Next Article in Journal
Hydrochemistry and Evolutionary Processes During Saltwater Intrusion in the Saline–Fresh Groundwater Transition Zone in Southern Laizhou Bay, China
Previous Article in Journal
Main Methods of Regionalization of Minimum Flows, Advantages and Disadvantages and Their Limitations: A Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Water
Volume 17
Issue 7
10.3390/w17071080
water-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Nature-Based Solution for Wastewater Treatment and Reuse Using Phytoremediation with Floating Plants

by
Shahbaz Nasir Khan
1,*,
Lubna Anjum
2,
Arfan Arshad
3,
Saqib Ali
4,
Mannan Aleem
1 and
Abdul Nasir
1
1
Department of Structures and Environmental Engineering, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad 38040, Pakistan
2
Department of Irrigation and Drainage, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad 38040, Pakistan
3
Department of Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078, USA
4
Department of Computer Science, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad 38040, Pakistan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2025, 17(7), 1080; https://doi.org/10.3390/w17071080
Submission received: 24 February 2025 / Revised: 31 March 2025 / Accepted: 1 April 2025 / Published: 4 April 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Wastewater Treatment and Reuse)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Effective wastewater management is a critical environmental challenge, particularly in industrial regions like Faisalabad, where untreated textile effluents contribute to severe water pollution. This study evaluates the potential of phytoremediation using floating aquatic plants—Eichhornia crassipes (water hyacinth), Pistia stratiotes (water lettuce), and Lemna minor (common duckweed)—for the treatment of industrial textile wastewater. A controlled laboratory-scale experiment was conducted to assess pollutant removal efficiency over a 10-day retention period. The initial effluent concentrations of key parameters were measured before treatment to establish baseline conditions. The results demonstrated that Eichhornia crassipes exhibited the highest removal efficiency, achieving reductions of 36.12% (TDS), 36.14% (EC), 36.30% (salinity), 6.12% (pH), 34.30% (total hardness), and 44.52% (chloride). Furthermore, Pistia stratiotes and Lemna minor were particularly effective in removing nitrate (99.76%), ammonium (52.11%), and sodium adsorption ratio (46.29%), indicating species-specific phytoremediation potential. These findings highlight the viability of a low-cost, eco-friendly, and sustainable nature-based solution for wastewater treatment in industrial clusters, offering a practical alternative to conventional treatment technologies.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

According to the latest United Nations report, approximately 2.2 billion people worldwide have limited or no access to safe drinking water, a crisis exacerbated by population growth, urbanization, and industrialization. As water demand rises, so does wastewater generation, leading to severe pollution of water bodies on a global scale [1]. Recognizing this issue, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 6) aim to reduce untreated wastewater by 50% and enhance its safe recycling and reuse by 2030 [2]. Despite these global commitments, a significant portion of wastewater, particularly in developing countries, is used for irrigation without adequate treatment [3]. In many regions, including our study area, there are no specific guidelines or national standards for wastewater irrigation, apart from general environmental quality standards for municipal and industrial effluents [4]. Treating mixed industrial wastewater remains a significant challenge due to its complex composition, often containing heavy metals and persistent contaminants [5,6,7].
Conventional wastewater treatment methods—including physical, chemical, and biological processes—have been widely employed for contaminant removal [8,9]. However, these methods often fail to efficiently remove toxic pollutants, particularly heavy metals, and can be prohibitively expensive [10,11,12]. Biological treatment techniques, such as activated sludge and oxidation ponds, have been explored but are limited by high operational costs and technical constraints [10]. Given these limitations, nature-based solutions such as phytoremediation have emerged as viable alternatives for industrial wastewater treatment [13,14,15,16].
Phytoremediation, a subset of biological treatment methods, utilizes plants and associated microbial communities to remove contaminants from wastewater through mechanisms such as phytoaccumulation, phytodegradation, and rhizofiltration [13,14]. Various macrophytes, including floating plants like water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), water lettuce (Pistia stratiotes), and duckweed (Lemna minor), have demonstrated remarkable potential in removing pollutants, including nitrogen, phosphorus, and heavy metals [16]. For instance, Eichhornia crassipes has been effectively employed to remove heavy metals from electroplating wastewater [17,18], while Pistia stratiotes has shown efficiency in nutrient and pollutant uptake through phytoaccumulation and rhizofiltration [14,19]. Similarly, Lemna minor has been reported to effectively remove nitrogen and phosphorus from wastewater [20,21]. However, the effectiveness of these plants depends on several factors, including growth conditions, plant density, pollutant concentration, and retention time.
Despite extensive research on phytoremediation, several critical knowledge gaps remain. First, there is limited understanding of how these aquatic plants perform under varying wastewater compositions, particularly in mixed industrial effluents. Second, the existing literature lacks comprehensive comparisons of different macrophytes under controlled experimental conditions to determine the most effective species for wastewater treatment. Third, while previous studies have assessed pollutant removal efficiency, they often do not examine the long-term sustainability and practical implementation of phytoremediation at larger scales.
The present study aims to bridge these gaps by evaluating the efficiency of selected aquatic plants (Eichhornia crassipes, Pistia stratiotes, and Lemna minor) in treating mixed industrial wastewater. Unlike previous studies, which primarily focus on single-industry effluents, this research investigates phytoremediation’s applicability to complex wastewater mixtures. Additionally, we examine key treatment parameters, including retention time, plant biomass growth, and pollutant removal efficiency. The ultimate goal of this study is to develop an environmentally sustainable and cost-effective phytoremediation strategy that meets both regional and international wastewater treatment standards, facilitating safe disposal and potential agricultural reuse.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sampling Site

A total of 200 L of mixed industrial textile effluent was collected from a sub-tributary of the Pharang Drain in Faisalabad, Punjab, Pakistan (31.4504° N, 73.1350° E), a region known for its dense textile industry and significant wastewater discharge. Sampling was conducted using pre-cleaned, high-density polyethylene (HDPE) bottles with a 30 L capacity to ensure sample integrity. Effluent was collected at a single point over a 2 h period during peak discharge, mixed thoroughly, and immediately transported to the laboratory. Samples were preserved at 4 °C in a refrigerated unit until the experiment commenced within 48 h of collection to minimize physicochemical changes. The experiment was carried out using 20 L tubs.

2.2. Collection of Aquatic Plants and Establishment of Nursery

Locally available aquatic plants, namely, water hyacinth [Eichhornia crassipes] and water lettuce [Pistia stratiotes], were collected from surrounding areas of Faisalabad. Common duckweed [Lemna minor] was collected from the National Agricultural Research Centre (NARC), Islamabad, Pakistan. A nursery was established after rinsing the plants and placing them in tubs filled with tap water under ambient conditions (Figure 1). To ensure effective removal efficiency against mixed industrial textile effluents, plants were acclimatized in gradually increasing concentrations of textile effluent (0:100, 25:75, 50:50, 75:25, 100:0) to enhance tolerance. The nursery was maintained in plastic tubs, ensuring proper growth before experimentation. These plants are known for their high growth rate and adaptability to local climatic conditions. Previous studies by the National Institute of Bioremediation (NIB) and NARC Islamabad, Pakistan, have confirmed the suitability of these aquatic plants for wastewater treatment [22].

2.3. Bench Scale Experiment

The experiment was conducted in 20 L of plastic tubs, each filled with 20 L of raw textile effluent. Three aquatic plants (Eichhornia crassipes, Pistia stratiotes, and Lemna minor), with an equal number of leaves, were thoroughly washed with deionized water to remove residual nutrients from roots or fronds before transfer from the nursery to the plastic tubs.

2.4. Experimental Treatments

Four treatments with three replications were used to compare treated and untreated mixed industrial effluent:
  • T0: Control (untreated effluent) (Figure 2);
  • T1: Effluent + Eichhornia crassipes (Figure 3);
  • T2: Effluent + Pistia stratiotes (Figure 4);
  • T3: Effluent + Lemna minor (Figure 5).

2.5. Sample Collection and Analysis

Samples were collected at 0-, 5-, and 10-day intervals in plastic bottles pre-washed with distilled water. The following water quality parameters were analyzed:
  • pH, total dissolved solids (TDS), electrical conductivity (EC), salinity, temperature, chloride, nitrate, and ammonia using SEBA Hydrometre MPS-16.
  • Total hardness determined by titration with EDTA using Eriochrome Black T as an indicator [23].
  • Sodium concentration measured using a flame photometer (JENWAY PFP 7) (Figure 6).

2.5.1. Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), Electrical Conductivity, and Salinity

Total dissolved solids are basically minerals that are present in water and properly dissolved in water [24]. TDS contains positively charged ions and negatively charged ions. These types of minerals or solids cannot be seen with the naked eye because they are neither suspended nor on the surface [25]. TDS is main cause of color change in the water. TDS does not contain any colloids [26], and any type of gas TDS is directly proportional to EC as given in Equation (1).
TDS (mg/L) = EC (dS/m) × K
where K = 640, K= 735 for mixed water or, and K = 800 for EC > 5 dS/m. The EC of water is directly proportional to the total amount of solids dissolved in it.
EC also measures the ability of water to conduct electrical current. The minerals dissolved in water include carbonate, bicarbonate, phosphate chloride, sulphate, nitrate, sodium, magnesium, and calcium, etc. It is also affected by the temperature as the higher the temperature, the higher the EC [27].
Salt concentration present in the water defines salinity. These values are also within the same limits. Salinity and conductivity are interrelated to each other [28]. High salinity of the water is toxic to plants [29].

2.5.2. Temperature

The degree of hotness or coldness of any substance is said to be the temperature of that body. The temperature of water directly influences the water properties and biological activities. Temperature can be measured in °C and Kelvin. Instruments which are normally used for measurement are a thermometer and a thermistor. Temperature plays an important role in the efficiency of the treatment system. The removal rate of almost all the pollutants is dependent on the temperature of water and ambient air. In addition to the temperature, plant uptake and microbial activity play a major role in removing pollutants. At lower temperature usually below 10 °C the removal efficiency decreases significantly. Microorganisms perform optimally at temperatures of more than 15 °C [30].

