Three aquatic macrophytes were used to treat wastewater using a pilot-constructed wetland (CW) system to determine the most efficient plants for removing contaminants from wastewater. The three macrophytes are water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), water lettuce (Pistia stratiotes), and duckweed (Lemna minor). Three 150 L capacity tanks with sand and gravel as substrates were used as the pilot CW for each plant. Upon initial examination, the raw wastewater was not compliant with standard discharge limits. The wastewater samples were collected every 7 days for 3 weeks for treatment. From the findings, at 14 days hydraulic retention time (HRT), E. crassipes and P. stratiotes achieved the highest total phosphorus (TP) and chemical oxygen deman (COD) reductions of 99.3 and 99.4%, respectively. E. crassipes indicated better biological oxygen demand removal efficiency of 91.3%, COD (85.0%), electrical conductivity (90.4%), total dissolved solids (89.7%), and total coliforms (66.0%). Albeit, P. stratiotes indicated better results for total suspended solids (96.2%), TP (7.55%), and E. coli (94.4%), while L. minor was better with 90.8% total nitrogen removal. The overall analysis showed E. crassipes to be more efficient than the three macrophytes. However, the other two plants are replaceable options and large-scale implementation of this project in the community would be a major contributor to actualizing SDG number 6.

  • Constructed wetlands are sustainable technologies for wastewater treatment in local communities.

  • Local aquatic macrophytes are vital tools for maintaining water and environmental quality and securing health.

  • Phytoremediation capacity of macrophytes may be affected by climatic conditions.

  • Water hyacinth, water lettuce, and duckweed are efficient for phytoremediation of wastewater in tropical climates.

In most developing regions, wastewater is released into freshwater bodies without adequate monitoring/treatment, and in the end, its constituents may build up contaminants thereby causing harm to man and affecting aquatic biodiversity (Olukanni & Aremu 2008; Omole & Ndambuki 2014; Chen et al. 2016; Justin et al. 2022). While the world focuses on protecting the environment and ensuring sustainability, conventional sewage treatment systems may not be feasible for widespread application in rural areas due to the high cost and technicality of operating them. Thus, low-cost and less technically demanding constructed wetland systems (CWSs), capable of eliminating pollutants and pathogens from wastewater, are now preferred over conventional treatment methods (Olukanni & Ducoste 2011; Tan et al. 2019; Ji et al. 2020; Holtman et al. 2022). These are robust and sustainable technologies with significant capacity to treat wastewater and are considered viable decentralized systems to manage wastewater in developing nations (Olukanni & Kokumo 2013; Tan et al. 2019; Bui et al. 2019; Maine et al. 2022). Albeit, the functionality of their most important component, macrophytes, which are plants that predominantly grow and spend most or all of their life cycle in water, that varies from one species to another is intriguing. It has been shown that different macrophytes have different levels of pathogen removal, adaptations to diverse climatic conditions, and resistance to physicochemical variances (Alufasi et al. 2017; Tan et al. 2019; Rahman et al. 2020; Justin et al. 2022). Hence, the results of a particular geographical location may not be generalized.

Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), water lettuce (Pistia stratiotes), and duckweed (Lemna minor) are invasive, free-floating aquatic macrophytes. The first two have broad, thick, and glossy ovate leaves and long-hanging roots in water. Due to the characteristics and the economic values of these plants, they have attracted interest globally for use in phytoremediation of polluted waters over the years (Ajibade et al. 2013; Swarnalatha & Radhakrishnan 2015; Rezania et al. 2016; Priya & Senthamil 2017).

In separate studies, water lettuce showed great ability to stabilize electrical conductivity (EC), and pH and decreased total solids (TS), nitrogen, and Se (selenium) concentrations (Lu 2009, 2010; Uka & Chukwuka 2011). Duckweed (L. minor) has proved resilient and successful in remediating diverse chemical and organic pollutants (Mohedano et al. 2012; Grijalbo et al. 2016; Ekperusi et al. 2019). Precisely, Tufaner (2018) reported over 82.0% removal rates for chemical oxygen demand (COD), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total nitrogen (TN), ammonium nitrate, and phosphate using L. minor.

Where many plant species exist, comparisons were made to evaluate the efficiency of the better macrophytes in pollutant removal. For instance, an examination of hyacinth, water lettuce, and vetiver grass has been carried out to establish which one is best at remediating TS, EC, BOD, COD, TN, and phosphorus (Gupta et al. 2012; Rezania et al. 2016). This report revealed that all the macrophytes successfully reduced the pollutant indicators to minimal levels, with water hyacinth being the most effective. Elsewhere, Edaigbini et al. (2015) compared the remediating abilities of water hyacinth and water lettuce in water obtained from a detention pit in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria. With standard discharge limits as a baseline, the analysis showed some positive results, and water hyacinth was found to be better in remediation of the produced wastewater. However, the majority of the parameters were above the permissible limits. The authors recommended improving the growth of macrophytes using fertilizers and occasional removal of dead plants to maintain optimum plant density and prevent contaminants reoccurrence in the treatment system. While there are several studies in the subject area, information on the phytoremediation efficiencies of different macrophyte species is limited in climatic regions of Nigeria.

Covenant University can be described as a community with a growing population (Isiorho et al. 2014), and consequently a high wastewater generating rate. As the university drives toward sustainability, wastewater treatments such as the application of CWSs are indispensable. While the university community has fully adopted this technology, only water hyacinth (E. crassipes) has been used in CWs for wastewater treatment (Olukanni 2013; Isiorho et al. 2014). Meanwhile, other local macrophytes, especially water lettuce (P. stratiotes) and duckweed (L. minor), are readily available for this purpose and may be more effective. Moreover, the basis for selecting macrophyte species could be clearly stated. In addition, a complete evaluation of the treated effluent with standard effluent discharge limits may help to provide the reliability of effluents released for safeguarding the environment.

