Advertisement

Chromium removal efficiency of plant, microbe and media in experimental VSSF constructed wetlands under monocropped and co-cropped conditions

  • Paritosh KumarEmail author
  • Ravinder Kaur
  • Defo Celestin
  • Prakash Kumar
Research Article
  • 48 Downloads

Abstract

Chromium (Cr), one of the most abundant and hazardous heavy metals, is generally observed to be widely distributed in environment, primarily due to the inter-mixing of the untreated domestic and industrial wastewaters. There has been an increased interest to replace conventional centralized treatment technologies with the low energy, low cost, and zero sludge producing decentralized constructed wetland technology. Therefore, a long-term investigation on the comparative metal removal efficiency of the experimental vertical sub-surface flow (VSSF) constructed wetland systems, irrigated with Cr-spiked ground waters, under both mono and mixed-culture conditions planted with five different macrophytes viz. Typha (T), Phragmites (P), Acorus (V), Arundo (A), and Vetiver (K), in as mono- and {viz. (TP), (PA), (KV), (AT), and (VT)} as co-cropped combinations along with unplanted (U) systems as controls was conducted at the ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, India. Long-term investigations revealed significant differences between metal removal efficiencies of the planted (61.6% to 78.5%) and the unplanted systems (32.8% to 47.9%). However, these long-term average metal removal efficiencies were found to be insignificantly different for the mono (78.5%) and the co-cropped systems (77.6%). On further compartmentalization of the experimental wetland system’s Cr-removal efficiencies amongst the major components viz. plant, microbe, and substrate, it was observed that vegetation contributed the maximum (i.e., 33–48%) while the microbes and the substrate contributed only 4–20% and 8–28%, respectively. It was further observed that due to reduced microbial diversity under unplanted conditions, the planted systems were associated with 2–7% higher microbial and equivalently lower substrate removal efficiencies. Thus, microbial activity-mediated metal mobilization and plant uptake were observed to be the principal processes governing Cr removal in the test VSSF constructed wetland systems exposed to varying Cr concentrations. Amongst all test macrophytes and their combinations, Arundo (81.9%) and Acorus (84.5%) based monocropped systems and Arundo+Typha (89.3%) based co-cropped systems emerged to be the most superior Cr-removing systems.

Graphical abstarct

Keywords

Wastewater Microcosm Macrophyte Chromium Partitioning Translocation Interaction 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to express their sincere gratitude to the concerned ICAR officials and the project staff for providing their much required physical, financial, and technical support to this study through a National Agricultural Science Fund (NASF) scheme (NFBSFARA/ WQ-3032/ 2013-14) on “Bio-remediation of contaminants in polluted sites: use of weedy plants”. Appreciations are also due to the IARI administration and the post-graduate school for facilitating necessary fellowship support and environment to the Ph. D. students at IARI.

References

  1. Aafi NE, Brhada F, Dary M, Maltouf AF, Pajuelo E (2012) Rhizostabilization of metals in soils using Lupinus luteus inoculated with the metal resistant rhizobacterium Serratia sp. MSMC 541. Int J Phytoremediation 14:261–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abdurahman S, Stockle C, Harsh J, Beutel M, Zaher U (2015) Arundo Donax (Giant Reed) phytoremediation function of chromium (Cr) removal. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology. Int J Agric Biosyst Eng 2(3):200Google Scholar
  3. Acharya GD, Hathi MV, Asha D, Patel, Parmar KC (2008) Chemical properties of groundwater in Bhiloda Taluka Region, North Gujarat, India. E-J Chem 5(4):792–796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. AL-Hamdan AZ, Reddy RK (2006) Adsorption of heavy metals in glacial till soil. Geotech Geol Eng 24:1679–1693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ayres RS, Westcot DW (1985) Water quality for agriculture. Irrigation and Drainage paper no. 29, Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome, pp 1–117Google Scholar
  6. Bareen F, Khilji S (2008) Bioaccumulation of metals from tannery sludge by Typha angustifolia L. Afr J Biotechnol 7(18):3314–3320 https://www.ajol.info/index.php/ajb/article/view/59295/47593 Google Scholar
  7. Berta G, Fusconi A, Hooker JE (2002) Arbuscular mycorrhizal modifications to plant root systems: scale, mechanisms, and consequences. In: Gianinazzi S, Schüepp H, Barea JM, Haselwandter K (eds) Mycorrhizal Technology in Agriculture. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, Boston, Berlin, pp 71–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. BIS (1986) Guidelines for the quality of irrigation water. Indian Standard Institute, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  9. Bose S, Vedamati J, Rai V, Ramanathan AL (2008) Metal uptake and transport by Tyaha angustata L. grown on metal contaminated waste amended soil: an implication of phytoremediation. Geoderma 145:136–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Branda SS, Vik S, Friedman L et al (2005) Biofilms: the matrix revisited. Trends Microbiol 13:20–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Calheiros CSC, Bessa VS, Mesquita RBR, Brix H, Rangel AOSS, Castro PML (2015) Constructed wetland with a polyculture of ornamental plants for wastewater treatment at a rural tourism facility. Ecol Eng 79:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chen Y, Hong X, He H, Luo H, Qian T, Li R, Jiang H, Yu H (2014) Bio-sorption of Cr (VI) by Typha angustifolia: mechanism and responses to heavy metal stress. Bioresour Technol 160:89–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. CPCB (2016) Central pollution control board, bulletin vol-I, July 2016, 24 pagesGoogle Scholar
  14. FAO (1985) Water quality for agriculture. Irrigation and Drainage Paper, 29 Rev. 1. FAO, Rome, 174 pagesGoogle Scholar
  15. Fraser LH, Carty SM, Steer D (2004) A test of four plant species to reduce total nitrogen and total phosphorus from soil leachate in subsurface wetland microcosms. Bioresour Technol 94:185–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gambrell RP (1994) Trace and toxic metals in wetlands—a review. J Environ Qual 23:883–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Garcia J, Rousseau DPL, Morato J, Lesage E, Matamoros V, Bayona JM (2010) Contaminant removal processes in subsurface-flow constructed wetlands: a review. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 40:561–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gikas P, Ranieri E, Tchobanoglous G (2013) Removal of iron, chromium and lead from waste water by horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetlands. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 88(10):1906–1912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Guo H, Luo S, Chen L, Xiao X, Xi Q, Wei W, Zeng G, Liu C, Wan Y, Chen J, He Y (2010) Bioremediation of heavy metals by growing hyperaccumulaor endophytic bacterium Bacillus sp. L14. Bioresour Technol 101(22):8599–8605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Huang FC, Han YL, Lee CK, Chao HP (2016) Removal of cationic and oxyanionic heavy metals from water using hexadecyltrimethylammonium-bromide-modified zeolite. Desalin Water Treat 57(38):17870–17879CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kadlec RH, Wallace SD (2009) Treatment wetlands, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  22. Karathanasis AD, Potter CL, Coyne MS (2003) Vegetation effects on fecal bacteria, BOD, and suspended solid removal in constructed wetlands treating domestic wastewater. Ecol Eng 20:157–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Katharina A, Engelhardt M, Ritchie ME (2002) The effect of aquatic plant species richness on wetland ecosystem processes. Ecology 83:2911–2924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kidd P, Barcelo J, Bernal MP, Navari-Izzo F, Poschenrieder C, Shilev S (2009) Trace element behaviour at the root–soil interface: implications in phytoremediation. Environ Exp Bot 67:243–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lai WL, Wang SQ, Peng CL, Chen ZH (2011) Root features related to plant growth and nutrient removal of 35 wetland plants. Water Res 45(13):3941–3950CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lee BH, Scholz M (2007) What is the role of Phragmites australis in experimental constructed wetland filters treating urban runoff? Ecol Eng 29:87–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Leiva AM, Núñez R, Gómez G, López D, Vidal G (2018) Performance of ornamental plants in monoculture and polyculture horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetlands for treating wastewater. Ecol Eng 120:116–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lin LY (1995) Wastewater treatment for inorganics. Encyclopedia of Environmental Biology, vol 3. Academic Press, pp 479–484Google Scholar
