J. Mater. Environ. Sci. 7 (9) (2016) 3256-3263 Patil et al.

ISSN : 2028-2508
CODEN: JMESC

Application of Constructed Wetland using Eichhornia crassipes for Sewage

Treatment
Satish S Patil1*, Vinayak P Dhulap1 and Geetanjali Kaushik2
1
Department of Environmental Sciences
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University
Aurangabad, 431004, Maharashtra, India
2
Department of Civil Engineering, MGM’s Jawaharlal Nehru Engineering College, N-6 CIDCO, Aurangabad,
Maharashtra, India.

Received 28 Feb 2016, Revised 09 Jul 2016, Accepted 15 Jul 2016

*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected] (SS Patil); Phone: +91 9422707261

Abstract
India is facing acute shortage of clean water for drinking and other purposes. Most of the water resources are
polluted by discharge of domestic sewage. The municipal sewage systems used in developed countries are often
too expensive to build and operate thus low–cost; low–tech alternatives for treating wastes are needed. An
alternative is to use natural or artificial wetlands to dispose of wastes. In this research constructed wetland with
water hyacinth plant has been tried to reduce the pollutant load of sewage. It is found that the system is capable
of removing pollutants and the hydrophyte has shown its ability to survive in high concentration of nutrients
with significant nutrient removal. In all the sets of dilution of wastewater, DO (dissolved oxygen) levels
increased after treatment. In 100% sewage dilution BOD (biological oxygen demand) was observed to be 230
mg/L which decreased to 120 mg/L. Reduction of metals was noticed in all treatments with reduction in Co, Cu
and Fe were found to be78.78%, 28.90% and 23.42% respectively. The results obtained from analysis of treated
wastewater indicated that the treated water can be useful for agriculture, washing, gardening, planting or any
other purposes.

Keywords: Wetland, Water hyacinth, sewage treatment, nutrient removal

1. Introduction - Waste water generation in India and application of Constructed Wetlands

In present scenario most of our water bodies, surface as well as groundwater are suffering from pollution by
manmade activities. Most of the water resources are polluted by discharge of domestic sewage [1]. Due to
indiscriminate discharge of wastes the pollutant load often exceeds the natural ability of that water body to
remove the undesirable material or dilute it to a harmless form [28]. Presence of sewage promotes the growth of
phytoplanktons. This excessive growth depletes the oxygen of water which adversely impacts the aquatic faunal
population. Sewage mostly contains a large number of inorganic and organic impurities [29] cysts of pathogens,
bacteria and viruses causing waterborne diseases such as cholera, dysentery, hepatitis, typhoid, gastroenteritis,
enteric fever and malaria etc [2].

3256
J. Mater. Environ. Sci. 7 (9) (2016) 3256-3263 Patil et al.
ISSN : 2028-2508
CODEN: JMESC

As per Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) India observations, there are about 233 class - I cities in
14 major river basins of India. Their population is about 1.05 billion. These cities have been partially covered
with sewerage system (about 24% only). Therefore, almost 76% of the untreated sewage from these cities
reaches to freshwater bodies mainly rivers and lakes. Class -II cities do not have sewerage systems at all for the
collection of sewage. Today, just the collection of sewage is not enough. It has to be treated as well. So, all these
urban wastewaters are naturally taken to the nearby rivers and lakes by nallas and odhas (streams - natural
drains). These natural drains in the cities are serving as sewerage lines [3]. Shrishti Eco-Research Institute
(SERI) studied water pollution in Western Indian state of Maharashtra and examined the pollution of water
bodies in 10 corporation areas – viz. Ulhasnagar, Kolhapur, Pune, Nashik, Sangali–Miraj, Pimpri-Chinchwad,
Dhule, Jalgaon, Malegaon and Ahmednagar [4]. Some of the corporations in Pune and Nashik have provided
sewerage lines but these are inadequate to cater to the needs of population. So, in most of the cities sewage
flows down to the rivers such as Kolhapur‟s Panchganga, Ulhasnagar‟s Ulhas, Pune‟s Mula- Mutha-Pavna,
Dhule‟s Panzara, Solapur‟s Bhima etc this water pollution problem needs environmental friendly treatment
solution [5].
The municipal sewage systems used in developed countries are often too expensive to build and operate
in the developing world where low–cost, low–tech alternatives for treating wastes are needed. One option is
effluent sewerage, a hybrid between traditional septic tank and full sewer system. Another alternative is to use
natural or artificial wetlands to dispose of wastes. Wetland waste treatment systems are now operating in many
developing countries [6]. A wetland, by definition, must maintain a level of water near the surface of the ground
for a long enough time each year to support the growth of aquatic vegetation. Marshes, bogs, and swamps are
the examples of naturally occurring wetlands. The system of planting aquatic plants such as reeds or bulrushes
in a wet (often gravel) substrate medium for gray water recycling is called a “Constructed Wetland (CW)” or
“Artificial Wetland” or “Human Engineered Wetland”. The first artificial wetlands were built in the 1970s. By
the early 1990s, there were more than 150 constructed wetlands treating municipal and industrial wastewater in
the United States [7]. Since then, various designs of constructed wetland systems have been developed and
thousands of facilities are currently in use in Europe, Australia and the United States [8, 9, 10]. Recent years
have seen the proliferation of constructed wetland systems in Africa and Asia. Wastewater treatment in
constructed wetlands occurs by several mechanisms such as dilution with rainfall, chemical reactions and
biological activity that transforms and filters the wastewater. They can often be an environmentally acceptable,
cost-effective treatment option, particularly for small communities [11].
CW‟s are designed especially for the pollution control and exist in locations where natural wetlands do
not present. Generally, two types of CW‟s are in common use today such as surface flow and subsurface flow.
Reed beds are a particular type of constructed wetland usually consisting of a gravel-filled container or bed
planted with reeds. Wastewater flows through the gravel and reed-roots and is purified by the actions of millions
of bacteria, fungi and algae (micro-organisms) that digest the sewage (Figure 1). They can be used in several
ways: sewage treatment companies commonly use reed beds as a „polishing‟ stage at rural works following
conventional treatment to give a cleaner effluent. Reed beds also effectively provide complete sewage treatment
for households and small communities not served by main sewerage [12].
The FWS wetland removes suspended solids primarily by flocculation/sedimentation and filtration/interception.
The aerobic microorganisms consume oxygen to breakdown organics which provides energy and biomass for
the microorganisms. The separation processes of organics include sorption and volatilization. The biofilms
located on plant surfaces offer pathways for plants to break down organics. Although the amount volatile
organic compounds entering wastewater wetlands is fairly low, the removal rate of VOCs are in the 80-96%
range [26, 30].

3257
J. Mater. Environ. Sci. 7 (9) (2016) 3256-3263 Patil et al.
ISSN : 2028-2508
CODEN: JMESC

The water hyacinth, for example, can remove phenols, fecal coli forms, suspended particles and heavy metals
including lead, mercury, silver, nickel, cobalt, and cadmium from contaminated water. In the absence of heavy
metals or toxins, water hyacinths can be harvested as a high-protein livestock feed. It can also be harvested as a
feedstock for methane production. Reed-based wetlands can removes a wide range of toxic organic pollutants.
Duckweeds also remove organic and inorganic contaminants from water, especially nitrogen and phosphorous
[13] Performance data suggested that a well designed reed bed system can remove more than 98% of the organic
matter in sewage, 60–80% of the nitrogen and up to 60% of the phosphates. Water hyacinth (Eichhornia
crassipes), Duck weed (Lemna spp), Spirodela spp, Wolffia spp among others are plants that have proven to
be highly efficient in removing a wide range of pollutants, suspended materials, BOD, nutrients, heavy metals
and pathogens [14]. Eichhornia Crassipes is notable in terms of possessing highly glossy leaves, extensive root
system and its ability to grown vegetatively [15, 16]. The species has demonstrated its excellent pollutant
removal in wastewaters [17, 18].

Figure 1: Mechanism of working of a Constructed Wetland

Application of Constructed Wetland Technology in India

The phytorid technology implemented by the National Environment Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) is
an application of constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment. It is a low-cost technology which is simple to
construct and can be easily utilized with in residential areas, public and industrial zones. This technology relies
on specific plants which include Elephant grass (Pennisetum purpurem) several types of cattails, reeds, canna
lilies and yellow flag iris (Iris pseudocorus). Systems may also use other ornamental plants such as bamboos.
The three stages or zones within a phytorid system include inlet, treatment area and outlet zone. In the inlet area
of phytorid water passes through bricks and stones. Then, it enters a treatment zone which has different plants.
Finally the water exits through the outlet zone. Subsequent to the treatment process, the effluent can be utilized
for irrigation purpose or in water fountains. NEERI‟s phytorid technology has been applied in the Mumbai
University Kalina Campus in June 2006. According to estimates the constructed wetland removed 75% of total
suspended solids and 91% of the water‟s fecal coliform. In addition it was 94% effective in reducing the
biochemical oxygen demand. Other ongoing projects include the Teen Murthi Bhavan and Smriti Vatika in New
Delhi [27].

3258
J. Mater. Environ. Sci. 7 (9) (2016) 3256-3263 Patil et al.
ISSN : 2028-2508
CODEN: JMESC

2. Experimental
2.1 Study Area
Solapur is one of the important town places in the state of Maharashtra. It is famous for Handloom and
Powerloom industries. This city covers an area 14844.6 sq. kms. The city has been spread approximately
between 170 36‟ to 170 42‟ N latitude and 750 50‟ to 750 58‟ E longitude. This city is the 7th largest city in the
Maharashtra state by population size heading towards more than 10 lakhs (1 million) in future. Solapur city falls
under the arid to semi arid climate and receives irregular, erratic scanty rainfall, with annual average of around
500 mm to 700 mm. Solapur experiences relatively higher temperature throughout the year, reaching up to 450 -
470 in April-May months and the relative humidity varies between 20 to 90%. The city is situated in the Bhima
Basin [5].

2.2 Collection of Sewage or wastewater

Wastewater or domestic sewage generated from Solapur is mostly discharged into city by open nala’s or it is
discharged into various parts of city which includes open lands and small and large streams. City has major
streams like Shelgi stream, Bale stream, Degaon stream which all are connected to each other and finally
combine and meet the Sina River. Sina River is a sub River of Bhima. In the present study, sewage samples
were collected from Shelgi Nala, near Pune naka of Solapur city (MH). This nala is a major cause of
environmental pollution of Solapur city, as water bodies, agricultural land wells and bore wells were
contaminated through this nala [5]. Sewage samples were collected from different locations in a day and all
these samples were combined and a separate single sample was prepared. This sample was used for the
treatment in the methods of testing in constructed wetland.

2.3 Analysis of Sewage samples

Sewage was not directly flowed because the aim is to understand the variation in treated water using percentage
wise dilution and to check the pollution removal efficiencies of the plant in the constructed wetland. Analysis of
sewage samples was carried out before and after treatment using different parameters (Physico-chemical and
biological) for understanding the pollution level (pollution removal efficiency) and the extent of treatment of
water quality. Studied parameters mainly included pH, EC, color, odor, solids, BOD, COD, chlorides and
nitrates (APHA, 2005). Untreated and treated sewage samples of the constructed wetland were analyzed for
heavy metals using acid digestion and their estimation was done through AAS. The healthy natural plants of E.
crassipes were collected from ponds and used for the surface flow CWs.

2.4 Constructed Wetland set up

In the experimental set up, three sets of buckets (with different dimensions) were used. Vertical bucket was used
as holding tank (Inlet) to hold the waste water with an inlet (30L capacity). The rectangular tub (10L) of 17052
cm3 area was used as a bed for root zone treatment. The plastic cans were used for the collection of treated water
flowing out from the root zone bed through the outlet. Treated water samples were collected and analyzed in
laboratory. All three tubs i.e. 1) Inlet 2) Root zone tub and 3) Outlet were connected to each other with taps and
water pipes (Figures 2 and 3). Flow rate was maintained same at inlet and outlet. Horizontal with flow rate of
0.5 L/ hr surface flow method was preferred for the treatment tests. Flow rate was adjusted by Bucket method
with the help of timer and setting of tap. Retention time of about 96 hrs (4 days) was provided for achievement
of significant pollution reduction efficiency. Initially young and new plants weeds were acclimatized in the
laboratory and then wastewater sample was passed through the bed. The waste water sample with different
dilutions or concentrations viz. 20%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 80% and 100% were prepared and passed through plant
bed. Each of these dilutions was studied for assessment of pollution reduction efficiency [5]. As mentioned

3259
J. Mater. Environ. Sci. 7 (9) (2016) 3256-3263 Patil et al.
ISSN : 2028-2508
CODEN: JMESC

earlier the sewage samples were analyzed before and after treatment for various physic-chemical and biological
parameters by using standard methods [20].

Figure 2 and 3: Constructed Wetland design and set up using E. crassipes

3. Results and Discussion

The study focused on the overall performance of E. crassipes for the treatment of domestic wastewater.
Water quality parameters studied such as pH, DO, BOD, COD, Nitrate, Chloride, TS, TDS, TSS and heavy
metals reflected different treatment efficiencies. The color and odor were removed and hence treated samples
were observed clear and odorless. The pH values before and after treatment changed at different sets of
dilutions. In all sets of dilutions the results obtained were in near to the neutral form (Table 1, Figure 4). In
100% dilution the pH was 6.7 in before treatment but after treatment it was 7.2. The effluent standard enacted
by Central Pollution Control Board, India specifies the pH of effluent to range between 6.5 and 7.5 which was
achieved in all treatment tests. The DO values changed after treatment of wastewater through E. crassipes in
various sets of dilutions. Without dilution of sewage it was observed to contain very less DO due to the presence
of high amount of organic and inorganic matter and had noxious smell. But, after treatment the DO values
improved. In 20% dilution the DO mg/L in before treatment was 0.0 and after treatment it increased to 1.3
mg/L. Similar trend was noticed in 100% dilution the DO before treatment was 0.6 and after treatment it became
3.2 mg/L. In all the sets of dilution of wastewater, dissolved oxygen levels increased after treatment.
Solid contents such as TDS (Total dissolved solids), TSS (Total suspended solids) and TS (Total solids)
estimated through this technique reflected better treatment. The maximum reduction of solids was found in 80
% dilution. The BOD5 was estimated in the samples before and after treatment. In 20 % dilution BOD was 210
mg/L before treatment and after treatment it reduced to 160 mg/L. Likewise in 100% sewage dilution BOD was
observed to be 230 mg/L which decreased to 120 mg/L. Better BOD reduction was observed from 20% to 80%
and then reduction was less. This BOD removal efficiency is a function of Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT).
Longer HRT increases the interaction within the aquatic plant system, which results in higher organic matter
which can further improve treatment efficiency [21]. The COD values before treatment and after treatment
varied in all sets of dilutions. In the 20% dilution, COD before treatment was 290 mg/L and after treatment
reduced to 220 mg/L. The COD reductions were found in increasing order up to 80 % then there was less
reduction. Similar trend has been reported 75% reduction of BOD at 80% and 71% at 100% concentration of
Lake Water [14]. The values of nitrate showed variable concentration at various dilutions. In 80% and 100%
sets of dilution, maximum reduction was observed. The values of chlorides in before treatment and after
treatment varied in all sets of dilutions.

3260
J. Mater. Environ. Sci. 7 (9) (2016) 3256-3263 Patil et al.
ISSN : 2028-2508
CODEN: JMESC

Table 1: Physico- Chemical Parameters of waste water before and after treatment with E. crassipes

DO TSS TDS TS BOD COD NO3 Chlorides

Parameters
pH mg /L mg /L Mg /L mg /L mg /L mg /L mg /L mg /L
/
Treatment B.T* A.T B.T A.T B.T A.T B.T A.T B.T A.T B.T A.T B.T A.T B.T A.T B.T A.T
20%
Sewage 7.5 7.2 1.1 1.3 710 595 840 545 1550 1140 210 165 290 220 4.0 3.0 24.14 22.10
40%
Sewage 7.4 7.2 0.9 1.4 806 710 950 520 1756 1230 200 144 310 192 5.1 3.5 26.98 24.15
50%
Sewage 7.2 7.1 0.8 1.9 844 749 990 495 1834 1244 220 138 330 186 6.0 3.2 27.13 23.16
60%
Sewage 7.1 7.0 0.7 2.2 888 690 1123 450 2011 1140 220 130 342 156 8.0 3.9 27.20 24.10
80%
Sewage 6.9 7.1 0.0 2.8 1805 600 1140 580 2945 1180 230 118 320 172 8.5 3.0 28.40 22.80
100%
Sewage 6.7 7.2 0.0 3.2 1920 970 1240 610 3160 1580 230 120 315 160 9.2 1.23 44.02 36.10

* B.T. means Before treatment and A.T. means After Treatment

Pollution reduction of sewage in percentage wise using E. crassipes.

100
Removal Efficiency in %

80
60 20%
40
20 40%
0 50%
60%
80%
100%

Pollution parameters

Figure 4: Reduction in physico-chemical parameters of sewage using E. crassipes

Presence of common heavy metals viz. Cu, Ni, Co, and Fe in domestic wastewater was determined before and
after treatment (table 2). Selected plant parts such as root, stem and leaves were used for the estimation of
heavy metals.
The metal reduction was noticed in all treatments. The Co was reduced by 78.78%, Cu was reduced by 28.90%,
Fe by 23.42% and Ni by 1.32%. The results obtained from analysis of treated wastewater indicated that the
treated water can be useful for agriculture, washing, gardening, planting or any other purposes.

3261
J. Mater. Environ. Sci. 7 (9) (2016) 3256-3263 Patil et al.
ISSN : 2028-2508
CODEN: JMESC

Table 2: Analysis of metals in the plant parts of E. crassipes

Metals Metals Before Treatment in the Metals After Treatment in the (%)
plant parts (mg) plant parts (mg) Efficiency
Cu 2.069 2.667 28.90
Ni 0.227 0.230 1.32
Co 0.033 0.059 78.78
Fe 0.175 0.216 23.42

Wetland is a useful technique for the cleanup of waste water [22]. It has shown the ability of bioaccumulation
and degradation of contaminants with E. crassipes. This plant has been studied and reported as suitable for
wastewater treatment [23]. Experiments were performed in tanks with semi-continuous sewage flow in the
presence and absence of water hyacinths and pennywort. In these fixed flow rate experiments (1.5 L /min),
removal of BOD from 130 down to 10 mg/L was established [24].
Eichhornia Crassipes wetland achieved a high performance in removing 70% of BOD, 68% of COD, 41% of
Total Solids (TS), 100% zinc, 30% nitrate, 38% chloride and 94% sulphates respectively [16]. The effectiveness
of sewage purification by aquatic plants, such as water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) and water lettuce (Pistia
stratiotes) was tested on laboratory and pilot scales. Cascade and semi-continuous pilot experiments verified
that the plants were capable of decreasing all tested indicators of water quality (BOD, COD, TSS and turbidity)
to levels that permit the use of the purified water for irrigation of tree crops. The laboratory-scale tests
confirmed the capacity of the plants to reach and hold reasonably low levels of BOD (5–7 mg/ L) and COD (40–
50 mg /L) and very low levels of TSS (3–5 mg/L) [25]. The mean COD and BOD5 reduction were 80% and
86% at 14 h HRT in a water hyacinth wetland system [26].

Study limitations
On account of limited time and resources the author studied one plant species within the constructed wetland
system however; other species should also be investigated for their treatment potential. Another limitation of the
study was its being conducted in one season, season also impacts plant performance and hence treatment
potential, therefore a comprehensive study investigating performance in whole year needs to be undertaken.

Future Scope
In future studies a constructed wetland with a combination of plant species could be used for better treatment
potential. The performance of this combination should be studied for the whole year i.e. during different seasons
for a better assessment of treatment potential of species within the different seasons.

Conclusions
The Constructed Wetland with hydrophytes (water hyacinth plant) is capable of removing pollutants and the
hydrophyte (Eichhornia crassipes) has shown its ability to survive in high concentration of nutrients with
significant nutrient removal. The use of water hyacinth plant aquatic system can help reduce pollutant load,
improve water quality and the treated water can be useful for agriculture, washing, gardening, planting or any
other purposes.

References
1. Dhote S., Dixit S., Environ. Monitor. Assess. 152 (2009) 149–153.
2. Benyamine M., Backstrom N., Sanden, P., Environ. Monitor. Assess. 90 (2004) 171-185.
3. Kumar S. G., Joseph N., Indian J Occup Environ Med. 16 (2012) 150-151.
3262
J. Mater. Environ. Sci. 7 (9) (2016) 3256-3263 Patil et al.
ISSN : 2028-2508
CODEN: JMESC

4. Joshi S., J. Int. Emer. Med. 27 (2000) 98-102.

5. Chavan B. L., Dhulap V.P., J. Environ. Res. Develop. 7 (2014) 660-667.
6. Gupta P.K., Kumar N., Kumar M., Int. J. Res. Eng. Technol. 4 (2015) 243-252.
7. Zhang L., Wang M-H., Hu J., Ho Y-S., Ecol. Eng. 36 (2010) 973-980.
8. Scholz M., Harrington R., Carroll P., Mustafa A., Wetlands 27(2007) 337-354.
9. Vymazal J., Sci. Total Environ. 380 (2007) 48-65.
10. Brix H., Water Sci. Technol. 30 (1994) 209-223.
11. Moreno D., Pedrocchi C., Comin F.A., Garcia M., Cabezas A., Ecol. Eng. 30 (2007) 103–111
12. Shivanand Y.A., Poll. Res. 27(2008) 501-502.
13. Mitsch W.J., Tejada J., Nahlik A., Kohlmann B., Bernala B., Hernandez C.E., Ecol. Eng 34 (2008) 276–288.
14. Dhote S., Dixit S., Asian J. Exp. Sci. 21(2007) 427-430.
15. Kumari M., Tripathi, B.D., Ecol. Eng. 62(2014) 48–53.
16. Olukanni D.O., Kokumo K.O., Am. J. Eng. Res. 2 (2013) 450–454.
17. Maine M. A., Ecol. Eng. 26 (2006) 341-347.
18. Skinner K., Environ. Poll.145 (2007) 234-237.
19. American Public Health Association (APHA), (2005) Washington, DC.
20. Kanabkaew T., Puetpaiboon U., Songklanakarin J. Sci. Technol. 26(2004)749-756.
21. Mander U., Mitsch W.J. Ecol. Eng. 35 (2009) 153–158.
22. Sooknah R., J. Sci. Tech. Res. 6 (2000) 49-57.
23. DeBusk T.A., Reddy, K.R., Water Sci. Technol. 19 (1987) 273–279.
24. Zimmels Y., Kirzhner F., Malkovskaja A., J. Environ. Manage. 81 (2006) 420– 428.
25. Valipour A., Raman V. K., Ahn Young-Ho., Water 7 (2015) 329-347.
26. Vymazal J., Sci. Total Environ. 380 (2006) 48-65.
27. http://www.neeri.res.in/content/phytorid-wastewater-treatment-technology.
28. Patil, S. S., Kaushik, G.K., Int. J. Env. 5 (2016) 75-88.
29. Bandela N.N., Babrekar M.G., Jogdand O.K., Kaushik, G.K., J. Mater. Environ. Sci. 7 (2016) 1972-1978.
30. Kulasekaran A., Gopal A., Alexander J. J., J. Mater. Environ. Sci. 5 (2014) 859-864.

(2016) ; http://www.jmaterenvironsci.com

3263