Therefore, this research aims to evaluate the wastewater treatment efficiency of three aquatic plants (water hyacinth, water lettuce, and duckweed) using pilot CWSs in the Covenant University community. This aim was achieved by first treating the wastewater from the university's treatment plant using pilot CWs with the three plants. Comparing the treatment efficiencies of the three plants and then determining the reliability of the treated effluents with the NESREA (National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency) effluent discharge limits (Owusu-Ansah et al. 2015).

Study location

This research was conducted at the Department of Civil Engineering, Covenant University, in Canaan Land, Ota, Ogun State, Nigeria between August and November 2022. It has a population of about 10,000 people with daily water requirements of over 136 L/C/day, and an estimated total wastewater generation rate of 800,000 L/day (Olukanni & Kokumo 2013; Omole et al. 2019). The site lies on coordinates; latitude 6.67°N and longitude 3.16°E at 56.1 m height above mean sea level. The community manages its wastewater biologically (CW that utilizes water hyacinth for phytoremediation) before discharging it into river Atuwara which flows down to the Atlantic Ocean.

Plant collection and cultures

Duckweed (L. minor) was collected in the Ogudu area in Lagos and was acclimatized to the study region for 1 week. Water hyacinth (E. crassipes) was already available at Covenant University, while water lettuce (P. stratiotes) was sourced outside of the university at Iju River, Ota. All the plants were allowed to multiply under favorable conditions and nutrients, but for maintenance purposes, the leaves of the plants were harvested from time to time to ensure active plant shoots.

Experimental setup

The materials for constructing the wetland include:

  • (i) Four 150 L treatment tanks (non-corrosive) with drainage built on each tank.

  • (ii) Substrates consisted of sand (3.50 cm depth) and gravel (1.50 cm depth) for adequate porosity to enhance oxidation (Ting et al. 2018).

  • (iii) Aquatic plants (water hyacinth, water lettuce, and duckweed plants) whose root system is essential for maximizing phytoremediation (Gupta et al. 2012).

  • (iv) Influent wastewater was collected from Covenant University's primary treatment system (septic tank).

As shown in Figure 1, with the materials above, three pilot free-water surface flow (FWSF) CWs and control experiments were made with 150-L capacity tanks (Ajibade et al. 2013). FWSF CW was preferred for this study because it is usually designed with free-floating macrophytes and is suitable for warm climates (Rai 2019). It is aesthetically pleasing, provides high BOD5, COD, and solids reduction, and can be built, operated, and maintained with economically local materials (Tilley et al. 2014; Maine et al. 2022).
Figure 1

Complete setup of pilot CWS, control reactor, and with macrophytes.

Figure 1

Complete setup of pilot CWS, control reactor, and with macrophytes.

Close modal

Experimental procedure

As a precautionary measure, the tanks were inspected for leakage and other structural defects that may affect the results, while the bottom slope was maintained at 0.500% (Wu et al. 2015). Wastewater of equal volume was then introduced into the reactors at a hydraulic loading rate of 17.84 L/m2/day to improve oxygen circulation (Wu et al. 2015; Ting et al. 2018). The three aquatic plants were transplanted in each tank at an optimum plant density of 80.0% of the total surface area of the tanks (Wu et al. 2015; Olguín et al. 2017).

Sample collection

Wastewater samples were collected for analyses three times within 7 days, making a hydraulic retention time (HRT) of 7, 14, and 21 days (Wu et al. 2015; Olguín et al. 2017). Being a non-continuous feeding mode (i.e. batching system), the treated wastewater was replaced with a new batch of polluted wastewater after each HRT. All samples were collected and analyzed in situ and the laboratory using standard methods outlined in the American Public Health Association (APHA) 2012 (Rice et al. 2012). Analysis of the physicochemical parameters such as BOD5, COD, total suspended solids (TSS), total phosphorus (TP), TN, EC, E. coli, total coliforms (TC), ammonium, pH, and temperature of the raw wastewater was first conducted to determine the initial concentration before being introduced into the treatment systems.

Raw wastewater quality

The results of the initial wastewater physicochemical parameters are presented in Table 1. The table shows the values of each parameter against standard effluent discharge limits. This was done to determine if the concentration of the parameters was within or above standard acceptable discharge limits, which is a prerequisite for treating the wastewater.

Table 1

Comparison of raw wastewater (WW) with EPA/NESREA standard

ParameterRaw WW valuesNESREA discharge limits
Temperature (°C) 26.8 <30.0 
pH 6.14 6.00–9.00 
Total suspended solids (mg/L) 186 50.0 
Total phosphorus (mg/L) 9.24 2.00 
Turbidity (NTU) 61.5 75.0 
Total nitrogen (mg/L) 101 50.0 
Ammonia (NH3-N, mg/L) 0.003 1.00 
Biochemical oxygen demand (mg/L) 285 50.0 
Chemical oxygen demand (mg/L) 1,720 250 
Electrical conductivity (μS/cm) 518 750 
Total dissolved solids (mg/L) 258 1,500 
Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) 1.81 1.00 
Total coliforms (CFU/mL) 49.0 400 
E. coli (CFU/mL) 28.0 10.0 
ParameterRaw WW valuesNESREA discharge limits
Temperature (°C) 26.8 <30.0 
pH 6.14 6.00–9.00 
Total suspended solids (mg/L) 186 50.0 
Total phosphorus (mg/L) 9.24 2.00 
Turbidity (NTU) 61.5 75.0 
Total nitrogen (mg/L) 101 50.0 
Ammonia (NH3-N, mg/L) 0.003 1.00 
Biochemical oxygen demand (mg/L) 285 50.0 
Chemical oxygen demand (mg/L) 1,720 250 
Electrical conductivity (μS/cm) 518 750 
Total dissolved solids (mg/L) 258 1,500 
Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) 1.81 1.00 
Total coliforms (CFU/mL) 49.0 400 
E. coli (CFU/mL) 28.0 10.0 

From Table 1, it can be seen that six (6) parameters, namely TSS, TN, TP, BOD, E. coli, and COD, were over the required effluent standard discharge limits of NESREA. This indicates that the raw wastewater from the university community was not safe for discharge into the environment or for reuse purposes without further treatment. As such, comparative analyses were conducted on the treatment efficiency of the plants for only these parameters.