2.5.3. pH

The pH an abbreviation of the potential of hydrogen and refers to concentration of hydrogen ions (H+) and hydroxyl ions (OH−) in the water or wastewater. The pH of a solution represents the basic, acidic, or neutral nature of the water. It is expressed as a logarithmic reciprocal of hydrogen ion activity.

2.5.4. Total Hardness

Magnesium (Mg2+) and calcium (Ca2+) ions present in the water sample determine the water hardness. Any water sample can be said to be hard water if it does not make a lather with soap. There are two types of hardness: temporary hardness and permanent hardness. The first type of hardness is due to the presence of carbonates (CO32−), bicarbonates (HCO3−), and OH- with (Ca2+) and (Mg2+). Permanent hardness is due to the existence of chlorides (Cl−), sulphate ( S O 4 2 − ), and any ion except alkaline ions with (Ca2+) and (Mg2+).

2.5.5. Chloride

Chloride is formed when chlorine in its gaseous form reacts with any metal. The action of water by weathering helps chlorides to leach down from different rocks. Chlorides are versatile and move close to basins and oceans. The presence of chloride also indicates the water hardness because it breaks down from calcium chloride (CaCl2). The high concentration of chlorides in irrigation water makes it toxic.

2.5.6. Ammonium

Ammonium ions in water or unionized ammonia ( N H 4 + ) are commonly non-toxic and behave like predominates when the pH is low. As the pH increases, the toxicity due to ammonium ions also increases.

2.5.7. Nitrate

Nitrates naturally occur in water bodies. A specified amount is always present in the water sample, but if contamination occurs, then the number of nitrates also increases. When nitrates exceed their limits, this is very detrimental to young children or young livestock. Unnecessary nitrates can result in the restriction of oxygen transport in the bloodstream.

2.5.8. Calcium

Calcium is one of the most abundant existing elements in rocks. Calcium is present in water due to the contamination of mineral salts in water bodies through rocks. The high concentration of calcium is not worthwhile because it represses the formation of a lather with soap. The calcium was determined by SEBA.

2.5.9. Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR)

The sodium adsorption ratio is an important water quality irrigation parameter that is used in managing soils troubled with sodium. It describes the suitability of water use for irrigation. It can be calculated from the concentrations of alkaline and cations present in the water.

2.6. Evapotranspiration and Value Adjustment

The evapotranspiration from the lab-scale experiment was measured using the direct method of recording the decrease in the water level over time. The reduction in water volume was accounted for in pollutant concentration calculations to ensure accurate water quality measurements. All collected data were adjusted accordingly based on the reduced water volume.

2.7. Parameters Used in the Evaluation of Agricultural Water Quality

Various essential water quality parameters (Table 1) involve the properties of water that are related to yield and quality of the crops, the protection of the environment, and the maintenance of soil productivity. The properties of water are mainly physical and chemical in nature. The properties of agricultural importance are mainly used in the evaluation of agricultural water quality [31]

2.8. Statistical Analysis

The collected data were analyzed statistically to determine the overall significance, and the least significance difference (LSD) test with a 95% confidence interval was used to compare the difference between the treatment means. The experiment was arranged under a completely randomized design (CRD) with three replications. For all statistical data analyses, Microsoft Excel and R-Studio were used.

3. Results

In this study, a total of nine wastewater quality parameters were considered to determine the efficiency of three aquatic plants in a laboratory-scale experiment for the treatment of mixed industrial wastewater. Table 2 shows that in the initial days, the removal efficiency of all aquatic plants was slow, but it increased with time. This is due to the adaptation of the aquatic plants to their new environment. The samples were taken for analysis on day 0, 5, and 10. The experiment was conducted over a 10-day period.

3.1. Effects on Chemical Parameters of Mixed Industrial Wastewater

In the present experiment the percentage reduction of total dissolved solids for all treatments was 18.2%, 34.30%, 16.85%, and 13.83% for T0, T1, T2, and T3, respectively, at a 5-day retention time. Similarly, TDS was reduced by all the applied treatments by 32.81%, 36.12%, 19.43%, and 15.43% for T0, T1, T2, and T3, respectively, at a 10-day retention time (Figure 7a). The maximum reduction was shown by Eichhornian crassipes (T1), which reduced the TDS of industrial wastewater to 36.12% at a 10-day retention time.
Applied treatments were found to reduce EC to 18.62%, 34.30%, 17.63%, and 14% for T0, T1, T2, and T3, respectively at a 5-day retention time. The percentage reduction of EC for all the treatments was 32.95%, 36.14%, 20.92%, and 15.32% for T0, T1, T2, and T3, respectively, at a 10-day retention time (Figure 7b). All of the above results show that Eichhornia crassipes T1 significantly reduced the EC of mixed industrial wastewater to 36.14% at a 10-day retention time, making it superior to the other treatments.

3.2. Effects on Physical Parameters of Mixed Industrial Wastewater

Salinity was reduced by 17.43%, 34.30%, 17.76%, and 11.51% for T0, T1, T2, and T3, respectively, at a 5-day retention time. On the 10th day, it was found that all treatments were able to reduce salinity to 30.92%, 34.30%, 21.05%, and 14.47% for T0, T1, T2, and T3, respectively (Figure 8a). The result showed that Eichhornia crassipes T1 significantly reduced the salinity of mixed industrial wastewater to 34.30% at a 10-day retention time.
The reduction in the pH for all treatments was −3.65%, 8.82%, 6.59%, and 4.25% for T0, T1, T2, and T3, respectively, at a 5-day retention time. It was −2.47%, 6.12%, 1.06%, and 0.35% for T0, T1, T2, and T3, respectively, at a 10-day retention time (Figure 8b). Eichhornia crassipes (T1) significantly reduced the salinity of mixed industrial wastewater to 6.12% at a 10-day retention time.
Treatments reduced total hardness up to 15.22%, 16.96%, 1.09%, and 8.70% for T0, T1, T2, and T3, respectively, at a 5-day retention time. It was found to be 17.17%, 34.30%, 14.13%, and 11.96% for T0, T1, T2, and T3, respectively, at a 10-day retention time (Figure 8c). All of the above results show that Eichhornia crassipes T1 significantly reduced the total hardness of mixed industrial wastewater to 34.30% at a 10-day retention time.
The chloride for all treatment was reduced to 2.15%, 29.05%, 19.15%, and 0.87% for T0, T1, T2, and T3, respectively, at a 5-day retention time. It was further reduced to 12.57%, 44.52%, 34.30%, and 7.22% for T0, T1, T2, and T3, respectively, at a 10-day retention time (Figure 8d). Eichhornia crassipes (T1) significantly reduced the chloride of mixed industrial wastewater to 44.52% at a 10-day retention time.
The ammonium was reduced by 19.64%, 33.87%, 36.96%, and 32.61% for T0, T1, T2, and T3, respectively, at a 5-day retention time. The percentage reduction for all treatments was found to be 28.99%, 52.11%, 38.41%, and 33.33% for T0, T1, T2, and T3, respectively, at a 10-day retention time (Figure 8e).

3.3. Effects on Agricultural Parameters of Mixed Industrial Wastewater

The percentage reduction of nitrate for all treatments was 32.66%, 34.30%, 84.36%, and 48.30% for T0, T1, T2, and T3, respectively, at a 5-day retention time. The nitrate was reduced to 98.75%, 99.76%, 99.43%, and 99% for T0, T1, T2, and T3, respectively, at a 10-day retention time (Figure 9a). T1 significantly reduced the nitrate of mixed industrial wastewater to 99.76% at a 10-day retention time.
SAR was reduced to 27.46%, 30%, 28.76%, and 14.80% for T0, T1, T2, and T3, respectively, at a 5-day retention time. It was further reduced to 43.39%, 46.29%, 45.42%, and 31.16% for T0, T1, T2, and T3, respectively, at a 10-day retention time (Figure 9b). The results showed that T1 significantly reduced the SAR of mixed industrial wastewater to 46.29% at a 10-day retention time.

3.4. Statistical Evaluation of Results

Figure 10 shows bar graphs comparing the mean values of different water quality parameters across treatments and the least significant difference values. The data regarding the comparison of individual mean values of TDS, EC, salinity, pH, total hardness, chloride nitrate, ammonia, and SAR of industrial effluent under various treatment were significant. The grand LSD values across the data were as follows: TDS (519.19), EC (0.74), pH (0.51) salinity (0.37), total hardness (52.94), chloride (451.4), nitrate (463.8), ammonium (1.61), and SAR (2.71).
In Figure 11 and Figure 12, the analysis of variance for regression indicates that all treatments had significant effects (α = 0.05) on the TDS, EC, salinity, total hardness, nitrate, ammonium, and SAR of the mixed industrial wastewater as Fcal. is greater than Fcri. (p > 0.05). The ANOVA for regression indicates that all treatments had non-significant effects (α = 0.05) on the pH and chloride of the mixed industrial wastewater as Fcal. is less than Fcri. (p > 0.05).

4. Discussion

The findings of this study demonstrate the efficacy of aquatic plants, particularly Eichhornia crassipes, in reducing various pollutants in industrial wastewater. While previous studies have acknowledged the phytoremediation potential of Eichhornia crassipes, Pistia stratiotes, and Lemna minor [5,33], this study provides a comparative analysis of their pollutant removal efficiencies under controlled retention times. The mechanisms underlying the differential performances of these plants warrant further discussion.

4.1. Superior Pollutant Removal by Eichhornia crassipes

The superior performance of Eichhornia crassipes compared to Pistia stratiotes and Lemna minor can be attributed to multiple factors. First, Eichhornia crassipes possesses an extensive root system with a high surface area, providing more sites for pollutant attachment, absorption, and microbial colonization [34,35]. This allows for the increased bioaccumulation of dissolved solids and the enhanced microbial-mediated degradation of organic and inorganic contaminants [36]. Second, its higher biomass accumulation rate contributes to greater pollutant uptake capacity, as previously reported in phytoremediation studies [37]. Furthermore, Eichhornia crassipes supports a diverse microbial community that facilitates key biogeochemical processes, including nitrification, denitrification, and organic matter decomposition, enhancing the overall treatment efficacy [38].

4.2. Nitrate Removal Efficiency

The exceptionally high nitrate removal efficiency (up to 99%) observed in this study is likely due to multiple removal mechanisms. Plant uptake played a significant role, as Eichhornia crassipes is known for its high nitrogen assimilation capacity [39]. Additionally, microbial processes, particularly nitrification and denitrification, contributed significantly to nitrate reduction [40]. The root zone of Eichhornia crassipes fosters an oxygen gradient that supports both aerobic nitrification (conversion of ammonium to nitrate) and subsequent anaerobic denitrification (conversion of nitrate to nitrogen gas) [41,42]. The formation of biofilms on the root surface further enhances microbial activity, accelerating the removal of nitrates from the wastewater. The possible precipitation of nitrate-containing compounds could also contribute to the high removal rates, as observed in previous studies [43].

4.3. Comparison with Previous Literature

While this study aligns with previous research demonstrating the phytoremediation potential of Eichhornia crassipes, a critical comparison highlights both consistencies and discrepancies. Studies by [44,45] also reported significant pH reduction in wastewater treated with Eichhornia crassipes, which is consistent with the findings of this study. The mechanism behind pH reduction is primarily attributed to carbonic acid (H2CO3) formation due to microbial degradation of organic pollutants [46]. However, variations in removal efficiencies across studies may arise due to differences in wastewater composition, retention time, and environmental conditions. A comparative summary of removal efficiencies in different studies is presented in Table 3.

4.4. Challenges and Real-World Implementation Considerations

While phytoremediation using Eichhornia crassipes shows great potential, real-world application presents several challenges that must be addressed:
  • Seasonal Variations: Plant growth rates and pollutant uptake efficiency may vary with seasonal changes in temperature, light availability, and nutrient levels. Cold seasons may reduce metabolic activity, impacting remediation efficiency [42].
  • Retention Time Constraints: Industrial wastewater treatment requires large-scale implementation, where prolonged retention times may not be feasible. Optimization of hydraulic retention time (HRT) to balance treatment efficiency and operational feasibility is necessary [47]. Implementing a hybrid flow regime, integrating both horizontal and vertical flow constructed wetlands, can enhance contaminant removal by optimizing water distribution and retention dynamics [49,50]. Additionally, the strategic incorporation of specialized microbial consortia within these wetlands can significantly improve biodegradation processes, further augmenting treatment efficiency through biological mechanisms [51,52,53].
  • Plant Disposal and Biomass Management: Accumulated pollutants in plant tissues pose disposal challenges. Safe disposal or valorization strategies, such as bioenergy production or composting, need to be considered [35]. Incineration of contaminated biomass presents an effective approach to prevent the release of toxic compounds into open water systems, thereby mitigating environmental risks [54]. This controlled thermal degradation not only ensures the safe removal of hazardous substances but can also facilitate energy recovery, aligning with sustainable waste management principles [55].
  • Variability in Wastewater Composition: Different industries discharge wastewater with diverse compositions [7]. The effectiveness of phytoremediation may vary depending on the type and concentration of contaminants present [48].

4.5. Economic Feasibility

The cost-effectiveness of phytoremediation must be critically evaluated for large-scale adoption. While Eichhornia crassipes offers a low-cost, eco-friendly alternative to conventional treatment methods, factors such as land requirements, maintenance costs, and plant harvesting expenses must be considered. Previous studies suggest that phytoremediation can be a cost-effective method when integrated with existing wastewater treatment facilities, reducing operational costs compared to chemical or mechanical treatment methods [56]. However, further economic analysis is required to establish its financial viability at an industrial scale.

5. Conclusions

The present study demonstrated the effectiveness of free-floating aquatic plants (Eichhornia crassipes, Pistia stratiotes, and Lemna minor) in treating industrial textile wastewater through a controlled laboratory-scale experiment. Among the tested species, Eichhornia crassipes exhibited the highest pollutant removal efficiency, significantly reducing key irrigation quality parameters such as total dissolved solids (TDS), electrical conductivity (EC), salinity, pH, total hardness, and sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) within a 10-day retention period. Pistia stratiotes followed closely in effectiveness, while Lemna minor showed the least efficiency. These findings highlight the potential of plant-based phytoremediation as an eco-friendly, chemical-free, and cost-effective alternative to conventional wastewater treatment methods.
Beyond laboratory conditions, this study holds important real-world implications. Textile industry clusters, particularly in Faisalabad and similar industrial hubs, could integrate this phytoremediation technology into wastewater treatment frameworks to mitigate environmental pollution and improve compliance with regulatory standards. The scalability of this method could be explored in wastewater treatment plants, either as a standalone solution for small-scale industries or as a supplementary treatment in larger facilities. Additionally, the aesthetic appeal and sustainability of this nature-based approach make it a viable long-term strategy for industrial effluent management.
While the laboratory results are promising, further research is necessary to validate the feasibility of this technology in field-scale applications. Future studies should focus on optimizing retention time, evaluating plant performance in real wastewater treatment settings, and conducting comprehensive economic analyses to determine the cost–benefit ratio of large-scale implementation. Moreover, assessing the long-term survival, regeneration capacity, and potential reuse of these aquatic plants in different environmental conditions would enhance the practical applicability of this approach.
By bridging scientific research with practical implementation, this study lays the foundation for sustainable wastewater treatment solutions, particularly in regions struggling with industrial effluent management. A systematic transition from lab-scale to full-scale adoption will be essential to harness the full potential of phytoremediation for wastewater treatment.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/w17071080/s1, Table S1: Percentage (%) reduction in wastewater quality parameters; Table S2. ANOVA for TDS; Table S3. Comparison of TDS values; Table S4. ANOVA for EC; Table S5. Comparison of EC values; Table S6. ANOVA for Salinity; Table S7. Comparison of Salinity values; Table S8. ANOVA for pH; Table S9. Comparison of pH values; Table S10. ANOVA for Total Hardness; Table S11. Comparison of Total Hardness values; Table S12. ANOVA for Chloride; Table S13. Comparison of Chloride values; Table S14. ANOVA for Nitrate; Table S15. Comparison of Nitrate values; Table S16. ANOVA for Ammonium; Table S17. Comparison of Ammonium values; Table S18. ANOVA for SAR; Table S19. Comparison of SAR values.

Author Contributions

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.N.K.; methodology, S.N.K.; validation, S.N.K. and A.A.; formal analysis, S.N.K.; investigation, S.N.K. and L.A.; resources, L.A. and A.N.; data curation, S.N.K. and S.A.; writing—original draft preparation, S.N.K. and A.A.; writing—review and editing, S.N.K. and M.A.; supervision, A.N.; project administration, A.N.; funding acquisition, S.N.K., L.A. and S.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The research was partially funded by ORIC, University of Agriculture Faisalabad grant no. A05213.

Data Availability Statement

The supplementary data supporting the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author and have been provided as part of the submission. Please refer to the Supplementary Materials for further details.

Acknowledgments

The first author extends sincere gratitude to the late Haroon Rashid for his invaluable technical guidance and meticulous review of this study. His expertise and dedication significantly contributed to the direction and quality of this research, and his legacy continues to inspire us. The first author also acknowledges the Office of Research, Innovation, and Commercialization (ORIC) at the University of Agriculture Faisalabad, Pakistan, for providing partial funding for the research experiments.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Wijayaweera, N.; Gunawardhana, L.; Bamunawala, J.; Sirisena, J.; Rajapakse, L.; Patabendige, C.S.; Karunaweera, H. Use of Machine Learning and Indexing Techniques for Identifying Industrial Pollutant Sources: A Case Study of the Lower Kelani River Basin, Sri Lanka. Water 2024, 16, 2766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Fatima, B.; Muhammad, A.; Faizan, U.H. Policy Brief Sustainable Development Goal 6: Setting the Course Right; Pakistan Council of Research in Water Resources (PCRWR): Islamabad, Pakistan, 2023; p. 46.
  3. Slobodiuk, S.; Niven, C.; Arthur, G.; Thakur, S.; Ercumen, A. Does irrigation with treated and untreated wastewater increase antimicrobial resistance in soil and water: A systematic review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 11046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Akhtar, S.; Ahmad, S.; Huifang, W.; Shahbaz, A.; Ghafoor, A.; Imran, S.; Zafar, A. An analysis of wastewater irrigation practices and its impacts on the livelihood generation and food chain contamination in Faisalabad District, Pakistan. ISABB J. Health Environ. Sci. 2018, 5, 33–42. [Google Scholar]
  5. Nidheesh, P.V.; Ravindran, V.; Gopinath, A.; Kumar, M.S. Emerging technologies for mixed industrial wastewater treatment in developing countries: An overview. Environ. Qual. Manag. 2022, 31, 121–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Oladimeji, T.E.; Oyedemi, M.; Emetere, M.E.; Agboola, O.; Adeoye, J.B.; Odunlami, O.A. Review on the impact of heavy metals from industrial wastewater effluent and removal technologies. Heliyon 2024, 10, e40370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. An, X.; Wang, Y.; Yu, C.; Hu, X. Biochar-bacteria coupling system enhanced the bioremediation of phenol wastewater-based on life cycle assessment and environmental safety analysis. J. Hazard. Mater. 2024, 480, 136414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Zinicovscaia, I. Conventional Methods of Wastewater Treatment. In Cyanobacteria for Bioremediation of Wastewaters; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 17–25. [Google Scholar]
  9. Gupta, S.; Mittal, Y.; Panja, R.; Prajapati, K.B.; Yadav, A.K. Conventional wastewater treatment technologies. In Current Developments in Biotechnology and Bioengineering; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 47–75. [Google Scholar]
  10. Crini, G.; Lichtfouse, E. Advantages and disadvantages of techniques used for wastewater treatment. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2019, 17, 145–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Lin, J.; Cheng, Q.; Kumar, A.; Zhang, W.; Yu, Z.; Hui, D.; Zhang, C.; Shan, S. Effect of degradable microplastics, biochar and their coexistence on soil organic matter decomposition: A critical review. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 2025, 183, 118082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Zhuo, T.; He, L.; Chai, B.; Zhou, S.; Wan, Q.; Lei, X.; Zhou, Z.; Chen, B. Micro-pressure promotes endogenous phosphorus release in a deep reservoir by favouring microbial phosphate mineralisation and solubilisation coupled with sulphate reduction. Water Res. 2023, 245, 120647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Khan, A.U.; Khan, A.N.; Waris, A.; Ilyas, M.; Zamel, D. Phytoremediation of pollutants from wastewater: A concise review. Open Life Sci. 2022, 17, 488–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Yuliasni, R.; Kurniawan, S.B.; Marlena, B.; Hidayat, M.R.; Kadier, A.; Ma, P.C.; Imron, M.F. Recent Progress of Phytoremediation-Based Technologies for Industrial Wastewater Treatment. J. Ecol. Eng. 2023, 24, 208–220. [Google Scholar]
  15. Saha, P.; Shinde, O.; Sarkar, S. Phytoremediation of industrial mines wastewater using water hyacinth. Int. J. Phytoremediation 2017, 19, 87–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Zeb, B.S.; Mahmood, Q.; Irshad, M.; Zafar, H.; Wang, R. Sustainable treatment of combined industrial wastewater: Synergistic phytoremediation with Eichhornia crassipes, Pistia stratiotes, and Arundo donax in biofilm wetlands. Int. J. Phytoremediation 2025, 27, 128–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Sivakumar, D.; Thiruvengadam, M.; Shruthi, R.M.; Thaiyalnayagi, K.; Modhini, T.M. Influence of Eichhornia crassipes for removing Zn from electroplating industry wastewater. J. Chem. Pharm. Sci. 2015, 8, 775–779. Available online: https://www.jchps.com/ (accessed on 2 April 2015).
  18. Durairaj, S. Sorption capacity of Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms for zinc removal from electroplating industry wastewater. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2024, 31, 30849–30866. [Google Scholar]
  19. Ali, M.; Aslam, A.; Qadeer, A.; Javied, S.; Nisar, N.; Hassan, N.; Hussain, A.; Ali, B.; Iqbal, R.; Chaudhary, T.; et al. Domestic wastewater treatment by Pistia stratiotes in constructed wetland. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 7553. [Google Scholar]
  20. Iqbal, J.; Javed, A.; Baig, M.A. Growth and nutrient removal efficiency of duckweed (Lemna minor) from synthetic and dumpsite leachate under artificial and natural conditions. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0221755. [Google Scholar]
  21. Sahi, W.; Megateli, S. Evaluation of Lemna minor phytoremediation performance for the treatment of dairy wastewater. Water Pract. Technol. 2023, 18, 1138–1147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Farid, M.; Irshad, M.; Fawad, M.; Ali, Z.; Eneji, A.E.; Aurangzeb, N.; Mohammad, A.; Ali, B. Effect of Cyclic Phytoremediation with Different Wetland Plants on Municipal Wastewater. Int. J. Phytoremediation 2014, 16, 572–581. [Google Scholar]
  23. Dhoke, S.K. Determination of total hardness of water sample by titration using double burette method: An economical approach. Chem. Teach. Int. 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Timalsina, R.; Acharya, S.; Đurin, B.; Awasthi, M.P.; Pant, R.R.; Joshi, G.R.; Byanju, R.M.; Panthi, K.P.; Joshi, S.; Kumar, A.; et al. An Assessment of Seasonal Water Quality in Phewa Lake, Nepal, by Integrating Geochemical Indices and Statistical Techniques: A Sustainable Approach. Water 2025, 17, 238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Corwin, D.L.; Yemoto, K. Salinity: Electrical conductivity and total dissolved solids. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2020, 84, 1442–1461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Alagha, O.; Abuhajar, O. Numerical Modeling of Beach Well Intake as Pre-Treatment for a Desalination Plant. Water 2020, 12, 2420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Liu, M.; Tian, X.; Yan, Z.; Zhao, Y.; Li, S. Diurnal Variation of Carbon Dioxide Concentration and Flux in a River–Lake Continuum of a Mega City. Water 2025, 17, 306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Li, Y.; Xiao, J.; Lei, Y.; Qin, D.; Cai, W.; Chen, X.; Ma, C.; Zhu, X.; Zhang, S.; Sun, Q. Impacts of Reclaimed Water Irrigation on Soil Salinity, Nutrient Cycling, and Landscape Plant Growth in a Coastal Monsoon Environment. Water 2025, 17, 337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Sheldon, A.R.; Dalal, R.C.; Kirchhof, G.; Kopittke, P.M.; Menzies, N.W. The effect of salinity on plant-available water. Plant Soil 2017, 418, 477–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Han, T.; Zhang, M.; Feng, W.; Li, T.; Liu, X.; Wang, J. Effects of Aeration Intensity on Water Quality, Nutrient Cycling, and Microbial Community Structure in the Biofloc System of Pacific White Shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei Culture. Water 2024, 17, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kesari, K.K.; Soni, R.; Jamal, Q.M.S.; Tripathi, P.; Lal, J.A.; Jha, N.K.; Siddiqui, M.H.; Kumar, P.; Tripathi, V.; Ruokolainen, J. Wastewater Treatment and Reuse: A Review of its Applications and Health Implications. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2021, 232, 208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Apha, A.W. Standard Methods For the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 22nd ed.; American Public Heath Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2012; Volume 5. [Google Scholar]
  33. Gusti Wibowo, Y.; Tyaz Nugraha, A.; Rohman, A. Phytoremediation of several wastewater sources using Pistia stratiotes and Eichhornia crassipes in Indonesia. Environ. Nanotechnol. Monit. Manag. 2023, 20, 100781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Akinbile, C.O.; Yusoff, M.S. Assessing Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia crassopes) and Lettuce (Pistia stratiotes) Effectiveness in Aquaculture Wastewater Treatment. Int. J. Phytoremediation 2012, 14, 201–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Mohd Nizam, N.U.; Mohd Hanafiah, M.; Mohd Noor, I.; Abd Karim, H.I. Efficiency of Five Selected Aquatic Plants in Phytoremediation of Aquaculture Wastewater. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 2712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Abou-Elela, S.I.; Elekhnawy, M.A.; Khalil, M.T.; Hellal, M.S. Factors affecting the performance of horizontal flow constructed treatment wetland vegetated with Cyperus papyrus for municipal wastewater treatment. Int. J. Phytoremediation 2017, 19, 1023–1028. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  37. Mohebi, Z.; Nazari, M. Phytoremediation of wastewater using aquatic plants, A review. J. Appl. Res. Water Wastewater 2022, 8, 50–58. [Google Scholar]
  38. Shi, M.; Li, J.; Zhang, W.; Zhou, Q.; Niu, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Gao, Y.; Yan, S. Contrasting impact of elevated atmospheric CO2 on nitrogen cycle in eutrophic water with or without Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 666, 285–297. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  39. Ting, W.H.T.; Tan, I.A.W.; Salleh, S.F.; Wahab, N.A. Application of water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) for phytoremediation of ammoniacal nitrogen: A review. J. Water Process Eng. 2018, 22, 239–249. [Google Scholar]
  40. Hayatsu, M.; Tago, K.; Saito, M. Various players in the nitrogen cycle: Diversity and functions of the microorganisms involved in nitrification and denitrification. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2008, 54, 33–45. [Google Scholar]
  41. Churko, E.E.; Nhamo, L.; Chitakira, M. Phytoremediation Capacity of Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) as a Nature-Based Solution for Contaminants and Physicochemical Characterization of Lake Water. Water 2023, 15, 2540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Hernández-Vásquez, L.A.; Romo-Gómez, C.; Alvarado-Lassman, A.; Prieto-García, F.; Camacho-López, C.; Acevedo-Sandoval, O.A. Artificial Floating Islands for the Removal of Nutrients and Improvement of the Quality of Urban Wastewater. Water 2024, 16, 1443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Vymazal, J. Plants used in constructed wetlands with horizontal subsurface flow: A review. Hydrobiologia 2011, 674, 133–156. [Google Scholar]
  44. Bhutiani, R.; Rai, N.; Kumar, N.; Rausa, M.; Ahamad, F. Treatment of industrial waste water using Water hyacinth (Eichornia crassipus) and Duckweed (Lemna minor): A Comparative study. Environ. Conserv. J. 2019, 20, 15–25. [Google Scholar]
  45. Adelodun, A.A.; Olajire, T.; Afolabi, N.O.; Akinwumiju, A.S.; Akinbobola, E.; Hassan, U.O. Phytoremediation potentials of Eichhornia crassipes for nutrients and organic pollutants from textile wastewater. Int. J. Phytoremediation 2021, 23, 1333–1341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Chang, Y.; Cui, H.; Huang, M.; He, Y. Artificial floating islands for water quality improvement. Environ. Rev. 2017, 25, 350–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Shehzadi, M.; Fatima, K.; Imran, A.; Mirza, M.S.; Khan, Q.M.; Afzal, M. Ecology of bacterial endophytes associated with wetland plants growing in textile effluent for pollutant-degradation and plant growth-promotion potentials. Plant Biosyst. Int. J. Deal. All Asp. Plant Biol. 2016, 150, 1261–1270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Patel, D.K.; Kanungo, V.K. Phytoremediation Potential of Duckweed (Lemna minor L: A Tiny Aquatic Plant) in the Removal of Pollutants from Domestic Wastewater with Special Reference to Nutrients. Bioscan 2010, 5, 355–358. [Google Scholar]
  49. Martel-Rodríguez, G.; Millán-Gabet, V.; Mendieta-Pino, C.; García-Romero, E.; Sánchez-Ramírez, J. Long-Term Performance of a Hybrid-Flow Constructed Wetlands System for Urban Wastewater Treatment in Caldera de Tirajana (Santa Lucía, Gran Canaria, Spain). Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 14871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Marzec, M.; Listosz, A.; Malik, A.; Kulik, M.; Jóźwiakowski, K. Organic Pollutants Removal in a Hybrid Constructed Wetland Wastewater Treatment Plant with an Aeration System. Water 2024, 16, 947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Cao, Z.; Yan, W.; Ding, M.; Yuan, Y. Construction of microbial consortia for microbial degradation of complex compounds. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2022, 10, 1051233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Aziz, T.; Rasheed, S.; Shah, A.H.; Nasir, H.; Fariq, A.; Jamil, A.; