The aim was to assess if domestic wastewater treated by different vertical-flow wetlands can be successfully recycled to water commercially grown crops. The growth of both Sweet Pepper (California Wonder; cultivar of Capsicum annuum Linnaeus Grossum Group) and Chilli (De Cayenne; Capsicum annuum (Linnaeus) Longum Group 'De Cayenne') fed with different treated and untreated wastewater types were assessed. The overall growth development of Sweet Peppers was poor due to the high concentrations of nutrients and trace minerals. In contrast, chilies did reasonably well but the growth of foliage was excessive and the harvest was delayed. High yields were associated with tap water and an organic growth medium, and a wetland with a high aggregate size, leaving sufficient space for biomass. Low fruit numbers correlated well with inorganic growth media and irrigation water contaminated by hydrocarbons. Findings indicate that nutrient concentrations supplied to the Chillies by a combination of compost and treated waste water are usually too high to produce a good harvest. However, as the compost is depleted of nutrients after about 8 months, the harvest increased for pots that received pre-treated wastewater. Findings will lead to a better understanding of the effects of different wetland treatment processes.

Constructed wetlands

Constructed treatment wetlands are engineered wastewater purification systems that encompass biological, chemical and physical processes, which are all similar to processes occurring in natural treatment wetlands. They are implemented for environmental pollution control to treat a variety of wastewaters including industrial effluents, urban and agricultural runoff, animal wastewaters, sludge and mine drainage (Scholz 2010; Sani et al. 2013). Recently, some large-scale wetland systems have also been successfully applied to treat domestic wastewater (Dong et al. 2011). However, there are few long-term and controlled studies involving domestic wastewater due to health and safety concerns.

Wastewater recycling for crop irrigation

The earliest documented sewage farms, where wastewater has been applied to land for disposal and for agricultural use, were operated in the 16th and 17th centuries in Bunzlau, Germany, and Edinburgh, Scotland (Shuval et al. 1986). The scientific basis for the acceptance of wastewater reclamation, recycling and reuse in agriculture has evolved from developments in water and wastewater engineering science coupled with an increasing pressure on water resources management. The evaluation of the effects of treated wastewater reuse on crops intended for human consumption is of particular interest (Asano & Levine 1996; Aiello et al. 2007; Cirelli et al. 2012). Unfavourable concentrations of certain nutrients and trace elements are a challenge to the growth of plants fed by recycled pre-treated wastewater. Moreover, traces of hydrocarbons from diesel spills associated with urban runoff or industrial effluent are a more recent challenge (Scholz 2010; García-Delgado et al. 2012).

Cirelli et al. (2012) presented the results of a reuse scenario where tertiary-treated municipal wastewater using a constructed wetland was supplied for irrigation of vegetables in Eastern Sicily, Italy. They found elevated levels of Escherichia coli in the irrigation water, which were frequently above the Italian limits of 50 colony forming units (CFU)/100 ml for secondary urban effluents.

García-Delgado et al. (2012) undertook a greenhouse study in Spain to assess the effect of treated urban waste water on soil and pepper quality. The wastewater application saved fertiliser (37% nitrogen, 66% phosphorus and 12% potassium). Total polyaromatic hydrocarbons and the heavy metals cadmium, lead and arsenic within the pepper fruits were low.

Morari & Giardini (2009) assessed the treatment efficiency of pilot-scale vertical-flow constructed wetlands on municipal wastewaters and their suitability for irrigation reuse in Italy. Only water quality parameters with high removal efficiencies fulfilled the Italian guidelines for irrigation reuse, whereas parameters with lower efficiencies such as suspended solids (SS) and total phosphorus limited the potential water reuse.

Vertical-flow constructed wetlands treating septic tank effluent in Guangzhou (China) achieved removal rates for chemical oxygen demand (COD), five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), SS, total nitrogen and total phosphorus of 60%, 80%, 74%, 49% and 79%, respectively (Cui et al. 2003). After that the treated effluent was used for hydroponic cultivation of water spinach and romaine lettuce. It was found that using treated effluent for hydroponic cultivation of vegetables could reduce the nitrate content in vegetables.

Lopez et al. (2006) assessed constructed wetlands treating municipal effluents to be reused in agriculture. Recorded average removal efficiencies for SS, five-day BOD, COD, total nitrogen and total phosphorus were 85%, 65%, 75%, 42% and 32%, respectively.

Plant selection

Many vegetables have the potential to grow on recycled wastewater. However, there is the potential of some vegetables such as lettuce and cabbage to become contaminated by microbes, because their edible leaves are too close to the ground receiving the treated wastewater. Therefore, it makes sense to select vegetables where the edible fruit is located far away from the ground (Nickels 2012). This may include peppers, tomatoes, maize, eggplants, beans, lentils and peas. The next step in selecting suitable vegetables is to decide on easy-to-grow and relatively cost-effective plants with high nutritional value. However, the authors concentrated on two pepper types in this study, because they can also be grown in greenhouses in the UK (Nickels 2012; Jones 2013).

Nutrients and minerals

Jones (2013) discussed the positive and negative impacts on key nutrients and minerals on plants. The major minerals impacting on the growth of plants are nitrogen (predominantly ammonium), phosphorus, potassium, calcium, magnesium and sulphur. Micro-nutrients that are beneficial in small amounts are (in no particular order) boron, copper, manganese, molybdenum, potassium, iron, zinc, iodine and chlorine. Copper, manganese, molybdenum, iron, zinc and aluminium (in no particular order) are often described as heavy metals. They may be toxic in high inflow water concentrations for peppers. Under acid conditions (soil with a pH of less than 7), heavy metals could be a problem to sensitive plants (FAO 2003).

Pescod (1992) and FAO (2003) also recommended limits for trace minerals in reclaimed water use for irrigation. Long-term (for water used continuously on all soils) and short-term (for water used for a period of up to 20 years on fine-textured neutral alkaline soils) threshold values for 18 elements have been listed. Recommended maximum concentrations for the trace elements that are often exceeded (see results below) are 5.0 mg/l for iron, 0.2 mg/l for manganese and 2.0 mg/l for potassium.

FAO (1994) classified the suitability of treated wastewater for recycling in terms of pollutants. Acceptable ranges for ammonia-nitrogen, ortho-phosphate-phosphorous and potassium were between 0 mg/l and 5 mg/l, between 0 mg/l and 2 mg/l, and between 0 mg/l and 2 mg/l, respectively. Furthermore, Pescod (1992) stated that for irrigation water there is no restriction for its reuse if nitrate-nitrogen values are <5.0 mg/l. Slight to moderate constraints exist for the range between 5 and 30 mg/l. Severe recycling restrictions are usually imposed for values of more than 30 mg/l.

Aim and objectives

The overall aim is to assess if vegetables can be grown successfully on recycled domestic wastewater treated by constructed wetlands. The corresponding key objectives related to the growing of Sweet Pepper and Chilli are to assess (a) the suitability for growth when using recycled wastewater, (b) the impact of different treated wastewaters as a function of the wetland type, (c) the volume of treated wastewater for irrigation, (d) the suitability of different growth media, (e) the effect of a diesel oil spill on the suitability of the recycled wastewater, and (f) the economic viability of different experimental set-ups.

Constructed wetlands set-up and operation

The vertical-flow wetland system is located within a greenhouse (door left open) on top of the roof of the Newton Building, The University of Salford, Greater Manchester, UK (Sani et al. 2013). Wetland filters were operated between 27 June 2011 and 4 June 2014. The set-up includes two filters that are essentially controls receiving clean de-chlorinated tap water. Table 1 indicates an overview of the statistical experimental set-up used to test the impact of four variables. Filters 1 and 2 compared to Filters 3 and 4 test the influence of a larger aggregate diameter. Filters 5 and 6 compared to Filters 3 and 4 check the impact of a higher loading rate. The application of a lower contact rate is tested if Filter 7 is compared with Filters 3 and 4. Finally, a lower resting time is the difference between Filters 7 and 8.

Table 1

Comparison of the experimental vertical-flow wetland set-up (after Al-Isawi et al. 2015a)

Design and/or operational variable
Aggregate diameterContact timeResting timeCOD
Wetland filters(mm)(h)(h)(mg/l)
Filters 1 and 2 20 72 48 122.8 
Filters 3 and 4 10 72 48 122.8 
Filters 5 and 6 10 72 48 243.8 
Filter 7 10 36 48 122.8 
Filter 8 10 36 24 122.8 
Control A 10 72 48 2.3 
Control B 10 72 48 2.3 
Design and/or operational variable
Aggregate diameterContact timeResting timeCOD
Wetland filters(mm)(h)(h)(mg/l)
Filters 1 and 2 20 72 48 122.8 
Filters 3 and 4 10 72 48 122.8 
Filters 5 and 6 10 72 48 243.8 
Filter 7 10 36 48 122.8 
Filter 8 10 36 24 122.8 
Control A 10 72 48 2.3 
Control B 10 72 48 2.3 

Note: annually treated volumes of wastewater: Filters 1–6, 470 l/a; Filter 7, 624 l/a Filter 8, 858 l/a. On 26 September 2013, 130 g of diesel was added to Filters 1, 3 and 5 and Control A.

The 10 laboratory-scale wetland filters were constructed from Pyrex tubes with an inner diameter of 19.5 cm and a height of 120 cm. The filters were filled with siliceous (minimum of 30%) pea gravel up to a depth of 60 cm and planted with Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steud. (Common Reed). Dead macrophyte plant material was harvested in winter and returned to the corresponding wetland filters by placing it on top of the litter zone (Sani et al. 2013; Al-Isawi et al. 2015a).

The main outlet valve is located at the bottom of each constructed wetland system. Eight further valves (used to test for clogging) are located on the sidewall of each wetland column. The sidewall valves were located at heights of 10, 20, 30, 40, 45, 50, 55 and 60 cm from the bottom of each column (Sani et al. 2013).

Wetland columns received 6.5 l of inflow water during the feeding mode, which was different between several filters (Table 1). Columns 1– 6 were sampled after 72 h contact time and then left to rest for 48 h, while columns 7 and 8 were sampled after 36 h contact time and left to rest for 48 h and 24 h, respectively. All water quality parameters discussed in this paper were determined during or directly after sampling. The preliminary treated urban wastewater used for the inflow water was obtained from the Davyhulme Sewage works, one of the largest waste water treatment plants in Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davyhulme), operated by the water utility company United Utilities in Greater Manchester. Fresh wastewater was collected approximately once per week, and was stored and aerated by standard aquarium air pumps in a cold room before use. The wastewater quality was highly variable, and comprised domestic and industrial wastewater as well as surface water runoff.

To simulate a one-off Diesel fuel (100% pure; no additives) spill, 130 g (equivalent to an inflow concentration of 20 g/l) of diesel fuel (100% pure; no additives) were poured into Filters 1, 3 and 5, and into one of the two columns (Control A) on 26 September 2013 (Table 1) as discussed by Al-Isawi et al. (2015b). The fuel was obtained from a petrol station operated by Tesco Extra (Pendleton Way, Salford, UK).

Aqua Medic Titan chillers (Aquacadabra, Bexleyheath, UK) were used to maintain the root system and debris layer of all wetland systems at semi-natural below-surface temperatures of about 12 °C. This temperature simulates the temperature of the upper earth layer where the root system of the wetland plants of a real treatment system would be located (Sani et al. 2013).

The COD was used as an indicator to differentiate between low and high loads (Table 1). An inflow target COD of about 285 mg/l (usually between 122 and 620 mg/l) was set for wetlands with a high loading rate (Filters 5 and 6). The remaining Filters 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 received wastewater diluted with de-chlorinated tap water. The target inflow COD for these filters was approximately 138 mg/l (usually between 43 and 350 mg/l).

Water quality analysis

Routine water quality sampling was carried out according to APHA (2005), unless stated otherwise, to monitor long-term and seasonal treatment performance. The spectrophotometer DR 2800 Hach Lange (www.hach.com) was used for standard water quality analysis for variables including COD, ammonia-nitrogen, nitrate-nitrogen, ortho-phosphate-phosphorus and SS.

Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) were determined by gas chromatography and flame ionization externally by Exova Health Sciences (Montrose Ave, Hillington Park, Glasgow, UK) according to their own TPH in Waters (with Aliphatic/Aromatic Splitting) Method (Exova Health Sciences 2014), which is accredited to the British Standard (BS) method BS EN ISO IEC 17025 by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service and compatible to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards (e.g., ISO17025), BS method BS DD 220 1994, and American Standard methods (United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) Method 3510C and US EPA SW846 Method 8015).

The five-day BOD was determined in all water samples with the OxiTop IS 12-6 system, a manometric measurement device, supplied by the Wissenschaftlich-Technische Werkstätten (WTW), Weilheim, Germany. Nitrification was suppressed by adding 0.05 ml of 5 g/l N-Allylthiourea (WTW chemical solution No. NTH600) solution per 50 ml of sample water.

Growing the vegetables: third planting

The third planting (i.e., second and final replanting) took place 28 days after the first replanting on 8 November 2013. Table 2 outlines the experimental set-up. The Sweet Pepper and Chilli were planted individually into 10-litre round plastic plant pots provided by scotplants (Hedgehogs Nursery, Crompton Road, Glenrothes, UK). The plant pot dimensions were as follows: height of 22.0 cm, bottom diameter of 22.0 cm and top diameter of 28.5 cm. All plant pots remained indoors (laboratory) under controlled environmental conditions. The experimental set-up was chosen to allow for the statistical assessment of different types of treatment such as the impact of organic media and nutrients in the wastewater.

Table 2

Experimental design in terms of plant number allocations after the second replanting (i.e., final replanting)

Inflow sourceGrowth mediaSweet PepperChilli
Filter 1 outflow Compost with bark P1;P2 C3;C4 
Filter 2 outflow Compost with bark P5;P6 C6;C8:C9 
Filter 3 outflow Compost with bark P8;P9;P10 C10;C11;C12 
Filter 4 outflow Compost with bark P12;P16 C16:C17 
Filter 5 outflow Compost with bark P18;P19;P20 C18;C19;C20 
Filter 6 outflow Compost with bark P22;P23 C21 
Filter 7 outflow Compost with bark P26;P28 C25:C26 
Filter 8 outflow Compost with bark P31;P32;P33 C27;C28:C29 
Control A outflow Compost with bark P35 C31;C33 
Control B outflow Compost with bark P39 C37:C38 
Deionized water Compost with bark P41 C41 
Tap water (100%) Compost with bark P44 C42;C43 
Tap water with fertilizer (0.7 ml/l) Compost with bark P45;P46 C45;C46 
Wastewater (20%); tap water (80%) Compost with bark P47 C49 
Wastewater (100%) Compost with bark P51;P54 C52; C54 
Filter 1 outflow Silica sand P55;P56 C56 
Filter 2 outflow Silica sand P57 C58 
Filter 3 outflow Silica sand P59 C61 
Filter 4 outflow Silica sand P61 C63;C64 
Filter 5 outflow Silica sand P65 C66 
Filter 6 outflow Silica sand P66;P67 C68 
Filter 7 outflow Silica sand P17;P69 C71 
Filter 8 outflow Silica sand P70;P71 C72;C73 
Control A outflow Silica sand P73 C74 
Control B outflow Silica sand P74 C76;C77 
Deionized water Silica sand P80 C80 
Tap water (100%) Silica sand P81 C82 
Tap water with fertilizer (0.7 ml/l) Silica sand P83;P84 C84;C85 
Wastewater (20%); tap water (80%) Silica sand P86;P87 C87 
Wastewater (100%) Silica sand P89;P90 C90 
Inflow sourceGrowth mediaSweet PepperChilli
Filter 1 outflow Compost with bark P1;P2 C3;C4 
Filter 2 outflow Compost with bark P5;P6 C6;C8:C9 
Filter 3 outflow Compost with bark P8;P9;P10 C10;C11;C12 
Filter 4 outflow Compost with bark P12;P16 C16:C17 
Filter 5 outflow Compost with bark P18;P19;P20 C18;C19;C20 
Filter 6 outflow Compost with bark P22;P23 C21 
Filter 7 outflow Compost with bark P26;P28 C25:C26 
Filter 8 outflow Compost with bark P31;P32;P33 C27;C28:C29 
Control A outflow Compost with bark P35 C31;C33 
Control B outflow Compost with bark P39 C37:C38 
Deionized water Compost with bark P41 C41 
Tap water (100%) Compost with bark P44 C42;C43 
Tap water with fertilizer (0.7 ml/l) Compost with bark P45;P46 C45;C46 
Wastewater (20%); tap water (80%) Compost with bark P47 C49 
Wastewater (100%) Compost with bark P51;P54 C52; C54 
Filter 1 outflow Silica sand P55;P56 C56 
Filter 2 outflow Silica sand P57 C58 
Filter 3 outflow Silica sand P59 C61 
Filter 4 outflow Silica sand P61 C63;C64 
Filter 5 outflow Silica sand P65 C66 
Filter 6 outflow Silica sand P66;P67 C68 
Filter 7 outflow Silica sand P17;P69 C71 
Filter 8 outflow Silica sand P70;P71 C72;C73 
Control A outflow Silica sand P73 C74 
Control B outflow Silica sand P74 C76;C77 
Deionized water Silica sand P80 C80 
Tap water (100%) Silica sand P81 C82 
Tap water with fertilizer (0.7 ml/l) Silica sand P83;P84 C84;C85 
Wastewater (20%); tap water (80%) Silica sand P86;P87 C87 
Wastewater (100%) Silica sand P89;P90 C90 

Note: original seed planting reference numbers; Sweet Pepper (P1–P90) and Chilli (C1– C90).

Data analysis

Microsoft Excel (www.microsoft.com) was used for general data analysis. IBM SPSS Statistics Version 20 (www.ibm.com) was applied to calculate the correlation between variables and statistical differences between treatments.

Water quality analysis

Findings are shown in Tables 3,456. Table 3 outlines the inflow water quality received by the plants. Note that the wetland effluent was used as the influent for the vegetable pots. Highly fluctuating values for TPH were observed in the outflow waters obtained from Filters 1, 3, 5, and 8, and Control A. The TPH concentrations followed this order: Control A > Filter 8 > Filter 1 > Filter 3 > Filter 5. However, these TPH concentrations were in compliance with the threshold set by the Chinese standard for irrigation water quality (SEPA 2005) highlighting a maximum allowable value of 1 mg/l. Note that the Chinese standard was used, considering that China produces about 54% (estimated in 2008) of the Sweet Peppers in the world (ERS/USDA 2008).

Table 3

Comparison of the water quality of the inflow water received by the vegetable pots (value, sample number (in brackets) and standard deviation, if available)

TPHCODBOD5NH4-NNO3-NPO4-PSSNTUpH
Outflow(μg/l)(mg/l)(mg/l)(mg/l)(mg/l)(mg/l)(mg/l)
Filter 1 100 100.2 (12) ± 82.57 24.5 (39) ± 18.14 6.4 (12) ± 7.63 3.3 (11) ± 0.24 3.2 (10) ± 2.74 11.4 (43) ± 11.00 9.6 (42) ± 6.09 6.4 (41) ± 0.25 
Filter 2 39.2 (8) ± 30.52 13.9 (37) ± 8.69 5.9 (11) ± 6.00 5.0 (10) ± 3.19 3.0 (10) ± 1.22 7.3 (43) ± 10.54 6.1 (41) ± 6.45 6.5 (41) ± 0.22 
Filter 3 69 106.6 (12) ± 76.76 25.1 (38) ± 18.47 4.2 (12) ± 4.60 3.4 (11) ± 0.34 2.9 (10) ± 2.47 12.2 (43) ± 10.51 10.3 (41) ± 6.33 6.5 (41) ± 0.19 
Filter 4 33.1 (8) ± 31.33 12.5 (36) ± 10.26 4.4 (11) ± 4.77 5.1 (10) ± 3.95 2.9 (10) ± 1.29 7.7 (43) ± 11.65 6.5 (41) ± 5.96 6.5 (41) ± 0.16 
Filter 5 14 142.6 (12) ± 105.06 24.2 (37) ± 19.24 13.6 (12) ± 15.25 4.9 (11) ± 0.89 4.2 (10) ± 3.80 13.7 (44) ± 14.37 10.6 (41) ± 7.66 6.7 (42) ± 0.23 
Filter 6 47.2 (8) ± 43.11 16.3 (38) ± 13.73 12.0 (11) ± 15.11 6.8 (10) ± 5.53 3.9 (10) ± 3.46 8.5 (44) ± 9.75 6.8 (41) ± 6.18 6.8 (42) ± 0.23 
Filter 7 39.5 (7) ± 36.56 13.8 (42) ± 9.72 4.8 (12) ± 7.59 7.4 (11) ± 3.29 3.2 (8) ± 2.05 2.0 (47) ± 3.03 3.1 (44) ± 1.19 6.5 (44) ± 0.18 
Filter 8 116 92.2 (7) ± 122.14 14.5 (49) ± 8.53 2.9 (11) ± 4.98 6.5 (11) ± 4.14 3.5 (8) ± 2.14 3.0 (57) ± 4.47 3.8 (58) ± 2.78 6.5 (58) ± 0.21 
Control A 346 68.3 (10) ± 90.29 13.1 (37) ± 8.42 1.7 (12) ± 1.71 0.6 (11) ± 0.60 1.9 (10) ± 0.98 6.3 (43) ± 8.94 4.9 (42) ± 4.22 6.7 (42) ± 0.17 
Control B 25.8 (8) ± 31.48 8.2 (38) ± 10.27 1.8 (11) ± 1.94 0.5 (10) ± 0.42 2.0 (10) ± 0.84 4.6 (43) ± 9.31 4.9 (41) ± 5.31 6.6 (42) ± 0.22 
Deionized water nm nm 7.1 nm nm nm 4.0 1.3 5.5 
Tap water nm nm 5.1 nm nm nm 4.0 3.0 5.9 
Tap water with fertiliser (0.7 ml/l) nm nm 7.3 nm nm nm 2.0 2.9 6.0 
Wastewater (20%); tap water (80%) nm nm 50.1 (6) ± 28.86 nm nm nm 25.8 (9) ± 22.50 9.8 (8) ± 11.47 7.1 (8) ± 0.188 
Wastewater (100%) nm 266.2 129.2 32.2 2.7 14.9 143.7 83.1 7.5 
Recommended maximum 1000 – – 5.0 30.0 2.0 – – 8.5 
TPHCODBOD5NH4-NNO3-NPO4-PSSNTUpH
Outflow(μg/l)(mg/l)(mg/l)(mg/l)(mg/l)(mg/l)(mg/l)
Filter 1 100 100.2 (12) ± 82.57 24.5 (39) ± 18.14 6.4 (12) ± 7.63 3.3 (11) ± 0.24 3.2 (10) ± 2.74 11.4 (43) ± 11.00 9.6 (42) ± 6.09 6.4 (41) ± 0.25 
Filter 2 39.2 (8) ± 30.52 13.9 (37) ± 8.69 5.9 (11) ± 6.00 5.0 (10) ± 3.19 3.0 (10) ± 1.22 7.3 (43) ± 10.54 6.1 (41) ± 6.45 6.5 (41) ± 0.22 
Filter 3 69 106.6 (12) ± 76.76 25.1 (38) ± 18.47 4.2 (12) ± 4.60 3.4 (11) ± 0.34 2.9 (10) ± 2.47 12.2 (43) ± 10.51 10.3 (41) ± 6.33 6.5 (41) ± 0.19 
Filter 4 33.1 (8) ± 31.33 12.5 (36) ± 10.26 4.4 (11) ± 4.77 5.1 (10) ± 3.95 2.9 (10) ± 1.29 7.7 (43) ± 11.65 6.5 (41) ± 5.96 6.5 (41) ± 0.16 
Filter 5 14 142.6 (12) ± 105.06 24.2 (37) ± 19.24 13.6 (12) ± 15.25 4.9 (11) ± 0.89 4.2 (10) ± 3.80 13.7 (44) ± 14.37 10.6 (41) ± 7.66 6.7 (42) ± 0.23 
Filter 6 47.2 (8) ± 43.11 16.3 (38) ± 13.73 12.0 (11) ± 15.11 6.8 (10) ± 5.53 3.9 (10) ± 3.46 8.5 (44) ± 9.75 6.8 (41) ± 6.18 6.8 (42) ± 0.23 
Filter 7 39.5 (7) ± 36.56 13.8 (42) ± 9.72 4.8 (12) ± 7.59 7.4 (11) ± 3.29 3.2 (8) ± 2.05 2.0 (47) ± 3.03 3.1 (44) ± 1.19 6.5 (44) ± 0.18 
Filter 8 116 92.2 (7) ± 122.14 14.5 (49) ± 8.53 2.9 (11) ± 4.98 6.5 (11) ± 4.14 3.5 (8) ± 2.14 3.0 (57) ± 4.47 3.8 (58) ± 2.78 6.5 (58) ± 0.21 
Control A 346 68.3 (10) ± 90.29 13.1 (37) ± 8.42 1.7 (12) ± 1.71 0.6 (11) ± 0.60 1.9 (10) ± 0.98 6.3 (43) ± 8.94 4.9 (42) ± 4.22 6.7 (42) ± 0.17 
Control B 25.8 (8) ± 31.48 8.2 (38) ± 10.27 1.8 (11) ± 1.94 0.5 (10) ± 0.42 2.0 (10) ± 0.84 4.6 (43) ± 9.31 4.9 (41) ± 5.31 6.6 (42) ± 0.22 
Deionized water nm nm 7.1 nm nm nm 4.0 1.3 5.5 
Tap water nm nm 5.1 nm nm nm 4.0 3.0 5.9 
Tap water with fertiliser (0.7 ml/l) nm nm 7.3 nm nm nm 2.0 2.9 6.0 
Wastewater (20%); tap water (80%) nm nm 50.1 (6) ± 28.86 nm nm nm 25.8 (9) ± 22.50 9.8 (8) ± 11.47 7.1 (8) ± 0.188 
Wastewater (100%) nm 266.2 129.2 32.2 2.7 14.9 143.7 83.1 7.5 
Recommended maximum 1000 – – 5.0 30.0 2.0 – – 8.5 

TPH – total petroleum hydrocarbons; COD – chemical oxygen demand; BOD5 – biochemical oxygen demand; NH4-N – ammonia-nitrogen, NO3-N – nitrate-nitrogen, PO4-P – ortho-phosphate-phosphorous; SS – suspended solids; NTU – turbidity; nm – not measured. Note: only Filters 5 and 6 received inflow raw wastewater with the characteristics summarized above. The remaining filters were fed with diluted wastewater (i.e., one part of de-chlorinated tap water and one part of wastewater). The controls received tap water. Filters 1, 3 and 5 as well as Control A were contaminated with diesel.

Table 4

Overview of visual growth problems associated with micronutrient surplus in new plant parts (corresponding numbers of plants highlighted in bold) observed during the second replanting phase on 7 March 2014, and possible reasons associated with nutritional disorders

Dark green and abundant foliagea
Low grow rateb
Stunting and reducing in branchesc
Necrotic lesions on leavesd
Inflow source and growth mediaSweet PepperChilliSweet PepperChilliSweet PepperChilliSweet PepperChilli
Filter 1 and organic P1;P2 C3;C4 P1;P2 C3;C4 P1;P2 C3;C4 P1;P2 C3;C4 
Filter 2 and organic P5;P6 C6;C8;C9 P5;P6 C6;C8;C9 P5;P6 C6;C8;C9 P5;P6 C6;C8;C9 
Filter 3 and organic P8;P9;P10 C10;C11;C12 P8;P9;P10 C10;C11;C12 P8;P9;P10 C10;C11;C12 P8;P9;P10 C10;C11;C12 
Filter 4 and organic P12;P16 C16;C17 P12;P16 C16;C17 P12;P16 C16;C17 P12;P16 C16;C17 
Filter 5 and organic P18;P19;P20 C18;C19;C20 P18;P19;P20 C18;C19;C20 P18;P19;P20 C18;C19;C20 P18;P19;P20 C18;C19;C20 
Filter 6 and organic P22;P23 C21 P22;P23 C21 P22;P23 C21 P22;P23 C21 
Filter 7 and organic P26;P28 C25;C26 P26;P28 C25;C26 P26;P28 C25;C26 P26;P28 C25;C26 
Filter 8 and organic P31;P32;P33 C27;C28;C29 P31;P32;P33 C27;C28;C29 P31;P32;P33 C27;C28;C29 P31;P32;P33 C27;C28;C29 
Control A and organic P35 C31;C33 P35 C31;C33 P35 C31;C33 P35 C31;C33 
Control B and organic P39 C37;C38 P39 C37;C38 P39 C37;C38 P39 C37;C38 
Deionised water and organic P41 C41 P41 C41 P41 C41 P41 C41 
Tap water and organic P44 C42;C43 P44 C42;C43 P44 C42;C43 P44 C42;C43 
Tap water/fertiliser and organic P45;P46 C45;C46 P45;P46 C45;C46 P45;P46 C45;C46 P45;P46 C45;C46 
Wastewater/tap water and organic P47 C49 P47 C49 P47 C49 P47 C49 
Wastewater and organic P51;P54 C52; C54 P51;P54 C52; C54 P51;P54 C52; C54 P51;P54 C52; C54 
Filter 1 and inorganic P55;P56 C56 P55;P56 C56 P55;P56 C56 P55;P56 C56 
Filter 2 and inorganic P57 C58 P57 C58 P57 C58 P57 C58 
Filter 3 and inorganic P59 C61 P59 C61 P59 C61 P59 C61 
Filter 4 and inorganic P61 C63;C64 P61 C63;C64 P61 C63;C64 P61 C63;C64 
Filter 5 and inorganic P65 C66 P65 C66 P65 C66 P65 C66 
Filter 6 and inorganic P66;P67 C68 P66;P67 C68 P66;P67 C68 P66;P67 C68 
Filter 7 and inorganic P17;P69 C71 P17;P69 C71 P17;P69 C71 P17;P69 C71 
Filter 8 and inorganic P70;P71 C72;C73 P70;P71 C72;C73 P70;P71 C72;C73 P70;P71 C72;C73 
Control A and inorganic P73 C74 P73 C74 P73 C74 P73 C74 
Control B and inorganic P74 C76;C77 P74 C76;C77 P74 C76;C77 P74 C76;C77 
Deionised water and inorganic P80 C80 P80 C80 P80 C80 P80 C80 
Tap water and inorganic P81 C82 P81 C82 P81 C82 P81 C82 
Tap water/fertiliser and inorganic P83;P84 C84;C85 P83;P84 C84;C85 P83;P84 C84;C85 P83;P84 C84;C85 
Wastewater/tap water and inorganic P86;P87 C87 P86;P87 C87 P86;P87 C87 P86;P87 C87 
Wastewater and inorganic P89;P90 C90 P89;P90 C90 P89;P90 C90 P89;P90 C90 
Dark green and abundant foliagea
Low grow rateb
Stunting and reducing in branchesc
Necrotic lesions on leavesd
Inflow source and growth mediaSweet PepperChilliSweet PepperChilliSweet PepperChilliSweet PepperChilli
Filter 1 and organic P1;P2 C3;C4 P1;P2 C3;C4 P1;P2 C3;C4 P1;P2 C3;C4 
Filter 2 and organic P5;P6 C6;C8;C9 P5;P6 C6;C8;C9 P5;P6 C6;C8;C9 P5;P6 C6;C8;C9 
Filter 3 and organic P8;P9;P10 C10;C11;C12 P8;P9;P10 C10;C11;C12 P8;P9;P10 C10;C11;C12 P8;P9;P10 C10;C11;C12 
Filter 4 and organic P12;P16 C16;C17 P12;P16 C16;C17 P12;P16 C16;C17 P12;P16 C16;C17 
Filter 5 and organic P18;P19;P20 C18;C19;C20 P18;P19;P20 C18;C19;C20 P18;P19;P20 C18;C19;C20 P18;P19;P20 C18;C19;C20 
Filter 6 and organic P22;P23 C21 P22;P23 C21 P22;P23 C21 P22;P23 C21 
Filter 7 and organic P26;P28 C25;C26 P26;P28 C25;C26 P26;P28 C25;C26 P26;P28 C25;C26 
Filter 8 and organic P31;P32;P33 C27;C28;C29 P31;P32;P33 C27;C28;C29 P31;P32;P33 C27;C28;C29 P31;P32;P33 C27;C28;C29 
Control A and organic P35 C31;C33 P35 C31;C33 P35 C31;C33 P35 C31;C33 
Control B and organic P39 C37;C38 P39 C37;C38 P39 C37;C38 P39 C37;C38 
Deionised water and organic P41 C41 P41 C41 P41 C41 P41 C41 
Tap water and organic P44 C42;C43 P44 C42;C43 P44 C42;C43 P44 C42;C43 
Tap water/fertiliser and organic P45;P46 C45;C46 P45;P46 C45;C46 P45;P46 C45;C46 P45;P46 C45;C46 
Wastewater/tap water and organic P47 C49 P47 C49 P47 C49 P47 C49 
Wastewater and organic P51;P54 C52; C54 P51;P54 C52; C54 P51;P54 C52; C54 P51;P54 C52; C54 
Filter 1 and inorganic P55;P56 C56 P55;P56 C56 P55;P56 C56 P55;P56 C56 
Filter 2 and inorganic P57 C58 P57 C58 P57 C58 P57 C58 
Filter 3 and inorganic P59 C61 P59 C61 P59 C61 P59 C61 
Filter 4 and inorganic P61 C63;C64 P61 C63;C64 P61 C63;C64 P61 C63;C64 
Filter 5 and inorganic P65 C66 P65 C66 P65 C66 P65 C66 
Filter 6 and inorganic P66;P67 C68 P66;P67 C68 P66;P67 C68 P66;P67 C68 
Filter 7 and inorganic P17;P69 C71 P17;P69 C71 P17;P69 C71 P17;P69 C71 
Filter 8 and inorganic P70;P71 C72;C73 P70;P71 C72;C73 P70;P71 C72;C73 P70;P71 C72;C73 
Control A and inorganic P73 C74 P73 C74 P73 C74 P73 C74 
Control B and inorganic P74 C76;C77 P74 C76;C77 P74 C76;C77 P74 C76;C77 
Deionised water and inorganic P80 C80 P80 C80 P80 C80 P80 C80 
Tap water and inorganic P81 C82 P81 C82 P81 C82 P81 C82 
Tap water/fertiliser and inorganic P83;P84 C84;C85 P83;P84 C84;C85 P83;P84 C84;C85 P83;P84 C84;C85 
Wastewater/tap water and inorganic P86;P87 C87 P86;P87 C87 P86;P87 C87 P86;P87 C87 
Wastewater and inorganic P89;P90 C90 P89;P90 C90 P89;P90 C90 P89;P90 C90 

aSurplus in iron (Foy et al. 1978).

bSurplus in manganese (Haifa Chemicals 2014).

cSurplus in manganese (Silva et al. 2000) and/or Iron (Foy et al. 1978).

dSurplus in manganese (McCauley et al. 2011; Silva et al. 2000).

Table 5

Overview of the inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometer analysis for selected elements (mg/l) considerably exceeding common standards for irrigation water (e.g., FAO (1994, 2003))

Iron
Potassium
Manganese
Sample nameSample numberMeanSDMeanSDMeanSD
Filter 1 0.58 0.365 9.31 2.346 0.08 0.006 
Filter 2 0.16 0.156 9.83 2.993 0.00 0.000 
Filter 3 1.53 1.429 10.73 2.612 0.30 0.210 
Filter 4 0.18 0.060 6.08 1.649 0.00 0.000 
Filter 5 0.77 0.368 15.42 3.946 0.21 0.067 
Filter 6 0.59 0.710 15.29 0.798 0.01 0.017 
Filter 7 0.19 0.042 7.63 0.719 0.00 0.006 
Filter 8 0.18 0.101 8.38 3.572 0.00 0.000 
Control A 0.13 0.046 1.35 0.367 0.04 0.012 
Control B 0.07 0.023 1.22 0.976 0.00 0.000 
Wastewater 8.23 5.341 11.25 4.040 0.13 0.078 
Tap water with wastewater 1.00 0.014 3.16 1.344 0.01 0.007 
Tap water 6.89 – 0.59 – 0.00 – 
Fertilizer 18.37 – 341.98 – 5.65 – 
Recommended maximum (mg/l) – 5.000 – 2.000 – 0.200 – 
Iron
Potassium
Manganese
Sample nameSample numberMeanSDMeanSDMeanSD
Filter 1 0.58 0.365 9.31 2.346 0.08 0.006 
Filter 2 0.16 0.156 9.83 2.993 0.00 0.000 
Filter 3 1.53 1.429 10.73 2.612 0.30 0.210 
Filter 4 0.18 0.060 6.08 1.649 0.00 0.000 
Filter 5 0.77 0.368 15.42 3.946 0.21 0.067 
Filter 6 0.59 0.710 15.29 0.798 0.01 0.017 
Filter 7 0.19 0.042 7.63 0.719 0.00 0.006 
Filter 8 0.18 0.101 8.38 3.572 0.00 0.000 
Control A 0.13 0.046 1.35 0.367 0.04 0.012 
Control B 0.07 0.023 1.22 0.976 0.00 0.000 
Wastewater 8.23 5.341 11.25 4.040 0.13 0.078 
Tap water with wastewater 1.00 0.014 3.16 1.344 0.01 0.007 
Tap water 6.89 – 0.59 – 0.00 – 
Fertilizer 18.37 – 341.98 – 5.65 – 
Recommended maximum (mg/l) – 5.000 – 2.000 – 0.200 – 

Note: for all elements; blank, 0.000; standard 1, 0.994; standard 2, 4.973; standard 3, 9.943. The ICP–OES equipment detection limits for the elements iron, potassium and manganese are 0.10 × 10−3 mg/l, 0.30 × 10−3 mg/l and 0.03 × 10−3 mg/l, respectively. SD, standard deviation.

Table 6

Chilli (C) harvest classification scheme (after Almuktar et al. 2015)

VariableClass AClass BClass CClass DClass E
Length (L, mm) Very long (L ≥ 80) Long (60≤ L < 80) Medium (40≤ L < 60) Short (20 ≤ L < 40) Very short (L < 20) 
Width (W, mm) Very wide(W ≥ 20) Wide (16 ≤ W < 20) Medium (12 ≤ W < 16) Slim (8 ≤ W < 12) Very slim (W < 8) 
Weight (w, g) Very Large(w ≥ 9) Large (7 ≤ w < 9) Medium ( 5≤ w ≤ 7) Small (3 ≤ w < 5) Very Small (w < 3) 
Bending Characteristically bend; L/W ≥ 3.5 Characteristically bend; L/W ≥ 3.5 Characteristically bend; L/W ≥ 3.5 Uncharacteristically bend; L/W < 3.5 Uncharacteristically bend; L/W < 3.5 
VariableClass AClass BClass CClass DClass E
Length (L, mm) Very long (L ≥ 80) Long (60≤ L < 80) Medium (40≤ L < 60) Short (20 ≤ L < 40) Very short (L < 20) 
Width (W, mm) Very wide(W ≥ 20) Wide (16 ≤ W < 20) Medium (12 ≤ W < 16) Slim (8 ≤ W < 12) Very slim (W < 8) 
Weight (w, g) Very Large(w ≥ 9) Large (7 ≤ w < 9) Medium ( 5≤ w ≤ 7) Small (3 ≤ w < 5) Very Small (w < 3) 
Bending Characteristically bend; L/W ≥ 3.5 Characteristically bend; L/W ≥ 3.5 Characteristically bend; L/W ≥ 3.5 Uncharacteristically bend; L/W < 3.5 Uncharacteristically bend; L/W < 3.5 

COD values were the highest for raw wastewater followed by those for Filter 5, which was fed with a high inflow load in terms of COD (Table 1). In contrast, the lowest values were noted for Control B. Filters 1, 3 and 8 had relatively similar COD concentrations. Control A had higher COD values than Filter 6. No differences in COD values were noted for Filters 2, 4 and 7. This observation helps to explain why the inflow load of wetland filters directly impacts on the COD values of the outflow water rather than design variables such as aggregate size, contact time and resting time. High rate filters are likely to be overloaded as discussed by Sani et al. (2013).

The five-day BOD was high for raw wastewater followed by wastewater samples, which were diluted with 80% of tap water. In comparison, the lowest five-day BOD was observed for tap water with fertiliser, tap water and deionized water.

High concentrations of ammonia-nitrogen, which exceeded the threshold of 5 mg/l (FAO 1994), were noted for both Filters 5 and 6 (filters with a high loads; Table 1), followed by those for Filters 1 and 2 (filters with large aggregate sizes). This confirms results findings by Sani et al. (2013) that high rate filters tend to overload. Table 3 shows that nitrate-nitrogen for all filter outflow waters was less than the maximum thresholds value of 30 mg/l (Pescod 1992).

Based on the recommended threshold of 2 mg/l for ortho-phosphate-phosphorus (FAO 1994), the outflow waters from all wetland filters (with the exception of Controls A and B) were associated with too high ortho-phosphate-phosphorus concentrations. In general, phosphorus is one of the most difficult pollutants to be removed by mature constructed wetlands (Pant et al. 2001). This can be explained by the fact that phosphorus is usually present in particulate form, and does not dissolve well in filters that are not yet saturated by phosphorus or other compounds competing for adsorption sites (Scholz 2006, 2010).

The highest value for SS was noted for raw wastewater followed by that for wastewater, which was diluted with 80% tap water. In contrast, the lowest values were observed for Filter 7 outflow water and tap water with fertiliser. Turbidity was high for raw wastewater. Filter 7 had the lowest turbidity values. The pH values for all filter outflows were within the normal range; i.e., between 6.0 and 8.5 (Pescod 1992).

Growth comparisons

The statistical experimental set-up as specified in Table 2 was chosen for the second replanting stage. Table 4 shows visual growth problems and indicates possible reasons. Figures 1(a) and 1(b) provide an overview of total irrigation water volume consumed by Sweat Pepper and Chilli plants, respectively, growing in different media. All plants grown in organic media consumed more water than those grown in inorganic media leading to better overall plant development.

Figure 1

Overview of total irrigation water volume consumed by (a) Sweet Pepper and (b) Chilli plants growing in different media.

Figure 1

Overview of total irrigation water volume consumed by (a) Sweet Pepper and (b) Chilli plants growing in different media.

Close modal

In countries, where wastewater is seen as a resource, low wastewater consumption by plants is an advantage. However, high wastewater use by plants is seen as an advantage in temperate regions. The productivity of plants in terms of harvest is, however, independent of the wastewater consumption (Figure 1(b)). Nevertheless, a higher foliage production requires more water.

Correlation analysis results show that the fruit weights were significantly positively correlated with the total water volume used for irrigation (r = 0.821, p =0.000). Potential water stress might have reduced cell division and caused cell enlargement to cease. This could have led to a slowdown of the growth rate and might have been the reason for the relatively low weight, diameter and length of Pepper fruits (Tadesse 1997).

Table 7 provides summaries of the bud, flower and fruit development for Sweet Pepper and Chilli plants. The overall growth development of Sweet Peppers was rather disappointing, possibly due to the high concentrations of nutrients and trace minerals, and adverse environmental boundary conditions in the laboratory (Jones 2013).

Table 7

Overview of total number of flowers (TNF) and total number of fruits (TNF) for Sweet Pepper (P) and Chilli (C) plants after the second replanting period until 4 June 2014

Total bud number
Total flower number
Total fruit number
Total harvested fruit number
Inflow source and growth mediaSweet PepperChilliSweet PepperChilliSweet PepperChilliSweet PepperChilli
Filter 1 and organic P1(31);P2(39) C3(32);C4(39) P1(0);P2(9) C3(7);C4(4) P1(0);P2(3) C3(14);C4(1) P1(0);P2(0) C3(0);C4(0) 
Filter 2 and organic P5(34);P6(82) C6(63);C8(37);C9(36) P5(2);P6(9) C6(31);C8(29);C9(11) P5(0);P6(3) C6(9);C8(14);C9(10) P5(0);P6(0) C6(0);C8(4);C9(2) 
Filter 3 and organic P8(58);P9(38);P10(65) C10(84);C11(99);C12(154) P8(0);P9(3);P10(2) C10(22);C11(22);C12(17) P8(0); P9(0);P10(0) C10(8);C11(7);C12(9) P8(0);P9(0);P10(0) C10(0);C11(0);C12(1) 
Filter 4 and organic P12(38);P16(52) C16(66);C17(53) P12(0);P16(0) C16(16);C17(15) P12(0);P16(0) C16(10);C17(12) P12(0);P16(0) C16(3);C17(1) 
Filter 5 and organic P18(33);P19(33);P20(57) C18(85);C19(75);C20(61) P18(7);P19(3);P20(16) C18(11);C19(12);C20(17) P18(0);P19(0);P20(0) C18(12);C19(8);C20(19) P18(0);P19(0);P20(0) C18(3);C19(2);C20(0) 
Filter 6 and organic P22(31);P23(66) C21(62) P22(1);P23(0) C21(15) P22(0);P23(0) C21(13) P22(0);P23(0) C21(0) 
Filter 7 and organic P26(64);P28(57) C25(100);C26(80) P26(2);P28(10) C25(21);C26(39) P26(0);P28(2) C25(18);C26(21) P26(0);P28(0) C25(3)C26(2) 
Filter 8 and organic P31(46);P32(48);P33(86) C27(79);C28(79);C29(71) P31(0);P32(3);P33(4) C27(37);C28(23);C29(17) P31(0);P32(1);P33(0) C27(20);C28(11);C29(15) P31(0);P32(0);P33(0) C27(4);C28(0);C29(1) 
Control A and organic P35(33) C31(47);C33(51) P35(11) C31(22);C33(28) P35(3) C31(17);C33(15) P35(0) C31(0);C33(2) 
Control B and organic P39(38) C37(127);C38(113) P39(0) C37(26);C38(39) P39(0) C37(13);C38(16) P39(0) C37(1);C38(3) 
Deionized water and organic P41(36) C41(164) P41(0) C41(21) P41(0) C41(13) P41(0) C41(8) 
Tap water and organic P44(115) C42(72);C43(38) P44(17) C42(37);C43(31) P44(6) C42(28);C43(23) P44(0) C42(13);C43(10) 
Tap water/fertilizer and organic P45(61);P46(147) C45(128);C46(122) P45(1);P46(2) C45(44);C46(46) P45(1);P46(1) C45(30);C46(17) P45(0);P46(0) C45(0);C46(1) 
Wastewater/tap water and organic P47(56) C49(96) P47(0) C49(35) P47(0) C49(10) P47(0) C49(0) 
Wastewater and organic P51(161);P54(134) C52(99); 54(63) P51(31);P54(23) C52(25);C54(28) P51(0);P54(5) C52(13);C54(9) P51(0);P54(0) C52(1);C54(0) 
Filter 1 and inorganic P55(14);P56(6) C56(8) P55(7);P56(3) C56(5) P55(6);P56(1) C56(3) P55(0);P56(0) C56(1) 
Filter 2 and inorganic P57(28) C58(18) P57(8) C58(6) P57(2) C58(5) P57(0) C58(1) 
Filter 3 and inorganic P59(12) C61(10) P59(1) C61(6) P59(0) C61(2) P59(0) C61(1) 
Filter 4 and inorganic P61(13) C63(11);C64(10) P61(4) C63(5);C64(7) P61(3) C63(1);C64(2) P61(0) C63(1);C64(2) 
Filter 5 and inorganic P65(4) C66(9) P65(2) C66(1) P65(1) C66(1) P65(0) C66(1) 
Filter 6 and inorganic P66(5);P67(38) C68(7) P66(4);P67(3) C68(5) P66(1);P67(1) C68(3) P66(0);P67(0) C68(1) 
Filter 7 and inorganic P17(12);P69(8) C71(8) P17(6);P69(2) C71(5) P17(3);P69(1) C71(3) P17(0);P69(0) C71(3) 
Filter 8 and inorganic P70(5);P71(7) C72(10);C73(13) P70(2);P71(2) C72(5);C73(4) P70(1);P71(1) C72(2);C73(2) P70(0);P71(1) C72(2);C73(1) 
Control A and inorganic P73(4) C74(1) P73(1) C74(1) P73(1) C74(1) P73(0) C74(0) 
Control B and inorganic P74(2) C76(11);C77(1) P74(1) C76(1);C77(1) P74(1) C76(1);C77(1) P74(0) C76(1);C77(0) 
Deionized water and inorganic P80(2) C80(7) P80(0) C80(4) P80(0) C80(1) P80(0) C80(0) 
Tap water and inorganic P81(8) C82(1) P81(2) C82(1) P81(1) C82(1) P81(0) C82(1) 
Tap water/fertilizer and inorganic P83(34);P84(37) C84(30);C85(68) P83(5);P84(5) C84(10)C85(20) P83(2);P84(2) C84(6);C85(13) P83(0);P84(0) C84(3);C85(8) 
Wastewater/tap water and inorganic P86(3);P87(10) C87(7) P86(2);P87(3) C87(7) P86(1);P87(1) C87(2) P86(0);P87(0) C87(1) 
Wastewater and inorganic P89(16);P90(18) C90(10) P89(1);P90(1) C90(6) P89(1);P90(0) C90(4) P89(0);P90(0) C90(0) 
Total bud number
Total flower number
Total fruit number
Total harvested fruit number
Inflow source and growth mediaSweet PepperChilliSweet PepperChilliSweet PepperChilliSweet PepperChilli
Filter 1 and organic P1(31);P2(39) C3(32);C4(39) P1(0);P2(9) C3(7);C4(4) P1(0);P2(3) C3(14);C4(1) P1(0);P2(0) C3(0);C4(0) 
Filter 2 and organic P5(34);P6(82) C6(63);C8(37);C9(36) P5(2);P6(9) C6(31);C8(29);C9(11) P5(0);P6(3) C6(9);C8(14);C9(10) P5(0);P6(0) C6(0);C8(4);C9(2) 
Filter 3 and organic P8(58);P9(38);P10(65) C10(84);C11(99);C12(154) P8(0);P9(3);P10(2) C10(22);C11(22);C12(17) P8(0); P9(0);P10(0) C10(8);C11(7);C12(9) P8(0);P9(0);P10(0) C10(0);C11(0);C12(1) 
Filter 4 and organic P12(38);P16(52) C16(66);C17(53) P12(0);P16(0) C16(16);C17(15) P12(0);P16(0) C16(10);C17(12) P12(0);P16(0) C16(3);C17(1) 
Filter 5 and organic P18(33);P19(33);P20(57) C18(85);C19(75);C20(61) P18(7);P19(3);P20(16) C18(11);C19(12);C20(17) P18(0);P19(0);P20(0) C18(12);C19(8);C20(19) P18(0);P19(0);P20(0) C18(3);C19(2);C20(0) 
Filter 6 and organic P22(31);P23(66) C21(62) P22(1);P23(0) C21(15) P22(0);P23(0) C21(13) P22(0);P23(0) C21(0) 
Filter 7 and organic P26(64);P28(57) C25(100);C26(80) P26(2);P28(10) C25(21);C26(39) P26(0);P28(2) C25(18);C26(21) P26(0);P28(0) C25(3)C26(2) 
Filter 8 and organic P31(46);P32(48);P33(86) C27(79);C28(79);C29(71) P31(0);P32(3);P33(4) C27(37);C28(23);C29(17) P31(0);P32(1);P33(0) C27(20);C28(11);C29(15) P31(0);P32(0);P33(0) C27(4);C28(0);C29(1) 
Control A and organic P35(33) C31(47);C33(51) P35(11) C31(22);C33(28) P35(3) C31(17);C33(15) P35(0) C31(0);C33(2) 
Control B and organic P39(38) C37(127);C38(113) P39(0) C37(26);C38(39) P39(0) C37(13);C38(16) P39(0) C37(1);C38(3) 
Deionized water and organic P41(36) C41(164) P41(0) C41(21) P41(0) C41(13) P41(0) C41(8) 
Tap water and organic P44(115) C42(72);C43(38) P44(17) C42(37);C43(31) P44(6) C42(28);C43(23) P44(0) C42(13);C43(10) 
Tap water/fertilizer and organic P45(61);P46(147) C45(128);C46(122) P45(1);P46(2) C45(44);C46(46) P45(1);P46(1) C45(30);C46(17) P45(0);P46(0) C45(0);C46(1) 
Wastewater/tap water and organic P47(56) C49(96) P47(0) C49(35) P47(0) C49(10) P47(0) C49(0) 
Wastewater and organic P51(161);P54(134) C52(99); 54(63) P51(31);P54(23) C52(25);C54(28) P51(0);P54(5) C52(13);C54(9) P51(0);P54(0) C52(1);C54(0) 
Filter 1 and inorganic P55(14);P56(6) C56(8) P55(7);P56(3) C56(5) P55(6);P56(1) C56(3) P55(0);P56(0) C56(1) 
Filter 2 and inorganic P57(28) C58(18) P57(8) C58(6) P57(2) C58(5) P57(0) C58(1) 
Filter 3 and inorganic P59(12) C61(10) P59(1) C61(6) P59(0) C61(2) P59(0) C61(1) 
Filter 4 and inorganic P61(13) C63(11);C64(10) P61(4) C63(5);C64(7) P61(3) C63(1);C64(2) P61(0) C63(1);C64(2) 
Filter 5 and inorganic P65(4) C66(9) P65(2) C66(1) P65(1) C66(1) P65(0) C66(1) 
Filter 6 and inorganic P66(5);P67(38) C68(7) P66(4);P67(3) C68(5) P66(1);P67(1) C68(3) P66(0);P67(0) C68(1) 
Filter 7 and inorganic P17(12);P69(8) C71(8) P17(6);P69(2) C71(5) P17(3);P69(1) C71(3) P17(0);P69(0) C71(3) 
Filter 8 and inorganic P70(5);P71(7) C72(10);C73(13) P70(2);P71(2) C72(5);C73(4) P70(1);P71(1) C72(2);C73(2) P70(0);P71(1) C72(2);C73(1) 
Control A and inorganic P73(4) C74(1) P73(1) C74(1) P73(1) C74(1) P73(0) C74(0) 
Control B and inorganic P74(2) C76(11);C77(1) P74(1) C76(1);C77(1) P74(1) C76(1);C77(1) P74(0) C76(1);C77(0) 
Deionized water and inorganic P80(2) C80(7) P80(0) C80(4) P80(0) C80(1) P80(0) C80(0) 
Tap water and inorganic P81(8) C82(1) P81(2) C82(1) P81(1) C82(1) P81(0) C82(1) 
Tap water/fertilizer and inorganic P83(34);P84(37) C84(30);C85(68) P83(5);P84(5) C84(10)C85(20) P83(2);P84(2) C84(6);C85(13) P83(0);P84(0) C84(3);C85(8) 
Wastewater/tap water and inorganic P86(3);P87(10) C87(7) P86(2);P87(3) C87(7) P86(1);P87(1) C87(2) P86(0);P87(0) C87(1) 
Wastewater and inorganic P89(16);P90(18) C90(10) P89(1);P90(1) C90(6) P89(1);P90(0) C90(4) P89(0);P90(0) C90(0) 

Chilies did reasonably well but the growth of foliage was excessive and the harvest was delayed. High numbers of buds were recorded for plants growing in an organic media compared to those growing in an inorganic media. However, most of the buds associated with the organic media fell down before reaching the flowering stage. Most flowers either also fell down or died before producing any fruits, possibly due to the high nutrient concentrations (especially nitrogen) supplied to those plants by rich organic media and irrigation (pre-treated) wastewater (Haifa Chemicals 2014). Plants growing in an inorganic media produced lower numbers of buds compared to those Chillies grown in organic media. Nevertheless, most of these buds successfully reached the flowering and fruiting stages. This is possibly due to a better balance in nutrients supplied to those plants by the corresponding irrigation water. Low fruit numbers correlate well with inorganic growth media (Table 7).

Figures 2,34 summarize a comparison of maximum fruit lengths, widths and total weights harvested from plants grown in different media subjected to different irrigation water types. Generally, fruits harvested from plants grown in organic media had diameters, lengths and weights greater than those from plants raised in inorganic media. These results in addition to findings based on other research studies undertaken in greenhouse conditions to assess the effect of different growth media on Pepper growth rates and yields indicated that seedlings benefited from peat moss media (Rahimi et al. 2013).

Figure 2

Comparison of maximum fruit lengths associated with harvested plants grown in different growth media subjected to different irrigation water types.

Figure 2

Comparison of maximum fruit lengths associated with harvested plants grown in different growth media subjected to different irrigation water types.

Close modal
Figure 3

Comparison of maximum fruit widths linked to harvested plants grown in different growth media subjected to different irrigation water types.

Figure 3

Comparison of maximum fruit widths linked to harvested plants grown in different growth media subjected to different irrigation water types.

Close modal
Figure 4

Comparison of total fruit weights associated with harvested plants growing in different growth media subjected to different irrigation water types.

Figure 4

Comparison of total fruit weights associated with harvested plants growing in different growth media subjected to different irrigation water types.

Close modal

Another study was undertaken to determine the effects of peat and sand on variables such as fruit length, diameter and weight, as well as the total fruit number per plant and yield. Results showed that peat significantly increased length, diameter and weight of fruits in all cultivars grown in comparison to sand (Gungor & Yildirim 2013).

Furthermore, organic substrates decompose over time, and subsequently release nutrients. The rate of decomposition and the physical conditions of the media vary with the parent material. That in turn will enhance crop growth and development. Moreover, better aeration of peat promotes vigorous root growth, which allows rapid development of foliage and therefore increases the whole plant yield (Olle et al. 2012). In contrast, for inorganic media such as sand, nutrient provision to the crops is limited to the nutrients that are part of the irrigation water resulting in a delay of plant foliage growth with a subsequent poor yield (Olle et al. 2012).

Figure 5 summarizes differences in fruit mean diameter, length and weight harvested from plants irrigated with different water types and grown in organic media. Regarding the comparison of mean fruit lengths and widths of plants grown in organic media and irrigated with different wetland outflow waters, statistical results show that harvested fruits were not significant different from each other (P value greater than 0.05). However, fruits harvested from plants grown in organic media and irrigated with Filter 2 outflow water were very close to those harvested from Control B outflow water, tap water and deionized water in which plants depended mainly on nutrients provided by the organic growth media, confirming that nutrients provided to plants by the treated wastewater and the compost were very high, produce good yield quality.

Figure 5

Differences in fruit mean length, width and weight linked to harvested plants irrigated with different water types and grown in organic media. Note: treatments did not produce enough fruit numbers were not considered in the comparison results at least at this stage of the plant development. Bars indicate standard errors.

Figure 5

Differences in fruit mean length, width and weight linked to harvested plants irrigated with different water types and grown in organic media. Note: treatments did not produce enough fruit numbers were not considered in the comparison results at least at this stage of the plant development. Bars indicate standard errors.

Close modal

Regarding a comparison of mean fruit weights harvested from plants grown in organic media and irrigated with different water types (Figure 5), results showed that plants irrigated with water harvested from Filters 2 and 4 produced fruits of mean weight, which were significantly greater than those harvested from plants irrigated with outflow water from Filter 7 (P value of 0.008 and 0.027, respectively). These result can be explained by a higher contact time (Filters 2 and 4 compared to Filter 7; Table 1) leading to more favourable nutrient quantity distributions (e.g., lower nitrate-nitrogen in the irrigation water for Filters 2 and 4 compared to Filter 7; Table 3) provided by Filters 2 and 4, which subsequently positively impacted on fruit diameters, lengths and weights (Bar-Tal et al. 2001). However, since the plants irrigated with tap water and grown in organic media produced the highest number of fruits (23), this explains why the total weight of harvested fruits was linked to plants irrigated with tap water associated with low nutrient loads (Figure 4).

Findings indicate that nutrient concentrations supplied to the Chillies by a combination of compost and treated waste water are usually too high to produce a good harvest. However, as the compost is depleted of nutrients after about 8 months, the harvest increased for pots that received pre-treated wastewater in comparison to those pots depending only on the nutrients associated with the compost. A high yield is rather related with the most suitable provision of nutrients and trace elements.

Inductively coupled plasma findings

Table 5 provides an overview of the ICP–OES analysis for selected elements in the irrigation water. High concentrations of iron, which exceeded the threshold of 5 mg/l (Pescod 1992; FAO 2003), were noted for both raw wastewater and tap water. Based on the recommended threshold of 2 mg/l for potassium (FAO 1994), the outflow water from all wetland filters (with the exception of Controls A and B) was associated with too high potassium concentrations. Furthermore, high concentrations were also observed for raw wastewater, and wastewater samples, which were diluted with 80% of tap water. Results show for Filters 3 and 5 relatively high manganese concentrations, which exceeded the threshold of 0.2 mg/l (Pescod 1992; FAO 2003).

Brief cost-benefit analysis

Table 6 shows the proposed novel harvest classification scheme for Chilli. However, the estimated prices are dependent on the current market value. Only the following numerical and objective variables were used to classify fruits for the purpose of this study: length, width, weight and bending. The lowest variable class entry for any individual fruit assessment determined the final class. For example, if a fruit is categorized as class A in terms of length, class B in terms of diameter and E in terms of weight, then the final class for this fruit would be class E, and accordingly the corresponding price for this Chilli would be zero pence (Table 8).

Table 8

Overview of the outcome of the Chilli (C) harvest (before or on 4 June 2014) classification scheme according to Table 7. Note that the lowest variable class entry for any individual fruit assessment will determine the final class. However, only the following numerical and objective variables were used to classify fruits for the purpose of this study: length, width, weight, bending. Values shown per plant represent pence (Sterling)

Inflow source and growth mediaClass AClass BClass CClass DClass EMean per plant
Filter 1 and organic C3(0);C4(0) C3(0);C4(0) C3(0);C4(0) C3(1.2);C4(0) C3(0);C4(0) 
Filter 2 and organic C6(0);C8(42.1);C9(0) C6(0);C8(20.5);C9(10.1) C6(0);C8(0);C9(0) C6(0);C8(0);C9(3.0) C6(0);C8(0);C9(0) 25.1 
Filter 3 and organic C10(0);C11(0);C12(0) C10(0);C11(0);C12(0) C10(0);C11(0);C12(0) C10(0);C11(0);C12(2.1) C10(0);C11(0);C12(0) 0.7 
Filter 4 and organic C16(0);C17(0) C16(7.9);C17(0) C16(9.0);C17(0) C16(0);C17(1.2) C16(0);C17(0) 9.1 
Filter 5 and organic C18(0);C19(0);C20(0) C18(14.6);C19(9.9);C20(0) C18(3.4);C19(2.9);C20(0) C18(0);C19(0);C20(0) C18(0);C19(0);C20(0) 5.4 
Filter 6 and organic C21(0) C21(0) C21(0) C21(0) C21(0) 0.0 
Filter 7 and organic C25(0);C26(0) C25(0);C26(17.6) C25(0);C26(0) C25(1.9);C26(0) C25(0);C26(0) 9.8 
Filter 8 and organic C27(0);C28(0);C29(0) C27(0);C28(0);C29(0) C27(2.7);C28(0);C29(0) C27(4.8);C28(0);C29(0.8) C27(0);C28(0);C29(0) 2.8 
Control A and organic C31(0);C33(0) C31(0);C33(7.2) C31(0);C33(0) C31(0);C33(2.2) C31(0);C33(0) 4.7 
Control B and organic C37(0);C38(20.3) C37(15.7);C38(0) C37(0);C38(2.6) C37(0);C38(0) C37(0);C38(0) 19.3 
Deionized water and organic C41(0) C41(7.6) C41(9.1) C41(2.0) C41(0) 18.7 
Tap water and organic C42(18.4);C43(86.8) C42(16.8);C43(8.6) C42(5.1);C43(7.3) C42(6.8);C43(3.5) C42(0);C43(0) 76.7 
Tap water/fertiliser and organic C45(0);C46(0) C45(0);C46(0) C45(0);C46(0) C45(0);C46(1.2) C45(0);C46(0) 0.0 
Wastewater/tap water and organic C49(0) C49(0) C49(0) C49(0) C49(0) 0.0 
Wastewater and organic C52(0); C54(0) C52(0); C54(0) C52(0); C54(0) C52(0); C54(0) C52(0); C54(0) 0.0 
Filter 1 and inorganic C56(0) C56(0) C56(0) C56(0) C56(0) 0.0 
Filter 2 and inorganic C58(0) C58(0) C58(3.3) C58(0) C58(0) 3.3 
Filter 3 and inorganic C61(0) C61(0) C61(0) C61(0.8) C61(0) 0.8 
Filter 4 and inorganic C63(0);C64(0) C63(7.7);C64(0) C63(0);C64(0) C63(0);C64(1.7) C63(0);C64(0) 4.7 
Filter 5 and inorganic C66(0) C66(0) C66(0) C66(0) C66(0) 0.0 
Filter 6 and inorganic C68(0) C68(7.1) C68(0) C68(0) C68(0) 7.1 
Filter 7 and inorganic C71(0) C71(7.2) C71(0) C71(1.3) C71(0) 8.5 
Filter 8 and inorganic C72(0);C73(0) C72(0);C73(0) C72(0);C73(0) C72(1.8);C73(1.3) C72(0);C73(0) 1.6 
Control A and inorganic C74(0) C74(0) C74(0) C74(0) C74(0) 0.0 
Control B and inorganic C76(0);C77(0) C76(0);C77(0) C76(0);C77(0) C76(0);C77(0) C76(0);C77(0) 0.0 
Deionized water and inorganic C80(0) C80(0) C80(0) C80(0) C80(0) 0.0 
Tap water and inorganic C82(0) C82(0) C82(0) C82(0) C82(0) 0.0 
Tap water/fertiliser and inorganic C84(0);C85(38.2) C84(9.7);C85(15.7) C84(2.6);C85(3.8) C84(2.0);C85(1.9) C84(0);C85(0) 37.0 
Wastewater/tap water and inorganic C87(0) C87(0) C87(2.5) C87(0) C87(0) 2.5 
Wastewater and inorganic C90(0) C90(0) C90(0) C90(0) C90(0) 0.0 
Inflow source and growth mediaClass AClass BClass CClass DClass EMean per plant
Filter 1 and organic C3(0);C4(0) C3(0);C4(0) C3(0);C4(0) C3(1.2);C4(0) C3(0);C4(0) 
Filter 2 and organic C6(0);C8(42.1);C9(0) C6(0);C8(20.5);C9(10.1) C6(0);C8(0);C9(0) C6(0);C8(0);C9(3.0) C6(0);C8(0);C9(0) 25.1 
Filter 3 and organic C10(0);C11(0);C12(0) C10(0);C11(0);C12(0) C10(0);C11(0);C12(0) C10(0);C11(0);C12(2.1) C10(0);C11(0);C12(0) 0.7 
Filter 4 and organic C16(0);C17(0) C16(7.9);C17(0) C16(9.0);C17(0) C16(0);C17(1.2) C16(0);C17(0) 9.1 
Filter 5 and organic C18(0);C19(0);C20(0) C18(14.6);C19(9.9);C20(0) C18(3.4);C19(2.9);C20(0) C18(0);C19(0);C20(0) C18(0);C19(0);C20(0) 5.4 
Filter 6 and organic C21(0) C21(0) C21(0) C21(0) C21(0) 0.0 
Filter 7 and organic C25(0);C26(0) C25(0);C26(17.6) C25(0);C26(0) C25(1.9);C26(0) C25(0);C26(0) 9.8 
Filter 8 and organic C27(0);C28(0);C29(0) C27(0);C28(0);C29(0) C27(2.7);C28(0);C29(0) C27(4.8);C28(0);C29(0.8) C27(0);C28(0);C29(0) 2.8 
Control A and organic C31(0);C33(0) C31(0);C33(7.2) C31(0);C33(0) C31(0);C33(2.2) C31(0);C33(0) 4.7 
Control B and organic C37(0);C38(20.3) C37(15.7);C38(0) C37(0);C38(2.6) C37(0);C38(0) C37(0);C38(0) 19.3 
Deionized water and organic C41(0) C41(7.6) C41(9.1) C41(2.0) C41(0) 18.7 
Tap water and organic C42(18.4);C43(86.8) C42(16.8);C43(8.6) C42(5.1);C43(7.3) C42(6.8);C43(3.5) C42(0);C43(0) 76.7 
Tap water/fertiliser and organic C45(0);C46(0) C45(0);C46(0) C45(0);C46(0) C45(0);C46(1.2) C45(0);C46(0) 0.0 
Wastewater/tap water and organic C49(0) C49(0) C49(0) C49(0) C49(0) 0.0 
Wastewater and organic C52(0); C54(0) C52(0); C54(0) C52(0); C54(0) C52(0); C54(0) C52(0); C54(0) 0.0 
Filter 1 and inorganic C56(0) C56(0) C56(0) C56(0) C56(0) 0.0 
Filter 2 and inorganic C58(0) C58(0) C58(3.3) C58(0) C58(0) 3.3 
Filter 3 and inorganic C61(0) C61(0) C61(0) C61(0.8) C61(0) 0.8 
Filter 4 and inorganic C63(0);C64(0) C63(7.7);C64(0) C63(0);C64(0) C63(0);C64(1.7) C63(0);C64(0) 4.7 
Filter 5 and inorganic C66(0) C66(0) C66(0) C66(0) C66(0) 0.0 
Filter 6 and inorganic C68(0) C68(7.1) C68(0) C68(0) C68(0) 7.1 
Filter 7 and inorganic C71(0) C71(7.2) C71(0) C71(1.3) C71(0) 8.5 
Filter 8 and inorganic C72(0);C73(0) C72(0);C73(0) C72(0);C73(0) C72(1.8);C73(1.3) C72(0);C73(0) 1.6 
Control A and inorganic C74(0) C74(0) C74(0) C74(0) C74(0) 0.0 
Control B and inorganic C76(0);C77(0) C76(0);C77(0) C76(0);C77(0) C76(0);C77(0) C76(0);C77(0) 0.0 
Deionized water and inorganic C80(0) C80(0) C80(0) C80(0) C80(0) 0.0 
Tap water and inorganic C82(0) C82(0) C82(0) C82(0) C82(0) 0.0 
Tap water/fertiliser and inorganic C84(0);C85(38.2) C84(9.7);C85(15.7) C84(2.6);C85(3.8) C84(2.0);C85(1.9) C84(0);C85(0) 37.0 
Wastewater/tap water and inorganic C87(0) C87(0) C87(2.5) C87(0) C87(0) 2.5 
Wastewater and inorganic C90(0) C90(0) C90(0) C90(0) C90(0) 0.0 

The monetary value of the harvest was only calculated for the example plant. A similar assessment could also be undertaken for Sweet Peppers at the end of the harvest. Table 7 showed that the highest number of fruits categorized as Class A were harvested from plants grown in organic media and watered with tap water. However, tap water was also associated with the highest fruit numbers categorized as Class E. The highest mean price of harvested fruits is also associated with tap water (76.7 pence) followed by those harvested from plants growth in organic media and watered with Filter 2 (25.1 pence). A low mean price for harvested fruits is associated with filters contaminated with diesel (Table 1). The lowest mean price is linked to plants growing in inorganic media (Table 8).

In comparison to Chillies, the overall growth development (Table 7) of Sweet Pepper was rather disappointing. This is possibly due to the high concentrations of nutrients and trace minerals, and adverse environmental boundary conditions in the laboratory.

The experiment shows that Sweet Peppers and Chillies can be grown successfully using wastewater treated by constructed wetlands. However, the yield of Sweet Peppers was insignificant in contrast to that of Chillies. The overall growth development of Sweet Peppers was rather disappointing, possibly due to the high concentrations of nutrients (particularly phosphorus and nitrogen) and trace minerals (iron, potassium and manganese). In contrast, chilies did reasonably well but the growth of foliage was excessive due to high nitrogen concentrations in the inflow water and the harvest was delayed.

The highest number of fruits was associated with tap water and an organic growth medium. However, the best fruit quality in terms of length, width and weight was observed for plants grown in organic media and irrigated with outflow water from wetlands with large aggregate size indicating that nutrient concentrations supplied to the Peppers by a combination of compost and treated wastewater were usually too high to produce a good harvest. A high yield was related to the most suitable provision of nutrients and trace elements. However, as the compost got depleted of nutrients such as nitrogen after about 14 months, the harvest increased for pots that received pre-treated wastewater in comparison to those pots depending only on the nutrients associated with the compost. Filters associated with hydrocarbon contamination were commonly associated with a poor harvest.

The productivity of Chillies in terms of harvest was independent of the wastewater consumption. Nevertheless, higher foliage production due to excess nutrients and trace minerals required more water. A high yield was related with the most suitable provision of nutrients and trace elements.

The current research will be continued with the same plants to assess if further harvests are economic and determine when the nutrients within the compost are fully depleted. Moreover, the accumulation of metals and their toxicity in the soil as well as microbiological contamination will also be studied.

Al-Isawi
R.
Sani
A.
Almuktar
S.
Scholz
M.
2015a
Vertical-flow constructed wetlands treating domestic wastewater contaminated by hydrocarbons
.
Water Sci. Tech.
, DOI:10.2166/wst.2015.054,
71
(
6
),
938
946
.
Al-Isawi
R.
Scholz
M.
Wang
Y.
Sani
A.
2015b
Clogging of vertical-flow constructed wetlands treating urban wastewater contaminated with a diesel spill
.
Environ. Sci. Poll. Res.
, DOI:10.1007/s11356-014-3732-8 (
in press
).
Almuktar
S. A. A.-A. N.
Scholz
M.
Al-Isawi
R. H. K.
Sani
A.
2015
Recycling of domestic wastewater treated by vertical-flow wetlands for irrigating Chillies and Sweet Peppers
.
Agric. Water Manage.
149
,
1
22
.
APHA
2005
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater
, 21st edn.,
American Public Health Association (APHA), American Water Works Association, and Water and Environment Federation
,
Washington DC
,
USA
.
Asano
T.
Levine
A. D.
1996
Wastewater reclamation, recycling and reuse: past, present, and future
.
Water Sci. Technol.
33
(
10–11
),
1
14
.
Bar-Tal
A.
Aloni
B.
Karni
L.
Oserovitz
J.
Hazan
A.
Itach
M.
Gantz
S.
Avidan
A.
Posalski
I.
Tratkovski
N.
Rosenberg
R.
2001
Nitrogen nutrition of greenhouse pepper. I. Effects of nitrogen concentration and NO3: NH4 ratio on yield, fruit shape, and the incidence of blossomend rot in relation to plant mineral composition
.
Horticultural Sci.
36
,
1244
1251
.
Cirelli
G. L.
Consoli
S.
Licciardello
F.
Aiello
R.
Giuffrida
F.
Leonardi
C.
2012
Treated municipal wastewater reuse in vegetable production
.
Agric. Water Manage.
104
,
163
170
.
Cui
L.-H.
Luo
S.-M.
Zhu
X.-Z.
Liu
Y.-H.
2003
Treatment and utilization of septic tank effluent using vertical-flow constructed wetlands and vegetable hydroponics
.
J. Environ. Sci.
15
(
1
),
75
82
.
ERS/USDA
2008
U.S. 2011. Bell & Chile Pepper Statistics
.
United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Statistics and Market Information System
,
Washington DC
,
USA
.
Exova Health Sciences
2014
Total petroleum hydrocarbons in waters (with aliphatic/aromatic splitting) method
.
Exova Health Sciences
,
Glasgow
,
Scotland, UK
.
FAO
1994
The State of Food and Agriculture
.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, FAO Agriculture Series Number 27
,
Rome
,
Italy
.
FAO
2003
Users Manual for Irrigation with Treated Wastewater
.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, FAO Regional Office of the Near East
,
Cairo
,
Egypt
.
Foy
C.
Chaney
R.
White
M.
1978
The physiology of metal toxicity in plants
.
Ann. Rev. Plant Physol.
29
,
511
566
.
Gungor
F.
Yildirim
E.
2013
Effect of different growing media on quality, growth and yield of pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) under greenhouse conditions
.
Pakistani Journal of Botany
45
(
5
),
1605
1608
.
Haifa Chemicals
2014
Nutritional recommendations for pepper. http://www.Haifa-group.com/knowledge_centre/crop_guide/pepper (accessed 3 February 2014
).
Jones
J. B.
2013
Instructions for Growing Tomatoes in the Garden and Greenhouse
.
GroSystems
,
Anderson, South Carolina
,
USA
.
Lopez
A.
Pollice
A.
Lonigro
A.
Masi
S.
Palese
A. M.
Cirelli
G. L.
Toscano
A.
Passino
R.
2006
Integrated concepts in water recycling
.
Desalination
187
(
1–3
),
323
334
.
McCauley
A.
Jones
C.
Jacobsen
J.
2011
Plant Nutrient Functions and Deficiency and Toxicity Symptoms
.
Nutrient Management Module No. 9. Montana State University
,
Bozeman, MT
,
USA
.
Nickels
J.
2012
Growing Chillies – A Guide to the Domestic Cultivation of Chilli Plants
.
Jason Nickels
,
UK
.
Olle
M.
Ngouajio
M.
Siomos
A.
2012
Vegetable quality and productivity as influenced by growing medium: a review
.
Žemdirbystė = Agric.
99
(
4
),
399
408
.
Pescod
M. B.
1992
Wastewater treatment and use in agriculture. FAO irrigation and drainage paper number 47. http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0551E/T0551E00.htm (accessed 26 May 2014
).
Rahimi
Z.
Aboutalebi
A.
Zakerin
A.
2013
Comparison of different medium for production of Sweet pepper transplant
.
IJAMR
4
(
2
),
307
310
.
Scholz
M.
2006
Wetland Systems to Control Urban Runoff
.
Elsevier
,
Amsterdam
,
The Netherlands
.
Scholz
M.
2010
Wetland Systems – Storm Water Management Control
.
Springer Verlag
,
Berlin
,
Germany
.
SEPA
2005
Standards for Irrigation Water Quality
.
State Environmental Protection Administration
,
Beijing
,
China
.
Shuval
H. I.
Adin
A.
Fattal
B.
Rawitz
E.
Yekutiel
P.
1986
Wastewater Irrigation in Developing Countries: Health Effects and Technical Solutions
.
Technical Paper No. 51. World Bank
,
Washington, DC
,
USA
.
Silva
J. A.
Evensen
C. E.
Bowen
R.
Kirby
R.
Tsuji
G. Y.
Yost
R. S.
2000
Managing fertilizer nutrients to protect the environment and human health
. In:
Plant Nutrient Management in Hawaii's Soils, Approaches for Tropical and Subtropical Agriculture
(
Silva
J. A.
Uchida
R. S.
, eds).
College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, University of Hawaii at Manoa
,
Manoa, Hawaii, USA
, pp.
7
22
.
Tadesse
T.
1997
Some Factors Affecting the Yield and Quality of Sweet Pepper (Capsicum annum L.) cv. Domino
.
PhD thesis
,
Massey University
,
Palmerston North
,
New Zealand
.