Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) as Phytoremediator of Abattoir Contaminated Effluents

Year : 2025 | Volume : 16 | Issue : 01 | Page : 1 08
    By

    Davies, I. E.E.,

  • Davies, R.M,

  • Davies, O.A.,

  1. Lecturer 2, Department of Civil Engineering, Nigeria Maritime University, Delta State, Nigeria
  2. Professor, Department of Agricultural and Environmental PMB 071, Niger Delta University Wilberforce Island, Amassoma, Bayelsa State, Nigeria
  3. Professor, Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Environment, Rivers State University, Port Harcourt, Rivers State, Nigeria

Abstract

The abattoir industry provided meat for more than 170 million Nigerians and job opportunities for teeming population. It has also been categorized as one of the industries responsible for major pollution of soil and water resources. The aim of this study was to analyze the pollutants present in the effluents from the selected abattoir and evaluate the effectiveness of water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) in removing these pollutants. The experiment was conducted in the laboratory, where water hyacinth was cultivated hydroponically to remediate the contaminated abattoir wastewater. The findings demonstrated that a number of the abattoir effluent’s physicochemical parameters—temperature, pH, electrical conductivity (EC), total dissolved solids (TDS), total suspended solids (TSS), dissolved oxygen (DO), turbidity, nitrate (NO3–), ammonia (NH3 + N), and phosphate (PO43–)—exceeded the recommended limits. The pH ranged from 6.33 ± 0.03 (control) to 8.00 ± 0.03 (28 days). The EC of the abattoir wastewater after 28 days of planting in the effluent ranged from 347 ± 4.23 to 3582 ± 15.38 µS/cm for the control. The mean values of TDS, TSS, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), DO, and turbidity were found to be statistically significantly (p < 0.05). These findings indicate that the physicochemical parameters of the abattoir effluent exceeded the permissible levels recommended by international and national environmental agencies. Therefore, discharging this effluent without proper treatment could pose serious environmental problems for humans, aquatic life, and biodiversity

Keywords: Water quality parameters, industrial effluents, aquatic plant, sustainable water management

[This article belongs to Journal of Modern Chemistry & Chemical Technology ]

How to cite this article:
Davies, I. E.E., Davies, R.M, Davies, O.A.. Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) as Phytoremediator of Abattoir Contaminated Effluents. Journal of Modern Chemistry & Chemical Technology. 2025; 16(01):1-08.
How to cite this URL:
Davies, I. E.E., Davies, R.M, Davies, O.A.. Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) as Phytoremediator of Abattoir Contaminated Effluents. Journal of Modern Chemistry & Chemical Technology. 2025; 16(01):1-08. Available from: https://journals.stmjournals.com/jomcct/article=2025/view=198639


References

  1. Iyiola O, Oni-Ojo EE. Attitudes toward service innovations in red meat industry and its consumption effects on Nigerian consumers. Dev Country Stu. 2013; 3 (9): 39–
  2. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Point Source Category. Washington, DC, USA: USEPA; 2004. Available at https://federalregister.gov/a/04-12017
  3. Dhanwal PA, Kumar S, Dudeja V, Beniwal CV. Recent advances in phytoremediation In: Kumar R, Sharma A, Ahluwalia S, editors. Advances in Environmental Biotechnology. Singapore: Springer; 2017. pp. 227–241.
  4. Aniebo AO, Wekhe SN, Okoli IC. Abattoir blood waste generation in Rivers State and its environmental implications in the Niger Delta. Toxicol Environ Chem. 2009; 91: 619– doi: 10.1080/02772240802343404[7].
  5. Delforno TP, Lacerda Junior GV, Noronha MF, Sakamoto IK, Varesche MBA, Oliveira VM. Microbial diversity of a full-scale UASB reactor applied to poultry slaughterhouse wastewater treatment: integration of 16S rRNA gene amplicon and shotgun metagenomic sequenc Microbiol Open. 2017; 6 (3): e00443. doi: 10.1002/mbo3.443.
  6. Ziara RMM, Li S, Subbiah J, Dvorak BI. Characterization of wastewater in Two U.S. cattle slaugh­terhouses. Water Environ Res. 2018; 90 (9): 851– doi: 10.2175/106143017X15131012187971.
  7. Akansha JP, Nidheesh A, Anupama G, Kumar MS. Treatment of dairy industry wastewater by combined aerated electrocoagulation and phytoremediation process. Chemosphere. 2020; 253: 126652. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.126652.
  8. Fan YV, Tan RR, Klemeš JJ. A system analysis tool for sustainable biomass utilisation considering the emissions-cost nexus. Energy Convers Manage. 2020; 210: 112701. doi: 1016/j.enconman.2020.112701.
  9. Borker AR, Mane AV, Saratale. GD, Pathade GR. Phytoremediation potential of Eichhornia crassipes for the treatment of cadmium in relation with biochemical and water parameters. Emirates J Food Agric. 2020; 25 (6): 443–
  10. Chen J, Nie Q, Zhang Y. Hu J, Qing L. Eco-physiological characteristics of Pistia stratiotes and its removal of pollutants from livestock wastewater. Water Sci Technol. 2014; 69: 2510–
  11. Demim S, Drouiche N, Aouabed A, Benayad T, Couderchet M, Semsari S. Study of heavy metal removal from heavy metal mixture using the CCD method. J Indus Eng 2014; 20: 512–520.
  12. Haidara AM, Magami IM, Sanda A. Bioremediation of aquacultural effluents using hydrophytes. Bioprocess Eng. 2018; 2 (4): 33–37. doi: 11648/j.be.20180204.11.
  13. Bustillo-Lecompte C, Mehrvar M, Quiñones-Bolaños E. Slaughterhouse wastewater characterization and treatment: an economic and public health necessity of the meat processing industry in Ontario, Canada. J Geosci Environ Protect. 2016; 4: 175– doi: 10.4236/gep.2016.44021.
  14. Ayaz T, Khan S, Khan AZ, Lei M, Alam M. Remediation of industrial wastewater using four hydrophyte species: a comparison of individual (pot experiments) and mix plants (constructed wetland). J Environ Manage. 2020; 255: doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109833.
  15. Shahedi A, Darban AK, Taghipour F, Jamshidi-Zanjani A review on industrial wastewater treatment via electrocoagulation processes. Curr Opin Electrochem. 2020; 22: 154–169. doi: 10.1016/j.coelec.2020.05.009.
  16. Fan YV, Jiang P, Hemzal M, Klemeš JJ. An update of COVID-19 influence on waste management. Sci Total Environ. 2021; 754: 42014. doi: 1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142014.
  17. Shi GM, Feng Y, Li B, Tham HM, Lai JY, Chung TS. Recent progress of organic solvent nanofiltration membranes. Prog Polym 2021; 123: 101470. doi: 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2021.101470.
  18. Shi YT, Meng X, Yao L, Tian M. A full-scale study of nanofiltration: separation and recovery of NaCl and Na2SO4 from coal chemical industry wastewater. Desalination. 2021; 517: 115239. doi: 1016/j.desal.2021.115239.
  19. Saleem M. Pharmaceutical wastewater treatment: a physicochemical study. J 2007; 18: 125–134.
  20. Sahu OP, Chaudhari PK. Review on chemical treatment of industrial waste water. J Appl Sci Environ Manage. 2013; 17: 241–257. doi: 4314/jasem.v17i2.8.
  21. Rautenbach R, Linn T, Eilers L. Treatment of severely contaminated waste water by a combination of RO, high-pressure RO and NF — potential and limits of the process. J Membr 2020; 174: 231–241. doi: 10.1016/s0376-7388(00)00388-4.
  22. Ezugbe OE, Rathilal S. Membrane technologies in wastewater treatment: a review. Membranes. 2020;10: 89. doi: 3390/membranes10050089.
  23. Ma D, Yi H, Lai C, Liu X, Huo X, An Z, Li, Fu Y, Li B, Zhang M, et al. Critical review of advanced oxidation processes in organic wastewater treatment. Chemosphere. 2021; 275: 130104. doi: 1016/j.chemosphere.2021.130104.
  24. Koczka K, Mizsey P. New area for distillation: wastewater treatment. Period Polytech Chem 2010; 54: 41–45. doi: 10.3311/pp.ch.2010-1.06.
  25. Gupta VK, Ali I, Saleh TA, Nayak A, Agarwal S. Chemical treatment technologies for waste-water recycling – an overview. RSC Adv. 2020;2: 6380–6388. doi: 1039/c2ra20340e.
  26. Diaz-Elsayed N, Rezaei N, Guo T, Mohebbi S, Zhang Q. Wastewater-based resource recovery technologies across scale: a review. Resour Conserv 2019; 145: 94–112. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.12.035.
  27. Cséfalvay E, Imre PM, Mizsey P. Applicability of nanofiltration and reverse osmosis for the treatment of wastewater of different origin. Cent Eur J 2008; 6: 277–283. doi: 10.2478/s11532-008-0026-3.
  28. Chai WS, Cheun JY, Kumar PS, Mubashir M, Majeed Z, Banat F, Ho SH, Show PL. A review on conventional and novel materials towards heavy metal adsorption in wastewater treatment application. J Clean 2021; 296: 126589. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126589.
  29. Abdel-Fatah MA, Amin A, Elkady H. Industrial wastewater treatment by membrane process. In: Shah MP, Rodriguez-Couto S, editor Membrane-Based Hybrid Processes for Wastewater Treatment. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier; 2021. pp. 341–365. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-823804-2.00025-2.
  30. Ali H, Khan E, Sajad MA. Phytoremediation of heavy metals—concepts and applications. Chemosphere. 2013; 91: 869–881.
  31. Rezania S, Taib SM; Din MFM, Dahalan FA, Kamyab H. Comprehensive review on phytotechnology: heavy metals removal by diverse aquatic plants species from wastewater. J Hazard 2012; 318: 587–599.
  32. Saleh TA, Mustaqeem M, Khaled M. Water treatment technologies in removing heavy metal ions from wastewater: a review. Nanotechnol Monit Manage. 2012; 17 (6): 100617.
  33. Valipour A, Hamnabard N, Woo KS, Ahn YH. Performance of high-rate constructed phytoremediation process with attached growth for domestic wastewater treatment: effect of high TDS and Cu. J Environ Manage. 2014; 145: 1–
  34. Worku A, Tefera N, Kloos H, Benor S. Bioremediation of brewery wastewater using hydroponics planted with vetiver grass in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Bioresour Bioprocess. 2018; 5 (39): 1–12. doi: 1186/s40643-018-0225-5.
  35. Khan S, Ahmad I, Shah MT, Rehman S, Khaliq A. Use of constructed wetland for the removal of heavy metals from industrial wastewater. J Environ Manage. 2009; 90: 3451–3457.
  36. Michael I, Rizzo L, McArdell CS, Manaia CM, Merlin C, Schwartz T, Dagot C, Fatta-Kassinos D. Urban wastewater treatment plants as hotspots for the release of antibiotics in the environment: a review. Water Res. 2013; 47: 957–995.
  37. Akhtar FZ, Archana KM, Krishnaswamy VG, Rajagopal R. Remediation of heavy metals (Cr, Zn) using physical, chemical and biological methods: a novel approach. SN Appl 2020; 2: 1–14.
  38. Mustafa HM, Hayde G. Evaluation of water lettuce, giant salvinia and water hyacinth systems in phytoremediation of domestic wastewater. H2Open J. 2021; 4 (1): 167– doi: 10.2166/h2oj.2021.096.
  39. Hazmi NIA, Hanafiah MM.. Phytoremediation of livestock wastewater using Azolla filiculoides and Lemna minor. Environ Ecosyst 2018; 2: 13–16.
  40. Katarzyna H, Baum C. Application of microorganisms in bioremediation of environment from heavy metals. In: Malik A, Grohmann E, Akhtar R, editors. Environmental Deterioration and Human Health. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer; 2014. 215–227.
  41. Manan FA, Chai TT, Samad AA, Mamat DD. Evaluation of the phytoremediation potential of two medicinal plants. Sains Malays. 2015; 44: 503–509.
  42. Davies IEE, Davies RM, Davies GO. Assessment of water lettuce and duckweed in phytoremediation of slaughter effluent. Asian Sci 2024; 2 (2): 156–165.
  43. Sharma S, Malaviya P. Bioremediation of tannery wastewater by Aspergillus flavus Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2015; 5: 137–143.
  44. Abu HC, Davies RM, Davies OA. Phytoremediation of cassava wastewater by water hyacinth. Trends Appl Sci Res. 2021; 17 (1): 1–
  45. American Public Health Association (APHA). Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Waste Water. 20th edition. Washington, DC, USA: American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association Water Pollution Control Federation; 1998. 5–17.
  46. American Public Health Association (APHA). Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 21st editio. Washington, DC, USA: American Public Health Association; 2005.
  47. World Health Organization (WHO). Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality. 3rd edition. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO;
  48. Al-Janabi ZZ, Kubaisi Al-Obaidy ARJ. Assessment of water quality of Tigris River by using water quality index (CCME-WQI). J Al-Nahrain Univ. 2012; 15 (1): 119–
  49. World Health Organization (WHO). Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality. 4th edition, incorporating the 1st addendum. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO;
  50. Rahman AL, Jahanara I, Jolly YN. Assessment of physicochemical properties of water and their seasonal variation in an urban river in Bangladesh. Water Sci Eng. 2021; 14 (2): 139– doi: 10.1016/j.wse.2021.06.006.
  51. Nuraini Y, Felani M. Phytoremediation of tapioca wastewater using water hyacinth plant (Eichhornia crassipes). J Degraded Mining Lands Manage, 2014; 2 (2): 295–302.
  52. Oh Y, Nelson PV, Hesterberg DL, Niedziela CE. Efficacy of a phosphate-charged soil material in supplying phosphate for plant growth in soilless root media. Int J Agron. 2016; 3: 1– doi: 10.1155/2016/8296560
  53. Aires I, Carvalho R, Eduardo AS, Rosa EA, Saavedra MJ. Effects of agriculture production systems on nitrate and nitrite accumulation on baby-leaf salads. Food Sci Nutr. 2013; 1 (1): 3–7. doi: 10.1002/fsn3.1.
  54. Priya S, Selvan S. Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) – an efficient and economic adsorbent for textile effluent treatment – a review. Arab J Chem. 2017; 10: S3548–S3558. doi: 1016/j.arabjc.2014.03.002.
  55. Ashraf S, Afzal M, Naveed M, Shahid M. Endophytic bacteria enhance remediation of tannery effluent in constructed wetlands vegetated with Leptochloa fusca. Int J Phytoremediat. 2018; 20 (2): 121–128. doi: 1080/15226514.2017.1337072.
  56. Zhang L, Zhao J, Cui N, Dai Y, Kong L, Wu J, Cheng S. Enhancing the water purification efficiency of a floating treatment wetland using a biofilm carrier. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2016; 23: 7437–7443. doi: 1007/s11356-015-5873-9.
  57. Hussain F, Tahseen R, Arslan M, Iqbal S, Afzal M. Removal of hexadecane by hydroponic root mats in partnership with alkane-degrading bacteria: bacterial augmentation enhances system’s performance. Int J Environ Sci Technol. 2019; 16: 4611–4620. doi: 1007/s13762-018-2165-1.
Regular Issue Subscription Original Research
Volume 16
Issue 01
Received 05/11/2024
Accepted 03/01/2025
Published 11/01/2025
166

Login


My IP

PlumX Metrics