treatment with Phragmites australis and Typhaoriental, in China; they reported 62.2% COD reduction.Njau and Mlay [42] studied treatment of textile wastewater,with Vetiver and Phragmites mauritianus, in Tanzania; theyreported 46.2% COD reduction. Li et al. [43] used Typhaangustifoliaon lakewater, inChina; they reported 39.6–40.4%
COD reduction. In another study conducted by Li et al. [44],they used Phragmites australis, for river water, in China; theyreported 17.9% COD reduction. Tang et al. [45] used Typhalatifolia, in river water, in China; they reported 35% CODreduction. Mburu et al. [46] studied treatment of secondarymunicipal wastewater, with Cyperus papyrus; in Kenya,they reported 42.7–43.89% COD reduction. Christwardanaand Soetrisnanto [47] reported 50% of COD reduction fortreatment of POME, in Indonesia, with water hyacinth.Hussain et al. [48] used Typha angustifolia and Phragmites,for treatment of domestic wastewater, in Saudi Arabia; theyreported 48.15% COD reduction. Katsenovich et al. [35] usedPhragmites australis, for treatment of secondary wastewater,in El Salvador; they reported 56% of COD reduction. Rivaset al. [49] studied treatment of secondary wastewater, inMexico, with Typha latifolia and Phragmites australis; theyreported 68%COD reduction. Chang et al. [37] studied CODreduction of secondary municipal wastewater treatment withTypha latifolia and Canna indica, in China; they reported64.15% COD reduction.
Comparing results with other studies showed that therange of BOD reduction is between 15.4 and 98%, for differenttypes of wastewater and macrophytes. Liao et al. [40] studiedpig farm wastewater treatment with Vetiver and Cyprusalternifolius, in China; they reported 68% BOD reduction.Njau and Mlay [42] reported 67.47% BOD reduction fortextile wastewater treatment in Tanzania, with Vetiver andPhragmites mauritianus. Jinadasa et al. [50] conducted astudy in Sri Lanka, for treatment of secondary municipalwastewater, with Typha angustifolia and Scirpus grossus; theyreported 68.2% BOD reduction. Abdel-Shafy et al. [33]used Phragmites australis, in order to treat secondary blackwater in Egypt; they reported 86.4% BOD reduction. Songet al. [34] reported 70.4% BOD reduction on municipalwastewater treatment in China, with Phragmites australisand Typha orientalis. Weragoda et al. [51] reported 65.5%BOD reduction for municipal wastewater treatment in SeriLanka, with Typha angustifolia and Canna iridiflora. Mburuet al. [46] used Typha angustifolia and Canna iridiflora, inorder to treat municipal wastewater, in Seri Lanka; theyreported 65.5% BOD reduction. A study was conducted byHussain et al. [48], in Saudi Arabia, in order to treat domesticwastewater, with Typha angustifolia and Phragmites; theyreported 66% BOD reduction. In another study, Klomjekand Nitisoravut [52] reported 74.3% BOD reduction frommunicipal saline condition treatment, with Typha angusti-folia, in Thailand. Ji et al. [30] used Phragmites australis,for treatment of oil products wastewater; they reported 88%BOD reduction. Ahmed et al. [31] conducted a study fortreatment of secondary wastewater, with Phragmites australis,in India; they reported 90% BOD reduction. Chan et al.[32] reported 90% BOD reduction for secondary municipalwastewater treatment in China, with Cyprus alternifolius.Chen et al. [53] studied secondary municipal wastewatertreatment in China, with Cyprus alternifolius; they reported90% BOD reduction. Abdel-Shafy et al. [33] reported 86.4%BOD reduction from secondary black water treatment, withPhragmites australis, in Egypt. Katsenovich et al. [35] studiedtreatment of secondarymunicipal wastewater treatment in El
Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 7
47.6 47.5
70.2 70.3
42 42.2
70.4 70.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
HCP/V15 HCP/V30 LCP/V15 LCP/V30
Leng
th (c
m)
Root length (cm)Shoot length (cm)
Figure 6: Root and shoot length of Vetiver (cm) (HCP is highconcentration POME and LCP is low concentration POME).
Salvador, with Typha angustifolia; they reported 80.78% BODreduction. Saeed et al. [38] used Phragmites australis, in orderto treat secondary tannerywastewater, in India; they reported98%BODreduction. Chang et al. [37] studiedBODreductionof secondary municipal wastewater treatment with Typhalatifolia and Canna indica, in China; they reported 89.3%BOD reduction. Abou-Elela et al. [39] reported 93.6% BODreduction for treatment of municipal wastewater in Egypt,with Canna, Phragmites, and Cyperus. Li et al. [44] usedPhragmites australis, for river water, in China; they reported15.4% BOD reduction. Katsenovich et al. [35] studied treat-ment of secondary municipal wastewater treatment in El Sal-vador, with Typha angustifolia; they reported 22% reductionof BOD. Rivas et al. [49] studied treatment of secondarywastewater, in Mexico, with Typha latifolia and Phragmitesaustralis; they reported 52% BOD reduction. Mburu et al.[46] reported 52.98–60.93% BOD reduction, for treatmentof secondary municipal wastewater, with Cyperus papyrus; inKenya.
The observed differences in reduction efficiencies withliteratures could be due to differences in method of Vetiverapplication such as soil as a growing medium or hydroponicsystem with no supporting medium. Furthermore anotherfactor such as the variation of wastewater concentration ofwastewater, setting up the hydroponic system in an openspace or green house, hydraulic retention time (HRT), quan-tity of Vetiver applied and temperature could alter the result.
3.6. Morphological Parameters. Growth parameters resultssuch as shoot length, root length, number of leaves, andnumber of tillers in Vetiver in 14 days are given in Figures6 to 8. The root length showed a higher increase in LCP inboth densities, rather than HCP. The maximum root lengthwas 70 cm in LCP where the root length in HCP was 47 cm.The shoot length was maximum 70.3 cm in LCP, where theshoot length was 42 cm for HCP in both densities of plant.There was an increase in the number of leaves and tillersalmost in all treatments.The increase in leaf number was 344in LCP/V30 and 260 in LCP/V15 (Figure 7).The tiller number
12 2765
8648
108
260
344
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
HCP/V15 HCP/V30 LCP/V15 LCP/V30
Num
ber o
f till
ers a
nd le
aves
Tiller increaseLeaves increase
Figure 7: Tillers and leaves increase in Vetiver (HCP is highconcentration POME and LCP is low concentration POME).
0.41
2.9
4.1
0
1
2
3
4
5Biomass production
HCP/V15 HCP/V30 LCP/V15 LCP/V30
(kg/
m2 )
Figure 8: Biomass production of Vetiver (kgm−2) (HCP is highconcentration POME and LCP is low concentration POME).
increased by 86 in the LCP/V30 treatment, which was highestamong the treatments. The minimum tiller increase was 12,which is seen in the HCP/V15 (Figure 8).
Biomass production of Vetiver increased with decreasein POME concentration. The maximum biomass productionwas 4.1 kgm−2 in LCP with 30 tillers and minimum biomassproduction was 0.4 kgm−2 in HCP with 15 tillers. Biomassproduction of Vetiver is given in Figure 9. The leaves ofVetiver are used formulching,matweaving,making basketry,animal fodder, and roof thatching.
4. Conclusion
Results showed that under hydroponic conditions for 2weeks, Vetiver plants with well-developed root and shootswere able to reduce the BOD up to 90% in low concentrationPOME and 60% in high concentration POME, while controlsets (without plant) only was able to reduce 15% of BOD.The COD reduction was 94% in low concentration POMEand 39% in high concentration POME, while control justshows reduction of 12%.Morphological parameter shows thathighest root and shoot length number of tillers and leavesand biomass production were 70 (cm), 70 (cm), 86, 344,and 4.1 kgm−2, respectively.These results showed that Vetiversystem technology (VST) was effective in reducing BOD and
8 Advances in Materials Science and Engineering
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 9: Vetiver growing on POME: (a) Vetiver starting day, (b) low concentration POME, and (c) high concentration POME.
COD in POME. The treatment in low concentration wassuperior to the high concentration. Furthermore, biomassof plant can be considered as a promising raw materialfor biofuel production while high amount of biomass wasgenerated in low concentration of POME.
Conflict of Interests
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interestsregarding the publication of this paper.
Acknowledgment
The authors acknowledge the Malaysian Palm Oil Board(MPOB) for providing research fund and facilities.
References
[1] G. Morrison, O. S. Fatoki, L. Persson, and A. Ekberg, “Assess-ment of the impact of point source pollution from theKeiskammahoek Sewage Treatment Plant on the KeiskammaRiver-pH, electrical conductivity, oxygen- demanding sub-stance (COD) and nutrients,”Water SA, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 475–480, 2001.
[2] X. Zhuang, J. Chen, H. Shim, and Z. Bai, “New advancesin plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria for bioremediation,”Environment International, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 406–413, 2007.
[3] K. Vijayaraghavan, D. Ahmad, and M. Ezani Bin Abdul Aziz,“Aerobic treatment of palm oil mill effluent,” Journal of Envi-ronmental Management, vol. 82, no. 1, pp. 24–31, 2007.
[4] Y. J. Chan, M. F. Chong, and C. L. Law, “Biological treatmentof anaerobically digested palm oil mill effluent (POME) usinga Lab-Scale Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR),” Journal of Envi-ronmental Management, vol. 91, no. 8, pp. 1738–1746, 2010.
[5] T. Hwang, S. Ong, C. Seow, andH. Tan, “Chemical compositionof palm oil mill effluents,” Planter, vol. 54, 1978.
[6] P. Agamuthu, “Palm oil mill effluent—treatment and utiliza-tion,” inWaste Treatment Plant, pp. 338–360, Narosa PublishingHouse, New Delhi, India, 1995.
[7] A. L. Ahmad, S. Ismail, and S. Bhatia, “Water recycling frompalm oil mill effluent (POME) using membrane technology,”Desalination, vol. 157, no. 1-3, pp. 87–95, 2003.
[8] A.Ma, “Treatment of palm oil mill effluent,” inOil Palm and theEnvironment: A Malaysian Perspective, pp. 113–126, MalaysianOil Palm Growers Council, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 1999.
[9] P. F. Rupani, R. P. Singh, M. H. Ibrahim, and N. Esa, “Reviewof current palm oil mill effluent (POME) treatment methods:vermicomposting as a sustainable practice,” World AppliedSciences Journal, vol. 11, pp. 70–81, 2010.
[10] J.-H. Tay, “Complete reclamation of oil palm wastes,” Resources,Conservation and Recycling, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 383–392, 1991.
[11] A.Ma, S. Cheah,M. Chow, and B. Yeoh, “Current status of palmoil processing wastes management,” in Waste Management inMalaysia: Current Status and Prospects for Bioremediation, pp.111–136, 1993.
[12] A. L. Ahmad, M. F. Chong, and S. Bhatia, “Mathematical mod-eling of multiple solutes system for reverse osmosis process inpalm oilmill effluent (POME) treatment,”Chemical EngineeringJournal, vol. 132, no. 1–3, pp. 183–193, 2007.
[13] A. Ma, Y. Tajima, M. Asahi, and J. Hanif, “Effluent treatmente-vaporationmethod,” PORIM Engineering News, vol. 44, pp. 7–8,1997.
[14] P. N. Truong, Y. K. Foong, M. Guthrie, and Y.-T. Hung,“Phytoremediation of heavymetal contaminated soils andwaterusing vetiver grass,” in Environmental Bioengineering, vol. 11 ofHandbook of Environmental Engineering, pp. 233–275, Springer,2010.
[15] A. M. Paz-Alberto and G. C. Sigua, “Phytoremediation: a greentechnology to remove environmental pollutants,” AmericanJournal of Climate Change, vol. 2, pp. 71–86, 2013.
[16] T. Macek, K. Francova, L. Kochankova et al., “Phytoremedia-tion: biological cleaning of a polluted environment,” Reviews onEnvironmental Health, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 63–82, 2004.
Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 9
[17] S. Wagner, P. Truong, A. Vieritz, and C. Smeal, “Response ofvetiver grass to extreme nitrogen and phosphorus supply,” inProceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Vetiver andExhibition, Guangzhou, China, 2003.
[18] P. Truong, “Research and development of the vetiver system fortreatment of polluted water and contaminated land,” in TVNIndia 1st Workshop Proceedings, pp. 60–71, 2008.
[19] P. Truong, “Clean water shortage: an imminent global crisis.How vetiver system can reduce its impact,” 2003.
[20] C. Smeal, M. Hackett, and P. Truong, “Vetiver system forindustrial wastewater treatment in Queensland, Australia,” inProceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Vetiver andExhibition, Guangzhou, China, 2003.
[21] L.-Y. Zhang, L. Zhang, Y.-D. Liu, Y.-W. Shen, H. Liu, andY. Xiong, “Effect of limited artificial aeration on constructedwetland treatment of domestic wastewater,” Desalination, vol.250, no. 3, pp. 915–920, 2010.
[22] H. Dong, Z. Qiang, T. Li, H. Jin, and W. Chen, “Effect ofartificial aeration on the performance of vertical-flow con-structed wetland treating heavily polluted river water,” Journalof Environmental Sciences, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 596–601, 2012.
[23] M. Kumari and B. D. Tripathi, “Effect of aeration and mixedculture of Eichhornia crassipes and Salvinia natans on removalof wastewater pollutants,” Ecological Engineering, vol. 62, pp.48–53, 2014.
[24] C. Tanner, “Plants as ecosystem engineers in subsurface-flowtreatment wetlands,”Water Science and Technology, vol. 44, pp.11–12, 2001.
[25] J. Vymazal and L. Kropfelova, “Removal of organics in con-structed wetlands with horizontal sub-surface flow: a review ofthe field experience,” Science of the Total Environment, vol. 407,no. 13, pp. 3911–3922, 2009.
[26] S. Jouanneau, L. Recoules, M. J. Durand et al., “Methods forassessing biochemical oxygen demand (BOD): a review,”WaterResearch, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 62–82, 2014.
[27] B. Nagel, H. Dellweg, and L. Gierasch, “Glossary for chemists ofterms used in biotechnology (IUPACRecommendations 1992),”Pure and Applied Chemistry, vol. 64, pp. 143–168, 1992.
[28] S. Kantawanichkul, S. Pilaila, W. Tanapiyawanich, W. Tikam-pornpittaya, and S. Kamkrua, “Wastewater treatment by trop-ical plants in vertical-flow constructed wetlands,”Water Scienceand Technology, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 173–178, 1999.
[29] Z. Jiang and Z. Xinyuan, “Treatment and utilization of wastew-ater in the Beijing Zoo by an aquatic macrophyte system,”Ecological Engineering, vol. 11, no. 1–4, pp. 101–110, 1998.
[30] G. D. Ji, T. H. Sun, and J. R. Ni, “Surface flow constructedwetland for heavy oil-produced water treatment,” BioresourceTechnology, vol. 98, no. 2, pp. 436–441, 2007.
[31] S. Ahmed, V. Popov, and R. C. Trevedi, “Constructed wetland astertiary treatment for municipal wastewater,” Proceedings of theICE-Waste and Resource Management, vol. 161, no. 2, pp. 77–84,2008.
[32] S. Y. Chan, Y. F. Tsang, H. Chua, S. N. Sin, and L. H. Cui,“Performance study of vegetated sequencing batch coal slagbed treating domestic wastewater in suburban area,”BioresourceTechnology, vol. 99, no. 9, pp. 3774–3781, 2008.
[33] H. I. Abdel-Shafy, M. A. El-Khateeb, M. Regelsberger, R. El-Sheikh, and M. Shehata, “Integrated system for the treatmentof blackwater and greywater via UASB and constructed wetlandin Egypt,” Desalination and Water Treatment, vol. 8, no. 1-3, pp.272–278, 2009.
[34] H.-L. Song, X.-N. Li, X.-W. Lu, and Y. Inamori, “Investigationofmicrocystin removal from eutrophic surface water by aquaticvegetable bed,” Ecological Engineering, vol. 35, no. 11, pp. 1589–1598, 2009.
[35] Y. P. Katsenovich, A. Hummel-Batista, A. J. Ravinet, and J. F.Miller, “Performance evaluation of constructed wetlands in atropical region,” Ecological Engineering, vol. 35, no. 10, pp. 1529–1537, 2009.
[36] J. Zhai, H. W. Xiao, K. Kujawa-Roeleveld, Q. He, and S. M.Kerstens, “Experimental study of a novel hybrid constructedwetland for water reuse and its application in Southern China,”Water Science andTechnology, vol. 64, no. 11, pp. 2177–2184, 2011.
[37] J.-J. Chang, S.-Q.Wu, Y.-R. Dai,W. Liang, and Z.-B.Wu, “Treat-ment performance of integrated vertical-flow constructed wet-land plots for domestic wastewater,” Ecological Engineering, vol.44, pp. 152–159, 2012.
[38] T. Saeed, R. Afrin, A. A. Muyeed, and G. Sun, “Treatment oftannery wastewater in a pilot-scale hybrid constructed wetlandsystem in Bangladesh,” Chemosphere, vol. 88, no. 9, pp. 1065–1073, 2012.
[39] S. I. Abou-Elela, G. Golinelli, A. S. El-Tabl, and M. S. Hellal,“Treatment of municipal wastewater using horizontal flowconstructed wetlands in Egypt,” Water Science and Technology,vol. 69, no. 1, pp. 38–47, 2014.
[40] X. Liao, S. Luo, Y. Wu, and Z. Wang, “Studies on the abilitiesof Vetiveria zizanioides and Cyperus alternifolius for pig farmwastewater treatment,” in Proceedings of the 3rd InternationalConference on Vetiver and Exhibition, Guangzhou, China, 2003.
[41] M. Kaseva, “Performance of a sub-surface flow constructedwetland in polishing pre-treated wastewater—a tropical casestudy,”Water Research, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 681–687, 2004.
[42] K. Njau andH.Mlay, “Wastewater treatment and other researchinitiatives with vetiver grass,” in Proceedings of the InternationalConference on Vetiver Grass, pp. 25–31, 2003.
[43] L. Li, Y. Li, D. K. Biswas, Y. Nian, and G. Jiang, “Potential ofconstructed wetlands in treating the eutrophic water: evidencefrom Taihu Lake of China,” Bioresource Technology, vol. 99, no.6, pp. 1656–1663, 2008.
[44] M. Li, Y.-J. Wu, Z.-L. Yu, G.-P. Sheng, and H.-Q. Yu, “Enhancednitrogen and phosphorus removal from eutrophic lake waterby Ipomoea aquatica with low-energy ion implantation,”WaterResearch, vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 1247–1256, 2009.
[45] X. Tang, S. Huang, M. Scholz, and J. Li, “Nutrient Removalin pilot-scale constructed wetlands treating eutrophic riverwater: assessment of plants, intermittent artificial aeration andpolyhedron hollow polypropylene balls,” Water, Air, and SoilPollution, vol. 197, no. 1–4, pp. 61–73, 2009.
[46] N. Mburu, S. M. Tebitendwa, D. P. L. Rousseau, J. J. A. vanBruggen, and P. N. L. Lens, “Performance evaluation of hori-zontal subsurface flow-constructed wetlands for the treatmentof domestic wastewater in the tropics,” Journal of EnvironmentalEngineering, vol. 139, no. 3, pp. 358–367, 2013.
[47] M. Christwardana and D. Soetrisnanto, “Phytoremediations ofPalm Oil Mill Effluent (POME) by using aquatic plants andmicroalge for biomass production,” Journal of EnvironmentalScience and Technology, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 79–90, 2013.
[48] G. Hussain, A. I. Al-Zarah, and A. S. Alquwaizany, “Roleof Typha (Cattail) and Phragmites austrailes (Reed Plant) indomestic wastewater treatment,” Research Journal of Environ-mental Toxicology, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 25–36, 2014.
10 Advances in Materials Science and Engineering
[49] A. Rivas, I. Barcelo-Quintal, and G. E. Moeller, “Pollutantremoval in a multi-stage municipal wastewater treatment sys-tem comprised of constructed wetlands and amaturation pond,in a temperate climate,” Water Science and Technology, vol. 64,no. 4, pp. 980–987, 2011.
[50] K. B. S. N. Jinadasa, N. Tanaka, M. I. M. Mowjood, and D.R. I. B. Werellagama, “Free water surface constructed wetlandsfor domestic wastewater treatment: a tropical case study,”Chemistry and Ecology, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 181–191, 2006.
[51] S. K.Weragoda, K. B. S. N. Jinadasa, D.Q. Zhang et al., “Tropicalapplication of floating treatment wetlands,” Wetlands, vol. 32,no. 5, pp. 955–961, 2012.
[52] P. Klomjek and S. Nitisoravut, “Constructed treatment wetland:a study of eight plant species under saline conditions,” Chemo-sphere, vol. 58, no. 5, pp. 585–593, 2005.
[53] Z.M.Chen, B. Chen, J. B. Zhou et al., “A vertical subsurface-flowconstructed wetland in Beijing,” Communications in NonlinearScience and Numerical Simulation, vol. 13, no. 9, pp. 1986–1997,2008.
