MANOHARBHAI PATEL INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY

GONDIA FORWARDING LETTER

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 Rathor Principal Dept. of Civil Engg. MIET, Gondia Head of department

Prof. Dr.S.S.

MIET Gondia

MANOHARBHAI PATEL INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY GONDIA

CERTIFICATE
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.

Prof . A.M. Deshpande Supervisor Dept. Of Civil Engineering Engineering MIET GONDIA

Prof.A.L. Nashine Head Of Department Dept. Of Civil MIET GONDIA

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
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

CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
1.1. General 1.2 . Pollution Problem 1.3 . Standards of Disposal 1.4. Treatment methodology 1.5. Objective and scope of study

1-11

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 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. 3.3.3 3.3.4 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. 3.5 PLANTS AND METHOD 4.1 Cultures 4.2 4.3 4.5 4
Tested chemicals Lemna bioassay

4.6 4.7 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

INTRODUCTION
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. 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 days retention time period under local outdoor natural conditions. Samples were taken below duckweed cover after every two days to assess the plants 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 to support leaves and stems. Of not require structural tissue removal of nutrients, these, applications of Lemna gibba L (duckweed) in

wastewater treatment was found to be very effective in the

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 worldwide 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 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 physicochemical, biological and bacteriological parameters were collected in polyethylene bottles from all sides of tank and then mixed. This procedure carried out every 2 days. 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. 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.

10

TABLE 1.1 STANDRADS FOR WASTE WATER DISPOSAL Sr.No. Parameters Inland water 1 2 Colour & odour SS(mg/l) Public sewers Standards Land for irrigation Marine & costal area

surface All efforts should be made to remove it as fact as possible 100 500 200 i)100 for process w.w. ii) 10% above for cooling water effect.

3 4 5 6 7 8

pH Temperature Oil & grease (mg/l) Total Nitrogen BOD COD

40 10 100 30 250

45 20 -350 --

5.5 to 9.0 -10 -100 --

45 At discharge 20 100 100 250

2.1. General

11

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 method 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 Influent 500 50 40 17 6 Effluent 320 30 20 2 3 Elimination capacity % % 30-40 60 50 80-90 50 Remark

COD BOD Total N NH3 Total P

Moderate Good Good Excellent 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 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.

12

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.

13

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) ii) iii) B) C) D) 2.3.1 2.4. Process selection criteria for treatment of various domestic waste water 2.5. Application of Phytoremedation to domestic waste water Biological methods Physiochemical method Land application method

Reuse of wastewater or by product recovery Prevention of waste and waste strength reduction. Specific approach .

14

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 macrophytes, 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., investigation. 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 (Environnement Canada, 1999; Cayuela et al., 2002). Since the data are not conclusive, duckweed's potential as a bioindicator for aquatic systems needs further

15

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-Boul 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 Phytoremediation 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

16

conjuction 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 translocating 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 contaminate particles in their tissues which could in turn affect a whole food web.

How Does It Work?

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

17

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) 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

18

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. Afer 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 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 thebioavailibility 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

19

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. Rhizodegradation Rhizodegradation (also called enhanced rhizosphere biodegradation,

phytostimulation, and plant assisted bioremediation) is the breakdown of organic contaminants in the soil by soil dwelling microbes which is enhanced by the rhizosphere's presence. Certain soil dwelling microbes digest organic pollutants such as fuels and solvents, producing harmless pproducts through a process known as Bioremediation. Plant root exudates such as sugars, alcohols, and organic acids act as carbohydrate sources for the soil microflora and enhance microbial growth and activity. Some of these compound may also act as chemotactic signals for certain microbes. The plant roots also loosen the soil and transport water to the rhizosphere thus additionaly enhancing microbial activity. Phytovolatilization Phytovolatilization is the process where plants uptake contaminaints 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 phytovolatilizers with one study showing poplar trees to volatilize up to 90% of the TCE they absorb.

20

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 utilised 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 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 Ogden, UT Phytoextraction & Pollutant Petroleum & 21 Medium Soil & plant(s) Alfalfa, poplar,

Rhizodegradation Anderson, Phytostabilisation ST Ashtabula, Rhizofiltration OH Upton, NY Phytoextraction Milan, TN Amana, IA Phytodegradation Riparian corridor, phytodegradation

Hydrocarbons Heavy Metals Radionuclides Radionuclides

Groundwater Soil Groundwater Soil

juniper, fescue Hybrid poplar, grasses Sunflowers Indian mustard, cabbage Duckweed, parrotfeather Hybrid poplar

Expolsives waste Groundwater Nitrates Groundwater

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 traditonal 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)

22

Large scale operations require access to agricultural equpment 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 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 maximising it's 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 utilised to further improve the potential for phytoremediation. Genetic modification offers a new hope for phytoremediation as GM approaches can be used to overexpress 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 methylmercury, 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 organomercurial lyase converts methylmercury to ionic mercury 23

MerA encodes mercuric reductase, which reduces ionic mercury to the elemental form 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 methylmercury The MerB Plants were significantly more tolerant to methylmercury 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 targetted for transformation.

3.3.Introduction of Phytoremedation by Lemna

3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 Factor influencing startup process of phytoremadation by lemna.

24

3.3.5 3.3.6 3.3.7 3.3.8 3.3.9 3.4. 3.5

Advantages of phytoremadation by Lemna. Disadvantage of phytoremadation by Lemna. Scope of phytoremadation by Lemna. Design consideration for phytoremadation

3.3.1 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

25

difficult (Leng, 1999).Duckweeds are mono cotyledonous, floating plants, and are the worlds 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

26

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) 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). Duckweeds 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

27

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 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

28

ammonia

in solution. The optimal nutrient profile for growth of duckweed doesnt

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 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

29

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 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 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; absorb 30 to 50% of dissolved phosphorous, although one researcher (Alaerts et al., 1996) has claimed over 90% removal

30

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 duckweeds 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 decreased by 50 to 90% and that Giardia and Cryptosporidium fell by over 80% in eutrophic waters in which duckweed was grown.

4.

Materials and methods

4.1. Cultures Axenic stock cultures of Lemna minor L. were maintained on the PirsonSeidels nutrient solution (Pirson and Seidel, 1950) and subcultured biweekly. The pH value of nutrient

31

solution was adjusted to 4.55 before autoclaving (120C, 0.15 MPa, 20 min). Experimental cultures were started by inoculating a healthy colony with 23 fronds from stock cultures into the 100 ml Erlenmeyer asks containing 60 ml of modi ed Hoaglands nutrient solution (Krajn_ci_c and Devid_e, 1980) supplemented with CaCl2, CaBr2 and their 1:1 mixture. Plants grown on modied Hoaglands 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 s1 m2) at 24 _ 2C. 4.2. Tested chemicals To investigate the inuence of high density brines saturated solutions of CaCl2 (q . 1300 g dm3) and CaBr2 (q . 1610 g dm3), as well as their 1:1 mixture, were added into the modied Hoaglands nutrient solution in volumes appropriate to achieve the following concentrations: 0.025, 0.05, 0.075 and 0.1 mol dm3. 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 dm3): 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 of analytical grade (Sigma) into the modied Hoaglands 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,

32

(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 BOD5, COD, total

experiments. They were fed with municipal wastewater at atmospheric temperature. Temperature, DO, pH, TSS, TDS, Sulphate, Nitrate, Phosphate,

33

nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus (TP) and ortho-phosphate (OP) removal efficiencies of the reactors were monitored by sampling influent and effluent of the removal, 70-85% TP removal and 83-95% OP duckweed-based wastewater treatment is system. Removal efficiency in this study reflects optimal results: 73-84% COD removal, 83-87% TN removal. The results show that the of treating the laboratory capable

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 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 removal rates between 50-95% have been reported for

and

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

34

plant-based wastewater treatment lagoons are engineered systems in which aquatic plants in association with bacteria can purify wastewater

.
transportation of

Duckweed-covered sewage lagoons (DSL) removes organic matter primarily through aerobic heterotrophic oxidation For this it needs the active oxygen into the liquid phase

Now a days conventional sewage treatment plant have high construction cost, energy and maintenance
35

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 low-energy treatment communities, the availability of low-cost land has meant that more extensive, for final treatment of effluent. Usefulness and a cultural preference for processes can be a cost-effective alternative, especially

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
36

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 component of a complete DWT system. Flow of nitrogenous nutrients within a DWT system utilising 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 uptaken 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 specialised bacterial processing of organic matter and denitrification

37

a 10cm surface layer remains aerobic due to atmospheric oxygen transferred by duckweed roots (Hancock and Buddhavarapu 1993). 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. 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 abattoirs industries and food (including processing aquaculture), plants. The

effectiveness of DWT depends on a system design that facilitates the correct combination of organic loading rate, water depth and hydraulic retention
38

time. These will vary depending on the effluent source and the level of pre-treatment. 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.

39

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).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Duckweed plant was inoculated into a primary treated sewage water systems for aquatic treatment over 8 days retention time period to assess the plants efficiency in improving physico-chemical, bacteriological and biological characteristics of sewage

40

water. The primary treated sewage water used in the experiment was taken from the collector tank of the tertiary sewage water treatment plant. 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. 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 yearround 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.

41

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 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

42

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%.

43