INTRODUCTION:

A constructed wetland is engineered for wastewater treatment¹process that eliminates pollutants through natural phenomena involving plants, bacteria, and media². This plant-assisted approach is viewed as a viable option for eliminating contaminants such as organic matter, hazardous waste, pathogens, suspended particles, and nutrients from wastewater (Nitrogen and phosphorous)^3,4,5,6. It has been developed to decrease the concentration of pollutants, such as nutrients, organic and inorganic pollutants, in wastewater before it is released into the environment because releasing untreated wastewater into the land and water, causes damage to agriculture and poses health risks to people^7,8along with degradation of water resources^9,10. Many developed and underdeveloped countries, including Malaysia, Indonesia, Nepal, India, and Spain, have adopted constructed wetland^11,12. Constructed wetlands (CWs) are a popular engineered technique for treating urban and rural wastewater that is efficient, inexpensive, easy to build and operate, and environmentally benign^{13,14,15,16,17}.

A sequential combination system (a hybrid system) such as vertical flow and horizontal flow systems can be used for household wastewater treatment. Because of aerobic and anaerobic processes, such hybrid systems can boost pollutant removal rates^18,19.

It is considered that macrophytes are the primary biological element of wetlands. Macrophytes can absorb pollutants from wastewater²⁰ directly into tissues, along with purifying from catalytic activity by increasing the diversity of the environment in the root region; therefore, they are a fundamental biological factor of wetlands²¹. Due to these characteristics, the phytoremediation technique has greater ecological benefits, as compared to other procedures²². The most vital element of any kind of wastewater treatment is the selection of plants²³. Macrophytes have several intrinsic properties, making them an indispensable component of constructed wetlands. The most significant role of the macrophytes in association with the treatment of wastewater is the physical effect realized by the presence of plants²⁴. Typha is one of the macrophyte species that has the most efficiency in converting removal nutrients into energy biomass and is the best option for renewable varieties of wastewater²⁵ because it creates a large surface area for the uptake of nutrients and ions due to the growth of subsurface plant tissues in both planes (horizontally and vertically) and forms a broad matrix that binds the soil particles²⁶.

Based on the above concept, the present study hypothesized that the effluent without treatment contained high values of COD, BOD, DO, TSS, TDS, pH conductivity, heavy metals, ions, etc. after treatment with macrophytes, evaluate the reduction of contamination levels to those values in treated wastewater allowed by the wastewater discharge standards (Central Pollution Control Board, India).

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Study area and Collection of the Wastewater Samples:

In the present study, industrial wastewater samples were collected from different locations in the study Area. Representative wastewater samples were collected from the different locations of Durg and Rajnandgaon during the period from October 2019 to July 2021. These locations include rice mills, chemical factories, and dairies. The samples were collected in plastic containers with a 20-litre capacity. The samples were transported after being taken directly to the laboratory at Govt. Digvijay College, Rajnandgaon.

Physiochemical analysis of wastewater:

The Physicochemical analysis of wastewater was carried out by adopting the standard method provided by APHA^27,28. Nine parameters were analyzed for quality assessment, including temperature, pH, salt, electrical conductivity, total suspended solids, total dissolved solids, BOD, COD, and DO, in wastewater samples²⁹.

Collection of macrophytes:

This survey was conducted from January 2018 to December 2020, every month. The specimen is collected with the help of a hook, cleaned completely; extra water soaked in filter paper, packed in a polythene bag and brought to lab³⁰. Create a herbarium³¹and identify the macrophytes by classifying them as floating emergent, emergent, etc. In each water body, the aquatic macrophytes were analyzed, and specimens were identified up to the genus/species level with the help of a botanical survey of India³².

