Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive

Theses and Dissertations Thesis Collection

1992

The use of aquatic plants in wastewater treatment :

a literature review.

Hastie, Bruce Alan.

http://hdl.handle.net/10945/23804
The Use of Aquatic Plants in Wastewater Treatment:

A Literature Review
 Dedication

This report is dedicated to my wife, Dawn, and my

son, Andy, who have both been instrumental in my
ability to complete my studies at the University of

Texas. Their support and concern have been

essential to any work that I have accomplished

including this report.

The Use of Aquatic Plants in Wastewater Treatment:

A Literature Review

by

Bruce Alan Hastie. BS

Lieutenant, Civil Engineer Corps, United States Navy

DEPARTMENTAL REPORT
Presented to the Faculty of the Civil Engineering Department of

The University of Texas at Austin

in Partial Fulfillment

for the Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN ENGINEERING

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN

December, 1992

T258462
6. J
 Ackno vvled gements

I would like to thank Dr. Neal Armstrong for his direction and assistance

during the composition of this report. He was especially understanding and helpful

at the onset of my research, when I followed a dead-end topic for several weeks,

and then had to begin again with the current one.

I would also like to extend my appreciation to Dr. Howard Liljestrand for

reviewing this report and providing suggestions. Dr. Liljestrand was the first person

from the University with whom I had contact, and he has been very helpful ever

since that time.

Sam Angoori from the Texas Water Commission was very helpful in

pointing me towards sources and providing the state of Texas' view on regulating

aquatic plant systems.

Jim Doersam, the plant engineer for the Homsby Bend Treatment Facility,

deserves special thanks for his insights into water hyacinths and some of the

problems associated with growing them.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge the US Navy for sponsoring my

studies at the University of Texas as part of the Civil Engineer Corps' graduate

education program.

IV
 Table of Contents

Section Page
Acknowledgements iv

List of Figures vii

List of Tables ix

Chapter 1 Introduction 1

1.1 Background 1

1.2 Objectives 3

1.3 Scope 4
Chapter 2 Characteristics of Aquatic Plant Systems 5

2.1 Introduction 5

2.2 Vegetation 5

2.3 Removal Processes 24

2.4 Physical Characteristics 25
2.5 Operational Requirements 25
2.6 Climatic Constraints 27
Chapter 3 Human Health and Environmental Concerns 30
3.1 Introduction 30
3.2 Biological Oxygen Demand 31

3.3 Suspended Solids 32

3.4 Nitrogen 34
3.5 Phosphorus 35
3.5 Pathogens 35
3.6 Heavy Metals 36
3.7 Trace Organics 39
3.8 Vectors 40
Chapter 4 Performance Expectations 43
4.1 Introduction 43
4.2 Controlling Factors 43

4.3 Treatment Objectives 43

4
v
 4.4 Primary Treatment 46
4.5 Secondary Treatment 47
4.6 Nutrient Removal and Tertiary Treatment 49
Chapter 5 Design Criteria 59
5.1 General 59
5.2 Physical Features of Aquatic Plant Systems 63
5.3 Design Equations 64
5.4 Sample Design Problems 69
5.5 Costs 74

Chapter 6 Operational Requirements 77

6.1 Introduction 77
6.2 Harvesting 77
6.3 Crop Maintenance 80
6.4 Pest Control 80
6.4 Cleanout Requirements 81

6.5 Residual Management 83

Chapter 7 Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations 86

7.1 Summary 86
7.2 Conclusions 87

7.3 Recommendations 89

References: 90
Appendix ACase Studies 97
A.l Introduction 97
A.2 Water Hyacinth Systems 97
A.3 Duckweed Systems 119

A.4 Others 127

VI
 List of Figures

Figure Page

2-1 Water Hyacinth 11

2-2 Water Lettuce 14

2-3 Pennywort 14

2-4 Duckweeds 19

2-5 Azolla filicidoides 19

2-6 Salvinia auriculata 20

2-7 Submerged Aquatic Plants 23

2-8 Suitable Areas for Hyacinth Systems 29

2-9 Suitable Areas for Duckweed Systems 29

3-1 Scematic of Nutrient Accumulation and Biomass Yield versus

Nutrient Supply 37

3-2 Generalized Pathogen Removal Curves 38

4- 1 Nitrogen Removal from Water Hyacinth Tertiary Treatment 53

4-2 Nitrogen Removal by Large-leaved Aquatic Plants 55

4-3 Nitrogen Removal by Small-leaved Aquatic Plants 55

4-4 Phosphorus Removal by Aquatic Macrophytes 56

4-6 Water Hyacinth Lead Uptake at Various Concentrations 58

4-9 Effect of Stirring on Lead Uptake 58

5-1 Effect of Temperature and Pretreatment on Required Detention

Time for a Typical Aquatic Treatment System 65

5-2 Effects of Turbulence and Depth on Total Oxygen Demand

Reduction Rates 66

5-3 Possible System Configurations for Aquatic Treatment

Components 67

5-4 Model of a Step-feed Channel with Recycle 68

vu
Figure Page

5-5 Removal of TSS versus Hvdraulic Loading

*=> Rate 71

A-l BOD 5
Performance Data for San Diego, CA Pond #3 with
200 Percent Recycle 102

A-2 SS Performance Data for San Diego, CA Pond #3 with 200

Percent Recycle 103

A-3 Influent and Effluent BOD, SS, and DO for a Step-leed

Hyacinth Pond 104

A-4 BOD 5 and TSS Performance of Hornsby Bend Hyacinth

Facility, Austin, TX 110

A-5 pH and NH 3 -N Performance of Homsby Bend Hyacinth

Facility, Austin, TX.., Ill

A-6 Plan View of Devils Lake, ND, Duckweed Treatment Facility 121

A-7 Phosphorus Removal for the Devils Lake Duckweed Facility 122

A-8 Suspended Solids Removal for the Devils Lake Duckweed

Facility 123

A-9 BOD 5 Removal for the Devils Lake Duckweed Facility 124

A- 10 Concentration Response of Pennywort Plants at Three

Locations in a Nutrient Film System 131

vui
 List of Tables

Table Page

3-1 Pollutants, Effects, and Pathways of Concern 33

3-2 Metal Removal in Hyacinth Ponds 41

3-3 Trace Organic Removal in Hyacinth Basins 41

4-1 Performance of Existing Water Systems 45

4-2 Performance of Existing Duckweed Facilities 45

4-3 Results of a Texas Department of Health Water Hyacinth Pilot

Pond System 48

4-4 Biomass Yield of Some Floating and Submerged Macrophytes

Cultivated in Central and South Florida 52

4-5 Standing Crop Storage of N and P, and Rate of Plant Uptake

for Selected Floating Macrophytes 53

5-1 Types of Water Hyacinth Systems 62

5-2 Design Criteria for Water Hyacinth Systems 62

5-3 Design Criteria for Polishing with Duckweed Treatment

Systems 62

5-4 Typical Organic Loading Rates for Secondary Treatment in

Aquatic Systems 65

5-5 Nitrogen Removal Rate Constants for Water Hyacinth and

Duckweeds 68

5-6 Comparison of Costs of Various Treatment Systems 76

6-1 Floating Aquatic Plants for Wastewater Treatment 82

rx
Table Page
O'

6-2 Recommended Sludge Cleanout Frequency for Water Hyacinth

Ponds 84

6-3 Composition of Hyacinth Plants Grown in Wastewater 84

6-4 Composition of Duckweed Grown in Wastewater 84

A-l Iron Bridge, FL Water Hyacinth System Performance

Summary 118

A-2 Pontotoc, MS Duckweed System Performance 126

A-3 Ogema, WI Duckweed System Performance Before and After

Installation 126

A-4 Ellaville, GA Duckweed System Performance 128

 Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 Background

During most of this century, the trend has been for more mechanized

wastewater treatment systems with almost every aspect of the various processes

under the direct control of the operator. In the last twenty years, however,

approaches that do not involve the same "concrete and steel" mentality have drawn

more attention. Shortly after the enactment of the Clean Water Act (PL92-500) of

1972, alternate methods of wastewater treatment once again became recognized as

valid means of achieving the required level of effluent quality. Initially, attention

was centered on existing natural systems such as wetlands and coastal marshes, but

more recently, constructed systems using aquatic plants have been investigated.

In the early days of sanitary engineering, natural treatment was the only

method known. Initially, treatment was not even an objective, nor were the

processes understood. Wastewaters were simply disposed of in the nearest river,

lake, or swamp if one was available. As the communities grew, the carrying

capacity of the receiving water was eventually exceeded and problems began to

arise in terms of aesthetics, public health, environmental effects, or, more

commonly, a combination of the three. The need for treatment prior to discharge

was recognized at this point, and primary treatment was developed to remove most

of the larger solids and organic matter. Natural systems were more or less

forgotten because they had not performed well under the required loads. As

1
understanding of the environment, disease causing agents, and treatment processes

increased, the complexity of the treatment processes also increased to remove

higher and higher percentages of the pathogens and contaminants of concern. The

cost of treatment unfortunately increased as welf and continues to do so even in the

absence of further increases in treatment complexity. The Clean Water Act further

aggravated the problem by requiring secondary treatment at many sites that had not

previously used that level of treatment.

Natural treatment systems came back into consideration mostly as an

attempt to find a more cost effective means of achieving the mandated treatment

levels than was available with the existing mechanical or chemical processes.

Natural treatment systems are not disposal practices, nor are they random

applications of waste and wastewater in various habitats. Natural treatment systems

are engineered facilities which utilize the capabilities of plants, soils, and the

associated microbial populations to degrade and immobilize wastewater

contaminants.

The two main categories of natural treatment systems are land treatment

and aquatic treatment systems. Each of these categories can be further subdivided

based upon the type of application and the types of plants used.

Land treatment is the application of wastewater or wastewater sludges to the

soil, and allowing the plants and soil matrix to remove contaminants. Land

treatment is divided into land farming, slow rate irrigation, rapid infiltration, and

overland flow treatment systems. These treatment schemes are not within the

scope of this report and as such will not be mentioned any further herein.
 Aquatic treatment involves passing wastewater through either wetlands or

other aquatic plant ecosystems, whether natural or man-made. Removal of

contaminants takes place by plant uptake, microbial degradation, filtration, chemical

precipitation, and sedimentation. Wetlands systems are designed around emergent

aquatic plants (macrophytes) and can be divided into subsurface flow systems and

free water surface systems. Observations of the behavior of floating and

submerged plants in the latter systems were in part responsible for the investigation

of these plant species for use in separate treatment systems. These systems are

generally referred to as aquatic plant systems and are differentiated from wetlands

by the understanding that the former contains no large emergent species. The two

main categories of aquatic plant systems are floating aquatic plant and submerged

aquatic plant systems.

Aquatic plant systems take on a variety of forms and use many different

species of plants. Several flow schemes have been tried as well as many variations

on the varieties of plants used and the amount of plant harvest performed.

Conflicting opinions on the contribution of the plants themselves to the treatment

have resulted in widely varied design approaches.

1.2 Objectives

The three main goals of this report are as follows:

1) Review the existing aquatic plant treatment technologies and the

species used in current and proposed treatment schemes,

2) Review the limitations of aquatic plant systems, and,

 3) Review the current design approaches and provide a

consolidated approach if possible.

1.3 Scope

This work consists primarily of a literature review of current aquatic plant

svstems and research. The literature consulted included Environmental Protection

Agency design guidance documents, Texas state performance and design

regulations, performance reports from existing and past treatment systems, and

research papers on the various aspects of proposed and existing aquatic plant

systems. Original design examples were developed to contrast previous design

views with current concepts, and case sradies were included to expand upon the

performance and some of the operational requirements of existing systems.

 Chapter 2

Characteristics of Aquatic Plant Systems

2.1 Introduction

All aquatic plant systems rely upon the plant species employed to provide or

facilitate the treatment desired. Understanding these plants is important to the

overall operation of the treatment system. This chapter contains a brief

introduction to the types of plants used in aquatic plant systems, their needs, and

some of their limitations.

2.2 Vegetation

Algal systems have been around for many years in the form of oxidation

ponds, but aquatic plant systems are differentiated from oxidation ponds in that

they use aquatic macrophytes for treatment. The macrophytes used are usually

floating varieties, but some systems have been investigated with submerged varieties

(these are usually proposed in polishing stages). The macrophytes in a system may

act in a similar capacity to the algae in an oxidation pond by transferring oxygen to

the bacteria performing the degradation, or they may also provide removal of the

contaminants of concern by encorporating them into the plant tissues.

Treatment systems which use vegetation are attractive to designers in part

because the plants act as a natural nutrient sink. Some plants are also capable of

absorbing substantial amounts of metals and some dissolved organics (Lakshman,

1987; Abbasi, 1987; Heaton et al, 1987; OTteeffe et al, 1987; WPCF, 1990; and
i
 6

others). The organics may be destroyed by the plant's metabolic activities or stored,

while metals are not degraded, but are usually stored within the plant tissues. Some

of the plants used in these systems can also be sold, either whole or in part, and if a

market exists they offer a potential for some revenue to offset operating expenses

(DeBusk and Ryther, 1987; Bagnall etal., 1987; Chynoweth. 1987).

Aquatic plants have essentially the same nutritional requirements as

terrestrial plants, but they have adapted their metabolisms to the aquatic

environment. Most aquatic plants have high water contents compared to terrestrial

plants. Aquatic plants not only provide treatment by taking nutrients and dissolved

constituents into their systems, but also by modifying the environment around them

or by providing a growing surface for the aerobic microorganisms which contribute

to the treatment. Emergent and floating varieties also tend to transport oxygen

from their leaves to their roots and the surrounding media, which allows them to

grow in anaerobic environments (Reddy et al.. 1989).

2.2.1 Floating Plants

Floating aquatic macrophytes are vascular plants that grow with their

photosynthetic parts at or above the water surface and their roots extending down

into the water column. Usually these plants do not root into the soil substrate, but

many can grow in moist soil if the water becomes too shallow (Dinges, 1982).

Some plants, such as the pennywort or the water lily, are normally rooted into the

substrate, but are included in this group because they have either the majority of

their photosynthetic mass at or above the water surface or can become free floating

under high nutrient conditions. Pennywort and alligator weed are plants which are
normally found rooted in shallow water or marshy areas. The stolons and stems of

these plants are buoyant, and when the water around them contains sufficient

nutrients, the new stolons being extended from the parent plant may remain at the

surface and grow hydroponically. Continued growth of the first free-floating

"daughter" plant eventually forms a floating mat of intertwined plants which may

break free of the plants rooted into the substrate due to wind and wave action in a

natural body of water. When these plants are used for water treatment, they are

placed in a situation where sufficient nutrients are present, and the only avenue for

growth is on the surface of the water.

Free floating aquatic plants draw the carbon dioxide and oxygen that they

need from the air, but they depend upon the dissolved constituents of the water for

all of their nutrients. Under anaerobic conditions, many of these plants transport

oxygen to their roots for metabolic purposes. Excess oxygen is then available to the

surrounding media (Reddy et ai, 1989). When the roots of the plant are within the

water column they act as a living substrate for attached growth of aerobic bacteria

which then use the excess oxygen to degrade dissolved organic compounds in the

water.

Floating aquatic plants tend to cover the water surface and block out the

passage of light to the water below, denying algae the energy needed to grow and

reproduce. The mat of plants which usually develops on the surface also causes the

water to be isolated from the atmosphere. This results in two main effects: the

water tends to be unaffected by wind and remains relatively quiescent, and gas

transfer is seriously hindered. When moderate to high organic loadings are applied

to floating aquatic plant systems, the water tends to become anoxic or anaerobic in
 8

spite of the ability of the plants to translocate oxygen. The quiescent conditions

make these systems good at causing sedimentation of algae and suspended solids.

Filtration of solids also contributes to removal when floating plants with extensive

root systems are used (Dinges. 1982: EPA. 1988: Metcalf & Eddy. 1991). The

development of the root system depends upon the plant's growth rate, temperature,

nutrient content of the water, and the growth time. Some of these factors can be

controlled during design and operation by modifying the recycle ratio as well as the

harvest amount and frequency.

2.2.1.1 Water Hyacinth

Water hyacinth {Eichhornia crassipes [Mart.] Solms-Laubach) is the

largest of the known floating aquatic macrophytes, reaching a height of as much as

one hundred twenty centimeters. It is a native of South .America that was

discovered growing in the Amazon River Basin by Karl Von Martius in 1824. At

the time botanists believed the plant's range to be restricted to South America with

possible excursions into Central America and the larger islands in the Caribbean

(Dinges, 1982). The plant moves readily in the water but is intolerant of high

salinity. This is probably the only reason that its range was restricted since the

Amazon River empties into the ocean and undoubted!}' some of the plants escaped

the river. Several theories exist about the water hyacinth's introduction into the

United States, but the most widely accepted is that the Japanese delegation to the

1884 Cotton Centennial Exposition in New Orleans, Louisiana, brought some as an

exhibit and as presents to visitors. A visitor supposedly took some of these plants

to Florida and eventually discarded them in a natural waterway. Since that time,
water hyacinths have spread throughout the southern coastal states and to

California. In the states where it can grow year-round, water hyacinth has become

a very costly pest, clogging waterways, restricting water flow, and increasing water

losses because it has an evapotranspiration rate that is three to four times the

surface evaporation rate of exposed water (Dinges, 1982; EPA, 1988). Control of

these plants is difficult since they are one of the world's most productive plants—

they have the eighth fastest growth rate of the top ten weeds (Metcalf & Eddy,
1991 ). One researcher has estimated that ten plants could produce six hundred

thousand and completely cover 0.6 ha (1 acre) on a natural water in an eight month

growing season. In nutrient rich waters such as wastewater, the rate can be even

higher (Reed et al, 1988). These very characteristics that make the water hyacinth

a serious problem on natural waters make it a good candidate for use in wastewater

treatment. The range of this plant in the wild has expanded into most of the

tropical and subtropical regions of the world. The thirty-second parallels are the

approximate limits of the plant's geographic range (EPA, 1978). Water hyacinths

can be grown outside this range, but they must be protected from the winter

temperatures.

Water hyacinth is a perennial vascular plant with large, rounded, shiny

green leaves and a central stalk of violet flowers. Reproduction is generally

vegetative (asexual), but seeds are also produced by the flowers to help ensure

survival. WTien exhibiting vegetative reproduction, the plant extends a stolon (see

Figure 2-1), a "daughter" plant forms at the terminal end and then each plant will

continue the process. In calm waters, the plants will remain attached by the stolons,

forming large, loosely packed mats. In open water, the stolon will extend thirty
 10

centimeters, but once boundaries are encountered the plants begin to fill in the

empty spaces and new stolons can become as short as one centimeter. The plants

primarily grow horizontally until they reach boundaries, but once crowding begins

vertical growth becomes dominant. The petioles of the plant are spongy, filled with

many air spaces, and furnish some of the buoyancy of the plant. Under unstressed

conditions, the petioles are egg-shaped, but when the plants are crowded, the

petioles become elongated as the leaves grow farther away from the plant to

compete for light. The roots of the water hyacinth plant are feather-like and are

unbranched. The)' vary in length according to the growth conditions and the

frequency of harvest, but they are not affected by crowding. In low nutrient natural

waters, the water hyacinth plants tend to be only a few centimeters high, but the

roots can extend up to a meter into the water. Under high nutrient conditions the

roots will only extend about ten centimeters into the water, but the plant shoots will

be over a meter in length since crowding is also likely (Dinges. 1982). The

morphology of the plant under crowded, high nutrient conditions is of the most

interest to wastewater engineers since these represent the usual operating conditions

of a water hyacinth treatment facility. The size and density of the roots on the plant

are of interest because they provide the majority of the adsorption sites for

dissolved constituents and act as a living substrate for the attached aerobic microbial

populations that provide most of the degradation of organics in the treatment

scheme (EPA, 1988; Metcalf & Eddy, 1991).

 11

Petioles

Stolon

Rhizome

Low nutrient waters Crowded, high nutrient waters

Figure 2-1, Water Hyacinth {Eichhornia crassipes)

 12

lie rOOiA, MUium, ucuuicb, anu iiuvvci biaiKA au uncinate at uic ^cniiai

rhizome which normally floats several centimeters below the water surface. This

plant IS CGiiSiucTcu a iiaiuy SpcCicS anu Can SUTViVc in a large VaTiQiy Oi COnditiGnS,

but if the tip of the rhizome is damaged, the entire plant will die. This is the

primary reason that the plant cannot survive freezing conditions. The rhizome is

similar in shape to a carrot and grows to lengths of 20 cm. Removal of only 4 cm

of the tip results in the death of the entire plant. When the plant encounters

freezing conditions, the leaves and stems die and begin to dry out. The decrease in

weight above the water surface allows the rhizome to rise towards the surface

where it becomes more vulnerable to freezing. If the water temperature at the

surface approaches freezing, the tip of the rhizome will freeze and the entire plant

will perish and decay. Studies in Japan have shown that for year-round survival in

shallow waters, the plant is limited to regions where the mean atmospheric

temperature in January does not fall below 1 C (Dinges, 1982). The optimum

growth temperatures for the plant are 21-30 C. Growth ceases at temperatures

below 10 C, or above 35-40 C. The water hyacinth will grow in waters of pH 4

to pH 10 (Dinges, 1982; EPA, 1991).

2.2.1.2 Water Lettuce

Water lettuce, Pistia stratiotes L. is a plant similar in size to the water

hyacinth and requires many of the same conditions for survival. As its name

indicates, it resembles a loosely packed head of pale green lettuce (Figure 2-2).

The leaves grow up to 25 cm long and it has a root system similar to that of the

hyacinth (Correl and Johnston, 1970). Water lettuce does not transfer oxygen as
 13

well as pennywort or water hyacinth (Reddy et a!., 1989), but it is occasionally

used in water hyacinth systems because it does grow well and the roots provide a

growing surface for bacteria.

Water lettuce reproduces much like the water hyacinth using stolons.

Flowers are produced but they are rarefy seen since they do not grow taller than the

leaves and are not showy like those of the water hyacinth. Very little research has

been performed on the ability of water lettuce alone to treat wastewater since it

does not appear to have any advantages over the water hyacinth.

2.2.1.3 Pennywort

Pennyworts (Hydrocotyle wnbellata, H. ranunculoides, H. spp.) are not

normally free floating plants. They are normally rooted into the substrate in

shallow water, with their leaves and stems growing above the water surface.

Pennyworts tend to grow along the water surface and intertwine with other plants,

but once they become crowded they will grow vertically. In high nutrient

environments, pennyworts will grow in free floating rafts. The leaves on these

plants are much smaller than those of the water hyacinth and have long stems

compared to the leaf size. H. umbellata has crenate circular leaves with diameters

of as much as 75 mm and stems as long as 40.5 cm (see Figure 2-3). When

crowding occurs, the leaves of the pennywort tend to be self shading and thereby

limit production (EPA, 1988; Metcalf & Eddy, 1991). One of the reasons

pennyworts are of interest in the field of wastewater treatment is because they are a

cold tolerant plant. Most of the approximately 100 species are found in the

temperate zones, but H. ranunculoides is found as far north as Pennsylvania and

 14

Figure 2-2 Water Lettuce (Pistia stratiotes)

Figure 2-3 Pennywort (Hydrocotyle spp.)

 15

Delaware (Correl and Johnston, 1970). They are also of interest because they can

transport more oxygen to the water than water hyacinths, and their rate of nutrient

uptake is approximately the same throughout the year. In the winter, the nutrient

uptake of pennywort plants exceeds that of water hyacinths (Metcalf & Eddy,
1991).

2.2.1.4 Duckweed

Duckweed is the common name for the family of small aquatic plants,

Lemnaceae. Duckweeds consist of about forty species in four well defined genera:

Spirodela, Lemna, Wolffia, and Wolfiella. Members of this group can be found in

most areas of the globe with the exception of polar and desert regions. Some

species are widespread, while others are limited in their range.

Individual duckweed plants consist of a single frond, but the plants may be

found in groups connected by stipes. Duckweeds vary widely in size and shape

(see Figure 2-4). The smallest, Wolffia, has nearly spherical fronds which are

about 1 mm in diameter. Others are flat and slender, oval, or circular. Spirodela

polyrhiza L. is the largest species of the family with flat circular fronds as large as

1.5 cm across. Lemna and Spirodela have short nonfunctional roots that are

usually less than 10 mm in length but can be as long as 3 cm. Lemna species have

a singe root strand and Spirodela species have two to twelve bunched roots. The

other two genera do not have roots.

Duckweeds are the smallest and simplest of the flowering plants— Wolffia

are the smallest seed plants in existence—but flower and seed production is rare

among most of the species. Reproduction is usually asexual, with one or two
 16

pouches of embryonic tissue at the base of the frond producing a new frond. The

fronds may remain connected by long stipes, forming loose colonies of plants

(Correl and Johnston, 1970). Each frond produces between ten and twenty new-

fronds during its life. Duckweeds require very little structural support and as a

result have very little vascular tissue. Almost all of the cells of each frond are

metabolically active. Because of this, they have one of the fastest reproduction

rates among plants. Current estimates show that duckweeds can grow

approximately thirty percent faster than water hyacinth (EPA. 1988). Under

favorable conditions the standing crop biomass may double in 1-5.3 days. Initially

a doubling of the biomass means that twice the surface area is covered, but once

the surface is completely covered, growth will continue in some species to form a

mat several centimeters thick (Dinges, 1982). Where it exists. Lemna gibba L. will

probably dominate in mat forming conditions because it has inflated pouches on the

underside of its fronds which allow it to grow over the top of species with flat

fronds. L. trisulca L. floats just beneath the surface except when flowering and

may be more protected from the cold as a result. Under warmer conditions, other

species will probably dominate since they will grow over the top of L. trisulca.

Most of the species cease to grow at temperatures below T C. Some

species, such as S. polyrhiza L. winter by producing a bud which contains large

amounts of dense carbohydrates and sinks to the bottom until spring (Correl and

Johnston, 1970). Treatment ponds using duckweed may require seasonal

operation, or modification of the winter treatment process since the duckweed mat

will not be present after freezing temperatures are sustained for any length of time.

Fortunately these temperatures, and the lighting conditions that accompany them,
 17

also substantially decrease algal growth. In duckweed systems that are primarily

used to remove algae from stabilization pond effluent, this may result in few large

changes in system operation.

2.2.1.5 Water Fern

Water Ferns consist of two genera which have been used for wastewater

treatment, AzolJa and Salvinia. Most of the approximately sixteen species in this

family are native to tropical or subtropical regions (Dinges, 1982). Plants from

each genus can grow to be substantially larger than duckweeds but they are used in

much the same way. Azolla species (Figure 2-5) are minute reddish or green

normally free-floating plants, but they may also grow on mud. They are usually

found densely matted. The stems are pinnately branched and are usually concealed

by roots and imbricating leaves. The six species of this genus are widely

distributed.

Azolla caroliniana, a native North American species, forms individual

plants 3 cm across. The roots of plants in this genus are feathery and

approximately 3 cm long. As with other ferns, these plants do produce spores in

their reproductive cycle. Vegetative reproduction occurs by division, with the older

growth at the center of a cluster of stems dying and decaying to release actively

growing branches (Aston, 1973). Azolla species may have some promise for use in

treating nitrogen poor wastewaters because the submerged lobes of the plants leaves

have cavities which are usually inhabited by a blue-green algae, Anabaena azollae,

that fixes nitrogen from the air if it is lacking in the water (Cook et al., 1974).
 18

Salvinia contains the larger plants in this group, with individual leaflets

approaching 3 cm long. This group consists of free-floating ferns with branching

horizontal stems. From the surface, the stem appears to support pairs of opposite

leaves, but actually each node has a whorl of three leaves (see Figure 2-6). The

submerged leaf is greatly modified to resemble a mass of roots. True roots are

absent, but the third leaf still provides some attachment surfaces for

microorganisms. Under favorable conditions, Salvinia exhibits extremely rapid

vegetative growth and spread. In some locations Salvinia auriculata has been

known to cover large areas with blankets of living and dying plants up to 25 cm
thick. This species is considered a pest second only to the water hyacinth (Aston.

1973).

Since these plants does not exhibit the same capability as duckweed to

survive in thick mats cut off from light, frequent harvesting will probably be

required in systems which use them. These plants are larger than duckweed but

they are still affected by the wind, and either surface baffles will be required or they

will have to be redistributed frequently. Salvinia species have been investigated

using large scale systems in Australia, and the results were similar to those achieved

in duckweed systems (Dinges, 1982).

2.2.1.6 Others

Plants which are considered noxious weeds in natural waterways are usually

worth considering as plants for wastewater treatment, especially since they are

already acclimatized to the local conditions. Alligator weed, Alternanthera

philoxeroides, is one of these plants. It is a semiterrestrial herb which is clogging

 19

S^fS-SSl
Wolfpa australiana x8
j^tS^ ^£**^^N

Qd3> /^i
9
\#
Lemna trisulca

x3
jsSkfe"^
^K
|vy v_^
Spiroilela oliiiorrhtza x 8

**.

Figure 2-4 Duckweeds (Lemnaceae)

Figure 2-5 AzollajUiculoides:

left, x 0.7; right, ftill size
 20

*'
:,
'•

V^\.
i?"'\
^^^*i_is^ll
:|
^p^jfi*^
...\ /*^?^Si
^i* G 1 psT'v'jj
7 J

V^^^St?" I^T Jr^ffliglm M^

tC^Vy

c^ ^ ^| I- -;.'V^" : JJ\ Hf-V'- \j

l/
'
-
' i **^^f -^^j9f ^^
B>vf:;

4fM\lt /
Air-./'
/^^j!
z. Li
4 f'tw 1 •
%
vS
nj-^l
\
1

Figure 2-6 Satvinia auriculata:

left, two surface views x 0.7; right a whorl of leaves x 0.7
 21

waterways in Texas and other parts of the south. Alligator weed has long narrow

leaves and a horizontal stem which creates large floating mats under advantageous

conditions (Correll and Johnston, 1970; Dinges, 1982). Some rooted plants may-

be forced to grow in a floating mode. Dinges experimented with Myriophyllwn

brasiliense and Paspalum fluitam, and aquatic grass. Both grew well on the

surface of the wastewater, with the grass actually forming mats. Since grass has a

lower water content than most natural floating aquatic plants, it would be easier to

handle and dry, and it would be readily acceptable as hay if the protein content was

high enough.

2.2.2 Submerged Plants

Submerged aquatic plants may either be rooted into the substrate or within

the water column. Submerged plants procure all of their nutrients from the water

or the substrate, and they draw the required oxygen and carbon dioxide strictly

from the water. The production of submerged plants is generally limited because

their metabolism is adjusted to low light conditions and slow diffusion of gases to

and from the plants. Since plants require oxygen during the dark cycle, and

produce it during the light cycle, the oxygen content of the water will vary on a

daily basis. Since carbon dioxide is produced or consumed on a cyclic basis as

well, the pH of the water will also fluctuate from day to night. How much
fluctuation occurs will depend upon the buffering capability of the water. Because

the plants require oxygen part of the day, they will not survive in anaerobic waters.

Wastewaters likely to become anaerobic at night will require aeration at night if

submerged plants are to be used in treatment. For submerged plants to be used

 22

effectively they must receive sunlight, so the water can not be very turbid but must

be relatively clear. The above mentioned limitations tend to make one think that

submerged plants are not very useful in water treatment, or that they should only be

used in a final polishing step. Submerged plants are capable of absorbing nutrients,

metals, and some trace organics, so there is potential for their use in a polishing

phase of treatment (Eighmy et al.. 1987: Reed et ai. 1988). As is the case with

floating macrophytes, it is believed that the major removal mechanism of nutrients

and trace organics is by bacterial degradation rather than plant uptake.

Of the many species tested, several show relatively aggressive growth rates

in wastewater and are capable of withstanding interspecific competition. Some of

these are Elodea canadensis, E. nutallii, Egeria densa, CeratophyUum demersum,

Potamogeton foliosus, and in warmer climates, Hydrilla verticillata. Some of

these are shown in Figure 2-7. Elodea and Hydrilla are the most aggressive, but

Hydrilla is capable of growing at lower light levels and would probably dominate a

mixed culture. Elodea is found in tropical and temperate regions throughout the

world, while Hydrilla is present in most "warm regions" (Dinges. 1982). One main

problem with these plants is that even the cold-region species experience a severe

die back during the winter months when water temperatures approach freezing. In

warmer areas, mortality may not occur, but active growth will probably cease

(Dinges, 1982).
 23

Hydrilla verticillata

Egeria densa

Figure 2-7 Submerged Aquatic Plants

 24

2.3 Removal Processes

The primary removal mechanisms for wastewater constituents in aquatic

plant systems are essentially the same as for mechanical systems: sedimentation,

filtration, nitrification/denitrification. adsorption, and precipitation (Neuse, 1976;

Dinges, 1982). Plant systems also add nutrient and dissolved constituent uptake

and subsequent removal by plant harvest. Plants and their associated microbial

populations may be used to perform the physical removal, as in the case of a

shallow water hyacinth basin where the roots filter out solids and adsorb dissolved

constituents. The plants may be alternately used simply to create the proper

environment for treatment to occur, such as a deep basin with a duckweed or water

fern cover that provides quiescent, dark water ideal for algae removal. Water

hyacinths, water lettuce, pennywort, and other large-rooted floating plants may be

used in systems managed for nitrification/denitrific-ation by allowing the water to

become anaerobic. In this case nitrification occurs in the layer of aerobic bacteria

attached to the roots. Any nitrates which are not consumed by the plant quickly

diffuse into the bulk of the water where they are subject to denitrification (Reed et

ah, 1988; Metcalf & Eddy, 1991). Any of the plants systems that have sufficient

plant yield may be managed for phosphorus or metals removal. Phosphorus

removal in these systems is primarily by plant uptake, microbial immobilization with

plant detritus, adsorption to the benthic sediments, and precipitation within the

water column. Permanent removal from the system can only be accomplished by

harvest and sediment removal (WPCF, 1990).

 25

2.4 Physical Characteristics

The physical characteristics of an aquatic plant treatment system depend

entirety upon the objectives of the treatment and the type of plants used.

Duckweed or water fern sedimentation systems will probably be relatively deep

with no particular surface configuration. Water hyacinth systems tend to be

shallow, long and narrow with influent distribution manifolds or weirs. This is to

maximize contact with the roots, where the majority of the treatment occur.

Nutrient film techniques have been used with pennywort to remove metals,

organics, and suspended solids (Dierberg et al., 1987). These systems consist of

narrow troughs filled with a mat of plants which rests on the bottom, and a thin

layer of wastewater flows through the root and detritus zone. Permanent removal

of the adsorbed constituents is then achieved by harvesting the plants. Submerged

plant systems generally consist of a large shallow lagoon to maximize gas exchange

with the atmosphere, sunlight penetration, and plant contact time. Numerous

variations on each possibility exist and will be discussed in more detail in the design

section.

2.5 Operational Requirements

Regardless of the system chosen, the items discussed below will be

important to the continued success of the treatment. Most aquatic plant systems

will only be one component in a larger treatment plant, but they do have some

unique requirements which must be considered.

 26

2.5.1 Operator

The operator of an aquatic plant wastewater treatment system needs to be

knowledgeable of not only wastewater treatment, but also of the plants used. The

operator must understand the methods by which the plants do what is desired of

them, any growth requirements of the plants, to what pests and diseases they are

susceptible, and how to control those pests. The operator needs to understand the

processes well enough that he can adjust the input variables to fine tune the

performance of the system.

2.5.2 Nutrients

Most of the aquatic plants used in treatment participate in luxury uptake of

nutrients, and many absorb large quantities of metals such as iron. Because of this,

the addition of limiting nutrients may be required in lagoons that are the third or

fourth in a series of aquatic plant lagoons. One water hyacinth treatment system in

Florida found that chlorosis of the plants was occurring in the third unit in series

because the iron concentration was well below the 0.3 mg/L needed by the plants

for proper chlorophyll production. The operators believed that nitrogen would also

become limiting in that unit once the planned harvest schedule was implemented

(Dinges, 1982).

2.5.3 Harvest

In systems being managed for phosphorus or metals removal, harvesting

must be part of the operation plan since this is the only pathway for permanent

removal of these constituents. Less obvious is the need for harvest in systems

designed for sedimentation or nitrification/denitrification. The main reasons that

 27

harvesting the plants in these systems is desirable are to maintain a healthy vigorous

population, and to control pests (Solati. 1987). Systems using water hyacinth or

water ferns in a warm climate would eventually become crowded enough that

detritus would not be able to get through the mat. and the formation of sudd would

probably result. Sudd is a floating mat of partially decayed plant matter. Once this

began, all of the nutrients and contaminants in the plants' tissues would quickly

return to the water and the effluent goals would most likely be exceeded (Wills and

Pierson. 1987). Complete removal of the mat would then become the best way to

correct the problem.

2.5.4 Maintenance and Cleaning

Depending upon the design of the system, units will require periodic

draining and removal of the benthic sludge. An unharvested water hyacinth system

receiving stabilization pond effluent or another high solids content water will

probably require cleaning once a year (Dinges, 1976, 1982). Secondary or tertiary

cells should be drained and cleaned every two to three years, and deep secondary

cells that are harvested regularly should only need to be drained every five years

(Reed et al., 1987). Some states require that cleaning be performed more

frequently. Texas, for example, requires that each cell be drained and cleaned of

sludge and plants annually (TWC, 1991).

2.6 Climatic Constraints

Unprotected aquatic plant systems are limited in their range of year round

operation. Even submerged aquatic plants adapted to northern environments

experience extreme die-offs during the winter (Dinges, 1982). Sub-tropical plants
 28

such as the water hyacinth is even more severely restricted. As stated above,

exposure to air temperatures of -3" C for 12 hours will destroy the leaves, and

exposure to -5 C for 48 hours will result in the death of the plant (EPA, 1988).

Regions with mean January temperatures below 1

" C will not support a continuous

water hyacinth population (Dinges, 1982). Figure 2-8 shows the ranges in the

contiguous United States which will support unprotected water hyacinths on an

annual and six-month basis.

Although duckweeds are adapted to cold environments, they survive by

going dormant for the winter and cannot be grown effectively at temperatures

below 7 C. Figure 2-9 shows the ranges in the contiguous United States where

duckweed growth is likely for six. nine, and twelve months of the year.
 29

Figure 2-8 Suitable Areas for

Hyacinth Systems
after EPA, 1988

LEGEND
Growth is likely during
all12 months of the year
Growth is likely during
9 months of the vear
Growth is likely during
6 months of the year

Figure 2-9 Suitable Areas for Duckweed

Systems
after EPA, 1988
 Chapter 3

Human Health and Environmental Concerns

3.1 Introduction

As with any other treatments system, the primary goal of an aquatic plant

treatment system is to protect human health, and the secondary goal is to prevent

damage to the environment. The ability of various aquatic plant treatment systems

to meet these two goals, together with economic considerations, determines

whether they are practical as components in a treatment facility.

From the public health and environmental viewpoint, natural treatment

systems offer a greater potential than conventional systems for exposing the

environment to wastewater contaminants due to their larger size (EPA, 1988).

Since the sites can be fenced to prevent access by the general public, public

exposure to partialfy treated wastewater is not a problem. The major concerns then

become operator exposure, releases of untreated or partially treated wastewater,

and final effluent quality. Studies cited by Reed et al. (1988) did not find any

correlation between normal operator exposure to wastewater or wastewater aerosols

and the incidence of operator illness. Aquatic plant systems are designed to prevent

the release of insufficiently treated wastewater by either leaks or short-circuiting in

the same manner as any other type of treatment systems. Ponds may be lined if the

native soil allows too much exfiltration, and all systems are designed and managed

to niinimize preferential flow paths and maximize treatment.

30
 31

Effluent quality is judged by measuring the concentrations of the

contaminants of concern. The principal contaminants of concern can be broken

into the following main categories: biological oxygen demand, suspended solids,

nitrogen, phosphorus, pathogenic organisms, heavy metals, and trace organics.

Biological oxygen demand (BOD) is not an individual chemical contaminant, but is

a measure of the oxygen demand exerted by all of the readily degraded organic

contaminants. Pathogenic organisms include bacteria, viruses, protozoa, and

helminths. The heavy metals include cadmium, selenium, mercury, zinc, nickeL

copper, lead and chromium. Trace organics include highly stable synthetic organics

such as chlorinated hydrocarbons.

The primary health concern is from pollution by nitrogen, pathogens,

metals, or organics. All of the mentioned pollutants, the major reasons for

concern, and the exposure pathways of concern are summarized in Table 3-1.

3.2 Biological Oxygen Demand

Although some of the contaminants which are included in this measurement

are unhealthy at the concentrations found in raw wastewater, the primary reason for

concern is the oxygen demand they exert on the environment in which they are

found. Since oxygen does not dissolve in water sufficiently to match the oxygen

demand of the readily degraded organic chemicals involved, microbial metabolism

of these chemicals will deplete the water of dissolved oxygen faster than it can

diffuse in from the atmosphere. If this occurs in natural waters, most of the animal

and plant life will perish and add to the problem.

 32

nic piuuai} iiicuiuu^ nuti uquuuu puuu Sybicins iciuuvc dkjlj iium mc

water are microbial activity, filtration, and sedimentation. Microbial degradation

and filtration dominate in floating plant systems, such as water hyacinth systems,

where there is an extensive root system. Sedimentation and anaerobic degradation

in the benthic zone dominate in systems with small floating plants such as

duckweed or water fern. Soluble BOD is less affected in systems without

substantial root systems because there is much less aerobic microbial activity in the

water column than exists on the roots.

Oxygen is supplied to the bacteria through the roots as discussed above,

either directly, or after diffusing into the upper layer of water. Some oxygen also

enters the water by diffusion through the water surface, but in floating aquatic plant

systems, this is extremely limited due to the mass of plant matter on the surface.

Removals of BOD 5 have been reported in the range of 72 to 94 percent in water

hyacinth systems (Dinges. 1976: Neuse. 1976: Reed etal.. 1988).

3.3 Suspended Solids

Organic suspended solids contribute to the oxygen demand, suspended

solids in general cause siltation of receiving waters, and have the potential of

harming the habitat and the organisms present. In spite of these possibilities, the

main reason that suspended solids are a concern to the public is aesthetic—water

that has a high suspended solids concentration does not look clean.

Suspended solids are removed primarily by filtration and sedimentation in

aquatic plant systems. Systems using floating plants will perform better than

sedimentation ponds without plants because of the quiescent conditions under the
 33

Table 3-1 Pollutants, Effects, and Pathwavs of Concern

Pollutant Concern Pathwav
BOD
Health No direct impact
Environmental Oxygen starvation of natural aquatic Discharge to natural waters
habitats

Suspended Solids
Health No direct impact
Environmental Aesthetics, siltation of natural waters Discharge to natural waters

Nitrogen (esp. nitrates)

Health "Blue baby" syndrome Drinking water contamination
Environmental Eutrophication Discharge to natural waters

Phosphorus
Health No direct impact
Environmental Eutrophication Discharge to natural waters

Pathogens
Health Disease epidemics Ingestion via water or food aerosols

Environmental Diseased wildlife, soil accumulation Discharge to natural waters, soils

Metals
Health Toxicity, "brittle-bone disease" (Cd), Ingestion via water or food
brain damage (Pb)
Environmental Toxicity, long-term soil damage Discharge to natural waters or land

Trace Organics
Health Toxicity, Cancer Ingestion, absorption through the skin

Environmental Toxicity, other biological problems Discharge to natural waters and

bioaccumulation
 34

plants. Also contributing to the effectiveness of floating plant systems is the fact

that suspended algae cannot reproduce and remain active due to the shading of the

water by the mat of plants on the surface. Removals of 70 to 95 percent have been

reported in water hyacinth systems (Reed et al. 1988).

3.4 Nitrogen

The concentration of nitrate nitrogen is restricted by regulation in potential

drinking waters because it has been linked to the occurrence of "blue baby"

syndrome, where an infant's blood is hindered from carrying sufficient oxygen.

The concentration of all forms of nitrogen is regulated in discharges to surface

waters because it can cause eutrophication, and because the unionized form of

ammonia is toxic to fish in relatively low concentrations. Nitrogen can be removed

from the water by plant uptake, microbially mediated nitrification and

denitrification reactions, and volatilization of dissolved ammonia. Because aquatic

plants tend to maintain the pH of the water near neutral, very little volatilization of

ammonia occurs. Some removal of nitrogen does occur by plant uptake, but the

majority is removed by nitrification and denitrification, with the resulting nitrogen

gas diffusing into the atmosphere. Managing aquatic plant systems for maximum

plant uptake tends to decrease the amount of nitrification and denitrification

because it requires frequent harvest, and removes some of the attached microbial

growth along with the harvested plants. Removal of nitrogen can range from 26 to

96 percent of the influent total (EPA, 1988).

 35

3.5 Phosphorus

Phosphorus concentration in wastewater effluents is primarily a concern

because phosphorus is occasionally a limiting nutrient in natural waters and release

of available phosphonis can potentially cause eutrophication. Phosphorus is readily

adsorbed onto soil particles, and, in systems where the wastewater is exposed to

soils, more removal is likely due to this mechanism than due to plant uptake.

Eventually, however, the sorption capacity of the exposed soil will be reached and

removal will be almost entirely due to plant uptake. Reddy and Debusk (1987) feel

that plant uptake is the only mechanism that can be relied upon for design purposes

because it can be managed.

Most of the plants used in aquatic systems undergo luxury consumption of

nutrients (see Figure 3-1), which makes them more practical to use for nutrient

removal by plant uptake and harvest. Removal rates of 12 to 73 percent of the

influent phosphorus are possible depending upon the operating conditions

(Wofverton and McDonald, 1979; Reddy- and Debusk, 1987; Eighmy et al., 1987).

3.5 Pathogens

Pathogens are of primary health concern because they are by definition

disease causing organisms. Removal of these organisms in aquatic plant systems is

for the most part identical to the mechanisms in oxidation and facultative treatment

ponds—natural attrition due to the adverse growing conditions in the system,

adsorption, predation, and sedimentation (EPA, 1988). Some submerged aquatic

plants produce chemicals which suppress microbial growth in a similar fashion to

the algae found in oxidation ponds, but most of the plants do not (Dinges, 1982).
 36

Floating aquatic plant systems with large root masses also remove pathogens by

filtration and subsequent predation by organisms in the root ecosystem (Neuse,

1976). Filtration is most effective for the larger pathogenic organisms, but has very

little effect on virus removal (Abasi. 1987). Unless removal curves are developed

for the specific systems, curves such as those in Figure 3-2 which were developed

for pond systems, should be used in the design process. For these curves, only

removal due to the time in the pond environment is taken into account, with no

credit given to the filtration in the root zone.

3.6 Heavy Metals

Metals are present in many industrial and municipal wastewaters from a

variety of sources. Metals are a concern to the environment as well as to human

health because they tend to build up in the food chain and soils and are toxic to the

organisms involved once enough has built up in their systems. Two health

examples of metals overexposure are given in Table 3-1. More exist, and all are

essentially reactions to the toxicity of the metals involved. Most of the metals are

micronutrients for both plants and animals, but the concentrations present in

wastewater are usually in the nutrient toxicity range (see Figure 3-1). Metals

removal is minimal in conventional primary and secondary treatment systems. If

significant removal is required, conventional systems usually resort to chemical

precipitation and flocculation, reverse osmosis, or ion exchange processes. These

processes require significant chemical or power inputs and precipitation also

produces large quantities of sludge which must then be placed in a landfill.

Removal in aquatic plant systems is largely due to adsorption of the metal cations
 37

O
Vma x

O
_J
Luxury consumption LJJ
I

>-

CO
C/5
<
Nutrient Nutrient
o
sufficiency! toxicity
m
I

NUTRIENT SUPPLY

Figure 3-1 Schematic of Nutrient Accumulation and Biomass Yield versus

Nutrient Supply (after Reddy and DeBusle 1987)
 38

00

W
1

^0
HELMINTHS ^^~
< 5
-
~\S
/
s.
B.O.D..
^ 4 C
<

-+- ~ VI
c
,- ~H
If t;
^o 50 _ -<y >^ BACTERIA ^f 3

<^r-
° *i s
<* ^:
"4 E4 2

J* -» <j

nf . VIRUSES 1

TIME, J 1 1

/0<J iSJ AoJ

H2r Hkr Her
p»»j

Figure 3-2 Generalized Removal Curves for Helminth Eggs,

Enteric Bacteria and Viruses in waste stabilization ponds
at temperatures above 20 G C (after Krishnam and Smith, 1987)
 39

onto the roots and translocation into the plant tissues. Water hyacinth, water

lettuce, and pennywort are capable of substantial adsorption and translocation of

metals before the plants begin to suffer from phytotoxic effects (Tokunga et al.,

1987; Wolverton and McDonold, 1978: Salati 1987: Heaton et al., 1987; EPA.

1988; Wills and Pierson, 1987; Jamile et al, 1987). In some cases, water

hyacinths are able to concentrate metals on and within the plant to as much as one

thousand times the ambient concentration. The majority of the metals taken into

the plants are found in the roots, and because mature hyacinths shed roots

regularly, the benthic sludge in hyacinth systems will also have high concentrations

of metals (Abasi. 1987; Heaton et al., 1987). Removal efficiencies of three parallel

water hyacinth channels are given in Table 3-2 for an example of possible removals

(Reed et al., 1988).

3.7 Trace Organics

Removal of refractory synthetic organics requires advanced treatment

methods in conventional treatment systems such as reverse osmosis or carbon

adsorption. In aquatic plant systems, removal is by absorption into the plants

themselves. In some cases the organics are degraded by enzymes in the plants.

Water hyacinths are capable of absorbing and degrading phenols and biphenols

because the roots contain polyphenol oxidase enzymes (Templet and Valez, 1987;

OXeefe et al, 1987). Submerged aquatic plants have shown potential as a final

polishing system to remove organics left in the treated wastewater. Table 3-3

contains the results of a pilot scale water hyacinth system used to remove trace

organics, and provides some idea of removal potentials (Reed et al, 1988).
 40

3.8 Vectors

In aquatic plant systems, the primary vector of concern is the mosquito.

The main goal of mosquito control programs is to maintain the population below

the threshold for disease transmission, but if it is at all possible, the programs will

maintain the population below nuisance levels. Pesticides are not desired as a

primary control mechanism because of the potential for developing a resistant

strain, because pesticide residues are not desired in the effluent, and because in

some systems (water hyacinth, water lettuce) the larvae are protected from the

spray by the leaves of the plants.

Mosquitos are not a problem in duckweed or water fern systems because

the larvae cannot penetrate the thick mat of plants to breathe. Water hyacinth and

water iettuce systems have the most trouble with mosquitos because the rafts of

plants leave pockets of stagnant water that are protected from sprays or natural

predators. Many aquatic plant systems use mosquito fish (Gambusia spp.) to

control the larvae population. Other species may be used as well: goldfish

(Carassius auratus), frogs (Hyla spp. ), and grass shrimp (Palemonetes

kadialcensis). Frogs can survive in anaerobic waters, but the other species require

at least an upper layer of water containing more than 1 mg/L of dissolved oxygen

(Dinges, 1976; Reed et al, 1988; Metcalf & Eddy, 1992). If mosquito fish are

used for larvae control in a water hyacinth system, the plants must be harvested

regularly to prevent protected pockets from forming in the mats. Systems with high

organic loads will probably require supplemental aeration to keep the fish alive (it

also increases treatment, but aeration at the shallow depths involved is not very

efficient). Systems with lower organic loads may only require nocturnal aeration
 41

Table 3-2 Metal Removal in Hyacinth Ponds

[mm. fafln^tCon^tifiattort, n«?L P^fcenrE^MttSftaJ*

Boron 140.0 37
Copper 27.6 20
Iron 457.8 34
Manganese 18.2 37
Lead 12.8 68
Cadmium 0.4 46
Chromium 0.8 22
Arsenic 0.9 18
"Average of three parallel channels, detention time about 5 days

Source: Reed et al.. 1383

Table 5-3 Trace Organic Removal in Hyacinth Basins

Concentration ut&L
Chemical Untreated wastewater Hyacinth effluent* ;

Benzene 2.0 ND**

Toluene 6.3 ND
Ethylbenzene 3.3 ND
Chlorobenzene 1.1 ND
Chloroform 4.7 0.3
Chlorodibrornomethane 5.7 ND
1,1,1 Trichloroethane 4.4 ND
Tetrachloroethylene 4.7 0.4
Phenol 6.2 1.2

Butylbenzyl phthalate 2.1 0.4

Diethyl phthalate 0.8 0.2

Isophorone 0.3 0.1

Naphthalane 0.7 0.1

1,4 Dichlorobenzene 1.1 ND

*
Pilot scale system. 4.5 day detention time, 76 cubic meter/day flow, three sets of two basin:
each, in parallel, plant density 0-25 kgr'sq.meler (wet weight).

"ND = not detected

Source: VPCF.1390
 42

to provide oxygen when the plants are not undergoing photosynthesis. The water

hyacinth system at the Hornsby Bend treatment facility in Austin. Texas used

natural aerators consisting of large, shallow open spaces staggered along the outside

edges of the ponds which allowed oxygen to diffuse into the water and then flow

under the hyacinth mat. Oxygenation was supplemented during the day by

attached algal growth on the gravel substrate in the aerators. The mosquito fish

were also able to use these open spaces to get to more difficult to reach portions of

the hyacinth mat. Also at this facility, which is enclosed in a large greenhouse,

mosquito control was greatly assisted by volunteer dragonfly and damselffy

populations (Doersam. 1987).

 Chapter 4

Performance Expectations

4.1 Introduction

Each treatment facility will perform differently, based upon the design

objectives, the macrophyte species employed, and the environmental conditions of

the facility. This chapter addresses the performance levels that can be expected

from different designs under field conditions.

4.2 Controlling Factors

As with any other biological process, numerous environmental factors affect

the rate and efficiency of any reaction taking place. Temperature, nutrient

availability, light intensity, oxygen content of the water, toxicity of the

contaminants, crowding, growing time between harvests, interspecies competition

and many other similar parameters are important to the performance of aquatic

plant systems.

Because of the complexity of the interactions of the controlling parameters,

lab- and pilot-scale facilities need to be used to evaluate the desired aquatic plant

system for proper site specific operational requirements. A good example of the
proper use of this process is discussed in the Iron Bridge case study in Appendix A.

4.3 Treatment Objectives

Aquatic plant systems are used to reduce biological oxygen demand,

suspended solids, metals, nutrient, and other contaminant concentrations in the

43
 44

water. The level of treatment desired will determine the treatment scheme used.

Suspended solids removal using a water hyacinth system will not require as much

area or as long of a detention time as nitrogen or phosphorus removal using water

hyacinth. Harvesting will be critical in a phosphorus removal process, but would

not affect treatment much in a suspended solids removal process, and could even

be counterproductive in a nitrogen removal system.

Aquatic plants performed as well as mechanical aerators at reducing BOD 5

in one study, and there was no appreciable difference in the removals after 10 days

(Redely et al, 1989). Pennywort and water hyacinth performed the best in this

study, achieving a 70 percent reduction in 5 days. In these systems, both

mechanical and natural, the reduction in BOD 5 is due to microbial degradation--

the comparison between the systems is primarily that of oxygen delivery to the

microbes. In another study, water hyacinths removed the most NH4 from a

primary effluent (69.9%). but all of the large plants tested performed about the

same in secondary effluent (Reddy et al, 1989).

Treatment by aquatic plant systems is slower and less controlled than by

conventional systems, but properly designed aquatic systems are just as reliable as

conventional systems for the removal of carbonaceous BOD. suspended solids, and

nitrogen compounds (Tchobanoglous, 1987). The performance of several existing

or previous water hyacinth and duckweed systems is given for BOD 5 and TSS in
Tables 4-1, and 4-2. The behavior of each of the systems listed in these tables

depended upon the operating conditions, but they did perform as desired, and as

can be seen in the tables, substantial removals of suspended solids and BOD is
possible using these systems.
 45

Table 4 - 1. Performance of Existing Water Hyacinth Systems (WPCF, 1990)

BOD5 .ing/1 TSS. mgi'l Detention

Location Influent type Influent Effluent Intlucnt Effluent Depth, m Time, d
National Space
_ . . , , Raw Sewage 110 7 97 10 1.22 54
Technology lab
Lucedale, MS Raw Sewage 52 23 77 6 1.73 67(b)
Orange Grove, Effluent from 2 Aerated
50 14 49 15 1.83 6.8
MS(a) Lagoons
_ .
r .,„ Effluent from 1 Aerated
MS
.

Cedar Lake, _ „ 35 15 155 14 1.5 22

Cell
^, Facultative Pond
Austin, TX 20.241.9 6.6-12.0 34.240.0 8.8-9.1 0.7-1.3 6-9
Effluent
(a)Odorsatnieht
(b) Based on effluent flow rates.

Table 4 - 2. Performance of Existing Duckweed Facilities (EPA, 1988)

BOD5. ma/1 TSS, mg/1 Detention

Location Influent type Influent Effluent Influent Effluent Depth, m Timab), d
Facultative Pond
Biloxi, MS 30 15 155 12 2.4 21
Effluent fa)
Facultative Pond
Collins, MS 33 13 36 13 0.4 7
Effluent
Sleepy Eye, MN Facultative Pond
420 18 364 34 1.5 70
(Del Monte) Effluent
Facultative Pond
Wilton, AZ - 6.5 - 7.4 2.7 0.7
Effluent (a)
Facultative Pond
NSTL, MS 35.5 3 47.7 11.5 0.4 8
Effluent
(a) Partially aerated.

(b) Theoretical hydraulic detention time for duckweed cell only

 46

4.4 Primary Treatment

Primary treatment of domestic wastewater is possible using plants such as

water hyacinth, water lettuce, or pennywort, as can be seen by the first two cases

shown in Table 4-1, but submerged or small floating plants such as duckweed

would probably not provide cost effective, efficient treatment. Filtration,

sedimentation, and degradation within the root zone or water column are the major

methods that primary treatment is accomplished in aquatic plant systems.

Duckweed systems are capable of removing BOD. but they are not as efficient at

removing suspended solids as the larger, rooted plants (Wolverton and McCaleb,

1987). Submerged plants are not used in primary treatment because they require

relatively clear water for photosynthesis, and the water must have a low enough

oxygen demand that it does not become anoxic during dark periods when the plants

require oxygen. Primary treatment with aquatic plant systems is not permitted in

Texas (Dinges and Doersam. 1986; TWC, 1992) and other states. Most likely this

is because of concerns that the root system would quickly clog and cause treatment

to suffer. This concern is not entirely valid, because experiments with primary

treatment at the Walt Disney World wastewater facilities did not overload the

treatment capacity of a water hyacinth system with organic loading rates of 440
kg
h ^ 5
(Hayes et al., 1987). Some influent limitations do exist however:

concentrations of BOD 5 greater than 1000 mg/L cause growth impairment in water

hyacinths, and concentrations greater than 1500 mg/L cause growth to cease

(Abbasi, 1987). The author in this study was not clear about whether the

impairment was due to toxicity effects from the organic chemicals or due to the

plants' inability to provide enough oxygen to the roots to support the demand of the
 47

roots themselves as well as the attached microbial growth, but one of these two

mechanisms is likely to be the cause.

4.5 Secondary Treatment

Secondary treatment and nutrient removal are the two most common uses

of aquatic plant facilities for wastewater treatment. All of the floating aquatic plants

perform well in various secondary treatment schemes, but the large-leaved varieties

(water hyacinth, water lettuce, pennywort etc.) are the best at BOD (Reddy et al.,

1989; Dinges and Doersam, 1986; Tchobanoglous, 1987) and Suspended solids

removal in properly designed systems. The small-leaved varieties (duckweed, water

fern) are well suited to upgrading oxidation pond effluent by providing removal of

suspended algae and some of the remaining BOD (Wolverton, 1987). The large-

leaved varieties can also be used to upgrade this type of a system, but usually the

area in the existing sedimentation pond is large enough for duckweed treatment,

and the small-leaved plants are less troublesome to care for and are easier to harvest

if required.

Table 4-3 shows the performance of an water hyacinth pilot facility used for

secondary treatment studies by the Texas Department of Health in 1976. For

performance to be consistent in any aquatic treatment system, the operating

conditions need to be relatively stable in terms of influent quality and quantity

(Dinges and Doersam, 1986) so equalization basins are often used if the influent

fluctuates. One pair of researchers estimated that under central Florida conditions,

at least 3.6 ha of pond area is required to treat 3800 m3/d of primary effluent to
 48

Table 4 -3. Results of a Texas Department of Health Water Hyacinth

Pilot Pond System (after Neiise, 1976).

Influent Effluent
Characteristic mean median mean median
BOD5 19 15 3.5 3.2

TSS 46 40 7.1 6
vss 40 34 5.2 5

NH3 2.1 1.3 0.6 <0.1

TON 4.3 4 1.2 1.2

P04 . 15.4 14.7 10.6 11

BOD20 108 90 20 20
COD 82 70 32 40
Sol. BOD5 8.1 - 2.2 -

Sol. COD 55 - 30 -

FC/lOOml 2536 1700 98 10

Sol. TOC 15.3 - 9.8 -

- 0.017 -
Chlorophyll a 0.469
 49

secondary standards of < 30 mg/L each of BOD 5 and TSS with current technology
(T. Debusk and Reddy. 1987).

4.6 Nutrient Removal and Tertiary Treatment

These two have been grouped together because regardless of whether

nutrient removal is performed at the advanced secondary or tertiary level, the

removal rates and behaviors are about the same. Secondary treatment levels of ^

10 mg/L BOD 5 and TSS can be attained without too much trouble, but tertiary

treatment to remove these constituents is more difficult and requires more attention.

This is because if the plant systems are not managed carefully, the plants

themselves will add to the waste stream in the form of detritus, which is released

and degrades in the water (Tchobanoglous, 1987).

Nutrient removal in these systems is due to plant uptake and microbial

action. Nitrogen removal increases as standing crop density increases (W. DeBusk

and Reddy, 1987) which indicates that the removal is microbial as suspected. The

largest portion of the nitrogen compounds removed by the system are removed by

microbial nitrification and denitrification, although some is also taken up by the

plants (T. Debusk and Reddy, 1987; Neuse, 1976; Reed et al., 1988; Metcalf&

Eddy, 1991; Dinges, 1982). For other nutrients, such as phosphorus, some

precipitation or soil adsorption (if the water is exposed to soil) may occur, but the

primary means of removal is by plant uptake and harvest. Phosphorus removal

rates are maximum at medium plant densities (W. DeBusk and Reddy, 1987),

which indicates that uptake is the primary mechanism since this is when the plants

are growing the fastest. Plant uptake of nutrients can range from 16 to 75 percent
 50

of the total nitrogen removal and 12 to 73 percent of the total phosphorus removal

in the system, depending upon the operational conditions (Reddy and W. Debusk.

1987). Plant uptake accounts for a larger percentage of the nitrogen removal when

the system is being operated for something other than nitrification/ denitrification

and the hydraulic retention time is relatively short.

Plant productivity is the single most important factor in nutrient removal by

uptake in high nutrient content waters with relatively constant flows. Both

productivity and nutrient concentrations in plant tissues are important in

wastewaters with inconsistent flows or compositions (i.e., agricultural drainage) (T.

Debusk and Reddy, 1987). The biomass yield for some of the floating and

submerged plants used in aquatic treatment systems is given in Table 4-4. The

range of nutrient storage with various standing crops, and the resulting uptake and

removal by harvesting is shown in Table 4-5.

If plants are allowed to die and remain in the water, the majority of the

nitrogen and phosphorus in the tissues will return to the water within a few days.

Only about one percent of the nutrients in the tissues is refractory and will remain

in the benthic sludge (T. Debusk and Reddy, 1987).

Nitrogen losses in these systems is primarily due to

nitrification/denitrification reactions as mentioned above. Rates of denitrification in

excess of 1 g/m 2-d have been reported for floating aquatic macrophyte systems

(T. Debusk and Reddy, 1987). Nitrogen removal rates range from 2.0 to 20 Jj^L

No relationship between nitrogen loading and mass removal has been established

(T. Debusk and Reddy, 1987). The nitrification/denitrification process is

dependent on time and temperature. Temperature controls the rate of each

 51

individual reaction, but nitrates formed in the nitrification step must diffuse or

disperse out to the anoxic denitrification zones. Because the transport process is

usually the rate limiting step in the reaction chain, the best way to improve

nitrification/ denitrification in a system where all of the other required conditions are

right is to increase the contact time that the water has with the root and anaerobic

zones. The only way to increase the contact time is to increase the hydraulic

retention time by decreasing the hydraulic loading rate. The relationship between

hydraulic loading rate and nitrogen removal can be seen in Figure 4-1. There

appears to be a first order relationship between the total nitrogen removed and the

hydraulic loading rate for loading rates above about 1000 ^-^

Figures 4-2 and 4-3 show the performance of various plant species during

both winter and summer for nitrates and ammonium nitrogen. The plants tend to

keep the pH of the water near neutral, so most of the ammonia in the water stays in

the non-volatile ammonium form. Because of this, removal of ammonia requires

plant uptake or nitrification. During both the summer and the winter, the

denitrification process, including the diffusion/dispersion of nitrates into anoxic

regions, is the limiting step. This can clearly be seen in Figures 4-2 and 4-3 by

comparing the nitrate-nitrogen curves with the ammonia-nitrogen curves. The

ammonia-nitrogen concentration falls steadily in each case, but the nitrate-nitrogen

concentration either falls more slowly, or rises as time progresses.

Phosphorus removal performance during both summer and winter is shown

for most of the same species in Figure 4-4 (Reddy and DeBusk, 1985). The area

removal would also occur by microbial action, and this mechanism would probably

be more important for degradable chemicals such as phenol, equired for phosphorus
 52
Table 4 -4. Biomass yield of some floating and submersed
macronhytes cultivated in centraland south Florida

Yield g/m2-d
,

Species Medium! a) Max Avg. (b)

Floatins: larse-leaved
Eichhornia N -- 24.2 (12)
crassipes N 64.4 27.1(10)
A 45.9
PS 41.7 —
Pistia N 29 14.2(7)
stratiotes N 40 —
Hydrocotyie N 29.7 15.9(4)
umbellata N 18.3 10.3(12)
Floating: small-leaved
Salvinia N 13.9 8.8(12)
rotundifolia '

PS 10 8.8 (2)
SS 9.6 6.4(2)
Lemna N 12 3.8(10)
minor SS 8.4 4.5(14)
Spirodela
N 5.9
polyrhiza 3.4(4)

Azolla N 7.9 2.9(10)

caroliniana PS 8.2

SS 6.5 ~
Submersed
Hydrilla
N 10.4
verticillata 4.2 (12)

Elodea densa N 12.9 2.8 QO)

(a) Media; N = nutrient medium; PS = primary domestic wastewater
effluent; SS = secondary effluent; A = agricultural drainage water
(b) Parentheses show the duration in months,

after DeBusk and Ryther, 1987

 53

Figure 4-5. Standing crop storage of N and P, and rate of plant uptake
for selected floating macrophytes (after Reddy and DeBusk, 198'

N
Storage Uptake Storage Uptake
Species < kg/ha) (kg/ha-yr) fog'ha) (kg'Tta-yr)

EichJiornia
300-900 1950-5850 60-180 350-1125
crassipes
Pistia
90-250 1350-5110 20-57 300-1125
stratiotes
Hydrocotyle
90-300 540-3200 23-75 130-^70
umbellata
Alternathera
240-425 1400-4500 30-53 175-570
philoxeroides
Lemna minor 4-50 350-1200 1-16 116-400
Salvinia
15-90. 350-1700 4-24 92-450
rotundifolia

Figure4 -1 Nitrogen Removal from Water Hyacinth Tertiary Treatment

100 T
90

a 70

i 60 i
K Minimum Removal
-•
g 50
oo
a Maximum Removal
a 40
2 The EPAused these points
apply to all rates observed at

o less than 935 m"3/ha-d Adapted from EPA, 1988

H 20 -•

10

100 1000 10000

Hydraulic Loading Rate, m"3 tia-d

 54

removal is high compared to that required for oxidation or nitrogen removal.

DeBusk and Reddy (1987) estimated that it would take 13 ha to treat 3800 m3/d of
wastewater from a concentration of 10 mg'L to 1 mg/L.

Some of the more aggressive submerged species work relatively well in nutrient

removal and tertiary treatment systems. Elodea nuttallii, Elodea canadensis, and

Egeria densa have shown potential for nutrient removal systems in temperate

climates. The total nitrogen content of E. nuttallii was measured in one study to

be as much as 73 mg/g dry plant and a total phosphorus content of as much as 23

mg/g dry plant (Eighmy et al., 1987). Plant uptake and harvest in this system

removed 40 to 60 percent of the applied nitrogen and 30 to 50 percent of the

applied phosphorus.

Tertiary treatment requiring metals removal is also possible with aquatic

plant systems. Some of the plants are able to bioconcentrate metals such as

cadmium and lead to concentrations as high as 1000 times the ambient

concentration (Wills and Pierson, 1987). One researcher estimates that at an

optimum growth rate of 60 ^j, 1 hectare of water hyacinths could remove 300 g

of combined nickel and cadmium per day (Woh/erton, 1975).

The rate of metals absorption in the rooted plants appears to be directly

related to the root mass (Heaton et al., 1987), and the amount absorption is also

proportional to the concentration of metal ions in the wastewater. The majority of

the metal ions found in sampled water hyacinths were in the roots (Tokunga et al.,

1976). High concentrations of some metal ions such as cadmium, copper, and

ferric iron (Fe +2) can be toxic to the plants as the ions build in concentration within

the plant tissues over time. Some of these ions may also prevent the plants from
 55

Figure 4-2. Nitrogen Removal by Large-leaved Aquatic Plants

(after Reddy and W. DeBiisk, 1985)

Figure 4-3. Nitrogen Removal by Small-leaved Aquatic Plants

(after Reddy and W. DeBusk, 1985)

2 6 2
Time, days
 56

Figure 4-4. Phosphorus Removal by Aquatic Macrophytes

(after Reddy and W. DeBusk, 1985)

i Ltmni minor

i i i i i i

> Splrodala polyrhlza

*X^

i i i i t i

Azolla carollnlana

^^.
I II 1. 1 1—
• 3«l»lnl« rotundlfolla

^^N»

1 1 I 1 1 1

6 2
Tim*, days
 57

neutralizing the water (Wills and Pierson, 1987; Jamil et al., 1987; Dierburg et al.,

1987).

There appear to be a limited number of charged adsorption sites on the

roots which capture ions quickly and then more slowly translocate them into the

plant tissue (Heaton et al., 1987; Wills and Pierson, 1987). This is in part

demonstrated by the change in removal rate of metals with time. Initially, the rate

is rapid, and appears to be diffusion limited (stirring improves this phase). After

the initial rapid removal (about 4 h). a more gradual removal phase begins and lasts

much longer (> 24 h). The slower phase appears to be limited by the rate at which

the plant assimilates the ions into its tissues (Heaton et al., 1987). Figure 4-5 shows

the removal response curves for water hyacinths and lead at various concentrations,

and Figure 4-6 shows the effects of stirring on the initial adsorption phase.

Aquatic plants are also capable of removing pesticides, phenols, organic

acids and other organic contaminants from the wastewater. Pesticide removal in

these systems is no better than in algal systems (Abbasi, 1987). There is no great

advantage to using an aquatic plant system to remove these chemicals since the

algal system is less complicated.

Water hyacinth has been mentioned above as being capable of degrading

phenols in its roots. Duckweed can remove phenols as well; Templet and Valez

found that an average of 107 ^

h . g(du kwced) of phenol was removed for the first 48

hours, and the removal rate for chlorophenol averaged 33 d-g(d^kwccd) at me sixth

day. Although this experiment tested removal by the plants alone in a microbe-free

environment, removal would also occur by microbial action in a real system, and

this mechanism would probably be more important for degradable chemicals.

 58

6 12 18

EXPOSURE TIME (h)

Figure 4-6. Water hyacinth lead uptake at various concentrations

(Heaton eta!., 198^

100*

Stirred

Unstirred

20 40
EXPOSURE TIME (h)

Figure 4-7. Effect of stirring on lead uptake (Heaton et ai, 1987)

 Chapter 5

Design Criteria

5.1 General

There have been two schools of thought dealing with aquatic plant

treatment system design. One stated that the design should be based only upon the

plant uptake, and the other insisted that designs be based upon expected removals

by sinks other than the plants (Stewart et al., 1987; Tchobanoglous, 1987). Each

viewpoint is valid under certain operating conditions, but in most cases a

combination of mechanisms is causing the removals. When nitrogen removal is

being maximized, the majority of the removal is by processes other than plant

uptake, so ignoring uptake yields a conservative approximation that is still near the

achievable removal rates. Phosphorus removal in a lined tank is an example of the

other extreme—the largest percentage of the removal is due to plant uptake, and

ignoring the other mechanisms yields a safety factor of about 2 in the design. The

most recent publications from the Water Pollution Control Federation (1990) and

the Environmental Protection Agency (1988) use a more balanced approach for

design and consider all removal mechanisms to the extent that they can be

predicted.

Systems using water hyacinths represent the majority of the aquatic plant

treatment facilities that have been built to date. Four variations of water hyacinth

treatment facilities are listed in Table 5-1 with some of the advantages and

disadvantages of choosing each one. Land usage is a critical factor in aquatic

59
 60

treatment systems. Some of the designs with higher loading rates are more

desirable in terms of land use. but these also have shortcomings such as odor

problems or extra energy costs which may make them less desirable.

Facultative/anaerobic hyacinth ponds are generally not used any longer because

satisfactory results can be achieved under aerobic conditions with loadings as high

as 100 kg/ha-d (EPA. 1988).

Design for water hyacinth systems has been studied thoroughly enough that

recommended ranges of the critical design parameters have been published and

used with confidence. Table 5-2 gives the recommended parameter values for

three common water hyacinth treatment schemes. Duckweed systems are

becoming more popular as upgrades to stabilization pond systems, but this group of

plants has not been investigated as completely as the water hyacinth. Table 5-3 lists

the recommended design parameter values for an effluent polishing system using

duckweed.

Current design practices for duckweed and water fern systems use normal

facultative pond design equations to determine area required and the retention time

necessary for the desired removal (WPCF, 1990). This approach is conservative

because duckweed systems perform consistently better than facultative ponds, but

no better approach has been accepted yet.

Water hyacinth systems can be split into three categories based upon the

amount of dissolved oxygen in the system and the method of aeration. These three

categories are the types listed in Table 5-1 and discussed below.

Aerobic hyacinth systems without supplemental aeration are the most

common type of facility among the systems already constructed (EPA 1988).
 61

These systems are capable of attaining secondary treatment or nitrogen removal

depending upon the organic loading rate and the hydraulic detention time. They

have the advantage of few mosquitos or odors. Mosquito control measures are still

necessary, but the fish used can get to the mosquitos more easily since the entire

water column is aerobic.

In cases where no mosquitos or odors are permissible, an aerobic hyacinth system

with supplemental aeration will be used. This type of system has the advantage of

being capable of accepting a larger organic load because of the aeration. This

means that a smaller amount of land is required. The negative side of the system is

that additional power is required, and potentially larger quantities of plants will have

to be harvested.

The third type of hyacinth treatment facilities is operated under high organic

loading rates with little or no supplemental aeration. Facultative/anaerobic systems,

as they are called, have a high potential for odor and mosquito problems but they

require less land. The surface layer of water in the system will probably remain

aerobic during the day because of oxygen transport through the plants' roots, but

some aeration may be required at night to control odors. Mosquito fish and other

natural mosquito control organisms cannot be used in these systems unless there is

a substantial surface layer of aerobic water.

Organic loading rates in water hyacinth systems have been used successfully

in the range of 10 to 440 kg BODs/ha-d (9 to 400 lb BODs/ac-d), although odor

problems occurred at the highest loading rates. In systems without aeration, the

average BOD5 loading rate should not exceed 100 kg/ha-d (89 lb/ac-d) to ensure
 62

Table 5-1. Types of Water I-fraciiith Systems (alter EPA, 19SS; WPCF, 1990)

Typical BOD5
Ty Pt Purpose Leading, kg/ha-d Advantages Disadvantages
Aerobic Non-aerated Secondary Treatment 40-80 Limited mosquitos; More land area required;
limited odors harvesting may be more
difficult depending on
pond configuration.
Aerobic Non-aeraled Nutrient Removal 10-40 Limited mosquitos; More land area required;
limited odors harvesting may be more
difficult depending on
pond configuration
Aerobic Aerated Secondary Treatment 150-300 No mosquitos; no odors; Additional harvesting
higher organic loading required; supplemental
rates; reduced land area power required
Facultative/ An aerobic* Secondary Treatment 220-400 Higher organic loading Increased mosquito
rates; reduced land area population; potential for
odors
* Only suitable where odors and mosquitos may not be a problem

Table 5-2. Design Criteria for Water Hyacinth Systems (after EPA, 1988; WPCF, 1990)

Type of Water Hyacinth System

Factor Aerobic Non-aerated Aerobic Non-aerated Aerobic Aerated
Influent Wastewater Screened or Settled Secondary Screened or Settled
Influent BOD5, mg/1 130-180 30 130-180
BOD5 Loading, kg/ha-d 40-80 10-40 150-300
Expected Effluent, mg/1
BOD5 <30 <10 <15
SS <30 < 10 <15
TN <15 <5 <15
Water Depth, m 0.5-0.8 0.6-0.9 0.9-1.4
Detention Time, days 10-36 6-18 4-8
Hydraulic Loading, m A 3/ha-< >200 <800 550-1000
Harvest Schedule Annually Twice per Month Monthly

Table 5-3. Design Criteria for Effluent Polishing with Duckweed Treatment Systems
(after EPA, 1988; WPCF, 1990)
Factor Secondary Treatment
Wastewater Input Facultative Pond Effluent
BOD5 Loading, kg/ha-d 22-28
Hydraulic Loading, m A 3/ha-d <50
Water Depth, m 1.5-2.0

Hydraulic Detention Time, days 15-25

Water Temperature, C >7
Harvest Schedule Monthly
 63

aerobic conditions (EPA, 1988). Typical organic loading rates for several different

system configurations are included in Table 5-4.

The hydraulic loading rates for domestic wastewater applied to water hyacinth

systems have varied from 240 to 3.570 m 3/ha-d (25.650 to 381.650 gpd/ac). For

secondary treatment, the hydraulic loading rate is usually between 200 and 600 m 3/ha-d
(21.600 to 64.600 gpd/ac). Rates as high as 1000 m /ha-d (107.000 gpd/ac) have been
3

used successfully when performing advanced secondary treatment with supplemental

aeration (EPA. 1988). Organic loading rates will usually control the hydraulic loading

rate. Figure 5-1 shows the relationship between organic loading (pretreatment level),

temperature, and hydraulic detention time (affected by hydraulic loading).

The depth of an aquatic plant treatment lagoon is not critical if the objective is

solids removal, but for most other processes a shallow depth is preferred to allow the

bulk of the water to have contact with the plants and the root zone. The majority of

investigators recommend a depth of no more than 0.9 m (3 ft) when using water
hyacinth. Greater depths can perform well if there is sufficient turbulence to still give

the bulk of the water exposure to the plants. Figure 5-2 shows the relationship between

turbulence, depth, and total oxygen demand. A larger depth may be recommended for
the final cell because hyacinth roots grow longer when there are few nutrients in the

water (Dinges, 1982; EPA, 1988).

5.2 Physical Features of Aquatic Plant Systems

Early investigators into aquatic plant treatment of wastewater used long, narrow,

rectangular channels to prevent short circuiting and approximate plug flow. Narrow

channels are not truly required as long as the influent and effluent are distributed and
 64

collected across the width of the channel (Dinges, 1982). Narrow channels with aspect

ratios of ten or more are still being used because the distribution and collection systems

are easier to fabricate, and harvesting can be performed from the side more easily when

the channel is narrow. Figure 5-3 shows some of the configurations that are possible in

aquatic plant systems. The horseshoe shaped channel was devised because it requires

less piping for recirculation and step feeding the influent (EPA. 1988).

5.3 Design Equations

BOD 5 removal kinetics are generally assumed to be a first order reaction.

The steady state mass balance on the first reactor in a series of four is (see Figure

5-4):

accumulation = mass in - mass out - degradation

= Q r
(C 4 ) + 0.25Q(C o ) -
(Q r + O^Q)^ - k1 C 1
V 1

Where,

Q r
= recycle flow, m 3/ d

C4 = BOD 5 concentration in the effluent from reactor 4, mg/L

0.25Q = inflow to each individual cell, m3 /d

C = BOD 5 concentration in the influent, mg/L

C x
= BOD 5 concentration in effluent from reactor 1, mg/L

kT = First order reaction rate constant at temperature, T, d

Vj = Volume of the first reactor, m3

The value of kj estimated for 20 °C (68 °F) is 1.95 d_1 . A modified Arrhenius
relationship applies with a of about 1.06 (EPA, 1988).
 65

Table 5-4. Typical Organic Loading Rates for Secondary Treatment in Aquatic Systems
(after Tchobanoglous, 198' ')
Figure Value, kg CBOD5/ha-d
Treatment System Reference Range Typical*
Semiplug-flow reactor
5 -3b 50-200 60**
without recycle
Plug- flow reactor without
5 -3c 50-200 60**
recycle
Plug-flow reactor with
5 -3d 50-200 60**
recycle
Semiplug-flow reactor
5-3f 100-200 150
with step-feed and 2:

As above with
5-3f 150-300 200
supplemental aeration
Semiplug-flow variable
geometry reactor without 5-3g 50-200 80***
recvcle
Typical loading values based on an odor free system. Higher loading rates can be
used if odors and mosquitos are not an environmental issue
* Limited by influent distribution.
** With experience, a higher rate may be feasible.

Figure 5-1. Effect of Temperature and Pretreatinent on the Required DetentionTime for a
Typical Aquatic Treatment System (adapted from Tchobanoglous, 1987)

Hydraulic Residence Time, days

5 10 15 20 25 30

Increasing pretreatment

o
o 10 Decreasing
temperature
Q)
i—
3 Untreated wastewater
O
i_
15
CB0D 5 = 220mg/L
<o
Cl
E Primary effluent
a> 20 CBOD 5 =l50mg/L
»—
<v -Advanced primary
o CBOD 5 =80mg/L
25

Loading rate = 120 kg CBOD /had

30 Depth = 0.4 m
0-= 1.09

35
 66

Figure 5-2. Effects of Turbulence and Depth on Toiai Oxygen Demand Reduction Rates
(alter Tchobanoglous, 1987)

250

200
X
50
c
o

H 100
o
•— Tr + iSi tiomx\

50

200 400 600 800

w*fcr Dtpth, mm
 67

Figure 5-3. Possible System Configurations for Aquatic Treatment Components, (after
Tchobanoglous, 1987; EPA, 1988^)

EffW/i

-€
Re eye le

e. -r
-*
[E ^ ^ I; _ r* 5- ^ ~* ,

3 Turn,
t±±i±l£

1 Z: *W)

a) arbitrary flow, b) semi plug-flow, c) plug-flow, d) plug-flow with recycle, e) semi plug-flow
with step feed and recycle type 1, f) semi plug- flow with step feed and recycle type 2, g) variable
geometry semi plug- flow with (and without) recycle type 1, h) variable geometry semi plug- flow
without recycle, i) folded semi-plug flow with step feed and recycle type 2.
 68

Figure 5-4. Model of a Step-feed Channel with Recvcle

Iifhtit C.A

Table 5-5. Nitrogen Removal Rate Constants for Water Hyacinth and Duckweeds
(Reed et al., 1988, WPCF, 1990)
Plantdensity ftate Constant {k)
Pjfttff 'Season''/ ' > kg/h&tdry;)- days :i
....
Water Hyacinth Summer (27° C) 3,920 0.218
10,230 0.491
20,240 0.590
Winter (14° C) 4,190 0.033
6,690 0.023
20,210 0.184
Duckweed Summer (27° C) 73 0.074
131 0.011

Winter (14° C) 40 0.028

67 0.012
 69

Nitrogen removal rates are a function of plant density and temperature.

Until crowding or thermal stress begins, the higher the density and temperature, the

larger the nitrogen removal rate. Table 5-5 provides the estimated nitrogen removal

rate constants for winter and summer conditions in both duckweed and water

hyacinth systems.

5.4 Sample Design Problems

Two sample problems are provided below. The first is not a complete

design, but compares the performance of two different influent application

methods—single application point plug-flow and step-feed semi plug-flow. The

second example problem goes through most of the steps of designing a floating

aquatic plant system to meet specific influent and effluent requirements.

5.4.1 Comparison of a Plug-flow and Step-feed Channel

Neuse (1976) recommended a plug-flow water hyacinth channel for TSS

and BOD5 removal, but he observed that biomass formation on the roots supported

other investigator's conclusions that the majority of TSS removal was occurring in

the first ten to fifteen percent of the channel length (Neuse, 1976; Tchobanoglous,

1987). Tchobanoglous observed that the actual removal in a similar channel was

much more rapid than predicted by a first order model, and step feeding the

influent had potential of decreasing the overload which often occurred at the inlet

and increasing the removal efficiency.

The following is a comparison of the performance of a single channel with

and without step feed. The plug-flow channel example is taken from Neuse (1976)

and the step feed semi plug-flow channel was created by the author of this report
 70

using the same operational parameters for comparison of the two designs. Both

channels considered are 4 feet by 50 feet with a total influent flow of 8 gpm and an

influent concentration, C , of 100 mg'L TSS. From the relationship Neuse derived

for flow and removals, this channel would achieve a 50 percent reduction in TSS

(see Figure 5-5). The second channel was set up as shown in Figure 5-3 f except

that there was no recycle. Five step feed stations were used, one at the head of the

channel, and one every ten feet downstream, with the influent split evenly among

them. Assuming that 90 percent of the total removal occurred in the first five feet,

and that the next five feet will remove 90 percent of the remainder. 99 percent of

the expected removal for the 50 ft length will occur in the first ten feet.

8gpm
qj = the fraction of influent fed into cell 1 = 5 =1.6 gpm

This flow rate corresponds to a 92% removal in 50 feet.

so, removal in 10 feet = 99% * 92% = 91.1%

q2 = 2 * qj = 3.2 gpm. Removal = 99%*75% = 74.3%

q 3 = 3 * q x = 4.8 gpm. Removal = 99%*62% = 61.4%

q4 = 4 *
q x = 6.4 gpm. Removal = 99%* 5 7% = 56.4%

q5 = 5 * q, = 8.0 gpm. Removal = 99%*50% = 49.5%

C le = effluent concentration from cell 1 = (1-0.911)100 mg/L = 8.9 mg/L

c +c
G> =a. 2
:
54.5 mg/L C^ = (1-0.743)54.5 = 14.0 mg/L

2C 2e +C
c3 = 3
= 42.7 mg/L C 3e = (1-0.614)42.7 = 16.5 mg/L

3C 3e +C
c4 = 4
= 37.4 mg/L C4e = (1-0.564)37.4 = 16.3 mg/L

4C 4e +C
c5 = = 33.0 mg/L C e = (1-0.495)33.0 = 16.7 mg/L
5
 71

Figure 5-5. Removal of TSS versus Hydraulic Loading Rate (after Neuse, 1976)
 72

The final effluent from the step feed channel would be 16.7 mg/L TSS,

while the effluent from the plug flow channel was 50 mg/L TSS. Adding a recycle

line to the head of the channel would improve the effluent even more due to the

initial dilution. A recycle ratio of 2:1 overall would provide a recycle ratio in the

first cell of 10:1, and would increase to 14:1 by the final cell.

5.4.2 System Design Problem (adapted from EPA, 1988)

Design a hyacinth system to produce secondary effluent with screened, raw

municipal wastewater as influent.

Design flow rate = 700 m3 /d

BOD 5 = 200 mg/L

SS - 300 mg/L

TN= 15mgT.

TP = 10 mg/L

Critical winter temperature > 20 °C.

Effluent Requirements: BOD 5 , SS < 30 mg/L.

Solution:

1. Determine BOD 5 loading:

(200 mgT.)(700 m 3 /d)(103 1/m3 )(lkg/106 mg) = 140 kg/d

2. Determine basin surface areas required based upon criteria in Table 5-2:

50 kg/ha-d BOD 5 for the entire area

100 kg/ha-d BOD 5 for the first cell
Total area required = (140 kg/d)/(50 kg/ha-d) = 2.8 ha

Area of primary cells = (140)/(100) = 1.4 ha

 73

3. Use two primary cells, each 0.7 ha. Use L:W = 4:1, since aspect ratios

of 3:1 or greater are desired. Dimensions at the water surface will be:

0.7 ha = L*W - L * L/4 = L 2/4

0.7 ha (10.000 m 2/ha)(4) = L 2 = 28.000 m2

L= 167 m
W = 42m
4. Divide the remaining area into two sets of two basins, 0.35 ha each.

0.35 ha (10.000m 2/ha)(4) = L2 = 14.000 m2

L=118m
W = 30 m
5. Allow 0.5 m for sludge storage and assume a 1.2 m "effective" water
depth for treatment: total pond depth = 1.7 m. Use 3:1 side slopes, and

use the equation below for the approximate volume.

V=[LW + (L - 2sd)(W - 2sd) + 4(L - sd)(W - sd)]d/6

Where: V = volume of pond or cell, m3

L= length of pond or cell at water surface, m
W = width of pond or cell at water surface, m
s = slope factor (for 3:1 slope s = 3)

d = depth of pond, m
Primary cells: V = [167*42 + (167-7.2)(42-7.2) + 4(167-2.4)(42-2.4)]*1.2/6

V - 7,730 m3
Final cells: V = [118*30 + (118-7.2)(30-7.2) + 4(118-2.4)(30-2.4)]*1.2/6
V = 3,766 m 3
 74

6. Determine hydraulic detention time in the "effective" zone:

Primary cells: t = 2(7730 m3)/700 m3 /d = 22 days

Final cells: t = 2(3766 m 3
)/700 m3 /d = 11 days

Total detention time = 33 days (within the acceptable zone)

7. Check hydraulic loading:

(700 m 3 /d)/(2.8 ha) = 250 m 3 /ha-d (> 200 so it is ok)

8. Estimate nitrogen removal with Figure 4-1 or Table 5-5 to be sure that

enough nitrogen is present to sustain growth in the final cells and to

determine harvest frequency.

At a hydraulic loading of less than 935 m 3 /ha-d. removal is

essentially 90 percent. This will leave about 1.5 mg'L of nitrogen in the

final effluent, which is well below the desired 5 mg'L for plant growth.

Growth in the final cells will not be at optimum and may even need

supplemental nitrogen. An annual harvest would probably be sufficient.

5.5 Costs

Aquatic plant systems can be relatively inexpensive to install as an upgrade

to an existing pond, but new facilities require large sections of land (Debusk and

Reddy, 1987). This technology is best suited to areas that have warm weather and

plenty of open space. It can still be competitive in price if proper planning is done

ahead of time (Crites and Mingee, 1987). Table 5-6 gives a cost comparison of

various treatment systems with that of a water hyacinth system.

These figures show that construction and operation of an aquatic plant

system can be competitive with other designs. This particular set of examples
 75

perhaps overinflates the financial benefits of using aquatic plant systems because

the Iron Bridge facility is a high volume, short detention time facility for effluent

polishing. Construction and operating costs for aquatic plant systems are generally

comparable to those of other natural treatment systems such as constructed

wetlands or land treatment. Land requirements are the controlling factor in

construction costs for these systems, and harvest expenses tend to control

operational costs. Phosphorus removal with aquatic plant systems requires a lot of

land, and regular harvests, so this treatment scheme tends to be less competitive,

and sometimes more expensive, than conventional methods (EPA, 1978).

Conventional systems require much less land, but the facilities are more complex

and may still cost more than a natural system for a small community (EPA, 1978;

Dinges. 1982).
 76

Table 5-6. Comparison of Costs of Various Treatment Systems

(after Crites and Mingee, 1987)
Design tlow .Area Construction costs Unit cost
Location System type nr3/d tia $ millions £/nr '3-d
Camion Beach, OR Existing Wetland 3,440 6.5 0.58 170
Gustine, CA Created Marsh 3,785 10 0.88 230
Incline Village, NV Created and 8,100 49 3.3 410
Existing Wedand
Iron Bridge Plant, Water Hyacinth
30,280 12 3.3 110
Orlando, FL System
Typical Secondary Activated Sludge 3,785 -- 3-3.8 800-1000
 Chapter 6

Operational Requirements

6.1 Introduction

Even if a treatment facility is designed and constructed properly, it will not

meet its discharge goals if it is not operated correctly. This chapter will touch on

harvesting, crop maintenance, pest control, cleanout requirements, and residual

management. As will be seen below, all of these topics overlap and cannot be truly

separated, but each will be discussed separately with due mention to the ways that it

ties in to the other topics.

6.2 Harvesting

The requirement for harvesting in an aquatic plant treatment facility is one

of the largest operating expenses (Doersam, 1987). Even the design of the

channels is partially driven by harvesting requirements. As mentioned previously,

there is no true requirement that the cells be long and narrow as long as adequate

measures are taken to prevent short circuiting. If the channels are narrow,

however, harvesting can take place from the shore. There are harvesting methods

using boats and barges, but these are more cumbersome and expensive for the most

part (Reed et al., 1988). Duckweed and water fern systems are relatively easy to

harvest from the water or the land because they are separate small plants and do not

tend to intertwine to any great extent. The large-leaved varieties are a different

story because each plant tends to be interwoven with other plants.

77
 78

Harvesting requires the removal of a large bulk of material. Since most

aquatic plants are about 95 percent water, when an annual yield of 212 dry mt/ha is

reported (Lakshman, 1987), that means that about 4,240 mt of fresh plants were

harvested for every hectare of pond surface area. This does represent the

maximum observed value, but yields of one third to half the mass were relatively

common and would still be formidable to handle. Most of the plants used in

aquatic treatment systems must be at least partially dried before anything else can

be done with them (Doersam. 1976: Dinges. 1988: Reed et aL 1988). The labor

and equipment costs for handling this much mass is what causes harvesting to be

the leading operational expense in a system without extensive pumping and

aeration.

Not harvesting at all may seem tempting if the treatment method allows it.

but even for solids removal, some harvesting is required to maintain the standing

crop viability (Stewart et al., 1987). Selective harvesting can be used to help

control pest populations or plant diseases. Mosquito control also depends to some

extent on harvesting, especially if natural control methods are being used. The

open areas left after harvest allow the mosquito fish more easy access into the

previously isolated pockets of water where mosquitos could breed without

interference.

In systems being operated for nutrient removal (other than nitrogen),

harvest is essential to the permanent removal of the nutrients. If plants are allowed

to die and decay within the water, almost all of the nutrients in the plant tissues will

return to the water (DeBusk and Reddy, 1987). Harvest frequency also has an

effect on nutrient removal. Phosphorus removal is better in systems which are

 79

harvested frequently to maintain the standing crop in a rapid growth stage. Since

nitrogen is removed primarily by microbial action, frequent harvesting impairs the

removal since it does not fully allow biomass to form on the roots of the plants.

Several studies in Florida showed that unharvested systems had nitrogen removal

rates two to three times higher than frequently harvested systems (Reed et at.,

1988). The frequency of harvest may also affect metals removal in water hyacinth

systems. Approximately 97 percent of the metals found in conjunction with tested

water hyacinths was in the roots, which only make up 1 8 percent of the dry plant

mass (Neuse, 1976). Mature hyacinths tend to shed roots as the roots get old

(Dinges, 1982). If hyacinths are allowed to go too long between harvests, adsorbed

metals will be shed along with the roots. The metals may complex with the

organics in the benthic sludge rather than return to solution, but removal would

have been more certain if the plants were harvested before the roots began

shedding.

The amount and method of harvest also has an impact on the performance

of the system. Leaving a clean edge on a water hyacinth mat when harvesting will

produce slow regrowth, while a ragged edge or small clumps remaining will regrow

much faster (Bagnall et al., 1987). Also, if more than about twenty percent of the

standing crop is harvested, the open spaces may allow enough sunlight to penetrate

the water to cause significant algal growth and confound the system's attempts to

remove solids.
 80

6.3 Crop Maintenance

For the best system performance, the standing crop needs to be kept healthy

and at the desired density and growth rate. Harvesting is used to maintain the

density and combat small outbreaks of pest infestations, but much more than that is

required for the plants to remain healthy and perform as desired. Nutrients must be

provided if any are lacking. In several series-flow systems, the plants in the final

pond experienced chlorosis because all of the iron was being taken out of the water

before it got to the last cell. Ferrous sulfate was added to the pond regularly after

this was discovered to maintain the iron concentration above 0.3 mgT (Reed et al,
1988). The Iron Bridge wastewater facility experienced serious plant growth

impairment due to a deficiency in molybdenum, which is only required in trace

quantities (EPA. 1988). The Iron Bridge case is discussed in more detail in

Appendix A. The pH of the wastewater must also be in the acceptable range for

the plants or it will have to be neutralized before application to the aquatic plant

facility. Table 6-1 indicates some of the survival requirements for various aquatic

plants used for water treatment, as well as where the plants can be found in the

United States.

6.4 Pest Control

Duckweed and water fern have very few natural pests, but several pests of

water hyacinth have been introduced to this country for the purpose of hyacinth

control. Two species of hyacinth weevils {Neochetina eichhorniae Warner and

Neochetina bmchi Hustache) and a leaf mining mite (Orthogalumna terebrantis

Wallwork) are probably the most serious hyacinth pests (Dinges, 1982). The
 81

weevils appear to be most active when the plants are under density stress, and a

species of moth (Sameodes allijuttales). the caterpillar of which also feeds on

hyacinth is most likely to be a problem in hot, dry weather (Reed et ai, 1988).

Harvesting patches of plants with minor pest infestations may be a successful

means of removing them, but when serious infestations occur, pesticide spraying

will probably be required. Larger pests, such as turtles, coots, and nutria are more

difficult to control, but they do not normally present as much of a threat to the

system (Dinges. 1982). The Austin. Texas. Hornsby Bend Hyacinth Facility was

able to keep the larger animals out of the greenhouse facility by erecting portable

barriers across any open doorways (EPA. 1988). Unenclosed facilities will

probably not be able to prevent the entrance of pests, but will have to deal with

them as they arrive.

6.4 Cleanout Requirements

The frequency that sludge cleanout is required will depend upon the

pretreatment that the wastewater receives before it arrives at the aquatic plant

system, and the frequency of harvest. Some states, such as Texas, require annual

draining and cleaning of a water hyacinth facility (TWC, 1991), but this is not

necessary for many treatment schemes. Cells which are harvested frequently will

not require cleaning as often as those that are not, and systems with large influent

concentrations of suspended solids will require annual cleaning. Table 6-2 lists the

recommended sludge cleanout frequency for water hyacinth ponds under various

conditions.
 82

Table 6-1. Floating Aquatic Plants for Wastewater Treatment

(after Reed et al, 1 988)
Common name, Temperature, C Maxunum salinity Optimum
Scientific name Distribution Desirable Survival tolerance, mg'l P R
Water Hyacinth 20-30 10 800 5- 7

EichJiomia crassipes Southern U.S.

Water Fern > 10 5 2500 3.5-7
Azolla carolimana Throughout U.S.
Azo Ha ft lieu bides Throughout U.S.
Duckweed 20-30 5 3500 5-7
Spirodela polyrhiza Throughout U.S.
Lemma tnsulca Northern U.S.
Lemna obscura Eastern and Southern U.S.
Letrtna minor Throughout U.S.
Lemna gibba Great Plains and western U.S
Wolffia spp. Throughout U.S.
 83

Shed roots in the benthic sludge may actually exceed the quantity of solids

from the wastewater treated if the hyacinths were not harvested regularly. Once the

plant density on the water surface exceeds about 25 kg/m2 (5 lb ft 2 ) wet weight

sloughing of root material begins and within a few months the mass of the

accumulated detritus will exceed the mass of settled wastewater solids (Reed et al.,

1988).

6.5 Residual Management

Regardless of the type of treatment being performed, there will be residues

which must be dealt with, whether they are harvested plants or benthic sludges.

Numerous potential uses have been investigated for water hyacinth, and to a lesser

extent for duckweeds, but none of them has been clearly the best choice. Dried

and composted, both duckweed and water hyacinth can be used as a soil additive.

Duckweed can also be used for this purpose without drying or composting because

it is manageable as it is (Dinges, 1982). Paper has been made from dried water

hyacinth, but it is not practical because the hyacinth fibers do not drain well.

Compost made from water hyacinth has the ability to retain water in the soil, and as

such it may be an ideal additive to sandy soils that drain too freely for crop use.

Large facilities may have enough crop production to sustain the operation of

an anaerobic digester to produce methane gas from the hyacinth and the sludge. If

digestion is going to be used, the plants do not have to be dried. They can be

chopped up and pumped as a slurry directly into the digester. The methane yield

for water hyacinth is about half that of primary sludge (Chynoweth, 1987), so

digestion for methane production is not always an economical choice.

 84

Table 6-2. Recommended Sludge Cleanout Frequency

for Water Hyacinth Ponds (after EPA, 1 988)

Pond Type Cleanmg Frequency

Primarv Cells in Shallow Annual
High-Rate Systems
Secondary Cells 2-3 yrs
Ternary Cells 2-3 vrs
Deep Secondary Cells 5 yrs
(regularly harvested)
Secondary Cells Annual
(irregularly harvested)
Systems Used Only Annual
Seasonally

Table 6-i. Composition of Hyacinth Plants Grown

In Wastewater (after Reed et al, 1 988)

Percent of Dry Weight

Constituent Average Range
Crude Protein 18.1 9.7-23.4
Fat 1.9 1.6-2.2

Fiber 18.6 17.1-19.5

Ash 16.6 11.1-20.4
Carbohydrate 44.8 36.9-51.6
Kjeldahl nitrogen (as N) 2.9 1.6-3.7

Phosphorus (as P) 0.6 0.3-0.9

Table 6-4. Composition of Duckweed Grown

In Wastewater (after EPA, 1 988)

Percent of Dry Weight

Constituent Average Range
Crude Protein 38.7 32.7-44.7
Fat 4.9 3.0-6.7

Fiber 9.4 7.3-13.5

Ash 15 12.0-20.3
Carbohydrate 35 -
Kjeldahl nitrogen (as N) 5.91 4.59-7.15
Phosphorus (as P) 0.6 0.5-0.7
 85

An innovative reactor design in Florida has been used to produce high

quality methane in a cost-effective process. The reactor is a nonmixed design, and

since it does not require the additional energy input for mixing, it was able to

produce enough methane to make a slightly more income than the reactor cost to

run (Dinges, 1982; Hayes et al., 1987). For systems with flows less than 3800

m 3/d (1 MGD), there would probably not be enough biomass produced to keep a

digester operating.

Duckweed and water hyacinth have also been used as animal feed. The

duckweed can be drained and fed to animals without further drying, but the water

hyacinth must be at least partially dried. Duckweed has more potential as a feed

because of its lower structural fiber content, and its high protein content. Tables

6-3 and 6-4 list the constituents by weight percent in water hyacinth and duckweed

grown on wastewater. If the wastewater contains metals, the dried water hyacinth

should be measured for metals content before land applying it or feeding it to

livestock. Composting or use as feed are probably the best options for aquatic plant

facilities with small flows.

 ^napier /

Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations

7.1 Summary
This report has introduced the types of aquatic macrophytes used in

treatment, the types of treatment systems which can use aquatic macrophytes, and

the basic requirements for their design and operation. No consolidated design

approach was found because of the diversity of the systems involved.

Most states regulate exotic plants such as water hyacinths, and at least one

state (Texas) has regulations which force a particular operational method for water

hyacinth systems. Very little regulation or full-scale design experience exists for

native north american plants such as duckweed or peruvywoit but investigators are

beginning to research the characteristics of these plants and systems using them.

These plants are better suited to the climate in this country, and may offer more

trouble-free operation than is possible with the exotics. Current design practices for

duckweed systems do not give any credit to the more efficient removals achieved

with duckweed than in normal facultative ponds, but this is changing.

Regardless of the macrophyte system chosen, residual plant material and

benthic sludge will result. Composting of the residuals for soil amendments is

perhaps the best choice for small aquatic plant facilities, but larger facilities may be

able to use devices such as an anaerobic digester to convert the bimass produced

into useful endproducts (methane gas in this case).

86
 87

Aquatic macrophyte systems perform well for suspended solids, biological

oxygen demand, and nitrogen removal, but they do not do as well removing

phosphorus. Metals and trace organics removal have been investigated, but there

are problems with each that must be resolved before aquatic macrophytes can be

used for this type of treatment on a large scale.

7.2 Conclusions

Aquatic plant systems are economically competitive and can be designed

and built to most treatment levels for domestic wastewater. Primary, secondary,

and tertiary effluent standards can be achieved with aquatic plant systems. Nutrient

removal is also possible, but phosphorus removal by aquatic plant systems requires

enough land that any alternate treatment method should be carefully considered

before committing to aquatic system phosphorus removal.

Exotic plant systems, such as water hyacinth systems, are limited in their

usefulness within the United States because of temperature constraints. Very few

places in the country do not experience freezing weather on occasion, and this

would decimate the standing crop in an active hyacinth treatment facility. Native

plant systems, such as duckweed or pennywort, are less restricted but they are still

less effective during the winter months. Covered facilities can protect the plants

from cold, but greenhouses can cause increased problems with pests, and the added

capital costs make the system less competitive with conventional systems.

Aquatic plant systems are well suited to areas with an abundance of land

and year round warm weather. The lack of mechanical parts, and the probable

availability of the plants in the third-world natural waters make aquatic plant
 88

systems good candidates for use in underdeveloped countries, and make them

relatively simple to get operating. Understanding of the process is of course

required to achieve peak performance, but even poorly designed and operated

aquatic plant systems tend to perform fairly well (Reed et ah, 1988).

The treatment in aquatic plant systems is performed by a complex

interaction between aquatic plants and microorganisms, each with its own needs.

The operator not only needs to understand standard treatment system reactions and

the nutrient requirements of each, but also needs to understand the requirements of

the plants well enough to recognize the signs of a problem while it is still relatively

easy to correct. In Appendix A. there is a discussion about a micronutrient

deficiency at the Iron Bridge Hyacinth Facility in Orlando, Florida, which caused

the facility to be shut down until the problem was found and resolved. The

problem occurred during start-up and was relatively easy to solve once the cause

was determined but it took some detailed investigation on the part of the operators

to determine that a combination of operational practices were responsible for the

deficiency. This deficiency was one of the special operational requirements of this

site that had not yet revealed itself during the pilot-scale tests.

Aquatic plant systems are as valid as land treatment systems or conventional

systems, but each has its strong and weak points. Aquatic plants are not the answer

to every problem, but they should at least be considered during design reviews.

Small communities with some open land are prime candidates for an aquatic plant

system.
 89

7.3 Recommendations

More attention needs to be devoted to macrophyte species which are native

to this country and other temperate climates. Floating plants with large root

structures tend to perform the best at active removal of contaminants due to the

bacterial population present. For this reason, species of plants which prefer wet

conditions and have expansive root systems should be investigated to see if they can

be made to grow free-floating in the same manner as the pennywort or alligator

weed. A cold tolerant species of grass would probably be ideal for this because it

would contain less water than most aquatic plants, which would make it easier to

handle, and would possibly be useful as a source of animal fodder, which would

provide a means of revenue recovery.

Semi-passive systems using small-leaved macrophytes such as the

duckweeds and water ferns should also be investigated further to gather sufficient

performance data to design the systems better. Claims have been made that these

plants are also useful as active contaminant removal de\ices, but this needs to be

investigated further to establish removal rates.

Special systems for metals or organics removal require more investigation

before they will be practical. Metals removal schemes need to develop an

application method or schedule that will allow the plants to recover from the toxic

effects of the metal. Alternately, these systems need to grow plants in other

wastewater to be used in the metals removal process. Plant material resulting from

metals removal systems should be checked for the metals concentration to

determine what disposal method should be used.

 References:

Abbasi, S.A. 1987. Aquatic Plant Based Water Treatment Systems in Asia, in
Aquatic Plants for Water Treatment and Resource Recovery. K.R. Reddy
and W.H. Smith, eds. Magnolia Publishers Inc.

Bagnall, L.O., C.E. Schertz, and D.R. Dubbe. 1987. Harvesting and Handling of
Biomass. Aquatic Plants for Water Treatment and Resource Recovery.
in
K.R. Reddy and W.H. Smith, eds. Magnolia Publishers Inc.

Bastian, R.K. 1987. Foreword to Aquatic Plants for Water Treatment and
Resource Recovery. K.R. Reddy and W.H. Smith, eds. Magnolia
Publishers Inc.

Buddhavarapu, L.R., and S.J.Hancock. 1991. Advanced Treatment for Lagoons

Using Duckweed. Water Environment and Technology. 3:41-44.

Butner, R.S., D.C. Elliott, and L.J Sealock, Jr. 1987. Energy Recovery from
Aquatic Biomass in a Thermochemical Reactor, in Aquatic Plants for
Water Treatment and Resource Recovery. K.R. Reddy and W.H. Smith,
eds. Magnolia Publishers Inc.

Charudattan, R. 1987. Impact of Pathogens on Aquatic Plants Used in Water

Treatment and Resource Recovery, in Aquatic Plants for Water
Treatment and Resource Recovery. K.R. Reddy and W.H. Smith, eds.
Magnolia Publishers Inc.

Chynoweth, D.P. 1987. Biomass Conversion Options, in Aquatic Plants for

Water Treatment and Resource Recovery. K.R. Reddy and W.H. Smith,
eds. Magnolia Publishers Inc.

Clough, K.S., T. A. DeBusk, and K.R. Reddy. 1987. Model Water Hyacinth and
Pennywort Systems for Secondary Treatment of Domestic Wastewater.
the
in Aquatic Plants for Water Treatment and Resource Recovery. K.R.
Reddy and W.H. Smith, eds. Magnolia Publishers Inc.

90
 91

Correll, D.S. andM.C. Johnston. 1970. Manual of the Vascular Plants of Texas:
Volume Six of a Series of Botanical Studies. Texas Research Foundation
Inc.

Crites, R.W, and T.S. Mingee. 1987. Economics ofAquatic Wastewater

Treatment, in Aquatic Plants for Water Treatment and Resource
Recovery. K.R. Reddy and W.H. Smith, eds. Magnolia Publishers Inc.

D'Angelo, E.M. and K.R. Reddy. 1987. Effect of Three Growth Regulators on
Growth and Nutrient Uptake ofEichhornia crassipes [Mart.] Solms. in
Aquatic Plants for Water Treatment and Resource Recovery. K.R. Reddy
and W.H. Smith, eds. Magnolia Publishers Inc.

DeBusk, T. A. and J.H. Ryther. 1987. Biomass Production and Yields ofAquatic
Plants, in Aquatic Plants for Water Treatment and Resource Recovery.
K.R. Reddy and W.H. Smith, eds. Magnolia Publishers Inc.

DeBusk, T.A. and K.R. Reddy. 1987. Wastewater Treatment Using Floating
Aquatic Macrophytes: Contaminant Removal Processes and Management
Strategies, in Aquatic Plants for Water Treatment and Resource
Recovery. K.R. Reddy and W.H. Smith, eds. Magnolia Publishers Inc.

DeBusk, W.F, and K.R. Reddy. 1987. Density Requirements to Maximize

Productivity and Nutrient Removal Capabilities of Water Hyacinth, in
Aquatic Plants for Water Treatment and Resource Recovery. K.R. Reddy
and W.H. Smith, eds. Magnolia Publishers Inc.

Dierburg, F.E., T.A. DeBusk, and N. A. Goulet, Jr. 1987. Removal of Copper and
Lead Using a Thin-Film Technique, in Aquatic Plants for Water
Treatment and Resource Recovery. K.R. Reddy and W.H. Smith, eds.
Magnolia Publishers Inc.

Dinges, R. and J. Doersam. 1986. The Austin, Texas Hornsby Bend Hyacinth
Facility. Presentation Paper for the International Association of Water
Pollution Research and Control Conference on Aquatic Plants to Control
Water Pollution.

Dinges, R. 1982. Natural Systems For Water Pollution Control. Van Nostrand
Reinhold Company.
 92

Doersam, J. 1987. The City ofAustin Experience with Water HyacintJis in

Wastewater Treatment. Presentation Paper for the Texas Water Pollution
Control Association.

Doersam, J. 1988. Beneficial Reuse of Wastewater and Residuals at the City of

Austin, Texas Hornsby Bend Wastewater Treatment Facility. Presentation
Paper for the Water Pollution Control Federation 61st Annual Conference .

Doersam, J. 1992. Personal Communication.

Eighmy, T.T., L.S. Jahnke, and P.L. Bishop. 1987. Productivity and
Photosythetic Characteristics ofElodea nuttallii Grown in Aquatic
Treatment Systems, in Aquatic Plants for Water Treatment and Resource
Recovery. K.R. Reddy and W.H. Smith, eds. Magnolia Publishers Inc.

Environmental Protection Agency. 1978. Municipal Wastewater Aquaculture.

EPA 600/2-78-110 CERI.

Hayes, T.D., H.R. Isaacson. K.R. Reddy, D.P. Chynoweth. and R.Biljetina. 1987.
Water Hyacinth Systems for Water Treatment, in Aquatic Plants for
Water Treatment and Resource Recovery. K.R. Reddy and W.H. Smith,
eds. Magnolia Publishers Inc.

Heaton, C, J. Frame, and J.K. Hardy. 1987. Lead Uptade by the Water
Hyacinth, in Aquatic Plants for Water Treatment and Resource Recovery.
K.R. Reddy and W.H. Smith, eds. Magnolia Publishers Inc.

Jamil, K., P.V.R. Rao, and M.Z. Jamil. 1987. Studies on Efficacy of Eichhorinia
crassipes (kiart.) Solms in Removing Heavy Metals from Aquatic Medium
and Their Efficts on Plant Tissues, in Aquatic Plants for Water Treatment
and Resource Recovery. K.R. Reddy and W.H. Smith, eds. Magnolia
Publishers Inc.

Knoll, D.M. 1987. Effect of Nitrogen/Phosphorus Ratio of the Culture Medium

on Growth and Nutrient Removal by Water Hyacinth, in Aquatic Plants
for Water Treatment and Resource Recovery. K.R. Reddy and W.H.
Smith, eds. Magnolia Publishers Inc.
 93

Koles, S.M., R.J. Petress, andL.O. Bagnall. 1987. Duckweed Culture

andReduction ofAmmonia, Phosphorus and Suspended Solids from Algal-
Rich Water, in Aquatic Plants for Water Treatment and Resource
Recovery. K.R. Reddy and W.H. Smith, eds. Magnolia Publishers Inc.

Kozak, P.M. and P.L. Bishop. 1987. The Effect ofMixing and Aeration on the
Productivity ofMyrophyllum heterophyllum Michx. (Water Milfoil) During
Aquatic Wastewater Treatment, in Aquatic Plants for Water Treatment
and Resource Recovery K.R. Reddy and W.H. Smith,
. eds. Magnolia
Publishers Inc.

Krishnan, S.B. and J.E. Smith. 1987. Public Health Issues ofAquatic Systems
Used for Wastewater Treatment, in Aquatic Plants for Water Treatment
and Resource Recovery. K.R. Reddy' and W.H. Smith, eds. Magnolia
Publishers Inc.

Lakshman, G. 1987. Ecotechnological Opportunities for Aquatic Plants—

Survey of Utilization Options, in Aquatic Plants for Water Treatment and
Resource Recovery K.R. Reddy and W.H. Smith, eds. Magnolia
.

Publishers Inc.

Lemna Corporation. 1991. Lemna Natural Treatment System Product Catalog.

Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., Third ed., revised by G. Tchobanaglous and F. L. Burton.
1991. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal, and Reuse.
McGraw-Hill.

Moorhead, K.K., K.R. Redd}', and D.A. Graetz. 1987. Nitrogen Cycling in an
integrated "Biomass for energy" System, in Aquatic Plants for Water
Treatment and Resource Recovery. K.R. Reddy and W.H. Smith, eds.
Magnolia Publishers Inc.

Natural Systems for Wastewater Treatment. Manual of Practice FD-16, Water

Pollution Control Federation (1990).

Neuse, D. W. 1976. The Removal ofAlgae from an Oxidation Pond Effluent

Through the Use of a Tertiary Water Hyacinth Pond System. Master's
Thesis, University of Texas at Austin.
 94

O'Keefe, D.H., T.E. Wiese, and M.R. Benjamin. 1987. Effects of Positional
Isomerism on the Uptake ofMonosubstituted Phenols by the Water
Hyacinth, in Aquatic Plants for Water Treatment and Resource Recovery.
K.R. Reddy and W.H. Smith, eds. Magnolia Publishers Inc.

Oron, G., and D. Poroth. 1987. Use of Duckweedfor Wastewater Treatment and
Recycling, in Aquatic Plants for Water Treatment and Resource
Recovery. K.R. Reddy and W.H. Smith, eds. Magnolia Publishers Inc.

Reddy, K.R., and W.H. Smith (eds.). 1987. Aquatic Plants for Water Treatment
and Resource Recovery. K.R. Reddy and W.H. Smith, eds. Magnolia
Publishers Inc.

Reddy, K.R., E.M. D'Angelo, and T.A. DeBusk. 1989. Oxygen Transport
Through Aquatic Macrophytes: The Role in Wastewater Treatment.
Journal of Environmental Quality. 19:261-267.

Reddy, K.R. and W.F. DeBusk. 1987. Nutrient Storage Capabilities ofAquatic
and Wetland Plants, in Aquatic Plants for Water Treatment and Resource
Recovery. K.R. Reddy and W.H. Smith, eds. Magnolia Publishers Inc.

Reddy, K.R. and W.F. DeBusk. 1985. Nutrient Removal Potential of Selected
Aquatic Macrophytes. Journal of Environmental Quality. 14:459-462.

Reed, S.C., E.J. Middlebrooks, and R.W. Crites. 1988. Natural Systems for
Waste Management and Treatment. McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Salati, E. 1987. Edaphic-Phytodepuration: A New Approach to Wastewater

Treatment, in Aquatic Plants for Water Treatment and Resource
Recovery. K.R. Reddy and W.H. Smith, eds. Magnolia Publishers Inc.

So, M.L. 1987. Growth Characteristics of Duckweed and Their Potential Use as
Organic Fertilizers in Hong Kong, in Aquatic Plants for Water Treatment
and Resource Recovery. K.R. Reddy and W.H. Smith, eds. Magnolia
Publishers Inc.

Stewart, E.A. ID, D.L. Haselow, and N.M. Wyse. 1987. Review of Operations
and Performance Data on Five Water Hyacinth Based Treatment Systems
in Florida, in Aquatic Plants for Water Treatment and Resource
Recovery. K.R. Reddy and W.H. Smith, eds. Magnolia Publishers Inc.
 95

Tchobanoglous, G. 1987. Aquatic Plant Systems for Wastewater Treatment:

Engineering Considerations, in Aquatic Plants for Water Treatment and
Resource Recovery. K.R. Reddy and W.H. Smith, eds. Magnolia
Publishers Inc.

Templet, P.H. andlvl. Valez. 1987. Removal of Phenols from Water by

Duckweed (Lemnaceae) . in Aquatic Plants for Water Treatment and
Resource Recovery. K.R. Reddy and W.H. Smith, eds. Magnolia
Publishers Inc.

Texas Water Commission. 1992. Design Criteria for Sewerage Systems. Texas
Administrative Code, Section 317.

Tokunga, T., N. Furuta, and M. Morimoto. 1976. Accumulation of Cadmium in

Eichhornia crassipes Solm. The Journal of Hygienic Chemistry. 22 :234-
239.

Tschinkel, V.J. 1987. Florida's Waste Disposal Dilema: a Time for Innovation.
in Aquatic Plants for Water Treatment and Resource Recovery. K.R.
Reddy and W.H. Smith, eds. Magnolia Publishers Inc.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988. Design Manual: Constructed

Wetlands and Aquatic Plant Systems for Municipal Wastewater Treatment.
EPA 625/1/88-022.

Weber, A.S., andG. Tchobanoglous. 1985. Nitrification in Water Hyacinth

Treatment Systems. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 112:699.

Whitehead, A.J., K.V. Lo, and N.R. Bulley. 1987. The Effect ofHydraulic
Retention Time and Duckweed Cropping Rate on Nutrient Removal from
Dairy Barn Wastewater, in Aquatic Plants for Water Treatment and
Resource Recovery. K.R. Reddy and W.H. Smith, eds. Magnolia
Publishers Inc.

59
Wills, R.A. and S.S. Pierson. Fe by Water Hyacinth, in
1987. Adsorption of
Aquatic Plants for Water Treatment and Resource Recovery. K.R. Reddy
and W.H. Smith, eds. Magnolia Publishers Inc.
 96

Wolverton, B.C., and R.C. McDonald. 1979. Upgrading Facultative Wastewater

Lagoons with Vascular Aquatic Plants. Journal of the Water Pollution
Control Federation. 51:305-313.

Wotverton, B.C. 1987. Aquatic Plants for Wastewater Treatment: an Overview.

in Aquatic Plants for Water Treatment and Resource Recovery. K.R.
Reddy and W.H. Smith, eds. Magnolia Publishers Inc.

Wolverton, B.C. 1987. Artificial Marshes for Wastewater Treatment, in Aquatic

Plants for Water Treatment and Resource Recovery. K.R. Reddy and
W.H. Smith, eds. Magnolia Publishers Inc.

Wolverton, B.C., and R.C. McCaleb. 1987. Pennywort and Duckweed Marsh
System for Upgrading Wastewater Effluent from a Mechanical Package
Plant, in Aquatic Plants for Water Treatment and Resource Recovery.
K.R. Reddy and W.H. Smith, eds. Magnolia Publishers Inc.

Wolverton, B.C. Water Hyacinths for Removal of Cadmium and Nickel

1975.
from Polluted Water. NASA Technical Memo X-72721.

Wolverton, B.C., and R.C. McDonald. 1978. Water Hyacinth Sorption Rates of
Lead, Mercury, and Cadmium. NASA Technical Memo TM78-26715.
Zachritz,W.H. D, andR.B. Jacquez. 1987. A Three-Compartment Nitrogen
Model of a Water Hyacinth Wastewater Treatment System, in Aquatic
Plants for Water Treatment and Resource Recovery. K.R. Reddy and
W.H. Smith, eds. Magnolia Publishers Inc.
 Appendix A
Case Studies

A.1 Introduction

The following projects are included as being representative of the various

uses of aquatic plant treatment systems currently employed. The majority of the

full scale or pilot scale operations are water hyacinth/ water lettuce or duckweed

systems, but one unique pennywort system has been included to show other

possibilities for the aquatic plant systems.

A.2 Water Hyacinth Systems

By far the most abundant and detailed information is available on water

hyacinth systems. The three systems discussed below represent a wide range of

uses for the plant system.

A.2.1 San Diego, California, Hybrid Water Hyacinth System (EPA, 1988)

This system was chosen because it represents one attempt to go through an

entire investigation of possible alternative treatment schemes using water hyacinth

lagoons to achieve secondary treatment of primary effluent. It is important to note

that the investigation involved the water hyacinth ponds as one component in a

system under real conditions. Aquatic plant systems are rarefy used by themselves,

but as components of larger systems.

The city of San Diego relies heavily upon imported drinking water to meet

its needs and has for many years. Approximately ninety percent of the potable

97
 98

water used by the city is imported. Projections of future needs and supplies have

indicated that the city's needs will exceed the available supply by the year 2000.

Because of this, San Diego has been searching for alternate water sources and

methods of reclaiming the water in the waste stream. Initial attempts at distilling

ocean water for potable water and using secondary effluent for irrigation were

unsuccessful, so the city investigated other reclamation methods.

In 1981, the San Diego began a demonstration wastewater reuse project

that included secondary treatment with water hyacinths among many other potential

technologies. The project operated for five years, and during its operation the

study was extended and expanded into the study discussed below. The information

obtained was used to design a 1 MGD (3,785 m /d) facility from the best scheme
3

with a 0.5 MGD (1.892 m 3

/d) advanced treatment system to reduce the

concentration of salts and to further reduce pollutants. This system also included

an anaerobic digester to produce methane from the harvested water hyacinth and

the primary sludge. Performance results are not yet available for the demonstration

scale facility, so the information provided below is on the pilot scale plant.

The original funding for this project allowed for the investigation of aquatic

plant systems in wastewater treatment. The primary goals of the project were to

find a natural biosystem for wastewater treatment that required lower energy inputs

and potentially provided some energy recovery. The secondary goal was to reclaim

some water for useful purposes such as irrigation and use as a source of raw

potable water. Seven treatment trains involving water hyacinth ponds were

evaluated during the study, but the following review is on the performance of the

water hyacinth ponds themselves rather than the complete systems.

 99

During the first stage of this study, plug flow ponds were used either in

series or in parallel in each treatment scheme. The ponds were 28 ft wide by 416

feet long by 4 feet deep. Profile studies of the ponds revealed that the majority of

the TSS and BOD 5

removal occurred in the first 50 feet of the pond, so the next

trial of the ponds included a step feed system where one eighth of the influent was

fed every 50 feet, beginning at the head of the pond. Various recycle rates were

also investigated, with the recycle flow entering the head of the pond or with the

influent. An aeration system was required in the hyacinth ponds to prevent

hydrogen sulfide odor problems that resulted when the wastewater, which

contained high sulfate concentrations, experienced anaerobic conditions. Odor

controls for the entire treatment facility were very thorough: a sedimentation basin

and a rotary disk filter were enclosed in their own building, with carbon adsorption

of the exhaust air; carbon canisters were used at each of three aeration manholes;

and ferric chloride was used to precipitate sulfides in an anaerobic fixed-film

reactor and a hybrid rock filter. Aeration manholes were aeration devices installed

in flow through manholes placed after each of the secondary treatment processes

and before the water hyacinth ponds. The recycle water was partially used in a

cascade aeration system to maintain the dissolved oxygen concentration above 1

mg/L.

Local requirements for no odor emissions and no mosquitos drove the

aeration and harvesting requirements. The system was harvested frequently to

maintain a low plant density and allow the mosquito fish ample access to all of the

water surface. A large population of mosquito fish was required to ensure

complete control of the mosquito larvae population. Occasional drops in the
 100

dissolved oxygen concentration and severe drops in the water temperature caused

large portions of the mosquito fish population to die. When this occurred, man-

made mosquito control agents were used with success, but they had to be applied

frequently.

Since harvesting was only performed in this system to allow the fish to

control mosquito populations, no correlation was made between the removal

0PS
efficiency and yield of the cells. The productivity of the hyacinths, 67 '

™l."T

(30 ^^ ), was in the same range as values reported by other investigators.

Effluent characteristics of the ponds were within secondary treatment

standards even without step feed of the influent or recycling the effluent. Using

recycle increased the organics loading capacity of the ponds by providing initial

dilution, and step feed of the influent provided a fairly uniform distribution of the

load along the length of the pond. A recycle ratio of two to one with the recycle

flow entering the head of the pond was chosen as providing the best overall

performance. Recycle ratios of up to five to one provided effluents that usually still

met secondary standards, but the turbidity and chlorine requirements were higher at

the higher ratios. Figures A-l and A-2 show the system response to varying

influent concentrations of BOD 5 and TSS, respectively. Since the particular

treatment scheme shown in these graphs is a series combination of a hybrid rock

filter followed by a hyacinth pond, the overall system influent is included (labelled

"influent") as well as the actual concentration entering the pond (labelled "pond

influent"). The effluent for a full-scale system with step feed and recycle is

expected to have BOD 5 ^ 20 mg/L ninety percent of the time, * 10 mg/L fifty

percent of the time, TSS * 25 mg/L ninety percent of the time, and ^11 mg/L fifty
 101

percent of the time. Figure A-3 shows the characteristics of the influent and

effluent of each cell of a step feed pond using 2: 1 recycle. With the exception of

the combined influent to cell 8, the dissolved oxygen concentration remains above 1

mg/L.

The results of the second phase of this study show that a loading of 200 to

g
250 haM ( 180 to 225 :

acre . a )
is appropriate with step feed and aeration. The

recommended depth of the pond is 0.9 to 1.2 m (30 to 42 in). The hydraulic

loading rate was held constant at 0.058 ^7 (62.000 GPD/acre) for all of the tests,

which resulted in a hydraulic residence time of 21 days.

Based upon the observed removal rates, a 1 MGD (3,785 m3/d) treatment
facility using an applied BOD 5 concentration of 175 mgL and a surface loading
rate of 225
kg
h ^ 5
(200 ^°^ ) would require 2.9 ha (7.3 acres). The capitol cost

to construct the pond system would be approximately $2. 18 million, and the annual

operations and maintenance cost would be approximately $494 thousand (in 1986

currency). Anaerobic digestion of the harvested water hyacinths can potentially

yield two billion BTU/yr in methane at the measured production rates. This has the

potential of decreasing the net operating costs for the entire plant if it is either used

to generate electricity or sold to local utility companies.

A.2.2 Austin, Texas, Water Hyacinth Facility (Doersam, 1987; EPA, 1988)

The state of Texas has been gathering information on water hyacinth

treatment facilities since 1970. Several studies of field-, pilot-, and full-scale

systems have been performed at various locations, including Austin. Water

 102

Figure A-l BOD 5 performance daia for San Diego, CA pond #3 with 200 percent recycle
(EPA, 1988)

8O0 5 , mg/L

250

Influent
200

^^ Pond Influent
150 -e-
,
D
N
,B B"
— a'

100

50
Effluent

6/86 6/87
 103

Figure A-2. SS performance data for San Diego, CA pond #3 with 200 percent recycle (EPA, 1988)

Pond Influent
-Q B--
n q B- -a a Q-
-B->
100
•~a B e -Q

50 -

•y— -y «-—?—--? Elfluenl

y y— --* y
~— y ~— y y
1/87 6/87
 104

Figure A-3 Influent and effluent BOD, SS, and DO for step-feed hyacinth pond (EPA, 1988)

/ innu«nt
Influent BOO
bo
r
l—

I JO

IOC

ao

to
\
O \
JO
. % innu«nt SS -.
EfflUMI SS

V
\
\
'
Efflutnt OO

^- Influx* r

I I

Influent -^ .
C^, i
Effluent
Bo>
SirnpM Location
 105

hyacinth systems have been shown to be feasible, except that winter freezing is a

problem in much of the state.

The city's Kornsby Bend Sludge Treatment Facility receives waste activated

sludge from several area treatment plants. The facility' began operation in the

1950's and recently underwent major renovations, including the construction of a

new water hyacinth facility.

The original design called for supernatant from the sludge holding lagoons

to be passed through a chlorine contact lagoon and then discharged into the

Colorado River. The effluent quality' exceeded the imposed discharge limits of 30

mg/L BOD s
and 90 mg/L TSS. To help correct this problem, water hyacinths

were introduced into the 1.2 ha (3 acre) chlorine contact lagoon in 1977. They

served as a seasonal upgrade for several years, but the basin configuration was not

well suited to water hyacinth treatment, and freeze damage occurred each year. A
greenhouse structure was proposed as part of the planned renovations to offer

protection for the plants and afford year round treatment.

A new three basin water hyacinth facility was approved and built with a

permanent greenhouse structure. The construction was partially funded by the

EPA's Construction Grants Program as an innovative wastewater treatment process.

This facility was the first permanent greenhouse structure funded by the EPA.

The 2 ha (5 acre) greenhouse structure contains three basins with a total

surface area of 1.6 ha (4 acre) when filled to their 17,000 m 3

(4.5 Mgal) capacity.

The system is designed to receive a maximum daily flow of 7570 m3/d (2 MGD),
which makes the hydraulic loading 4680 gj (0.5 MGD/acre). The center basm

has an area of 0.64 ha (1.6 acre), and each of the outside basins have areas of
 106

.4o ua ^i.z auicj. iilc Icllglii vl lac ua&m:> la ^.Oj in \c> iv u), mc wciuci ua.Mll is

24.2 m (80 ft) wide, and the outer two basins are 18. 1 m ( 60 ft) wide. The depth

of each basin varies from 0.9 m (3 ft) at the upstream end to 1.5 m (5 ft) at the
downstream end. The middle basin initially received roof run-off during storms,

but the resulting temperature change in the water was believed to be responsible for

causing stress in some of the species maintained in the pond for mosquito control.

Rain water was diverted off of the facility as a result.

The greenhouse structure is completely enclosed with clear fiberglass panels

that have a light transmission value of 65 percent. Water hyacinths require high

intensity light for growth, so the transmissivity of the panels was monitored with

time. The sidewalls of the structure are 3.4 m (11 ft) tall to allow maintenance

vehicles and harvest equipment to maneuver easily. Seven overhead doors at each

end of the building allow for vehicle access. Separate personnel doors were

installed later. Moveable barriers are placed across any open dooiways to prevent

the entrance of snakes or other predators of the organisms used for mosquito

control. The barriers also prevent the return of nutria, a large aquatic rodent, which

were a problem in the facility at one time. Doors and ridge vents provide

ventilation, and the ridge vents are screened to minimize the immigration of adult

mosquitos.

The influent to each pond is distributed across the width of the upstream

end using a 30 cm (12 in) perforated pipe. Two secondary distribution pipes are

located at 63.9 m (210 ft) and 127.8 m (419 ft) downstream of the upper end of
each basin for experimental step application of influent.
 107

Maintenance of the facility includes harvest and annual removal of detritus.

The slope of the basin facilitates draining and cleaning. A drain valve is located at

the bottom of the outlet structure in each basin. This drain valve is separate from

the adjustable telescoping valve used to set the operating water level. T he facility is

of sufficient size to allow continued operation at the design flow with one basin out

of service. The berms separating the basins was topped with a 3 m (10 ft) wide

unsurfaced road used during harvesting, but condensation dripping from the roof,

and capillary rise from the basins required the installation of a permanent road

surface.

Mosquito control was a major consideration in designing the facility. Eight

areas in each basin are kept open by chain link fence and galvanized metal strips.

These are intended to act as natural aerators by allowing sunlight to penetrate to the

gravel substrate where it promotes attached algae growth. During the daytime, the

algae releases oxygen into the water, which then flows under the hyacinth mat.

Dissolved oxygen concentrations in these areas have been measured as high as 5

mg/L during the day. These areas help ensure the survival of the mosquito fish,

and grass shrimp used to control mosquito larvae. Final effluent from the ponds

passes over a two step cascade aerator with a total drop of 3 m (10 ft). The

dissolved oxygen concentration after the cascade aerator is consistently above 5

mg/L.

The biological stability of water hyacinth basins is the key to successful

treatment of wastewater. Maintenance work on one of the sludge lagoons which

fed the hyacinth facility caused the influent loading to be erratic and resulted in

erratic performance of the system during the first six months of operation. The
 108

method used to ensure relatively constant loading after that was to maintain a

constant influent How rate. This was sufficient as long as the influent quality did

not vary greatly. Performance of the system for a one year period is shown in

figures A-4 and A- 5.

Mosquito controls in the system were effective. In addition to the mosquito

fish and grass shrimp, leopard, tree, and cricket frogs were stocked for mosquito

control. Dragonflies and damselflies also played an important role even though

they were not stocked. The adult dragonllies and damselflies ate adult mosquitos.

and the larval dragonflies ate larval mosquitos. A noticeable increase in mosquito

population was noticed when the weather got cooler, presumably due to

immigration of adult mosquitos.

No harvest was necessary during the first five months of operation, but was

required constantly in Jury and August, and less frequently during the winter. A
tractor mounted modified backhoe was used to harvest a 1.2 to 1.8 m (4 to 6 ft)
strip along the outside edge of each basin. This strip of clear water acted as a

temporary aerator and allowed the mosquito predators easier access to any

concealed pools of water in the hyacinth mat. The harvested plants were first dried

and then encorporated into thickened waste activated sludge to be recycled as a soil

additive.

Experience with previous water hyacinth systems at this location indicated

that humus accumulation would be rapid and would mostly occur close to in inlet.

A partial drawdown of the basin being cleaned was used to avoid having to
completely restock the basin.
 109

The total design and construction cost of the system was SI. 2 million. As

of June. 1989. discharge of pond effluent to the Colorado River was no longer

permitted. Effluent was then used to irrigate agricultural land near the facility.

Because of the new use for the effluent, discharge standards were not as critical.

Problems with hyacinth weevils, mites, and culture maintenance, combined with

this decreased effluent requirement resulted in abandonment of water hyacinth

treatment. Some hyacinths are still being used, but the majority of the basin

surface is now maintained as a duckweed system. Removals are adequate for land

application (Doersam, 1992).

A.2.3 Orlando, Florida, Water Hyacinth Tertiary Treatment Facility (EPA, 1988)

The Iron Bridge Wastewater Treatment Facility provides tertiaiy treatment

for a maximum of 90,000 m3 /d (24 MGD) of the city of Orlando's wastewater.

The facility was built in 1979. It used primary clarification and RBCs for

carbonaceous BOD 5 removal and nitrification, submerged RBCs for denitrification,

chemical precipitation and sedimentation for phosphorus removal, and rapid sand

filters for effluent polishing. The permitted effluent standards for the plant were 5

mg/L BOD 5 , 5 mg/L SS, 3 mg/L TN, and 1 mg/L TP.

Flows to the facility increased with time as would be expected, but by 1982

the city faced an additional requirement of not increasing the waste load discharged

to the St. Johns River. In order to meet the increased flows without increasing the

waste load, the city had to improve the removal efficiencies of the facility. One

proposed method to accomplish this was to use a water hyacinth system to treat

30,000 m3/d (8 MGD) to an effluent quality of 2.5 mg/L BOD 5 , 2.5 mg/L SS,
 no

Figure A-4. BOD 5 and TSS Performance of Hornsby Bend Hyacinth Facility, Austin, TX
(Doersam. 1987; EPA. 1988).

400 Influent BOD

350 -

Effluent BOD
300
| Influent TSS
? 250 1

Effluent TSS
 Ill

Figure A-5. pH and NH3 -N Performance of Hornsby Bend Hyacinth Facility, Austin, TX
(Doersam, 1987; EPA, 1988).

8.4
- taQuent pH
8.2

8 / \

V
7.8

7.6

7.4

7.2

6.8 -In^iSSP^N"^
6.6

6.4
oo cc
00 oo 00 00
o > o
u o
C/0 O Q
"J
 112

1.5 mg/L TN, and 1.5 mgL TP. This would allow for a maximum influent flow to

the facility of 106.000 m /d (28 MGD).

3
In 1983. the city of Orlando decided to

test the feasibility of the concept by building and operating a pilot water hyacinth

facility. Because the pilot plant was successful, a full-scale system was built and

has been operating since 1985.

The pilot facility consisted of live ponds built in series with a total pond

area of 253 m2 (2,720 sq.ft). Each pond is 5.2 m by 9.8 m (17 ft by 32 ft). The

required surface area for these ponds was determined using a computer model

HYADEM, developed by Amasek, Incorporated. An assumed wet crop density of

12.2 kg/m 2 (2.5 lb/sq.ft) and influent flow of 54.5 m3/d (14.400 gpd) were used as

inputs to the program. The depth of the ponds was set at 0.6 m (2 ft) which

resulted in a hydraulic detention time of 2.8 days. Based upon these figures, the

surface loading rate was 2,240 ^^ (0.24 MGD/acre).

The pilot facility was used to determine: the ability of the hyacinth system

to achieve the desired effluent concentrations on an average monthly basis; the

ability of the hyacinth system to recover following a freezing event: determine the

need for micronutrient addition; to determine the applicability and reliability of the

computer model used: and to reveal any specific operational requirements. The

system was operated under steady' state conditions, and measurements of influent,

effluent and crop parameters were taken regularly.

The ponds were first stocked with water hyacinth in September 1983, but

problems with the influent quality fluctuating made it difficult to evaluate the

system performance for the first three months. Plant productivity was lower than
 113

expected during this time, but that has been attributed to possible micronutrient

shortages and activity of the hyacinth weevil {Neochetina eichhorniae).

By December, the wet standing crop had increased from 455 kg (1000 lb)

to 1.650 kg (3.636 lb), an increase of approximately 6.5 kg/m 2 (1.34 lb sq.lt). On

December 25 and 26. a freeze occurred that produced a noticeable effect on the

hyacinths but did not kill them. Treatment efficiencies did however decrease in

January.

Actual hydraulic loading rates were lower than planned during January

1984 to accomodate a higher than planned nitrogen loading. The flow was reduced

to 21 m3 /d (5.600 gpd) at this time. Initially a micronutrient supplement of iron,

potassium, and phosphorus was added, but from January on, zinc, copper,

manganese, molybdenum, boron, and sulfur were added as well. During January,

the last two ponds were also covered with a portable greenhouse to assess their

performance during freeze events.

Removal of BOD 5 SS, TN, and TP from February 15

, to March 15 was

stable and averaged 60. 43. 70. and 65 percent, respectively. No major operating

problems were encountered during this time. The assessment of the pilot facility's

performance concluded that covering the ponds for freeze protection was not cost

effective at the Iron Bridge facility because the hyacinths were able to recover from

"even severe Florida freeze events," and because of some of "the negative features

associated with a covered system."

Design of the full-scale system was performed using the same computer

model mentioned above. The basic assumption used by the model is that nutrient

removal is directly related to plant growth. Plant growth is modelled in the program
 114

with Monod kinetics and the Arrhenius temperature relationship, assuming that

growth is occurring in a reactor with constant concentration of the limiting nutrient.

Growth rate is related to plant density and surface area coverage and then uses

these assumptions to calculate nutrient uptake. The effluent concentration is then

calculated from a nutrient mass balance. The main problem with this model is that

most researchers have concluded that the majority of nitrogen removal is by

nitrification/denitrification, with only a small fraction of the total being consumed

by the plants. The results of the pilot-scale system were used to calculate the

constants for the growth relationships.

The full-scale system consists of two ponds each with a surface area of 6 ha

(15 acre) and hyacinth digestion facilities. Each pond is subdivided into live basins

67 m long and 183 m wide (220 ft by 600 ft) using berms. Six weirs are spaced

evenly along the length of each berm to distribute flow and prevent short-circuiting.

Advanced waste treatment effluent is fed to both ponds through an inlet manifold.

One pond also has an influent line from the secondary facilities. Chemical feed

pipes to the influent lines and the weirs in each berm supply the supplemental

nutrients which are regulated by a chemical dosing and mixing facility. The ponds

are 0.9 m (3 ft) deep and have a hydraulic retention time of approximately 3.5

days.

Water hyacinths were initially stocked in late 1984, and the plant operated

in a start-up mode until July 1985. During this time, the system met the nutrient

removal goals. Amasek, Inc. took over operation of the system in Jufy 1985.

Several problems were encountered during the period of Jury 1985 to February

1986. These were summarized in a report to the city as follows:

 115

1 When the company took over operation, the crop had developed

extensive weevil populations and there was significant encroachment of

alligator-weed.

2. The company tried to improve the crop viability by selective harvesting.

Growth of the unharvested plants was not as projected and extensive

algae growth resulted in violation of SS discharge limits.

3. Insecticide spraying was required to try and bring the weevil population

under control. Additional water hyacinth stock was introduced to

enhance crop development.

4. Spraying helped improve crop viability, but growth was inconsistent and

coverage was not being achieved as designed. This continued the algal

growth and violation of discharge standards, but adequate nutrient

removal was still being achieved.

5. By January. 1986, the crop was experiencing serious growth problems.

Nutrient removal was still occurring, but the rate of removal had

declined considerably.

6. Potential causes for the growth problems were identified as follows:

a. Metal toxicity, with aluminum being the most likely.

b. Biological interference or competition from the algae and other

plants.

c. Macronutrient deficiencies, with phosphorus the principal concern.

d. Micronutrient deficiencies.

7. In January 1986, the system was shut down in an attempt to restore crop

health and solids control. One pond was fertilized to bring levels of
 116

nitrogen, phosphorus, iron and calcium to excess concentratioas.

Several experiments were established to test the effects of various

additives. Thorough testing of the plants and water quality was

performed in an attempt to identify toxic or deficient constituent levels.

8. By late January, the plants were experiencing very serious growth

problems, and the sanding crop began to decline significantly. The

pond that had been fertilized showed no response to the nutrients. This

indicated either a toxic influence or a micronutrient deficiency was the

cause.

9. In February 1986. flow was reinstated to the unfertilized pond and crop

health improved rapidly. This verified the results of several small scale

tests which indicated that there was no phytotoxicity problems. A

micronutrient deficiency was therefore the main suspect, and the

contractor compared the plants in the Iron Bridge facility' to those in

other systems.

A thorough investigation revealed that a molybdenum deficiency had

developed as a result of: "1) precipitation and filtration of aluminum molybdate

prior to discharge to the hyacinth lagoons. 2) interference of molybdenum uptake

by sulfates which are put into the system as ferrous sulfate, and 3) low sediment

pH and poor system buffering because of low alkalinity which inhibits molybdenum

uptake."

Several modifications to the system operations were enacted to correct the

problem: molybdenum and boron were added to the supplemental nutrients, ferric
 117

chloride was chosen as a replacement for ferrous sulfate, and lime or soda ash was

added to increase the influent alkalinity to 60 mg/L as CaC0 3 .

From February to May 1986, the system was again operated in start-up

mode to establish a healthy crop. In June, one pond was operated as designed

except that the influent nitrogen levels were approximately 13 mg'L instead of the 3

mg'L anticipated. In September, the second pond was also placed in service.

Influent an effluent concentrations of BOD 5 , SS. TN, and TP for the period from

June to November are shown in Table A-l. During this period of relatively steady

operation, the hyacinth system did not achieve the predicted removal rates. The

average BOD 5
and SS concentrations were reduced form 4.87 and 3.84 mg/L in

the influent to 3.1 1 and 3.62 mg/L in the effluent. The system did achieve the

predicted removal rate in terms of mass of nitrogen removed. Effluent phosphorus

concentrations were always below the design goal of 0.5 mg'L, even though it was

necessary to add supplemental phosphorus to the influent to assure that it was not a

growth limiting nutrient.

The construction costs of the hyacinth system were SI. 2 million for the

hyacinth digester, and $2 million for the basins and piping. Operation and

maintenance is performed under contract by the Amasec Corporation for a yearly

fee of $550,000 which covers all associated costs such as pumping, sludge disposal,

and an extensive monitoring program.

 118

Table A-l Iron Bridge , FL Water Hyacinth System Performance Summary (alter EPA. 1988)
Date Wastewater BOD5. me/1 SS, me/I TN. me/1 TP. ma/1 (a)

Flow. tn3/d Influent Effluent Influent Effluent Influent Effluent Influent Effluent

Jun-86 16.680(b) 3.24 4.58 3.06 6.31 12.52 8.09 0.37 0.24
Jul- 86 17.450(b) 4.12 1.73 3.85 1.S6 12.44 8.06 0.33 0.11

Aug- 86 16.850(b) 3.33 3.70 '

3.58 4.28 12.77 7.62 0.55 0.19
Sep-86 32.500(c) 6.16 2.66 5.23 2.91 12.66 7.96 0.75 0.15

Oct-86 31.190(c) 4.43 3.11 2.70 3.56 14.49 9.66 0.89 0.22
Average 23.250 •4.87 3.11 3.84 3.62 13.00 8.16 0.61 0.22

(a) Phosphorus is added lo the hyacinth system inlluent as a nutrient supplement

(b) West hyacinth pond in operation.

(c) Both hyacinth ponds in operation.

 119

A.3 Duckweed Systems

Although many persons have investigated the use of duckweed in treatment

systems and some pond facilities may have been adapted for use with these plants,

only one company has been designing and building systems based upon duckweed

treatment. The Lemna Corporation of Mendota Heights, Minnesota has designed a

patented floating grid and baffle system to provide wind protection to the plants and

distribute the water flow evenly beneath them. The floating harvester that was

designed for these systems rides over the flexible grid and skims duckweed off the

surface of the individual grid cell surfaces. The porous baffles may also act as

attached growth surfaces for denitrifying microorganisms. The following case

studies were taken from documentation from the company (Lemna Corp., 1991)

and an article in Water Environment & Technology (Buddhavarapu and Hancock.

1991). Costs and details such as those provided for the above water hyacinth

facilities are not available.

A.3.1 Devils Lake, North Dakota (Lemna Corp., 1991)

The city of Devils Lake had a three cell, series flow stabilization pond

system which was not meeting the discharge requirements of 30 mg/L or less of

BOD 5 , 30 mg/L or less of total suspended solids (TSS), and 1 mg/L or less of total

phosphorus (TP) set by the North Dakota Department of Health. The first cell in

series was 120 acres and the remaining two cells were 60 acres each. The average

depth of each cell was 6 feet. The average flow to the ponds was 3.5 MGD.
The system was upgraded by raising the berms on the lagoons two feet,

adding rip-rap to the sides, and installing a three cell, fifty acre duckweed advanced
 120

treatment facility alter the third lagoon. The cells in this facility have a large aspect

ratio, but are folded to minimize land requirements (see Figure A-6). The facility is

unusual for a wastewater treatment facility in that it is set up like a park ("Lemna

Water Park") with a visitor's center and extensive landscaping. The hydraulic

residence time of the new facility is 22 days, and the active storage volume is 77

MG. The pilot scale demonstration project at this site achieved effluent

concentrations of BOD 5 and TSS consistently below 25 and 30 mgT. respectively,

and stabilized at less than 0.5 mg/L TP within the first month. Figures A-7, A-8.

and A-9 show the response of the system to the varying influent concentrations of

TP. TSS. and BOD 5

respectively. Full scale operation has achieved similar results,

and has consistently met its discharge requirements.

A.3.2 Pontotoc, Mississippi (Lemna Corp., 1991)

The city of Pontotoc operated five oxidation lagoons to treat a total flow of

1.1 MGD. Lagoon number five was not meeting the discharge standards of

15/30/2/6 mg/L for BOD 5 /TSS/ammonia/dissolved oxygen (DO), especially the

ammonia limitations. This pond had a surface area of 1 acre and was 6 feet deep

including a 1 foot storage zone. The design flow for the pond was 13,000 GPD.

No structural modifications were required to upgrade to a duckweed system other

than the installation of the surface grid/submerged baffle system and a supplemental

nitrification (shallow) zone. The maximum design flow for the new system is three

times the average daily flow, or 39,000 GPD. The Active storage volume is 1.5

MGD, and the hydraulic residence time is 115 days. The effluent of the system
 121

Figure A-6. Plan view of Devils Lake, ND, Duckweed

Treatment Facility fLemna
k
Corp.. 1991)

LAB BUILDING/
/ VISITOR CENTER

N FLUENT

SCULPTURAL
EARTH MOUNDS

LEMNA POND MATRIX OF LEMNA

NORTH FLOATING BARRIERS

LEMNA POND
CENTER

8ERM

SCULPTURAL
EARTH MOUNDS

LEMNA POND
SOUTH

EFFLUEN,
POOL
 122

Figure A-7. Phosphorus Removal for the Devi's Lake Duckweed Facility (Lemna
Corp., 1991)

- Pon^ Influent

Oisibarjt Limit

Dxu on/)
 123

Figure A-8. Suspended Solids Removal for Devils Lake Duckweed Facility (Lemna
Corp., 1991)

A ~ ?,*<l iff let* t

LI i* if
 124

Figure A-9. BOD 5 Removal for Devils Lake Duckweed Facility (Lemna Corp.
1991)

150

N;4 100-

O
CO

So-

Limit

% %S 01 %/ %
V<kU (Ml)
 125

stabilized within the first month. Table A-2 shows that the discharge

standards were met except for three months when a sludge reduction program was

underway.

A.3.3 Ogema, Wisconsin (Lemna Corp., 1991)

Ogema had an existing two cell series flow stabilization pond system which

was not meeting the BOD and TSS effluent standards of no more than 20 mg/L of
each. The system was designed for 75,000 GPD but the average daily flow was

35,000 GPD. The active storage volume of the primary cell was 5. 12 MG and that
of the second was 1.33 MG, making the hydraulic residence times 145 and 38

days, respectively. The second cell consisted of a 1 acre pond, 6 feet deep,

including 1 foot of storage. This cell was used for the duckweed upgrade.

The only modifications required for installation were the repair of the outlet

and the installation of the baffle and grid system. Table A-3 shows that the system

has consistently performed well as modified. Wisconsin currently requires 1 50

days of storage for pond systems, but the manufacturer is trying to show that the

increased effluent quality of duckweed systems require less storage. In this system,

the effluent has been within secondary effluent standards even during the winter.
 126

Table A-2. Pontotoc, MS, Duckweed System Performance* Lemna < :orp., 1991)

BOD5, mg/1 TSS, mg/1 NH3, mg/1

Date Influent Effluent Influent Effluent Influent Effluent
May-90 117.5 2.5 126.0 8.0 5.8 2.0
Jun-90 60.0 2.0 43.0 15.0 7.0 2.0
Jul-90 84.0 12.0 119.0 32.0 30.0 9.0
Aug-90 57.5 11.0 99.0 18.5 32.8 15.6
Sep-90 93.0 10.0 176.0 6.0 16.5 3.3
Oct-90 N/A 2.0 63.0 14.5 15.3 0.6
Nov-90 N/A 7.0 N/A 4.0 N/A N/A
Dec-90 N/A 13.8 N/A 17.3 N/A <0.5
Mar-91 116.0 13.2 164.0 15.0 N/A 0.9
Jul-91 32.4 5.7 167.0 17.0 12.5 0.9

Table A-3. Ogema, WI, Duckweed System Performance Before

and After Installation (Lemna Corp., 1991)

BOD5. mg/1 TSS. mg/1

Status Date Influent Effluent Influent Effluent
Existing Jan-90 199 16 300 84
Feb-90 207 14 373 37
Mar-90 145 21 209 30
Apr-90 172 22 287 40
May-90 68 15 127 39
Jun-90 127 17 112 27
Jul-90 122 16 217 51
Lemna Installed Aug-90 121 5 157 16
Sep-90 94 6 155 7
Oct-90 83 5 108 6
Nov-90 114 8 92 19
Dec-90 98 19 92 22
Jan-91 142 21 165 5
Apr-91 58 11 88 11
 127

A.3.4 Ellaville, Georgia (Lemna Corp., 1991)

Ellaville used a two cell series flow lagoon system with the first cell

mechanically aerated. The system was fairly old and the second pond contained

significant sludge deposits. The existing effluent standards of BOD5 ^ 30 mg/L

and TSS - 90 mg/L were being met by the system, but as of May, 1992, the

standards were being made more stringent and the plant had not been capable of

attaining the new prescribed limits previously. The new limits were BOD5 ^15
mg/L, TSS < 30 mgT. DO > 6 mg/L, and NH3 < 2 mg/L.

A duckweed system was chosen as an upgrade for the second cell. This cell

had an active storage volume of 4.0 MG. with a hydraulic residence time of 20

days. The design flow was 200,000 GPD. Minimal modifications were required

for installation. The primary cell was managed for initial BOD/TSS reduction with

the second cell operated as a polishing pond. Table A-4 shows the effluent

characteristics before and after the modification.

A-4 Others

Systems have been investigated for use with pennywort {Hydrocotyle

umbellata) and various submerged plant systems, but very little information has

been published on any existing pilot or full scale operations. Combining pennywort

and water hyacinth in the same system has been reported as being a viable method

of operating year round in areas where water hyacinths do not perform well in the

winter, but no specifics have been reported. One pilot scale system which uses

pennywort is a nutrient film technique, where the plants are grown in lined
 128

Table A-4. Ellaville, GA, Duckweed System Performance (LemnaCorp., 199 1)

BOD5. mg/1 TSS. mg'l NH3, mg/1

Status Date Influent Effluent Influent Effluent Influent Effluent
Existing Jan-90 214 19 173 59 N/A N/A
Feb-90 88 12 71 28 N/A N/A
Mar-90 109 22 128 53 N/A N/A
Apr-^0 176 29 209 83 N/A N/A
May-90 162 23 131 43 N/A N/A
Jun-90 110 30 104 77 N/A N/A
Lemna Installed Jul-90 92 7 79 14 N/A N/A
Aug-90 182 5 193 10 N/A N/A
Sep-90 100 6 127 12 N/A 4.80
Oct-90 178 •
13 168 11 N/A 1.12

Nov-90 104 7 115 22 N/A 0.50

Dec-90 168 12 196 31* N/A 1.60
Jan-91 183 15 60 14 N/A 7.00
* An extensive sludge reduction program temporarily suspended sediments.
 129

raceways with a film of wastewater running through the bare roots. This system

removes solids by filtration and sorbs dissolved contaminants as discussed earlier.

Dierburg, DeBusk, and Goulet (1987), investigated a thin film system for

removing copper and lead from a wastewater effluent treated to secondary

standards. Two control and two test raceways were built 7.32 m long by 1.22 m
wide and 0. 1 5 m deep and lined with 10 mil PVC sheeting. The plants were

stocked and allowed to adapt to the secondary effluent without the metals for two

weeks. Secondary effluent was used that had not been chlorinated, and was fed

through each bed at about 900 1/d. The effluent film ranged from 3.3 to 4.2 cm

thick and had a hydraulic residence time of 8 to 10 h. Once the plants were well

established, the influent streams of two of the raceways were inoculated with metals

and the other two were left alone. The unamended influent averaged 6.0 mg/L

BOD 5 , 6.9 mg/L NO3-N, 0.9 mg/L NH4 -N, and 3. 1 mg/L TP. The two raceways

with metals also had 2.5 mg'L Cu and 1.0 mg/L Pb in the influent.

The performance of this system appeared to be very good for the first

month, with the effluent metals concentrations averaging 839 ug/1 Cu and 149 fig/1

Pb. This equates to an average removal of 69 percent of the copper and 85 percent

of the lead. Problems began to arise after this time since the plants began to

experience phytotoxicity due to the accumulated copper in the plants. The

concentration of the metals in the plant/detritus complex was 1000 times greater

than the ambient concentrations, with the highest concentrations being at the head

of the channels. Figure A- 10 shows the progression of the high metals

concentration through the channels during the experiment. The authors pointed out

that it is very important to use realistic conditions and time scales when investigating
 130

treatment systems to avoid making faulty decisions. This system could have been

viewed as very satisfactory if the experiment had been stopped at two or three

weeks, but because of the phytotoxicify experienced from about 30 days on, this

system could not be viewed as satisfactory without modifications. Perhaps some

other application scheme would work, where the metals contaminated stream was

applied alternately with a nutrient stream that was not toxic. Another possibility

would be to raise the plants in another tank and continue to remove the plants that

were experiencing phototoxicity with new plants.

Most of the specialized applications for aquatic plants being investigated

require further research before they can be practical. The investigators of the

above thin-film system found that alligator weed and water hyacinth could also be

used in a similar system to remove metals, but the same toxicity problems resulted.

In this case, the authors recommended further investigation into loading and other

application methods to make the system effective for longer periods of time, but the

end result may be that this particular method cannot be used for other than batch

treatments with plant replacement occurring between batches if this is economically

feasible.
 131

Locations in a
Figure A-10. Concentration Response of Pennywort Plants at Three
Nutrient Film System. (Dierburg et al, 1987).

1500
XI Inflow
Q.
Q.
1000

500
_J

3000

3Q.
Q. 2000
»—
0)
Q.
O.
o
O 1000

10 20 30 40 50 60
Exposure Time (days)
I<0
Thesis
H31285 Hastie
c.l The use of aquatic
plants in wastewater
treatment.

Thesis
H31285 Hastie
c.l The use of aquatic
plants in wastewater
treatment.

10-93