Effect of HRT on treatment efficiency of macrophytes

The effect of HRT of 7, 14, and 21 days on the removal of the physicochemical parameters by pilot CWS with the three aquatic macrophytes was examined (Table 2). Likewise, an analysis of the removal efficiencies of the three plants for the selected pollution indicators is presented in Table 3. It can be observed from Table 3 that the treated effluent concentration of the indicators decreased drastically to their lowest values as HRT increased from 7 to 21 days. Consequently, the treatment efficiencies increased with increasing HRTs (Table 3). At the end of the investigation, the average TSS concentrations were 149 mg/L in the control experiment, 21.3 mg/L in water hyacinth treatment, 7.00 mg/L in water lettuce treatment, and 12.0 mg/L in duckweed reactor.

Table 2

Pollutant removal of water hyacinth, lettuce, and duckweed with respect to HRT

HRT (days)SampTemppHTSSTPTurbTNAmn.BODCODECTDSDOTCE. coli
Con. 24.5 6.10 151 6.88 53.7 78.9 0.003 231 1,215 240 120 1.91 49.0 26.0 
Hya 23.6 5.38 23.0 1.27 13.0 12.4 0.002 7.00 485 120 60.0 2.14 5.00 2.00 
Lett. 23.9 4.91 8.00 0.410 4.88 19.5 5.93 5.00 470 110 60.0 2.40 7.00 1.00 
Duck. 23.5 4.89 15.0 2.29 9.15 6.25 0.560 15.0 510 140 70.0 2.32 9.00 1.00 
14 Con. 26.6 5.23 148 5.95 48.4 75.5 0.004 255 1,155 300 150 2.40 71.0 22.0 
Hya. 26.4 5.80 21.0 0.080 9.70 41.1 0.480 8.00 12.0 20.0 10.0 4.10 39.0 Nd 
Lett. 26.4 5.24 7.00 0.060 3.50 30.0 6.47 10.0 45.0 70.0 40.0 3.04 44.0 Nd 
Duck. 26.3 5.18 11.0 2.11 7.40 15.5 5.76 11.0 82.0 110 60.0 3.13 62.0 Nd 
21 Con. 23.8 5.45 148 3.59 44.1 7.52 0.250 255 1,020 100 50.0 3.65 64.0 6.00 
Hya. 24.4 5.45 20.0 0.200 6.30 1.87 <0.001 8.00 275 10.0 10.0 4.40 6.00 Nd 
Lett. 24.8 5.60 6.00 0.210 3.85 5.91 0.640 10.0 389 10.0 10.0 4.00 12.0 Nd 
Duck. 24.3 6.70 10.0 0.260 4.30 6.00 <0.001 11.0 297 140 70.0 4.21 5.00 Nd 
HRT (days)SampTemppHTSSTPTurbTNAmn.BODCODECTDSDOTCE. coli
Con. 24.5 6.10 151 6.88 53.7 78.9 0.003 231 1,215 240 120 1.91 49.0 26.0 
Hya 23.6 5.38 23.0 1.27 13.0 12.4 0.002 7.00 485 120 60.0 2.14 5.00 2.00 
Lett. 23.9 4.91 8.00 0.410 4.88 19.5 5.93 5.00 470 110 60.0 2.40 7.00 1.00 
Duck. 23.5 4.89 15.0 2.29 9.15 6.25 0.560 15.0 510 140 70.0 2.32 9.00 1.00 
14 Con. 26.6 5.23 148 5.95 48.4 75.5 0.004 255 1,155 300 150 2.40 71.0 22.0 
Hya. 26.4 5.80 21.0 0.080 9.70 41.1 0.480 8.00 12.0 20.0 10.0 4.10 39.0 Nd 
Lett. 26.4 5.24 7.00 0.060 3.50 30.0 6.47 10.0 45.0 70.0 40.0 3.04 44.0 Nd 
Duck. 26.3 5.18 11.0 2.11 7.40 15.5 5.76 11.0 82.0 110 60.0 3.13 62.0 Nd 
21 Con. 23.8 5.45 148 3.59 44.1 7.52 0.250 255 1,020 100 50.0 3.65 64.0 6.00 
Hya. 24.4 5.45 20.0 0.200 6.30 1.87 <0.001 8.00 275 10.0 10.0 4.40 6.00 Nd 
Lett. 24.8 5.60 6.00 0.210 3.85 5.91 0.640 10.0 389 10.0 10.0 4.00 12.0 Nd 
Duck. 24.3 6.70 10.0 0.260 4.30 6.00 <0.001 11.0 297 140 70.0 4.21 5.00 Nd 

Con., control; Hya, water hyacinth; Lett., water lettuce; Duck., duckweed; Nd, not detected.

Table 3

Removal efficiency of water hyacinth, lettuce, and duckweed with respect to HRT

ParameterHRT (days)Removal efficiency (%)
HyacinthLettuceDuckweed
TSS (mg/L) 87.6 95.7 91.9 
14 88.7 96.2 94.1 
21 89.3 96.8 94.6 
TP (mg/L) 86.3 95.6 75.2 
14 99.1 99.4 77.2 
21 97.8 97.7 97.2 
TN (mg/L) 87.8 80.6 93.8 
14 59.3 70.3 84.6 
21 98.2 94.1 94.1 
BOD5 (mg/L) 97.5 98.3 94.7 
 14 97.2 96.5 96.1 
 21 97.2 96.5 96.1 
COD (mg/L) 71.8 72.7 70.4 
14 99.3 97.4 95.2 
21 84.0 77.4 82.7 
E. coli (CFU/L) 92.9 96.4 96.4 
14 Nd Nd Nd 
21 Nd Nd Nd 
ParameterHRT (days)Removal efficiency (%)
HyacinthLettuceDuckweed
TSS (mg/L) 87.6 95.7 91.9 
14 88.7 96.2 94.1 
21 89.3 96.8 94.6 
TP (mg/L) 86.3 95.6 75.2 
14 99.1 99.4 77.2 
21 97.8 97.7 97.2 
TN (mg/L) 87.8 80.6 93.8 
14 59.3 70.3 84.6 
21 98.2 94.1 94.1 
BOD5 (mg/L) 97.5 98.3 94.7 
 14 97.2 96.5 96.1 
 21 97.2 96.5 96.1 
COD (mg/L) 71.8 72.7 70.4 
14 99.3 97.4 95.2 
21 84.0 77.4 82.7 
E. coli (CFU/L) 92.9 96.4 96.4 
14 Nd Nd Nd 
21 Nd Nd Nd 

Nd, not detected.

Similarly, after 3 weeks of treatment (HRT of 21 days), TP decreased from 9.24 to 0.200, 0.210, and 0.26 mg/L in water hyacinth, water lettuce, and duckweed treatment reactors, respectively. The results also show that CWS containing water hyacinth, water lettuce, and duckweed plants significantly reduced TN from the initial concentration of 101 to 1.87, 5.91, and 6.00 mg/L, respectively, at 21 days HRT. Information in the literature shows that HRT has a significant effect on plant growth rates, while long HRT and plant type significantly influence pollutant removal rate (Snow & Ghaly 2008; Adrados et al. 2018). Also, the physicochemical parameters in control tanks decreased, which could be attributed to the sedimentation, adsorption, and microbial activities within the substrates and the wastewater (Justin et al. 2022).

TSS removal rate by the macrophytes

Feces, food remnants, and other solid biomass are the primary sources of suspended solids in domestic wastewater (Snow & Ghaly 2008). The results of TSS removal efficiency with respect to HRT in Figure 2 suggest that water hyacinth attained the highest removal after 21 days (89.3%). At the same HRT, water lettuce and duckweed attained higher TSS removal rates of 97.8 and 94.6%, respectively. This means that while different plant species possess different removal rates, HRTs have a significant effect on pollutant removal rates (Adrados et al. 2018; Jing et al. 2021). However, the results suggest that longer HRT did not result in significantly higher removal rates. Overall, water lettuce was better at remediating TSS than duckweed and water hyacinth which had the least removal efficiency.
Figure 2

TSS removal efficiency of water hyacinth, lettuce, and duckweed.

Figure 2

TSS removal efficiency of water hyacinth, lettuce, and duckweed.

Close modal

Notwithstanding, the result obtained for water hyacinth was higher than those earlier reported 37.8–53.3% by Loan et al. (2014), 70.0% by Valipour et al. (2015), 44.3% by Tran & Van (2016), and 34.0% by Rezania et al. (2016). Similarly, the TSS results of water hyacinth were not better than other species as seen in previous studies such as in Loan et al. (2014). The significant reduction of TSS at a higher treatment period may be due to the plant's roots being fully formed in the reactors which enhanced the filtration and absorption capacity of the roots for suspended solids and dissolved nutrients.

TP removal

The primary sources of phosphorus in wastewater are human excreta, household detergents, and industrial and commercial (e.g. abattoir) effluents but occur as soluble and insoluble phosphates in varying forms (Kroiss et al. 2011). However, for this experiment, TP was considered a single parameter being a major pollutant indicated in the EPA/NESREA standard for effluent discharge/reuse. Its removal from domestic wastewater is necessary to lessen the possibility of eutrophication in receiving waters, being a mandate in many nations (Bunce et al. 2018).

The results of TP removal as represented in Figure 3 are satisfactory. The high removal efficiency was observed throughout the different HRTs for all macrophytes. TP removal efficiency of water hyacinth and water lettuce was insignificantly influenced by long HRTs with the highest removal percentages at 14 days (99.1%) and (99.4%), respectively. In contrast, it took a longer time for duckweed to attain peak TP reduction rate (97.2%) after the 21-day treatment period. The results suggest that the treatment efficiency of water lettuce (99.4%) was higher than water hyacinth (99.1%) and duckweed plant (97.2%). Previous studies (Snow & Ghaly 2008; Rezania et al. 2016; Tran & Van 2016; Wang et al. 2018) also reported similar TP removal efficiency by water hyacinth and water lettuce. The high TP removal rate (97.1%) by duckweed in this study further confirms the 99.9% treatment efficiency obtained by Showqi et al. (2017).
Figure 3

TP removal efficiency of water hyacinth, lettuce, and duckweed.

Figure 3

TP removal efficiency of water hyacinth, lettuce, and duckweed.

Close modal

TN removal

The result of TN removal presented in Figure 4 shows high nitrogen removal rates by the three plants, especially duckweed. This high nitrogen reduction capacity correlates with the reports of previous investigations (Olukanni & Kokumo 2013; Rezania et al. 2016; Tran & Van 2016; Showqi et al. 2017; Wang et al. 2018). Even though in these studies, TN removal capacity was examined as nitrogen contents in the form of nitrates or nitrites. Water hyacinth, lettuce, and duckweed indicated high removal efficiencies, especially at the highest HRT (21 days). Nitrogen intake by plants is highly associated with the rate of photosynthesis; a phenomenon highly influenced by climatic changes such as sun radiation (Ting et al. 2018). For plants to carry out phytoremediation efficiently, maximum growth of the plant is very vital. Full established plant leaves are required for this to take place and increase nitrogen intake toward the 21 days HRT (Al-Hashimi & Joda 2010). It has been reported also that TN removal increased at full growth, green pigmentation, and increased surface area of the plant leaves (Rezania et al. 2016; Showqi et al. 2017). After the 21-day treatment period, the highest nitrogen removal was obtained in duckweed treatment (90.8%), before water hyacinth (81.7%) and water lettuce (81.7%).
Figure 4

TN removal efficiency of water hyacinth, lettuce, and duckweed.

Figure 4

TN removal efficiency of water hyacinth, lettuce, and duckweed.