Modelling of constructed wetland:

In the lab, two parallel laboratory-scale sub-surface flow hybrid-constructed wetland system (SSHCW) was built by using a rectangular operation unit. This was initially connected to a subsurface vertical flow treatment unit, and subsequently to a horizontal flow treatment unit. Three layers packed one on top of the other, made up the vertical and horizontal flow treatment units (organic soil, sand, and gravel). To facilitate the water to naturally flow under gravity, a horizontal flow unit was linked to a collecting tank that held treated water from the first three units, which were arranged in descending order at a height of one foot. Pipes made of polyvinyl chloride were utilized to connect each unit. The middle two units were filled with freshwater before being exposed to operational conditions for three to four weeks. Each pot had a 25-liter capacity of effluent. Throughout the investigation, a thermometer was used to regularly check the temperature. The water flow rate was controlled by nozzles and valves between the various units. SSHCW was functioning using various hydraulic retention intervals³³.

In the experimental setup, 8 macrophytes chosen from a diversity of plant species were used one by one for wastewater treatment. Macrophytes were grown in both vertical and horizontal systems; firstly, in tap water for a week when the rhizome completely binds with the soil, tap water drains out of the system, then 25 litre of wastewater is poured into the settling unit, and wastewater treatment starts for 9 days continuously. Physiochemical analysis was performed before treatment of wastewater (0 days) and after treatment. Treated samples were collected from the collecting tank on 3, 6, and 9 days, and changes were noted down.

Statistical analysis:

The data were subjected to analysis of ANOVA, mean, and standard deviation using Origin software version 2018 64 Bit. Ink and Microsoft Excel.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:

Study of macrophyte diversity:

To provide a fundamental understanding of the diversity of macrophytes in the districts of Durg and Rajnandgaon, a survey was conducted between January 2018 and December 2020 focusing on a few typically occurring macrophytes. The study region is located between latitudes 21°11’25.6164"N and longitudes 81°17’5.7120"E and 21°5’52.2780"N and longitude 81°2’1.3452"E . Some benefits of aquatic macrophytes include preserving the equilibrium of O₂ and CO₂, feeding certain herbivorous fish, and shielding small fish from hostile creatures. Characterization of the macrophyte in the study region was authenticated and identified by the Botanical Survey of India. The research area's vegetation comprised 22 distinct plant species from various families, distributed over 7 locations.

Effect of macrophytes on the physicochemical characteristics of wastewater:

The results of physico chemical analysis of wastewater after treated with different macrophytes in constructed wetland were discussed in this section. The temperature has also been calculated based on the distribution pattern of macrophytes, which affects yield and species composition and differs with depth, season, and geographic region. The temperatures were constant from wetland to wetland, varying from 25.8±0.38°C to 45.61±0.25°C, with the minimum and maximum temperatures recorded. It's difficult to tell the distinction between the impacts of environmental factors on aquatic macrophyte distribution. Temperature is one of the regulatory factors that affect the growth and distribution of flora and fauna, as well as the activities of the aquatic ecosystem³⁴^-³⁸.

The pH reduction process (Pistia stratiotes) has better efficiency for dropping the pH of wastewater as compared to other macrophytes. The analysis of variance showed pH (F=8.644562, P= 5.27E-05) that macrophytes were significantly different from each other (Figure-1). TDS concentration describes the presence of inorganic salts and small amounts of organic matter in water and Electrical conductivity is the measure of water capacity to conduct electrical current ³⁹. The analysis of variance of TDS (F=4.458773, P=0.003) (figure-2) and electrical conductivity (F=3.890311, P=0.007) (figure 3) showed a significant result. TSS is also one of the important pollution parameters used to evaluate the pollution potential for dairy wastewater and to determine the efficiency of the treatment unit⁴⁰. In the present study, ANOVA analysis of TSS showed (F= 4.023078, P=0.006) a significant result (figure- 4).

Figure 1. Comparative variability in wastewater processed with SS-HCW planted with 8 distinct macrophytes in terms of pH. The bars show the mean value and standard error.

Figure 2. Comparative variability in wastewater processed with SS-HCW planted with 8 distinct macrophytes in terms of Total Dissolve Solid (TDS). The bars show the mean value and standard error.

Figure 3. Comparative variability in wastewater processed with SS-HCW planted with 8 distinct macrophytes in terms of Conductivity. The bars show the mean value and standard error.

Figure 4. Comparative variability in wastewater processed with SS-HCW planted with 8 distinct macrophytes in terms of Total Suspended Solids (TSS). The bars show the mean value and standard error.

Figure 5. Comparative variability in wastewater processed with SS-HCW planted with 8 distinct macrophytes in terms of Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD). The bars show the mean value and standard error.

Figure 6. Comparative variability in wastewater processed with SS-HCW planted with 8 distinct macrophytes in terms of Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD). The bars show the mean value and standard error.

Figure 7. Comparative variability in wastewater processed with SS-HCW planted with 8 distinct macrophytes in terms of dissolved oxygen (DO). The bars show the mean value and standard error.

The undiluted raw wastewater had an average COD value of 1931+212mg/L and a BOD5 value of 1089+122 mg/L, with the COD and BOD5 ratio being 1.65:1, which is often considered for the suitability of the biodegradability of organics present in the system⁴¹. The COD and BOD reductions were obtained after 9 days of treatment. ANOVA analysis COD (F=8.929, P=0.002) (figure- 5) and BOD (F=6.69558, P=0.003) (figure- 6), respectively, showed all macrophytes were significantly different.

The DO content is practically absent in rice mill wastewater⁴²or very low in diluted water after treatment in vegetated constructed wetland DO was increased (Figure 7). ANOVA analysis of DO (F=5.181, P=0.005) interpreted that macrophytes were significantly different from each other in all parameters at a p<0.05% significant level. The result showed that Pistia stratiotes, Alternanthera philoxeroides, Eichhornia crassipes, Polygonum persicaria, Ludwigia adscendens, Marsilea quardrifolia, Ipomoea aquatica, and Nymphoides cristata have the efficiency to reduce TDS, TSS, conductivity, DO, BOD, and COD (Figure 1–7). In the present study, it was evaluated that Eichhornia crassipes have a higher efficiency for contamination removal as compared to the other 7 macrophytes.

CONCLUSION:

Macrophyte are better purifiers for wastewater treatment they uptake large amount of organic matter from wastewater by their rhizosphere hence it is used in artificial wetland for water quality improvement in various studies. In present study evaluated the macrophyte of the study area based on their pollutant removal efficiency in lab-scale hybrid constructed wetland. The result showed that Pistia stratiotes, Alternanthera philoxeroides, Eichhornia crassipes, Polygonum persicaria, Ludwigia adscendens, Marsilea quardrifolia, Ipomoea aquatica, and Nymphoides cristata have the efficiency to reduce BOD up to to 86.36%, 77.45%, 88.23%, 76.33%, 77.06%, 77.06%, 81.98%, 83.18%, and 78.26% respectively and COD removed up to 79.3%, 67.5%, 77.98%, 71.29%, 71.6%, 70.86%, 75.4% and 68.2% respectively. In the present study, it was evaluated that Eichhornia crassipes have a higher efficiency for contamination removal as compared to the other seven macrophytes.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST:

The authors have no conflicts of interest regarding this investigation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:

Authors are thankful to the Head, Department of Biotechnology, Govt. Digvijay Autonomous PG College Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh for providing facilities in laboratory for work.

REFERENCES:

1. Thangavel K. Waste Water Treatment Via Constructed Wetland. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2017; 10(9): 3107-8.

2. Falahi OA, Abdullah SR, Hasan HA, Othman AR, Ewadh HM, Al-Baldawi IA, Kurniawan SB, Imron MF. Simultaneous removal of ibuprofen, organic material, and nutrients from domestic wastewater through a pilot-scale vertical sub-surface flow constructed wetland with aeration system. Journal of Water Process Engineering. 2021; Oct 1; 43: 102214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2021.102214.

3. Gikas P, Ranieri E, Tchobanoglous G. Removal of iron, chromium and lead from waste water by horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetlands. Journal of Chemical Technology & Biotechnology. 2013; Oct; 88(10): 1906-12. https://doi.org/10.1002/jctb.4048

4. Collison RS, Grismer ME. Nitrogen and Chemical Oxygen Demand removal from septic tank wastewater in subsurface flow constructed wetlands: Substrate (Cation Exchange Capacity) effects. Water Environment Research. 2014; Apr; 86(4): 314-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.2175/106143013X13736496908627 .

5. Ranieri E, Gikas P, Tchobanoglous G. BTEX removal in pilot-scale horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetlands. Desalination and Water Treatment. 2013; Mar 1; 51(13-15): 3032-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2012.748453

6. Torrens A, Bayona C, Salgot M, Folch M. Performance, design and operation of hybrid subsurface flow constructed wetland for swine slurry treatment. In15th IWA International Conference on Wetland Systems for Water Pollution Control, Gdańsk, Poland 2016; (1044-1045).

7. Kumar SN, Muralidhara PL, Hiremath L, Swathi PR. A Recent Advancement on Treatment Technologies for Handling of Pharma Waste water. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2020; 13(4): 1981-6.

8. Srivastava AK, Gupta AK, Mehrotra T, Choudhury R, Singh R. Physicochemical, biochemical and statistical analysis of beverages industry effluent. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2016; 9(7): 887-92.

9. Aammouri SE, Benlemlih N, Mohammed IB. Wastewater treatment by infiltration percolation process using fine sand and activated carbon. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2023; 16(12): 5722-7.

10. Alzurfi SK, Alasadi K, Alausawi SA. Assessment of Water Quality Status of Euphrates from Hindiya dam to Mishkab Regulator-Iraq. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2018; 11(1): 09-16.

11. Ávila C, Bayona JM, Martín I, Salas JJ, García J. Emerging organic contaminant removal in a full-scale hybrid constructed wetland system for wastewater treatment and reuse. Ecological Engineering. 2015; Jul 1; 80: 108-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2014.07.056

12. Jehawi OH, Abdullah SR, Kurniawan SB, Ismail NI, Idris M, Al Sbani NH, Muhamad MH, Hasan HA. Performance of pilot Hybrid Reed Bed constructed wetland with aeration system on nutrient removal for domestic wastewater treatment. Environmental Technology and Innovation. 2020; Aug 1; 19: 100891. doi:10.1016/j.eti.2020.100891.

13. Kumari M, Tripathi BD. Effect of aeration and mixed culture of Eichhornia crassipes and Salvinia natans on removal of wastewater pollutants. Ecological Engineering. 2014; Jan 1; 62: 48-53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2013.10.007.

14. Seeger EM, Maier U, Grathwohl P, Kuschk P, Kaestner M. Performance evaluation of different horizontal subsurface flow wetland types by characterization of flow behavior, mass removal and depth-dependent contaminant load. Water research. 2013; Feb 1; 47(2): 769-80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2012.10.051.

15. Bruun J, Pugliese L, Hoffmann CC, Kjaergaard C. Solute transport and nitrate removal in full-scale subsurface flow constructed wetlands of various designs treating agricultural drainage water. Ecological Engineering. 2016; Dec 1; 97: 88-97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2016.07.010.

16. Bruch I, Fritsche J, Bänninger D, Alewell U, Sendelov M, Hürlimann H, Hasselbach R, Alewell C. Improving the treatment efficiency of constructed wetlands with zeolite-containing filter sands. Bioresource technology. 2011; Jan 1; 102(2): 937-41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.09.041

17. Jácome JA, Molina J, Suárez J, Mosqueira G, Torres D. Performance of constructed wetland applied for domestic wastewater treatment: Case study at Boimorto (Galicia, Spain). Ecological Engineering. 2016; Oct 1; 95: 324-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2016.06.049.

18. Omar HJ, Siti R, Idris M, Nurina A, Hassimi AH, Nadya HA, Nur'izzati I. A reed bed system for the treatment of domestic wastewater and micropollutants. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences. 2014; 8(19 Special):280-3.

19. Kadlec RH, Wallace S. Treatment wetlands. CRC press; 2008 Jul 22.

20. Al-Zurfi SK, Alisaw AY, Al-Shafai GA. Bioaccumulation of some heavy metals by the aquatic plant lemnagibba in vitro. research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2018; 11(10): 4229-36.

21. Maine MA, Sune N, Hadad H, Sánchez G, Bonetto C. Nutrient and metal removal in a constructed wetland for wastewater treatment from a metallurgic industry. ecological engineering. 2006; Jul 31; 26(4): 341-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2005.12.004

22. Jain P, Andotra A, Aziz A, Kaur P, Mahajan A, Kumar A. Phytoremediation-a miracle technique for waste water treatment. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2019; 12(4): 2009-16.

23. Sinha P. Phytoremediation techniques. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2022; 15(11): 5359-62.

24. Brix H. Functions of macrophytes in constructed wetlands. Water Science and Technology. 1994; Feb 1; 29(4): 71-8. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.1994.0160.

25. Verma R, Suthar S. Performance assessment of horizontal and vertical surface flow constructed wetland system in wastewater treatment using multivariate principal component analysis. Ecological engineering. 2018; Jun 1; 116: 121-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2018.02.022

26. Shutes RB. Artificial wetlands and water quality improvement. Environment international. 2001; May 1; 26(5-6): 441-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-4120(01)00025-3

27. Chauhan RK, Chhipa RC, Bansal AK, Sharma DK, Gupta YK. Physico-chemical evaluation of water Quality parameters of Chambal River in Kota, Rajasthan, India. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2020; 13(7): 3402-8.

28. Pant R, Gupta A, Kukreti S, Kaur H, Dhyani N, Rohilla B, Patrick N. Microbiological and physico-chemical quality assessment of drinking water in Dehradun. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2023; 16(1): 266-72.

29. American Public Health Association. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. American Public Health Association.; 1926.

30. Manohar DM, Shyaam LP. Survey of aquatic macrophyte diversity in Yavatmal district, Maharashtra, India. Int. J. of life sciences. 2014; Sep; 2(3): 273-5.

31. Jain SK, Rao RR. A handbook of field and herbarium methods.

32. Nath SK. Aquatic macrophytes of Laokhowa wildlife sanctuary, Assam, India. Int. J. Eng. Res. App. 2012; Sep; 2: 1911-3.

33. Sehar S, Naeem S, Perveen I, Ali N, Ahmed S. A comparative study of macrophytes influence on wastewater treatment through subsurface flow hybrid constructed wetland. Ecological Engineering. 2015; Aug 1; 81: 62-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2015.04.009

34. Rameshkumar S, Radhakrishnan K, Aanand S, Rajaram R. Influence of physicochemical water quality on aquatic macrophyte diversity in seasonal wetlands. Applied Water Science. 2019; Feb; 9: 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-018-0888-2.

35. Tank SK, Chippa RC. Analysis of water quality of Halena block in Bharatpur area. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications. 2013; Mar; 3(3): 57-62.

36. Singh RP, Mathur P. Investigation of physico-chemical characteristics of freshwater reservoir of Ajmer city Rajasthan. Indian J Environ Sci. 2005; 19: 179-86.

37. Jalal FN, Sanalkumar MG. Hydrology and water quality assessment of Achencovil river in relation to pilgrimage season. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications. 2012; Dec; 2(12): 1-5.

38. Dwivedi BK, Pandey GC. Physico-chemical factors and algal diversity of two ponds (girija kund and maqubara pond), Faizabad, India. Pollution Research. 2002; 21(3): 361-70.

39. Sawyer CN, McCARTY PL. Chemistry for environmental engineering. (No Title). 1978 Dec.

40. Garcha S, Verma N, Brar SK. Isolation, characterization and identification of microorganisms from unorganized dairy sector wastewater and sludge samples and evaluation of their biodegradability. Water resources and industry. 2016; Dec 1; 16: 19-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wri.2016.10.002

41. Tchobanoglous G, Burton FL, Stensel HD. Wastewater engineering: treatment and reuse, Metcalf & Eddy Inc. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, 2003. doi. 2003;10:0070418780.

42. Mukherjee B, Majumdar M, Gangopadhyay A, Chakraborty S, Chaterjee D. Phytoremediation of parboiled rice mill wastewater using water lettuce (Pistia stratiotes). International journal of phytoremediation. 2015; Jul 3; 17(7): 651-6. doi:10.1080/15226514.2014.950415.

Received on 15.12.2023 Modified on 06.03.2024

Research J. Pharm. and Tech 2024; 17(10):4995-5000.

DOI: 10.52711/0974-360X.2024.00768