INTRODUCTION

Water scarcity has been increasing all over the world and in many countries may
become absolute by the year 2025 Ref. [1]. This problem becomes more
apprehensive when recognizing that the severity of surface water pollution is a
worldwide problem. Ref. [2] To tackle the problem, several measures for sustainable
water resource utilization have been developed, of which wastewater reclamation and
reuse is currently one of the top priorities Ref. [3]. It was reported that domestic and
industrial discharges are probably the two most important anthropogenic sources for
metals in the water environment Ref. [4].
The presences of heavy metals in water are toxic even at very low
concentrations Ref. [5]. Pollution of the biosphere with toxic metals has accelerated
dramatically since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Water hyacinth (Eichhornia
crassipes) an aquatic plant which could successfully used for removing various
pollutants from water thus has great importance in wastewater treatment. It has a huge
potential of the vast range of pollutants from wastewater Ref. [6].

BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

Water hyacinth (Eichhornia Crassipes) is an aquatic plant which can live and
reproduce floating freely on the surface of the fresh waters or can be anchored in mud.
Water hyacinth has special adaptations to allow it to grow and spread rapidly in
freshwater. A lot of money was spent in order to destroy it. Water hyacinth can absorb
minerals and inorganic substance from the sewage. It can be grown rapidly in every
kind of conditions. Water hyacinth grows abundantly throughout the tropical and
subtropical regions of the world and is also widely distributed in the southwest regions
in Japan.
Recently, this plant has received attention because of its potential for removal of
pollutants when utilized as a biological filtration system. There are many reports whish
refer to the removal of mineral nutrients by a aquatic plants, especially water hyacinth
from polluted wastes, but few refers to the removal of heavy metals, such as copper,
silver, cobalt, strontium, mercury, lead, cadmium, and contaminated waste effluents.
On many occasions it has been demonstrated that this weed is an excellent water
depollutant for domestic water wastes. In this studies where the ability of the water
hyacinth to remove lead, cadmium and mercury was tested, the plants approximately 65
per cent of lead, 50 per cent of cadmium and 65 per cent of mercury from water polluted
with 10 ppm of lead and 1 ppm of mercury and cadmium (14). One hectare of water
hyacinth plant is potentially capable of removing 160 kg of phenol per 72 hectares from
water polluted with this chemical (15). Combinations of microorganisms with water
hyacinth must be seriously considered in developing filtration system of removing toxic
trace chemicals, such as heavy metals and carcinogenic meats.

The main focus is on studying the efficiency of water hyacinth in removing

dissolved solids, B.O.D, heavy metals mainly lead and mercury from the waste water.
To achieve this objective, water hyacinth will grow in synthetic waste water prepared by
adding varying concentrate ions of Pb and Hg. The concentration of heavy metal, pH,
B.O.D and total dissolved solids are noted in the waste water before and after
cultivating water hyacinth and compared the results with the standard values

Significance of the Study

This study is to remove Lead (Pb) and Mercury (Hg) from waste water which
causes enviromental problem because Lead and Mercury cannot be destroyed. It can
cause dangerous because it tend to bioaccumalation and it can enter our bodies via
food, drinking water, and air. This study will help you to about the absorbent properties
of water hyacinth in effective removal of Lead and Mercury from waste water.
In this study, we only use water hyacinth that is a noxious weed that has
attracted worldwide attention due to fast spread and congested growth, with lead to
serious problems. Besides that, water hyacinth is a low-cost, high efficiency of removal
of Lead and Mercury from diluted solutions.
The generalization of this present studies would be a great contribution to the
vast knowledge in relation to water hyacinth. The results of this investigation could be
highly significant and beneficial especially to the following people: farmers, students,
and teachers.

Statement of the Problem

The tremendous increase in the use of heavy metals over the fast few decades
has inevitably resulted in a increase flux of metallic substance in aquatic environment.
Wastewater contains higher amount of heavy metals that can pollute the water when it
is discharge to the nature. Heavy metals are one of the most toxic types of water
pollutants. There are at least 20 metals that are considered to be toxic and almost half
of these metals are emitted to the environment in quantities that are risky to the
surroundings, additionally to the human health.
Many treatment processes that have been used to remove heavy metals from
wastewater included ion exchange, membrane filtration, reverse osmosis etc. most of
this processes are suffer from high cost. To avoid the high cost, many low cost
adsorbents have been used and tested to remove heavy metals ions. There are so
many adsorbents, still new adsorbent are developed due to the increasing demand for
treatment of industrial wastewater. Recently, a number of studies were carried out on
low cost adsorbents for removal of heavy metals from natural resources.One of such
kind is the aquatic plant was used in the present study.
The overall objective of this study was to investigate that the heavy metals
removal from wastewater by using water hyacinth. The specific objectives are as
follows:
1. To study the removal of Lead and Mercury using water hyacinth.
2. To examine the effectiveness of water hyacinth for the absorption of Pb and
Hg from wastewater.

3. To investigate the ability of water hyacinth as biosorbent.

4. To identify the optinum condition in the removal Lead and Mercury using water
hyacinth.

Scope and Limitation

The scope of this study is to test wastewater for the removal of Lead and
Mercury using water hyacinth as a absorbent. The study considered Pb, Hg and
suspended particles in wastewater. The effects of other interfering ions were not to be
considered.

Related Literature
Macrophyte based Water Treatment Systems (AMS)
That the aquatic plants can improve water quality must have been realised
several centuries ago, with the observation that wastewaters flowing out of channels
infested with vascular plants such as water hyacinth, seemed to be clearer than the
wastewaters entering such channels. However, scientific studies to employ aquatic
plants as bioagents in water purification began only in 1970s. There were occasional
publications on the subject earlier, including a pioneering report from India (Sinha and
Sinha, 1969), which caught the attention of environmental engineers to give a major
spurt to research and development on macrophyte based water treatment systems in
various countries viz., The Netherlands (De Jong et al., 1976), USA (Wolverton and Mc
Donald, 1975a and b; Dinges, 1976) and Germany (Kickuth, 1975; Seidel, 1976; Siedel
et al., 1978) etc. Among the various types of AMS, pond systems containing floating
macrophytes, such as, water hyacinth were most commonly used.
Aquatic plants based wastewater treatment systems are becoming popular in India.
Performance for two constructed water hyacinth systems was studied by Trivedy and
Nakate (1999) for one year. The systems effected a high degree of reduction in
suspended solids, BOD, COD, nitrogen, phosphorus, oil and grease. These systems
were constructed at extremely low cost. Wolverton, Mc Donald and coworkers brought
out the amazing capability of water hyacinth in treating sewage and industrial effluents
(Wolverton and Mc Donald, 1975a; 1975b; Wolverton et al., 1976; Wolverton and Mc
Donald, 1977; 1979; Wolverton, 1979; Wolverton and Mc Donald, 1980a; 1980b; 1980c;

1980d).
Metal Accumulation by E. crassipes
Jamil et al. (1985) revealed the remarkable ability of Eichhornia to uptake the
heavy metals to the maximum within 5 minutes of the exposure. About 80% of
cadmium, 35% of zinc and 28% of iron were absorbed by water hyacinth in the same
time. The remaining quantity of the metal was gradually absorbed over a period of 24
hours. It was found that within 24 hours, 92% of copper, 82% of cadmium, 66% of zinc
and 78% of iron were absorbed by these plants
The plants of E. crassipes growing along the effluent channel of an electronic
component manufacturing unit were observed to accumulate high levels of heavy
metals, particularly copper (Barman et al., 2001). Effect of sequential exposure of
copper on water hyacinth and effect of zinc on the uptake of copper by E. crassipes was
studied by Rai et al. (1993). It was observed that at each stage of exposure the plant
placed in fresh copper solution continued to remove the metal from the solution in direct
proportion to the increase in the copper concentration of the solution. However, during
each subsequent exposure, the amount of copper taken up was decreased.
Biosorption by E. crassipes
Bhainsa and DSouza (2001) reported that uranium uptake by dried roots of
Eichhornia crassipes was rapid and the biomass could remove 54% of the initial
uranium present within 4 minutes of contact time. The process was favored at pH 5-6
and was least influenced by temperature. The maximum loading capacity obtained was

371 mg g-1 dry biomass. The specific metal ion uptake decreased with increasing initial
uranium concentration.
Metal Detoxification by E. crassipes
Reduction of heavy metals in situ by plants or binding of metals to some
chelating agents might be a useful detoxification mechanism for phytoremediation.
Using X-ray spectroscopy, Lytle et al. (1998) showed that E. crassipes, supplied with Cr
(VI) in nutrient culture, accumulated nontoxic Cr (III) in root and shoot tissues. The
reduction of Cr (VI) to Cr (III) appeared to occur in the fine lateral roots, which was
subsequently translocated to leaf tissues. In roots, Cr (III) was hydrated by water, but in
petioles and more so in leaves, a portion of the Cr (III) might be bound to oxalate
ligands. This suggested that E. crassipes detoxified Cr (VI) to Cr (III) in the root tissues
and transported a portion of Cr (III) to leaf tissues.
Kelley et al. (1999) have demonstrated that water hyacinth accumulated
europium- Eu (III) from water, and that it occurred predominantly in the root material.
Further studies using NMR and IR spectroscopy revealed that the extractable root Eu
(III), which most likely corresponds to intracellular Eu (III), was complexed to organic
acids (Kelley et al., 2000).
The X-ray absorption spectroscopic analysis of Hg compounds and water
hyacinth roots and shoots done by Riddle et al. (2002) revealed that Hg was initially
bound ionically to oxygen ligands in roots, most likely to carboxylate groups, and was
bound covalently to sulphur groups in shoots.

Humic acids (HAs) are animal and plant decay products that confer water
retention, metal and organic solute binding functions and texture/workability in soils.
HAs assist plant nutrition with minimal run-off pollution. Ghabbour et al. (2004) isolated
HAs from the leaves, stems and roots of live water hyacinth plants. Similar carbohydrate
and amino acid distributions and tight metal binding capacities of the HAs and their
respective plant components suggested that the presence of HAs in plants is related to
their metal binding properties.

Constraints in using E. crassipes

In spite of well documented capability of water hyacinth, salvinia, duckweed and
other aquatic plants to absorb heavy metals from polluted waters (Abbasi and Nipaney,
1993; 1994; Garg and Chandra, 1994; Zaranyika et al., 1994), attention is generally
directed for their elimination from water bodies, since dense strands of these plants
harm water resources in terms of quality as well as quantity (Abbasi and Nipaney, 1989;
1993; Abbasi and Abbasi, 1995). They also adversely affect fisheries, impede
navigation, hasten water loss, encourage insects and pests and disturb fragile O 2
balance of water bodies through decay. Volumes of literature have been generated on
methods to control the growth of aquatic plants. As many as 90% of the approximately
2500 literature citations available on water hyacinth are related to its control.

E. crassipes as a Resource

The distinctive characteristics of these weeds hardiness, ability to survive

under adverse environmental conditions and high productivity can be harnessed to
make them efficient bioagents for treating wastewaters. Till recently, the exploitation of
aquatic plants in this respect had been constrained by the lack of economically viable
methods of post-harvest utilization of the spent plants. But now it has been
demonstrated that it is feasible to use such plants as energy feedstock (Lakshman,
1987; Abbasi et al., 1991a; 1991b; 1992a; 1992b; Abbasi and Nipaney, 1991; 1992;
1993), animal fodder (Virabalin et al., 1993; Haustein et al., 1994), fertilizers (Polprasert
et al., 1994) and a source of commercially important organics (Krishnakumari, 1995).
Singhal and Rai (2003) reported the biogas production from water hyacinth employed
for phytoremediation of lignin and metal-rich pulp and paper mill and highly acidic
distillery effluents. These plants eventually grew well in diluted effluent up to 40% (i.e.,
2.5 times dilution with deionized water) and often took up metals and toxic materials
from wastewater for their metabolic use. Slurry of the plants used for phytoremediation
produced significantly more biogas than produced by the plants grown in deionized
water, the effect being more marked with plants used for phytoremediation of 20% pulp
and paper mill effluent.

Phytoremediation of Heavy Metals by E. crassipes

Wetland plants are being used successfully for the phytoremediation of trace
elements in natural and constructed wetlands. Roots and shoots of water hyacinth have
been shown to accumulate Cd and Zn in a concentration- and time-dependent manner
by Lu et al. (2004). Plants treated with 4 mg l -1 of Cd (highest conc.) accumulated the
highest concentration of metal in roots (2044 mg kg -1) and shoots (113.2 mg kg -1) after 8

days, while those treated with 40 mg l -1 of Zn (highest conc.) accumulated the highest
concentration of metal in roots (9652.1 mg kg -1) and shoots (1926.7 mg kg-1) after 4
days. The maximum values of bioconcentration factors (BCF) for Cd and Zn were 622.3
and 788.9 respectively, suggesting water hyacinth to be a moderate accumulator of Cd
and Zn. Hasan et al. (2007) have also reported E. crassipes to be accumulator of Zn
and Cd with more Zn being accumulated in the roots compared to Cd. They further
revealed that the accumulation factors for tops and roots were higher for solutions
containing either Zn or Cd compared to the solution containing the mixture of Cd and
Zn.
Muramoto and Oki (1983) while examining the ability of water hyacinth to remove
some toxic heavy metals (Cd, Pb and Hg) from metal containing solutions, reported the
concentration factors to be higher in roots of E. crassipes plants as compared to tops.
They further reported that Cd and Pb concentrations in both tops and roots tended to
increase with increasing concentration and with passage of time. However, Hg
concentration was reported to be markedly lower in tops, but increased exponentially
with passage of time in roots.
Win et al. (2003) reported the accumulation of lead by roots of water hyacinth,
more accumulation being observed for lower concentration i.e., 0.001 M Pb compared
to the higher concentration (0.01 M Pb). Moreover, the lead accumulation was found to
be higher in leaves as compared to petioles at 0.001 M Pb, whereas, the lead content of
petioles increased to a level higher than that of leaves at 0.01 M Pb. Water hyacinth has
also been shown to readily absorb the heavy metals like Cu, Pb, Zn, Hg, Cd and Ni

when placed in non-biodegradable effluents containing heavy metals (Tatsuyama et al.,

1977; Cooley et al., 1979).
The uptake and growth effects of mercury on E. crassipes under field conditions
and with lakewater as culture medium were investigated by Tabbada et al. (1990).
Absorption of the heavy metal increased with higher levels of Hg in the culture solution.
Roots accumulated much more of the heavy metal than the leaves. The results
suggested a beneficial role of the plant long considered as a noxious weed, as a
bioaccumulator of Hg on polluted lakes.
Bioconcentration and genotoxicity of aquatic mercury was assessed by Lenka et
al. (1990) by exposing the water hyacinth plants to water contaminated with mercuric
chloride and phenyl mercuric acetate at 0.001 to 1.0 mg l -1, or mercury contaminated
effluent from a chloralkali plant for various periods of 4 to 96 h. The results indicated
that bioconcentration of mercury in root tissue was both time- and concentrationdependent, providing evidence for water hyacinth to be a good absorbant of aquatic
mercury. The genotoxicity tests revealed that frequency of root meristematic cells with
micronuclei followed a concentration-response. The findings indicated the potential of
water hyacinth plants for in situ monitoring and for mitigation of aquatic mercury
pollution.
Srivastava and Rao (1997) while evaluating the relative efficiencies of five selected
weeds for mercury detoxification found Eichhornia to have the highest capacity of
mercury removal compared to Salvinia, Chara, Hydrilla and Vallisneria. E. crassipes
along with Pistia stratioites has also been reported to be better accumulator of mercury

compared to Colocasia esculenta and Scirpus tabernaemontani by Skinner et al.

(2007).

REFERENCES
Seckler, D et.al. (199). Water scarcity in the twenty-first century. International Journal of
Water Resources Development 15, 29-42.
Yan, J., Wang R., & Wang, M. (1999). The fundamental principles and Eco techniques
of wastewater aquaculture. Ecological Engineering 10, 191-208
Anderson, J. et.al. (2001). Climbing the ladders: a step by step approach to
international guidelines for water recycling. Water Science Technology 43, 1-8.
Muramoto, S. & Oki, Y. (1983). Removal of some heavy metals from polluted water by
water hyacinth (Eichhnoria crassipes). Bulletin of Environmental Contaminants and
toxicology, 30, 170-177.

Tiwari, S., Dixit, S., & Verma, N. (2007). An effective means of bio-filtration of heavy
metal contaminated water bodies using aquatic weed Eichhnoria crassipes.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 129, 253-256.
Ayaz and Acka (2001). Treatment of wastewater by natural systems. Environmental
International, 25, 189-195.
De Jong J (1976), The purification of wastewater with the aid of rush or reed ponds, In:
Biological Control of Water Pollution [J. Tourbier and R. W. Pierson (Jr.), eds.],
University of Pennsylvania Press, USA.
Dinges R (1976), Water hyacinth culture for wastewater treatment, Texas Department
of Health Resources, Division of Wastewater Technology and Surveillance, Austin,
Texas, USA. pp. 39
Garg P and Chandra P (1994), The duckweed (Wolffia globosa) as an indicator of
heavy metal pollution, Environ Monitor Assess, Vol. 29, pp. 89-95
Ghabbour E A, Davies G, Lam Y Y and Vozzella M E (2004), Metal binding by humic
acids isolated from water hyacinth plants (Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solm-Laubach:
Pontederiaceae) in the Nile Delta, Egypt, Environ Pollut, Vol. 131, pp. 445-451
Ghosh M and Singh S P (2005), A review on phytoremediation of heavy metals and
utilization of its byproducts, Applied Ecology Environmental Research, Vol.3, pp. 1-18
Hasan S H, Talat M and Rai S (2007), Sorption of cadmium and zinc from aqueous
solutions by water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), Bioresour Technol, Vol. 98, pp. 918928

Haustein A T, Gilman R H, Skillicorn P W, Hannan H, Diaz F, Guevara V, Vergara V,

Gastanduy A and Gilman J B (1994), Performance of broiler chicken fed diets
containing duckweed (Lemna gibba), Jour Agricul Sci, Vol. 122, pp. 285-289
Ingole N W and Bhole A G (2003), Removal of heavy metals from aqueous solution by
water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), J Water SRT-Aqua, Vol. 52, pp. 119-128
Jamil K, Jamil M Z, Rao P V R and Thyagrajan G (1985), Pollut Res, Vol. 4, pp. 67-75,
[cf Agarwal, 2002].
Jayaweera M W, Kasturiarachchi J C, Kularatne, R K and Wijeyekoon S L (2007),
Contribution of water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms) grown under
different nutrient conditions to Fe-removal mechanisms in constructed wetlands, J
Environ Manage, Mar. 23, [Epub. Ahead of print]
Kelley C, Curtis A J, Uno J K and Berman C L (2000), Ultrascopic studies of the
interaction of Eu(III) with the roots of water hyacinth, Water, Air, Soil Pollut, Vol. 119, pp.
171-176
Kelley C, Mielke R E, Dimaquibo D, Curtis A J and DeWitt J G (1999), Absorption of
Eu(III) onto roots of water hyacinth, Environ Sci Technol, Vol. 33, pp. 1439-1443
Kickuth R (1975), Degradation and incorporation of nutrients from rural wastewaters by
plant rhizosphere under limnic conditions, Utilisation of Manure by Land Spreading,
Coordination of Agricultural Research, Commission of the European Communities.

Klump A, Bauer K, Franz-Gerstein C and de Menezes M (2002), Variation of nutrient

and metal concentrations in aquatic macrophytes along the Rio Cachoeira in Bahia
(Brazil), Environ Int, Vol. 28, pp. 165-171
Krishnakumari P (1995), Investigations on phytochemistry and bioenergy potential of
South Indian plants, Ph.D Thesis, University of Madras. pp. 216
Lakshman G (1987), Ecotechnological opportunities for aquatic plants-a survey of
utilization options, In: Aquatic Plants for water Treatment and Resource Recovery [K.
R. Reddy and W. H. Smith, eds.], Magnolia Publications, Inc., Orlando. pp. 49-68
Lenka M, Panda K K and Panda B B (1990), Studies on the ability of water hyacinth
(Eichhornia crassipes) to bioconcentrate and biomonitor aquatic mercury, Environ
Pollut, Vol. 66, pp. 89-99
Lu X, Kruatrachue M, Pokethitiyook P and Homyok K (2004), Removal of cadmium and
zinc by water hyacinth, Eichhornia crassipes, Science Asia, Vol. 30, pp. 93-103
Lytle C M, Lytle F W, Yang K, Qian J H, Hansen D, Zayed A and Terry N (1998),
Reduction of Cr (VI) to Cr (III) by wetland plants: Potential for in situ heavy metal
detoxification, Environ Sci Total, Vol. 32, pp. 3087-3093