  29. Marchand L, Mench M, Jacob DL, Otte ML (2010) Metal and metalloid removal in constructed wetlands, with emphasis on the importance of plants and standardized measurements: a review. Environ Pollut 158:3447–3461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mitsch WJ, Gosseink JG (2007) Wetlands, 4th edn. John Wiley, New York, p 722Google Scholar
  31. Morari F, Giardini L (2009) Municipal wastewater treatment with vertical flow constructed wetlands for irrigation reuse. Ecol Eng 35:643–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Oliveira RS, Dodd JC, Castro PML (2001) The mycorrhizal status of Phragmites australis in several polluted soils and sediments of an industrialised region of Northern Portugal. Mycorrhiza 10:241–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pacyna JM, Pacyna EG (2001) An assessment of global and regional emissions of trace metals to the atmosphere from anthropogenic sources worldwide. Environ Rev 9:269–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Paz-Alberto AM, Sigua GC (2013) Phytoremediation: a green technology to remove environmental pollutants. Am J Clim Chang 2:71–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Picard CR, Fraser LH, Steer D (2005) The interacting effects of temperature and plant community type on nutrient removal in wetland microcosms. Bioresour Technol 96:1039–1047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schiffer DM (1989) Water quality variability in a Central Florida wetland receiving highway runoff. In: Davis FE (ed) Water: Laws and Management. American Water Research Association, Bethesda, pp 7A-1–7A-11Google Scholar
  37. Sheoran AS, Sheoran V (2006) Heavy metal removal mechanism of acid mine drainage in wetlands: a critical review. Miner Eng 19:105–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Singh V, Thakur L, Mondal P (2015) Removal of lead and chromium from synthetic wastewater using Vetiveria zizanioides. CLEAN – Soil, Air, Water 43(4):538–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stottmeister U, Wiebner A, Kuschk P, Kappelmeyer U, Kastner M, Bederski O, Muller RA, Moormann H (2003) Effects of plants and microorganisms in constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment. Biotechnol Adv 22:93–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tawde SP, Bhalerao SA (2012) Uptake of heavy metals by Vetiveria zizanioides, l. Nash from ETP sludge. ISSN 0974-0678. Bionano Frontier 5(2-II):1–4Google Scholar
  41. Toet S, Bouwman M, Cevaal A, Verhoeven, Jos TA (2005) Nutrient removal through autumn harvest of Phragmites australis and Typha latifolia shoots in relation to nutrient loading in a wetland system used for polishing sewage treatment plant effluent. J Environ Sci Health A 40:1133–1156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Willis JB (1962) Determination of lead and other heavy metals in urine by atomic absorption spectrophotometry. Anal Chem 34:614–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wu FY, Chung AKC, Tam NFY, Wong MH (2012) Root exudates of wetland plants influenced by nutrient status and types of plant cultivation. Int J Phytoremediation 14(6):543–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Yeh TY (2008) Removal of metals in constructed wetlands: review. Pract Period Hazard Toxic Radioact Waste Manag 12(2):96–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zhang Z, Rengel Z, Meney K (2007) Nutrient removal from simulated wastewater using Canna indica and Schoenoplectus validus in mono- and mixed-culture in wetland microcosms. Water Air Soil Pollut 183:95–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zhao-hui G, Xu-feng M (2010) Growth changes and tissues anatomical characteristics of giant reed (Arundo donax L.) in soil contaminated with arsenic, cadmium and lead. J Cent S Univ Technol 17:770–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paritosh Kumar
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Ravinder Kaur
    • 3
  • Defo Celestin
    • 4
  • Prakash Kumar
    • 5
  1. 1.Centre for Environment Science & Climate Resilient AgricultureICAR-Indian Agricultural Research InstituteNew DelhiIndia
  2. 2.School of Edaphic Stress ManagementICAR-National Institute of Abiotic Stress ManagementBaramatiIndia
  3. 3.Water Technology CentreICAR-Indian Agricultural Research InstituteNew DelhiIndia
  4. 4.Faculty of Agronomy & Agri Sci, School of Wood, Water & Natural ResourcesUniversity of DschangEbolowaCameroon
  5. 5.Division of Statistical GeneticsICAR-Indian Agricultural Statistics Research InstituteNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations