Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55 (2011) 793–800

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrec

Biomass production for bioenergy using recycled wastewater in a natural waste

treatment system
Clifford B. Fedler, Runbin Duan ∗
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Bioenergy production from biomass is proposed as a method to solve part of the nation’s energy problem.
Received 14 April 2010 However, biomass and bioenergy production is questioned as an environment-friendly approach due
Received in revised form 25 January 2011 to the potential increase of water pollution and the potential decrease of available water resource. A
Accepted 1 April 2011
conceptual model of an integrated natural waste treatment system that produces biogas and biomass for
bioenergy, treat waste and wastewater, conserve fresh water, and decrease the potential water pollution
Keywords:
is presented. The potential biomass production from water hyacinth, duckweed, cattail, and knotgrass was
Bioenergy
investigated using recycling wastewater from an integrated natural waste treatment system from 2005
Renewable energy
Bioremediation
to 2008. Although the biomass production from recycling wastewater was not controlled for maximum
Water sustainability production, this research identified the large potential impact that could be made if these systems were
implemented. The overall average water hyacinth growth rate was high to 0.297 kg wet wt./m2 /day during
a research period of over 500 days, including both the active and non-active growing seasons. The average
daily growth rates of duckweed, cattail, and knotgrass were 0.099–0.127, 0.015, and 0.018 kg wet wt./m2 ,
respectively. This research illustrated that water hyacinth was a more promising aquatic plant biomass
for bioenergy production when wastewater effluent was recycled as water and nutrient sources from an
integrated natural waste treatment system.
© 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction els (Service, 2009). In addition to the water consumption by energy

There is no doubt that water is one of more precious natural
resources in the world (Pinto et al., 2010). Therefore, it is necessary
to recycle and reuse water with an aim to conserve the limited fresh
water resources for social and economic sustainable development.
Also, a great deal of effort has been made to develop the processes of
converting biomass to bioenergy in order to reduce the dependence
on fossil fuels. Currently, the primary technology for bioenergy is
the production of ethanol mainly from corn and biodiesel mainly
from soybean. The produced ethanol has been successfully applied
by mixing with gasoline and then being used in conventional
vehicles (National Research Council, 2008). The emerging tech-
nology is the production of cellulosic ethanol from cellulosic or
woody biomass including corn stalks, wood chips, wheat straw,
and switchgrass (Regalbuto, 2009). However, the environmental
feasibility of producing renewable energy by converting biomass
into bioenergy is questioned due to the tremendous consumption
of water used in production of energy crops and subsequent biofu-
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: clifford.fedler@ttu.edu (C.B. Fedler), duanttu@gmail.com
(R. Duan).
crops, the production of one unit of ethanol requires four (Pate et al.,
2007; National Research Council, 2008) to seven (Phillips et al.,
2007; National Research Council, 2008) units of water compared to
the one and one-half units of water in petroleum refining (Pate et al.,
2007; National Research Council, 2008). The effluent from biofuel
refining contains high biochemical oxygen demand and high salin-
ity (National Research Council, 2008). Due to the potential adverse
effects of biofuel production on water quantity and quality, the fea-
sibility and sustainability of producing bioenergy in recent years
has been questioned.
An innovative approach that effectively combines biomass
production and water resource conservation is presented. The
approach is to harvest aquatic-based biomass in an integrated
natural waste treatment system. Its advantage is to produce
aquatic-based biomass while saving fresh water and fully uti-
lizing the available nutrients in the recycled wastewater in a
cost-effective manner (Fedler, 2006). The recycled wastewater can
be effluent from treatment streams of municipal, industrial, or
agricultural practices. The objective of this paper was to (i) intro-
duce a conceptual model of a natural waste treatment system used
for waste and wastewater recycling combined with biomass pro-
duction, and (ii) investigate the potential biomass production for
bioenergy using recycled wastewater within the system.

0921-3449/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.04.001
794 C.B. Fedler, R. Duan / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55 (2011) 793–800
2. A conceptual model of combined natural waste
treatment system
A conceptual model of a natural waste treatment system com-
bined with biomass production investigated in this research is
illustrated in Fig. 1. In this system, livestock waste are collected and
transported to an integrated facultative pond (IFP) for treatment
and production of methane gas, a favorable bioenergy. Livestock
waste contains water that contains high quantities of organic mat-
ter and nutrients. If they are not properly handled, the livestock
waste can severely damage nearby water sources. The effluent
from an IFP is high in ammonia-nitrogen. A high concentration
of ammonia-nitrogen is toxic to fish; therefore, the ammonia-
nitrogen concentration must be lowered to an appropriate level
if the effluent flows through an advanced aquatic ecological sys-
tem such as that described in Fig. 1. The effluent from the IFP can
be further treated by the wetland system and the aquatic system.
The aquatic system is to treat wastewater by ponds with floating or
submerged aquatic plants growing in Duan and Fedler (2009) and
Kruzic (1997). The effluent from the aquatic system was recycled
to produce fish that can be used as either feed for livestock or for
bioenergy production. The aquatic biomass produced can be har-
vested as a source of biomass for energy production. The effluent
can also be utilized to irrigate terrestrial based energy crops, thus
saving fresh water recourses usually used for this purpose. Substan-
tial biomass can be harvested while wastewater is being treated by
the combined natural treatment system. Solar energy is caught by
plants and stored in the biomass and gaseous carbon dioxide, one
component of greenhouse gas, is utilized and reduced via biomass
production (Fig. 1). Finally, biomass produced in this system can be
converted to electricity or other forms of consumable green energy.
Many aquatic plants are utilized in natural wastewater treat-
ment systems due to their ability to effectively treat wastewater
by nutrient assimilation (Jayaweera and Kasturiarachchi, 2004)
and organic matter reduction with resulting high growth rates of
biomass that can be used for bioenergy production. The aquatic
plants considered in this paper included water hyacinth, duckweed,
cattail, and knotgrass, which are available in natural water bodies
around the world. Innovative technologies have been developed
to use water hyacinth (Dinges, 1978; Gersberg et al., 1986; Haller,
1970; McDonald and Wolverton, 1980; Reddy and Debusk, 1984;
Rogers and Davis, 1972) and duckweed (Oron et al., 1988) in natural
wastewater treatment. It is widely accepted that the use of water
hyacinth and duckweed in wastewater treatment is a cost effective
and environment-friendly approach (Cunningham and Ow, 1996).
For example, the city of Rio Hondo in the state of Texas used water
hyacinth to deal with its municipal wastewater with initial cost of
treatment facility being around one-twentieth of the quoted esti-
mate of a conventional wastewater treatment system (Wolverton
and McDonald, 1978).
Water hyacinth (Eichornia crassipes) is a perennial floating
aquatic plant. It was first found in the Amazon in South America,
and currently it grows in many areas in the world including India,
Bangladesh, Philippines, and parts of the United States (UF/IFAS,
2007). Water hyacinth primarily regenerates from fragments of
stems and can grow almost throughout the year in a large range
of nutrient level, temperature, and pH. Due to its high growth
rate compared to many terrestrial plants, water hyacinth received
much attention (Reddy et al., 1985) for biomass production. Water
hyacinth has the ability to remove inorganic nutrients, toxic met-
als, and organic constituents (Malik, 2006), therefore, it was often
used to improve water quality while harvesting biomass for feed,
organic fertilizer and gaseous fuels (Reddy and Sutton, 1984). The
successful use of water hyacinth in wastewater treatment can be
traced back to the 1970s where the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) set up related investigations in 1975 at the
Stennis Space Center (SSC) (Wolverton and McDonald, 1978). The
water hyacinth was observed to successfully clean the wastewater
in a sewage lagoon by flourishing on the water surface. Another
early successful example is that water hyacinth was used to treat
secondary effluent from an activated sludge wastewater treat-
ment plant in the Coral Springs Improvement District at Coral
Springs, FL, USA. In this tertiary wastewater treatment system,
total nitrogen levels in the lagoon was lowered from 10.12 mg/L
to 0.94 mg/L and total phosphorus concentrations decreased from
6.12 mg/L to 3.77 mg/L (Wolverton, 1987). Water hyacinth was not
just employed to treat domestic wastewater, but also industrial
wastewater (Jayaweera and Kasturiarachchi, 2004), agricultural
drainage (Reddy et al., 1982), swine wastewater (Polprasert et al.,
1992) and its secondary effluent (Costa et al., 2000), dairy effluent
(Tripathi and Upadhyay, 2003), and aerobically digested flushed
dairy manure wastewater (Sooknah and Wilkie, 2004). In addition,
water hyacinth can be used to treat other animal wastes (Reddy
and Smith, 1987).
Duckweeds (Lemnaceae) are small floating aquatic plants and
are among the smallest and simplest flowering plants. Duckweeds
have high reproduction rates, and can double its biomass in favor-
able water environmental conditions in 2 days or even less (Culley
et al., 1981). The biomass production of duckweed showed high
variability depending on the environment conditions from 2 (Culley
and Epps, 1973) to 79 ton dry wt./ha annually (Mestayer et al.,
1984). It is reported that duckweed can be found throughout the
United States including Hawaii and in the other areas of the world
(Cross, 2006). Duckweed has been widely and efficiently utilized
for remediation of contaminated waters including municipal and
industrial wastewater since before 1990 (Oron et al., 1988) due
to its ability to live in wide ranges of pH, temperature, and nutri-
ent levels (Landolt and Kandeler, 1987). In addition to the role in
nutrient removal in contaminated waters, duckweed can remove
heavy metals and other toxic elements in waters. Duckweed Lemna
gibba L. was found by Khellaf and Zerdaoui (2009) to have the abil-
ity to remove Zn from contaminated water by up to 71%. Also,
duckweed can remove Cu and Cd (Megateli et al., 2009). Some
species of duckweed can accumulate or take up toxic organic com-
pounds including phenols, chlorinated phenols, pharmaceuticals
and surfactants, or even transform those targeted toxics such as
DDT and organophosphorus pesticides (Gao et al., 2000a,b). Duck-
weed based wastewater treatment can be a cost-effective approach
to deal with wastewater in rural areas. It is reliable and has a low
investment and operation cost. Also, duckweed has the benefit of a
high protein content with high productivity, thus the potential to
be used as feedstock for livestock or biomass for bioenergy.
Cattail (Typha sp.) is attractive in biomass production for bioen-
ergy due to its relatively high energy content potential. It mainly
grows in temperate and tropical regions except Australia and South
America (Science, 2007). Its growth in the natural environment is
significantly influenced by water depth, duration of flooding, and
nutrient level at the specific sites (Newman et al., 1998). Cattail
can grow in a wide regime of soil moisture conditions, although
it prefers high soil moisture, therefore, biomass production of cat-
tails is more under conditions of continuous flooding than under
condition of periodic flooding and periodic drought (Li et al., 2004).
Knotgrass (Polygonum sp.) is a procumbent grass (Bond and
Davies, 2007) and can be found on all sorts of open ground (Bond
and Davies, 2007) in temperate areas of the United States (Strahan,
2002) and with relatively high production rates when the appro-
priate moisture is provided. Although annual production rates for
knotgrass are as low as 2–4 ton dry wt./ha (Ancell, 1998) compared
to water hyacinth, it is a good option for biomass production for
bioenergy due to its flexible growing conditions. Knotgrass has the
ability to go for long periods (greater than 6 months) with no water
and return to growing once water is available.
 C.B. Fedler, R. Duan / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55 (2011) 793–800
Fig. 1. Example schematic of a combined natural waste treatment system.
In addition to the treatment ability of wastewater, aquatic plants
have the potential as a bridge between wastewater and energy.
Currently, aquatic plant biomass can be efficiently converted into
electrical power by gasification or be anaerobically digested to pro-
duce methane or converted to methanol or butanol. The energy
production rate is the product of biomass production rate, biomass
energy content, and the conversion process efficiency. Since the
biomass energy content does not have a large variability, the energy
production rate is primarily determined by biomass production
rate. Although water hyacinth does not have the highest energy
content among aquatic plants, it is possible to produce more energy
in unit area than other aquatic plants since water hyacinth has
the higher biomass production rate. The energy content of water
hyacinth is 15.2 kJ/g dry wt. (GCEP Staff, 2005). Duckweed has an
energy content of 10.1 kJ/g dry wt. (Xuan et al., 2002). The energy
production rate of duckweed and knotgrass is in the mid-range
compared to other aquatic plants. Cattail contain high energy,
therefore, although its growth rate is low compared to some aquatic
plants such as water hyacinth, giant salvinia, water lettuce, the
total energy production rate by growing cattail is higher than other
aquatic plants except water hyacinth and parrot feather watermil-
foil (Fedler et al., 2007).
3. Materials and methods
3.1. The existing natural waste treatment system
The existing integrated natural waste treatment system is
located in a green house in Lubbock, TX, USA. The system contained
anaerobically digested livestock waste (cattle or horse manure
brought in from local facilities) mixing tank, storage tank, wetland
tanks (surface flow wetland system), and fish tanks. The anaer-
obically digested manure was kept mixed and then fed into the
795
surface flow wetland systems consisting of a two-tank series grow-
ing cattail and knotgrass. The water was then pumped into aquatic
tanks growing with water hyacinth and duckweed, for secondary
treatment and aquatic plant biomass production. Subsequently, the
effluent flowed into fish tanks for raising fishes and growing aquatic
plant biomass as shown in Fig. 1. Finally, the water flowed by gravity
back into the main tank growing duckweed, which was considered
the polishing system. The investigation focused on the exploration
of wastewater reuse and recycling and the potential for the pro-
duction of aquatic plant biomass while treating the water to a level
that could support the growth of either koi or tilapia.
3.2. Water hyacinth production
The investigation of water hyacinth production in this study
included three sets of experiments. One set of experiments included
a 9-tank system (Fig. 2) that was used to investigate the impact of
water hyacinth harvest frequency on water hyacinth growth rate.
The designed treatments (harvest frequency) were one harvest per
week, one harvest in 2 weeks, and one harvest in 4 weeks. The
9-tank system was divided into three subsets with each subset cor-
responding to one treatment. Each subset had three water tanks
(replications) with height of 0.54 m and radius of 0.27 m. The total
nitrogen (TN) concentration in the supply water of the system was
maintained at approximately 25 mg/L for the research period. The
produced water hyacinth was harvested by removing plants from
one-half of the water surface of the tank with the remaining half
being allowed to reproduce and grow. The study started on April
2007 and ended on October 2008.
Another experiment was a 3-tank system (Fig. 2). The size of
three water tanks was same as those used in the 9-tank system.
Total nitrogen concentration in the water was kept at 50 mg/L.
The produced water hyacinth was harvested in a similar manner
796 C.B. Fedler, R. Duan / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55 (2011) 793–800

Fig. 2. Water hyacinth 9-tank system (back three rows of tanks) and 3-tank system Fig. 4. Tank with duckweed growing containing both Lemna and Wolffia species.
(front row).
second treatment was that duckweed grew in three 30 cm × 30 cm
square frame made of 10 cm diameter PVC pipes from June 2005
as the 9-tank system and operated from April 2007 to October
to December 2005 and those PVC square frames were floating in
2008. Both the 9-tank system and the 3-tank system were inde-
another tank with same size as those used in the first treatment
pendently installed in the green house without direct connection
(Fig. 5). The harvested method was also similar to water hyacinth.
to the existing natural waste treatment system.
Once the water surface in the square frames and the fish tanks were
The third experiment was a 2-tank system (Fig. 3). The radius
covered with duckweed, half of the surface area of duckweed was
of the tanks was 0.9 m and the height was 0.9 m. A similar harvest
harvested and the remaining half was allowed to reproduce and
method as the other two systems was used and these tanks were
grow to fully spread over the water surface until next harvest. Both
operated from August 2006 to September 2008. The water supplied
treatments were used to compare the impacts of water surface area
to these two tanks was the effluent from the fish growing tanks
on the growth rate.
and it contained approximately 2 mg/L total nitrogen. The second
and the third set of experiments were conducted to investigate the
3.4. Cattail and knotgrass production
difference of biomass production influenced by nitrogen level and
growth space. All of the harvested water hyacinth was removed
Cattail and knotgrass were planted in the tanks with the con-
from the tank water surface, allowed to drain to remove the surface
figuration similar to the surface flow wetland system and tested
water and finally weighed (wet basis).
from June 2005 to September 2005. Cattail was growing in six tanks
with size of 0.6 m (width) × 0.6 m (depth) × 6 m (length) (two tanks
3.3. Duckweed production
of 3 m length in series) (Fig. 3). Knotgrass production was investi-
gated in three 0.3 m (width) × 0.3 m (depth) × 3 m (length) tanks.
The biomass production of duckweed in the tanks was con-
Recycled wastewater from the fish production tanks was pumped
ducted with two treatments. The water used was same as that used
into these tanks to supply plants with water and nutrients. The TN
for the large water hyacinth tank system with a TN concentration
concentration in the supply water was about 2 mg/L. Plant biomass
of about 2 mg/L in both treatments. The first treatment was that
was harvested on an irregular schedule depending on the time of
duckweed grew from July 2005 to December 2005 on the water
year and amount of growth. Cattail was cut to a 10 cm height and
surface of three round tanks with a radius of 0.9 m and a height of
knotgrass was cut to a 5 cm height. The biomass was measured and
0.9 m. The water surface area was 2.54 m2 in each tank (Fig. 4). The
recorded in approximately three different months for calculating
the growth rates.

Fig. 3. One tank of water hyacinth 2-tank system (Behind this fish tank is one cattail
tank in the surface flow wetland system). Fig. 5. Duckweed growing in the three squares to function as three replicates.
 C.B. Fedler, R. Duan / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55 (2011) 793–800 797

Table 1
Water hyacinth growth rates in the 9-tank system.

Harvest frequency Days Daily growth rate (kg wet wt./m2 )

Tank 1 Tank 2 Tank 3 Average Standard deviation

One time in 1 week 527 0.174 0.174 0.157 0.168 0.010

One time in 2 weeks 542 0.165 0.176 0.179 0.173 0.007
One time in 4 weeks 542 0.189 0.166 0.172 0.176 0.012

Table 2
Water hyacinth growth rates in the 3-tank system.

No. Period Days Daily growth rate (kg wet wt./m2 )

Tank 1 Tank 2 Tank 3 Average Standard deviation

1 4/29/07–7/3/07 65 0.142 0.142 0.163 0.149 0.012

2 7/3/07–7/22/07 19 0.291 0.315 0.315 0.307 0.014
3 7/22/07–8/20/07 29 0.127 0.175 0.191 0.164 0.033
4 8/20/07–9/24/07a 35 0.158 0.132 0.158 0.149 0.015
5 9/24/07–10/8/07 14 0.263 0.395 0.362 0.340 0.068
6 10/8/07–4/20/08 195 0.033 0.028 0.038 0.033 0.005
7 4/20/08–7/22/08a 93 0.169 0.119 0.109 0.132 0.032
8 7/22/08–8/5/08 14 0.593 0.658 0.593 0.614 0.038
9 8/5/08–9/2/08 28 0.296 0.296 0.263 0.285 0.019
10 9/2/08–9/16/08 14 0.461 0.494 0.494 0.483 0.019
11 9/16/08–9/23/08 7 0.790 0.856 0.922 0.856 0.066
12 9/23/08–9/30/08 7 0.724 0.724 0.724 0.724 0.000
13 9/30/08–10/14/08 14 0.328 0.328 0.360 0.339 0.018
14 10/14/08–10/29/08 15 0.152 0.152 0.122 0.142 0.017
Total 549 0.164 0.163 0.166 0.164 0.002
a
It was observed that the data may be affected by a spider-mite infestation occurring at that time.

3.5. Data analysis
One way analysis of variance (ANOVA) or t test was con-
ducted to compare means of biomass growth rate at p < 0.05.
All statistical analysis was conducted by the software pack-
age SigmaStat for Windows version 3.10 (Systat Software,
2004).
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Water hyacinth growth rates
Growth rate of water hyacinth in the 9-tank system is shown in
Table 1. A one-way ANOVA was conducted to compare the average
water hyacinth growth rate. In this study, there was no significant
difference found between the means of water hyacinth growth
rate with different treatments of harvest frequency. The overall
daily average water hyacinth growth rate was 0.172 kg wet wt./m2 ,
which is equivalent to 629 ton wet wt./ha annually, and approx-
imately 31 ton dry wt./ha annually, based on an average water
content of the wet water hyacinth of 95%.
In this research, the difference in daily average growth rate of
water hyacinth was not significant for the three harvesting frequen-
cies (one harvest in 1 week, one harvest in 2 weeks, and one harvest
in 4 weeks) in the 9-tank system. The possible reason might be the
relatively small dimensions of the tanks might be a limiting fac-
tor, which masked the effects of different harvest frequency on the
average daily growth rate.

Table 3
Water hyacinth growth rates in 2-tank system.

No. Period Days Daily growth rate (kg wet wt./m2 )

Tank 13 Tank 14 Average Standard deviation

1 8/11/06–9/22/06 42 0.245 0.118 0.181 0.089

2 9/22/06–10/26/06 34 0.287 0.226 0.257 0.043
3 10/26/06–12/14/06 49 0.226 0.074 0.150 0.107
4 12/14/06–3/8/07 84 0.179 0.064 0.122 0.081
5 3/8/07–4/29/07 52 0.199 0.289 0.244 0.064
6 4/29/07–5/21/07 22 0.544 - 0.544 -
7 5/21/07–6/11/07 21 0.448 0.391 0.420 0.041
8 6/11/07–7/3/07 22 0.581 0.444 0.512 0.097
9 7/3/07–8/6/07 34 0.493 0.468 0.480 0.018
10 8/6/07–9/2/07 27 0.467 0.598 0.533 0.093
11 9/2/07–10/1/07 29 0.435 0.396 0.416 0.027
12 10/1/07–12/24/07 84 0.146 0.181 0.164 0.025
13 12/24/07–3/5/08 72 0.144 0.161 0.152 0.012
14 3/5/08–4/26/08 52 0.379 0.306 0.342 0.052
15 4/26/08–5/19/08 23 0.631 0.578 0.605 0.037
16 5/19/08–6/22/08 34 0.574 0.650 0.612 0.054
17 6/22/08–8/1/08 40 0.324 0.302 0.313 0.015
18 8/1/08–9/28/08 58 0.358 0.542 0.450 0.131
Total 779 0.312 0.282 0.297 0.021

Note: The number on the tank represents those used for this study from within the entire greenhouse operation. Other numbered tanks were for other purposes, such as
raising fish.
798 C.B. Fedler, R. Duan / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55 (2011) 793–800

Table 4
Duckweed growth rates in 3-tank system in 2005.

No. Period Days Daily growth rate (kg wet wt./m2 )

Tank 1 Tank 2 Tank 3 Average Standard deviation

1 7/5–7/15 10 0.169 0.152 –a 0.161 0.012

2 7/15–7/22 7 0.169 0.157 –a 0.163 0.008
3 7/22–8/2 11 0.138 0.150 –a 0.144 0.008
4 8/2–8/13 11 0.161 0.102 –a 0.131 0.042
5 8/13–8/19 6 0.230 0.217 0.214 0.220 0.008
6 8/19–8/25 6 0.144 0.155 0.136 0.145 0.009
7 8/25–9/1 7 0.123 0.135 0.120 0.126 0.008
8 9/1–9/12 11 0.064 0.046 0.068 0.059 0.012
9 9/12–9/19 7 0.136 0.171 0.204 0.170 0.034
10 9/19–10/3 14 0.042 0.081 0.076 0.066 0.021
11 10/3–10/15 12 0.053 0.051 0.058 0.054 0.004
12 10/15–10/27 12 0.048 0.070 0.049 0.056 0.012
13 10/27–11/8 12 0.080 0.070 0.069 0.073 0.006
14 11/8–11/18 10 0.087 0.081 0.077 0.082 0.005
15 11/18–11/28 10 0.076 0.080 0.086 0.081 0.005
16 11/28–12/8 10 0.077 0.076 0.077 0.077 0.001
Total 156 0.103 0.103 0.091 0.099 0.007
a
Missing data.

The water hyacinth growth rates in the 3-tank system
and 2-tank system are listed in Tables 2 and 3, respec-
tively. The overall average daily growth rate of the water
hyacinth was 0.164 kg wet wt./m2 (600 ton wet wt./ha annually or
30 ton dry wt./ha annually) in the 3-tank system and a daily
growth of 0.297 kg wet wt./m2 (1084 ton wet wt./ha annually or
54 ton dry wt./ha annually) in the 2-tank system. It was found that
the growth rate in the larger tanks was significantly higher, 80%,
than that found in the smaller tanks.
Temperature and solar radiation are the primary limiting factors
for water hyacinth growth and reproduction; the ideal tempera-
ture range is from 25 ◦ C to 30 ◦ C (Reddy and Sutton, 1984). When
average temperature and solar radiation declines, the growth of
water hyacinth will decrease and even stop (Reddy et al., 1985).
Tables 2 and 3 illustrated that the water hyacinth growth rates
were higher in late spring months, summer months, and early fall
months than the other months, and the growth rate was lowest
in winter time, as expected. There were some exceptions that low
growth rates were observed in the 3-tank system, but this was due
to a spider-mite infestation causing the necessary regrowing of the
plants. The obvious examples were the sampling periods of April
20, 2008 to July 22, 2008 and August 20, 2007 to September 24,
2007. Because no severe damage occurred in the 2-tank system,
the growth rate in the 2-tank system showed better responses to
the seasonal variations than the 3-tank system.
Although an increase in nitrogen level in water can cause an
increase of water hyacinth growth rate (Heard and Winterton,
2000), a significant difference (p < 0.05) in water hyacinth growth
rate was not observed in this study between the two groups of
experiments, the 9-tank system with a total nitrogen level of
around 25 mg/L and the 3-tank system with total nitrogen level
of about 50 mg/L. However, the overall average water hyacinth
growth rate in the 2-tank system with total nitrogen of 2 mg/L was
significantly higher than those in the 9-tank system and the 3-tank
system. The primary reason might be the difference in water sur-
face area and water depth. The water surface area in the larger
tank was 2.54 m2 in the 2-tank system and 0.23 m2 in the other
two systems. The depth of the tanks in the 2-tank system is close
to twice that in the other systems, 0.67 m and 0.3 m, respectively.
The leaf and body size was observed to be smaller in the 9-tank
system and the 3-tank system compared to those in the 2-tank
system.

Table 5
Duckweed growth rates in three square frames collected in 2005.

No. Period Days Daily growth rate (kg wet wt./m2 )

Tank 1 Tank 2 Tank 3 Average Standard deviation

1 6/22–7/5 13 0.043 0.049 0.056 0.050 0.006

2 7/5–7/15 10 0.158 0.141 0.164 0.154 0.012
3 7/15–7/19 4 0.421 0.309 0.315 0.348 0.063
4 7/19–7/25 6 0.151 0.146 0.158 0.152 0.006
5 7/25–8/2 8 0.127 0.109 0.163 0.133 0.027
6 8/2–8/13 11 0.081 0.101 0.146 0.109 0.033
7 8/13–8/19 6 0.122 0.184 0.217 0.174 0.048
8 8/19–8/25 6 0.206 0.130 0.319 0.219 0.095
9 8/25–9/1 7 0.106 0.101 0.157 0.121 0.031
10 9/1–9/6 5 0.030 0.042 0.363 0.145 0.189
11 9/6–9/14 8 0.018 0.037 0.267 0.108 0.139
12 9/14–9/22 8 0.126 0.078 0.087 0.097 0.026
13 9/22–10/7 15 0.033 0.072 0.044 0.050 0.020
14 10/7–10/14 7 0.058 0.061 0.068 0.062 0.005
15 10/14–10/24 10 0.031 0.076 0.077 0.062 0.026
16 10/24–11/1 8 0.160 0.153 0.127 0.147 0.017
17 11/1–11/8 7 0.239 0.221 0.226 0.229 0.009
18 11/8–11/17 9 0.176 0.178 0.176 0.177 0.002
19 11/17–11/29 12 0.135 0.134 0.125 0.131 0.006
20 11/29–12/8 9 0.156 0.154 0.161 0.157 0.003
Total 169 0.115 0.115 0.151 0.127 0.021
 C.B. Fedler, R. Duan / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55 (2011) 793–800
Table 6
Cattail growth rates in six tanks.
Period Tanks Days
6/15/2005–7/15/2005 6 30
7/15/2005–8/13/2005 6 29
8/13/2005–9/19/2005 6 37
Table 7
Knotgrass growth rates in three tanks.
Period Tanks Days
6/14/2005–7/13/2005 3 30
7/13/2005–8/13/2005 3 31
8/13/2005–9/16/2005 3 34
It was found in this study that the annual yield of water
hyacinth was from 30 to 54 ton dry wt./ha. However, it was reported
that water hyacinth had an annual growth rate from 91 to
180 ton dry wt./ha (Bodo et al., 2006), and even 448 ton dry wt./ha
in an ideal tropical climate (Shoeb and Singh, 2000). It seems that
there are large differences between this study and the others,
however, as Reddy et al. (1985) stated, those data were based on
short-term growth measurements taken during the active growing
season and extrapolated to one year. If the primary growing season
was considered, the annual growth rate would be 90 tons dry wt./ha
in a system receiving minimal levels of nitrogen for growth. Nev-
ertheless, these data were obtained without using extrapolation
since the data included the non-active growing phase or seasons.
In addition, the biomass production research was not designed for
maximum yield. Primarily, this research was to probe the potential
use of aquatic plant biomass production from recycling wastewater
in a natural environment.
4.2. Duckweed growth rates
The daily growth rates of duckweed in three big tanks and three
small square PVC frames (Tables 4 and 5) were 0.099 kg wet/m2
(361 ton wet/ha annually) and 0.127 kg wet/m2 (464 ton wet/ha
annually), respectively. Tables 4 and 5 provide a record of each
sampling period and one harvest within in each period. The t test
at p < 0.05 showed that there was no significant difference between
the overall average duckweed growth rates for the two treatments.
The water surface area was found to not significantly influence the
overall average duckweed growth rate. However, the total average
duckweed growth rate in the squares was mathematically higher
than that in the larger tanks.
Both sets of experiment experienced active growing seasons and
non-active growing seasons during the research period. The duck-
weed in the two experiments performed positively, responding to
seasonal variance, primarily natural solar radiation and tempera-
ture variances.
4.3. Cattail and knotgrass growth rate
The growth rates of cattail and knotgrass in this study were at
the same level (Tables 6 and 7). Tables 6 and 7 list the growth rates
in approximately three different months. The experiment was initi-
ated at the first day of the first sampling month. The overall average
daily growth rates were 0.015 kg wet/m2 (55 ton wet wt./ha annu-
ally) and 0.018 kg wet wt./m2 (66 ton wet/ha annually) for cattail
and knotgrass, respectively.
799
Daily growth rate (kg wet wt./m2 )
Average Standard deviation
0.015 0.006
0.016 0.005
0.013 0.004
Daily growth rate (kg wet wt./m2 )
Average Standard deviation
0.018 0.001
0.023 0.001
0.013 0.002
5. Conclusions
The feasibility of recycling wastewater from a combined nat-
ural waste treatment system to produce aquatic plant biomass
for bioenergy production was investigated from the basis of the
annual production as a function of time of year. In this study,
the growth of water hyacinth showed the highest average annual
growth rate with 1084 ton wet wt./ha (0.297 kg wet wt./m2 average
daily). The average growth rates of duckweed, cattail, and knotgrass
are 0.099 to 0.127, 0.015, 0.018 kg wet wt./m2 daily, respectively.
This research illustrated that water hyacinth is a more promising
aquatic plant than others as a candidate for biomass and thus bioen-
ergy production when wastewater effluent was recycled as water
and nutrient sources.
Tests were run to determine an optimal harvesting frequency for
water hyacinth biomass production, but tests run with frequencies
of once per week, once per 2 weeks, and once per 4 weeks showed
no significant differences in the level of biomass production. Since
the productivity in tanks much larger than those used for the har-
vest frequency tests was nearly double that in the small tanks, even
when the nitrogen concentration was very low (less than 5 mg/L),
it was hypothesized that the tank size had more of an effect on the
overall biomass production. In this case, the larger, deeper tanks
offered a much better growing system for the water hyacinths.
Naturally, this hypothesis needs to be verified in the future.
Acknowledgements
We thank the Texas State Energy Conservation Office for pro-
viding the funding to support portions of this overall project. We
also thank our graduate research assistants, Pardharavi Chennupati
and Rishu Ranjan, and undergraduate research assistant, Robert D.
Hammond, for their hard work on this project.
References
Ancell ME. Constructed wetlands for agricultural wastewater treatment. MS Thesis,
Department of Civil Engineering, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX; 1998.
Bodo R, Hausler R, Azzouz A. Multicriteria approach for the selection and a ratio-
nal use of aquatic plants for wastewater treatment. Journal of Water Science
2006;19(3):181–97 (in French).
Bond W, Davies G. The biology and non-chemical control of Knotgrass (Polygonum
aviculare L.). Available at: http://www.gardenorganic.org.uk/organicweeds/
downloads/polygonum%20aviculare.pdf; 2007 [accessed: 29.01.10].
Costa RHR, Bavaresco ASL, Medri W, Philippi LS. Tertiary treatment of piggery wastes
in water hyacinth ponds. Water Science and Technology 2000;42(10–11):211–4.
Cross J. Geography of duckweed. Available at: http://www.mobot.org/
jwcross/duckweed/Habitat/geography.html; 2006 [accessed: 1.07.07].
Culley DD, Epps EA. Use of duckweed for waste treatment and animal feed. Journal
of the Water Pollution Control Federation 1973;45(2):337–47, In Duckweed a
800 C.B. Fedler, R. Duan / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55 (2011) 793–800
potential high protein feed for domestic animals & fish, Center for Duckweed
Research and Development, University of New England.
Culley DD, Rejmankova E, Kvet J, Frye JB. Production, chemical quality and use of
duckweeds (Lemnaceae) in aquaculture, waste management, and animal feeds.
Journal of the World Mariculture Society 1981;12(2):27–49.
Cunningham SD, Ow DW. Promises and prospects of phytoremediation. Plant Phys-
iology 1996;110(3):715–9.
Dinges R. Upgrading stabilization pond effluent by water hyacinth culture. Journal
of Water Pollution Control Federation 1978;50:833–45.
Duan R, Fedler CB. Performance of a combined natural wastewater treat-
ment system in west Texas. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering
2009;136(3):204–9.
Fedler CB. Potential biomass production from recycled wastewater. In: Ameri-
can Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers Annual Meeting; 2006. p.
064144.
Fedler CB, Hammond RD, Chennupati P, Ranjan R. Biomass energy potential from
recycled wastewater. Project Report, Texas Tech University, L ubbock, TX 79409.
Available at: http://www.seco.cpa.state.tx.us/zzz re/re biomass aquatic-
report2007.pdf; 2007 [accessed: 9.12.10].
Gao J, Garrison AW, Hoehamer C, Mazur CS, Wolfe NL. Uptake and phytotransfor-
mation of o,p -DDT and p,p -DDT by axenically cultivated aquatic plants. Journal
of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 2000a;48:6121–7.
Gao J, Garrison AW, Hoehamer C, Mazur CS, Wolfe NL. Uptake and phytotransfor-
mation of organophosphorus pesticides by axenically cultivated aquatic plants.
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 2000b;48:6114–20.
GCEP Staff. An assessment of biomass feedstock and conversion research
opportunities. Global Climate & Energy Project, GCEP Energy Assess-
ment Analysis, Stanford University. Available at: http://gcep.stanford.edu/
pdfs/assessments/biomass assessment.pdf; 2005 [accessed: 9.12.10].
Gersberg RM, Elkins BV, Lyon SR, Goldman CR. Role of aquatic plants in wastewater
treatment by artificial wetlands. Water Research 1986;20:363–8.
Haller WT. Phosphorus adsorption by and distribution in water hyacinths. Proceed-
ings of Soil & Crop Science Society of Florida 1970;30:64–8.
Heard TA, Winterton SL. Interactions between nutrient status and weevil her-
bivory in the biological control of water hyacinth. Journal of Applied Ecology
2000;37:117–27.
Jayaweera MW, Kasturiarachchi JC. Removal of nitrogen and phosphorus from
industrial wastewaters by phytoremediation using water hyacinth (Eichhornia
crassipes (Mart.) Solms). Water Science and Technology 2004;50:217–25.
Khellaf N, Zerdaoui M. Phytoaccumulation of zinc by the aquatic plant Lemna gibba
L. Bioresource Technology 2009;100:6137–40.
Kruzic AP. Natural treatment and on-site processes. Water Environment Research
1997;69:522–6.
Landolt E, Kandeler R. The family of Lemnaceae—a monographic study:
Phytochemistry, physiology, application, and bibliography. (vol. 2 of mono-
graph).Biosystematic investigations in the family of duckweeds (Lemnaceae),
vol. 4 (95); 1987, Publications of the Geobotanical Institute of the E.T.H. Zurich:
Stiftung Rubel.
Li S, Pezeshki SR, Goodwin S. Effects of soil moisture regimes on photosynthesis and
growth in cattail (Typha latifolia). Acta Oecologica 2004;25:17–22.
Malik A. Environmental challenge vis a vis opportunity: the case of water hyacinth.
Environmental International 2006;33:122–38.
McDonald RC, Wolverton BC. Comparative study of wastewater lagoons with and
without water hyacinth. Economic Botany 1980;34(2):101–10.
Megateli S, Semsari S, Couderchet M. Toxicity and removal of heavy metals (cad-
mium, copper, and zinc) by Lemna gibba. Ecotoxicology and Environmental
Safety 2009;72:1774–80.
Mestayer C, Culley DD, Standifer LMC, Koonce KL. Solar energy conversion efficiency
and growth aspects of the duckweed, Spirodela punctata (G F W Mey.) Thompson.
Aquatic Botany 1984;19:157–70.
National Research Council. Water implications of biofuels production in the
United States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2008,
ISBN-10: 0-309-11361-X; ISBN-13: 978-0-309-11361-8. Available at:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record id=12039 [accessed: 7.12.10].
Newman S, Schuette J, Grace JB, Rutchey K, Fontaine T, Reddy KR, et al. Fac-
tors influencing cattail abundance in the northern Everglades. Aquatic Botany
1998;60(3):265–80.
Oron G, De Vegt A, Porath D. Nitrogen removal and conversion by duckweed grown
on wastewater. Water Research 1988;22:179–84.
Pate R, Hightower M, Cameron C, Einfeld W. Overview of energy-water interdepen-
dencies and the emerging energy demands on water resources. Report SAND
2007-1349C. Los Alamos, NM: Sandia National Laboratories; 2007.
Phillips S, Aden A, Jechura J, Dayton D, Eggeman T. Thermochemical ethanol via
indirect gasification and mixed alcohol synthesis of lignocellulosic biomass.
Technical Report NREL/TP-510-41168. National Renewable Energy Laboratory:
Golden, CO; 2007.
Pinto U, Maheshwari BL, Grewal HS. Effects of greywater irrigation on plant
growth, water use and soil properties. Resources, Conservation and Recycling
2010;54(7):429–35.
Polprasert C, Kessomboon S, Kanjanaprapin W. Pig wastewater treatment in water
hyacinth ponds. Water Science and Technology 1992;26:2381–4.
Reddy KR, Campbell KL, Graetz DA, Portier KM. Use of biological filters for
agricultural drainage water treatment. Journal of Environmental Quality
1982;11:591–5.
Reddy KR, Debusk WF. Growth characteristics of aquatic macrophytes cultured in
nutrient-enriched water: I. Water hyacinth, water lettuce, and pennywort. Eco-
nomic Botany 1984;38:229–39.
Reddy KR, Hueston FM, McKim T. Biomass production and nutrient removal poten-
tial of water hyacinth cultured in sewage effluent. Transactions of the ASME
1985;107:128–35.
Reddy KR, Smith WH, editors. Aquatic plants for water treatment and resource
recovery. Orlando, FL: Magnolia Publishing Inc; 1987. p. 1032.
Reddy KR, Sutton DL. Water hyacinths for water quality improvement and biomass
production. Journal of Environmental Quality 1984;13:1–8.
Regalbuto JR. Cellulosic biofuels—got gasoline? Science 2009;325:822–4.
Rogers HH, Davis DE. Nutrient removal by water hyacinth. Weed Science
1972;20:423–8, In 1987 Aquatics Plants for Water Treatment and Resource
Recovery, Magnolia Publishing Inc.
Science. Cattails. Science Encyclopedia, vol. 1. Net Industries; 2007, Available at:
http://science.jrank.org/pages/1282/Cattails.html [accessed: 2.07.07].
Service RF. Another biofuels drawback: the demand for irrigation. Science
2009;326(5952):516–7.
Shoeb F, Singh HJ. Kinetic studies of biogas evolved from water hyacinth. In: The 2nd
International Symposium on New Technologies for Environmental Monitoring
and Agro-Applications; 2000.
Sooknah RD, Wilkie AC. Nutrient removal by floating aquatic macrophytes cultured
anaerobically digested flushed dairy manure wastewater. Ecological Engineer-
ing 2004;22:27–42.
Strahan RE. Control of two perennial grasses in southern turf-grasses. Doctorate
dissertation. Agricultural and Mechanical College, Louisiana State University,
Baton Rouge, LA; 2002.
Systat Software. SigmaStat 3.1. Users manual. Point Richmond, CA: Systat Software;
2004.
Tripathi BD, Upadhyay AR. Dairy effluent polishing by aquatic macrophytes. Water,
Air, and Soil Pollution 2003;143:377–85.
UF/IFAS Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants. Water hyacinth. University of Florida,
Gainesville, FL; 2007, Available at: http://aquat1.ifas.ufl.edu/hyacin2.html
[accessed: 27.06.07].
Wolverton BC. Aquatic plants for wastewater treatment: An overview. Orlando, FL:
Magnolia Publishing Inc; 1987.
Wolverton BC, McDonald RC. Nutritional composition of water hyacinths grown on
domestic sewage. Economic Botany 1978;32:363–70.
Xuan MB, Ogle B, Lindberg JE. Use of duckweed as a protein supplement for breeding
ducks. Asian-Australian Journal of Animal Sciences 2002;15(6):866–71.