Close modal

BOD5 removal

The result of BOD5 removal seems robust. The concentration of BOD5 in the effluent wastewater was found to have greatly reduced from an initial value of 285 to 7.00, 5.00, and 11.0 mg/L in water hyacinth, water lettuce, and duckweed treatment systems (Table 2). In Figure 5, the highest BOD5 removal efficiency was observed in water lettuce treatment (98.3%) and water hyacinth (97.5%) after the first week of the experiment. It took a longer period (14 days) for duckweed to attain 96.1% treatment efficiency. This may be attributed to the smaller root system of duckweed since it forms the major platform for microbial growth, which creates oxygenated conditions in the rhizosphere for the biodegradation of organic matter (Rezania et al. 2016). Consequently, long HRTs had very little influence on the BOD5 removal percentage of the three plants. Similar results of BOD5 remediation by water hyacinth were obtained previously at 92.0% by Rezania et al. (2016) at 14 days HRT and 90.7% by Tran & Van (2016) at 28 days HRT. These variations in results are understandable because of geographical differences and treatment seasons (Alufasi et al. 2017; Tan et al. 2019; Rahman et al. 2020). On the other hand, the result of duckweed can be explained by the fact that duckweed usually limits atmospheric oxygen diffusion into the water, leading to lower BOD5 reduction (Al-Hashimi & Joda 2010). In addition, the concentration of metallic irons in the wastewater may have affected the removal efficiency of duckweed (Zhou et al. 2019).
Figure 5

BOD removal efficiency of water hyacinth, lettuce, and duckweed.

Figure 5

BOD removal efficiency of water hyacinth, lettuce, and duckweed.

Close modal

COD removal

For COD removal, it was observed that after 21 days, the concentration of COD had decreased from 1.720 mg/L of influent wastewater to 12.0, 45.0, and 82.0 mg/L in water hyacinth, water lettuce, and duckweed tanks, respectively (Table 2). The rate of COD reduction with respect to HRT by the three macrophytes is indicated in Figure 6. High COD removal efficiency was observed for all three treatment systems, especially at 14 days HRT. Unlike in BOD5 reductions, water hyacinth attained a higher COD reduction rate (99.3%) than in water lettuce (97.4%) and duckweed (95.2%). Also, in this study, peak removal was achieved at lower HRT (14 days) than 28 days by Tran & Van (2016). A more recent study (Wang et al. 2018) reported peak removal of COD by water hyacinth and water lettuce at 14 days HRT. Just as in BOD5 elimination, duckweed indicated lower COD removal than water hyacinth and water lettuce. As earlier stated, the root system of duckweed limits organic matter breakdown and it can be inhibited by metallic ions. The effect of metallic ions on duckweed is die-offs in the treatment tank, leading to increased organic load, which results in lower COD reduction (Al-Hashimi & Joda 2010).
Figure 6

COD removal efficiency of water hyacinth, lettuce, and duckweed.

Figure 6

COD removal efficiency of water hyacinth, lettuce, and duckweed.

Close modal

E. coli removal

As observed in Figure 7, there was a high and rapid E. coli removal rate of 92.9, 96.4, and 96.4% by water hyacinth, water lettuce, and duckweed, respectively, at the least HRT of 7 days. The results suggest near complete E. coli elimination as further treatment and testing for the pollutant indicated invalid results. This accelerated E. coli removal rate could be attributed to its inactivation by high light intensity from the sun in the area (Murcia et al. 2017). Also, this is the earliest period with fewer plant biomass, thereby giving access to more sunlight penetration into the wastewater leading to high microorganism activities. This may mean that E. coli removals occur at shorter HRTs than the ones examined in this study and hence a basis for further investigation.
Figure 7

E. coli removal efficiency of water hyacinth, lettuce, and duckweed.

Figure 7

E. coli removal efficiency of water hyacinth, lettuce, and duckweed.

Close modal

Average treatment capacities of the three macrophytes

The result of treated wastewater effluents showed that dissolved oxygen (DO) levels increased from 1.81 to 3.30 mg/L, and the temperature and pH were maintained within the acceptable standard values of less than 30.0 °C and 6.00–9.00, respectively (Table 1). As shown in Table 4, the average pollutant removal efficiency across the three HRTs by the three plants proved that water lettuce was better in TSS reduction (96.2%) than duckweed (93.6%) and water hyacinth (88.5%). Similarly, for TP removal, 97.6, 94.4, and 83.2% on average were achieved by water lettuce, hyacinth, and duckweed, respectively. Yet still, water lettuce was better at eliminating E. coli (94.4%) than water hyacinth treatment efficiency (92.5%).

Table 4

Average removal efficiency of macrophytes

ParametersEffluent sample
HyacinthLettuceDuckweed
TSS 88.5 96.2 93.6 
TP 94.4 97.5 83.2 
Turbidity (NTU) 84.3 93.4 88.7 
TN 81.7 81.7 90.8 
BOD5 97.3 97.1 95.7 
COD 85.0 82.5 82.8 
EC 90.4 87.8 74.9 
TDS 89.7 85.8 74.2 
DO 96.0 73.9 77.9 
TC 66.0 57.1 48.3 
E. coli 92.6 96.4 96.4 
Overall average 87.8 86.3 82.4 
ParametersEffluent sample
HyacinthLettuceDuckweed
TSS 88.5 96.2 93.6 
TP 94.4 97.5 83.2 
Turbidity (NTU) 84.3 93.4 88.7 
TN 81.7 81.7 90.8 
BOD5 97.3 97.1 95.7 
COD 85.0 82.5 82.8 
EC 90.4 87.8 74.9 
TDS 89.7 85.8 74.2 
DO 96.0 73.9 77.9 
TC 66.0 57.1 48.3 
E. coli 92.6 96.4 96.4 
Overall average 87.8 86.3 82.4 

TN removal efficiency was better in duckweed (90.8%) than water hyacinth (81.7%) and water lettuce (81.7%). Nevertheless, water hyacinth was better at reducing most of the pollutants than water lettuce and duckweed. As can be observed in Table 4, the average removal efficiencies by water hyacinth such as BOD (97.3%), COD (85.0%), EC (90.4%), TDS (89.7%), and TC (66.0%) were all higher than the rest of the plants. The high BOD5 and COD reduction results of water hyacinth in this study further validate the report of Olukanni & Kokumo (2013). The overall average indicates that water hyacinth was the better of the three plants, and the high treatment efficiencies suggest that the three plants are very efficient in bioremediation of domestic wastewater. High treatment efficiencies of water lettuce and duckweed align well with those of (Gupta et al. 2012; Showqi et al. 2017; Wang et al. 2018).

Comparison of treated wastewater EPA/NESREA effluent discharge limits

The comparison of the treated wastewater quality and EPA/NESREA standard discharge limits is displayed in Figure 8. All the selected physicochemical parameters have been reduced to minimal levels. This further suggests that the three macrophytes reduced TSS, TP, TN, BOD, and E. coli to the 50.0, 2.00, 50.0, 50.0, and 10.0 mg/L NESREA standard discharge/reuse limits. However, Figure 8 indicates that COD was completely reduced to standard but at a considerable level. This concentration of COD in the treated effluents seems very close to the standard discharge limit. In general, the correlation of the treated effluents with the NESREA standard indicates it is satisfactory and deemed safe/fit for discharge or reuse purposes.
Figure 8

Comparison of treated wastewater EPA/NESREA effluent discharge limits.

Figure 8

Comparison of treated wastewater EPA/NESREA effluent discharge limits.

Close modal

In this study, the investigation of wastewater treatment efficiency of three aquatic macrophytes such as water hyacinth, water lettuce, and duckweed plants using pilot CWSs was carried out. The pollutant removal efficiency of the three aquatic macrophytes was determined and the treated effluent samples were compared with EPA/NESREA standards for effluent discharge/reuse limits. The results showed that the three plants were effective in treating the wastewater after the 21-day treatment period. In the beginning, the influent wastewater was analyzed and some of the physicochemical parameters (TSS, TP, TN, BOD, COD, and E. coli) were above EPA/NESREA effluent discharge limits. The influent wastewater was subjected to 21 days of treatment in water hyacinth, water lettuce, and duckweed CWS and observed within 7 days of batching mode of operation. In the end, there was a drastic increment in treatment efficiency for the first two HRTs (7 and 14 days), without significant differences at 21 days HRT, especially for hyacinth and water lettuce.

Despite the outstanding results by all the plants, the comparison of the treatment performance of the three macrophytes suggested that water hyacinth attained higher efficiencies than water lettuce and duckweed plants, especially in BOD, COD, EC, TDS, and TC reductions. Upon correlation with the EPA/NESREA standard, all the examined wastewater parameters including turbidity, ammonia, EC, TDS, and TC had reduced to permissible limits, while the temperature and pH were maintained within the required standard limit. The DO level of the raw wastewater was improved from the influent concentration of 1.81 mg/L to an average of 3.30 mg/L in the treated effluents. All the plants produced high removal efficiencies of at least 70.0%, except for TC, 53.2% after 21-day treatment intervals.

From all the analysis and discussions, it may be safe to conclude that water hyacinth, water lettuce, and duckweed produced better results under 14 days HRT. The three macrophytes are capable and very efficient in the bioremediation of domestic wastewater. Higher treatment efficiencies of water hyacinth in most parameters put it in a better position than water lettuce and duckweed. The overall results suggest that wastewater treated with water hyacinth, water lettuce, and duckweed plants is safe for discharge/reuse. The completion of this project has helped to show the effectiveness of locally available resources; water hyacinth, water lettuce and duckweed plants, and the wetland substrates in the treatment of municipal wastewater. The implementation of this research on a large scale will contribute greatly to actualizing SDG 6 (Clean water and sanitation) in local communities.

Based on the literature review, site investigation, and analysis throughout this research, the following are recommended.

  • 1. Shorter HRTs such as daily intervals may be investigated for more information on those short periods.

  • 2. This study was carried out within a single climatic season. Hence, the effect of seasonal change on the treatment performance of these macrophytes may be investigated.

The authors appreciate the management of Covenant University, Ota, Nigeria for the enabling environment to carry out this research.

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

All relevant data are included in the paper or its Supplementary Information.

The authors declare there is no conflict.

Adrados
B.
,
Arias
C. A.
,
Pérez
L. M.
,
Codony
F.
,
Bécares
E.
,
Brix
H.
&
Morató
J.
(
2018
)
Comparison of removal efficiency of pathogenic microbes in four types of wastewater treatment systems in Denmark
,
Ecological Engineering
,
124
(
September
),
1
6
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2018.09.013
.
Ajibade
F. O.
,
Adeniran
K. A.
&
Egbuna
C. K.
(
2013
)
Phytoremediation efficiencies of water hyacinth in removing heavy metals in domestic sewage (A case study of University of Ilorin, Nigeria)
,
International Journal of Engineering and Science (THEIJES)
,
2
(
12
),
16
27
.
Al-Hashimi
M. A.
&
Joda
R. A.
(
2010
)
Treatment of domestic wastewater using duckweed plant
,
Journal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences
,
22
(
1
),
11
18
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1018-3639(18)30505-1
.
Alufasi
R.
,
Gere
J.
,
Chakauya
E.
,
Lebea
P.
,
Parawira
W.
&
Chingwaru
W.
(
2017
)
Mechanisms of pathogen removal by macrophytes in constructed wetlands
,
Environmental Technology Reviews
,
6
(
1
),
135
144
.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21622515.2017.1325940
.
Bui
X. T.
,
Lin
C.
,
Nguyen
V. T.
,
Nguyen
H. H.
,
Nguyen
P. D.
,
Ngo
H. H.
&
Guo
W.
(
2019
)
A mini-review on shallow-bed constructed wetlands: A promising innovative green roof
,
Current Opinion in Environmental Science and Health
,
12
,
38
47
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coesh.2019.09.004
.
Bunce
J. T.
,
Ndam
E.
,
Ofiteru
I. D.
,
Moore
A.
&
Graham
D. W.
(
2018
)
A review of phosphorus removal technologies and their applicability to small-scale domestic wastewater treatment systems
,
Frontiers in Environmental Science
,
6
,
8
.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2018.00008
.
Chen
Y.
,
Wen
Y.
,
Zhou
Q.
,
Huang
J.
,
Vymazal
J.
&
Kuschk
P.
(
2016
)
Sulfate removal and sulfur transformation in constructed wetlands: The roles of filling material and plant biomass
,
Water Research
,
102
,
572
581
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.07.001
.
Edaigbini
P. I.
,
Ogbeide
S. E.
&
Olafuyi
O. A.
(
2015
)
A comparative study of the performance of water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) and water lettuce (Pistias stratiotes) in the remediation of produced water
,
Journal of Energy Technologies and Policy
,
5
,
1
9
.
Ekperusi
A. O.
,
Sikoki
F. D.
&
Nwachukwu
E. O.
(
2019
)
Application of common duckweed (Lemna minor) in phytoremediation of chemicals in the environment: State and future perspective
,
Chemosphere
,
223
,
285
309
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.02.025
.
Grijalbo
L.
,
Becerri
J. M.
,
Barrutia
O.
,
Gutierrez-Manero
J.
&
Garcia
J. A. L.
(
2016
)
Lemna minor tolerance to metal-working fluid residues: Implications for rhizoremediation
,
Plant Biology
,
18
,
695
702
.
Gupta
P.
,
Roy
S.
&
Mahindrakar
A. B.
(
2012
)
Treatment of water using water hyacinth, water lettuce and vetiver grass – A review
,
Resources and Environment
,
2
(
5
),
202
215
.
https://doi.org/10.5923/j.re.20120205.04
.
Holtman
G. A.
,
Haldenwang
R.
&
Welz
P. J.
(
2022
)
Comparison of continuous and pulse mode of operation of pilot biosand reactors treating winery effluent
,
SSRN Electronic Journal
,
182
(
March
),
106706
.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4018871
.
Isiorho
S. A.
,
Omole
D. O.
,
Ogbiye
S. A.
,
Olukanni
D. O.
,
Ede
A. N.
&
Akinwumi
I. I.
(
2014
). ‘
Study of reed-bed of urban wastewater in a Nigerian community
’,
Proceedings of the IASTED International Conference on Environmental Management and Engineering, EME
,
July 2014
, pp.
143
147
.
Ji
M.
,
Hu
Z.
,
Hou
C.
,
Liu
H.
,
Ngo
H. H.
,
Guo
W.
,
Lu
S.
&
Zhang
J.
(
2020
)
New insights for enhancing the performance of constructed wetlands at low temperatures
,
Bioresource Technology
,
301
(
72
),
122722
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122722
.
Jing
Y.
,
Krauss
M.
,
Zschieschang
S.
,
Miltner
A.
,
Butkovskyi
A.
,
Eggen
T.
,
Kästner
M.
&
Nowak
K. M.
(
2021
)
Superabsorbent polymer as a supplement substrate of constructed wetland to retain pesticides from agricultural runoff
,
Water Research
,
207
(
2021
),
117776
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2021.117776
.
Kroiss
H.
,
Rechberger
H.
&
Egle
L.
(
2011
)
Phosphorus in water quality and waste management
. In:
Kumar, S., ed.
Integrated Waste Management – Volume II
.
London
:
IntechOpen
.
Loan
N. T.
,
Phuong
N. M.
&
Anh
N. T. N.
(
2014
)
The role of aquatic plants and microorganisms in domestic wastewater treatment
,
Environmental Engineering & Management Journal (EEMJ)
,
13
(
8
),
2031
2038
.
Lu
Q.
(
2009
)
Evaluation of Aquatic Plants for Phytoremediation of Eutrophic Stormwaters
.
PhD thesis
.
University of Florida
,
Florida
.
Lu
Q.
,
He
Z. L.
,
Graetz
D. A.
,
Stoffella
P. J.
&
Yang
X.
(
2010
)
Phytoremediation to remove nutrients and improve eutrophic stormwaters using water lettuce (Pistia stratiotes L.)
,
Environmental Science and Pollution Research
,
17
,
84
96
.
Maine
M. A.
,
Sanchez
G. C.
,
Hadad
R.
,
Caffaratti
S. E.
,
Pedro
C.
,
Alfonsina
G.
,
Luca
D.
,
De
M.
,
Mufarrege
M.
&
Nocetti
E.
(
2022
)
Hybrid wetland system for a pet-care center wastewater treatment
,
Ecological Engineering
,
182
,
106700
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2022.106700
.
Mohedano
R. A.
,
Costa
R. H.
,
Tavares
F. A.
&
Belli Filho
P.
(
2012
)
High nutrient removal rate from swine wastes and protein biomass production by full-scale duckweed ponds
,
Bioresource Technology
,
112
(
2012
),
98
104
.
Murcia
J. J.
,
Ávila-Martínez
E. G.
,
Rojas
H.
,
Navío
J. A.
&
Hidalgo
M. C.
(
2017
)
Study of the E. coli elimination from urban wastewater over photocatalysts based on metalized TiO2
,
Applied Catalysis B: Environmental
,
200
,
469
476
.
Olguín
E. J.
,
García-López
D. A.
,
González-Portela
R. E.
&
Sánchez-Galván
G.
(
2017
)
Year-round phyto-filtration lagoon assessment using Pistia stratiotes within a pilot-plant scale biorefinery
,
Science of the Total Environment
,
592
,
326
333
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.067
.
Olukanni
D. O.
(
2013
)
Evaluation of the influence of reactor design on the treatment performance of an optimized pilot-scale waste stabilization pond
,
International Journal of Engineering and Technology
,
3
(
2
),
189
198
.
Olukanni
D. O.
&
Aremu
S. A.
(
2008
)
Water hyacinth based wastewater treatment system and its derivable by-products
,
Journal of Research Information in Civil Engineering
,
5
(
1
),
0189–8787
.
Olukanni
D. O.
&
Kokumo
K. O.
(
2013
)
Open access efficiency assessment of a constructed wetland using Eichhornia crassipes for wastewater treatment
,
American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER)
,
12
,
450
454
.
Omole
D. O.
&
Ndambuki
J. M.
(
2014
)
Sustainable living in Africa: A case of water, sanitation, air pollution, and energy
,
Sustainability (Switzerland)
,
6
(
8
),
5187
5202
.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su6085187
.
Omole
D. O.
,
Jim-George
T.
&
Akpan
V. E.
(
2019
)
Economic analysis of wastewater reuse in covenant university
,
Journal of Physics: Conference Series
,
1299
(
1
),
012125
.
Owusu-Ansah
E. D. G. J.
,
Sampson
A.
,
Amponsah
S. K.
,
Abaidoo
R. C.
&
Hald
T.
(
2015
)
Performance, compliance and reliability of waste stabilization pond: Effluent discharge quality and environmental protection agency standards in Ghana
,
Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology
,
10
(
11
),
1293
1302
.
https://doi.org/10.19026/rjaset.10.1825
.
Priya
E. S.
&
Senthamil
P. S.
(
2017
)
Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) – An efficient and economic adsorbent for textile effluent treatment – A review
,
Arabian Journal of Chemistry
,
10
,
S3548
S3558
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arabjc.2014.03.002
.
Rahman
M. E.
,
Bin Halmi
M. I. E.
,
Bin Abd Samad
M. Y.
,
Uddin
M. K.
,
Mahmud
K.
,
Abd Shukor
M. Y.
,
Sheikh Abdullah
S. R.
&
Shamsuzzaman
S. M.
(
2020
)
Design, operation and optimization of constructed wetland for removal of pollutant
,
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
,
17
(
22
),
1
40
.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17228339
.
Rai
P. K.
(
2019
)
Heavy metals/metalloids remediation from wastewater using free-floating macrophytes of a natural wetland
,
Environmental Technology & Innovation
,
15
,
100393
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2019.100393
.
Rezania
S.
,
Din
M. F. M.
,
Taib
S. M.
,
Dahalan
F. A.
,
Songip
A. R.
,
Singh
L.
&
Kamyab
H.
(
2016
)
The efficient role of an aquatic plant (water hyacinth) in treating domestic wastewater in a continuous system
,
International Journal of Phytoremediation
,
18
(
7
),
679
685
.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15226514.2015.1130018
.
Rice
E. W.
,
Baird
R. B.
,
Eaton
A. D.
&
Clesceri
L. S.
(
2012
)
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater
.
Washington, DC, USA
:
American Public Health Association (APHA), American Water Works Association (AWWA), and Water Environment Federation (WEF)
.
Showqi
I.
,
Ahmad Lone
F.
&
Ahmad Bhat
J. I.
(
2017
)
Evaluation of the efficiency of duckweed (Lemna minor L.) as a phytoremediation agent in wastewater treatment in Kashmir Himalayas
,
Journal of Bioremediation & Biodegradation
,
08
(
04
),
8
11
.
https://doi.org/10.4172/2155-6199.1000405
.
Snow
A. M.
&
Ghaly
A. E.
(
2008
)
A comparative study of the purification of aquaculture wastewater using water hyacinth, water lettuce and parrot's feather
,
American Journal of Applied Science
,
5
(
2
),
440
453
.
Swarnalatha
K.
&
Radhakrishnan
B.
(
2015
)
Studies on removal of zinc and chromium from aqueous solutions using water hyacinth
,
Pollution
,
1
(
2
),
193
202
.
Tan
Y. Y.
,
Tang
F. E.
&
Ho
C. L. I.
(
2019
)
Constructed wetlands: Sustainable solution to managing domestic wastewater in the rural areas of Sarawak
,
IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering
,
495
,
1
.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/495/1/012063
.
Tilley
E.
,
Ulrich
L.
,
Lüthi
C.
,
Reymond
P.
&
Zurbrügg
C.
(
2014
)
Compendium of Sanitation Systems and Technologies
, 2nd revised edn.
Dübendorf, Switzerland
:
Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag)
.
Ting
W. H. T.
,
Tan
I. A. W.
,
Salleh
S. F.
&
Wahab
N. A.
(
2018
)
Application of water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) for phytoremediation of ammoniacal nitrogen: A review
,
Journal of Water Process Engineering
,
22
(
October 2017
),
239
249
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2018.02.011
.
Tran
P. T.
&
Van
T. H.
(
2016
)
Treatment of dormitory and aquaculture wastewater by using aquatic plants (Cilantro, Hyacinth and Spinach)
,
ARPN Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science
,
11
(
8
),
341
346
.
Tufaner
F.
(
2018
)
Post-treatment of effluents from UASB reactor treating industrial wastewater sediment by constructed wetland
.
Environmental Technology
41
(
7
),
912
920
.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2018.1514073
.
Uka
U. N.
&
Chukwuka
K. S.
(
2011
)
Utilization of aquatic macrophytes in Nigerian freshwater ecosystem
,
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science
,
6
(
5
),
490
498
.
https://doi.org/10.3923/jfas.2011.490.498
.
Valipour
A.
,
Raman
V. K.
&
Ahn
Y. H.
(
2015
)
Effectiveness of domestic wastewater treatment using a bio-hedge water hyacinth wetland system
,
Water (Switzerland)
,
7
(
1
),
329
347
.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w7010329.
Wang
J.
,
Fu
G.
,
Li
W.
,
Shi
Y.
,
Pang
J.
,
Wang
Q.
,
W.
,
Liu
C.
&
Liu
J.
(
2018
)
The effects of two free-floating plants (Eichhornia crassipes and Pistia stratiotes) on the burrow morphology and water quality characteristics of pond loach (Misgurnus anguillicaudatus) habitat
,
Aquaculture and Fisheries
,
3
(
1
),
22
29
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aaf.2017.12.001
.
Wu
H.
,
Zhang
J.
,
Ngo
H. H.
,
Guo
W.
,
Hu
Z.
,
Liang
S.
,
Fan
J.
&
Liu
H.
(
2015
)
A review on the sustainability of constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment: Design and operation
,
Bioresource Technology
,
175
,
594
601
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.10.068
.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY 4.0), which permits copying, adaptation and redistribution, provided the original work is properly cited (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).