Piyush Gupta - GW Treatment PDF

Int. J. Environmental Engineering, Vol. 7, No.
1, 2015 11
Treatment of groundwater using phytoremediation

technique at Kolar Gold Fields, India
Piyush Gupta*
AMEC, Environmental & Infrastructure (UK),
KOC-PMC Office, Al-Tameer Annex Building,
Ahmadi-61006, Kuwait
Email: piyush123123@gmail.com
*Corresponding author
Surendra Roy
Jan Nayak Ch. Devi Lal Memorial College of Engineering,
Barnala Road, Sirsa – 125 055, Haryana, India
Email: surendraroydhn@yahoo.com
Amit B. Mahindrakar
School of Mechanical and Building Sciences,
VIT University,
Vellore-632 014, Tamil Nadu, India
Email: amahindrakar@gmail.com
Abstract: Underground gold mining at Kolar Gold Fields (KGF), Karnataka,

was carried out for more than a century at greater depths which disturbed the
groundwater aquifers. Leaching from huge amount of mill tailings dumps can
contaminate groundwater. As many researchers have used plant species like
water hyacinth, water lettuce and vetiver grass for the treatment of water and
wastewater, therefore, attempts were made to treat the groundwater of KGF
using these species. For this, the plant species were grown in synthetic solution
and also by adding nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium (NPK) in the solution.
The growth parameters of species like number of leaves, plant weight, length of
principal root and number of roots were studied. Removal efficiency of these
species was also computed for different water quality parameters. The study
revealed that water hyacinth had higher contaminant reduction capability than
water lettuce and vetiver grass.
Keywords: phytoremediation; Kolar Gold Fields; KGF; water hyacinth; water

lettuce; vetiver grass; groundwater treatment; total dissolved solids, electrical
conductivity; constructed wetland; removal efficiency; water quality,
wastewater; India.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Gupta, P., Roy, S. and
Mahindrakar, A.B. (2015) ‘Treatment of groundwater using phytoremediation
technique at Kolar Gold Fields, India’, Int. J. Environmental Engineering,
Vol. 7, No. 1, pp.11–34.
Copyright © 2015 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

12 P. Gupta et al.
Biographical notes: Piyush Gupta is currently working as an Intermediate

Scientist\Engineer at AMEC, Environmental and Infrastructure-UK having
present assignment in Kuwait. Prior joining to AMEC, he worked as a Scientist
at National Institute of Rock Mechanics, Ministry of Mines, Government of
India. He holds a Bachelor in Environmental Engineering, a Post-Graduate
Diploma in Environment and Sustainable Development and an MS (by
Research) in Environment Engineering. He has rich experience in research and
consultancy in the field of environmental engineering. His main research
field includes; contaminated site/land remediation, soil pollution, assessment
of water and waste-water quality, waste-water treatment, air pollution
assessment and modelling, and waste management. He was involved in many
national and international research/consultancy projects as project leader and
co-investigator. His research work is published in many peer reviewed
international, national journals and national dailies.
Surendra Roy is Professor and Head of Civil Engineering Department,

Jan Nayak Ch. Devi Lal Memorial College of Engineering, Haryana. He
obtained his Bachelor in Civil Engineering from the Institution of Engineers
(India), Kolkata, MTech in Environmental Science and Engineering from the
Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad and PhD degree from the Indian Institute of
Technology, Bombay. He has published over 30 papers on the subjects of air
pollution and meteorology, water pollution, noise assessment and waste
management. He has worked in State Pollution Control Boards for more than
13 years for the environmental management and monitoring in various types of
industries, and conducted research more than nine years in environmental
engineering at National Institute of Rock Mechanics, Kolar Gold Fields.
Currently, he is carrying out research and teaching in the area of environmental
and geotechnical engineering at Jan Nayak Ch. Devi Lal Memorial College of
Engineering, Haryana.
Amit B. Mahindrakar is currently working as a Professor in VIT University

Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India. He has served as Division Leader (Environmental,
Water Resources and Transportation Engineering Division), Programme
Manager (BTech Civil Engineering) and Programme Manager (MTech Energy
and Environmental Engineering) at the School of Mechanical and Building
Sciences, Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore. His research interests
include; management of hazardous, biomedical and municipal solid waste and
environmental law and policy. He completed his PhD from Center for
Environmental Engineering and Sciences (CESE), IIT Bombay. Before joining
the CESE, IIT Bombay for his PhD, he worked as Research Fellow at National
Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), Nagpur, India. He did
his Master’s in Environmental Engineering and Bachelor’s in Civil Engineering
with distinction. He has worked on many projects at NEERI and IIT Bombay in
fields related to solid and hazardous wastes, wastewater, environmental laws
and policies.
1 Introduction
The Kolar Gold Fields (KGF) mines are seated towards the southern end of a narrow strip
of schist in the Kolar district of Karnataka. At KGF, gold has been mined to a depth of
3 km below the surface with 650 km of tunnel work (Rao and Reddy, 2006) over
120 years and about 40 million tonnes of mill tailings were dumped (Shettigher, 1989).
The mill tailings dumps have occupied about 2-sq. km. of the area, i.e., 10% of the total
Treatment of groundwater using phytoremediation technique at KGF, India 13
land in this mining township (Reddy, 1980). Mining, mill tailings and other activities
may influence the groundwater quality of KGF. According to Kumar and Riyazuddin
(2008) mineralogy of the aquifers, climate, topography and anthropogenic activities
affects the groundwater. In addition human activities like residential, municipal,
industrial and agricultural also contaminates the groundwater (USEPA, 1993).
Phytoremediation is one of the biological wastewater treatment method
(Roongtanakiat et al., 2007) and is the concept of using plants-based systems and
microbiological processes to eliminate contaminants in nature. The remediation
techniques utilise specific planting arrangements, constructed wetlands (CW),
floating-plant systems and numerous other configurations (Cunningham et al., 1995).
The removal of wastewater constituents are achieved by different mechanisms
like sedimentation, filtration, chemical precipitation, adsorption, microbial interactions
and uptake of vegetation (Hammer, 1989) among which the most effective technology
is phytoremediation strategy using CW technology. Besides water quality improvement
and energy savings, CWs have other environmental protection features such as
promoting biodiversity, providing habitat for wetland organisms and wildlife (e.g.,
birds and reptiles in large systems), serving climatic, e.g., less CO2 production (Dixon
et al., 2003); hydrological functions and biomethylation (Azaizeh et al., 2003). These
systems are generally cost effective, simple, environmentally non-disruptive
(Roongtanakiat et al., 2007; Wei and Zhou, 2004), ecologically sound (Xia and Ma,
2006) with low maintenance cost (Kirkpatrick, 2005) and low land requirements
(Lu, 2009).
The principles of phytoremediation system are to clean up contaminated water which
includes identification and implementation of efficient aquatic plant; uptake of dissolved
nutrients and metals by the growing plants; and harvest and beneficial use of the plant
biomass produced from the remediation system (Lu, 2009). The most important factor in
implementing phytoremediation is the selection of an appropriate plant (Roongtanakiat
et al., 2007; Stefani et al., 2011) which should have high uptake of both organic and
inorganic pollutants, grow well in polluted water and easily controlled in quantitatively
propagated dispersion (Roongtanakiat et al., 2007). The uptake and accumulation of
pollutants vary from plant to plant and also from specie to specie within a genus
(Singh et al., 2003). The economic success of phytoremediation largely depends on
photosynthetic activity and growth rate of plants (Xia and Ma, 2006) and with low to
moderate amount of pollution (Jamuna and Noorjahan, 2009).
Many researchers have used different plant species like water hyacinth [Eichhornia
Crassipes (Mart.) Solms] (Dar et al., 2011; Dhote and Dixit, 2007; Jamuna and
Noorjahan, 2009; Lissy and Madhu, 2010; Mahmood et al., 2005; Muramoto and Oki,
1983; Trivedy and Pattanshetty, 2002; Valipour et al., 2010, 2011), water lettuce (Pistia
Stratiotes L.) (Awuah et al., 2004; Dipu et al., 2011; Fonkou et al., 2002; Jing et al.,
2002; Lu et al., 2010) and vetiver grass (Chrysopogon Zizanioides) (Girija et al., 2011;
Lakshmana et al., 2008; Roongtanakiat et al., 2007; Truong and Baker, 1998) for the
treatment of water. At KGF, groundwater is a major source of water supply for the
domestic purpose. The study conducted by Gupta and Roy (2012) revealed that mainly
total dissolved solids (TDS), electrical conductivity (EC) and hardness exceed the
standards of drinking water in the groundwater of KGF. Therefore, a detailed study was
conducted to treat these water quality parameters in the groundwater of the gold mining
area using phytoremediation technique.
14 P. Gupta et al.
2 Methodology and experiment
2.1 Collection of water hyacinth, water lettuce and vetiver grass

Water hyacinth species were collected from the K.R. Puram Lake, Bangalore whereas
plant saplings of water lettuce and vetiver grass were purchased from M/s Y.
Munivenkatappa & Sons Nursery, Siddapur Gardens, Jayanagar Post, Bangalore. Young
saplings were collected because the treatment efficiency is more in comparison to old
plants (Ayyasamy et al., 2009). Plants of similar shape and size were collected and were
thoroughly washed several times using tap and distilled water until the surfaces appeared
to be clean (Xia and Ma, 2006) and then blotted with clean blotting paper (Mane et al.,
2011).
2.2 Preparation of synthetic solutions

In order to study the removal efficiency of selected plant species, synthetic solutions of
TDS were prepared. At first, double distilled water was prepared with the help of quartz
double distillation apparatus installed in the Environmental Engineering Laboratory of
National Institute of Rock Mechanics (NIRM), KGF, Karnataka. Then synthetic solution
having TDS concentration of 500, 1,000, 1,500 and 2,000 mg/l was prepared by
dissolving sodium chloride of 0.5 g, 1.0 g, 1.5 g and 2.0 g in one litre of distilled water
respectively, i.e., four types of synthetic solution of different concentrations.
2.3 Assessment of plant growth in synthetic solutions

As the growth analysis is a fundamental characteristic to study plant’s response to an
environmental stress (Mane et al., 2011) therefore, the experiment was designed to
evaluate growth performance of water hyacinth, water lettuce and vetiver grass at
laboratory scale. These plants were grown in synthetic solutions of different
concentrations for ten days. For this, the plant species were floated in the bucket of 4 litre
capacity. One clump of each plant was put into bucket in such a way that it could remain
submerged vertically in synthetic solution. Before immersing the plants into synthetic
solution, the plant weight, number of leaves, length of principal root and number of roots
were measured so that variations in these parameters could be calculated after immersion.
The controlled (without plants) was also kept under the same conditions. To determine
the contaminant consumption capability of plants, the synthetic water samples were
analysed at interval of two days, i.e., after second, fourth, sixth, eighth and tenth day for
different water quality parameters like pH, EC, TDS, total hardness, calcium hardness
and magnesium hardness. Measurement of plants dimensions were also carried out
simultaneously.
2.4 Assessment of plant growth in synthetic solutions after addition of NPK

As the plant growth may remove more contaminants from the synthetic solutions. To
achieve the maximum plant growth, nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K)
were also added in the synthetic solutions at the rate of 20 mg N/L, 3 mg P/L and 52 mg
K/L, respectively (Reddy et al., 1989, 1990, 1991). Usually N was added as ammonium
nitrate, P as sodium phosphate and K as potassium chloride. Other procedures of analysis

were same as mentioned in Section 2.3.
2.5 Assessment of plants growth in groundwater of KGF
To find out the treatment capability of plant species, bore well water samples from four
locations of KGF namely Champion Reefs (NIRM), Robertsonpet, Andersonpet and
Marikuppam were collected. The samples were collected from bore wells using
pre-cleaned, acid washed plastic containers of 4 litre capacity. Prior to sampling, the
containers were thoroughly rinsed four to five times with the groundwater and then filled
up to the mouth to avoid an air space. The methods used for plants growing, analysis of
water samples collected at different intervals from the bucket in which plants grown,
measurements of plants dimension, etc were carried out using the procedures as
mentioned in Section 2.3. These procedures helped to find out the treatment capability of
different plant species for the groundwater of KGF.
3 Results and discussion
To treat the groundwater of KGF area, contaminant uptake capacity of different plant
species like water hyacinth, water lettuce and vetiver grass were evaluated by growing
them in different concentrations of synthetic solutions and also by adding NPK in the
solutions. Species growth in these solutions was assessed on different days of interval.
During growth studies of species, number of leaves, plant weight, length of principal root
and number of roots were considered for the assessment. Controlled (without plants)
were monitored under the same conditions. Removal efficiency of the plants for different
water quality parameters like pH, EC, TDS, total hardness, calcium hardness and
magnesium hardness were determined with respect to time. Reduction with respect to
time of controlled solution was also assessed.
3.1 Growth status of species

3.1.1 Water hyacinth
The quality and productivity of water hyacinth depend on the available nutrient supply
(Reddy and Tucker, 1983). Its growth status in different concentrations of synthetic
solution for different days is shown in Figure 1.
The number of leaves, weight of plants, length of principal roots and number of roots
were different when they were immersed into solution of different concentrations
(Figure 1). No significant variations were observed in the number of leaves, weight of
plants and length of roots at the end of fourth day of measurement. After that they
continued shedding. Number of roots did not vary for different concentrations except at
2,000 mg/l. It was observed that the roots were breaking from middle as the days
increased. At 2,000 mg/l, the species died on tenth day. These revealed that
concentrations and time influences the growth of the plant.
16 P. Gupta et al.
Figure 1 Variation in (a) number of leaves, (b) plant weight, (c) length of principal root and
(d) number of roots of water hyacinth in synthetic solutions with respect to time
8.0 25.0
500 1000 1500 2000 500 1000 1500 2000
20.0
6.0
No. of leaves
Weight (g)
15.0
4.0
10.0
2.0
5.0
0.0 0.0
0 2nd 4th 6th 8th 10th 0 2nd 4th 6th 8th 10th
Days Days
(a) (b)
25.0 50.0
500 1000 1500 2000 500 1000 1500 2000
20.0 40.0
Length (cm)
No. of roots
15.0 30.0
10.0 20.0
5.0 10.0
0.0 0.0
Days Days
(c) (d)
In most of the conditions, N is probably the major plant nutrient limiting productivity.
Growth and nutrient uptake of water hyacinth are controlled by the sources of N (e.g.,
NH4+, NO3–, urea or organic N) (Reddy and Tucker, 1983). The growth status in synthetic
solution with NPK is shown in Figure 2. It was found that water hyacinth lost only 50%
leaves in ten days at 2,000 mg/l [Figure 2(a)] indicating that addition of NPK increased
the tolerant capacity of the species. As per Tucker (1981), rate of increase of N
application to a water hyacinth not only increases the yield but also produces plants of
greater nutritive value. Plants weight decreased as the days increased [Figure 2(b)]. No
significant variations in length of principal root and number of roots were observed at
different concentrations except at 2,000 mg/l. Though addition of NPK improved the
growth status but higher concentrations and time showed an adverse affects on the plants.
(d) number of roots of water hyacinth in synthetic solutions with NPK with respect to
time
5.0 32.0
500 1000 1500 2000 500 1000 1500 2000
24.0
No. of leaves
4.0
Weight (g)
16.0
3.0
8.0
2.0 0.0
Days Days
(a) (b)
12.0 50.0
500 1000 1500 2000 500 1000 1500 2000
10.0 45.0
Length (cm)
No. of roots
8.0 40.0
6.0 35.0
4.0 30.0
Days Days
(c) (d)
3.1.2 Water lettuce

Graphs of various morphological parameters of water lettuce were plotted with time
(Figure 3). It was found that growth decreased with time. All the plant leaves died in ten
days at the concentration of 1,500 and 2,000 mg/l. Since TDS and EC are proportional to
each other therefore, increase in EC might have reduced the plant weight and leaf number
of lettuce (Miceli et al., 2003). Reduction in weight of lettuce was also observed by Serio
et al. (2001) due to increase in EC concentrations. This might have also reduced leaf
numbers (Serio et al., 2001; Stanghellini et al., 1996), roots and plant height. Thus
concentrations and time influences the growth.
In case of synthetic solution with NPK, though number of leaves, plant weights,
length and number of roots decreased with respect to time (Figure 4) but decrement was
lower compared to only synthetic solution (Figure 3) indicating that addition of nutrients
enhanced the growth. Suppression of leaf expansion was observed as one of the
morphological and physiological effects of salinity by Nieman (1964). Significant
reduction in leaf area by high water salinity was also reported by Pascale et al. (1997).
Chlorotic leaf margins which indicated salinity stress were visually observed in the high
salinity treatments (Lu, 2009).
18 P. Gupta et al.
(d) number of roots of water lettuce in synthetic solutions with respect to time
25.0 7.5
500 1000 1500 2000 500 1000 1500 2000
20.0 6.0
No. of leaves
Weight (g)
15.0 4.5
10.0 3.0
5.0 1.5
0.0 0.0
Days Days
(a) (b)
16.0 20.0
500 1000 1500 2000 500 1000 1500 2000
12.0 15.0
Length (cm)
No. of roots
8.0 10.0
4.0 5.0
0.0 0.0
Days Days
(c) (d)
(d) number of roots of water lettuce in synthetic solutions having NPK with respect to
time
35.0 10.0
500 1000 1500 2000 500 1000 1500 2000
30.0 8.0
No. of leaves
Weight (g)
25.0 6.0
20.0 4.0
15.0 2.0
10.0 0.0
Days Days
(a) (b)
(d) number of roots of water lettuce in synthetic solutions having NPK with respect to
time (continued)
20.0 20.0
500 1000 1500 2000 500 1000 1500 2000
15.0 15.0
Length (cm)
No. of roots
10.0 10.0
5.0 5.0
0.0 0.0
Days Days
(c) (d)
3.1.3 Vetiver grass

Figure 5 shows the status of vetiver grass in synthetic solution with respect to time.
Number of leaves and weight of plants decreased with respect to concentration and time
whereas length and number of roots did not change significantly indicating that presence
of high concentration of TDS does not affect these parameters [Figures 5(c) and (d)].
Growth status of vetiver grass in synthetic solution having NPK was studied with
respect to time (Figure 6). The decrease in number of leaves and weight of plants was
less compared to growth in synthetic solution. Length and number of roots did not get
influenced even after addition of NPK in synthetic solution. At 2,000 mg/l, leaves and
weight of plants decreased significantly indicating that as concentration increases growth
of specie decreases.
(d) number of roots of vetiver grass in synthetic solutions with respect to time
42.0 10.0
500 1000 1500 2000 500 1000 1500 2000
36.0 8.0
No. of leaves
Weight (g)
30.0 6.0
24.0 4.0
18.0 2.0
Days Days
(a) (b)
20 P. Gupta et al.
(d) number of roots of vetiver grass in synthetic solutions with respect to time
(continued)
40.0 35.0
500 1000 1500 2000 500 1000 1500 2000
30.0
35.0
Length (cm)
No. of roots
25.0
30.0
20.0
25.0
15.0
20.0 10.0
Days Days
(c) (d)
(d) number of roots of vetiver grass in synthetic solutions having NPK with respect to
time
45.0 8.0
500 1000 1500 2000 500 1000 1500 2000
40.0
No. of leaves
6.0
Weight (g)
35.0
30.0
4.0
25.0
20.0 2.0
Days Days
(a) (b)
36.0 30.0
500 1000 1500 2000
500 1000 1500 2000
25.0
Length (cm)
No. of roots
33.0
20.0
30.0
15.0
27.0 10.0
0 2nd 4th 6th 8th 10th
0 2nd 4th 6th 8th 10th
Days Days
(c) (d)
3.2 Reduction in water quality parameters during growth period

Many researchers (Ayyasamy et al., 2009; Borges et al., 2008; Dipu et al., 2011; Shah
et al., 2010) used the removal efficiency technique to know the plant uptake capability of
water quality parameters. In this study, to determine the reduction in water quality
parameters due to growth of the plant species, the following removal efficiency formula
was used for the each plant:
Removal efficiency (%) = 100*(initial reading – final reading) / initial reading
3.2.1 pH
The removal efficiency of different plants grown in different concentrations of synthetic
solution and solution with NPK was plotted (Figure 7). Reduction in pH with respect to
time in controlled condition is also shown in this figure. It was observed that the species
grown in NPK solutions had higher removal efficiency compared to without NPK. In
synthetic solution, vetiver grass showed the lowest removal efficiency compared to water
lettuce and water hyacinth. Though removal efficiency for pH increased with NPK
solution for all the species but water lettuce indicated higher reduction capability at
1,500 and 2,000 mg/l. At each concentration, controlled showed the lowest removal
efficiency.
Figure 7 Reduction in pH due to growth of different plant species in different concentrations

20.0
Controlled (without plants) Water Hyacinth
Water Lettuce Vetiver Grass
Removal Efficiency (%)
Water Hyacinth with NPK Water Lettuce with NPK

15.0
Vetiver Grass Roots with NPK
10.0
5.0
0.0
500 1000 1500 2000
Concentrations (mg/l)
3.2.2 Electrical conductivity

The removal efficiency of different species in different concentrations with and without
NPK solutions for EC is shown in Figure 8. It was observed that removal efficiency
decreased with concentration. Though solution with NPK showed higher removal
efficiency compared to solution without NPK but difference in efficiency was
insignificant. Water hyacinth with NPK showed the highest removal efficiency for EC
whereas it was the lowest for water lettuce without NPK. As controlled did not have any
plant for the removal of EC, the removal efficiency was the lowest. At 2,000 mg/l, the
removal efficiency was the lowest for all the cases.
22 P. Gupta et al.
Figure 8 Reduction in EC due to growth of different plant species in different concentrations
80.0
Removal Efficiency (%) Water Lettuce Vetiver Grass

60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
500 1000 1500 2000
3.2.3 Total dissolved solids
The removal efficiency of TDS due to different species in synthetic solution and in
solution with NPK is shown in Figure 9. The trendline was similar to EC, i.e., as the
concentration increased removal efficiency decreased. There was insignificant
difference in the removal efficiency in the species with and without NPK solutions
and it decreased in controlled as the concentration increased. Water hyacinth with NPK
showed the highest removal efficiency whereas the lowest was found for the water
lettuce. The decreasing trend in every species with increase in TDS concentration results
that there is decrease in the physiological activity of the plant with increase of
concentration.
Figure 9 Reduction in TDS due to growth of different plant species in different concentrations
100.0

75.0
50.0
25.0
0.0
500 1000 1500 2000
Concentrations(mg/l)
3.2.4 Hardness
Removal efficiency of different plant species for hardness was plotted with different
concentrations (Figure 10). In case of total hardness, vetiver grass showed the highest
removal efficiency. Water lettuce with NPK revealed the lowest reduction capacity at the
concentration of 500 and 1,000 mg/l whereas without NPK the lowest values occurred at
2,000 mg/l [Figure 10(a)]. The removal efficiency for calcium hardness was observed
similar to total hardness [Figure 10(b)]. Though removal efficiency for magnesium
hardness was the lowest at the highest concentration (2,000 mg/l) but on the lower side it
varied for different species [Figure 10(c)].
Figure 10 Reduction in (a) total hardness, (b) calcium hardness and (c) magnesium hardness due
to growth of different plant species in different concentrations
125.0
100.0 Water Hyacinth with NPK Water Lettuce with NPK

75.0
50.0
25.0
500 1000 1500 2000
(a)
130.0
105.0
80.0
55.0
30.0
500 1000 1500 2000
(b)
24 P. Gupta et al.
Figure 10 Reduction in (a) total hardness, (b) calcium hardness and (c) magnesium hardness due
to growth of different plant species in different concentrations (continued)
140.0
105.0 Vetiver Grass Roots with NPK
70.0
35.0
500 1000 1500 2000
(c)
3.3 Growth status of plant species in groundwater of KGF

Growth status and removal efficiency of different plant species varied as observed in
preceding sections. These species were used to treat the groundwater of KGF. As the
groundwater quality parameters like EC, TDS, hardness, etc. exceeded the limit at the
borewells of KGF, therefore, water samples from the four borewells were collected for
the treatment purpose. Details of the sampling locations are shown in Table 1.
Table 1 Details of sampling locations and their use
Description of
Reference number Domestic use of water source
sampling location
National Institute of Rock L1 Excluding drinking and cooking
Mechanics (Champion Reefs)
Robertsonpet L2 Do
Andersonpet L3 Do
Marikuppam L4 Including drinking and cooking
3.3.1 Water hyacinth

Variation in morphological parameters with respect to time is shown in Figure 11.
Number of leaves remained same in all the days at locations L1 and L2 whereas it
decreased at L3 and L4 on tenth day. Plant weights decreased as the days increased at all
the locations. Length of principal root remained same up to fourth day and then it started
decreasing. Number of roots varied from location to location on different days. The
decreasing trend might be due to the presence of the trace metal located deep within the
roots of water hyacinth (Kara, 2004; Ornes and Sajwan, 1993; Vesk et al., 1999).
(d) number of roots of water hyacinth in groundwater quality of KGF
5.0 24.0
L1 L2 L3 L4 L1 L2 L3 L4
20.0
No. of leaves
4.0
Weight (g)
16.0
3.0
12.0
2.0 8.0
Days Days
(a) (b)
7.4 45.0
L1 L2 L3 L4 L1 L2 L3 L4
7.1 40.0
Length (cm)
No. of roots
6.8 35.0
6.5 30.0
6.2 25.0
Days Days
(c) (d)
3.3.2 Water lettuce

The growth status of different parts of water lettuce with respect to locations on different
days is shown in Figure 12. Number of leaves, plant weights, roots lengths and its
numbers decreased with the increase of days at each location. The presence of different
water contaminants might be causing variation in these parameters. According to Lu et al.
(2010), the growth and nutrient removal potential of water lettuce are affected by many
factors like water salinity and physiological limitations of the plant.
3.3.3 Vetiver grass

Figure 13 shows that number of leaves and plant weights decreased as the day increased
for the different sampling locations whereas root length and its number remained same at
all the locations indicating that contaminants do not influences roots length and its
numbers. The result is in agreement with the growth study of species in synthetic solution
and solution with NPK.
26 P. Gupta et al.
(d) number of roots of water lettuce in groundwater quality of KGF
30.0 8.0
L1 L2 L3 L4 L1 L2 L3 L4
25.0
No. of leaves
6.0
Weight (g)
20.0
4.0
15.0
10.0 2.0
Days Days
(a) (b)
20.0 25.0
L1 L2 L3 L4 L1 L2 L3 L4
20.0
Length (cm)
15.0
No. of roots
15.0
10.0
10.0
5.0 5.0
Days Days
(c) (d)
(d) number of roots of vetiver grass in groundwater quality of KGF
40.0 8.0
L1 L2 L3 L4 L1 L2 L3 L4
No. of leaves
35.0 6.0
Weight (g)
30.0 4.0
25.0 2.0
Days Days
(a) (b)
(d) number of roots of vetiver grass in groundwater quality of KGF (continued)
31.0 25.0
L1 L2 L3 L4 L1 L2 L3 L4
30.0
Length (cm)
20.0
No. of roots
29.0
15.0
28.0
27.0 10.0
Days Days
(c) (d)
3.4 Treatment efficiency of different plant species for the groundwater of KGF
The preceding sections dealt with growth status of different plant species in groundwater
of KGF. These species were further used to determine their removal efficiency for water
quality parameters like pH, EC, TDS, total hardness, calcium hardness and magnesium
hardness after ten days for different locations.
3.4.1 pH
Plant species showed different removal efficiency for different locations (Figure 14).
Water hyacinth had the highest reduction capability for pH compared to others at
different locations. Different plants can have different pH absorption capacity (Dar et al.,
2011). In addition, variation in reduction of pH at different locations might be due to
absorption of nutrients and other salts by plants or by simultaneous release of H+ ions
with the uptake of metal ions (Mahmood et al., 2005). The result is also in agreement of
Lissy and Madhu (2010). According to Jayashree et al. (2011) and Truong and Hart
(2001), time influences the reduction in pH.
3.4.2 Electrical conductivity

Plant species reduced the EC concentrations at different location (Figure 15). The highest
reduction was observed by the water hyacinth at all the locations. Variation in EC
reduction at different locations might be due to other physico-chemical properties of
water including controlled. Higher EC reductions by water hyacinth were observed by
many researchers (Borges et al., 2008; Dhote and Dixit, 2007; Mahmood et al., 2005).
Fonkou et al. (2002) observed reduction in EC by water lettuce whereas other researchers
(Girija et al., 2011; Jayashree et al., 2011; Lakshmana et al., 2008; Truong and Hart,
2001) found by vetiver grass.
28 P. Gupta et al.
Figure 14 Removal efficiency of different plants for pH at different locations

18.0
15.0
12.0
9.0
6.0
3.0
L1 L2 L3 L4
Locations
Figure 15 Removal efficiency of different plants for EC at different locations

65.0
50.0
35.0
20.0
5.0
L1 L2 L3 L4
Locations
3.4.3 Total dissolved solids

Removal efficiency indicated that all the plant species decreased the TDS at all the
locations (Figure 16). The highest reduction of TDS was observed by water hyacinth at
each location and the lowest reductions by water lettuce. Controlled also showed TDS
reductions with respect to time at the locations. Different researchers used water hyacinth
for the treatment of various types of waste water and observed considerable amount of
TDS reduction (Adeniran, 2011; Borges et al., 2008; Gamage and Yapa, 2001; Trivedy
and Pattanshetty, 2002). Researchers also found reduction in TDS using water lettuce
(Awuah et al., 2004; Fonkou et al., 2002) and vetiver grass (Ebrahim et al., 2011) for the
different types of effluents. As per drinking water standard (BIS, 1991), permissible limit
of TDS is 500 mg/l. It was observed that water hyacinth can bring the TDS level within
the norms. It was found that at the end of ten days, the approximate removal efficiencies
were around 45% after that plants started dying. Therefore, it is suggested that to increase
the removal efficiency some new plants can be added up in the treatment system to
achieve the desired TDS concentration.
Figure 16 Removal efficiency of different plants for TDS at different location

75.0
60.0
45.0
30.0
15.0
L1 L2 L3 L4
Locations
3.4.4 Hardness
All the plants have reduced the hardness concentrations at all the locations (Figure 17). It
has been observed that water hyacinth have higher removal efficiency compared to other
plant species. Variation in removal efficiency at different locations might be due to
variation in initial concentration of contaminant at that particular location. Reduction in
hardness using vetiver grass was also found by Girija et al. (2011) and Truong and Hart
(2001).
Figure 17 Removal efficiency of different plants for (a) total hardness, (b) calcium hardness and
(c) magnesium hardness at different locations
75.0
60.0
45.0
30.0
15.0
L1 L2 L3 L4
Locations
(a)
30 P. Gupta et al.
Figure 17 Removal efficiency of different plants for (a) total hardness, (b) calcium hardness and
(c) magnesium hardness at different locations (continued)
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
L1 L2 L3 L4
Locations
(b)
75.0
60.0
45.0
30.0
L1 L2 L3 L4
Locations
(c)
4 Conclusions
Water hyacinth, water lettuce and vetiver grass revealed higher growth in NPK solution
compared to synthetic solution. Solutions did not influence length and numbers of
principal roots of the vetiver grass. The removal efficiency of different plant species for
different water quality parameters increased in synthetic solution with NPK compared to
without NPK. It was lower at 2,000 mg/l for most of the parameters. Water hyacinth
showed higher removal efficiency than water lettuce and vetiver grass. Though all the
species showed reduction in groundwater contaminants like TDS, EC and hardness of
KGF but water hyacinth had the highest treatment efficiency. Therefore, it is suggested
that water hyacinth can be used for the treatment of groundwater of KGF.
References
Adeniran, E. (2011) ‘The efficiency of water hyacinth (Eichornia crassipes) in the treatment of
domestic sewage in an African University’, Annual Water Resources Conference,
Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Awuah, E., Oppong-Peprah, M., Lubberding, H.J. and Gijzen, H.J. (2004) ‘Comparative
performance studies of water lettuce, duckweed and algal-based stabilization ponds using
low-strength sewage’, Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health-Part A, Vol. 67,
Nos. 20–22, pp.1727–1739.
Ayyasamy, P.M., Rajakumar, S., Sathishkumar, M., Swaminathan, K., Shanthi, K.,
Lakshmanaperumalsamy, P. and Lee, S. (2009) ‘Nitrate removal from synthetic medium and
groundwater with aquatic macrophytes’, Desalination, Vol. 242, Nos. 1/3, pp.286–296.
Azaizeh, H., Salhani, N., Sebesvari, Z. and Emons, H. (2003) ‘The potential of rhizosphere
microbes isolated from a constructed wetland to biomethylate selenium’, Journal of
Environmental Quality, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp.55–62.
Borges, A.K.P., Tauk-Tornisielo, S.M., Domingos, R.N. and Angelis, D.F. (2008) ‘Performance of
the constructed wetland system for the treatment of water from the Corumbatai river’,
Brazilian Archives of Biology and Technology, Vol. 51, No. 6, pp.1279–1286.
Bureau of Indian Standard – BIS (1991) IS 10500:1991: Drinking Water Specification, BIS, New
Delhi, India.
Cunningham, S.D., William, R.B. and Jianwei, W.H. (1995) ‘Phytoremediation of contaminated
soils’, Tibtech, Vol. 13, pp.393–397.
Dar, S.H., Kumawat, D.M., Singh, N. and Wani, K.A. (2011) ‘Sewage treatment potential of water
hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes)’, Research Journal of Environmental Sciences, Vol. 5, No. 4,
pp.377–385.
Dhote, S. and Dixit, S. (2007) ‘Water quality improvement through macrophytes: a case study’,
Asian Journal of Experimental Sciences, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp.427–430.
Dipu, S., Kumar, A.A. and Thanga, V.S.G. (2011) ‘Phytoremediation of dairy effluent by
constructed wetland technology’, Environmentalist, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp.263–278.
Dixon, A., Simon, M. and Burkitt, T. (2003) ‘Assessing the environmental impact of two options
for small scale wastewater treatment: comparing a reed bed and an aerated biological filter
using a life cycle approach’, Ecological Engineering, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp.297–308.
Ebrahim, A., Ali, M., Gautham, Jawahar, N. and Hariram, S. (2011) ‘A preliminary attempt to
reduce total dissolved solids in ground water using different plant parts’, International Journal
of Pharma and Bio Sciences, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp.B414–B422.
Fonkou, T., Agendia, P., Kengne, I., Akoa, A. and Nya, J. (2002) ‘Potentials of water lettuce (Pistia
stratiotes) in domestic sewage treatment with macrophytic lagoon systems in Cameroon’,
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Environmental Pollution Control and Waste
Management, Tunis, pp.709–714.
Gamage, N.S. and Yapa, P.A.J. (2001) ‘Use of water hyacinth [Eichhornia crassipes (Mart) solms]
in treatment systems for textile mill effluents – a case study’, Journal of the National Science
Foundation of Sri Lanka, Vol. 29, Nos. 1&2, pp.15–28.
Girija, N., Pillai, S.S. and Koshy, M. (2011) ‘Potential of vetiver for phytoremediation of waste in
retting area’, The Ecoscan, Vol. 1, pp.267–273.
Gupta, P. and Roy, S. (2012) ‘Evaluation of spatial and seasonal variations in groundwater quality
at Kolar Gold Fields, India’, American Journal of Environmental Engineering, Vol. 2, No. 2,
pp.19–30.
Hammer, D.A. (1989) Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment, 2nd ed., Lewis, Chelsea,
Michigan.
Jamuna, S. and Noorjahan, C.M. (2009) ‘Treatment of sewage waste water using water hyacinth –
Eichhornia sp and its reuse for fish culture’, Toxicology International, Vol. 16, No. 2,
pp.103–106.
32 P. Gupta et al.
Jayashree, S., Rathinamala, J. and Lakshmanaperumalsamy, P. (2011) ‘Determination of heavy

metal removal efficiency of Chrysopogon zizanioides (vetiver) using textile wastewater
contaminated soil’, Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 4, No. 5,
pp.543–551.
Jing, S.R., Lin, Y.F., Wang, T.W. and Lee, D.Y. (2002) ‘Microcosm wetlands for wastewater
treatment with different hydraulic loading rates and macrophytes’, Journal of Environmental
Quality, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp.690–696.
Kara, Y. (2004) ‘Bioaccumulation of copper from contaminated wastewater by using Lemna
gibba’, Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, Vol. 72, No. 3, pp.467–471.
Kirkpatrick, A.D. (2005) Assessing Constructed Wetlands for Beneficial Use of Saline-Sodic
Water, MS Thesis, Land Resources and Environmental Sciences, Montana State University,
Bozeman.
Kumar, A.R. and Riyazuddin, P. (2008) ‘Application of chemometric techniques in the assessment
of groundwater pollution in a suburban area of Chennai City, India’, Current Science, Vol. 94,
No. 8, pp.1012–1022.
Lakshmana, P.P., Jayashree, S. and Rathinamala, J. (2008) Application of Vetiver for Water and
Soil Restoration [online] http://www.vetiver.org/TVN/India 1st workshop proceeding//
Chapter2-3pdf (accessed 17 October 2012).
Lissy, A.M.P.N. and Madhu, B.Dr.G. (2010) ‘Removal of heavy metals from waste water using
water hyacinth’, Proceedings of the International Conference on Advances in Civil
Engineering, Kerala, India.
Lu, Q. (2009) Evaluation of Aquatic Plants for Phytoremediation of Eutrophic Stormwaters, PhD
Thesis, University of Florida, Florida.
Lu, Q., He, Z.L., Graetz, D.A., Stoffella, P.J. and Yang, X. (2010) ‘Phytoremediation to remove
nutrients and improve eutrophic stormwaters using water lettuce (Pistia stratiotes L.)’,
Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp.84–96.
Mahmood, Q., Zheng, P., Islam, E., Hayat, Y., Hassan, M.J., Jilani, G. and Jin, R.C. (2005) ‘Lab
scale studies on water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes marts solms) for biotreatment of textile
wastewater’, Caspian Journal of Environmental Sciences, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp.83–88.
Mane, A.V., Saratale, G.D., Karadge, B.A. and Samant, J.S. (2011) ‘Studies on the effects of
salinity on growth, polyphenol content and photosynthetic response in Vetiveria zizanioides
(L.) Nash’, Emirates Journal of Food and Agriculture, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp.59–70.
Miceli, A., Moncada, A. and D’Anna, F. (2003) ‘Effect of salt stress in lettuce cultivation’, Acta
Horticulturae, (ISHS), Vol. 609, pp.371–375.
Muramoto, S. and Oki, Y. (1983) ‘Removal of some heavy metals from polluted water by water
hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes)’, Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology,
Vol. 30, No. 1, pp.170–177.
Nieman, R.H. (1964) ‘Expansion of bean leaves and its suppression by salinity’, Plant Physiology,
Vol. 40, No. 1, pp.156–161.
Ornes,W.H. and Sajwan, K.S. (1993) ‘Cadmium accumulation and bioavailability in
coontail (Ceratophllam demersum L.) plants’, Water, Air & Soil Pollution, Vol. 69, Nos. 3–4,
pp.291–300.
Pascale, S.D., Barbieri, G. and Ruggiero, C. (1997) ‘Effects of water salinity on plant growth and
water relations in snap bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)’, Acta Horticulturae, Vol. 449, No. 2,
pp.649–655.
Rao, S.M. and Reddy, B.V.V. (2006) ‘Characterization of Kolar gold field mine tailings for
cyanide and acid drainage’, Geotechnical & Geological Engineering, Vol. 24, No. 6,
pp.1545–1559.
Reddy, K.R. and Tucker, J.C. (1983) ‘Productivity and nutrient uptake of water hyacinth,
Eichhornia crassipes I. Effect of nitrogen source’, Economic Botany, Vol. 37, No. 2,
pp.237–247.
Reddy, K.R., Agami, M. and Tucker, J.C. (1989) ‘Influence of nitrogen supply rates on growth and
nutrient storage by water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms) plants’, Aquatic
Botany, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp.33–43.
Reddy, K.R., Agami, M. and Tucker, J.C. (1990) ‘Influence of phosphorus on growth and nutrient
storage by water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms) plants’, Aquatic Botany,
Vol. 37, No. 4, pp.355–365.
Reddy, K.R., Agami, M., D’Angelo, E.M. and Tucker, J.C. (1991) ‘Influence of potassium supply
on growth and nutrient storage by water hyacinth’, Bioresource Technology, Vol. 37, No. 1,
pp.79–84.
Reddy, P.R. (1980) ‘Environmental geological studies in the Kolar Gold Fields area, Karnataka
state’, Kolar Gold Mine’s Centenary Celebrations, Vol. 2, Proceedings of the Seminar, KGF,
20–21 December 1980, Bharat Gold Mines Limited, pp.423–435.
Roongtanakiat, N., Tangruangkiat, S. and Meesat, R. (2007) ‘Utilization of vetiver grass (Vetiveria
zizanioides) for removal of heavy metals from industrial wastewaters’, ScienceAsia, Vol. 33,
pp.397–403.
Serio, F., Elia, A., Santamaria, P., Rodriguez, G.R., Conversa, G., Bianco, V.V., Fernandez, J.A.,
Martinez, P.F. and Castilla, N. (2001) ‘Lettuce growth, yield and nitrate content as affected by
electrical conductivity of nutrient solution’, Acta Horticulturae, Vol. 559, No. 2, pp.563–568.
Shah, R.A., Kumawat, D.M., Singh, N. and Wani, K.A. (2010) ‘Water hyacinth (Eichhornia
crassipes) as a remediation tool for dye-effluent pollution’, International Journal of Science
and Nature, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.172–178.
Shettigher, P.A.K. (1989) ‘Gold production in India – problems and perspectives’, in Metals in
India’s Development – The Vision of Jawaharlal Nehru, pp.127–140, New Delhi, Ministry of
Steel and Mines, Govt. of India, E.I.H. Press, Delhi.
Singh, O.V., Labana, S., Pandey, G., Budhiraja, R. and Jain, R.K. (2003) ‘Phytoremediation: an
overview of metallic ion decontamination from soil’, Applied Microbiology and
Biotechnology, Vol. 61, Nos. 5–6, pp.405–412.
Stanghellini, C., van Meurs, W.M., Simonse, L. and van Gaalen, J. (1996) ‘Leaf development of a
tomato crop under salinity stress’, The International Symposium on Water Quality and
Quantity in Greenhouse, Horticulture-WQQ96 Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain [online]
http://www.icia.rcanaria.es/eventos (accessed 26 September 2012).
Stefani, G.D., Tocchetto, D., Salvato, M. and Borin, M. (2011) ‘Performance of a floating
treatment wetland for in-stream water amelioration in NE Italy’, Hydrobiologia, Vol. 674,
No. 1, pp.157–167.
Trivedy, R.K. and Pattanshetty, S.M. (2002) ‘Treatment of dairy waste by using water hyacinth’,
Water Science and Technology, Vol. 45, No. 12, pp.329–334.
Truong, P. and Baker, D. (1998) Vetiver Grass System for Environmental Protection, Technical
Bulletin No. 1998/1, Pacific Rim Vetiver Network, Office of the Royal Development Projects
Board, Bangkok, Thailand.
Truong, P. and Hart, B. (2001) Vetiver Grass for Wastewater Treatment, Pacific Rim Vetiver
Network Technical Bulletin No. 2001/2 [online] http://www.vetiver.org/PRVN_wastewater_
bul.pdf (accessed 3 October 2012).
Tucker, C.S. (1981) ‘The effect of ionic form and level of nitrogen on the growth and composition
of Eichhornia crassipes (Mart) Solms’, Hydrobiologia, Vol. 83, No. 3, pp.517–522.
United States of Environmental Protection Agency – USEPA (1993) Wellhead Protection: A Guide
for Small Communities, Office of Research and Development Office of Water, Washington
DC (EPA/625/R-93/002).
Valipour, A., Raman, V.K. and Ghole, V.S. (2011) ‘Phytoremediation of domestic wastewater
using Eichhornia crassipes’, Journal of Environmental Science and Engineering, Vol. 53,
No. 2, pp.183–190.
34 P. Gupta et al.
Valipour, A., Raman, V.K. and Motallebi, P. (2010) ‘Application of shallow pond system using
water hyacinth for domestic wastewater treatment in the presence of high total dissolved solids
(TDS) and heavy metal salts’, Environmental Engineering and Management Journal, Vol. 9,
No. 6, pp.853–860.
Vesk, P.A., Nockold, C.E. and Aaway, W.G. (1999) ‘Metal localization in water hyacinth roots
from an urban wetland’, Plant, Cell and Environment, Vol. 22, pp.149–158.
Wei, S.H. and Zhou, Q.X. (2004) ‘Discussion on the basic principles and strengthening measures
for phytoremediaton of soil contaminated with heavy metals’, Chinese Journal of Ecology,
Vol. 23, pp.65–72.
Xia, H. and Ma, X. (2006) ‘Phytoremediation of ethion by water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes)
from water’, Bioresource Technology, Vol. 97, pp.1050–1054.

Piyush Gupta - GW Treatment PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Piyush Gupta - GW Treatment PDF

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

Piyush Gupta - GW Treatment PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Int. J. Environmental Engineering, Vol. 7, No.

Treatment of groundwater using phytoremediation

Abstract: Underground gold mining at Kolar Gold Fields (KGF), Karnataka,

Keywords: phytoremediation; Kolar Gold Fields; KGF; water hyacinth; water

Copyright © 2015 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

Biographical notes: Piyush Gupta is currently working as an Intermediate

Surendra Roy is Professor and Head of Civil Engineering Department,

Amit B. Mahindrakar is currently working as a Professor in VIT University

2 Methodology and experiment

2.1 Collection of water hyacinth, water lettuce and vetiver grass

2.2 Preparation of synthetic solutions

2.3 Assessment of plant growth in synthetic solutions

2.4 Assessment of plant growth in synthetic solutions after addition of NPK

nitrate, P as sodium phosphate and K as potassium chloride. Other procedures of analysis

2.5 Assessment of plants growth in groundwater of KGF

3 Results and discussion

3.1 Growth status of species

3.1.2 Water lettuce

3.1.3 Vetiver grass

3.2 Reduction in water quality parameters during growth period

Figure 7 Reduction in pH due to growth of different plant species in different concentrations

Water Hyacinth with NPK Water Lettuce with NPK

3.2.2 Electrical conductivity

Figure 8 Reduction in EC due to growth of different plant species in different concentrations

Removal Efficiency (%) Water Lettuce Vetiver Grass

3.2.3 Total dissolved solids

Water Hyacinth with NPK Water Lettuce with NPK

100.0 Water Hyacinth with NPK Water Lettuce with NPK

105.0 Vetiver Grass Roots with NPK

3.3 Growth status of plant species in groundwater of KGF

3.3.1 Water hyacinth

3.3.2 Water lettuce

3.3.3 Vetiver grass

3.4.2 Electrical conductivity

Figure 14 Removal efficiency of different plants for pH at different locations

Figure 15 Removal efficiency of different plants for EC at different locations

3.4.3 Total dissolved solids

Figure 16 Removal efficiency of different plants for TDS at different location

Jayashree, S., Rathinamala, J. and Lakshmanaperumalsamy, P. (2011) ‘Determination of heavy

You might also like