Comparative Analysis of Wastewater Treatment Between Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia Crassipes ) and Water Lettuce (Pistia Stratiottes) Using Wetland Technology

Cd, As, Pb, Zn, Cu Smale scale study on the removal of heavy metals from contaminated water using water hyacinth After 30days, water hyacinth achieved removal efficiencies ranging from 59% to 92% for the heavy metals studied, bringing Conc. within permitted limits according to National Technical Regulation on Industrial wastewater. Huynh et al., 2021 Pb, Cu, Cd, Zn, Cr Phytoremediation capacity of water hyacinth for nutrient and metal uptake Water hyacinth effectively absorbed heavy metals and nutrients from lake water, demonstrating its capacity to improve water quality. The uptake order for metals was Cu > Zn > Ni > Pb > Cd Churko et al., 2023, Cd, Hg, Pb, Ni Initial concentrations of Cd: 0.24, Hg: 4.971, Pb: 1.199, Ni: 3.34 in industrial wastewater Removal rate: Cd-(97.5%) Hg-(99.9%) Pb- (83.4%) Ni-(95.1%) Fazal et al., 2015 Pb, Cu, Mn, Cd Wastewater from mining. Uptake in leaves: Pb-(3.40–5.06 mg/kg) Cu- (6.41–13.5 mg/kg) Mn-(62.9– 67.9 mg/kg) Cd-(0.037–0.13 mg/kg) Prasad et al., 2016 Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, Ni, Pb, Zn Uptake predictions of nine heavy metals by water hyacinth The study developed mathematical regression equations to predict the absorption of nine heavy metals into different plant organs (laminae, petioles, roots and stolons) of water hyacinth. Eid et al., 2021 Biological Classification of the Common Water Hyacinth Rank: Scientific Name: Common Name Kingdom: Plantae - Plants Subkingdom: Tracheobionta - Vascular plants Superdivision: Spermatophyta - Seed plants Division: Magnoliophyta - Flowering plants Class: Liliopsida - Monocotyledons Subclass: Liliidae - Order: Liliales - Family: Pontederiaceae - Water-Hyacinth family Genus: Eichhornia - Water Hyacinth Species: Eichhornia crassipes - Common Water Hyacinth Source: Material and Methodology To compare pollutant removal efficiency of Water Lettuce and Water Hyacinth, the quality of untreated wastewater will be assessed with laboratory test comprising of pH, Temperature, Electrical Conductivity, Total Dissolve Solids, Turbidity, Total Suspended Solids, Biological Oxygen Demand, Chemical Oxygen Demand, Phosphorous, Nitrate, Sulphate, Ammonia, Cadmium, Iron, Lead, Copper, and Zinc (APHA. 2021, USEPA. 2016, 2012, WHO. 2017, ASTM. 2019, 2016, ISO. 2017). Physicochemical and heavy metal content measurements at intervals of 5, 9, 13, 17, 21, and 25 days form the basis of the analysis. 3.0 Material Materials used in this experiment include: • Water hyacinth • Water lettuce • Constructed wetland • Coarse aggregate (Granite) and sand • Brewery Wastewater sample • Masking Tape and Bottle (for sample collection) 3.1 Sample Collection Wastewater samples of the influent and effluent were collected from the Brewery industry site and taken to the laboratory for treatment. The samples were collected from cells containing Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) and Water Lettuce (Pistia Stratiotes) treatments at 4- day intervals for a retention period of 25 days. Each test was conducted in triplicate, and the mean values were used in the analyses. These samples were subjected to Physicochemical (physical and chemical) and heavy metals analyses at the Kaduna Polytechnic Laboratory at Tundu Wanda, Kaduna. 3.2 Laboratory setup Each pond is made of a plastic container with dimensions 0.43m × 0.93m × 0.36m, and the setup will be as described by Ajibade et al. (2017). Saheed et al. (2025) Two setups were made, each for water hyacinth and water lettuce. The ponds were filled first with coarse aggregates (granite), then with soil, before introducing the macrophytes. It’s illustrated in Figure 3. To Figure 3.1 Figure 3.1 Pond setup Figure 3.2 Pond setup Brewery wastewater will be introduced into the pond, and samples will be collected via a tap. Samples shall be taken as described by Saheed et al. (2025), Ajibade et al. (2017) at 4-day intervals for 25 days and subjected to physico-chemical (physical and chemical) and heavy metals analysis as listed in Table3.1. The laboratory protocols to be adopted are outlined in the 22nd edition of the examination of water and wastewater (APHA,2012b and NESREA). Figure 3.3 Cultivated Water Lettuce Figure 3.4 Cultivated Water Hyacinth Table 3.1: Parameters and Analytical Methods Parameters Unit Method Ph pH meter ~ Micro 800 Temperature °C Thermometer ~ Micro 800 Electrical Conductivity (μS/cm) Conductivity meter ~ Micro 800 Total Dissolve Solid ppm/mg/L Conductivity meter/ TDS ~ Micro 800 Turbidity NTU Turbidimeter- Micro 800 TSS mg/L Gravimetric ~ Micro 800 Biochemical Oxygen Demand mg/L Empirical analysis using 5 days incubator at 20°C (BOD bottle method) ~ ENT-B-01 Chemical Oxygen Demand mg/L Close reflux method (Dichromate method) ~ NCA- 100 Total Phosphorus mg/L Spectrophotometer ~ LMP 106 Nitrate mg/L Spectrophotometer ~ LMP 106 Ammonia mg/L Spectrophotometer ~ LMP 106 Sulphate mg/L Spectrophotometer ~ LMP 106 Lead (Pb) Copper (Cu) Iron (Fe) Zinc (Zn) Cadmium mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L ASS ~ HO-ED-S-03A ASS ~ HO-ED-S-03A ASS ~ HO-ED-S-03A ASS ~ HO-ED-S-03A ASS ~ HO-ED-S-03A Total Phosphorus mg/L Spectrophotometer ~ LMP 106 Nitrate mg/L Spectrophotometer ~ LMP 106 Ammonia mg/L Spectrophotometer ~ LMP 106 Sulphate mg/L Spectrophotometer ~ LMP 106 Results and Discussion This chapter presents the comprehensive findings from the phytoremediation studies carried out to evaluate the effectiveness of Pistia stratiottes (water lettuce) and Eichhornia crassipes (water hyacinth) in cleaning brewery effluent. The results are compared to the limits set by the Food and Agriculture Organisation and the National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency to assess the treated effluents' compliance. Mean findings are presented in Table 4.1 through Table 4.3 and illustrated in Figure 4.1 through Figure 4.16 with appropriate charts to show trends across treatment periods. In order to identify the most effective phytoremediator, the two plants' performances are also compared and shown in Tables 4.4 through 4.6 and Figures 4.18 through 4.31. The average removal efficiency of the macrophytes is also represented in Table 4.6 Table 4.1: Physicochemical Parameters for Untreated Influent vs Treated Effluent Water Quality from Water Hyacinth (WH) and Water Lettuce (WL) Parameters Untreated WH-5 WL-5 WH- 9 WL- 9 WH- 13 WL- 13 WH- 17 WL- 17 WH- 21 WL- 21 WH- 25 WL- 25 NESREA FAO Appearance Brown Brown Brown Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear clear clear Clear Ph 9.82 8.89 9.80 8.67 8.82 7.66 7.71 7.09 7.21 7.1 7.15 7.10 7.20 6.5-8.8 6.5- 8.4 Temperature 25.1 25.9 25.8 26.2 27.1 25.8 28.2 24.86 26.1 26.2 26 26.5 26.8 <3oC ----- Turbidity 300 8.89 12.9 3.04 13.2 3.18 8.04 1.23 5.71 2.56 3.02 2.10 3.0 5 35 EC (μS/cm) 1636 707 818 595 725 581 581 618 540 550 545 480 520 1000 3 TDS (mg/L) 825 352 700 295 500 290 400 300 250 279 200 260 180 500 2000 TSS (mg/L) 530 134 150 64 70 24 30 5 8 7 8 5 6 50 50- 100 Ammonia(mg/L) 5.4 0.08 0.89 0.3 0.1 0.14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ---- Nitrate (mg/L) 3.4 0 2.1 0 0.95 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0-10 Sulphate (mg/L) 60.5 32 36 25 29 11 22 13 15 9 15 8 13 290 1000 T. Phosphate (mg/L) 0.3 0.23 0.09 0.15 0.06 0 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 <2 EC: Electrical Conductivity, TSS: Total Suspended Solids, TDS: Total Dissolved Solids, WH: Water Hyacinth, WL: Water Lettuce Table 4.2: Heavy metals for Untreated Influent vs Treated Effluent Water quality from Water Hyacinth (WH) and Water Lettuce. (WL) Parameters Untreated WH- 5 WL-5 WH-9 WL-9 WH- 13 WL- 13 WH- 17 WL- 17 WH- 21 WL- 21 WH-25 WL-25 NESR EA FAO Iron (mg/L} 0.15 0.001 9 0.0322 0.0017 0.0300 0.006 0.0262 0.0002 0.0157 0 0.0107 0 0.01 3 5 Zinc (mg/L} 0.59 2.05 0.0298 2 0.0744 1.85 0.0374 0.5 0.0057 0 0.0065 0 0 2 2 Lead (mg/L) 0 0.001 0 0.001 0 0.002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.05 2 Copper(mg/ L) 0.0065 0.005 0 0.005 0 0.002 0 0.002 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.10 - 0.20 Cadmium( mg/L) 0.699 0.000 8 0.0013 0 0 0 0.0019 0 0 0 0.0008 0 0 0 0.01 Table 4.3: Biological and Chemical Oxygen Demand for Untreated Influent vs. Treated Effluent Water Quality from Water Hyacinth (WH) and Water Lettuce (WL) Parameters Untreated WH- 5 WL- 5 WH- 9 WL- 9 WH- 13 WL- 13 WH- 17 WL- 17 WH- 21 WL- 21 WH- 25 WL- 25 NESREA FAO COD 588 350 345 300 360 260 320 140 250 70 200 60 180 60-90 0-150 BOD 489 200 330 180 335 150 234 120 200 40 145 30 140 30- 50 10 DO 0.5 0.7 0.5 1.2 1.0 3.2 2.1 4.8 3.2 6 5 6 5 >2.0 ------ BOD: Biological Oxygen Demand, COD: Chemical Oxygen Demand, DO: Dissolved Oxygen Figure 4.1: pH reduction over Time Compared to the NESREA and FAO Standard Fig.4.2 Electrical Conductivity Reduction over Time compared to NESREA and FAO standards. Fig. 4.3: Concentration of Total Dissolved Solids in the untreated and treated wastewater 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 day 5 day 9 day 13 day 17 day 21 day 25 pH Time pH TREATMENT OVER TIME Untreated WH WL 8.5 FAO Limit 6.5 0 500 1000 1500 2000 day 5 day 9 day 13 day 17 day 21 day 25 EC (mg/L) Time EC Untreated WH WL ---FAO Limit ---NESREA 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 day 5 day 9 day 13 day 17 day 21 day 25 TDS (MG/L) Time TDS TREATMENT OVER TIME Untreated WH WL Fig.4.4 Turbidity Removal Over Treatment Time compared to NESREA and FAO Standard Fig. 4.5 Total Suspended Solids Removal Over Time Fig. 4.6 Ammonia Removal over Time Compared to NESREA and FAO standards 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 day 5 day 9 day 13 day 17 day 21 day 25 TURBIDITY (mg/L) Time TURBIDITY Untreated WH WL 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 day 5 day 9 day 13 day 17 day 21 day 25 TSS (mg/L( Time TSS TREATMENT OVER TIME Untreated WH WL ---FAO Limit ---NESREA 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 day 5 day 9 day 13 day 17 day 21 day 25 Ammonia (mg/L) Time AMMONIA TREATMENT OVER TIME Untreated WH WL ---NESREA 1 Comparison of Removal Efficiency by Water Hyacinth and Water Lettuce in the Wastewater during the Experimental Period Tables 4.4 and 4.6 present the average percentages of heavy metals and other characteristics removed by water hyacinth and water lettuce. Figures 4.18 through 4.31 show the findings from a 25-day experiment conducted at 4-day intervals. Table 4.4 Water Hyacinth Removal Efficiency for Heavy metals and other Parameters Param eters Untr eated W H-5 RE WH -5 W H-9 RE WH -9 W H- 13 RE WH -13 W H- 17 RE WH -17 W H- 21 RE WH -21 W H- 25 RE WH -25 pH 9.82 8.8 9 10% 8.6 12% 7.6 6 22% 7.0 9 28% 7.1 28% 7.1 0 28% Turbi dity 300 8.8 9 97% 3.0 4 98% 3.1 8 98% 1.2 3 99% 2.5 7 99% 2.1 0 99% EC (μs/c m) 1636 707 57% 595 64% 581 65% 618 62% 55 0 66% 48 0 71% TDS (mg/L ) 825 352 57% 295 64% 290 65% 300 64% 28 0 66% 26 0 69% TSS (mg/L ) 530 134 75% 64 88% 24 96% 5 99% 7 99% 5 99% Amm onia (mg/L ) 5.4 0.0 8 99% 0.3 94% 0.1 4 97% 0 100 % 0 100 % 0 100 % Nitrat e (mg/L ) 3.4 0 100 % 0 100 % 0 100 % 0 100 % 0 100 % 0 100 % Sulph ate (mg/L ) 60.5 32 47% 25 59% 11 82% 13 79% 9 85% 8 87% Total Phosp horus (mg/L ) 0.3 0.2 3 23% 0.1 5 50% 0 100 % 0 100 % 0 100 % 0 100 % COD (mg/L ) 588 350 41% 300 50% 260 56% 140 76% 70 88% 60 90% BOD (mg/L ) 489 200 59% 180 63% 150 69% 120 76% 40 92% 30 94% Iron (mg/L ) 0.15 0.0 019 98% 0.0 017 98% 0.0 006 99% 0.0 002 99% 0 100 % 0 100 % Zinc (mg/L ) 0.594 0.0 23 96% 0.0 20 97% 0.0 13 98% 0.0 08 99% 0.0 03 99% 0.0 01 99% Lead (mg/L ) 0 0 ___ ___ 0 ___ ___ 0 ___ ___ 0 ___ ___ 0 ___ ___ ___ ___ Coppe r (mg/L ) 0.006 5 0.0 05 23% 0.0 05 23% 0.0 02 69% 0.0 02 69% 0 100 % 0 100 % Cadm ium (mg/L ) 0.699 0.0 008 99% 0 100 % 0 100 % 0 100 % 0 100 % 0 100 % REWH-removal efficiency by water hyacinth, BOD-biological oxygen demand, COD- chemical oxygen demand, DO-dissolved oxygen, TSS-total suspended solids, TDS-total dissolved solids. Table 4.5 Water Lettuce Removal Efficiency for Heavy metals and other Parameters Param eters Untr eated W L-5 RE WL -5 W L-9 RE WL -9 W L- 13 RE WL -13 W L- 17 RE WL -17 W L- 21 RE WL -21 WL -25 RE WL -25 Ph 9.82 9.8 0 0.2 % 8.8 2 10 % 7.7 1 22 % 7.2 1 27 % 7.1 5 27 % 7.2 27 % Turbi dity 300 12. 9 96 % 13. 2 96 % 8.0 4 97 % 7.7 1 97 % 3.0 2 98 % 3.0 99 % EC (μs/c m) 1636 818 50 % 725 56 % 581 65 % 540 67 % 545 67 % 520 68 % TDS (mg/L ) 825 700 15 % 500 39 % 400 51 % 250 70 % 200 76 % 180 78 % TSS (mg/L ) 530 150 72 % 70 87 % 30 94 % 8 99 % 8 99 % 6 99 % Amm onia (mg/L ) 5.4 0.8 9 84 % 0.1 98 % 0 100 % 0 100 % 0 100 % 0 100 % Nitrat e (mg/L ) 3.4 2.1 38 % 0.9 5 72 % 0.1 97 % 0 100 % 0 100 % 0 100 % Sulph ate (mg/L ) 60.5 36 41 % 29 52 % 22 64 % 15 75 % 15 75 % 13 79 % Total Phosp horus (mg/L ) 0.3 0.0 9 70 % 0.0 6 80 % 0.0 5 83 % 0 100 % 0 100 % 0 100 % COD (mg/L ) 588 345 41 % 360 39 % 320 46 % 250 58 % 200 66 % 180 69 % BOD (mg/L ) 489 330 33 % 335 32 % 234 52 % 200 59 % 145 70 % 140 71 % Iron (mg/L ) 0.15 0.0 322 79 % 0.0 3 80 % 0.0 262 83 % 0.0 157 90 % 0.0 107 93 % 0.0 1 93 % Zinc (mg/L ) 0.59 0.0 298 94 % 0.0 744 87 % 0.0 374 94 % 0.0 257 96 % 0.0 165 97 % 0 100 % Lead (mg/L ) 0 0 ___ ___ 0 ___ ___ 0 ___ ___ 0 ___ ___ 0 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ Coppe r (mg/L ) 0.00 65 0 100 % 0 100 % 0 100 % 0 100 % 0 100 % 0 100 % Cadm ium (mg/L ) 0.69 0.0 019 99 % 0.0 013 99 % 0.0 008 99 % 0 100 % 0.0 008 99 % 0 100 % REWL-removal efficiency by water lettuce, BOD-biological oxygen demand, COD- chemical oxygen demand, TSS-total suspended solids, TDS-total dissolved solids. conclusions and recommendations This study was done to compare the efficiency of the treatment of brewery wastewater with two macrophytes, Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) and Water Lettuce (Pistia stratiotes). Based on the results from the research, the following conclusions were made: 1. Assessment was carried out on brewery wastewater by setting up a laboratory-scale pond with containers of dimensions 0.43m X 0.93m X 0.36m filled with layers of course and fine aggregate to simulate a constructed wetland. Water hyacinth and water lettuce were cultivated in each of the containers. 2. The pollutant removal efficiency of water hyacinth and Water lettuce in treating wastewater in constructed wetlands (CW) was assessed and compared to quality standards of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations and National Environmental Standards and Regulation Enforcement Agency . Evaluation showed that water hyacinth proved to be more effective in improving wastewater quality. 3. The findings indicate that a treatment period of 13 to 17 days was ideal. Water hyacinth was successful in lowering 28% pH, 99% turbidity, and 85% sulphate, whereas water lettuce was successful in lowering EC 67% and TDS 76%, according to the results of the percentage removal efficiency. While ammonia, nitrate, total phosphorus, and copper were completely eradicated, both plants successfully reduced 99% TSS and iron. 4. The maximum percentage removal of selected physiochemical parameters by water hyacinth follows the order (Ammonia, Nitrate, T. phosphorus) > (Turbidity, TSS,) > BOD > Sulphate > (COD, EC, TDS) > pH and water lettuce follow the order (Ammonia, Nitrate, T. phosphorus) > TSS > Turbidity > TDS > BOD >EC > COD > pH. The selected heavy metals by water hyacinth follow the order Fe > Cu > Cd > Pb > Zn, whereas by water lettuce, the order is Cu > Cd > Zn > Fe. Recommendations 1.Constructed wetlands using aquatic macrophytes should be adopted as an alternative wastewater treatment method. 2. Large-scale pilot studies should be conducted to evaluate the performance of these plants under real operational conditions. 3.Periodic harvesting of aquatic plants should be implemented to maintain optimal pollutant removal efficiency. References Abbas N., Muhammad T. B., Muhammad M. A., Farah D., Naqi H. (2021). Phytoremediation potential of Typha latifolia and water hyacinth for removal of heavy metals from industrial wastewater. International scientific organisation, vol 7, no. 2, pp. 103-111. Abbas, Z.; Arooj, F.; Ali, S.; Zaheer, I.E.; Rizwan, M.; Riaz, M.A. Phytoremediation of landfill leachate waste contaminants through floating bed technique using water hyacinth and water lettuce. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2019, 21, 1356–1367. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Abhilash, P.; Jamil, S.; Singh, N. Transgenic plants for enhanced biodegradation and phytoremediation of organic xenobiotics. Biotechnol. Adv. 2009, 27, 474–488. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Abinandan, S., Anan, B. A., and Subramaniam, S. (2014). Assessment of Physico- chemical Characteristics of groundwater: A case study. International Journal of Environmental Health Engineering (2014): Vol 2. Abioye, O. P., Agamuthu, P., & Abdul Aziz, A. R. (2016). Phytoremediation of wastewater toxicity using water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) and water lettuce (Pistia stratiotes). International Journal of Phytoremediation, 18(11), 1147–1154. https://doi.org/10.1080/15226514.2016.1183582 Ajibade, F.O. & Adewumi, J. R. (2017). Performance evaluation of aquatic macrophytes in a constructed wetland for municipal wastewater treatment. FUTAJEET, 11(1) :01 11. Ajiboye, A. V., Badmos, B., Adelodun, A. A., & Babatola, J. O. (2024). Effect of different biomass levels of Eichhornia crassipes and Pistia stratiotes on nutrients, organics, and heavy metals removal from wastewater. Industrial and Domestic Waste Management, 4(2), 118–131. https://doi.org/10.53623/idwm.v4i2.501 Adeola Alex ADESUYI1, Valerie Chinedu NNODU, Kelechi Longinus NJOKU, Anuoluwapo JOLAOSO (2015). Nitrate and Phosphate Pollution in Surface Water of Nwaja Creek, Port Harcourt, Niger Delta, Nigeria, International Journal of Geology, Agriculture and Environmental Sciences Volume 3, Issue 5, pp. 14-20. Adeogun, A. O., Omirinde, J. O., & Ibor, O. R. (2022). Comparative assessment of the effectiveness of water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) and water lettuce (Pistia stratiotes) in the phytoremediation of brewery effluent. Journal of Applied Sciences and Environmental Management, 26(3), 441–447. https://doi.org/10.4314/jasem.v26i3.11 Ahmed, T., Magdy, I., & Ahmed, K. (2013). Phytoremediation of Heavy Metals (Cu, Pb, Zn, Cd, Cr, Ni, Fe, Mn) from Sewage Sludge using Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes). Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 9(10), 6331–6340. Ahmad, M. M., Alam, M. T., & Naaz, S. (2025). Water hyacinth is a potential aquatic plant used in water treatment: A short review. Scholars Academic Journal of Biosciences, 13(7), 898–907. Ajayi O, Ogunbayo AO (2012). Achieving environmental sustainability in wastewater treatment by phytoremediation with water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes). J Sustain Develop 5(7). Ajayi T., and A. Ogunbayo, “Achieving environmental sustainability in wastewater treatment by phytoremediation with water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes),” Journal of Sustainable Development, vol. 5, no. 7, p. 80, 2012. [11] C. Keith, S.V. Borazjani, Ajibade, F. O. and Adewumi, J. R (2017). Performance Evaluation of Aquatic Macrophytes in a Constructed Wetland for Municipal Wastewater Treatment. Journal of Engineering and Engineering Technology, Vol 11, no.1, pp 1-11. Ajibade, F. O., Adewumi, J. R. and Oguntuase, A. M. (2014). Sustainable Approach to Wastewater Management in the Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Technological Research, 9(2): 27 - 36. Ajibade, F. O., Adeniran, K. A. and Egbuna, C. K. (2013). Efficiencies of water hyacinth in Phytoremediation removing heavy metals in domestic sewage (A Case Study of University of Ilorin, Nigeria). The International Journal of Engineering and Science, 2(12), 16 – 27 Akinbile C. O. and Yusoff M. S. (2012), ‘Assessing water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) and lettuce (Pistia stratiotes) effectiveness in Aquaculture wastewater treatment’, International Journal of Phytoremediation, 14(1), pp. 201-211. Amit Biswas, Damodhara Rao Mailapalli and Narendra Singh Raghuwanshi (2021). Treated Municipal wastewater to fulfil crop water footprints and irrigation demand: a review, Water Supply Press. Ani Khare and Eugenia P. Lal (2017). Waste Water Purification Potential of Eichhornia crassipes (Water Hyacinth). International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences, Volume 6, Number 12, pp. 3723-3731 Anjum, N. A., Gill, S. S., Duarte, A. C., Pereira, E., & Ahmad, I. (2016). Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms: A review on its phytoremediation potential. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems (Note: Often cited via ResearchGate or Springer book chapters/reviews under similar authorship). Ansari, A., Naeem, M., Gill, S., & Alzuaibr, F. (2020). Phytoremediation of contaminated waters: An eco-friendly technology based on aquatic macrophytes application. The EgyptianJournalof Aquatic Research, 46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejar.2020.03.002 Akshey bhargava and shama lakmini (2016). Land treatment as a viable solution for wastewater treatment and disposal in India. Journal of earth science and climate change 7:375. doi:10.4172/2157-7617.1000375 Al-Mashaqbeh, O. A., Ghrair, A. M., & Megdal, S. B. (2012). Grey water reuse for agricultural purposes in the Jordan Valley: Household survey results in Deir Alla. Water (Switzerland), 4(3), 580–596. https://doi.org/10.3390/w4030580 Al-Omari, A. and M. Fayyad (2003) Treatment of domestic wastewater by subsurface flow constructed wetlands in Jordan. Desalination, 155, pp.27-39. Ali, H.; Khan, E.; Sajad, M.A. Phytoremediation of heavy metals—Concepts and applications. Chemosphere 2013, 91, 869–881. [CrossRef] Ali, S., Abbas, Z., Rizwan, M., Zaheer, I. E., Yavaş, İ., Ünay, A., Abdel-Daim, M. M., Bin- Jumah, M., Hasanuzzaman, M., & Kalderis, D. (2020). Application of floating aquatic plants in phytoremediation of heavy metals polluted water: A review. Sustainability, 12(5), 1927. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051927 Anandha Varun R, Kalpana S. (2015). Performance analysis of nutrient removal in pond water using Water Hyacinth and Azolla with papaya stem. Int Res J Eng Technol 2(1):444¡448. Andreea Catalina Cristescu, Cristina Covaliu, Lucretia Popa, Daniel Dumitru and Alexandra Anghelet (2018). Study on use of typha angustifolia L. in wastewater treatment: Promising Method in Removal of Copper Ions Present In Aquatic Solution, Engineering for Rural Development, Vol. 17, no.399, pp. 714-720 APHA. (2012b). Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. Anales de Hidrología Médica, 5(2), 185-186. APHA. (2021). Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (23rd ed.). American Public Health Association. Aremu, O.O., Ashraf, M.A., Khalid, N., & Adelodun, B. (2021). The use of water hyacinth in the treatment of industrial wastewater: A focus on nutrient and metal removal. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(36), 50493–50510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-12499-8Arslan, M.; Imran, A.; Khan, Q.M.; Afzal, M. Plant–bacteria partnerships for the remediation of persistent organic pollutants. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 4322–4336. [CrossRef] Arden, S.; Ma, X. (2018-07-15). 'Constructed wetlands for greywater recycle and reuse: A review' (https://w ww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7362998). Science of the Total Environment. 630: 587–599. Bibcode:2018ScTEn.630..587A (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ScTEn.630..587A) . doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.02.218 ASTM. (2016). Standard Test Method for Oil and Grease in Water. ASTM D7066-04(2016). ASTM. (2019). Standard Test Methods for Total Organic Carbon in Water. ASTM D7573-19. Aurangzeb, N.; Nisa, S.; Bibi, Y.; Javed, F.; Hussain, F. Phytoremediation potential of aquatic herbs from steel foundry effluent. Braz. J. Chem. Eng. 2014, 31, 881–886. [CrossRef] Ater, M.; Ali, A.N.; Kasmi, H. Tolerance and accumulation of copper and chromium in two duckweed species: Lemna minor L. and Lemna gibba L. Rev. Sci. 2006, 19, 57–67. Awual, E., Oppong-Preprah, E., & Lubberding, H. J. (2004). Comparative Performance of Water Lettuce (Pistia Stratiotes) and Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) in the treatment of organic-polluted wastewater. Water SA, 30(4), 443-448 Awuah, E., Oppong-Peprah, M., Lubberding, H.J. and Gijzen, H.J., 2004, Comparative performance studies of water lettuce, duckweed and algal-based stabilisation ponds using low-strength sewage. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health-Part A., 67(20-22), 1727-1739. Azaizeh, H., Salhani, N., Sebesvari, Z. and Emons, H., 2003, The potential of rhizosphere microbes isolated from a constructed wetland to biomethylate selenium. J. Environ. Qual., 32, 55-62. Bachand, P.A.M., and Horne, A.J. (2000). Denitrification in constructed free-water surface wetland: II. Effects of vegetation and temperature. Ecol. Eng. 14, 17–32. Badejo, A. A., David, A. O., Olaniyan, O. S., & Opafola, O. T. (2022). Sequential treatment of brewery effluent using a vegetated subsurface and surface flow constructed wetland. UNIOSUN Journal of Engineering and Environmental Sciences , 4(2), 220– 228. https://doi.org/10.36108/ujees/2202.40.0220 Basile, A.; Sorbo, S.; Conte, B.; Cobianchi, R.C.; Trinchella, F.; Capasso, C.; Carginale, V. Toxicity, accumulation, and removal of heavy metals by three aquatic macrophytes. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2012, 14, 374–387. [CrossRef] Baskar, G., Deeptha, V.T. and Rahman, A.A, 2009, Treatment of wastewater from kitchen in an institution hostel mess using constructed wetland. Int. J. Recent Trends Eng., 1(6), 54-58 Benavides, L.C.L.; Pinilla, L.A.C.; Serrezuela, R.R.; Serrezuela, W.F.R. Extraction in Laboratory of Heavy Metals Through Rhizofiltration using the Plant Zea Mays . Int. J. Appl. Environ. Sci. 2018, 13, 9–26. Bhutiani, R., Khanna, D. R., Shubham and Ahamad, F. 2016. Physico-chemical analysis of Sewage water treatment plant at Jagjeetpur, Haridwar, Uttarakhand. Environ. Cons. Jour.,17(3): 133-142 Borisova, G.; Chukina, N.; Maleva, M.; Prasad, M. Ceratophyllum demersum L. and Potamogeton alpinus Balb. From Iset’river, Ural region, Russia differ in adaptive strategies to heavy metals exposure–a comparative study. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2014, 16, 621–633. [CrossRef] Borkar, R. P., Gulhane, M. L., and Kotangale, A. J. 2013. ―Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor – A New Perspective in Wastewater Treatment‖, Journal of Environmental Science, Toxicology and Food Technology, 6(6): 15-21. Blick S.A., Kelly F. and Skupien J.J. (2004). New Jersey Stormwater Best Management PracticesManual.Availableonline: https://www.njstormwater.org/bmp_manual2.htm ( accessed on 3 April 2020). Brankovi ́c, S.; Pavlovi ́c-Muratspahi ́c, D.; Topuzovi ́c, M.; Gliši ́c, R.; Milivojevi ́c, J.; Đeki ́c, V. Metals concentration and accumulation in several aquatic macrophytes. Biotechnol. Biotechnol. Equip. 2012, 26, 2731–2736. [CrossRef] Burges, A.; Alkorta, I.; Epelde, L.; Garbisu, C. From phytoremediation of soil contaminants to phytomanagement of ecosystem services in metal contaminated sites. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2018, 20, 384–397. [CrossRef] Cardoch L., J.W.Jr Day, J.M. Rybczyk, G.P. Kemp. (2000). An economic analysis of using wetlands for treatment of shrimp processing wastewater: a case study in Dulac, LA. Ecological Economics 33: 93-101 Cardwell, A.; Hawker, D.; Greenway, M. Metal accumulation in aquatic macrophytes from southeast Queensland, Australia. Chemosphere 2002, 48, 653–663. [CrossRef] Casagrande, G.C.R.; dos Reis, C.; Arruda, R.; de Andrade, R.L.T.; Battirola, L.D. Bioaccumulation and Biosorption of Mercury by Salvinia biloba Raddi (Salviniaceae). Water Air Soil Pollut. 2018, 229, 166. [CrossRef] Chandra, R.; Kumar, V.; Tripathi, S.; Sharma, P. Heavy metal phytoextraction potential of native weeds and grasses from endocrine-disrupting chemicals-rich complex distillery sludge and their histological observations during in-situ phytoremediation. Ecol. Eng. 2018, 111, 143–156. [CrossRef] Chang JS, Yoon IH, Kim KW. 2009. Heavy metal and arsenic accumulating fern species as potential ecological indicators in As-contaminated abandoned mines. Ecol Indic 9:1275–1279. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.03.011 Cheng S. 2003. Heavy metal pollution in China: origin, pattern and control. Environ Sci Pollut Res 10(3):192–198. doi:10.1065/ espr2002.11.141.1. Christian E, Beniah I. Phytoremediation of polluted waterbodies with aquatic plants: Recent progress on heavy metal and organic pollutants. Preprints; 2019. DOI: 10.20944/preprints201909. 0020.v1 Churko, E. E., Nhamo, L., & Chitakira, M. (2023). Phytoremediation Capacity of Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) as a Nature-Based Solution for Contaminants and Physicochemical Characterisation of Lake Water. Water, 15(14), 2540. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15142540 Corcoran, E., Nellemann, C., Baker, E., Bos, R., Osborn, D. and Savelli, H. . 2010. Sick Water? The Central Role of Wastewater Management in Sustainable Development. A Rapid Response Assessment. United Nations Environment Programme/United Nations Human Settlements Programme/GRIDArendal (UNEP/UN-Habitat) Cunningham, S.D.; Ow, D.W. Promises and prospects of phytoremediation. Plant Physiol. 1996, 110, 715. [CrossRef] Cunningham, S.D., William, R.B. and Jianwei, W.H.,1995, Phytoremediation of contaminated soils. Tibtech, 13, 393-397. Danyal, Y., Mahmood, K., Ullah, S., Rahim, A., Raheem, G., Khan, A. H., & Ullah, A. (2023).Phytoremediation of industrial effluents assisted by plant growth-promoting bacteria. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30, 5296–5311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-23967-w Dar SH, Kumawat DM, Singh N and Wani KA (2011). Sewage treatment potential of water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes). Research Journal of Environmental Science.Vol 5. No 4, pp.377-385 Daud, M.; Ali, S.; Abbas, Z.; Zaheer, I.E.; Riaz, M.A.; Malik, A.; Zhu, S.J. Potential of Duckweed (Lemna minor) for the Phytoremediation of Landfill Leachate. J. Chem. 2018, 1–9. [CrossRef] David Bayne, Jim Davis, Kelly Duffie, Billy Higginbotham, Michael Masser, John Clayton, Chetta Owens, Diane Smith, Joe Snow, Don Steinbach, Bridget Robinson Lassiter andPeterWoods.(2020).FloatingPlants.AquaPlant. https://aquaplant.tamu.edu/plant- identification/category-floating-plants/(accessed Dec. 2023) Davis, L. J., Milligan, R., Stauber, C. E., Jelks, N. O., Casanova, L., & Ledford, S. H. (2022). Environmental injustice and Escherichia coli in urban streams: Potential for community-led response. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 9(3), pp. 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1583 Da-Silva, C.J.; Canatto, R.A.; Cardoso, A.A.; Ribeiro, C.; Oliveira, J.A. Arsenic- hyperaccumulation and antioxidant system in the aquatic macrophyte Spirodela intermedia W. Koch (Lemnaceae). Theor. Exp. Plant Physiol. 2017, 29, 203–213. [CrossRef] Delphin, N., & Kulandaiswamy, M. (2021). Feasibility Studies on Treatment of Household Greywater Using Phytoremediation Plants. 1–15. Demirak A, Yilmaz F, Tuna AL, Ozdemir N. 2006. Heavy metals in water, sediment and tissues of Leuciscus cephalus from a stream in southwestern Turkey. Chemosph Dhote, S. (2007) Role of macrophytes in improving water quality of an aquatic eco-system. J. Appl. Sci. Environ. Manage. 11(4): 133-135. Dhote, S. and Dixit, S., 2007, Water quality improvement through macrophytes: A case study., Asian J. Exp. Sci., 21(2), 427-430. Dierberg, F.E., DeBusk, T.A. (2008) Particulate phosphorus transformations in south Florida stormwater treatment areas used for Everglades protection. Ecol. Eng. 34, 100–115. Dipu, S., Anju, A., Kumar, V. and Thanga, SalomGnana (2010). Phytoremediation of dairy effluent by constructed wetland technology using wetland macrophytes. Global Journal of Environmental Research, 4(2): 90-100. Dipu, S., Kumar, A.A and Thanga, V.S.G., 2011, Phytoremediation of dairy effluent by constructed wetland technology., Environmentalist, 31, 263-278. Dixon, A., Simon, M. and Burkitt, T., 2003, Assessing the environmental impact of two options for small scale wastewater treatment: Comparing a reed bed and an aerated biological filter using a life cycle approach., Ecol. Eng., 20, 297-308. Dixit, S.; Tiwari, S. Effective utilization of an aquatic weed in an eco-friendly treatment of polluted water bodies. J. Appl. Sci. Environ. Manag. 2007, 11, 41–44. [CrossRef] Driessen, W., & Vereijken, T. (2003). Recent development in biological treatment of brewery effluent. Institute and Guild of Brewing, Africa Section – Proceedings of the 9th Brewing Convention, Lusaka, Zambia, 165–171. Dushenkov, Kumar, P. B. N., Motto. H., & Raskiin, I. (1995). Rhizofiltration: the use of plants to Remove Heavy Metals from Aqueous streams. Environmental Science & Technology, 29(5), 1239-1245