Performance of Eleocharis macrostachya and its importance for arsenic retention in constructed wetlands
- 258 Downloads
Arsenic (As) can be removed from water via rhizofiltration using phytostabilizing plants. The aim of this study was to investigate the performance of Eleocharis macrostachya in constructed wetland prototypes, as well as the plant's arsenic mass retention and the distribution of As along the wetland flow gradient and the soil in the wetland mesocosmos.
Materials and methods
Experiments were carried out in laboratory-scale wetland prototypes, two planted with E. macrostachya and one without plants. Samples of water were taken at the inlet and outlet of the wetlands during the 33-week test period. At the end of the experiment, plants and soil (silty-sand) from each prototype were divided in three equal segments (entrance, middle and exit) and analyzed for their arsenic content. Results revealed that the planted wetlands have a higher As-mass retention capacity (87–90% of the total As inflow) than prototypes without plants (27%).
As mass balance in the planted wetlands revealed that 78% of the total inflowing As was retained in the soil bed. Nearly 2% was absorbed in the plant roots, 11% was flushed as outflow, and the fate of the remaining 9% is unknown. In the prototype without plants, the soil retained 16% of As mass, 72% of the arsenic was accounted for in the outflow, and 12% was considered unknown. Although E. macrostachya retained only 2% of the total arsenic mass in their roots, its presence was a determining factor for arsenic retention in the wetland soil medium.
Hence, planted wetlands might be a suitable option for treating As-contaminated water.
KeywordsArsenic Constructed wetlands Eleocharis macrostachya Mass balance
- Bundschuh J, Litter M, Ciminelli VST, Morgada ME, Cornejo L, Garrido Hoyos S, Hoinkis J, Alarcón-Herrera MT, Armienta MA, Bhattacharya P (2010) Emerging mitigation needs and sustainable options for solving the arsenic problems of rural and isolated urban areas in Latin America: A critical analysis. Water Res 44:5828–5845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Fang Y, Shen GX, Li XL, Li hz, Hua h, Ni WZ (2011) A comparative study on the potential of oxygen release by roots of selected wetland plants. Phys Chem Earth 36:475–478Google Scholar
- Kadlec RH, Knight RL (1996) Treatment wetlands. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, p 893Google Scholar
- Koottatep T, Polprasert C, Koanh NT, Heinss U, Montangero A, Strauss M (2001) Septage dewatering in vertical-flow constructed wetlands located in the tropics. Water Sci Technol 44(2–3):181–188Google Scholar
- Núñez-Montoya OG, Alarcón-Herrera MT, Melgoza-Castillo A, Rodríguez-Almeida FA, Royo-Márquez MH (2007) Evaluation of three native species from Chihuahua desert for use in phytoremediation. Terra Latinoam 25:35Google Scholar
- Rahman KZ, Wiessner A, Kuschk P, Afferden M (2011) Fate and distribution of arsenic in laboratory-scale subsurface horizontal-flow constructed wetlands treating an artificial wastewater. Ecol Eng, in pressGoogle Scholar
- Ujang Z, Soedjono E, Shutes RB (2005) Landfill leachate treatment by an experimental subsurface constructed wetland in tropical climate countries. Water Sci Technol 52:243Google Scholar
- Yong RN (1995) The fate of toxic pollutants in contaminated sediments. In: Demars KR, Richardson GN, Yong RN, Chaney RC (eds) Dredging, remediation, and containment of contaminated sediments. ASTM STP, vol. 1293. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp. 13–39Google Scholar