Purification Effects of Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia Crassipes) On Domestic Sewage

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/301684125
Puriﬁcation Effects of Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) on Domestic

Sewage
Thesis · June 2009

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4502.0565
CITATIONS READS
0 1,302
1 author:
Fidelis O. Ajibade
Federal University of Technology, Akure
28 PUBLICATIONS 55 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Efficient Wastewater Treatment View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Fidelis O. Ajibade on 28 April 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

PURIFICATION EFFECTS OF WATER HYACINTH
(EICHHORNIA CRASSIPES) ON DOMESTIC SEWAGE
CONSIDERING THE CHEMICAL AND BACTERIOLOGICAL
PARAMETERS
BY
AJIBADE; FIDELIS ODEDISHEMI
(04/30GA023)
BEING A PROJECT REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL AND BIOSYSTEMS
ENGINEERING, FACULTY OF ENGINEERING AND
TECHNOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN
IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT FOR THE AWARD OF BACHELOR

OF ENGINEERING (B.Eng.) DEGREE IN AGRICULTURAL
ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN, ILORIN NIGERIA
JUNE, 2009
1
APPROVAL PAGE
This project has been read and approved as meeting the requirement of the
Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering in the Faculty of Engineering
and Technology, University of Ilorin for the Award of Bachelor of Engineering Degree in
Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering (B.Eng.) (Agricultural).
Dr. K. A. Adeniran Date

(Project Supervisor)
Prof. A. O. Ogunlela Date

(Head of Department)
Prof. A.Y. Sangodoyin

External Examiner Date
2
Dedication
This project is dedicated to Almighty God, the creator of the universe, Jesus
Christ (the one through whom God created everything in heaven and earth); the one who
came to redeem and reconcile me back to Himself and to the Holy Spirit (Spirit of God,
Comforter, Spirit of truth, Counsellor and Teacher) who leads into all truth and lives
within us (believers).
3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I remain indebted to my project supervisor, Dr. K.A. Adeniran for his timely
insights, appreciated encouragement and constructive comments that eased the successful
completion of this project. To my parents, Mr. and Mrs. Ajibade, being my parent is not a
misadventure, your encouragement, involvement, prayer, counseling, unflagging interest
and indefatigable support has helped me in achieving the set goal of producing this
project report. You are unequalled. My warm regards goes to the Head of Department
(Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering), Professor A.O. Ogunlela and other lecturers
for their moral support. I’m extremely and sincerely grateful to my project laboratory
analyst, Mr. Johnson Thomas for his relentless support throughout the course of
producing this project report. My profound and sincere gratitude goes to my guardian,
Engr. A.E. Aiyede for his hospitality during my stay with him.
To my colleagues (500 level graduating students), being together in oneness and
harmony is one peculiar thing that remains memorable; you guys are unique, wishing you
enviable success in all your endeavours. To the believers at WCF both past and present –
for sending showers of encouragement and flood of prayers. I never dreamt I would have
the privilege of serving with such a faithful family. I thank God for what he is doing. To
my superb pals (Adeyemi Damilola, Adeoti Tosin and Kehinde David), you’ve brought
sunshine to my life and the lives of others, if friends were like yours, the world will run
smoothly without stress.

4
To Patience, Comfort, Sunny, Cornelius, Victor and Peace - Should I ever doubt
God’s goodness, I need only to look at you guys. Thanks for being the best siblings in the
world. I thank my project partner, (Taiwo; Emmanuel M), Pa josh, Rashmoll, Bukky
Olayinka, Phoyinsola, Wale Ajiboye, Kabir, Bello (2stroke), Tope Akinsola and
everybody for their contributions, fervor and constant prodding whenever I appeared to
display fatigue and stolidity.
Finally, history without God is a chaos without design or end or aim. I’m eternally
grateful to God for his endless aquifer of grace, your sacrifice for me is something I still
can’t grasp fully yet. You are ineffable.
5
ABSTRACT
The effectiveness of water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) for the purification of

sewage was investigated. The study was carried out in the Department of Agricultural
and Biosystems Engineering. Three treatments of water hyacinth replicated two times
were used in the study. These treatments include no water hyacinth (control), 1kg and
2kg water hyacinth plant density cultures. The system was designed based on Completely
Randomized Design (CRD). Sewage samples were collected during the growth of water
hyacinth. Purification of water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) on sewage was rapid
during the first three weeks in the sewage cultured with water hyacinth (especially 2kg
water hyacinth plant density) and there was low absorption in nutrients in the last two
weeks when attaining maturity. Parameters such as Cl-, Fe, Cu, Mn, Pb, K, F-, Nitrate and
Sulphate were drastically reduced from 9mg/l to 3.33mg/l, 1.25mg/l to 0.36mg/l, 0.3mg/l
to 0 mg/l, 0.5mg/l to 0.08mg/l, 0.2mg/l to 0.01mg/l, 1.7mg/l to 0.17mg/l, 0.7 mg/l to
0.08mg/l, 8.6mg/l to 0.03mg/l, 17.5mg/l to 6.20mg/l respectively throughout the course
of the study. The purification by water hyacinth had no effect on the bacteriological
parameters (Agar count, E-coli, Coliform). Also, the 2kg water hyacinth plant density
cultured in the sewage purifies more compared to the 1kg water hyacinth plant density
which is moderate and minimal in the control treatment. One way analysis of variance
was used to compare the means of the parameters tested. It shows that parameters like
CO2, Mn, lead and sodium have significant difference between the control treatment with
both the 1kg and 2kg water hyacinth plant density culture while parameters like pH,
magnesium hardness, calcium hardness and calcium total have no significant difference
between the no water hyacinth culture( control) with the 1kg and 2kg water hyacinth
plant density culture. Finally, sewage parameters like BOD, COD, dissolved oxygen, Cu,
F-, nitrate, phosphate, potassium, dissolved solids, suspended solids, sulphate, iron, Cl-
and magnesium total were not affected.
6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COVER PAGE
APPROVAL i
DEDICATION ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iii
ABSTRACT v
TABLE OF CONTENTS vi
LIST OF TABLES xi
LIST OF FIGURES xii
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background 1
1.1.1 Origin and Distribution of Water Hyacinth 2
1.1.2 Morphology of Water Hyacinth 2
1.1.3 Characteristics of Water Hyacinth 4
1.1.4 Taxonomy and Species of Water Hyacinth 4
7
1.1.5 Nutritive Value of Water Hyacinth 5
1.2 Project Objectives 6
1.3 Project Justification 8
1.4 Scope and Limitation of Study 8
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Origin of Water Hyacinth 9
2.2 Effects or Negative Consequences of Water Hyacinth 9
2.3 Application in Biological Wastewater Treatment 10
2.3.1 Water Hyacinth as Raw Material for Biofertilizer 11
2.3.2 Potentials as a Feedstuff 11
2.3.3 Water Hyacinth as a Raw Material for Pulp, Paper and Fibre 15
2.3.4 Water Hyacinth; Biogas 15
2.3.5 Removal of Phosphorus from Static Sewage Effluent by Water Hyacinth 16
2.3.6 Fluoride Uptake by Water Hyacinth 17
CHAPTER THREE
MATERIALS AND METHOD
3.1 Sewage Characteristics 18
3.1.1 Chemical Characteristics 18
3.1.2 Bacteriological Characteristics 18
8
3.2 Experimental Site Location 19
3.3 Experimental Design 19
3.4 The Laboratory Test Parameter Includes 20
3.5 Sewage sampling method 21
3.6 Materials Used 21
3.7 Experimental Methods 22
3.8 Test Analysis 23
3.9 Test Procedure 23
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Result of Sewage Analysis 24
4.2 Chemical and Bacteriological Parameters 24
4.2.1 pH Value 24
4.2.2 Calcium Hardness 25
4.2.3 Magnesium Hardness 28
4.2.4 Magnesium (Total) 28
4.2.5 Calcium (Total) 31
4.2.6 Carbon (IV) oxide 31
4.2.7 Chloride 34
4.2.8 Iron 34
4.2.9 Copper 34
4.3.0 Manganese 37
9
4.3.1 Lead 37
4.3.2 Fluoride 40
4.3.3 Sulphate 40
4.3.4 Nitrate 42
4.3.5 Phosphate 42
4.3.6 Sodium 44
4.3.7 Potassium 46
4.3.8 Dissolved solids 46
4.3.9 Suspended solids 46
4.4.0 Oxygen consumed (COD) 49
4.4.1 Dissolved Oxygen (DO) 49

4.4.2 Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) 51
4.4.3 Ammonia 51
4.4.4 Agar Total Count 54
4.4.5 Coliform 54
4.4.6 E-coli 54
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1 Conclusion 56
5.2 Recommendation 57
REFERENCE 59
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Result of Parameters with Treatment of No Water Hyacinth
1
0
Culture (Control Experiment) 62
Appendix B: Result of Parameters with Treatment of 1kg Water Hyacinth
Culture 68
Appendix C: Result of Parameters with Treatment of 2kg Water Hyacinth
Culture 74
Appendix D: Comparism of Mean Values of Control, 1kg and 2kg Water

Hyacinth Culture 79
Appendix E: Statistical Analysis of Mean Values of No water Hyacinth,1kg and

2kg Water Hyacinth Culture 83
1
1
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Comparison between the 1973 FAO protein reference and the protein of water
hyacinth leaves grown in human wastes (g/100gprotein) 7
Table 2.1 Analysis of Water Hyacinth, Water Lettuce and Guinea grass for eight
different Minerals 13
Table 2.2 Proximate composition (%) of NIOMR fish feed and dried water hyacinth
13
Table 2.3 Growth Increase (%) of Tilapia Fed with NIOMR Feed and Water hyacinth
(Based on Table 2.2) Over Eight Week Period. 13
Table 2.4 Composition of Water Hyacinth and Guinea grass 14
Table 2.5 Crude Protein (%) of Water hyacinth and Guinea grass silage supplemented
with different nitrogen sources and various levels of maize 14
Table 4.1 Statistical Analysis of Mean values of ph Results 26
Table 4.2 Statistical Analysis of Mean values of Calcium Result 27
Table 4.3 Statistical Analysis of Mean values of Magnesium hardness result 29
Table 4.4 Statistical Analysis of Mean values of Calcium total Result 32
Table 4.5 Statistical Analysis of Mean values of CO2 Result 33
Table 4.6 Statistical Analysis of Mean values of Manganese Result 38
Table 4.7 Statistical Analysis of Mean values of Lead Result 39
Table 4.8 Statistical Analysis of Mean values of Sodium Result 45

Table 4.9 Statistical Analysis of Mean values of Ammonia Result 53
Table 4.10 Agar Total Count 55
Table 4.11 Coliform 55
Table 4.12 E-coli 55
12
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. 4.1 Relationship between Ph and Treatments in terms of Number of Weeks 26
Fig.4.2 Relationship between Calcium Hardness and Treatments in terms of
Number of Weeks 27
Fig.4.3 Relationship between Magnesium Hardness and Treatments in terms of
Number of Weeks 29
Fig.4.4 Relationship between Magnesium Total and Treatments in terms of
Number of Weeks 30
Fig. 4.5 Relationship between Calcium Total and Treatments in terms of
Number of weeks 32
Fig.4.6 Relationship between CO2 and Treatments in terms of Number of Weeks 33
Fig.4.7 Relationship between Chloride and Treatments in terms of No. of Weeks 33
Fig.4.8 Relationship between Iron and Treatments in terms of Number of Weeks 35
Fig.4.9 Relationship between Copper and Treatments in terms of No. of Weeks 36
Fig. 4.10 Relationship between Manganese and Treatments in terms of

Number of Weeks 38
Fig.4.11 Relationship between Lead and Treatments in terms of No. of Weeks 39
Fig.4.12 Relationship between Fluoride and Treatments in terms No. of Weeks 41
Fig.4.13 Relationship between Sulphate and Treatments in terms of Number of

Weeks 41
Fig.4.14 Relationship between Nitrate and Treatments in terms of Number of
weeks 43
Fig.4.15 Relationship between Phosphate and Treatments in terms of Number
of Weeks 43
Fig.4.16 Relationship between Sodium and Treatments in terms of Number of

Weeks 45
13
Fig.4.17 Relationship between Potassium and Treatments in terms of Number of
Weeks 47
Fig.4.18 Relationship between Dissolved Solids and Treatments in terms of
Number of Weeks 47
Fig.4.19 Relationship between suspended solids and Treatment in terms of

Number of Weeks 48
Fig.4.20 Relationship between Oxygen Consumed and Treatments in terms of
Number of Weeks 50
Fig.4.21 Relationship between Dissolved oxygen and Treatments in terms of
Number of Weeks 50
Fig.4.22 Relationship between Biochemical Oxygen Demand and Treatments in

terms of Number of Weeks 52
Fig.4.23 Relationship between Ammonia and Treatments in terms of Number of
Weeks 52
14
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Water treatment and distribution have become extremely important all over the
world due to population growth, growing urbanization health and environmental
pollutions. Water supply are purified or treated to get rid of harmful substances or reduce
them to the minimum permissible limit to make them safe and fit for human consumption
or suitable for the intended general domestic uses. Wastes resulting from water treatment
operations (sludge) are usually discharged into surface waters. This method of disposal
often causes the build-up of a sludge deposits in streams. The effects of sludge effluent
has a characteristics such as dissolved oxygen (DO), nitrates and suspended solids on the
environment have been established for sewage plant effluents. However, little work has
been done on determining the levels of these parameters in water treatment plant
effluents (Abdulazeez, 2003). The use of aquaculture as a means of treating wastewater
involves both natural and artificial wetlands and the production of algae and higher plants
(submersed and emersed), invertebrates and fish to remove contaminants such as
manganese, chromium, copper, Zinc and Lead from the water. The water hyacinth
(Eichhornia crassipes) appears to be one of the most promising aquatic plants for the
treatment of wastewater and has received the most attention in this regard.
15
1.1.1 Origin and Distribution of Water Hyacinth
Eichhornia crassipes (common water hyacinth) is one of the world’s major free-
floating aquatic macrophytes with long hanging roots in water. Early records of its
presence in River Nile were in the later part of the 18th century (Garry et al., 1997). The
plant now circum-globed in tropical and subtropical regions was first noticed in Nigeria
waters on the shore of Lagos lagoon in October 1984 (Ekelemu, 1998) but has since
spread to other parts of the country, particularly in the coastal states. Coupled with the
near stable nature of the tropical environment, the plant is euryhaline tolerating both fresh
and marine waters, hence its spread knows no boundaries. Further to this, man through
his activities such as discharge of wastewater, industrial effluents, run-off from land into
the water system has greatly altered the hydrological regime of the water thereby
increasing the nutritive level of the aquatic environment which favours the growth and
spread of the plant.
1.1.2 Morphology of Water Hyacinth
Water hyacinth is a non- invasive, free-floating aquatic macrophyte. With board,
thick and glossy ovate leaves, water hyacinth may rise some one meter in height. Its
dramatic lavender flower and shiny green leaves makes it highly prized as an ornamental
plant. The leaves are 10-20 cm across, supported above the water surface by long spongy
tissue and bulbous stalk. The feathery, freely hanging roots are purplish black. As much
as 50 percent of a single water hyacinth’s biomass can be roots which extend to a depth
16
of up to 2 feet in the water (Ha and Bo 2007). According to Integrated Pest Management
(IPM), water hyacinth thrives in tropical regions and in water that are high in nutrients.
The leaves are arranged in a rosette. The leaf stem is somewhat to completely swollen
and filled with spongy tissue and thus act as a float.
Water hyacinth is capable of sexual and asexual reproduction and both modes are
important to the species' success as a pernicious aquatic invader. In mild climates, plants
can flower year-round, and from early spring to late fall elsewhere. They can produce an
abundance of seeds (Flora of North America 2003, Langeland and Burks 1998). A study
by Barrett (1980b) confirmed that tropical E. crassipes populations produced twice as
many seeds as did temperate populations and attributed the difference to higher rates of
pollinating insect visitation in the tropics. Seed germination tends to occur when water
levels are down and the seedlings can grow in saturated soils. Vegetative reproduction
occurs via the breaking off of rosettes of clonal individuals. The stolons (horizontal
shoots capable of forming new shoots and adventitious roots from nodes) are easily
broken by wind or wave action and floating clonal plants and mats are readily transported
via wind or water movement (Barrett 1980a, Langeland and Burks 1998). Vegetative
reproduction occurs from late spring through fall. Parts of the stem may break off at the
water surface to form independent plants called daughter.
17
1.1.3 Characteristics of Water Hyacinth
The population of water hyacinth doubles between 5 – 15 days under favourable
conditions. Its biomass weighs 25kg per square meter or 400 tonnes per hectare if
completely undisturbed. Its seed can remain viable for up to 15 years in water, silt or
mud. Leaf size is an accurate indicator of the nutrient level of the water body; in fact,
experience from Zambia has shown that water hyacinth itself displays a poor showing as
a flower in a pot filled with clear tap water. The evapotranspiration rate is about 1.02 –
13.4 (average 2.5) times that from water mass. Other features including rosettes of
rounded and leathery, waxy, glossy green leaves attached to thick, spongy (often bulbous
or inflated for floatation) petioles (stalks), dark feathery roots that typically hang
suspended in the water below the floating plant, and attractive lavender flowers when the
plants are in bloom. The inflorescence is a distinct aerial spike growing to 30 cm, the
flowers have six stamens, and the fruit is a 3-chambered seed capsule (Langeland and
Burks 1998).
1.1.4 Taxonomy and Species of Water Hyacinth
Taxonomy of Water Hyacinth
Kingdom: Plantae
Phylum/Division: Magnoliophyta
Class: Liliopsida
Order: Liliales
18
Family: Pontederiaceae
Genus: Eichhornia
Specie: crassipes
The species include:
Eichhornia azurea- Anchored Water Hyacinth
Eichhornia crassipes- Common Water Hyacinth
Eichhornia diversifolia- Variable leaf Water Hyacinth
Eichhornia paniculata- Brazilian Water Hyacinth
According to California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) and Smithsonian
Marine Station (SMS), Eichhornia speciosa, Piaropus crassipes, Eichhornia crassicaulis,
Eichhornia cordifolia, Heteranthera formosa and Pontederia crassipes are synonymous
scientific names of common water hyacinth.
1.1.5 Nutritive Value of Water Hyacinth
According to United Nations University research, it was reported how close
protein we eat and water hyacinth grow in human waste. Water hyacinths have a water
content of over 90 percent. The dry matter contains between 10 and 26 percent of crude
protein but the leaves contain higher levels (about 38 percent). The mineral content
depends directly on the water where the hyacinth grows, but the mean value ranges from
17.0 to 26 percent. The fibre level averages about 20 percent. For leaf flour, for example,
a Net Protein Ratio (NPR) value of 3.7 was found (this is 85 percent of the casein
19
control); for petioles, the NPR was 1.7, but we expected this because of the high fibre
content in this part of the plant. For the total plant, the result was poor, but this can be
explained on the basis of its high fibre content, and principally because of the high
mineral levels in the roots. The protein quality of water hyacinth leaves grown on human
waste is presented in Table 1 in comparison with the FAO reference pattern. This table
shows that water hyacinth may be a good source of high quality protein and other
nutrients like vitamins.
1.2 Project Objectives
The primary objective was to determine the purification effects of water hyacinth
on sewage considering the chemical and bacteriological parameters.
Secondary objectives include
- To determine the quantity of polluting substances consumed by the plant in the
purification process.
- To adopt optimum treatment on sewage to obtain the effluent of high quality.
- To determine how aquatic plants (water hyacinth) could be properly utilized on
sewage purification
20
Table 1: Comparison between the 1973 FAO protein reference and the protein of water
hyacinth leaves grown in human wastes(g/100gprotein)
AMINO ACID FAO REFERENCE WATER HYACINTH GROWN IN
PATTERN HUMAN WASTES
Lysine 5.4 5.7
+
Methionine
Cystine 3.5 2.5
Threonine 4.0 4.3
Isoleucine 4.0 4.7
Leucine 7.0 8.3
Valine 5.0 5.6
+
Phenylalanine
Tyrosine 6.1 8.8
Tryptophan 0.96 1.0
Histidine 2.2
Source: http://www.unu.edu/unupress/food/8f044e/8F044E0c.htm 12th November, 2008
21
1.3 Project Justification
Sewage needs to be treated before it is being released into water bodies, as
it destroy the inhabitants of water and make it unfit for usage, so therefore, this
project report is focused to create consciousness that aquatic plant (water hyacinth in
this case which is mostly referred to as notorious or nuisance) provides alternative to
more costly, conventional means of sewage purification and reduce to the barest
minimum any harmful activities of the sewage that will eventually be discharged into
the water course.
1.4 Scope and Limitation of Study
The study is centred on chemical and bacteriological parameters of water
hyacinth on domestic sewage purification.
22
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Origin of Water Hyacinth
Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) is a free-floating annual aquatic
weed. The plant was reported to be native or indigenous to South America and
possibly some of the Caribbean Islands (Bock, 1966). Its spread to different parts of
the world such as United States of America, Bengal, Java, Indonesia, Sudan and
Senegal is surrounded with various tales. On the African continent, water hyacinth
was first reported in Egypt between 1879 and 1893; in South Africa in 1908; Nigeria
(1983) and Uganda (1987). It is now popularly believed that water hyacinth entered
Lake Victoria via the Kagera River which drains the Rwanda and Burundi water
catchments in 1990 (Osienala, 1990). Ironically, water hyacinth is also well known
for its very attractive blue flowers! From the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, the water
hyacinth has spread very rapidly to virtually every country in Africa and it is feared
that before long all fresh water bodies in Africa are likely to be infested by this
“killer” weed as manipulated by its numerous negative consequences.
2.2 Effects or Negative Consequences of Water Hyacinth
Water hyacinth has a multitude of direct and indirect effects on almost all
aspect of human life once a water body on which man so much depends is invaded
and covered by the weed mats (Schneider, 1996): fisheries; water supply;
23
hydroelectric power generation; human health, agriculture; transport; biodiversity;
evapotranspiration and increased cost of water treatment are some of the adverse
effects. Once the water body is covered by the water hyacinth, fishing activities will
be curtailed as landing sites would be inaccessible. Furthermore, breeding sites will
be reduced and fishermen take longer to reach fishing ground. Water supply will be
affected as intake works would be clogged and the irrigation canals will be clogged or
their hydraulic efficiency drastically reduced. Transport by ships or boats will be
hindered. Also, evapotranspiration is increased as loss of biodiversity in the water
body covered by the water hyacinth; the cost of purifying water tainted by water
hyacinth will be increased tremendously. Hydroelectric power production will be
affected since turbines would be clogged.
2.3 Application in Biological Wastewater Treatment
The application of water hyacinth for wastewater treatment in Nigeria is
gradually gaining round. Ogunlade (1992) reported its potential as a mopping agent
and scavenger of heavy and toxic elements in industrial and domestic effluents.
Akobundu (1987) reported the use of water hyacinth for waste water treatment by
some agencies. Laboratory analysis has shown that water hyacinth is of a high
absorptive capacity (Soerjani, 1984).Although it is relatively poorer in extraction of
nutrition when compared to water lettuce and guinea grass (Table 2.1). It functions as
an effective mopping agent and scavenger of heavy metals like Cadmium, mercury
24
and nickel. And also its extraction of extraction of chemical substances such as
nitrates, phosphates, ammonia, silicate, chlorine and sulphur deposited in the aquatic
habitat from industrial and domestic effluent is remarkable (Ogunlade, 1992). Its
vigorous growth and repeated cultivation coupled with its capacity to extract nutrients
efficiently from its medium makes it a good candidate for the purification of turbid
and polluted waters.
2.3.1 Water Hyacinth as Raw Material for Bio-fertilizer
Bio-fertilizer is achieved to be a sustained source of plant nutrient due to
its improvement of soil structure as well as the slow nutrients. The biomass of water
hyacinth can be used directly as green manure as compost (Adekoya, 2000). The
coarse powder obtained from the root of water hyacinth has effectively been used to
aid crop production in economic crops such as vegetables (Oso, 1988). It can be
utilized as green fertilizer, animal fodder and means of metal remediation
(Gunnarsson and Petersen, 2007).
2.3.2 Potentials as a Feedstuff
The dearth of animal protein with increasing cost of food production
coupled with rapid population growth necessitate the search for non-conventional
sources of protein such as leaf protein concentrate from water hyacinth (Ogunlade et
al., 1988). The plant in combination with concentrate of other feeds has proved to be
a good quality protein source for animal feed (Igbinosun and Talabi, 1982). When
25
compared with conventional (Nigerian Institute of Oceanography and Marine
Research) NIOMR feeds, dried water hyacinth was found to be a suitable artificial
feeds for the culture of tilapia (Table 2.2 and 2.3). Some other documented research
findings have indicated that water hyacinth has great potential as animal feed source
(Table 2.3 and 2.4). It has a reasonable amount of crude protein content, and
compares more favourably with guinea grass that has been enjoyed widespread use as
silage to feed livestock. Pig can consume 1 – 2 kg fresh weight of water hyacinth
daily. The dried, crushed ones are used in mixtures of various percentages, 2.5 – 10%
with the ordinary feed for pig, chicken, ducks, cow and rabbits (Soerjani, 1984). This
has limited scope in the present practice and the quantity potentially utilized is not
substantial enough to meet the control target.
Aderibigbe and Brown (1993) have demonstrated that the nutritive value
as well as nutrient digestibility of water hyacinth is enhanced when dried and
supplemented with high energy ingredient and a suitable protein source (Table 2.5).
Thus, water hyacinth though now a foe, is a potential savior of the animal feed
industry that is currently groaning under high cost of feedstuff.
26
Table 2.1: Analysis of Water Hyacinth, Water Lettuce and Guinea grass for eight
different Minerals
Mineral Water hyacinth Water lettuce Guinea grass
concentration(ppm)
Calcium (Ca) 1,808 6,594 4,545
Phosphorus (P) 791 1,108 3,030
Potassium (K) 46,060 72,524 2,257
Magnesium (Mg) 3,114 3,305 2,952
Sodium (Na) 3,784 2,043 174
Manganese (Mn) 222 156 212
Iron (Fe) 2,557 6,717 213
Copper (Cu) 20 31 26
Source: Aderibigbe and Brown (1993)
Table 2.2: Proximate composition (%) of NIOMR fish feed and dried water hyacinth
Components NIOMR Feed Water Hyacinth
Crude Protein 38.5 14.2
Crude Fibre 9.0 20.4
Crude Fat - 3.3
Lipids 6.8 -
Moisture 13.4 10.4
Others 32.3 -
Ash - 27.2
N-free extract - 24.6
Source: Igbinosun and Talabi (1982)
Table 2.3: Growth Increase (%) of Tilapia Fed with NIOMR Feed and Water hyacinth
(Based on Table 2.2) Over Eight Week Period.
NIOMR Feed Dried Water Hyacinth
Weight increase 49.5 22.2
Length increase 15.4 5.5
Food conversion ratios 6.61 12.90
Source: Kusemiju and Akingboju (1998)
27
Table 2.4: Composition of Water Hyacinth and Guinea grass
Water hyacinth Guinea grass
Dry matter (DM. %) 10.2 33.1
Gross energy (Kcal/g of 2.2 3.5
DM)
Analysis of DM (%)
Organic matter(OM) 57.0 89.4
Crude Protein (CP) 11.3 6.7
Crude Fibre (CF) 11.7 30.2
Ether Extract (EE) 3.4 4.4
Ash 43.0 10.6
Nitrogen Free Extract 30.6 48.1
Source: Aderibigbe and Brown (1993)
Table 2.5: Crude Protein (%) of Water hyacinth and Guinea grass silage supplemented
with different nitrogen sources and various levels of maize
Level of Maize Water Hyacinth Guinea Grass
Groundnut Blood meal Groundnut cake Blood meal
cake
0 18.3 18.1 14.6 14.7
10 18.9 18.8 16.4 15.1
20 18.5 17.0 14.1 15.1
% Digestibilty 45.3 58.4 41.4 25.9
Source: Aderibigbe and Brown, 1993
28
2.3.3 Water Hyacinth as a Raw Material for Pulp, Paper and Fibre
Akobundu (1987) reported that aquatic weed can serve as raw material for
pulp and paper, fibre for making chairs, mats and baskets. It can also be used as thatch.
However, their application has not received the required attention. Thyagaraja (1983)
demonstrated how the stalks of water hyacinth could be pulped, and converted into
medium quality papers/boards such as cardboard and colored cards/cover papers. Such
pulps should however be blended with long fibrous pulps such as cotton rags and waste
paper pulps to minimize the shrinkage of paper during drying. However, the manufacture
of bond and other high quality paper is not economically viable owing to the low yields
of water hyacinth pulp. Even for the manufacture of medium quality paper/boards
Thyagaraja (1983) advised that the manufacturing unit should be attempted and this will
go a long way in stimulating community participation by reducing the nuisance created
by water hyacinth, when continuous harvest is made and manufacturing units located in
all places where water hyacinth is available in abundance and free of cost.
2.3.4 Water Hyacinth; Biogas
Biogas technology requires large amount and continuous supply of
vegetative materials for the production of methane which can be used directly in
homes for cooking and heating and even in agriculture for dying or converted to other
sources of energy such as electricity. The utilization of water hyacinth through bio-
gas production is a household slogan in Porto-Novo, Benin Republic. The activity is a
29
sustainable alternative which is the most cost effective endeavour of tremendous
benefit in all communities where this weed abounds. (Tobor,1994).
Biogas production is most appropriately termed Biomethanogenesis
(National Academy of Sciences, 1987). This term was given birth to due to the high
amount of methane (40 – 65%) produced during the digestion process. For the
production of this gas on a small scale, Soerjani (1984) has suggested that a digester
of 6 in 3 in dimension be loaded with a mixture of shredded water hyacinth (stems)
and 10% by weight of cattle dung. The possibility of converting water hyacinth to
biogas or fuel ethanol is currently established in a number of developing countries,
mainly in India (Singhal and Rai 2003).
2.3.5 Removal of Phosphorus from Static Sewage Effluent by Water Hyacinth
According to Ornes and Sutton (1975), Water hyacinth was grown outdoors in
concrete tanks containing sewage effluent. Over a period of five weeks the uptake of P
was measured as 5.5 mg/g of the dry weight of the plant. The P concentration in the
effluent was 1.4 mg/litre at the start of the experiment and was reduced to 0.2 mg/litre at
the end. Of this decrease 70% took place in the first two weeks and 80% by the end of
three weeks. The hyacinth increase in (dry) weight was at a maximum during the first
week and totalled 97 g/m2 of water surface, which represented a 45% increase in the dry
weight of the plants at the start of the experiment. They conclude that this study indicated
that water hyacinths could be used to reduce P in sewage effluent to low levels. Dunigan
30
et al., (1975), in his experiment arranged Glass-house and field trials to measure the
uptake of phosphorus by water hyacinths from water having varying concentrations of
phosphorus. The phosphorus concentration at the beginning of the trials were arranged to
be 250 ppm. After 21 days, about half the phosphorus at each concentration had also been
absorbed. In the field trials, the removal of phosphorus was low.
2.3.6 Fluoride Uptake by Water Hyacinth
Rao et al (1973) analyzed plants growing in a reservoir which had a fluorine
content of 1.0 ppm. The plants were found to have 23 ppm F in the leaf and 60 ppm F in
the petiole. Hyacinths were then grown in nutrient solution to which a range of
concentrations of sodium fluoride had been added. Over four weeks the uptake of
fluoride by hyacinth plants was measured. Over a range of concentrations of 6 ppm to 26
ppm fluoride, the plants (each about 150 g) took up from 11 to 75 mg of fluoride.
However, they conclude that the efficiency of uptake was too low for hyacinth to be
considered of practical use in extracting fluorine from the typically low concentration
present in natural waters.
31
CHAPTER THREE
MATERIALS AND METHOD
3.1 Sewage Characteristics
The study of characteristics of sewage lays a crucial role in this project because
the process of treatment was determined according to the characteristics. Also, the effects
of water hyacinth were thoroughly done aiming at the effective disposal of sewage into
the natural water sources safely. In this project, the study is based on chemical and
bacteriological characteristics
3.1.1 Chemical Characteristics
The chemical characteristics of the sewage include:
 The fresh sewage from the septic sewage is alkaline in nature
 It contains organic compounds which are nitrogenous compounds (examples are urea,
protein, amino acids etc.) and non-nitrogenous compounds (examples are fats, soaps,
carbohydrates etc.)
 It contains inorganic compounds which are sand, gravel, grit etc.
 It has colloidal matter such as silt, clay etc.
3.1.2 Bacteriological Characteristics
The sewage could contain the following bacteria and micro-organisms:
32
 Bacteria such as pathogenic bacteria which is the root of all water borne diseases, non-
pathogenic bacteria which is practically harmless to human beings. Others are aerobic,
anaerobic, facultative bacteria etc.
 Micro-organisms like algae, fungi and protozoa (Basak, 2004)
3.2 Experimental Site Location
The location for this experiment was at department of Agricultural Engineering’s
experimental centre. The experiment was done under a naturally controlled environment
where some parameters/effect that may interrupt the result of the experiment was avoided
such as the effect of rainfall, sun intensity, rodents and pest on the hyacinth plant and
human activities, other external effects was put into consideration when taking the
experiment sample.
3.3 Experimental Design
The experiment was based on completely randomized design replicated twice as
shown below.
33
Triangle represents the control experiment without the water hyacinth
Oval shape represents the plastic drum with 1kg water hyacinth plant density culture
Diamond shape represents the plastic drum with 2kg water hyacinth plant density culture
34
3.4 The Laboratory Test Parameter Includes
i. Total Hardness (Calcium and Magnesium)
ii. Calcium (Total)
iii. Magnesium (Total)
iv. Carbon(iv)oxide (CO2)
v. Chloride (Cl-)
vi. Total Iron (Fe2+)
vii. Copper (Cu2+)
viii. Manganese (Mn2+)
ix. Lead (Pb2+)
x. Fluoride (F-)
xi. Sulphate (SO 42-)
xii. Nitrate (NO3-)
xiii. Phosphate (PO4)
xiv. Sodium (Na+)
xv. Potassium (K+)
xvi. Ammonia (NH3)
xvii. Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)
xviii. Oxygen Consumed (COD)
xix. Total Solids (Suspended solid and Dissolved solids)
35
xx. Dissolved Oxygen
xxi. Agar Total Count
xxii. Coliform
xxiii. E-coli
3.5 Sewage sampling method
The following are the procedures of collecting the sample of sewage for the
various laboratory tests.
i. The samples of sewage are collected out
ii. The sampling bottles are of 50cl capacity
iii. The bottles are properly cleaned before taking the sample
iv. The bottles are tightly closed by stopper as soon as they are filled up
v. The bottles were kept in a cool dry place
vi. The samples were collected from all the experiment and replicate
vii. The sewage analysis started with an hour from the point of collection
viii. The date and place of collection of the sample were noted on each bottle.
(Basak, 2004)
3.6 Materials Used
i. Three 80 litres plastic drums for the weight of 1kg water hyacinth plant density
culture.
36
ii Three 80 litres plastic drums for the weight of 2kg of water hyacinth plant density
culture.
iii. Three 80 litres plastic drums for control experiment (zero kilogram).
iv. Nine sampling bottles.
v. Glove for protection when taking samples.
vi. Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) collected from Asa Dam River in Ilorin,
Kwara State.
vii. The sewage was gotten from the septic tank in Agricultural Engineering
Department premises.
viii. Overall coat
3.7 Experimental Methods
i. The sewage was fetched and batched into the nine 80 litres plastic drums from the
septic tank for three experiments.
ii. Water hyacinth plants of 1kg and 2kg was weighed and planted in three of the 80
litres plastic drum each with equal volume of sewage (70 litres)
iii. A similar control experiment was set-up simultaneously without water hyacinth in
a three 80 litres plastic drums.
iv. The initial sewage characteristics were analyzed before planting the hyacinth
plant. The samples were taken to the laboratory and wrapped with black
cellophane bags to prevent further contaminations.
37
v. Also, the sewage with 1kg, 2kg plant density of hyacinth and without hyacinth
was taken at one week interval for measured analysis in the laboratory.
The whole experiment lasted for 6 weeks and was regularly harvested during the
course of the study.
3.8 Test Analysis
The samples for these tests were collected initially from septic tank and later from
each experimental design and replicate.
3.9 Test Procedure
The test procedures on the chemical and bacteriological parameters were carried
out at Jadeth Enterprises laboratory.
38
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Result of Sewage Analysis
The results of the chemical and bacteriological analyses performed on the sewage
samples collected from all the experimental set up for the 6 weeks treatment period (10 th
February -17th March, 2009) is as shown on the tables below in the appendices.
4.3 Chemical and Bacteriological Parameters
The followings are the observation on the chemical and bacteriological
characteristics of sewage during the experiment.
4.3.1 pH
The measured value of the pH in the raw sewage was 7.3 for all treatments. There
was a reduction in the pH values of treatment processes after the 6 weeks treatment
period, showing all treatments tend toward being acidic. However, pH values
observed within the last 1 week in the 1kg and 2kg water hyacinth plant density
culture were very close in comparison with that of the control. The raw sewage was
alkaline in nature but tends towards acidic in water hyacinth culture after 2 weeks of
treatment and was as a result of consumption of impurities while in the control there
39
was slight decrease due to environmental factors such as sunlight, this can be seen in
Figure 4.1 below. From the statistical analysis in Table 4.1 shows that there is no
significant difference between no water hyacinth culture (control experiment) with
treatment 1 and 2.
4.2.2 Calcium Hardness

From the experiment, it can be seen that the value of the calcium hardness was
unchanged for the first two weeks for the control experiment, 1kg and 2kg water hyacinth
plant density culture. A slight change was noticed in the third week, the calcium hardness
varied downward on water hyacinth plant density culture of both 1kg and 2kg from
28mg/l to 26mg/l and 28mg/l to 25mg/l respectively while 28mg/l to 25.7mg/l for the
control experiment without water hyacinth plant shown in Figure 4.2 below. From the
statistical Table 4.2 reveals that there is no significant difference between no water
hyacinth culture with both treatment 1 and treatment 2. Also, there is no significant
difference between treatment 1 and treatment 2.
40
7.4
7.2
6.8
6.6
pH
6.4
No-Water Hyacinth
6.2 Population -1kg
6 Population -2kg
5.8
Number of weeks
Fig 4.1: Relationship between pH and treatments in terms of

number of weeks
Table 4.1: Statistical Analysis of Mean values of pH Results

No water hyacinth
Sum of df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
Treatment 1 Between Groups .489 5 .098 .543 .767
Within Groups .180 1 .180
Total .669 6
Total .811 6
40
28.5
28
27.5
Calcium Hardness
27
26.5
26
25.5
25 No-Water Hyacinth
24.5 Population -1kg
24 Population -2kg
23.5
Point of Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week4 Week 5 Week 6
collection
Number of Weeks
Fig 4.2: Relationship between calcium hardness and treatments in terms
of number of weeks
Table 4.2: Statistical Analysis of Mean values of Calcium Result

No water hyacinth
Squares Square
Treatment Between 3.649 3 1.216 14.895 .026
1 Groups
Total 3.894 6
Treatment Between 10.804 3 3.601 240.079 .000
2 Groups
Total 10.849 6
Treatment 1
Squares Square
Between 3.649 3 1.216 14.895 .026
Groups
Total 3.894 6
41
4.2.3 Magnesium Hardness
The value measured for magnesium hardness in the raw sewage was 24mg/l. For
both no-water hyacinth culture (control) and the 2kg-water hyacinth plant density culture,
there was a decrease to 20mg/l in the first week and remain constant till the third week
excepting the water hyacinth plant density culture of 1kg that slightly reduced by
0.7mg/l. also, there was little decrease in the measured value of the magnesium hardness
for the three treatments showing that the effect of water hyacinth is not so significant as
can be seen in Figure 4.3. Statistical Table 4.3 reveals that there is no significant
difference between no water hyacinth culture with treatment 1 and 2, also, there is no
significant difference between treatment 1 and treatment 2.
4.2.4 Magnesium (Total)

As it was observed in the magnesium hardness, the magnesium total was also
infinitesimally reduced from 8.6mg/l to 7.5mg/l, 8.6mg/l to 7.53 and 8.6mg/l to 7.4mg/l
for the control, water hyacinth plant density culture of 1kg and 2kg respectively showing
that the water hyacinth’s feeding rate has little or no effect on the magnesium total as it
can be seen in the control experiment. This can be seen in the Figure 4.4 below.
42
30
25
Magnesium Hardness
20
15
Population -1kg
5 Population -2kg
0
collection
Number of Weeks
Fig 4.3: Relationship between magnesium hardness and treatments in
terms of number of weeks
Table 4.3: Statistical Analysis of Mean values of Magnesium hardness result

No water hyacinth
Squares Square
Treatment 1 Between 17.288 4 4.322 26.461 .037
Groups
Total 17.614 6
Treatment 2 Between 14.897 4 3.724 . .
Groups
Total 14.897 6
Treatment 1
Squares Square
Between 16.761 2 8.380 39.283 .002
Groups
Total 17.614 6
43
8.8
8.6
No-Water Hyacinth
8.4
Population -1kg
8.2
Population -2kg
8
Magnesium Total
7.8
7.6
7.4
7.2
6.8
collection
Number of Weeks
Fig 4.4: Relationship between magnesium total and treatments in

44
4.2.5 Calcium (Total)
Right from the point of collection, it can be noticed that the value of calcium total
remains constant for the first two weeks for the three experiments as can be seen in
Figure 4.5. Very minute decrease was observed in the remaining 21days of the period of
study revealing that the effect of the metabolic activities of water hyacinth did not
consume calcium ion present in the sewage. Therefore there is no significance between
the comparison of no water hyacinth culture with both the treatments 1 and 2 and also
there is no significant difference between the treatments 1 and 2 shown in Table 4.4
below.
4.2.6 Carbon (IV) oxide

The CO2 for all the plastic drums initially was 6.5mg/l. A decrease was noticed in
the first week for all the treatments while a sudden increase was observed in the second
week as a result of gain in the carbon dioxide in the environment and got reduced
drastically in the remaining weeks in both 1kg and 2kg water hyacinth plant density
culture because of the depletion of the available carbon dioxide caused by the water
hyacinth plant (Eichhornia crassipes) Since there was no fresh supply of sewage, it
eventually leads to wilting of the water hyacinth plant. From the statistical Table 4.5
reveals that there is significant difference between no water hyacinth culture with
treatment 1 and 2 while there is no significant difference between the treatment 1 and 2.
45
11.4
11.2
11
Calcium Total
10.8
10.6
10.4
No-Water
10.2 Hyacinth
10
collection
Number of Weeks
Fig 4.5: Relationship between calcium total and treatments in terms
of number of weeks
Table 4.4: Statistical Analysis of Mean values of Calcium total Result

No water hyacinth
Squares Square
Treatment 1 Between .137 2 .069 13.714 .016
Groups
Total .157 6
Groups
Total .400 6
Treatment 1
Squares Square
Between .152 3 .051 30.429 .010
Groups
Total .157 6
46
8
6
Carbon (iv) nOxide
3
No-Water Hyacinth
2
Population -1kg
1 Population -2kg
0
collection
Number of Weeks
Fig 4.6: Relationship between CO2 and treatments in terms of number
of weeks
Table 4.5: Statistical Analysis of Mean values of CO2 Result

No water hyacinth
Squares Square
Treatment 1 Between 2.523 5 .505 5.213 .320
Groups
Within .097 1 .097
Groups
Total 2.620 6
Treatment 2 Between 4.672 5 .934 .363 .842
Groups
Within 2.576 1 2.576
Groups
Total 7.249 6
47
4.2.7 Chloride
The chloride content was initially 9mg/l for all plastic drums. Figure 4.7 indicates
that there was a drop in chloride content to 8.33mg/l for the first week for the three
treatments. During the period of study, the chloride content was consumed to 3.67mg/l
for the 1kg water hyacinth culture and 3.33mg/l for 2kg water hyacinth plant density
culture while the control records 4.67mg/l at the end of the whole experiment showing
that the more the density of the plant, the more chloride ion consumed.
4.2.8 Iron
The iron content was initially 1.25mg/l from the point of collection for all the
plastic drums. Figure 4.8 shows that the iron content dropped to 0.98mg/l for first week
and to 0.52mg/l for the last week for the control treatment (without water hyacinth plant).
The fall was to 0.8mg/l in the first week and 0.4mg/l in the last week for the 1kg water
hyacinth plant density. The fall was to 0.65mg/l for the first week and 0.36mg/l for the
last week for the 2kg water hyacinth plant density culture. The Figure 4.8 shows the rapid
absorption of iron due to the metabolic activities of the plant which was rapid in the first
three weeks and low during maturity in the last three weeks.
4.2.9 Copper
The copper was initially measured to be 0.3mg/l for the three treatments from the
point of collection showing a very low concentration. In the subsequent weeks, the
copper concentrated was consumed to zero as it can be seen in Figure 4.9
48
10
9
8 No-Water Hyacinth
7 Population -1kg
Population -2kg
Chloride Cl-
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
collection
Number of Weeks
Fig 4.7: Relationship between chloride and treatments in
1.4
1.2 No-Water Hyacinth
1 Population -1kg
0.8 Population -2kg

Iron
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
collection
Number of weeks
Fig 4.8: Relationship between iron and treatments in terms of

number of weeks
49
0.35

Population -1kg
0.2
Copper
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
collection
Number of Weeks
Fig 4.9: Relationship between copper and treatments in terms of

number of weeks
50
4.3.0 Manganese
The manganese content measured 0.5mg/l initially for the three treatments as can
be seen in Figure 4.10. It can be observed that there was no change in the consumption of
manganese in the control treatment while there was a drop in the 1kg and 2kg water
hyacinth plant density culture in the first week. In the subsequent weeks, the manganese
dropped to 0.18mg/l, 0.15mg/l and 0.08mg/l for the control, 1kg and 2kg water hyacinth
plant density culture respectively at the end of the week showing that the consumptive
rate of the water hyacinth culture depend on the density. There is significant difference
between no water hyacinth culture with the treatment 1 and 2 as shown in the statistical
Table 4.6.
4.3.1 Lead
From the value gotten initially for the lead content which is 1.2mg/l revealing that
there is little concentration of lead in the raw sewage as shown in Figure 4.11. The values
remain constant in the control and 1kg water hyacinth plant density in the first three
weeks except for the 2kg water hyacinth plant density culture that was consistent in the
consumptive rate throughout the course of the study. The statistical analysis reveals that
there is only significant difference between the no water hyacinth culture and treatment 2,
there is no significant difference between treatments 1 and 2 as shown in Table 4.7
51
0.6
No-Water Hyacinth
0.5
Population -1kg
Population -2kg
0.4
Manganese
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
collection
Number of Weeks
Fig 4.10: Relationship between manganese and treatments in terms of number of
weeks
Table 4.6: Statistical Analysis of Mean values of Manganese Result

No water hyacinth
Squares Square
Groups
Total .091 6
Groups
Total .135 6
52
0.25
No-Water Hyacinth
Population -1kg
0.2
Population -2kg
0.15
Lead
0.1
0.05
0
collection
Number of Weeks
Fig 4.11: Relationship between lead and treatments in terms of number
of weeks
Table 4.7: Statistical Analysis of Mean values of Lead Result

No water hyacinth
Squares Square
Treatment 1 Between .018 4 .004 . .
Groups
Total .018 6
Groups 45
Total .024 6
53
4.3.2 Fluoride
The fluoride content for all the samples was initially 0.7mg/l. Figure 4.12 show
that the fluoride content fall to 0.68mg/l in the first week and 0.43mg/l for the last week
for the control treatment. The fall was to 0.62mg/l in the first week and 0.38mg/l for the
last week for the 1kg water hyacinth plant density culture. The fall was to 0.58mg/l in the
first week and 0.08mg/l in the last week for the 2kg water hyacinth. The fall was rapid in
the 2kg water hyacinth plant density culture compared to the 1kg water hyacinth plant
density culture and control as a result of its high plant density which accelerate the
consumption of nutrients.
4.3.3 Sulphate
The initial sulphate content was 17.5mg/l was decreased to 16.7mg/l between one
week in the control experiment while it was decreased to 0.15mg/l and 12.8mg/l in the
1kg and 2kg water hyacinth plant density culture respectively. Subsequently, decrement
finally placed the sulphate level at 11.3mg/l, 9.0mg/l and 6.2mg/l for the control
experiment, 1kg and 2kg water hyacinth plant density culture respectively. It is noted that
the water hyacinth plant density culture (1kg and 2kg) consumes more as a result of its
vigorous growth and metabolic activities on the sewage while there was a gradual
decrement in the control experiment.
54
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
Fluoride 0.4
0.2 Population -1kg
Population -2kg
0.1
0
collection
Number of Weeks
Fig 4.12: Relationship between fluoride and treatments in terms

number of weeks
20
16 Population -1kg
Population -2kg
14
12
Sulphate
10
8
6
4
2
0
collection
Number of Weeks
Fig 4.13: Relationship between sulphate and treatments in terms

of number of weeks
55
4.3.4 Nitrate
The nitrogen content measured as nitrate in all the treatment processes were
observed to be 8.6mg/l in the raw sewage. From Figure 4.14, the nitrogen content was on
the decrease throughout the treatment period due to the serious feeding of the water
hyacinth showing that the more the density of water hyacinth culture, the more the
consumption rate of Nitrate as can be seen in the case of sulphate.
4.3.5 Phosphate
The phosphorus content measured as phosphate in the treatment processes
observed in 7.5mg/l from the point of collection. Figure 4.15 shows that the phosphorus
content fall to 6.73mg/l in the first week and 4.33mg/l in the last week for the control
experiment. The fall was to 5.67mg/l in the first week and 2.67mg/l in the last week for
the 1kg water hyacinth and the fall was to 5.17mg/l in the first week and 2.5mg/l in the
last week for the 2kg water hyacinth plant density culture. There was rapid absorption of
phosphate due to metabolic activities of plant as they are growing in the first three weeks
and low absorption in the last week during maturity.
56
10
9 No-Water Hyacinth
8 Population -1kg
7 Population -2kg
6
Nitrate
5
4
3
2
1
0
collection
Number of Weeks
Fig 4.14: Relationship between nitrate and treatments in terms of
number of weeks
8
7
6
5
Phosphate
4
3 No-Water Hyacinth
2 Population -1kg
1 Population -2kg
0
collection
Number of Weeks
Fig 4.15: Relationship between phosphate and treatments in terms

of number of weeks
57
4.3.6 Sodium
From the point of collection, the sodium content was measured to 2.3mg/l. Figure
4.16 reveals that there was a diminution to 2.2mg/l in the first week and 1.8mg/l in the
last week for the control experiment (no water hyacinth plant). The diminution was to
2.07mg/l in the first week and 1.13mg/l in the last week for the population of 1kg water
hyacinth plant density culture and the diminution was to 1.67mg/l in the first week and
0.7mg/l in the last week for the 2kg water hyacinth plant density culture. There was a
great decline of sodium as a result of rapid growth (as it grows new root hairs) of water
hyacinth plant in the first three weeks and low absorption in the last three weeks during
the maturity. There is significant difference between control experiment with treatment 1
and 2 shown in Table 4.8
58
2.5
1.5
Sodium
No-Water Hyacinth
0.5 Population -1kg
Population -2kg
0
collection
Number of Weeks
Fig 4.16: Relationship between sodium and treatments in terms of
number of weeks
Table 4.8: Statistical Analysis of Mean values of Sodium Result

No water hyacinth
Squares Square
Total .840 6
Treatment 2 Between Groups 1.775 5 .355 17.749 .178
Total 1.795 6
59
4.3.7 Potassium
The potassium content was initially measured to be 1.7mg/l showing that there is
low concentration of potassium in the raw sewage. Figure 4.17 shows the reduction in the
concentration of potassium and this is more obvious in both the 1kg and 2kg water
hyacinth plant density culture as a result of their metabolic activities compared to the
control experiment which is affected by the environmental factors such as sunlight.
4.3.8 Dissolved solids

The initial concentration of the dissolved solids was 444mg/l in the raw sewage.
Figure 4.18 shows that the concentration subsides to 416mg/l at the end of the last week
for the control experiment while the 1kg and 2kg water hyacinth plant density culture
subside to 392mg/l and 389mg/l respectively. The presence of the water hyacinth through
the development of new roots in the sewage hastens the reduction of the concentration of
dissolved solids compared to the control experiment.
4.3.9 Suspended solids

The initial concentration of the suspended solids in the raw sewage was measured
to be 92mg/l. Figure 4.19 show that the concentration lessens 82.7mg/l in the first week
and 66.3mg/l in the last week for the control while it lessens from 78mg/l to 62mg/l and
71.3mg/l to 54mg/l for the 1kg and 2kg water hyacinth plant density culture respectively
and this also reveals that the action of the water hyacinth on sewage speed up the
consumption in nutrients (pollutants).
60
1.8
1.4 Population -1kg
Population -2kg
1.2
Potassium
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
collection
Number of Weeks
Fig 4.17: Relationship between potassium and treatments in terms of
number of weeks
450
440
430
420
Dissolved Solids
410
400
No-Water Hyacinth
390
Population -1kg
380
370 Population -2kg
360
collection
Number of Weeks
Fig 4.18: Relationship between dissolved solids and treatments in
61
100
90
80
70
Suspended Solids
60
50
40
20 Population -1kg
10 Population -2kg
0
collection
Number of weeks
Fig 4.19: Relationship between suspended solids and treatment in terms

of number of weeks
62
4.4.0 Oxygen consumed (COD)
The COD content in the raw sewage was measured to be 5.8mg/l and a sudden
rise was observed in the content in the second week of the experiment for all the three
treatments and a fall was observed right from the third week to the end of the
experimental analysis as shown in Figure 4.20. This is as a result in the depletion in the
leaves of the water hyacinth plant.
4.4.1 Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
The concentration of the dissolved oxygen right from the point of collection was
measured to be 5.6mg/l. Figure 4.21 shows the gradual drop in the concentration of the
dissolved oxygen in the control treatment from 4.87mg/l in the first week and 4.06mg/l in
the last week of the experiment. There was a little decrease in the dissolved oxygen in the
second week of the experiment for both 1kg and 2kg water hyacinth plant density culture
showing their vibrant growth that leads to the release of oxygen and a gradual decrease
right from the third week to the last week due to the depletion of the water hyacinth
leaves when attaining maturity
63
8
7
6
Oxygen Consumed
5
No-Water Hyacinth
4
Population -1kg
3 Population -2kg
2
1
0
collection
Number of Weeks
Fig 4.20: Relationship between oxygen consumed and treatments in terms
of number of weeks
7
6
Dissolved Oxygen
5
4
3 No-Water Hyacinth
2 Population -1kg
1 Population -2kg
0
collection
Number of Weeks
Fig 4.21: Relationship between dissolved oxygen and treatments in

64
4.4.2 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)
The measured value of the BOD in the raw sewage was 5.0mg/l. Figure 4.22
shows the gradual reduction in the BOD content for all the treatments. In the control
treatment, BOD content records a value that is a little bit higher compared to the 2kg
water hyacinth plant density culture that has the least value showing the metabolic
activities of the plant on the sewage leading to the better reduction.
4.4.3 Ammonia
The initial concentration of the ammonia in the raw sewage was diminutive and
measured to be 0.062mg/l. As it was observed in the BOD content in Figure 4.23, there
was also a continuing reduction in the ammonia content for all the treatments during the
course of the experimental analysis but better in the 1kg and 2kg water hyacinth plant
density culture and this is as a result of buoyant growth of water hyacinth on the sewage.
Table 4.9 shows that there is significant difference between the no water hyacinth culture
with treatment 1 and 2 but there was no result in statistical analysis between treatment 1
and 2
65
6
No-Water Hyacinth
5 Population -1kg
Population -2kg
4
BOD 3
0
collection
Number of weeks
Fig 4.22: Relationship between Biochemical Oxygen Demand and
treatments in terms of number of weeks
0.07
0.06
0.05
Ammonia
0.04
No-Water Hyacinth
Population -2kg
0.02
0.01
0
collection
Number of Weeks
Fig 4.23: Relationship between ammonia and treatments in terms of
number of weeks
66
Table 4.9: Statistical Analysis of Mean values of Ammonia Result
No water hyacinth
Squares Square
Treatment 1 Between Groups .000 5 .000 7.110 .277
Total .000 6
Total .001 6
67
4.4.4 Agar Total Count
The agar total count was measured in colonies on nutrient at 32•C in 24 hours was
gotten to be greater than 300 in the raw sewage and was on increase throughout the
course of the experiment revealing that the microbial pollutants are unaffected by the
presence of water hyacinth as it is shown in Table 4.10. This is because of the visible
nodules created in the root of water hyacinth plant which pave way for the bacteria to
infect the growing root hair and it leads to the bacteria cells multiplication.
4.4.5 Coliform
The coliform was measured in most probable number of organism in 100cc was
gotten to be 180+ in the raw sewage and was on increase throughout the course of the
experiment revealing that the microbial pollutants are unaffected by the presence of water
hyacinth as it is shown in Table 4.11. As the water hyacinth begins to grow on the
sewage, its roots especially the new root hairs which sprouts invites the presence of
bacterial cells and this finally contributes to the increase in the Coliform.
4.4.6 E-coli
The E-coli was measured in most probable number of organism per 100cc was
very high in the raw sewage and was on increase throughout the course of the study
revealing that the microbial pollutants are unaffected by the presence of water hyacinth as
it is shown in Table 4.12. The presence of water hyacinth creates a prime habitat and
excellent breeding areas for classic vectors of disease and thereby increases the
Escherichia coli in the sewage.
68
Table 4.10: Agar Total Count
Colonies on Nutrient Agar at 32•C in 24 Hours
Agar
Sample X >300 >300 >300 >300 >300 >300 >300
Sample Y >300 >300 >300 >300 >300 >300 >300
Sample Z >300 >300 >300 >300 >300 >300 >300
Table 4.11: Coliform

Most Probable No of Coliform Organism In 100cc
Coliform
Sample X 180+ 180+ 180+ 180+ 180+ 180+ 180+
Sample Y 180+ 180+ 180+ 180+ 180+ 180+ 180+
Sample Z 180+ 180+ 180+ 180+ 180+ 180+ 180+
Table 4.12: E-coli

Most probable no of E. Coliform per 100cc
E-coli
Sample X Very High V. High V. High V. High V. High V. High V. High
Sample Y Very High V. High V. High V. High V. High V. High V. High
Sample Z Very High V. High V. High V. High V. High V. High V. High
69
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1 Conclusion
From the experimental analysis, it can be observed that the variation pattern of
most sewage characteristics measured in the water hyacinth plant density culture (1kg
and 2kg) depicted by the rate of nutrient absorption when compared with the control
treatment (no water hyacinth) could be best described as impulsive in the first three
weeks in the water hyacinth culture while it is gradual throughout the experiment in the
control experiment with the exception of calcium hardness, COD and Dissolved Oxygen.
The bacteriological parameters including Agar count, E-coli and Coliform were on the
increase throughout the course of study. There were drastic reduction in concentration of
Chloride, Iron, Copper, Manganese, Lead, Fluoride, Sulphate, Nitrate, Phosphorus and
Potassium. This portrays that water hyacinth is more effective in removing the organic
constituents within the initial treatment period than in the microbial pollutants and also its
efficiency is at the peak within the first three weeks.
The study reveals the potential and efficacy of aquatic plant especially water
hyacinth in the removal of nutrients on sewage. It can also be concluded that the higher
the density of the plant (water hyacinth) on sewage, the more the absorption of nutrients
(pollutants) that is, the best of purification will be obtained.
70
5.2 Recommendation
The following recommendations are suggested:
1. Effect of greater concentration or population, for example 3 kilograms, 4
kilograms etc should be investigated.
2. Since the water hyacinth get totally depleted after six weeks, new set of water
hyacinth plants for each of the treatment should be cultured in the sewage to obtain
optimum purification.
3. The performance of water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) should also be
investigated. In this case, at the end of third week fresh sewage should be supplied.
4. Purification effects of other water weeds on sewage should be investigated.
5. The Department should equip the soil and water laboratory with chemicals and
equipment instead of going to other departments or laboratories in town in order to
reduce the cost of sewage analysis.
6. A feasibility study of the area should be embarked upon to know the possibility of
controlling the environment before locating the site for the experiment.
7. Government should enforce that domestic and industrial sewage be treated before
discharging it into the water bodies.
71
8. Since water hyacinth is cheap and self-multiplying, the Government should
encourage the growth on sewage pond for purification of sewage before discharging into
water bodies.
9. An awareness campaign and seminars should be organized by the government to
educate the masses on the advantages and disadvantages of water hyacinth and other
water weeds for the purification of sewage.
10. Government should also provide a means of preventing havoc caused by the plant
on waterways.
72
REFERENCE
Abdulazeez, R. 2003. Water treatment plant sludge deposit. A case study of Usuma Dam
water works unpublished Pp.3.
Adekoya, B.B. 2000. Enhanced utilization of water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes)

through biogas at Port Novo, Republic of Benin (in press).
Aderibigbe, A.O. and Brown, A.A. 1993. Nutritive characteristics of two tropical aquatic
weeds for ruminants. Ife Journal of Agriculture. Pp 73-74
Akobundu, I.O. 1987. Weed Science in the Tropics: Principle and Practices. A Wiley
Inter- of Science (1987) in making Aquatic weeds useful: Some persectives for
developing countries. Washington, D.C. USA. Pp. 73-74
Barrett S.C.H. 1980a. Sexual reproduction in Eichhornia crassipes (water Hyacinth). 1.
Fertility of clones from diverse regions. Journal of Applied Ecology 17:101-112.
Barrett S.C.H. 1980b. Sexual reproduction in Eichhornia crassipes (water hyacinth). II.
Seed production in natural populations. The Journal of Applied Ecology 17:113-
124.
Basak 2004. Environmental Engineering. Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company
Limited, New Delhi. Pp202-205
Bock, JJL (1966). An ecological study of E. crassipes with special emphasis on its
reproductive biology. Ph.D Thesis, University of California. Berkely. 186 p.
Dunigan, E.P., R.A. Phelan and Z.H. Shamsuddin 1975. Use of water hyacinths to
remove nitrogen and phosphorus from eutrophic waters. Hyacinth Control J.,
13:59–61
Ekelemu, J.K. 1998. Malacostracan species inhabiting water hyacinth (Eichhornia

crassipes) in Benin River, Southern Nigeria, Nigerian Field. 63: 149-157.
Flora of North America. 2003. 26:39-41. Published online.

(Http://www.sms.si.edu/ir/spec/plants.htm 29th May, 2009.)
Gary, H.J., Waage and Phiri, G. 1997. The water hyacinth problem in tropical Africa.
Meeting of International Water Hyacinth Consortium held at World Bank,
Washington 18-19 March, 1997.
73
Gunnarsson, C.C. and Petersen, C.M. 2007. Water Hyacinth as a resource in agriculture
and energy production: A literature review waste management; 27: 117-29.
Ha, M.A. and Bo, T.H. 2007. Possible utilization of water hyacinth nutrition and industry
in Vietnam, Horizon International Bilingual School. Vol.1 page 5.
Species of water Hyacinth

Http://www.calipc/ip/management/ipcw/pages/detailreport.cfm@usernumber=45
&surveynumber=182.php 12th November, 2008.
Taxonomy and Species of Water Hyacinth

2009.Http://www.sms.si.edu/ir/spec/plants.htm 29th May, 2009.
Nutritive Value of Water Hyancith

2008.Http://www.unu.edu/unupress/food/8f044e/8F044E0c.htm last
accessed12th November, 2008
Igbinosun, J.E and Talabi, S.O. 1982. Studies on the nutrition of brackish water catfish:
Chrysichthys nigrodigitatus. Paper presented at 2nd Conference of Fisheries
Society of Nigeria, Calabar, 24-27 January, 1982.
Kusemiju, K. and Akingboju, S.O. 1988. Comparative growth of Sarotherodon

Meianotheron (Rupell) on formulated fish feed and water hyacinth diets. The
proceedings of the International workshop/seminar on water hyacinth, Lagos, 7-
12 August, 1988. Federal Ministry of Science and Technology. Pp. 198-203.
Langeland K.A, and K.C Burks (Eds.). 1998. Identification and Biology of Non-Native
Plants in Florida's Natural Areas. UF/IFAS. 165 p.
Makhanu, K.S. 1997. Impact of water hyacinth on Lake Victoria, Jomo Kenyatta
University of Agriculture and Technology (JKUAT). Department of Civil
Engineering. pp 165-166
National Academy of Science 1987. In making Aquatic weeds useful: Some perspectives
for developing countries. Washington, D.C. USA.
Ogunlade, Y. 1992. Notes on Utilization of Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) as a

means of pollution Control. Department Of Chemistry, Adeyemi College of
Education, Ondo, Ondo State, Nigeria. Pp. 79-84
74
Ogunlade, Y., Afolabi, O.A. and Oke, O.L. 1988. Extraction of protein from water
hyacinth. The proceedings of International Workshop/Seminar on water hyacinth,
Lagos, 7th-12th August, 1988.p.1.
Ornes, W.H. and D.L. Sutton, 1975. Removal of phosphorus from static sewage effluent
by water hyacinth. Hyacinth Control J., 13:56–8
Osienala 1990. Friend of Lake Victoria, Dying Lake Victoria (Ed. By S.O. Aketch), 96p.
Oso, B.A. 1988. Invasion of Nigeria waterways by water hyacinth: Ecological and
Biological Observation. The proceedings of International Workshop/Seminar on
water hyacinth, pp. 116-123, Lagos, 7th-12th August, 1988.
Rao, K.V., A.K. Khandekar and Vaidyanadham 1973. Uptake of fluoride by water
hyacinth, Eichhornia crassipes. Ind.J.Exp.Biol. 11(1):68–9
Schneider, G., 1996. rationale and possible strategies for combating aquatic weeds,
UNEP paper, Nairobi, Kenya. Pp 165.
Singhal, V., and Rai, J.P., 2003. Biogas production from water hyacinth into channel
grass used for phytoremediation of industry effluents. Bio resource Technology;
86: 221-5
Soerjani, M. 1984. Indonesia experience in water hyacinth utilization. Proceedings of
International Conference on Water Hyacinth, Hybradad, India, February 7-11
(1983).
Thyagarajan 1983. Water hyacinth — material for hand made papers and Industry &
Environment 60): 18-21
Tobor, J.G. 1994. In Fish Network (Eds. A.A. Eyo and Adekoya B.B.) Fisheries Society
of Nigerian (FISON) Apapa. Pp 74
75
Appendix A: Result of Parameters with Treatment of No Water Hyacinth
Parameter Point of Week 1 Week 2 Week3 Week 4 Week5 Week 6

collection
Ph
pH Sample A 7.30 7.20 6.80 6.80 7.00 6.50 6.60
Sample B 6.50 6.90 6.70 6.90 7.00 6.80
Sample C 7.20 6.90 6.90 7.00 7.00 6.90
Average pH 7.30 6.97 6.87 6.80 6.97 6.83 6.77
2+
Ca hardness
Ca2+ Hardness
Sample A 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0
Sample B 28.0 28.0 28.0 25.0 25.0 25.0
Sample C 28.0 28.0 26.0 25.0 24.0 24.0
Average Ca2+ 28.0 28.0 28.0 27.3 26.0 25.7 25.7
2+
Mg hardness
Mg2+ Hardness
(mg/l)
Sample A 24.00 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 18.0 17.0
Sample B 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 19.0
Sample C 20.0 20.0 20.0 19.0 20.0 20.0
Average Mg2+ 24.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 19.7 19.3 18.7
hardness
Mg2+ (total)
2+
Mg (Total)
(mg/l)
Sample A 8.60 7.80 7.80 7.60 7.50 7.50 7.40
Sample B 7.80 7.80 7.80 7.70 7.60 7.50
Sample C 7.80 7.80 7.80 7.80 7.80 7.60
Average Mg2+ 8.60 7.80 7.80 7.73 7.67 7.63 7.50
(Total)
Ca2+ (total)
Ca2+ (Total)
(mg/l)
Sample A 11.2 11.2 11.2 11.2 11.2 11.2 11.1
Sample B 11.2 11.2 11.0 11.1 11.1 11.0
Sample C 11.2 11.2 11.2 11.0 11.0 11.0
Average Ca2+ 11.2 11.2 11.2 11.1 11.1 11.1 11.0
76
Carbon (IV) oxide (CO2)
CO2 (mg/l)
Sample A 6.50 6.50 7.50 7.50 7.00 6.50 6.40
Sample B 6.00 7.50 7.00 6.50 6.50 6.30
Sample C 6.50 7.50 7.50 6.50 6.00 5.90
Average CO2 6.50 6.33 7.50 7.33 6.67 6.33 6.20
Chloride (Cl-)
Chloride(mg/l)
Sample A 9.00 8.00 6.00 5.50 5.00 5.00 4.50
Sample B 8.50 7.00 6.50 6.00 5.50 5.00
Sample C 8.50 6.50 6.00 5.50 5.00 4.50
Average Cl- 9.00 8.33 6.50 6.00 5.50 5.17 4.67
Iron (Fe2+)
Iron(mg/l)
Sample A 1.25 0.90 0.65 0.62 0.58 0.58 0.56
Sample B 1.10 0.65 0.60 0.55 0.50 0.50
Sample C 0.95 0.70 0.68 0.60 0.55 0.50
Average Iron 1.25 0.98 0.67 0.63 0.58 0.54 0.52
2+
Copper (Cu )
Copper (mg/l)
Sample A 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sample B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sample C 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Cu2+ 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Manganese (Mn2+)
Manganese
(mg/l)
Sample A 0.50 0.50 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.30 0.25
Sample B 0.50 0.40 0.35 0.25 0.20 0.15
Sample C 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.15 0.15
Average Mn2+ 0.50 0.50 0.40 0.33 0.25 0.22 0.18
77
Lead (Pb2+)
Lead(mg/l)
Sample A 0.20 0.10 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.10 0.05
Sample B 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.05
Sample C 0.15 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.05
Average Lead 0.20 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.08 0.07 0.05
Fluoride (F-)
Fluoride(mg/l)
Sample A 0.70 0.65 0.65 0.60 0.60 0.55 0.50
Sample B 0.70 0.60 0.60 0.55 0.45 0.40
Sample C 0.70 0.65 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.40
Average F- 0.70 0.68 0.63 0.60 0.55 0.47 0.43
Sulphate (SO42-)
Sulphate(mg/l)
Sample A 17.5 16.0 14.0 13.5 13.0 12.5 12.0
Sample B 17.5 15.0 14.5 13.0 12.0 11.5
Sample C 16.5 15.0 14.0 12.5 11.0 10.5
Average SO42- 17.5
Nitrate (NO3-)
Nitrate(mg/l)
Sample A 8.60 8.60 6.50 6.00 5.50 5.00 4.50
Sample B 8.20 7.00 6.50 5.50 5.00 4.50
Sample C 8.40 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.50 4.00
Average Nitrate 8.60 8.40 6.83 6.17 5.33 4.83 4.33
Phosphate(PO4)
Phosphate
(mg/l)
Sample A 7.50 6.50 6.50 6.00 5.50 5.00 5.00
Sample B 6.50 5.50 5.00 5.50 4.50 4.00
Sample C 7.20 6.00 5.50 5.00 4.00 4.00
Average PO4 7.50 6.73 6.00 5.50 5.33 4.50 4.33
78
Sodium (Na+)
Sodium
(mg/l)
Sample A 2.30 2.20 2.30 2.20 2.10 2.00 2.00
Sample B 2.50 2.20 2.10 2.00 1.80 1.80
Sample C 1.90 2.30 2.10 1.90 1.60 1.60
Average Na+ 2.30 2.20 2.27 2.13 2.00 1.80 1.80
Potassium (K+)
Potassium mg/l)
Sample A 1.70 1.30 1.20 1.10 1.05 1.05 1.00
Sample B 1.60 1.25 1.20 1.05 1.00 1.00
Sample C 1.60 1.20 1.05 1.00 0.50 0.50
Average 1.70 1.50 1.22 1.12 1.03 0.85 0.83
Potassium
Dissolved solids
Dissolved solids
(mg/l)
Sample A 444.0 438.0 438.0 430.0 429.0 425.0 423.0
Sample B 432.0 424.0 421.0 419.0 416.0 415.0
Sample C 444.0 424.0 419.0 416.0 412.0 410.0
Average DS 444.0 438.0 428.7 423.3 421.3 417.7 416.0
Suspended solids
Suspended
solids
Sample A 92.0 86.0 74.0 70.0 68.0 64.0 62.0
Sample B 80.0 82.0 78.0 76.0 70.0 70.0
Sample C 82.0 78.0 73.0 70.0 68.0 67.0
Average SS 92.0 82.7 78.0 73.7 71.3 67.3 66.3
Oxygen consumed (COD)
COD(mg/l)
Sample A 5.80 5.20 6.00 5.60 5.60 5.60 5.40
Sample B 5.20 5.80 5.80 5.60 5.60 5.50
Sample C 5.60 6.30 6.00 5.80 5.80 5.70
Average COD 5.80 5.53 6.03 5.80 5.67 5.67 5.53
79
Dissolved oxygen
Dissolved
oxygen (mg/l)
Sample A 5.60 5.20 4.40 4.30 4.30 4.20 4.10
Sample B 4.80 4.80 4.60 4.50 4.30 4.10
Sample C 4.60 4.40 4.20 4.20 4.00 4.00
Average DO 5.60 4.87 4.53 4.37 4.33 4.16 4.06
BOD
BOD(mg/l)
Sample A 5.00 4.80 3.80 3.80 3.80 3.80 3.60
Sample B 4.40 4.00 3.70 3.80 3.60 3.50
Sample C 4.20 4.00 3.80 3.80 3.50 3.40
Average BOD 5.00 4.47 3.93 3.77 3.80 3.63 3.50
Ammonia (NH3)
Ammonia (mg/l)
Sample A 0.062 0.056 0.052 0.050 0.048 0.048 0.044
Sample B 0.062 0.058 0.055 0.050 0.050 0.047
Sample C 0.052 0.056 0.054 0.048 0.050 0.048
Average NH3 0.062 0.057 0.055 0.053 0.049 0.049 0.046
Colonies on nutrient agar at 32•c in 24 hours

Agar
Sample A >300 >300 >300 >300 >300 >300 >300
Sample B >300 >300 >300 >300 >300 >300
Sample C >300 >300 >300 >300 >300 >300
Average Agar >300 >300 >300 >300 >300 >300 >300
Most probable no of coliform organism in 100cc
Coliform
Sample A 180+ 180+ 180+ 180+ 180+ 180+ 180+
Sample B 180+ 180+ 180+ 180+ 180+ 180+
Sample C 180+ 180+ 180+ 180+ 180+ 180+
Average Coli. 180+ 180+ 180+ 180+ 180+ 180+ 180+
80
Most probable no of e. Coliform per 100cc
E-coli
Sample A Very High V. High V. High V. High V. High V. High V. High
Sample B V. High V. High V. High V. High V. High V. High
Sample C V. High V. High V. High V. High V. High V. High
Average E-coli Very High V. High V. High V. High V. High V. High V. High
81
Appendix B: Result of Parameters with Treatment of 1kg
Water Hyacinth Culture

collection
Ph
pH Sample A 7.30 7.10 6.70 6.50 6.40 6.40 6.40
Sample B 7.10 6.80 6.70 6.50 6.60 6.30
Sample C 7.10 6.80 6.70 6.60 6.90 6.40
Average pH 7.30 7.10 6.77 6.60 6.50 6.63 6.37

Ca2+ hardness
Ca2+ Hardness
Sample A 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0
Sample B 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 26.0 25.0
Sample C 28.0 28.0 28.0 26.0 26.0 25.0
Average Ca2+ 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 27.3 26.7 26.0
Mg2+ hardness
Mg2+ Hardness
(mg/l)
Sample A 24.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 18.0
Sample B 20.0 20.0 18.0 18.0 20.0 20.0
Sample C 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 19.0
Average Mg2+ 24.0 20.0 20.0 19.3 19.3 20.0 19.0
hardness
Mg2+ (total)
Mg2+ (Total)
(mg/l)
Sample A 8.60 7.80 7.80 7.60 7.60 7.60 7.60
Sample B 7.80 7.80 7.80 7.80 7.80 7.50
Sample C 7.80 7.80 7.60 7.60 7.60 7.50
Average Mg2+ 8.60 7.80 7.80 7.67 7.67 7.67 7.53
(Total)
82
Ca2+ (total)
Ca2+ (Total)
(mg/l)
Sample A 11.2 11.2 11.2 11.0 10.9 10.9 10.8
Sample B 11.2 11.2 11.0 11.0 10.9 10.7
Sample C 11.2 11.2 11.2 11.1 11.0 10.8
Average Ca2+ 11.2 11.2 11.2 11.1 11.0 10.9 10.8
Carbon (iv) oxide (co2)
CO2(mg/l)
Sample A 6.50 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.80 4.60 4.20
Sample B 5.00 5.50 5.20 5.00 4.80 4.50
Sample C 5.50 5.50 5.00 4.90 4.80 4.60
Average CO2 6.50 5.17 5.33 5.06 4.90 4.73 4.43
Chloride (cl-)
Chloride(mg/l)
Sample A 9.00 6.50 5.00 4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00
Sample B 6.50 5.50 5.00 4.00 3.50 3.00
Sample C 6.00 5.50 5.00 4.50 4.00 3.50
Average Cl- 9.00 6.33 5.33 4.83 4.17 3.67 3.67
2+
Iron (fe )
Iron(mg/l)
Sample A 1.25 0.70 0.55 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.38
Sample B 0.90 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.40 0.39
Sample C 0.80 0.60 0.55 0.50 0.45 0.42
Average Iron 1.25 0.80 0.55 0.55 0.45 0.42 0.40
2+
Copper (cu )
Copper
(mg/l)
Sample A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sample B
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sample C
Average Cu2+ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
83
Manganese (Mn2+)
Manganese
(mg/l)
Sample A 0.50 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15
Sample B 0.45 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15
Sample C 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15
Average Mn2+ 0.50 0.42 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15
Lead (Pb2+)
Lead(mg/l)
Sample A 0.20 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.02
Sample B 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.04
Sample C 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.03
Average Lead 0.20 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.07 0.05 0.03
Fluoride (F-)
Fluoride(mg/l)
Sample A 0.70 0.60 0.60 0.55 0.50 0.50 0.40
Sample B 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.50 0.45 0.40
Sample C 0.65 0.60 0.60 0.55 0.45 0.35
Average F- 0.70 0.62 0.60 0.58 0.52 0.47 0.38
Sulphate (SO42-)
Sulphate(mg/l)
Sample A 17.5 14.5 12.0 11.5 11.0 10.0 8.00
Sample B 15.5 12.5 11.5 10.5 9.50 9.00
Sample C 15.0 12.5 12.0 11.0 10.5 10.0
Average SO42- 17.5 15.0 12.3 11.7 10.8 10.0 9.00
Nitrate (NO3-)
Nitrate(mg/l)
Sample A 8.60 7.50 4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.80
Sample B 7.00 5.50 4.50 4.00 3.00 2.70
Sample C 7.00 5.50 5.00 4.50 3.50 3.00
Average 8.60 7.17 5.17 4.50 4.00 3.17 2.83
Nitrate
84
Phosphate(PO4)
Phosphate
(mg/l)
Sample A 7.50 6.00 5.00 4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00
Sample B 5.00 4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50
Sample C 6.00 4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50
Average PO4 7.50 5.67 4.67 4.17 3.67 3.17 2.67
Sodium (Na+)
Sodium
(mg/l)
Sample A 2.30 2.00 2.00 1.80 1.60 1.30 1.00
Sample B 2.00 2.00 1.90 1.80 1.50 1.10
Sample C 2.20 2.10 2.00 1.80 1.60 1.30
Average Na+ 2.30 2.07 2.03 1.90 2.60 1.47 1.13
Potassium (K+)
Potassium
(mg/l)
Sample A 1.70 1.00 1.10 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.30
Sample B 1.20 1.10 0.90 0.80 0.50 0.30
Sample C 1.30 1.00 0.90 0.70 0.50 0.40
Average 1.70 1.17 1.07 0.87 0.70 0.47 0.33
Potassium
Dissolved solids
Dissolved
solids (mg/l)
Sample A 444.0 416.0 426.0 422.0 420.0 415.0 412.0
Sample B 432.0 404.0 401.0 397.0 390.0 386.0
Sample C 422.0 414.0 410.0 405.0 400.0 392.0
Average DS 444.0 423.3 414.7 411.0 407.3 401.7 396.7
Suspended solids
Suspended
solids
Sample A 92.0 80.0 70.0 68.0 64.0 60.0 57.0
Sample B 76.0 80.0 76.0 73.0 69.0 66.0
Sample C 78.0 76.0 74.0 70.0 66.0 64.0
Average SS 92.0 78.0 75.3 72.7 69.0 65.0 62.3
85
COD
(mg/l)
Sample A 5.80 5.40 7.50 7.30 7.00 6.80 6.50
Sample B 5.00 6.50 6.00 5.80 5.50 5.20
Sample C 5.20 6.80 6.50 6.10 5.90 5.50
Average COD 5.80 5.20 6.93 6.60 6.30 6.07 5.73
Dissolved oxygen
Dissolved
oxygen (mg/l)
Sample A 5.60 5.00 5.00 4.80 4.60 4.20 4.00
Sample B 4.60 5.20 5.10 5.00 4.60 4.30
Sample C 5.00 5.00 4.90 4.70 4.40 4.10
Average DO 5.60 4.87 5.07 4.93 4.77 4.40 4.13
BOD
BOD
(mg/l)
Sample A 5.00 4.40 3.20 3.00 2.90 2.70 2.40
Sample B 4.00 3.60 3.30 3.10 2.80 2.60
Sample C 4.20 3.00 2.80 2.70 2.50 2.00
Average BOD 5.00 4.20 3.27 3.03 2.90 2.67 2.33
Ammonia (NH3)
Ammonia
(mg/l)
Sample A 0.062 0.048 0.046 0.044 0.045 0.040 0.036
Sample B 0.056 0.048 0.045 0.044 0.039 0.034
Sample C 0.058 0.046 0.043 0.046 0.042 0.038
Average NH3 0.062 0.054 0.047 0.044 0.045 0.040 0.036
•
Colonies on nutrient agar at 32 c in 24 hours
Agar
Sample A >300 >300 >300 >300 >300 >300 >300

Sample B >300 >300 >300 >300 >300 >300
Sample C >300 >300 >300 >300 >300 >300
Average Agar >300 >300 >300 >300 >300 >300 >300
86
Coliform
Sample A 180+ 180+ 180+ 180+ 180+ 180+ 180+

Sample B 180+ 180+ 180+ 180+ 180+ 180+
Sample C 180+ 180+ 180+ 180+ 180+ 180+
Average Coli. 180+ 180+ 180+ 180+ 180+ 180+ 180+
Most probable no of E. Coliform per 100cc

E-coli
Sample A Very High V. V. V. V. V. V. High

High High High High High
Sample B V. V. V. V. V. V. High
Sample C V. V. V. V. V. V. High
Average E- Very High V. V. V. V. V. V. High
coli High High High High High
87
Appendix C: Result of Parameters with Treatment of 2kg
Water Hyacinth Culture

collection
Ph
pH Sample A 7.30 7.10 6.70 6.50 6.40 6.30 6.40
Sample B 7.10 6.70 6.70 6.40 6.20 6.20
Sample C 7.10 6.70 6.70 6.50 6.90 6.30
Average pH 7.30 7.10 6.70 6.63 6.43 6.47 6.30
2+
Ca hardness
Ca2+ Hardness
Sample A 28.0 28.0 28.0 26.0 26.0 25.0 25.0
Sample B 28.0 28.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 25.0
Sample C 28.0 28.0 26.0 26.0 25.0 25.0
Average Ca2+ 28.0 28.0 28.0 26.0 26.0 25.3 25.0
2+
Mg hardness
Mg2+ Hardness
(mg/l)
Sample A 24.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 19.0 19.0 19.0
Sample B 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Sample C 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Average Mg2+ 24.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 19.7 19.7 19.7

hardness
Mg2+ (total)
Mg2+ (Total)
(mg/l)
Sample A 8.60 7.80 7.80 7.80 7.60 7.60 7.50
Sample B 7.80 7.80 7.60 7.50 7.40 7.30
Sample C 7.80 7.80 7.80 7.70 7.60 7.40
Average Mg2+ 8.60 7.80 7.80 7.73 7.60 7.53 7.40
(Total)
88
Ca2+ (total)
Ca2+ (Total)
(mg/l)
Sample A 11.2 11.2 11.2 10.9 10.8 10.6 10.3
Sample B 11.2 11.2 11.1 11.0 10.8 10.7
Sample C 11.2 11.2 11.0 10.9 10.7 10.5
Average Ca2+ 11.2 11.2 11.2 11.1 10.9 10.7 10.5
Carbon (iv) oxide (CO2)
CO2
(mg/l)
Sample A 6.50 6.50 5.50 5.00 4.50 4.20 4.00
Sample B 6.00 5.00 4.50 4.00 3.80 3.70
Sample C 6.00 5.50 5.00 4.00 3.70 3.50
Average CO2 6.50 6.17 5.33 4.83 4.17 3.90 3.73
Chloride (Cl-)
Chloride
(mg/l)
Sample A 9.00 6.00 4.50 4.00 4.50 3.30 3.00
Sample B 6.00 4.80 4.40 4.00 3.50 3.40
Sample C 6.00 5.00 4.60 4.00 3.80 3.60
Average Cl- 9.00 6.00 4.77 4.33 4.17 3.53 3.33
2+
Iron (Fe )
Iron
(mg/l)
Sample A 1.25 0.60 0.50 0.46 0.40 0.38 0.36
Sample B 0.70 0.48 0.45 0.40 0.36 0.33
Sample C 0.60 0.55 0.50 0.46 0.41 0.38
Average Iron 1.25 0.65 0.51 0.47 0.42 0.38 0.36
Copper (Cu2+)
Copper
(mg/l)
Sample A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sample B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sample C 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Cu2+ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
89
Manganese (Mn2+)
Manganese
(mg/l)
Sample A 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05
Sample B 0.40 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10
Sample C 0.40 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10
Average Mn2+ 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.23 0.18 0.13 0.08
2+
Lead (Pb )
Lead
(mg/l)
Sample A 0.20 0.10 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.01
Sample B 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.04 0.03 0.01
Sample C 0.10 0.09 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.02
Average Lead 0.20 0.10 0.09 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.01
Fluoride (F-)
Fluoride(mg/l)
Sample A 0.70 0.55 0.50 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.05
Sample B 0.60 0.45 0.35 0.30 0.15 0.10
Sample C 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.35 0.15 0.10
Average F- 0.70 0.58 0.48 0.35 0.28 0.13 0.08
Sulphate (SO42-)
Sulphate(mg/l)
Sample A 17.5 12.0 10.5 10.0 9.00 8.00 5.00
Sample B 13.5 10.8 10.5 10.0 9.50 7.00
Sample C 13.0 10.5 10.0 9.50 8.50 6.50
Average SO42- 17.5 12.8 10.6 10.2 9.50 8.70 6.17
Nitrate (NO3-)
Nitrate(mg/l)
Sample A 8.60 5.00 3.70 3.40 3.00 2.70 2.50
Sample B 4.50 4.20 3.90 3.60 3.10 2.80
Sample C 5.00 4.60 4.10 3.80 3.20 3.80
Average Nitrate 8.60 4.83 4.17 3.80 3.47 3.00 3.03
Phosphate(PO4)
Phosphate
(mg/l)
Sample A 7.50 5.50 4.00 3.50 3.30 3.00 2.60
Sample B 5.00 3.60 3.20 3.00 2.60 2.40
Sample C 5.00 3.80 3.40 3.10 2.80 2.50
Average PO4 7.50 5.17 3.80 3.37 3.13 2.80 2.50
90
Sodium (Na+)
Sodium(mg/l)
Sample A 2.30 1.70 1.70 1.40 1.10 0.80 0.50
Sample B 1.80 1.80 1.60 1.20 0.90 0.70
Sample C 1.50 1.80 1.50 1.30 1.00 0.90
Average Na+ 2.30 1.67 1.76 1.50 1.20 0.90 0.70
Potassium (K+)
Potassium(mg/l)
Sample A 1.70 0.80 0.90 0.70 0.50 0.30 0.20
Sample B 0.90 0.90 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.10
Sample C 0.90 0.90 0.70 0.60 0.40 0.20
Average 1.70 0.87 0.90 0.67 0.50 0.30 0.17
Potassium
Dissolved solids
Dissolved solids
(mg/l)
Sample A 444.0 406.0 416.0 402.0 398.0 388.0 380.0
Sample B 418.0 400.0 396.0 395.0 391.0 386.0
Sample C 408.0 406.0 400.0 396.0 393.0 389.0
Average DS 444.0 410.7 407.3 399.3 396.3 390.7 385.0
Suspended solids
Suspended
solids
Sample A 92.0 72.0 64.0 60.0 58.0 52.0 50.0
Sample B 70.0 72.0 68.0 64.0 61.0 57.0
Sample C 72.0 70.0 66.0 62.0 59.0 55.0
Average SS 92.0 71.3 68.7 64.7 61.3 57.3 54.0
COD
(mg/l)
Sample A 5.80 4.80 8.00 7.60 7.30 7.00 6.70
Sample B 4.40 7.00 6.80 6.50 6.20 6.00
Sample C 4.40 7.20 7.00 6.70 6.50 6.30
Average COD 5.80 4.53 7.40 7.13 6.83 6.57 6.33
Dissolved oxygen
Dissolved
oxygen (mg/l)
Sample A 5.60 4.20 6.40 6.10 5.80 5.60 5.00
Sample B 4.00 6.80 6.50 6.00 5.80 5.30
Sample C 4.00 6.20 6.00 5.60 5.20 4.90
91
Average DO 5.60 4.07 6.47 6.20 5.80 5.53 5.07
BOD
BOD
(mg/l)
Sample A 5.00 3.60 2.60 2.40 2.20 2.00 1.70
Sample B 3.40 2.80 2.50 2.30 2.10 1.90
Sample C 3.60 2.80 2.60 2.30 2.00 1.60
Average BOD 5.00 3.53 2.73 2.50 2.27 2.03 1.73
Ammonia (NH3)
Ammonia
(mg/l)
Sample A 0.062 0.040 0.038 0.031 0.029 0.020 0.010
Sample B 0.048 0.040 0.037 0.033 0.028 0.022
Sample C 0.050 0.040 0.036 0.031 0.026 0.020
Average NH3 0.062 0.046 0.039 0.035 0.031 0.025 0.017
•
Colonies on nutrient agar at 32 c in 24 hours
Agar
Sample A >300 >300 >300 >300 >300 >300 >300

Sample B >300 >300 >300 >300 >300 >300
Sample C >300 >300 >300 >300 >300 >300
Average Agar >300 >300 >300 >300 >300 >300 >300
Coliform
Sample A 180+ 180+ 180+ 180+ 180+ 180+ 180+

+ + +
Sample B 180 180 180 180+ 180+ 180+
Sample C 180+ 180+ 180+ 180+ 180+ 180+
+ + + +
Average Coli. 180 180 180 180 180+ 180+ 180+
E-coli
Sample A Very High V. High V. High V. High V. High V. High V. High

Sample B V. High V. High V. High V. High V. High V. High
Sample C V. High V. High V. High V. High V. High V. High
Average E-coli Very High V. High V. High V. High V. High V. High V. High
92
Appendix D: Comparison of Mean Values of No Water
Hyacinth, 1kg and 2kg Water Hyacinth Culture

collection
pH
pH Sample X 7.30 6.97 6.87 6.80 6.97 6.83 6.77
Sample Y 7.30 7.10 6.77 6.60 6.50 6.63 6.37
Sample Z 7.30 7.10 6.70 6.63 6.43 6.47 6.30
Ca2+ Hardness
Ca2+ HD (mg/l)
Sample X 28.0 28.0 28.0 27.3 26.0 25.7 25.7
Sample Y 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 27.3 26.7 26.0
Sample Z 28.0 28.0 28.0 26.0 26.0 25.3 25.0
2+
Mg Hardness
Mg2+ HD (mg/l)
Sample X 24.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 19.7 19.3 18.7
Sample Y 24.0 20.0 20.0 19.3 19.3 20.0 19.0
Sample Z 24.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 19.7 19.7 19.7
Mg2+ (Total)
Mg2+ Total
(mg/l) 8.60 7.80 7.80 7.73 7.67 7.63 7.50
Sample X 8.60 7.80 7.80 7.67 7.67 7.67 7.53
Sample Y 8.60 7.80 7.80 7.73 7.60 7.53 7.40
Sample Z
Ca2+ (Total)
Ca2+ Total
(mg/l) 11.2 11.2 11.2 11.1 11.1 11.1 11.0
Sample X 11.2 11.2 11.2 11.1 11.0 10.9 10.8
Sample Y 11.2 11.2 11.2 11.1 10.9 10.7 10.5
Sample Z
Carbon (iv) Oxide (Co2)
Co2 (mg/l)
Sample X 6.50 6.33 7.50 7.33 6.67 6.33 6.20
Sample Y 6.50 5.17 5.33 5.06 4.90 4.73 4.43
Sample Z 6.50 6.17 5.33 4.83 4.17 3.90 3.73
Chloride
Cl- (mg/l)
Sample X 9.00 8.33 6.50 6.00 5.50 5.17 4.67
Sample Y 9.00 6.33 5.33 4.83 4.17 3.67 3.67
Sample Z 9.00 6.00 4.77 4.33 4.17 3.53 3.33
93
Iron
2+
Fe (mg/l)
Sample X 1.25 0.98 0.67 0.63 0.58 0.54 0.52
Sample Y 1.25 0.80 0.55 0.55 0.45 0.42 0.40
Sample Z 1.25 0.65 0.51 0.47 0.42 0.38 0.36
Copper
Cu2+ (mg/l)
Sample X 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sample Y 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sample Z 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Manganese
Mn2+ (mg/l)
Sample X 0.50 0.50 0.40 0.33 0.25 0.22 0.18
Sample Y 0.50 0.42 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15
Sample Z 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.23 0.18 0.13 0.08
Lead
Pb2+ (mg/l)
Sample X 0.20 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.08 0.07 0.05
Sample Y 0.20 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.07 0.05 0.03
Sample Z 0.20 0.10 0.09 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.01
Fluoride
F- (mg/l)
Sample X 0.70 0.68 0.63 0.60 0.55 0.47 0.43
Sample Y 0.70 0.62 0.60 0.58 0.52 0.47 0.38
Sample Z 0.70 0.58 0.48 0.35 0.28 0.13 0.08
Sulphate
SO42- (mg/l)
Sample X 17.5 16.7 14.7 14.0 12.8 11.8 11.3
Sample Y 17.5 15.0 12.3 11.7 10.8 10.0 9.00
Sample Z 17.5 12.8 10.6 10.2 9.50 8.70 6.20
Nitrate
NO3- (mg/l)
Sample X 8.60 8.40 6.83 6.17 5.33 4.83 4.33
Sample Y 8.60 7.17 5.17 4.50 4.00 3.17 2.83
Sample Z 8.60 4.83 4.17 3.80 3.47 3.00 3.03
Phosphate
PO4- (mg/l)
Sample X 7.50 6.73 6.00 5.50 5.33 4.50 4.33
Sample Y 7.50 5.67 4.67 4.17 3.67 3.17 2.67
Sample Z 7.50 5.17 3.80 3.37 3.13 2.80 2.50
94
Sodium
+
Na (mg/l)
Sample X 2.30 2.20 2.27 2.13 2.00 1.80 1.80
Sample Y 2.30 2.07 2.03 1.90 1.73 1.47 1.13
Sample Z 2.30 1.67 1.76 1.50 1.20 0.90 0.70
Potassium
K+ (mg/l)
Sample X 1.70 1.50 1.22 1.12 1.03 0.85 0.83
Sample Y 1.70 1.17 1.07 0.87 0.70 0.47 0.33
Sample Z 1.70 0.87 0.90 0.67 0.50 0.30 0.17
Dissolved Solids
DS (mg/l)
Sample X 444.0 444.7 428.7 423.3 421.3 417.7 416.0
Sample Y 444.0 422.0 414.0 410.0 405.0 400.0 392.0
Sample Z 444.0 408.0 406.0 400.0 396.0 393.0 389.0
Suspended Solids
SS (mg/l)
Sample X 92.0 82.7 78.0 73.7 71.3 67.3 66.3
Sample Y 92.0 78.0 75.3 72.7 69.0 65.0 62.3
Sample Z 92.0 71.3 68.7 64.7 61.3 57.3 54.0
Oxygen Consumed
COD (mg/l)
Sample X 5.80 5.53 6.03 5.80 5.67 5.67 5.53
Sample Y 5.80 5.20 6.93 6.60 6.30 6.07 5.73
Sample Z 5.80 4.53 7.40 7.13 6.83 6.57 6.33
Dissolved Oxygen
DO (mg/l)
Sample X 5.60 4.87 4.53 4.37 4.33 4.16 4.06
Sample Y 5.60 4.87 5.07 4.93 4.77 4.40 4.13
Sample Z 5.60 4.07 6.47 6.20 5.80 5.53 5.07
BOD
BOD (mg/l)
Sample X 5.00 4.47 3.93 3.77 3.80 3.63 3.50
Sample Y 5.00 4.20 3.27 3.03 2.90 2.67 2.33
Sample Z 5.00 3.53 2.73 2.50 2.27 2.03 1.73
95
Ammonia
NH3 (mg/l)
Sample X 0.062 0.057 0.055 0.053 0.049 0.049 0.046
Sample Y 0.062 0.054 0.047 0.044 0.045 0.040 0.036
Sample Z 0.062 0.046 0.039 0.035 0.031 0.025 0.017
•
Colonies on Nutrient Agar at 32 C in 24 Hours
Agar
Sample X >300 >300 >300 >300 >300 >300 >300
Sample Y >300 >300 >300 >300 >300 >300 >300
Sample Z >300 >300 >300 >300 >300 >300 >300
Most Probable No of Coliform Organism In 100cc
Coliform
Sample X 180+ 180+ 180+ 180+ 180+ 180+ 180+
+ + + +
Sample Y 180 180 180 180 180+ 180+ 180+
Sample Z 180+ 180+ 180+ 180+ 180+ 180+ 180+
E-coli
Sample X Very High V. High V. High V. High V. High V. High V. High
Sample Y Very High V. High V. High V. High V. High V. High V. High
Sample Z Very High V. High V. High V. High V. High V. High V. High
Keys:
Sample X denotes mean of No water hyacinth culture (control)
Sample Y denotes mean of 1kg water hyacinth culture
Sample Z denotes mean of 2kg water hyacinth culture
96
Appendix E: Statistical Analysis of Mean Values of No Water
Hyacinth, 1kg and 2kg Water Hyacinth Culture
The statistical significance was set at P<0.05. Ho: There is significant difference,
if the significance value is less than 0.05 reject Ho and greater than 0.05accept Ho.
Statistical Analysis of Mean values of pH Result

No water hyacinth
Sum of df Mean Square F Sig.
Squares
Total 669 6

Total .811 6
Treatment 1
Squares
Between Groups .669 6 .112 . .
Within Groups .000 0 .
Total .669 6
Statistical Analysis of Mean values of Calcium hardness Result

No water hyacinth
Squares
Treatment 1 Between Groups 3.649 3 1.216 14.895 .026
Total 3.894 6
9
Total 10.849 6
Treatment 1
Squares
Between Groups 3.649 3 1.216 14.895 .026
Total 3.894 6
97
Statistical Analysis of Mean values of Mg hardness Result
No water hyacinth
Squares
Total 17.614 6
Treatment 2 Between Groups 14.897 4 3.724 . .
Total 14.897 6
Treatment 1
Squares
Between Groups 16.761 2 8.380 39.283 .002
Total 17.614 6
Statistical Analysis of Mean values of Mg total Result

No water hyacinth
Squares
Treatment 1 Between Groups .761 5 .152 . .
Total .761 6
Total .915 6
Treatment 1
Squares
Total .761 6
98
Statistical Analysis of Mean values of Calcium total Result
No water hyacinth
Squares
Total .157 6
Total .400 6
Treatment 1
Squares
Between Groups .152 3 .051 30.429 .010
Total .157 6
Statistical Analysis of Mean values of CO2 Result

No water hyacinth
Squares
Total 2.620 6
Treatment 2 Between Groups 4.672 5 .934 .363 .842
Within Groups 2.576 1 2.576
Total 7.249 6
Treatment 1
Squares
Between Groups 2.620 6 .437 . .
Total 2.620 6
99
Statistical Analysis of Mean values of Chloride Result
No water hyacinth
Squares
Total 21.562 6
Total 23.138 6
Treatment 1
Squares
Between Groups 21.562 6 3.594 . .
Total 21.562 6
Statistical Analysis of Mean values of Iron Result

No water hyacinth
Squares
Total .555 6
Total .585 6
Treatment 1
Sum of Df Mean Square F Sig.
Squares
Total .555 6
100
Statistical Analysis of Mean values of Copper Result
No water hyacinth
Squares Square
Total .077 6
Total .077 6
Treatment 1
Squares
Total .077 6
Statistical Analysis of Mean values of Manganese Result

No water hyacinth
Squares Square
Total .091 6
Total .135 6
Treatment 1
Squares
Total .091 6
101
Statistical Analysis of Mean values of Lead Result
No water hyacinth
Squares
Total .018 6
Total .024 6
Treatment 1
Squares
Total .018 6
Statistical Analysis of Mean values of Fluoride Result

No water hyacinth
Squares Square
Total .067 6
Total .315 6
Treatment 1
Squares
Total .067 6
102
Statistical Analysis of Mean values of Sulphate Result
No water hyacinth
Squares
Total 53.114 6
Total 76.549 6
Treatment 1
Squares
Between Groups 53.114 6 8.852 . .
Total 53.114 6
Statistical Analysis of Mean values of Nitrate result

No water hyacinth
Squares
Total 26.978 6
Total 22.938 6
Treatment 1
Squares
Between Groups 26.978 6 4.496 . .
Total 26.978 6
103
Statistical Analysis of Mean values of Phosphate Result
No water hyacinth
Squares
Total 16.313 6
Total 18.492 6
Treatment 1
Squares
Between Groups 16.313 6 2.719 . .
Total 16.313 6
Statistical Analysis of Mean values of Sodium Result

No water hyacinth
Squares
Total .840 6
Total 1.795 6
Treatment 1
Squares
Total .840 6
104
Statistical Analysis of Mean values of Potassium Result
No water hyacinth
Squares Square
Treatment 1 Between Groups 1.292 6 .215 . .
Total 1.292 6
Total 1.544 6
Treatment 1
Squares
Total 1.292 6
Statistical Analysis of Mean values of Dissolved solids result

No water hyacinth
Squares Square
Total 1723.714 6
Total 2036.857 6
Treatment 1
Squares
Between Groups 1723.714 6 287.286 . .
Total 1723.714 6
105
Statistical Analysis of Mean values of Suspended solids Result
No water hyacinth
Squares
Total 584.314 6
Total 947.237 6
Treatment 1
Squares
Between Groups 584.314 6 97.386 . .
Total 584.314 6
Statistical Analysis of Mean values of Oxygen consumed(COD) Result

No water hyacinth
Squares Square
Total 2.016 6
Within Groups 2.538 3 .846
Total 5.602 6
Treatment 1
Squares
Total 2.016 6
106
Statistical Analysis of Mean values of Dissolved oxygen result
No water hyacinth
Squares Square
Total 1.340 6
Total 3.753 6
Treatment 1
Squares
Total 1.340 6
Statistical Analysis of Mean values of Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) Result

No water hyacinth
Squares
Total 5.259 6
Total 7.481 6
Treatment 1
Squares
Total 5.259 6
107
Statistical Analysis of Mean values of Ammonia result
No water hyacinth
Squares Square

Total .000 6
Total .001 6
Treatment 1
Squares
Total .000 6
Treatment 1 represents 1kg water hyacinth plant density culture.

Treatment 2 represents 2kg water hyacinth plant density culture.
108
View publication stats

Purification Effects of Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia Crassipes) On Domestic Sewage

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Purification Effects of Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia Crassipes) On Domestic Sewage

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Puriﬁcation Effects of Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) on Domestic

Thesis · June 2009

Efficient Wastewater Treatment View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

(EICHHORNIA CRASSIPES) ON DOMESTIC SEWAGE

CONSIDERING THE CHEMICAL AND BACTERIOLOGICAL

AJIBADE; FIDELIS ODEDISHEMI

BEING A PROJECT REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT FOR THE AWARD OF BACHELOR

Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering in the Faculty of Engineering

Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering (B.Eng.) (Agricultural).

Dr. K. A. Adeniran Date

Prof. A. O. Ogunlela Date

Prof. A.Y. Sangodoyin

misadventure, your encouragement, involvement, prayer, counseling, unflagging interest

To my colleagues (500 level graduating students), being together in oneness and

smoothly without stress.

display fatigue and stolidity.

can’t grasp fully yet. You are ineffable.

The effectiveness of water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) for the purification of

LIST OF FIGURES xii

1.1.1 Origin and Distribution of Water Hyacinth 2

1.1.2 Morphology of Water Hyacinth 2

1.1.3 Characteristics of Water Hyacinth 4

1.1.4 Taxonomy and Species of Water Hyacinth 4

1.2 Project Objectives 6

1.3 Project Justification 8

1.4 Scope and Limitation of Study 8

2.1 Origin of Water Hyacinth 9

2.2 Effects or Negative Consequences of Water Hyacinth 9

2.3 Application in Biological Wastewater Treatment 10

2.3.1 Water Hyacinth as Raw Material for Biofertilizer 11

2.3.2 Potentials as a Feedstuff 11

2.3.4 Water Hyacinth; Biogas 15

2.3.5 Removal of Phosphorus from Static Sewage Effluent by Water Hyacinth 16

2.3.6 Fluoride Uptake by Water Hyacinth 17

MATERIALS AND METHOD

3.1 Sewage Characteristics 18

3.1.1 Chemical Characteristics 18

3.1.2 Bacteriological Characteristics 18

3.3 Experimental Design 19

3.4 The Laboratory Test Parameter Includes 20

3.5 Sewage sampling method 21

3.6 Materials Used 21

3.7 Experimental Methods 22

3.8 Test Analysis 23

3.9 Test Procedure 23

4.2 Chemical and Bacteriological Parameters 24

4.4.1 Dissolved Oxygen (DO) 49

Appendix D: Comparism of Mean Values of Control, 1kg and 2kg Water

Appendix E: Statistical Analysis of Mean Values of No water Hyacinth,1kg and

Table 2.4 Composition of Water Hyacinth and Guinea grass 14

Table 4.6 Statistical Analysis of Mean values of Manganese Result 38

Table 4.7 Statistical Analysis of Mean values of Lead Result 39

Table 4.8 Statistical Analysis of Mean values of Sodium Result 45

Fig. 4.10 Relationship between Manganese and Treatments in terms of

Fig.4.11 Relationship between Lead and Treatments in terms of No. of Weeks 39

Fig.4.12 Relationship between Fluoride and Treatments in terms No. of Weeks 41

Fig.4.13 Relationship between Sulphate and Treatments in terms of Number of

Fig.4.16 Relationship between Sodium and Treatments in terms of Number of

Fig.4.19 Relationship between suspended solids and Treatment in terms of

Fig.4.22 Relationship between Biochemical Oxygen Demand and Treatments in