Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 84–96 | Cite as

Phytoremediation to remove nutrients and improve eutrophic stormwaters using water lettuce (Pistia stratiotes L.)

  • Qin Lu
  • Zhenli L. HeEmail author
  • Donald A. Graetz
  • Peter J. Stoffella
  • Xiaoe Yang
AREA 5 • PHYTOREMEDIATION • RESEARCH ARTICLE

Abstract

Background, aim, and scope

Water quality impairment by nutrient enrichment from agricultural activities has been a concern worldwide. Phytoremediation technology using aquatic plants in constructed wetlands and stormwater detention ponds is increasingly applied to remediate eutrophic waters. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the effectiveness and potential of water lettuce (Pistia stratiotes L.) in removing nutrients including nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) from stormwater in the constructed water detention systems before it is discharged into the St. Lucie Estuary, an important surface water system in Florida, using phytoremediation technologies.

Materials and methods

In this study, water lettuce (P. stratiotes) was planted in the treatment plots of two stormwater detention ponds (East and West Ponds) in 2005–2007 and water samples from both treatment and control plots were weekly collected and analyzed for water quality properties including pH, electrical conductivity, turbidity, suspended solids, and nutrients (N and P). Optimum plant density was maintained and plant samples were collected monthly and analyzed for nutrient contents.

Results

Water quality in both ponds was improved, as evidenced by decreases in water turbidity, suspended solids, and nutrient concentrations. Water turbidity was decreased by more than 60%. Inorganic N (NH4 + and NO3 ) concentrations in treatment plots were more than 50% lower than those in control plots (without plant). Reductions in both PO4 3− and total P were approximately 14–31%, as compared to the control plots. Water lettuce contained average N and P concentrations of 17 and 3.0 g kg−1, respectively, and removed 190–329 kg N ha−1 and 25–34 kg P ha−1 annually.

Discussion

Many aquatic plants have been used to remove nutrients from eutrophic waters but water lettuce proved superior to most other plants in nutrient removal efficiency, owing to its rapid growth and high biomass yield potential. However, the growth and nutrient removal potential are affected by many factors such as temperature, water salinity, and physiological limitations of the plant. Low temperature, high concentration of salts, and low concentration of nutrients may reduce the performance of this plant in removing nutrients.

Conclusions

The results from this study indicate that water lettuce has a great potential in removing N and P from eutrophic stormwaters and improving other water quality properties.

Keywords

Phytoremediation Water Hyacinth Treatment Plot Indian River Lagoon Detention Pond 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgment

The authors thank Mr. Diangao Zhang for his assistance in water sampling and processing, and thank Drs. G.C. Chen, J.Y. Yang, Y.G. Yang, and W.R. Chen, Mr. D. Banks and Mr. B. Pereira, and Miss J.H. Fan for their help in lab analysis. This project was in part supported by a grant (contract# 4600000498) from South Florida Water Management District.

References

  1. Aoi T, Hayashi T (1996) Nutrient removal by water lettuce (Pistia stratiotes). Water Sci Tech 34(7/8):407–412Google Scholar
  2. Boyd CE (1970) Vascular aquatic plants for mineral nutrient removal from polluted waters. Econ Bot 23:95–103Google Scholar
  3. Brix H (1997) Do macrophytes play a role in constructed treatment wetlands. Water Sci Tech 35(5):11–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Capece JC, Campbell KL, Bohlen PJ, Graetz DA, Portier KM (2007) Soil phosphorus, cattle stocking rates, and water quality in subtropical pastures in Florida, USA. Range Ecol Manage 60(1):19–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carpenter SR, Caraco NF, Correll DL, Howarth RW, Sharpley AN, Smith VH (1998) Nonpoint pollution of surface waters with phosphorus and nitrogen. Ecol Appl 8:559–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. El-Gendy AS, Biswas N, Bewtra JK (2005) A floating aquatic system employing water hyacinth for municipal landfill leachate treatment: effect of leachate characteristics on the plant growth. J Environ Eng Sci 4(4):227–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Graves GA, Strom DA (eds) (1992) Bessey Creek and the greater St. Lucie Estuary. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Southeast District, West Palm Beach, FLGoogle Scholar
  8. Gumbricht T (1993) Nutrient removal processes in freshwater submersed macrophyte systems. Ecol Eng 2:1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Haller WT, Sutton DL, Barlowe WC (1974) Effects of salinity on growth of several aquatic macrophytes. Ecology 55(4):891–894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. He ZL, Stoffella PJ, Yang XE, Yu S, Chen G, Banks DJ, Yang YG, Yang JY, Calvert DV (2005) Assessment and evaluation of nitrogen, phosphorus, and heavy metals in surface runoff from citrus groves and vegetable fields in the Indian River area. Project Final Report, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FLGoogle Scholar
  11. He ZL, Zhang MK, Stoffella PJ, Yang XE, Banks DJ (2006) Phosphorus concentrations and loads in runoff water under crop production. Soil Sci Soc Am J 70:1807–1816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Karpiscak MM, Foster KE, Hopf SB, Bancroft JM, Warshall PJ (1994) Using water hyacinth to treat municipal wastewater in the desert southwest. Water Resour Bull 30:219–227Google Scholar
  13. Kowalik P, Toczylowska I, Scalenghe R, Boero V, Ambrosoli R, Zanini E, Vola G, Edwards AC (1998) Phytoremediation by constructed wetlands: assessment of biopedological techniques for resource-efficient farming with livestock. Acta Horticulturae 457:187–194Google Scholar
  14. Lindsey K, Hirt HM (1999) Use water hyacinth! (A practical handbook of uses for the water hyacinth from across the world). Anamed, WinnendenGoogle Scholar
  15. Mahujchariyawong J, Ikeda S (2001) Modelling of environmental phytoremediation in eutrophic river—the case of water hyacinth harvest in Tha-Chin River, Thailand. Ecol Model 142(1/2):121–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Reddy KR (1983) Fate of nitrogen and phosphorus in a waste-water retention reservoir containing aquatic macrophytes. J Environ Qual 12(1):137–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Reddy KR, Sutton DL (1984) Waterhyacinths for water quality improvement and biomass production. J Environ Qual 13(1):1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Reddy KR, Tucker JC (1983) Productivity and nutrient uptake of water hyacinth, Eichhornia crassipes I. effect of nitrogen source. Econ Bot 37(2):237–247Google Scholar
  19. Reddy KR, Tucker JC, Debusk WF (1987) The role of Egeria in removing nitrogen and phosphorus from nutrient enriched waters. J Aquat Plant Manage 25:14–19Google Scholar
  20. Ritter A, Munoz Carpena R, Bosch DD, Schaffer B, Potter TL (2007) Agricultural land use and hydrology affect variability of shallow groundwater nitrate concentration in south Florida. Hydrol Process 21(18):2464–2473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rogers HH, Davis DE (1972) Nutrient removal by waterhyacinth. Weed Sci 20(5):423–428Google Scholar
  22. Sheffield CW (1967) Water hyacinth for nutrient removal. Hyacinth Control J 6:27–30Google Scholar
  23. Shimada N, Yajima S, Watanabe Y (1988) Improvement of water quality using Salvinia molesta (1). Absorption of nitrogen and phosphorus by Salvinia molesta. Technical Bulletin, Faculty of Horticulture, Chiba University, pp 15–21Google Scholar
  24. Smith DR, Owens PR, Leytem AB, Warnemuende EA (2007) Nutrient losses from manure and fertilizer applications as impacted by time to first runoff event. Environ Pollut 147:131–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. SFWMD (South Florida Water Management District), SJRWMD (St. Johns River Water Management District) (1994) Indian River Lagoon surface water improvement and management (SWIM) planGoogle Scholar
  26. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1976) Quality criteria for water. USEPA Rep 440:19–76–023Google Scholar
  27. Woodward-Clyde Consultants (1994) Loading assessment of the Indian River Lagoon. Final report to Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program. Melbourne, FLGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Qin Lu
    • 1
  • Zhenli L. He
    • 1
    Email author
  • Donald A. Graetz
    • 2
  • Peter J. Stoffella
    • 1
  • Xiaoe Yang
    • 3
  1. 1.Indian River Research and Education Center, Institute of Food and Agricultural SciencesUniversity of FloridaFort PierceUSA
  2. 2.Soil and Water Science DepartmentUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  3. 3.Ministry of Education Key Laboratory of Environmental Remediation and Ecological Health, College of Natural Resource and Environmental SciencesZhejiang UniversityHangzhouPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations