Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 22, Issue 20, pp 15804–15811 | Cite as

Carbon and energy fixation of great duckweed Spirodela polyrhiza growing in swine wastewater

  • Wenguo Wang
  • Chuang Yang
  • Xiaoyu Tang
  • Qili Zhu
  • Ke Pan
  • Denggao Cai
  • Qichun Hu
  • Danwei Ma
Research Article

Abstract

The ability to fix carbon and energy in swine wastewater of duckweeds was investigated using Spirodela polyrhiza as the model species. Cultures of S. polyrhiza were grown in dilutions of both original swine wastewater (OSW) and anaerobic digestion effluent (ADE) based on total ammonia nitrogen (TAN). Results showed that elevated concentrations of TAN caused decreased growth, carbon fixation, and energy production rates, particularly just after the first rise in two types of swine wastewater. Also, OSW was more suitable for S. polyrhiza cultivation than ADE. Maximum carbon and energy fixation were achieved at OSW-TAN concentrations of 12.08 and 13.07 mg L−1, respectively. Photosynthetic activity of S. polyrhiza could be inhibited by both nutrient stress (in high-concentration wastewater) and nutrient limitation (in low-concentration wastewater), affecting its growth and ability for carbon-energy fixation.

Keywords

Swine wastewater Duckweed Photosynthesis Bioenergy Nutrient stress Ammonia toxicity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the NSFC project (51108239) and Applied Basic Research Program of Sichuan Province (2013JY0005).

Ethics statement

This study did not involve human participants, specimens or tissue samples, or vertebrate animals, embryos, or tissues.

All information entered here has been included in the “Material and methods” section of our manuscript.

References

  1. American Public Health Association (APHA) (2005) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 21st edn. APHA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnon DI (1949) Copper enzymes in isolated chloroplasts. Polyphenoloxidase in Beta vulgaris. Plant Physiol 24:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bergmann BA, Cheng J, Classen J, Stomp AM (2000) In vitro selection of duckweed geographical isolates for potential use in swine lagoon effluent renovation. Bioresour Technol 73:13–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bocuk H, Yakar A, Turker OC (2013) Assessment of Lemna gibba L. (duckweed) as a potential ecological indicator for contaminated aquatic ecosystem by boron mine effluent. Ecol Indic 29:538–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boussadia O, Steppe K, Zgallai H, Ben El Hadj S, Braham M, Lemeur R, van Labekee MC (2010) Effects of nitrogen deficiency on leaf photosynthesis, carbohydrate status and biomass production in two olive cultivars ‘Meski’ and ‘Koroneiki’. Sci Hortic 123:336–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Britto DT, Kronzucker HJ (2002) NH4 + toxicity in higher plants: a critical review. J Plant Physiol 159:567–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caicedo JR, van der Steennp NP, Arce O, Gijzen HJ (2000) Effect of total ammonia nitrogen concentration and pH on growth rates of duckweed (Spirodela polyrrhiza). Water Res 34:3829–3835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cheng JJ, Stomp AM (2009) Growing duckweed to recover nutrients from wastewaters and for production of fuel ethanol and animal feed. Clean Soil Air Water 37:17–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Choudhury NK, Behera RK (2001) Photoinhibition of photosynthesis: role of carotenoids in photoprotection of chloroplast constituents. Photosynthetica 39:481–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cui W, Cheng JJ (2015) Growing duckweed for biofuel production: a review. Plant Biol Suppl 1:16–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Das DK, Chaturvedi OP (2009) Energy dynamics and bioenergy production of Populus deltoides G-3 marsh plantation in eastern India. Biomass Bioenergy 33:144–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frampton DM, Gurney RH, Dunstan GA, Clementson LA, Toifl MC, Pollard CB, Burn S, Jameson ID, Blackburn SI (2013) Evaluation of growth, nutrient utilization and production of bioproducts by a wastewater-isolated microalga. Bioresour Technol 130:261–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goopy JP, Murray PJ (2003) A review on the role of duckweed in nutrient reclamation and as a source of animal feed. Asian Aust J Anim Sci 16:297–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gupta C, Prakash D (2013) Duckweed: an effective tool for phyto-remediation. Toxicol Environ Chem 95:1256–1266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Krishnamurthy L, Zaman-Allah M, Purushothaman R, Ahmed MI, Vadez V (2011) Plant biomass productivity under abiotic stresses in sat agriculture. In: Matovic, D (ed) Biomass—detection, production and usage InTechGoogle Scholar
  16. Leng RA (1999) Duckweed: a tiny aquatic plant with enormous potential for agriculture and environment. Food and Agricultural Organization, RomeGoogle Scholar
  17. Leng RA, Stambolie JH, Bell R (1995) Duckweed—a potential high-protein feed resource for domestic animals and fish. Livest Res Rural Dev 7:1–12Google Scholar
  18. Les DH, Crawford DJ, Landolt E, Gabel JD, Kimball RT (2002) Phylogeny and systematics of Lemnaceae, the duckweed family. Syst Bot 27:221–240Google Scholar
  19. Maxwell K, Johnson GN (2000) Chlorophyll fluorescence—a practical guide. J Exp Bot 51:659–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mestayer CR, Culley DD Jr, Standifer LC, Koonce KL (1984) Solar energy conversion efficiency and growth aspects of the duckweed, Spirodela punctata (GFW Mey) Thompson. Aquat Bot 19:157–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Muradov N, Taha M, Miranda AF, Kadali K, Gujar A, Rochfort S, Stevenson T, Ball AS, Mouradov A (2014) Dual application of duckweed and azolla plants for wastewater treatment and renewable fuels and petrochemicals production. Biotechnol Biofuels 7:30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pano A, Middlebrooks EJ (1982) Ammonia nitrogen removal in facultative wastewater stabilisation ponds. J Water Pollut Control Fed 54:344–351Google Scholar
  23. Parry MAJ, Reynolds M, Salvucci ME, Raines C, Andralojc PJ, Zhu XG, Price GD, Condon AG, Furbank RT (2011) Raising yield potential of wheat. II. Increasing photosynthetic capacity and efficiency. J Exp Bot 62:453–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Porra RJ, Thompson WA, Kriedemann PE (1989) Determination of accurate extinction coefficients and simultaneous equations for assaying chlorophylls a and b extracted with four different solvents: verification of the concentration of chlorophyll standards by atomic absorption spectroscopy. Biochim Biophys Acta 975:384–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Reddy AR, Das VSR (1986) Correlation between biomass production and net photosynthetic rates and kinetic properties of RuBP carboxylase in certain C3 plants. Bioresour Technol 10:157–164Google Scholar
  26. Song YH, Qiu GL, Yuan P, Cui XY, Peng JF, Zeng P, Duan L, Xiang LC, Qian F (2011) Nutrients removal and recovery from anaerobically digested swine wastewater by struvite crystallization without chemical additions. J Hazard Mater 190:140–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Suzuki N, Rivero RM, Shulaev V, Blumwald E, Mittler R (2014) Abiotic and biotic stress combinations. New Phytol 203:32–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wang WC (1991) Ammonia toxicity to macrophytes (common duckweed and rice) using static and renewal methods. Environ Toxicol Chem 10:1173–1177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wang WG, Yang C, Tang XY, Gu XJ, Zhu QL, Pan K, Hu QC, Ma DW (2014) Effects of high ammonium level on biomass accumulation of common duckweed Lemna minor L. Environ Sci Pollut Res 21:14202–14210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Warren CR (2011) How does P affect photosynthesis and metabolite profiles of Eucalyptus globulus? Tree Physiol 31:727–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Xiong FS, Day TA (2001) Effect of solar ultraviolet-B radiation during springtime ozone depletion on photosynthesis and biomass production of Antarctic vascular plants. Plant Physiol 125:738–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Xu JL, Shen GX (2011) Growing duckweed in swine wastewater for nutrient recovery and biomass production. Bioresour Technol 102:848–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Xu JL, Cheng JJ, Stomp AM (2012) Growing Spirodela polyrrhiza in swine wastewater for the production of animal feed and fuel ethanol: a pilot study. Clean Soil Air Water 40:760–765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Yang PY, Chen HJ, Kim SJ (2003) Integrating entrapped mixed microbial cell (EMMC) process for biological removal of carbon and nitrogen from dilute swine wastewater. Bioresour Technol 86:245–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Youngs H, Somerville C (2014) Best practices for biofuels. Science 344:1095–1096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zhao X, Zhou Y, Huang S, Qiu DY, Schideman L, Chai XL, Zhao YC (2014) Characterization of microalgae-bacteria consortium cultured in landfill leachate for carbon fixation and lipid production. Bioresour Technol 156:322–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wenguo Wang
    • 1
  • Chuang Yang
    • 2
  • Xiaoyu Tang
    • 1
  • Qili Zhu
    • 1
  • Ke Pan
    • 1
  • Denggao Cai
    • 3
  • Qichun Hu
    • 1
  • Danwei Ma
    • 2
  1. 1.Biogas Institute of Ministry of AgricultureChengduPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.College of Life SciencesSichuan Normal UniversityChengduPeople’s Republic of China
  3. 3.The Second Research Institute of CAACChengduPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations