MANOHARBHAI PATEL INSTITUTE OF
ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
GONDIA
F O R W A R D I N G L E T T E R
Forwarded herewith to the Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Univesity, Nagpur,
and the dissertation
STUDIES ON TREATMENT OF WASTE WATER BY
PYTOREMEDATION PROCESS
Submitted by- Sandeep P. Ajmire , in partial fulfillment of the award of
the degree of Master of Technology in Environmental Engineering.
Prof. A. L. Nashine Prof. Dr.S.S. Rathor
Head of department Principal
Dept. of Civil Engg. MIET Gondia
MIET, Gondia
1
MANOHARBHAI PATEL INSTITUTE OF
ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
GONDIA
C E R T I F I C A T E This is to certify that dissertation entitled
STUDIES ON TREATMENT OF WASTE WATER BY
PYTOREMEDATION PROCESS
Submitted by Sandip P.Ajmire , in practical fulfillment of the
requirement for the award of Degree of Master of Technology in Environmental
Engineering to The Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj University, Nagpur , is
bonafide research work carried out under my supervision and guidance. The
work embodied in this dissertation has not submitted previously for the award of
any degree or diploma.
2
Prof . A.M. Deshpande Prof.A.L. Nashine
Supervisor Head Of Department
Dept. Of Civil Engineering Dept. Of Civil Engineering
MIET GONDIA MIET GONDIA
A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T
I express my profound gratitude towards Prof. A.M. Deshpande
,Lecturer , Department of Civil Engineering. MIET Gondia, for this able
guidance.
I am extremely Grateful to Hon President Mr. Bupesh Kulmethe &
CEO A.V. Dhoke, Municipal Council Gadchiroli . Mr .M.G. Nisal , Lab
Asst . Environmental Engineering Lab MITE ,Gondia , without whose help the
project might have been completed. Mr. S.P. Waghmare, Executive Engineer
Jeewan Pradhikarn Gadchiroli & his technical and non technical staff, without
whose help the project might have been completed.
I express heartfelt thankful to Prof. Dr. S.S. Rathod , Principal & Prof
A.L.Nashine, H.O.D., Civil Engineering & Prof. P.E.Mishra Coordinate, PG
Deptt. Of Environmentel Engg.,MIET, Gondia, for providing necessary
facilities in the completion of this work and for his constant encouragement.
Sandeep P. Ajmire
3
C O N T E N T S
INTRODUCTION
1.1. General 1-11
1.2 . Pollution Problem
1.3 . Standards of Disposal
1.4. Treatment methodology
1.5. Objective and scope of study
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. General
2.2. Characteristics of domestic waste water
2.3. Treatment Processes
2.4. Process selection criteria for treatment of various domestic
waste water
2.5. Application of Phytoremedation to domestic waste water
PHYTOREMEDATION
3.1. History & back round
4
3.2. Definition & types of Phytoremedation
3.3.Introduction of Phytoremedation by Lemna
3.3.1
3.3.2 Factor influencing startup process of
phytoremadation by lemna.
3.3.1 Start up of Phytoremedation by Lemna
3.3.2 Factor influencing startup process of
phytoremadation by lemna.
3.3.3
3.3.4
3.3.7 Scope of phytoremadation by Lemna.
3.3.8 Design consideration for phytoremadation 3.3.3
3.3.4 DWT system design principles
3.3.5 Advantages of phytoremadation.
3.3.6 Disadvantage of phytoremadation.
3.3.7 Scope of phytoremadation
3.3.8 Design consideration for phytoremadation
3.3.9
3.4. Scope of phytoremadation
3.5
PLANTS AND METHOD
4.1 Cultures
4.2 Tested chemicals
4.3 Lemna bioassay
4.5
4.6
4.7
5
4.8
4.9
4.9.1
4.9.2
4.9.3
4.9.4
4.9.5
4.9.6
4.9.7
4.10
OBSERVATIONS ,RESULTS,AND DISCUSSION
5.1 OBSERVATIONS
5.2 RESULTS
5.3 DISCUSSION
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
Reference:
PHOTOGRAPHS
6
I N T R O D U C T I O N
1.1.General
The population of glob is increasing, the problem of municipal & industrial waste
tedious day by day. The legacy of rapid urbanization, industrialization, fertilizer &
pesticide use has resulted in major pollution problems in both terrestrial and aquatic
environments. In developing countries is major problem to treat the polluted water
from above sources. Chemical & mechanical menace are used for this purpose is
expensive. In response, conventional, remediation systems based on high physical
and chemical engineering approaches have been developed and applied to avert or
restore polluted sites. Much as these conventional remediation systems are efficient,
they are sparsely adopted because of some economical and technical limitations.
Generally, the cost of establishment and running deter their use and meeting the
demand particularly in countries with week economy. Logical this high cost
technology can neither be applied justifiably where
1. The discharge is abruptly high for short time but the entire average load is
relatively small.
2. The discharge is very low but long term (entire load is medium).
3. The discharge is continuously decreasing over a long duration.
Thus conventional remediation approaches are best for circumstances of high
pollutants discharge like in industrial mining and domestic waste water. Recently , it
is evident that durability restoration and long term contamination control in
conventional remediation is questionable because in the long run the pollution
problem is only is suspended or transferring from one site to another.
7
The efficiency of duckweed (Lemna gibba L.) as an alternative cost effective
natural biological tool in wastewater treatment in general and eliminating
concentrations of both nutrients and soluble salts was examined in an outdoor aquatic
systems. Duckweed plants were inoculated into primary treated sewage water systems
(from the collector tank) for aquatic treatment over eight day’s retention time period
under local outdoor natural conditions. Samples were taken below duckweed cover
after every two days to assess the plant’s efficiency in purifying sewage water from
different pollutants and to examine its effect on both phytoplankton and total and
fecal coli form bacteria.
The Lemnaceae family consists of four genera (Lemna, Spirodela, Wolffia &
Wolffiella) and 37 species have been identified so far. Compared to most other plants,
duckweed has low fiber content (about 5%), since it does not require structural
tissue to support leaves and stems. Of these, applications of Lemna gibba L
(duckweed) in wastewater treatment was found to be very effective in the removal
of nutrients, soluble salts, organic matter, heavy metals and in eliminating suspended
solids, algal abundance and total and fecal coli form densities. Duckweed is a floating
aquatic macrophyte belonging to the botanical family Lemnaceae, which can be
found world-wide on the surface of nutrient rich fresh and brackish waters. Outdoor
experiments to evaluate the performance of the duckweed as a purifier of domestic
wastewater in shallow mini-ponds (20 & 30 cm deep) showed that quality of resultant
secondary effluents met irrigation reuse criteria. Wastewater ammonia was converted
into a protein rich biomass, which could be used for animal feed or as soil fertilizer.
The economic benefit of the biomass by-product reduced wastewater expenditures to
approx. US$ 0.05 per treated m3 of wastewater, which was in the range of
conventional treatment in oxidation ponds.
The present study was concerned with decreasing pollution of municipal waste
waster up to degree Standards of Disposal as per National pollution control board.
1.2 . Pollution Problem
Municipal wastewater is producing in a huge quantity in most the cities of the
country that contain a diverse range of pollutants including ,the quality of municipal
wastewater of stagnant/ slow velocity may create problem of high epidemics of
8
malaria & other water born diseases. Heavy Metals ,Oil and Grease ,Phenols,
Sulphide, Sulphate ,Nitrate ,Phospate, Dissolved Solids, Suspended Solids, COD,
BOD, which its disposal and treatment has become a challenge for the municipalities.
Many of the municipalities in growing cities neither have proper disposal system nor
have any treatment facility due to higher cost and in such a situation municipal
wastewater is discharge in to aquatic bodies like river, ponds and lakes, where it is
posing a serious threat to the water quality and become a big environmental problem.
1.3 . Standards of Disposal
In order to protect the environmental Govt. of India established pollution
control boards. Tolerance limit for the industrial effluent as per the environmental
protection act 1986 of Govt. of India shown in table 1.1 governs the check for the
pollution effect. In addition to these standards Maharashtra Pollution Control Board
has introduced tolerance limit for the dissolved oxygen as 5 mg/l, the minimum
should be maintained in the river course, 15 m from the discharge point of the effluent
in the river.
1.4. Treatment methodology
Primary treated sewage water were transferred to the laboratory from the
tertiary sewage water treatment plant after the preliminary sieving step to get rid of
large suspended solids. The transferred water was immediately collected into two
opaque tanks (as replicates) to prevent light entering except at the top (Parr et al.,
2002), each tank with dimensions of 50 cm long, 35 cm wide and 25 cm deep and was
filled with 25 L primary treated sewage water. Duckweed (Lemna gibba L.) plants
ere collected from Ganabiet-Tersa drain. The stock were cleaned by tap water then
washed by distilled water inocula of Lemna plants were transferred to the water
systems for aquatic treatment. The experiment was kept under outdoor local
environmental conditions for eight days retention time.
Water sampling. Subsurface (under duckweed mat) water samples for physico-
chemical, biological and bacteriological parameters were collected in polyethylene
bottles from all sides of tank and then mixed. This procedure carried out every 2 days.
9
Samples volume taken every two days for each of phytoplankton count and
chlorophyll a determination was 100 ml.
Parameters measured. Physico-chemical analyses (Table ) were carried out
according to standard methods for e examination of water and wastewater (APHA,
1992). Field parameters (pH, conductivity & dissolved oxygen) were measured in situ
using the multi-probe system (model Hydralab-Surveyor) and rechecked in
laboratory using bench-top equipment to ensure data accuracy for biological
parameters including total coli form count and fecal coliform. count, phytoplankton
identification and counting and chlorophyll a determination.
Determination of duckweed growth rate. This was determined for fresh and
dry weights. Samples of 20 cm2 area of Lemna plants were harvested periodically at
the designated time periods (every 2 days) and filtered using filter papers then fresh
weights were determined. These samples were then dried at 60oC for 48 h to a
constant weight and then dry weights were calculated.
Duckweed organic nitrogen content was estimated at the beginning of the
experiment and after 8 days retention time, then the obtained values were multiplied
by 6.25 to obtain protein content values.
1.5. Objective and scope of study
Physical, chemical, and biological technologies have been developed to treat
waste water and restore environmental quality; However their costs are high and most
of them are difficult to use under field conditions, hence in such a condition there is
an urgent need to study natural, simple, and cost-effective techniques for control
pollution from municipal & industrial effluents and treating such wastewater, such as
phytoremedation .
Viewing this fact Phytoremediation was assumed to be very useful, as it is an
innovative, eco-friendly and efficient technology in which natural properties of plant
is used in engineered system to remediate hazardous wastes through physical,
chemical, and biological processes from wastewater and sewage.
Phytoremedation is the utilization of plants accumulation capabilities to remove
contamination from water, soil and air, the capacity of aquatic plants to remove
pollutants from water is well documented.
The recent application of phytoremediation technology by duckweed in
wastewater treatment and management is quite interesting and revealing.
10
Phytoremediation systems by duckweed are one of the options that have been widely
applied for combined handling of wastewater with the nutrients used for poultry and
aqua-cultural projects.
Lemna minor L. known as common duckweed is a small, free floating aquatic
plant fast growing, adapt easily to various aquatic conditions and play an important
role in extraction and accumulation of pollutants from waters [8]. In particular,
species of Lemna are reported to accumulate toxic metals and therefore are being used
as experimental model systems to investigate heavy metal induced responses,
Bioavaibility and bioaccumulation of various heavy metals in aquatic and wetland
ecosystems is gaining tremendous significance globally.
This study aimed to assessing the efficiency of duckweed (Lemna minor) in
phytoremediate the pollutants of wastewater. This natural accumulation is related with
the resistance which represents response of plants to metal stress conditions.
Duckweed commonly refers to a group of floating, flowering plants of the family
Lemnaceae. The different species (Lemna, Spirodela, Wolffia and Wolfiella) are
worldwide distributed in freshwater and wetlands, ponds and some effluents are the
most common sites to find duckweed. The plants are fast growing and adapt easily to
various aquatic conditions. They are able to grow across a wide range of pH, from pH
3.5 to10.5 but survive best between pH 4.5 to 8.3. The plants are found in temperate
climates and serve as an important food source for various water birds and fish.
Each plant species has different resistance and tolerance levels to different
contaminants. Therefore, several studies have been performed to elucidate heavy
metal toxicity to plants.
11
TABLE 1.1
STANDRADS FOR WASTE WATER DISPOSAL
Sr.No. Parameters Standards
Inland
water
surface
Public
sewers
Land for
irrigation
Marine & costal
area
1 Colour &
odour
All efforts should be made to remove it as fact as possible
2 SS(mg/l) 100 500 200 i)100 for process
w.w.
ii) 10% above for
cooling water
effect.
3 pH 5.5 to 9.0
4 Temperature 40 45 -- 45 At discharge
5 Oil & grease
(mg/l)
10 20 10 20
6 Total
Nitrogen
100 -- -- 100
7 BOD 30 350 100 100
8 COD 250 -- -- 250
12
2.1. General
The literature of Phytoremediation by lemna was collected from the studies
previously done by various persons. Their finding and suggestions are listed hear.
Various treatment methods are also discussed for the treatment of municipal waste
water with comparison of aerobic and anaerobic treatments. An application of
phytoremadation for waste water done by different persons and their findings are also
mentioned.
2.2. Characteristics of domestic waste water
Characteristic of waste water depend upon the raw material, process and
product made.
Oron et al. have study the waste water from ponds
Parameter Mean concentration in waste
water
Elimination
capacity %
Remark
Influent Effluent %
COD 500 320 30-40 Moderate
BOD 50 30 60 Good
Total N 40 20 50 Good
NH3 17 2 80-90 Excellent
Total P 6 3 50 Good
From the treatment point of view removal the parameters
Koner and Vermaat also established that Lemna gibba and microorganism
coexist with it reduced 75% of phosphate and plants used 52% for growth process and
this agreed with study of. Nayyef M. Azeez and Amal A. Sabbar, 2012. Efficiency of
Duckweed (Lemna minor L.) in Phytotreatment of Wastewater Pollutants from
13
Basrah Oil Refinery. Journal of Applied Phytotechnology in Environmental
Sanitation.
Korner et al. mentioned that duckweed significantly enhanced COD removal in
shallow batch systems reported that COD removal was in the range of 70% to 80% in
the discharged duckweed treatment system at Halisahar.
Lead (Pb),Copper (Cu),Cadimum (Cd) and Zinc (Zn) reached their minimum
concentrations of 0.2,0.02,0.02and 12 mg.L-1, respectively after 30 days, with a
reduction percentage of 98.7%, 99.8%, 99.6% and 72%, respectively, that was the
highest rates of reduction compared with other pollutants ,and this due to a plant's
ability to absorb metals and accumulated in their tissues.
Referred to the aquatic plants have the ability to accumulate essential metals
for their growth and development and these metals include iron, manganese, zinc and
copper.
Khellaf and Zerdaoui have proven through a laboratory experiment the
capacity of Lemna minor to tolerant high concentrations of copper, cadmium, nickel,
zinc, and the results of this study agreed with the results of Other studies in terms of
the capacity of aquatic plants on the accumulation of heavy metals and used it as
phytoremedator and monitors of heavy metals pollution .
Zimmo et al. found that BOD removal efficiency was higher in duckweed based
ponds than in algae based ponds.
14
2.3. Treatment Processes
The different processing waste water various authors have suggested the methods of
treatment. The methods of treatments can be broadly classified as follows
A) Conventional methods of treatments
i) Biological methods
ii) Physiochemical method
iii) Land application method
B) Reuse of wastewater or by product recovery
C) Prevention of waste and waste strength reduction.
D) Specific approach.
2.4. Process selection criteria for treatment of various domestic waste
water.
Over the years, biological treatment has established as a cost-effective solution in
a wide variety of domestic wastewater management problems. It is therefore, desirable to
consider whether the waste is amenable to biodegradation or can be rendered
biodegradable. Once the biodegradability of the waste established. The most appropriate
method of biological treatment can be selected. The available bio treatment alternative
differ from one another in many respect such as nature of electron acceptor (aerobic,
anoxic, or anaerobic), biomass state (suspended or fixed growth), hydraulic regime (plug
flow or completely mixed), and others. Selection of process should, however, be based
primarily on the waste water characteristics and the treatment gols (W.W.Eckenfedr et.al
1989).
2.4.1 Factor affecting process selection.
The factors affecting process selection for natural treatment are the raw
wastewater characteristics and the treatment objective. Additional factors such as climatic
conditions, plant location, land availability, etc. also affect processes selection.
Wastewater Characterization: A classification of the organic present in the
domestic waste water into various fractions based on amenability to biological treatment.
The organics are relatively more easily removed in any biological processes they are
enmeshed in the biomass and either degrader or physically separate from the liquid. The
15
soluble organics are generally more difficult to remove since portion of these compounds
are not readily available to the biomass. Those soluble organic which are sorbed into
biomass are also removed with relative ease although part of such organics may degrade
rather slowly. Of the non soluble organic organic through the activity of extra cellular
enzymes, while a non degradable portion will be left in the effluent. Other waste water
characteristics of concern process selection are the organics concentration, the presence
of nutrients, toxicants or inhibitory compounds.
Treatment Objectives :-
Treatment Objectives also play an important role in process selection. The primary
treatment objective in biological system is removal of biodegradable organic to levels
specified by regulatory agencies. Different treatment process can be tailored to achieve
the desire level of organic removal, toxicity reduction and non- degradable organic
removal.
2.4.2 AVAILABLE BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT PROCESS :-
The essence of biological treatment is the utilization of organic pollutants by
microorganisms for growth and maintenance. This can be represented by the following
simplified equation.
Organics+Nutrients+Electron Acceptor = New Biomass +End Product +Energy
A schematic illustration of the most common biological treatment processes currently
available is presented in fig. 2.2 All biological treatment process can be generally
categorized as aerobic or anaerobic. In the former, molecular oxygen systems, oxidized
nitrogen serves as electron acceptor and is reduced to nitrogen gas.
Both aerobic and anaerobic processes can further be classified as fixed growth systems.
The most common aerobic fixed growth systems are the trickling filters and the rotating
biological contactors (RBC). The aerobic dispersed growth systems are the aerated
lagoons and activated sludge processes. The latter may assume different forms in terms of
hydraulic configuration such as plug flow, completely mixed etc. in special cases, pure
oxygen or nitrification / denitrification systems are used.
16
The anaerobic treatment can also be divided into fixed and dispersed growth processes as
shown in fig. 2.2. The dispersed growth system is also known as anaerobic contact
process and is similar to activated sludge except it does not use oxygen. The fixed
growth anaerobic system include fluidized beds and packed beds. A hybrid of fixed and
dispersed growth system is the up flow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) process.
Fig represents the major types of biological treatment processes that are currently
available. However wastewater characterization and establishment of treatment
objectives are necessary before screening and selection of the process. Some of the
criteria and rationale behind this procedure are discussed below.
2.4.3 AEROBIC VERSES ANAEROBIC TREATMENT :-
A general comparison of aerobic and anaerobic treatment process is presented in table
1.2. In the aerobic process, where oxygen is the electron accepter, the growth process is
more efficient. It therefore, results in higher sludge yields and energy requirements, but is
less likely to produces odours.
The anaerobic processes are more sensitive to environmental condition (pH, temperature
toxic shocks) and require longer start up time. One major limitation of the anaerobic
process is that it cannot economically achieve levels, such as en effluent BOD of 20mg/L
or 95% BOD removal, as often required by regulatory agencies it can be cost effective,
however, if employed as pretreatment before aerobic polishing of high strength industrial
wastewater.
2.4.4 DISPERSED GROWTH VERSUS FIXED –BED REACTORS:
It is convenient to divide biological, reactors into dispersed growth and fixed bed
reactors. Biodegradation is carried but by biomass that is suspended in the liquid phase of
the reactor. In the fixed bed reactor, the biomass is attached to a fixed within the reactor.
Compared to the dispersed growth to a fixed within the reactor. Compared to the
dispersed growth reactors, the primary merit associated with the fixed bed reactors stem
from their simplicity and ease of operations, thus making them ideal for remote and
small industrial streams. Furthermore, because of the relatively high concentration of the
biomass attached to the surface of the fixed media these reactors can handle higher loads
17
per unit volume of reactors. Therefore, they are a better choice whenever land is limited.
sludge of relatively constant nature that can readily be removed by sedimentation. This is
particularly important whenever sludge settling problems are expected in an alternative
suspended growth systems less affect fixed bed reactors.
The major disadvantages of the fixed be reactors compared to the dispersed growth
systems are their lesser flexibility in operation, difficulty to achieve very high removal
efficiencies, and greater sensitivity to cold weather conditions. Another important
drawback of fixed bed system is that they are less understood, thus modeling and process
design procedures are not as rigours and advanced as for the dispersed growth systems.
This drawback has two important implications. First, in many cases the fixed bed reactors
are improperly designed; which leads to either over or under design. Second, it is more
difficult to estimate prototype performance based on bench scale experiments. This kind
of draw back is of particular importance in cases where the nature of the wastewater is
unknown.
Since the achievement of high removal efficiencies in fixed bed systems is economically
prohibitive these systems are often utilized as a roughing stage preceding is dispersed
growth polishing stage.
2.4.5 HIGH RATE ANAEROBIC TREATMENT
All high rate anaerobic treatment processes are based on the achievement of a
high retention of viable anaerobic sludge, combined with a good contact between
incoming wastewater with the sludge. Although these conditions are not always
sufficiently met in the available high rate systems, the importance of high rate systems
for practice is considerable because of the following reasons.
Very high organic loading rates can be applied.
Consequently small reactor volumes suffice.
Unless designed at their maximum loading potentials the stability of high
rate systems to sub optimal conditions (lower temperature, shock loads,
presence of inhibitory compounds ) is high.
18
They make anaerobic treatment economically feasible at low ambient
temperature and for very low strength wastes as well.
2.5. Application of Phytoremedation to domestic waste water
The ability of duckweed to sequester nitrogen and phosphorus, and in so doing
“cleanse” dirty water, has been widely discussed in the literature for nearly 30 years
(Culley and Epps, 1973; Hillman and Culley, 1978; Oran et al., 1986; Landolt and
Kandeler, 1987; Leng, 1999). Systems utilising various species of duckweed, either alone
, or in combination with other plants, have been used to treat primary and secondary
effluent in the U.S.A. (Zirschky and Reed, 1988), the Middle East (Oran et al., 1985) and
the Indian subcontinent (Skillicorn et al., 1993; van der Steen et al., 1998).
Notwithstanding this reputation, some species and isolates are apparently quite sensitive
to high levels of nitrogen and/or phosphorous (Bergman et al., 2000), and effluent with a
high biological oxygen demand (BOD), such as abattoir waste, may kill the plants.
19
Although duckweed has a reputation for absorbing large amounts of dissolved nitrogen,
the degree of absorption appears to vary with concentration of nitrogen, time, species,
and (at least in temperate zones) the season. There is also strong evidence that there is a
symbiotic, or at least a synergistic relationship between duckweed and bacteria, both in
the fixation of nitrogen (Duong and Tiedje, 1985), and the removal of Chemical Oxygen
Demand (COD) (Korner et al., 1998) from water.
Differences in methodology, scale, and the parameters, both recorded and
measured, make direct comparisons between the many trials in published literature
difficult. However most research indicates that duckweed removes 40 to 60% of nitrogen
in solution over a 12 to 24 day period. Volatilization may account for a similar loss of
nitrogen (Vermaat and Haniff, 1998), although recent work completed in Israel (Van der
Steen et al., 1998), has suggested that direct duckweed absorption may account for less
than 20% of nitrogen loss, and volatilization/ denitrification may account for over 70%
In a similar fashion, lemnacae are generally able to absorb 30 to 50% of dissolved
phosphorous, although one researcher (Alaerts et al., 1996) has claimed over 90%
removal in a working, full scale system.
Phosphorous uptake (as measured by tissue phosphorous) and crude protein,
increased linearly with increases in nutrient concentration, up to approximately 1.5 g P/l,
and increased in absolute terms, up to 2.1 g P/l (Sutton and Ornes, 1975). This was
recorded in conjunction with a proportional rise in nitrogen concentration, thus the
association between nitrogen and phosphorous concentrations was unclear. COD is a
measure that quantifies water quality as determined by dissolved oxygen. All research in
the use of duckweed for improving effluent quality has determined significant but
variable decreases in COD (Alaerts et al., 1996; Karpiscak et al., 1996; Bonomo et al.,
1997; Vermaatand Haniff, 1998; van der Steen et al., 1999). However, a substantial
decrease in COD would be expected in open ponds without the presence of duckweed
(Al-Nozaily et al., 2000), so this improvement may not be attributable to the actions of
duckweed. Simplistically, the duckweed’s environment is somewhat two-dimensional. In
practice, this means that once the surface of a body of water is completely covered, the
plant has limited further opportunities to grow. Thus, insituations where there are high
20
nutrient levels, the clearance of dissolved nutrients is likely to be limited by harvesting
rate.
The work of Whitehead et al. (1987) confirms that at high average nutrient levels
(short retention time), nitrogen and phosphorous removal is enhanced with increased
cropping rate, whereas low nutrient concentrations favour low cropping rates. This latter
state indicates that growth is limited by nutrient availability. Degradation of bacterial
pathogens is a complex process and a comprehensive discussion is beyond the scope of
the current paper. However, two groups conducting specific investigations into this
issue (Karpiscak et al., 1996; van der Steen et al., 1999) found that faecal coliforms
decreased by 50 to 90% and that Giardia and Cryptosporidium fell by over 80% in
eutrophic waters in which duckweed was grown.
21
3.1. History & back round
In industrial areas, especially near steelworks, working mines and closed mine,
the environment is polluted by toxic heavy metals. High concentrations of these elements
are also found along roads and motorways. In water environments these elements
accumulate in the organs of macro phytes, fatty tissues of fish species, and bottom
sediments (Wilson and Bell, 1996; Karczewska, 2002). Duckweed (Lemna minor L.) is
an aquatic plant living in many types of water ecosystems, including lakes, streams and
ponds. Because it floats on the water surface, it is exposed to both water and air
contaminants (Mohan and Hosetti, 1999). In the past it was thought that duckweed is
highly tolerant to toxic substances. Currently there are many suggestions that L. minor is
sensitive to xenobiotic substances. To explain this contradiction it has been suggested
that duckweed is highly adaptive to environmental toxicity (Gabrielson et al., 1990;
Mohan and Hosetti, 1999). Lemna minor can be used in phytotoxicity tests of
contaminants, including heavy metals, phenolics and herbicides (Vujevic et al., 2000).
Tests of heavy metal toxicity consist in measurements of growth parameters and
physiological and biochemical indicators, including changes in carbohydrate, protein and
chlorophyll content (Mohan and Hosetti, 1999). Experts from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) have classified this plant as a bioindicator (Kiss et al.,
2003).Symptoms of heavy metal toxicity are chlorosis, necrosis and root damage, as well
as changes in biochemicals including antioxidant enzymes. The sensitivity of L. minor
has been tested in terms of some metabolic indicators, in sewage ponds (Mohan and
Hosetti, 1999) and under laboratory conditions (Garnczarska and Ratajczak,2000a,b;
Wang et al., 2002). Since the data are not conclusive, duckweed’s potential as a
bioindicator for aquatic systems needs further investigation.
Duckweed commonly refers to a group of floating, flowering plants of the family
Lemnaceae. The different species (Lemna, Spirodela, Wolffia and Wolfiella) are
22
worldwide distributed in freshwater and wetlands, ponds and some effluents are the most
common sites to find duckweed. The plants are fast growing and adapt easily to various
aquatic conditions. They are able to grow across a wide range of pH, from pH 3.5 to10.5
but survive best between pH 4.5 to 8.3 (Environnement Canada, 1999; Cayuela et al.,
2007). The plants are found in temperate climates and serve as an important food source
for various water birds and fish (Drost et al., 2007). Some studies indicate that duckweed
plants are sensitive to toxicity. Other studies however, report that duckweed plants are
tolerant to environmental toxicity (Wang, 1990). To assess the tolerance of the species L.
gibba to heavy metals, plants were exposed to concentrations of copper and nickel
higher than those used in medium cultures. Toxic effect of pollutant on duckweed is
generally evaluated by phytotoxicity tests based on growth inhibition (Geoffroy et al.,
2004). Copper and nickel were chosen as the metals for this study for a number of
reasons. Their presence above trace levels in the environment is an indicator of industrial
pollution. On the other hand, they are essential micronutrients for plants; copper is a
structural and catalytic component of many proteins and enzymes involved in metabolic
pathways (Teisseire & Vernet, 2000) and nickel has an important role in the urease and
hydrogenase metabolism (Harish et al., 2008). However, when the concentration reaches
a threshold value, these essential metals become first inhibitory and afterwards toxic.
Copper is responsible for many alterations of the plant cell (respiration, photosynthesis,
pigment synthesis and enzyme activity) (Teisseire & Vernet, 2000; Kanoun-Boulé et al.,
2009). Nickel inhibits germination, chlorophyll production and proteins (Zhou et al.,
2009) in plants; several animal experimental studies have shown an increased cancer
incidence associated with chronic exposure to nickel.
3.2. Definition & types of Phytoremedation
What is phytoremadation ?
23
Phytoremediation is the use of living green plants
for in situ risk reduction and/or removal of contaminants
from contaminated soil, water, sediments, and air.
Specially selected or engineered plants are used in the
process. Risk reduction can be through a process of
removal, degradation of, or containment of a contaminant
or a combination of any of these factors. Phytoremediation is an energy efficient,
aesthically pleasing method of remediating sites with low to moderate levels of
contamination and it can be used in conjunction with other more traditional remedial
methods as a finishing step to the remedial process. One of the main advantages of
phytoremediation is that of its relatively low cost compared to other remedial methods
such as excavation. The cost of phytoremediation has been estimated as $25 - $100 per
ton of soil, and $0.60 - $6.00 per 1000 gallons of polluted water with remediation of
organics being cheaoer than remediation of metals. In many cases phytoremediation has
been found to be less than half the price of alternative methods. Phytoremediation also
offers a permanent in situ remediation rather than simply trans locating the problem.
However phytoremediation is not without its faults, it is a process which is dependent on
the depth of the roots and the tolerance of the plant to the contaminant. Exposure of
animals to plants which act as hyperaccumulators can also be a concern to
environmentalists as herbivorous animals may accumulate contaminates particles in their
tissues which could in turn affect a whole food web.
How Does It Work?
24
Phytoremediation is actually a genneric term for several ways in which plants can
be used to clean up contaminated soils and water. Plants may break down or degrade
organic pollutants, or remove and stabilize metal contaminants. This may be done
through one of or a combination of the methods described in the next chapter. The
methods used to phytoremediate metal contaminants are slightly different to those used to
remediate sites polluted with organic contaminants.
Metal Organic
Phytoextraction Phytodegradation
Rhizofiltration Rhizodegradation
Phytostabilisation Phytovolatilisation
Methods of Phytoremediation
Phytoremediation of metal contaminated sites
Phytoextraction (Phytoaccumulation)
25
Phytoextraction is the name given to the process where plant roots uptake metal
contaminants from the soil and translocate them to their above soil tissues. As different
plant have different abilities to uptake and withstand high levels of pollutants many
different plants may be used. This is of particular importance on sites that have been
polluted with more than one type of metal contaminant. Hyperaccumulator plant species
(species which absorb higher amounts of pollutants than most other species) are used on
may sites due to their tolerance of relatively extreme levels of pollution.
Once the plants have grown and absorbed the metal pollutants they are harvested and
disposed of safely. This process is repeated several times to reduce contamination to
acceptable levels. In some cases it is possible to recycle the metals through a process
known as phytomining, though this is usually reserved for use with precious metals.
Metal compounds that have been successfully phytoextracted include zinc, copper, and
nickel, but there is promising research being completed on lead and chromium absorbing
plants.
Rhizofiltration
Rhizofiltration is similar in concept to Phytoextraction but is concerned with the
remediation of contaminated groundwater rather than the remediation of polluted soils.
The contaminants are either adsorbed onto the root surface or are absorbed by the plant
roots. Plants used for rhizoliltration are not planted directly in situ but are acclimated to
the pollutant first. Plants are hydroponically grown in clean water rather than soil, until a
large root system has developed. Once a large root system is in place the water supply is
substituted for a polluted water supply to acclimatise the plant. After the plants become
acclimatised they are planted in the polluted area where the roots uptake the polluted
water and the contaminants along with it. As the roots become saturated they are
harvested and disposed of safely. Repeated treatments of the site can reduce pollution to
26
suitable levels as was exemplified in Chernobyl where sunflowers were grown in
radioactively contaminated pools.
Phytostabilisation
Phytostabilisation is the use of certain plants to immobilise soil and water
contaminants. Contaminant are absorbed and accumulated by roots, adsorbed onto the
roots, or precipitated in the rhizosphere. This reduces or even prevents the mobility of the
contaminants preventing migration into the groundwater or air, and also reduces the
bioavailibility of the contaminant thus preventing spread through the food chain. This
technique can alos be used to re-establish a plant community on sites that have been
denuded due to the high levels of metal contamination. Once a community of tolerant
species has been established the potential for wind erosion (and thus spread of the
pollutant) is reduced and leaching of the soil contaminants is also reduced.
Phytoremediation of organic polluted sites
Phytodegradation (Phytotransformation)
Phytodegradation is the degradation or breakdown of organic contaminants by
internal and external metabolic processes driven by the plant. Ex planta metabolic
processes hydrolyse organic compounds into smaller units that can be absorbed by the
plant. Some contaminants can be absorbed by the plant and are then broken down by
plant enzymes. These smaller pollutant molecules may then be used as metabolites by the
plant as it grows, thus becoming incorporated into the plant tissues. Plant enzymes have
been identified that breakdown ammunition wastes, chlorinated solvents such as TCE
(Trichloroethane), and others which degrade organic herbicides.
27
Rhizodegradation
Rhizo-degradation (also called enhanced rhizo-sphere biodegradation, phyto-
stimulation, and plant assisted bioremediation) is the breakdown of organic contaminants
in the soil by soil dwelling microbes which is enhanced by the rhizo-sphere's presence.
Certain soil dwelling microbes digest organic pollutants such as fuels and solvents,
producing harmless products through a process known as Bioremediation. Plant root
exudates such as sugars, alcohols, and organic acids act as carbohydrate sources for the
soil micro-flora and enhance microbial growth and activity. Some of this compound may
also act as chemotactic signals for certain microbes. The plant roots also loosen the soil
and transport water to the rhizo-sphere thus additionally enhancing microbial activity.
Phytovolatilization
Phyto-volatilization is the process where plants uptake contaminants which are
water soluble and release them into the atmosphere as they transpire the water. The
contaminant may become modified along the way, as the water travels along the plant's
vascular system from the roots to the leaves, whereby the contaminants evaporate
or volatilize into the air surrounding the plant. There are varying degrees of success with
plants as phyto-volatilizers with one study showing poplar trees to volatilize up to 90% of
the TCE they absorb.
Hydraulic control of Pollutants
Hydraulic control is the term given to the use of plants to control the migration of
subsurface water through the rapid upltake of large volumes of water by the plants. The
plants are effectively acting as natural hydraulic pumps which when a dense root network
has been established near the water table can transpire up to 300 gallons of water per day.
This fact has been utilized to decrease the migration of contaminants from surface water
into the groundwater (below the water table) and drinking water supplies. There are two
such uses for plants:
Riparian corridors
28
Riparian corridors and buffer strips are the applications of many aspects of
phytoremediation along the banks of a river or the edges of groundwater plumes.
Pytodegradation, phytovolatilization, and rhizodegradation are used to control the spread
of contaminants and to remediate polluted sites. Riparian strips refer to these uses along
the banks of rivers and streams, whereas buffer strips are the use of such applications
along the perimeter of landfills.
Vegetative cover
Vegetative cover is the name given to the use of plants as a cover or cap growing
over landfill sites. The standard caps for such sites are usually plastic or clay. Plants used
in this manner are not only more aesthically pleasing they may also help to control
erosion, leaching of contaminants, and may also help to degrade the underlying landfill.
Where has Phytoremediation Been Used?
As it is a relatively new technology phytoremediation is still mostly in it's testing stages
and as such has not been used in many places as a full scale application. However it has
bee tested successfully in many places around the world for many different contaminants.
This table shows the extent of testing across some sites in the USA
Location Application Pollutant Medium plant(s)
Ogden, UTPhytoextraction &
Rhizodegradation
Petroleum &
Hydrocarbons
Soil &
Groundwater
Alfalfa, poplar,
juniper, fescue
Anderson,
STPhytostabilisation Heavy Metals Soil
Hybrid poplar,
grasses
Ashtabula,
OHRhizofiltration Radionuclides Groundwater Sunflowers
Upton, NY Phytoextraction Radionuclides SoilIndian mustard,
cabbage
Milan, TN Phytodegradation Expolsives waste GroundwaterDuckweed,
parrotfeather
29
Amana, IARiparian corridor,
phytodegradationNitrates Groundwater Hybrid poplar
Pro's & Con's of Phytoremediation
As with most new technologies phytoremediation has many pro's and cons. When
compared to other more traditional methods of environmental remediation it becomes
clearer what the detailed advantages and disadvantages actually are.
Advantages of phytoremediation compared to classical remediation
It is more economically viable using the same tools and supplies as agriculture
It is less disruptive to the environment and does not involve waiting for new plant
communities to recolonise the site
Disposal sites are not needed
It is more likely to be accepted by the public as it is more aesthetically pleasing
then traditional methods
It avoids excavation and transport of polluted media thus reducing the risk of
spreading the contamination
It has the potential to treat sites polluted with more than one type of pollutant
Disadvantages of phytoremediation compared to classical remediation
It is dependant on the growing conditions required by the plant (ie climate,
geology, altitude, temperature)
Large scale operations require access to agricultural equipment and knowledge
Success is dependant on the tolerance of the plant to the pollutant
Contaminants collected in senescing tissues may be released back into the
environment in autumn
Contaminants may be collected in woody tissues used as fuel
30
Time taken to remediate sites far exceeds that of other technologies
Contaminant solubility may be increased leading to greater environmental
damage and the possibility of leaching
The low cost of phytoremediation (up to 1000 times cheaper than excavation and
reburial) is the main advantage of phytoremediation, however many of the pro's and cons
of phytoremediation applications depend greatly on the location of the polluted site, the
contaminants in question, and the application of phytoremediation.
Phytoremediation & Biotechnology
The first goal in phytoremediation is to find a plant species which is resistant to or
tolerates a particular contaminant with a view to maximizing its potential for
phytoremediation. Resistant plants are usually located growing on soils with underlying
metal ores or on the boundary of polluted sites. Once a tolerant plant species has been
selected traditional breeding methods are used to optimize the tolerance of a species to a
particular contaminant. Agricultural methods such as the application of fertilisers,
chelators, and pH adjusters can be utilized to further improve the potential for
phytoremediation.
Genetic modification offers a new hope for phytoremediation as GM approaches can be
used to over express the enzymes involved in the existing plant metabolic pathways or to
introduce new pathways into plants. Richard Meagher and colleagues introduced a new
pathway into Arabidopsis to detoxify methyl-mercury, a common form of environmental
pollutant to elemental mercury which can be volatilised by the plant.
The genes originated in gram-negative bacteria
MerB encodes a protein organo mercuriallyase converts methyl mercury to ionic
mercury
MerA encodes mercuric reductase, which reduces ionic mercury to the elemental
form
31
Arabidopsis plants were transformed with either MerA or MerB coupled with a
consitutive 35S promoter
The MerA plants were more tolerant to ionic mercury, volatilised elemental
mercury, and were unaffected in their tolerance of methyl-lmercury
The MerB Plants were significantly more tolerant to methyl-lmercury and other
organomercurials and could also convert mthylmercury to ionic mercury which is
approximately 100 times less toxic to plants
MerA MerB double transgenics were produced in an F2 generation. These plants
not only showed a greater resistance to organic mercury when compared to the
MerA, MerB, and wildtype plants but also capable of volatilising mercury when
supplied with methylmercury.
The same MerA/MerB inserts have been used in other plant species including
tobacco(Nicotiana tabacum), yellow poplar(Liriodendron tulipifera).
Wetland species (bulrush and cat-tail) and water tolerant trees (willow and poplar)
have also been targeted for transformation.
3.3.Introduction of Phytoremedation
3.3.1 Start up of Phytoremedation
PROPERTIES OF DUCKWEED
The family lemnacae consists of two sub-families (Lemnoidea and Wolffioideae),
with four genera (Spirodella, Lemna, Wolffia and Wolffina), encompassing at least 34
species (Landolt, 1986). All plants are tiny (0.4 to15 mm) and identification is therefore
difficult (Leng, 1999).Duckweeds are mono cotyledonous, floating plants, and are the
32
world’s smallest and simplest flowering plants (Hillman and Culley, 1978). Each plant
consists of little more than two, poorly differentiated fronds, a combination of leaf and
stem. The tissue is composed principally of chlorenchymatous cells, separated by large
inter cellular spaces that provide buoyancy. The upper epidermis is cutinized and sheds
water. In Lemna and Spirodella the roots are believed to be adventitious, are only a small
proportion of overall plant weight and lack root hairs. The other two genera lack roots.
An important feature of the structure is the almost total lack of woody tissue .Members of
the Lemnacae family are found almost world wide, being absent only in the Polar
Regions and deserts.
Distribution of species is however, far from uniform with the Americas having
over 60% of recorded species, and Australia and Europe each having less than 30% of the
total. Species recorded in Australia comprise Spirodella polyrrhiza; S. punctata; Lemna
disperma; L. trisulca; L. aequinoctialis; Wolffia australiana; W. angusta (Landolt, 1986).
The habitat requirements of duckweed vary between species, but all share the need for
sheltered still water. Depth of the plant mat is an important limitation to growth. A
striking feature of duckweed species is their enormous reproductive capacity. Under
favorable conditions they have been reported as doubling their biomass every 16 to 48
hours (Leng, 1999). The main form of reproduction is vegetative, through the production
of “daughter” fronds that arise from one of two lateral pouches at the base of the frond.
Whilst vegetative growth is usual, duckweed daughter fronds do not stay attached
indefinitely, but rather break and form new colonies, only a few generations old. This
novel facility has led to the suggestion that duckweed growth could be considered
analogous to microbial growth (Hillman, 1961). Individual fronds have a relatively short
life span of 3 to 10 weeks when in the vegetative phase, depending on species,
reproductive rate and photoperiod (Landolt, 1986).
By this time, an original “mother” plant may have given rise to a clonal colony of
tens of thousands of personality plants over more than 50 generations. There appears to
be distinctive differences in longevity and mature size between generations (Landolt,
1986) that may be expressed as cyclicity in the growth pattern of a colony. One of the
significant attributes of duckweed is its ability to be used as a source of proteinaceous
food with a favorable profile of important amino acids (Rusoff et al., 1980)
33
GROWTH CONDITIONS FOR DUCKWEED
The growth of lemnacae may be nearly exponential, if carbon dioxide, light and
nutrient supplies are satisfactory. Discussion in this review is limited to the three major
plant macronutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium). Calcium and sulphur are not
generally considered to be limiting to growth (Landolt, 1986), whereas nitrogen and
phosphorus influence growth strongly and have an interactive effect.
Lemnacae are able to absorb nitrogen as ammonium, nitrate, nitrite, urea and
some amino acids, however the first two represent the main nitrogen source for most
species. Minimum, optimal, and toxic levels of nitrogen vary greatly between species
and geographic isolates and increasing light intensity is thought to elevate optimal
nitrogen requirements for growth. Of the species studied, L. miniscula has the lowest
(0.0016 mM/l) and an unclassified species of Lemna the highest (0.08 mM/l) minimum
requirement for nitrogen (Landolt, 1986). Similarly, the maximum tolerated level of
nitrogen varies from 30 mM/l (L. miniscula) to 450 mM/l for L. aequinoctialis (Landolt,
1986). The optimal recorded nitrogen requirement ranges from 0.01 mM/l for W.
colombia, up to 30 mM/l for S. polyrrhiza (Landolt, 1986). Duckweed’s requirement for
phosphorous, is variable (0.003-1.75 mM/l) between species as is seen for nitrogen
requirement, but appears unrelated to it (Landolt, 1986). Duckweed is reputedly able to
accumulate up to 1.5% of its weight as phosphorus in nutrient rich waters (Leng, 1999).
Between species differences are also evident for potassium, with requirements also being
influenced by light intensity.
FACTORS AFFECTING GROWTH AND COMPOSITION OF DUCKWEED.
There is a great deal of literature published on actual and potential yields of
duckweed (Culley and Epps, 1973; Hillman and Culley, 1978; Rusoff et al., 1980; Oran
et al., 1987; Leng, 1999; Chowdhury et al., 2000). Unfortunately, there is little data
available that records the interactions between genotype and environment. Many trials are
based on short-term yields in small containers, with theoretical yields extrapolated to a
34
per hectare per annum basis. Perhaps because of this, reported yields of duckweed vary
widely. A summary of reported yields assembled by Leng (1999) show yields ranging
from 2 to 183 t(DM)/ha/year. The extremely large range of recorded yields suggests that
making estimates of productivity based on results from short trials in laboratory-scale
vessels is of questionable value. Significant variances in growth have been demonstrated
between species and different geographic isolates of the same species (Bergman et al.,
2000). A composite picture of yields of l. gubba on different media is shown in Figure 1.
These published results on actual and potential yield of duckweed indicate a general lack
of agreement on the growth of these plants. There are a number of factors that may
mediate these apparently conflicting results. Quite apart from procedural differences
(such as different tank sizes, flow rate/retention times) there are numerous physico-
chemical differences that make establishment of equivalence, and thereby direct
comparison difficult. Time of year (and hence ambient temperature and day length),
latitude, and pH of growth media can all have a substantial influence on the physiology,
and thus the growth of the plant. There are many factors that influence growth, and the
value of drawing comparisons between trials conducted without similar protocols and
isolates, is also of limited value. Additionally, the levels of available nutrient, as well as
species differences, can strongly influence both the quantity and quality of material
produced. These differences may be interpreted in light of the existence of deficient,
optimal and toxic levels for nutrients. Nitrogen in particular, whilst being an essential
macronutrient, is toxic at high concentrations. Little interest has been shown in recent
times in establishing an optimum nutrient range for growth of duckweed despite
inconsistencies in published literature. Recent work (Bergman et al., 2000; Al-Nozaily,
2001) indicates that best growth is achieved where total nitrogen concentrations range
from 10 to 40 mg N/l. However this conflicts with the work of Caicedo et al. (2000), who
reported that growth rates of S. polyrhiza actually declined over a range of 3.5 to 100 mg
N/l. It has been demonstrated that lower (6 to 7) pH levels ameliorate the toxic effects of
nitrogen (McLay, 1976; Caicedo et al., 2000) and Al-Nozaily (2000) has suggested that
this may be because the low pH limits ionization of ammonia species, resulting in a low
proportion of ammonia in solution. The optimal nutrient profile for growth of duckweed
doesn’t necessarily produce the best quality of plant material in terms of protein content
35
and digestibility. Leng (1999) has suggested that optimal protein content will be
obtained where nitrogen is present at 60 mg N/l or greater. Early field observations by
Culley and Epps (1973) suggested that a strong positive relationship existed between high
levels of dissolved nutrients and plant characteristics, especially protein and digestibility.
Subsequently, several other researchers have reported positive relationships between
nutrient concentrations and dry matter yield, crude protein and phosphorous content
(Whitehead et al., 1987; Alaerts et al., 1996). In contrast, Bergman et al., (2000) found
little difference in dry matter (DM) yield and no difference in protein content in L. gibba
grown over a wide range of nutrient levels (52 to 176 mg N/l) In practice, the depth of
water required to grow duckweed will be determined by the purpose for which it is being
grown, as well as management considerations (Leng, 1999). Ponds of less than 0.5 m
depth may be subject to large diurnal temperature fluctuations. The greater the depth, the
less likely it is that plants will have full access to nutrients in the water column. Recently
it has been found that surface area, rather than depth, influences nitrogen removal in a
duckweed lagoon (Al-Nozaily et al., 2000).
3.3.2 Factor influencing startup process of phytoremadation.
36
3.3.3 Advantages & Disadvantages of phytoremadation.
Advantages of phytoremediation
It is more economically viable using the same tools and supplies as agriculture
It is less disruptive to the environment and does not involve waiting for new plant
communities to recolonise the site
Disposal sites are not needed
It is more likely to be accepted by the public as it is more aesthetically pleasing
then traditional methods
It avoids excavation and transport of polluted media thus reducing the risk of
spreading the contamination
It has the potential to treat sites polluted with more than one type of pollutant
Disadvantages of phytoremediation
It is dependant on the growing conditions required by the plant (ie climate,
geology, altitude, temperature)
Large scale operations require access to agricultural equipment and knowledge
Success is dependant on the tolerance of the plant to the pollutant
Contaminants collected in senescing tissues may be released back into the
environment in autumn
Contaminants may be collected in woody tissues used as fuel
Time taken to remediate sites far exceeds that of other technologies
37
Contaminant solubility may be increased leading to greater environmental
damage and the possibility of leaching.
3.3.7 Scope of phytoremadation by Lemna.
Now a days conventional sewage treatment plant have high construction cost,
energy and maintenance expenses and increasing labour costs, traditional wastewater
treatment systems are becoming an escalating financial burden for the communities and
industries that operate them. For many rural communities, the availability of low-cost
land has meant that more extensive, low-energy treatment processes can be a cost-
effective alternative, especially for final treatment of effluent.
Usefulness and a cultural preference for mechanical infrastructure. Queensland, in
particular, is climatically well positioned to take advantage of lagoon treatment systems
that use aquatic plants as productive ‘sinks’ for wastewater nutrients from a wide range of
sources. Of these, duckweed-based treatment systems offer the most promise.
The result is greater discharged effluent standards in terms of reduced total
suspended solids (TSS) and nutrients. Nutrients contained in phytoplankton are difficult
to harvest and are generally released back into the environment, whereas duckweed is
easily harvested, which results in direct removal of nutrients from the waste stream.
In addition, evaporation from the water surface is reduced in DWT systems
(Bonomo et al. 1997), Duckweed works to purify wastewater in collaboration with both
aerobic and anaerobic bacteria. Therefore, the duckweed plants themselves should be
considered as only one scomponent of a complete DWT system. Flow of nitrogenous
nutrients within a DWT system utilizing bacterial processing and uptake by duckweed
plants. Heterotrophic bacteria decompose organic waste matter into mineral components
— specifically forms of ammonia nitrogen and orthophosphates that are readily up-taken
by the duckweed plants. Bacterial decomposition consumes oxygen and can cause the
mid-water zone to become increasingly anoxic and the bottom of the lagoon to become
anaerobic, providing further zones for specialized bacterial processing of organic matter
and de-nitrification a 10cm surface layer remains aerobic due to atmospheric oxygen
transferred by duckweed roots.
38
DWT has great potential for renovating effluent from a wide variety of sources
including municipal sewage treatment plants, intensive livestock industries (including
aquaculture), abattoirs and food processing plants. The effectiveness of DWT depends on
a system design that facilitates the correct combination of organic loading rate, water
depth and hydraulic retention time. These will vary depending on the effluent source and
the level of pre-treatment.
Bacterial oxidisation of organic matter and nitrification are facilitated here, aided
by the additional surface area for biofilms provided by the duckweed roots and fronds.
Most researchers, however, suggest that efficiency gains using DWT are greater in
secondary and tertiary treatment of effluent where organic sludge has already been
removed or converted into simple organic and inorganic molecules that can be used
directly by duckweed (Alaerts et al. 1996; Caicedo et al. 2000; Smith and Moelyowati
2001; Dalu and Ndamba 2003). In the Burdekin, as with most communities in Australia,
primary sewage treatment infrastructure exists to remove solids. The problems currently
encountered with municipal wastewater treatment include difficulties in meeting TSS and
nutrient (Total N & P, ammonia) discharge regulations.
Average Total Nitrogen uptake (mg/L/day), uptake efficiency (percentage of
influent TN removed by the treatment) and duckweed biomass produced (g/m2/day) at
three Effluent Retention Times (E.R.T.). Data derived from Willett et al. (2003).
A dense duckweed mat has also been reported to decrease and control mosquito
larvae and odour in a wastewater body by providing an interface between the water and
air (Culley and Epps 1973; Iqbal 1999).
DWT has great potential for renovating effluent from a wide variety of sources
including municipal sewage treatment plants, intensive livestock industries (including
aquaculture), abattoirs and food processing plants. The effectiveness of DWT depends on
a system design that facilitates the correct combination of organic loading rate, water
depth and hydraulic retention time. These will vary depending on the effluent source and
the level of pre-treatment. In the case where raw sewage (human or livestock waste) is to
be processed, the primary treatment objective is to remove solids. Duckweed will
39
enhance primary treatment in these ponds by maintaining anaerobic conditions and
reducing odour nuisance (Skillicorn et al. 1993). Duckweed may need an acclimatisation
period to adapt to the very high N levels in raw agricultural wastewaters.
Most researchers, however, suggest that efficiency gains using DWT are greater
in secondary and tertiary treatment of effluent where organic sludge has already been
removed or converted into simple organic and inorganic molecules that can be used.In the
Burdekin, as with most communities in Australia, primary sewage treatment
infrastructure exists to remove solids. The problems currently encountered with
municipal wastewater treatment include difficulties in meeting TSS and nutrient (Total N
& P, ammonia) discharge regulations. Domestic wastewater does not contain significant
concentrations of toxins or heavy metals (Skillicorn et al. 1993), polishing zones may
simply be considered to be the latter reaches of a continuous duckweed treatment process.
3.3.8 Design consideration for phytoremadation
DWT system design principles
There is no single ‘off-the-shelf’ DWT package that will serve all purposes.
Requirements will vary depending on: the effluent source and volume; the level of pre-
treatment; the regulated discharge quotas that need to be met; prevailing climate and
financial considerations. Large-scale studies from both developing and western parts of
the world have been conducted using various DWT system designs and effluent sources,
but common recommended design features can be identified.
Plug-flow design
A plug-flow system is the most appropriate for secondary and tertiary effluent
treatment using DWT. A plug-flow system will ensure maximum contact between
wastewater and duckweed, and minimise the possibility of short-circuiting (Smith and
Moelyowati 2001). This will facilitate the incremental reduction of nutrients in the
wastewater. Plug-flow systems are also most efficient for pathogen removal (van der
Steen et al. 1999).
The basic unit of plug-flow systems is a shallow rectangular lagoon. The system
can operate singly or as a series of lagoons. The length/width ratio should be as large as
possible to encourage plug-flow conditions (Figure 2). Alaerts et al. (1996) recommend a
40
ratio greater than 38:1 although this is often difficult to achieve due to practical reasons
such as cost. Bonomo et al. (1997) suggest a length/width ratio higher than 10:1 will
suffice.
Figure 2. A plug-flow lagoon design, which prevents short-circuiting of flow
between inlet and outlet, is most appropriate for DWT.
Nutrient uptake
Since duckweed will be the major nutrient sink in these lagoons, a greater
biomass will inherently result in greater nutrient uptake. Greater biomass growth will
occur at higher nutrient concentrations (up to a tolerance limit), but as duckweed
incrementally reduces nutrients from the water, high biomass growth cannot be
maintained. Since the ultimate object of treatment is to reduce nutrient concentration,
duckweed starvation inevitably will occur at the latter stage in the treatment process.
In a plug-flow system, nutrient concentrations will be higher at the beginning of
the effluent stream and lower towards the end. This will facilitate a ‘farming’ zone (high
duckweed production/high nutrient uptake) and a ‘polishing’ zone (lower overall
duckweed growth/lower nutrient uptake). In the farming zone, where growth nutrients (N
& P) are plentiful, duckweed plants are predisposed to absorb them to the exclusion of
other elements present in the wastewater column (Skillicorn et al. 1993). In the polishing
zone, however, duckweed plants starved of N and P nutrients will scavenge for sustaining
nutrients. In the process they can absorb toxins and heavy metals if present in the
InletEffluent flowDischarge wastewater. This will have implications on the reuse or
disposal of the harvested plants. However, since most agricultural or domestic
wastewater does not contain significant concentrations of toxins or heavy metals
(Skillicorn et al. 1993), polishing zones may simply be considered to be the latter reaches
of a continuous duckweed treatment process.
Uptake efficiency
The nutrient uptake efficiency (i.e. the percentage of influent nutrient removed by
the treatment) will be determined by the hydraulic retention time. While a short retention
time will maintain high nutrient levels (and therefore extend the ‘farming’ zone), the
overall percentage of nutrients removed from the effluent stream is lower. Conversely, a
longer retention period will result in a greater percentage of nutrients being removed, but
41
create a relatively less productive ‘polishing’ zone when nutrients become limiting. For
example, the Burdekin pilot trial (Willett et al. 2003) tested three effluent retention times,
i.e. 3.5 days, 5.5 days and 10.4 days. The relationship between total nitrogen (TN)
uptake, uptake efficiency and biomass production by DWT at different retention times
from this trial are given in Table 1.
Table 1. Average Total Nitrogen uptake (mg/L/day), uptake efficiency
(percentage of influent TN removed by the treatment) and duckweed biomass produced
(g/m2/day) at three Effluent Retention Times (E.R.T.). Data derived from Willett et al.
(2003).
Overall retention time required in a DWT system will vary depending on a range
of factors including the influent nutrient levels, temperature and the discharge standards
that must be met. In general,
20 days hydraulic retention time would appear to be a minimum guideline for DWT to
achieve acceptable discharge standards and pathogen reduction in municipal sewage
treatment (Skillicorn et al. 1993).
Retention time is in turn, a function of water depth and flow rate. Shallow ponds
are better than deep ponds, but the trade off is the increased land area required and the
lack of temperature buffering with shallow ponds. Water depths between 0.6m and 1.5m
have been suggested as the most suitable for large-scale DWT systems (Skillicorn et al.
1993; Smith and Moelyowati 2001). A horizontal plug-flow velocity up to 0.1m/sec will
prevent disturbance of the duckweed mat (Edward 1992). Therefore, based on the daily
volume of effluent to be treated, the required retention time, and the above plug-flow and
depth specifications, overall p
PROPERTIES OF DUCKWEED
The family lemnacae consists of two sub-families (Lemnoidea and Wolffioideae),
with four genera (Spirodella, Lemna, Wolffia and Wolffina), encompassing at least 34
species (Landolt, 1986). All plants are tiny (0.4 to15 mm) and identification is therefore
difficult (Leng, 1999).Duckweeds are mono cotyledonous, floating plants, and are the
world’s smallest and simplest flowering plants (Hillman and Culley, 1978). Each plant
42
consists of little more than two, poorly differentiated fronds, a combination of leaf and
stem. The tissue is composed principally of chlorenchymatous cells, separated by large
inter cellular spaces that provide buoyancy. The upper epidermis is cutinized and sheds
water. In Lemna and Spirodella the roots are believed to be adventitious, are only a small
proportion of overall plant weight and lack root hairs. The other two genera lack roots.
An important feature of the structure is the almost total lack of woody tissue .Members of
the Lemnacae family are found almost world wide, being absent only in the Polar
Regions and deserts.
Distribution of species is however, far from uniform with the Americas having
over 60% of recorded species, and Australia and Europe each having less than 30% of the
total. Species recorded in Australia comprise Spirodella polyrrhiza; S. punctata; Lemna
disperma; L. trisulca; L. aequinoctialis; Wolffia australiana; W. angusta (Landolt, 1986).
The habitat requirements of duckweed vary between species, but all share the need for
sheltered still water. Depth of the plant mat is an important limitation to growth. A
striking feature of duckweed species is their enormous reproductive capacity. Under
favorable conditions they have been reported as doubling their biomass every 16 to 48
hours (Leng, 1999). The main form of reproduction is vegetative, through the production
of “daughter” fronds that arise from one of two lateral pouches at the base of the frond.
Whilst vegetative growth is usual, duckweed daughter fronds do not stay attached
indefinitely, but rather break and form new colonies, only a few generations old. This
novel facility has led to the suggestion that duckweed growth could be considered
analogous to microbial growth (Hillman, 1961). Individual fronds have a relatively short
life span of 3 to 10 weeks when in the vegetative phase, depending on species,
reproductive rate and photoperiod (Landolt, 1986).
By this time, an original “mother” plant may have given rise to a clonal colony of
tens of thousands of personality plants over more than 50 generations. There appears to
be distinctive differences in longevity and mature size between generations (Landolt,
1986) that may be expressed as cyclicity in the growth pattern of a colony. One of the
significant attributes of duckweed is its ability to be used as a source of proteinaceous
food with a favorable profile of important amino acids (Rusoff et al., 1980)
43
GROWTH CONDITIONS FOR DUCKWEED
The growth of lemnacae may be nearly exponential, if carbon dioxide, light and
nutrient supplies are satisfactory. Discussion in this review is limited to the three major
plant macronutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium). Calcium and sulphur are not
generally considered to be limiting to growth (Landolt, 1986), whereas nitrogen and
phosphorus influence growth strongly and have an interactive effect.
Lemnacae are able to absorb nitrogen as ammonium, nitrate, nitrite, urea and
some amino acids, however the first two represent the main nitrogen source for most
species. Minimum, optimal, and toxic levels of nitrogen vary greatly between species
and geographic isolates and increasing light intensity is thought to elevate optimal
nitrogen requirements for growth. Of the species studied, L. miniscula has the lowest
(0.0016 mM/l) and an unclassified species of Lemna the highest (0.08 mM/l) minimum
requirement for nitrogen (Landolt, 1986). Similarly, the maximum tolerated level of
nitrogen varies from 30 mM/l (L. miniscula) to 450 mM/l for L. aequinoctialis (Landolt,
1986). The optimal recorded nitrogen requirement ranges from 0.01 mM/l for W.
colombia, up to 30 mM/l for S. polyrrhiza (Landolt, 1986). Duckweed’s requirement for
phosphorous, is variable (0.003-1.75 mM/l) between species as is seen for nitrogen
requirement, but appears unrelated to it (Landolt, 1986). Duckweed is reputedly able to
accumulate up to 1.5% of its weight as phosphorus in nutrient rich waters (Leng, 1999).
Between species differences are also evident for potassium, with requirements also being
influenced by light intensity.
FACTORS AFFECTING GROWTH AND COMPOSITION OF DUCKWEED.
There is a great deal of literature published on actual and potential yields of
duckweed (Culley and Epps, 1973; Hillman and Culley, 1978; Rusoff et al., 1980; Oran
et al., 1987; Leng, 1999; Chowdhury et al., 2000). Unfortunately, there is little data
available that records the interactions between genotype and environment. Many trials are
based on short-term yields in small containers, with theoretical yields extrapolated to a
per hectare per annum basis. Perhaps because of this, reported yields of duckweed vary
widely. A summary of reported yields assembled by Leng (1999) show yields ranging
from 2 to 183 t(DM)/ha/year. The extremely large range of recorded yields suggests that
44
making estimates of productivity based on results from short trials in laboratory-scale
vessels is of questionable value. Significant variances in growth have been demonstrated
between species and different geographic isolates of the same species (Bergman et al.,
2000). A composite picture of yields of l. gubba on different media is shown in Figure 1.
These published results on actual and potential yield of duckweed indicate a general lack
of agreement on the growth of these plants. There are a number of factors that may
mediate these apparently conflicting results. Quite apart from procedural differences
(such as different tank sizes, flow rate/retention times) there are numerous physico-
chemical differences that make establishment of equivalence, and thereby direct
comparison difficult. Time of year (and hence ambient temperature and day length),
latitude, and pH of growth media can all have a substantial influence on the physiology,
and thus the growth of the plant. There are many factors that influence growth, and the
value of drawing comparisons between trials conducted without similar protocols and
isolates, is also of limited value. Additionally, the levels of available nutrient, as well as
species differences, can strongly influence both the quantity and quality of material
produced. These differences may be interpreted in light of the existence of deficient,
optimal and toxic levels for nutrients. Nitrogen in particular, whilst being an essential
macronutrient, is toxic at high concentrations. Little interest has been shown in recent
times in establishing an optimum nutrient range for growth of duckweed despite
inconsistencies in published literature. Recent work (Bergman et al., 2000; Al-Nozaily,
2001) indicates that best growth is achieved where total nitrogen concentrations range
from 10 to 40 mg N/l. However this conflicts with the work of Caicedo et al. (2000), who
reported that growth rates of S. polyrhiza actually declined over a range of 3.5 to 100 mg
N/l. It has been demonstrated that lower (6 to 7) pH levels ameliorate the toxic effects of
nitrogen (McLay, 1976; Caicedo et al., 2000) and Al-Nozaily (2000) has suggested that
this may be because the low pH limits ionization of ammonia species, resulting in a low
proportion of ammonia in solution. The optimal nutrient profile for growth of duckweed
doesn’t necessarily produce the best quality of plant material in terms of protein content
and digestibility. Leng (1999) has suggested that optimal protein content will be
obtained where nitrogen is present at 60 mg N/l or greater. Early field observations by
Culley and Epps (1973) suggested that a strong positive relationship existed between high
45
levels of dissolved nutrients and plant characteristics, especially protein and digestibility.
Subsequently, several other researchers have reported positive relationships between
nutrient concentrations and dry matter yield, crude protein and phosphorous content
(Whitehead et al., 1987; Alaerts et al., 1996). In contrast, Bergman et al., (2000) found
little difference in dry matter (DM) yield and no difference in protein content in L. gibba
grown over a wide range of nutrient levels (52 to 176 mg N/l) In practice, the depth of
water required to grow duckweed will be determined by the purpose for which it is being
grown, as well as management considerations (Leng, 1999). Ponds of less than 0.5 m
depth may be subject to large diurnal temperature fluctuations. The greater the depth, the
less likely it is that plants will have full access to nutrients in the water column. Recently
it has been found that surface area, rather than depth, influences nitrogen removal in a
duckweed lagoon (Al-Nozaily et al., 2000).
APPLICATIONS
The ability of duckweed to sequester nitrogen and phosphorus, and in so doing
“cleanse” dirty water, has been widely discussed in the literature for nearly 30 years
(Culley and Epps, 1973; Hillman and Culley, 1978; Oran et al., 1986; Landolt and
Kandeler, 1987; Leng, 1999). Systems utilising various species of duckweed, either alone
, or in combination with other plants, have been used to treat primary and secondary
effluent in the U.S.A. (Zirschky and Reed, 1988), the Middle East (Oran et al., 1985) and
the Indian subcontinent (Skillicorn et al., 1993; van der Steen et al., 1998).
Notwithstanding this reputation, some species and isolates are apparently quite sensitive
to high levels of nitrogen and/or phosphorous (Bergman et al., 2000), and effluent with a
high biological oxygen demand (BOD), such as abattoir waste, may kill the plants.
Although duckweed has a reputation for absorbing large amounts of dissolved nitrogen,
the degree of absorption appears to vary with concentration of nitrogen, time, species,
and (at least in temperate zones) the season. There is also strong evidence that there is a
symbiotic, or at least a synergistic relationship between duckweed and bacteria, both in
the fixation of nitrogen (Duong and Tiedje, 1985), and the removal of Chemical Oxygen
Demand (COD) (Korner et al., 1998) from water.
Differences in methodology, scale, and the parameters, both recorded and
measured, make direct comparisons between the many trials in published literature
46
difficult. However most research indicates that duckweed removes 40 to 60% of nitrogen
in solution over a 12 to 24 day period. Volatilization may account for a similar loss of
nitrogen (Vermaat and Haniff, 1998), although recent work completed in Israel (Van der
Steen et al., 1998), has suggested that direct duckweed absorption may account for less
than 20% of nitrogen loss, and volatilization/ denitrification may account for over 70%
In a similar fashion, lemnacae are generally able to absorb 30 to 50% of dissolved
phosphorous, although one researcher (Alaerts et al., 1996) has claimed over 90%
removal in a working, full scale system.
Phosphorous uptake (as measured by tissue phosphorous) and crude protein,
increased linearly with increases in nutrient concentration, up to approximately 1.5 g P/l,
and increased in absolute terms, up to 2.1 g P/l (Sutton and Ornes, 1975). This was
recorded in conjunction with a proportional rise in nitrogen concentration, thus the
association between nitrogen and phosphorous concentrations was unclear. COD is a
measure that quantifies water quality as determined by dissolved oxygen. All research in
the use of duckweed for improving effluent quality has determined significant but
variable decreases in COD (Alaerts et al., 1996; Karpiscak et al., 1996; Bonomo et al.,
1997; Vermaatand Haniff, 1998; van der Steen et al., 1999). However, a substantial
decrease in COD would be expected in open ponds without the presence of duckweed
(Al-Nozaily et al., 2000), so this improvement may not be attributable to the actions of
duckweed. Simplistically, the duckweed’s environment is somewhat two-dimensional. In
practice, this means that once the surface of a body of water is completely covered, the
plant has limited further opportunities to grow. Thus, insituations where there are high
nutrient levels, the clearance of dissolved nutrients is likely to be limited by harvesting
rate.
The work of Whitehead et al. (1987) confirms that at high average nutrient levels
(short retention time), nitrogen and phosphorous removal is enhanced with increased
cropping rate, whereas low nutrient concentrations favour low cropping rates. This latter
state indicates that growth is limited by nutrient availability. Degradation of bacterial
pathogens is a complex process and a comprehensive discussion is beyond the scope of
the current paper. However, two groups conducting specific investigations into this
issue (Karpiscak et al., 1996; van der Steen et al., 1999) found that faecal coliforms
47
decreased by 50 to 90% and that Giardia and Cryptosporidium fell by over 80% in
eutrophic waters in which duckweed was grown.
48
4. Materials and methods
4.1. Cultures
Axenic stock cultures of Lemna minor L. were maintained on the Pirson±SeidelÕs
nutrient solution (Pirson and Seidel, 1950) and subcultured biweekly. The pH value of
nutrient solution was adjusted to 4.55 before autoclaving (120°C, 0.15 MPa, 20 min).
Experimental cultures were started by inoculating a healthy colony with 2±3 fronds from
stock cultures into the 100 ml Erlenmeyer ¯asks containing 60 ml of modi ®ed
HoaglandÕs nutrient solution (Krajn_ci_c and Devid_e, 1980) supplemented with
CaCl2, CaBr2 and their 1:1 mixture. Plants grown on modi®ed HoaglandÕs nutrient
solution without tested chemicals were used as control. The pH value of nutrient solution
was adjusted to 5.0. Both, the stock and experimental cultures were grown in chamber
conditions under 16 h photoperiod (¯uorescent light, 80 lE sÿ1 mÿ2) at 24 _ 2°C.
4.2. Tested chemicals
To investigate the in¯uence of high density brines saturated solutions of CaCl2 (q . 1300
g dmÿ3) and CaBr2 (q . 1610 g dmÿ3), as well as their 1:1 mixture, were added into the
modi®ed HoaglandÕs nutrient solution in volumes appropriate to achieve the following
concentrations: 0.025, 0.05, 0.075 and 0.1 mol dmÿ3. Atomic absorption
spectrophotometry (ASTM D 511- 93, 1995) and volumetric method (ASTM D 512-89,
1995) were used to determine an accurate amount of calcium chloride, calcium bromide
and some inorganic substances in these solutions (Table 1). Amounts of heavy metals
(Cd, Cr, Ni, V, Fe and Co) were under detectable levels. Detection limits for those
metals were (mg dmÿ3): Cd . 0:0005; Cr . 0:07; Ni . 0:008; V . 0:1; Fe . 0:005 and Co .
0:006 . Afterwards, we repeated the experiment by addition of CaCl2 _ 2H2O and CaBr2
49
of analytical grade (Sigma) into the modi®ed HoaglandÕs nutrient solution in amounts
appropriate to achieve the same concentrations of tested chemicals as before.
4.3. Lemna bioassay
Duckweed Lemna minor was exposed to tested solutions for two weeks. The
tested solutions on Lemna minor growth was evaluated due to the following end points
(1) Relative growth of frond number,
(2) Relative growth of fresh weight,
(3) Dry to fresh weight ratio,
(4) Relative covered by plants and
(5) Chlorophyll a and chlorophyll b content and their ratio.
Results obtained by evaluation of growth parameters were represented as mean
values of eight replicates. The control was represented as 100% and the results obtained
with treated plants were represented as percentage of control. Chemicals that affected
Lemna minor growth significantly different from each other and control were marked
with different letters. Experiment for determination of chlorophyll a and chlorophyll b
contents was repeated three times. Results were calculated as mean values and
represented as percentage of control.
In this study, the growth of duckweed was assessed in laboratory scale
experiments. They were fed with municipal wastewater at atmospheric temperature.
Temperature, DO, pH, TSS, TDS, Sulphate, Nitrate, Phosphate, BOD5, COD, total
nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus (TP) and ortho-phosphate (OP) removal efficiencies of
the reactors were monitored by sampling influent and effluent of the system. Removal
efficiency in this study reflects optimal results: 73-84% COD removal, 83-87% TN
removal, 70-85% TP removal and 83-95% OP removal. The results show that the
duckweed-based wastewater treatment is capable of treating the laboratory
wastewater.Wetland treatment process is a combination of all the unit operations in a
conventional treatment process plus other physico-chemical processes, sedimentation,
biological oxidation, nutrient incorporation, adsorption and inprecipitation. The use of
duckweed in low-cost and easy-to-operate wastewater treatment systems has been
50
studied because of rapid growth rates achieving high levels of nutrient removal. Whilst
low fiber and high protein content make it a valuable fodder. Duckweed is a small, free
floating aquatic plant belonging to Lemnaceae family. Duckweed is well known for its
high productivity and high protein content in temperate climates. They are green and
have a small size (1-3 mm).
Duckweed fronds grow in colonies that, in particular growing conditions, form a
dense and uniform surface mat .The reason for this is the rapid multiplication of duckweeds and high protein content of
its biomass. Duckweed wastewater treatment systems have been studied for a wide
range of wastewater types .In this study we have focused on nutrient removal efficiencies
and removal rates between 50-95% have been reported for duckweed covered systems. Indirect effects like provision of surface and substrate by bacterial growth, change of the
physicochemical environment in the water and the possibility of the direct removal of
small organic compounds by heterotrophic growth are discussed in the study. Aquatic
plant-based wastewater treatment lagoons are engineered systems in which aquatic
plants in association with bacteria can purify wastewater.Duckweed-covered sewage lagoons (DSL) removes organic matter primarily
through aerobic heterotrophic oxidation. For this it needs the active transportation of
oxygen into the liquid phase.
51
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Duckweed plant was inoculated into a primary treated sewage water systems for
aquatic treatment over 8 day’s retention time period to assess the plant’s efficiency in
improving physico-chemical, bacteriological and biological characteristics of sewage
52
water. The primary treated sewage water used in the experiment was taken from the
collector tank of the tertiary sewage water treatment plant.
Sr.No. Parameter Unit. Initial
concentration
2nd Day 4th Day 6th Day 8th Day % Decrease in
concentration
1 Temperature OC 29.4 23.4 22.5 20.6 24.2 17.69
2 pH OC 7.25 7.46 7.49 7.51 7.39 -1.93
3 DO OC 0.46 0.77 0.96 1.25 0.58 -26.09
4 TSS OC 379 28 20 16 14 96.31
5 EC 905 852 878 899 995 -9.94
6 TDS 579 545 559 578 637 -10.02
5 CO3 OC 0.1 0 0 0 0 100.00
6 HCO3 OC 268.6 265.9 244.5 239.4 308.7 -14.93
7 T alkalinity OC 268.6 265.9 244.5 239.4 308.7 -14.93
8 BOD OC 320 30 90.63
9 COD OC 800 159 130 111 88 89.00
10 Phosphorus OC 4.91 4.68 4.13 3.35 2.56 47.86
11 O
Phosphate
OC 1.5 1.49 1.45 1.423 0.534 64.40
12 Phosphate OC 11 10.5 9.25 8.12 6.2 43.64
13 Ammonia OC 10 6.5 4.7 2.2 2 80.00
14 Nitrate OC 8.32 1.8 0.5 0 0 100.00
15 Calcium 120 78 80 80 120 0.00
16 Magnesium 124.8 72 75 76.8 115.2 7.69
17 Sodium 69.7 68.85 70.6 73.95 76.5 -9.76
18 Cloride 197.82 156.9 159.3 161.6 181.1 8.45
19 Sulfate 150.33 109.9 102.6 97.3 128.6 14.45
Pysico-chemical parameter.
Data recorded in Table showed that, values of pH were always alkaline and
ranged between 7.25 as a minimum value recorded at zero days and 7.51 as maximum
value obtained after six days treatment period. A 7.5 pH was found to be the most ideal
for the successful establishment of a duckweed system and optimum pond performance.
Duckweed grew well at pH 6 - 7.5 with outer limits of 4 and 8. it has observed that
duckweed growth declines as the pH becomes more alkaline. The dissolved oxygen
values increased as temperatures values decreased, revealing that the more cooler the
water the more dissolved oxygen it can hold.
53
The sewage temperature is one of the crucial design parameters of duckweed
ponds. In the present experiment temperature ranged between 20.6oC and 29.4oC which
was within temperature tolerance limit for duckweed growth the upper temperature
tolerance limit for duckweed growth was around 34oC. Duckweed cold tolerance allows
it to be used for year–round wastewater treatment in areas where tropical macro phytes,
such as water hyacinths, can only grow in summer.
As evident from Table , total suspended solids (TSS) values decreased by
increasing treatment periods, reaching minimum concentration of 14 mg L-1 after 8 days
(reduced by 96.3%).
Data in Table revealed that total dissolved solids (TDS) recorded their minimum
values of 545 mg L-1, after two days treatment (TDS reduced by 5.9%) and then values
increased gradually to the end of the experiment reaching their maximum values of 637
mg L-1, after 8 days. showed that calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), sodium (Na) and
chloride (Cl) reached their minimum concentrations of 78, 72, 68.85 and 156.9 mg L-1,
respectively after two days, with a reduction percentage of 35%, 42%, 1.2% and 20.7%,
respectively and then their values returned to increase gradually till the end of the
experiment. On the other side sulfate concentrations showed a continuous gradual
removal by increasing retention time, where its values decreased from 150.33 mg L-1 at
zero days until reaching 97.3 mg L-1 after six days (reduced by 35.3%), then it increased
to reach 128.6 mg L-1 after 8 days.
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD),
phosphorus (P), ortho-phosphate, phosphate, ammonia (NH3 +) and nitrate (NO3 -)
showed a gradual removal by prolonged treatment periods (Table I). Data revealed that
duckweed mat effectively reduced BOD by 90.6% (reduced from 320 mg O2 L-1 at zero
days reaching 30 mg O2 L-1 after 8 days treatment), COD by 89% (reduced from 800
mg O2 L-1 to 88 mg O2 L-1), phosphorus by 48% (reduced from 4.91 mg L-1 to 2.56
mg L-1), orthophosphate by 64.4% (reduced from 1.5 mg L-1 to 0.534 mg L-1),
phosphate by 43.6% (reduced from 11.0 mg L-1 to 6.2 mg L-1), ammonia by 80%
(reduced from 10.0 mg L-1 to 2.0 mg L-1).
On the other side the present treatment conditions were capable of depleting the
water body of any detectable nitrates (NO3) after 6 days treatment period. The duckweed
54
contribution for the removal of organic material is due to their ability to direct use of
simple organic compounds. mentioned that duckweed significantly enhanced COD
removal in shallow batch systems.
Batch of 65 liters sewage a 30 - 50% reduction in phosphate, 56 - 80% reduction
in ammoniacal nitrogen and 66 - 80% reduction in BOD. Nitrogen uptake rates of fat
duckweed vary between 45 and 1670 mg N m2 d-1 while the direct contribution of
duckweed to P removal can vary between 9 and 61% Nitrogen and P removal by
duckweed uptake were mainly realized by newly grown tissue, not by increasing the
tissue N or P content that nitrogen removal was in the range of 50% - 75% and this range
for phosphate was 17% - 35% in the discharged duckweed treatment system. Total
alkalinity showed a continuous gradual removal by increasing retention time (Table).
Values decreased from 268.6 mg L-1 at zero days until reaching 239.4 mg L-1 after six
days (reduced by 10.9%), then it increased to reach 308.7 mg L-1 after 8 days.
The increase in total alkalinity recorded on the 8th day of the experiment might be
attributed to increased decomposition of organic matter, which in turn produced excess
CO2 in the water resulting in an increase of alkalinity concentration
Removal of heavy metals by duckweed aquatic treatment system.
The removal of heavy metals from primary treated sewage water All detected
heavy metals were progressively reduced after 8 days treatment period. Duckweed
aquatic treatment system performed 100% copper and lead removal after 8 days
treatment. The efficiency of duckweed aquatic treatment in heavy metals removal in
various water systems data obtained suggested a maximum reliability of systems.
Bacteriological parameters.
Data on efficiency of duckweed aquatic system in eliminating bacteria revealed
that total and fecal coliform counts decreased gradually with increasing treatment period
removal of fecal coliform in the range of 99.27% and 99.78%.
55
56
57
58
59
60
REFRANCE
Abdelmoneim, M.A. and M.Z. El-Sherif. 1997. Assessment of
heavy metals in the treated wastewater of suez ponds
Egypt. Int. J. Envir. H. Res., 7: 259-265.
Abdullah, M.H. and B.Mustafa. 1999. Phreatic water quality of
the turtle island of west Malaysia: Pulau. Selingan and
Pulau Bakungan Kechil. Borneo Sci., 6: 1-9.
Anonymous. 1990b. Handbook of Groundwater Development.
Roscoe Moss Company. John Wiley and Sons, Van New
York.
Cheng, J., L. Landesman, B.A. Bergmann, J.J. Classen, J.W.
Howard and T.T. Yamamoto. 2002. Nutrient removal from
swine lagoon liquid by Lemna minor. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng.,
45:1003-1010.
Classen, J.J., J. Cheng, B.A. Bergmann and A.M. Stomp. 2000.
Lemna gibba growth and nutrient uptake in response to
different nutrient levels. In Animal, Agricultural and Food
Processing Waste: Proceedings of 8th International
Symposium, October 9-11, 2000, Des Moines, Iowa.
Culley, D.D., E. Rejmankova, J. Kvet and J.B. Frey. 1981.
Production, chemical quality and use of duckweeds
(Lemnaceae) in aquaculture, waste management and animal
feeds. J. World Maric. Soc., 12: 27-49.
Cunningham, S.D and D.W. Ow. 1996. Promises and prospects
of phytoremediation. Plant Physiol., 110: 715-719.
Cunningham, S.D., W.R. Berti and J.W.Huang. 1995.
Phytoremediation of contaminated soils. Trends
Biotechnol., 13: 393-397.
Dalu, J.M. and J. Ndamba. 2002. Duckweed based wastewater
stabilization ponds for wastewater treatment; a low cost
technology for small urban areas in Zimbabwe. 3rd Water
Net-Warfsa Symposium 'Water Demand Management for
Sustainable Development. Dar es Salaam, 30-31 October
2002. Institute of Water and Sanitation Development, Box
MP 422, Mount Pleasant, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Greenberg, G., D. Hasson and R. Semiat. 2005. Limits of RO
recovery imposed by calcium phosphate precipitation.
Desalination., 183: 273-288.
Hastuti, S.P. 1998. Heavy metals accumulated in sediment and
plants in wetland wastewater treatment at Mae Moh mine
Lampang province. M. Sc. Thesis. Chiang Mai University,
61
Thailand.
Hicks, L.E. 1932. Ranges of pH tolerance of the Lemnaceae.
Ohio Jour Sci., 32: 237-44.
Ike, R.S., H. Ono, H. Murooka and M. Yamashita. 2007.
Bioremediation of cadmium contaminated soil using
Abdelmoneim, M.A. and M.Z. El-Sherif. 1997. Assessment of
heavy metals in the treated wastewater of suez ponds
Egypt. Int. J. Envir. H. Res., 7: 259-265.
Abdullah, M.H. and B.Mustafa. 1999. Phreatic water quality of
the turtle island of west Malaysia: Pulau. Selingan and
Pulau Bakungan Kechil. Borneo Sci., 6: 1-9.
Anonymous. 1990b. Handbook of Groundwater Development.
Roscoe Moss Company. John Wiley and Sons, Van New
York.
Cheng, J., L. Landesman, B.A. Bergmann, J.J. Classen, J.W.
Howard and T.T. Yamamoto. 2002. Nutrient removal from
swine lagoon liquid by Lemna minor. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng.,
45:1003-1010.
Classen, J.J., J. Cheng, B.A. Bergmann and A.M. Stomp. 2000.
Lemna gibba growth and nutrient uptake in response to
different nutrient levels. In Animal, Agricultural and Food
Processing Waste: Proceedings of 8th International
Symposium, October 9-11, 2000, Des Moines, Iowa.
Culley, D.D., E. Rejmankova, J. Kvet and J.B. Frey. 1981.
Production, chemical quality and use of duckweeds
(Lemnaceae) in aquaculture, waste management and animal
feeds. J. World Maric. Soc., 12: 27-49.
Cunningham, S.D and D.W. Ow. 1996. Promises and prospects
of phytoremediation. Plant Physiol., 110: 715-719.
Cunningham, S.D., W.R. Berti and J.W.Huang. 1995.
Phytoremediation of contaminated soils. Trends
Biotechnol., 13: 393-397.
Dalu, J.M. and J. Ndamba. 2002. Duckweed based wastewater
stabilization ponds for wastewater treatment; a low cost
technology for small urban areas in Zimbabwe. 3rd Water
Net-Warfsa Symposium 'Water Demand Management for
Sustainable Development. Dar es Salaam, 30-31 October
2002. Institute of Water and Sanitation Development, Box
MP 422, Mount Pleasant, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Greenberg, G., D. Hasson and R. Semiat. 2005. Limits of RO
recovery imposed by calcium phosphate precipitation.
Desalination., 183: 273-288.
Hastuti, S.P. 1998. Heavy metals accumulated in sediment and
62
plants in wetland wastewater treatment at Mae Moh mine
Lampang province. M. Sc. Thesis. Chiang Mai University,
Thailand.
Hicks, L.E. 1932. Ranges of pH tolerance of the Lemnaceae.
Ohio Jour Sci., 32: 237-44.
Ike, R.S., H. Ono, H. Murooka and M. Yamashita. 2007.
Bioremediation of cadmium contaminated soil using
symbiosis between leguminous plant and recombinant
rhizobia with the MTL4 and the PCS genes. J. Chemo., 66:
1670-1676.
Izaguirre, I., I. O’Farrell and G. Tell. 2001. Variation in
phytoplankton composition and limnological features in a
water-water ecotone of the lower Paraná basin (Argentina).
Freshwater. Biol., 46: 63-74.
Jafari, A., H. Mirhossaini, B. Kamareii and S. Dehestani. 2008.
Physicochemical analysis of drinking water in Kohdasht
City Lorestan, Iran. Asian. J. App. Sci., 1: 87-92.
Junshum, I.P., P. Menasveta and S. Traichaiyaporn. 2007. Water
quality assessment in reservoirs and wastewater treatment
system of the Mae Moh power plant, Thailand. J. Agri. Soc.
Sci., 3: 91-94.
Korner, S., E.J. Vermaat and S. Veenstra. 2003. The capacity of
duckweed to treat wastewater: Ecological considerations
for a sound design. J. Env. Qual., 32: 1583-1590.
Kumar, M.S. and S. Jaiswal. 2007. Bioaccumulation and
translocation of metals in the natural vegetation growing on
fly ash lagoons: a field study from Santaldih thermal power
plant, West Bengal, India. Env. Mon. Ass., 116: 263-273.
Meagher, R.B. 2000. Phytoremediation of toxic elemental and
organic pollutants. Curr. Opin. P. Biol., 3: 153-162.
Miretzky, P., A. Saralegui, Z. Fernd and A. Cirelli. 2004.
Aquatic macrophytes potential for the simultaneous
removal of heavy metals (Buenos Aires, Argentina).
Chemo., 57: 997-1005.
Mountouris, A., E. Voutsas and D. Tassios. 2002.
Bioconcentration of heavy metals in aquatic environments:
the importance of bioavailability. Mar. Poll. Bull., 44:
1136-1141.
Muneer, B., F. Shakoori, A. Rehman and A.R. Shakoori. 2007.
Chromium resistant yeast with multi-metal resistance
isolated from industrial effluents and their possible use in
microbial consortium for bioremediation of wastewater.
Pak. J. Zoo., 39: 289-297.
63
Nieder, W.C., E. Barnaba, S.E.G. Findlay, S. Hoskins, N.
Holochuck and E.A. Blair. 2004. Distribution and abundance
of submerged aquatic vegetation and Trapa natans in the
Hudson River Estuary. J. C. Res., 45: 150-161.
Omezuruike1, O.I., A.O. Damilola, O.T. Adeola, A.F. Enobong
and B.S. Olufunke. 2008. Microbiological and
physicochemical analysis of different water samples used
for domestic purposes in Abeokuta and Ojota, Lagos State,
Nigeria. Afr. J. Biotec., 7: 617-621.
Oron, D. 1994. Duckweed culture for wastewater renovation and
biomass production. Agric. Wat. Man., 26: 27-40.
Peavey, H.S, D.R. Rowe and G. Tchobanoglous. 1985.
Environmental Engineering. Chap 5, Advance water
treatment. Oxitop manual OC100, pp. 294.
Raskin, P.B., A.N. Kumar and V. Dushenkov. 1994.
Bioconcentration of heavy metals by plants. Curr. Opin.
Biotec., 5: 285-290.
Razo, I., L. Carrizales, J. Castro, F. Diaz-Barriga and M
.Monroy. 2004. Arsenic and heavy metal pollution of soil,
water and sediments in a semi-arid climate Mining area in
Mexico. W. Air. S. Pollut., 52: 129-52.
Ryan, I., S. Garbert and A. Rashid. 2001. A soil and Plant
analysis manual for the west Asia and North Africa regions.
ICARDA, Syria.
Salt, D.E., M. Blaylock, N.P.B.A. Kumar, V. Doshenkov, B.D.
Ensley, C. Chet and I. Raskin. 1995. Phytoremediation. A
novel strategy for the removal of toxicmetals from the
environment using plants. J. Biotec., 13: 468-474.
Saygideger, S., M. Dogan and G. Keser. 2004. Effect of lead and
pH on lead uptake, chlorophyll and nitrogen content of
(Typha latifolia L. & Ceratophyllum demersum L.). Int. J.
Agric. Biol., 9: 168-72.
Shyamala, R., M. Shanthi and P. Lalitha. 2008. Physicochemical
analysis of borewell water samples of telungupalayam area
in coimbatore district, Tamilnadu, India. E-J, Chem., 5:
924-929.
Sun, L.X., H.G. Zhao and C. Mc Cabe. 2007. Predicting the
phase equilibria of petroleum fluids with the SAFT-VR
approach. AIChE. J., 53: 720-731.
Susarla, S., V.F. Medina and S.C. Mecutcheon. 2002.
Phytoremediation:an ecological solution to organic
chemical contamination. Ecol. Eng., 18: 647-658.
Teisseire, H. and V. Guy. 2000. Copper-induced changes in
64
antioxidant enzymes activities in fronds of duckweed
(Lemna minor). P. Sci., 153: 65-72.
Trivedi, P.R. and R. Gurdeep. 1992. Encyclopedia of
environmental sciences. Vol. 25. Water pollution,
Akandeep publishing, new Delh, India.
Zayed, A. 1998. Phytoaccumulation of trace elements by
wetland plants Duckweed. J. Environ. Qual., 27: 715-21.
Zimmo, O.R., N.P. Van Der Steen and H.J. Gijzen. 2005. Effect
of organic surface load on process performance of pilotscale
algae and duckweed-based waste stabilization ponds.
J. Environ. Engg., 131: 587-94.
References
Arnon, D.I., 1949. Copper enzymes in isolated chloroplasts:
Polyphenoloxidase in Beta vulgaris. Plant Physiol. 24, 1±15.
ASTM D 511-93, 1995. Standard test methods for calcium and
magnesium in water, Test method B, Atomic Absorption
spectrophotometric. Annal Book of ASTM standards,
Section 11, Water and Environmental Technology, Vol
11.01 Water (1), American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, PA.
ASTM D 512-89, 1995. Standard test methods for chloride ion
in water, Test method B, Silver nitrate titration. Annal
Book of ASTM standards, Section 11, Water and Environmental
Technology, Vol 11.01 Water (1), American Society
for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
Cl_ement, B., Bouvet, Y., 1993. Assessment of land®ll leachate
toxicity using the duckweed Lemna minor. In: Proceedings
of the Second European Conference of Ecotoxicology.
Amsterdam. Sci. Total Environ. (Suppl.), 1179±1190.
Cowgill, U.M., Milazzo, D.P., Landenberger, B.D., 1991. The
sensitivity of Lemna gibba G-3 and four clones of Lemna
minor to eight common chemicals using a 7-day test.
Research J. WPCF 63 (7), 991±998.
Dirilgen, N., Ince, N., 1995. Inhibition e€ect of the anionic
surfactant SDS on duckweed, Lemna minor with consider
ation of growth and accumulation. Chemosphere 31 (9),
4185±4196.
Duncan, D.B., 1955. Multiple range and multiple F tests.
Biometrics 11, 1±42.
Ensley, H.E., Barber, J.T., Polito, M.A., Oliver, A.I., 1994.
Toxicity and metabolism of 2,4-dichlorophenol by the
aquatic angiosperm Lemna gibba. Environ. Toxicol. Chem.
13 (2), 325±331.
Fairchild, J.F., Ruessler, D.S., Haverland, P.S., Carlson, A.R.,
65
1997. Comparative sensitivity of Selenastrum capricornatum
and Lemna minor to sixteen herbicides. Arch. Environ.
Contam. Toxicol. 32, 353±357.
Gil, J., Moral, R., G_omez, I., Navarro-Pedreno, J., Mataix, J.,
1995. E€ect of cadmium on physiological and nutritional
aspects of tomato plant. 1 ± Chlorophyll (a and b) and
carotenoids. Fresenius Environ. Bull. 4, 430±435.
Hillman, W.S., 1961. The Lemnaceae or duckweeds. Bot. Rev.
27, 221±287.
Huebert, D.B., Dyck, B.S., Shay, J.M., 1993. The e€ect of
EDTA on assessment of Cu toxicity in the submerged
macrophyte, Lemna trisulca L. Aquatic Toxicol. 24, 183±
194.
Huebert, D.B., Shay, J.M., 1991. The e€ect of cadmium and its
interaction with external calcium in the submerged aquatic
macrophyte Lemna trisulca L. Aquatic Toxicol. 20, 57±72.
Kanekar, P., Kumbhojkar, M.S., Ghate, V., Sarnaik, S., 1993.
Wola arrhiza � (L.) Wimmer and Spirodela polyrrhiza (L.)
Schleiden as test plant systems for toxicity assay of
microbially treated dyestu€ waste water. J. Environ. Biol.
14 (2), 129±135.
Krajn_ci_c, B., Devid_e, Z., 1980. Report on photoperiodic
responses in Lemnaceae from Slovenia. Berichte des Geobot.
Inst. 47, 75±86.
Krsnik-Rasol, M., Rendi_c, L., 1977. The e€ect of some triazine
derivatives on the growth and development of duckweeds.
Acta Bot. Croat. 36, 75±82 (in Croatian).
Lewis, M.A., 1995. Use of freshwater plants for phytotoxicity
testing: a review. Environ. Pollut. 87, 319±336.
Lockhart, W.L., Billeck, B.N., Baron, C.L., 1989. Bioassays
with a ¯oating aquatic plant (Lemna minor) for e€ects of
sprayed and dissolved glyphosate. Hydrobiologia 188/189,
353±359.
Ma_zuran, N., Hr_sak, V., Tomi_c, M., Pape_s, D., 1999. E€ects of
CaCl2 and CaBr2 on the fecundity of Planorbarius corneus
L. Chemosphere 38 (10), 2345±2355.
Peterson, H.G., Boutin, C., Martin, P.A., Freemark, K.E.,
Ruecker, N.J., Moody, M.J., 1994. Aquatic phyto-toxicity
of 23 pesticides applied at expected environmental concentrations.
Aquatic Toxicol. 28, 275±292.
Pirson, A., Seidel, F., 1950. Zell-und sto€wechselphysiologiche
Untersuchungen an der Wurzel von Lemna minor unter
besonderer Ber �ucksichtigung von Kalium- und Calciummangel.
Planta 38, 431±473.
Sajwan, K.S., Ornes, W.H., 1994. Phytoavailability and bioaccumulation
of cadmium in duckweed plants (Spirodela
66
polyrrhiza L. Schleid.). J. Environ. Sci. Health A 29 (5),
1035±1044.
Schmidt, D.D., Hudson, T.E., Harris, T.M., 1983. Introduction
on brine completion and workover ¯uids. Part 1 ± Chemical
and physical properties of clear completion brines. Petrol.
Eng. Int. August, 80±96.
Severi, A., 1991. E€ects of aluminium on some morphophysiological
aspects on Lemna minor L. Atti. Soc. Nat. e Mat.
di Modena 122, 95±108.
Smith, S., Kwan, M.K.H., 1989. Use of aquatic macrophytes as
bioassay method to assess relative toxicity, uptake kinetics
and accumulated forms of trace metals. Hydrobiologia 188/
189, 345±351.
Tkalec, M., Vidakovi_c-Cifrek, _Z, Regula, I., 1998. The e€ect of
oil industry ``high density brines'' on duckweed Lemna
minor. Chemosphere 37 (13), 2703±2715.
Vidakovi_c-Cifrek, _Z., Tkalec, M., Horvati_c, J., Regula, I., 1999.
E€ect of oil industry high density brines in miniaturized
algal growth bioassay and Lemna test. Phyton cAnn. Rei
Bot. 39 (3), 193±197. (Special issue ± Second Slovenian
Symposium on Plant Physiology. Gozd Martuljek, Slovenia).
von Sury, R., Fl �uckiger, W., 1983. The e€ect of di€erent
mixtures of NaCl and CaCl2 on the silver ®r (Abies alba
Miller). Eur. J. For. Path. 13, 24±30.
Wang, W., 1986. Toxicity tests of aquatic pollutants by using
common duckweed. Environ. Pollut. B 11, 1±14.
Wang, W., 1992. Use of plants for the assessment of environmental
contaminants. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 126,
87±127.
Wundram, M., Selmar, D., Bahadir, M., 1997. Representative
evaluation of phytotoxicity ± reliability and peculiarities.
Angew. Bot. 71, 139±143.
Marija Vujevi_c received her B.Sc. degree in 1998 from the
University of Zagreb, Croatia. She is M.Sc. student at the
Faculty of Science, University of Zagreb. The subject of her
current research is in vitro propagation of rare and endangered
Croatian plant species.
_Zeljka Vidakovi_c-Cifrek received her B.Sc. (1990), M.Sc. (1993)
and Ph.D. (1999) degree from the University of Zagreb,
Croatia. She is research assistant at the Department of Botany,
Faculty of Science, University of Zagreb. Her research interests
focus on in¯uence of various environmental factors on physiological
processes in plants.
Mirta Tkalec received her B.Sc. degree in 1996 from the University
of Zagreb, Croatia. She is currently M.Sc. student at the
Faculty of Science, University of Zagreb. The main topic of her
67
research is evaluation of stress factors by Lemna test.
Mihovil Tomi_c received his B.Sc. degree from the University of
Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina and M.Sc. degree from the
University of Zagreb, Croatia. He works in INA-Oil industry
on analytical aspects in exploration and production of gas and
oil as well as on pollution problems in oil industry.
Ivan Regula is full professor of Plant Physiology at the Department
of Botany and Botanical Garden, Faculty of Science,
University of Zagreb, Croatia. His scienti®c interests include
structure and function of indolic compounds in plants as well as
in¯uence of xenobiotics on plant metabol
Alaerts G. J., Mahbubar Rahman M. and Kelderman P.
(1996) Performance analysis of a full-scale duckweed-
covered sewage lagoon. Wat. Res. 30(4), 843±852.
Al-Nozaily F. and Alaerts G. J. Duckweed-covered Sew-
age Lagoon performance on domestic wastewater in
Sana'a using Lemna gibba. (In prep.).
APHA (1992) Standard Methods for the Examination of
Water and Wastewater, 18th ed. American Public Health
Assoc, New York.
Arceivala S. J. (1998) Wastewater Treatment for Pollution
Control, 2nd ed. Tata McGraw Hill, NewDelhi.
Bolton R. L. and Klein L. (1961) Sewage Treatment, Basic
Principles and Trends. Butterworths, London.
Bonomo L., Pastorelli G. and Zambon N. (1997) Advan-
tages and limitations of duckweed-based wastewater
treatment systems. Wat. Sci. Tech. 35(5), 239±246.
Camp T. R. and Stein P. C. (1943) Velocity gradients and
internal work in ¯uid motion. J. Bost. Soc. Civil Eng.
XXX(4), 219±237.
Coulson J. M. and Richardson J. F. (1987) Liquid±liquid
system. In Chemical Engineering, Vol. 2, p. 814. Perga-
mon Press.
Edwards P., Hassan M. S., Chao C. H. and Pacharapra-
kiti C. (1992) Cultivation of duckweed in septage-loaded
earthen ponds. J. Biores. Tech. 40, 109±117.
Gomes de Sousa J. M. (1987) Wastewater stabilization
lagoon design criteria for Portugal. Wat Sci. Tech.
19(12), 7±16.
KoÈ rner S., Lyatuu G. B. and Vermaat J. E. (1998) The in-
¯uence of Lemna gibba L. on the degradation of organic
material in duckweed covered domestic wastewater.
Wat. Res. 32(10), 3092±3098.
Landolt E. and Kandeler R. (1987) The Family of Lemna-
68
ceae, a Monographic Study. Vol. 2, Veroe€entlichungen
des geobotanisches Institutes der ETH Zurich. Stiftung
Rubel 95, 638.
Mandi L. (1994) Marrakesh wastewater puri®cation exper-
iment using vascular aquatic plants Eichhornia crassipes
and Lemna gibba. Wat. Sci. Tech. 29(4), 283±287.
Morris P. F. and Barker W. G. (1977) Oxygen transport
rates through mats of Lemna minor and Wola sp. and
oxygen tension within and below the mat. Can. J. Bot.
55, 1926±1932.
NERC (1978) A Beginners Guide to Freshwater Algae, 3rd
ed. Natural Environmental Research Council, Cam-
bridge, pp. 36±37.
O'Brien J. W. (1981) Use of aquatic macrophytes for
wastewater treatment. J. Env. Eng. Div., ASCE
107(EE4), 681±698.
Oron G., Wildschut L. R. and Porath D. (1984) Waste-
water recycling by duckweed for protein production and
e.uent renovation. Wat. Sci. Tech. 17(4±5), 803±817.
Oron G., De Vegt A. and Porath D. (1988) Nitrogen
removal and conversion by duckweed grown on waste-
water. Wat. Res. 22(2), 179±184.
PRISM (1992) The Shobuj Shona Village Enterprise Pro-
ject, Progress report, The PRISM Group, Dhaka.
Rao S. V. R. (1986) A review of the technological feasi-
bility of aquacultures for municipal wastewater treat-
ment. Intern. J. Env. Stud. 27, 219±223.
Reed S. C., Middlebrooks E. J. and Crites R. W. (1987)
Natural Systems for Waste Management and Treatment.
McGraw-Hill, New York.
Tackholm V. (1974) Students Flora of Egypt, 2nd ed.
Cairo University, Printed by Cooperative Printing Co.,
Beirut.
Vroon R. and Weller B. (1995) Treatment of domestic
wastewater in a combined UASB-reactor duckweed
pond system., Doktoraal verslagen, series Nr. 95±07,
Dept. Env. Tech., Agric. University Wageningen, The
Netherlands.
Zirschky J. and Reed S. C. (1988) The use of duckweed
for wastewater treatment. J. WPCF 60(7), 1253±125
69
8
70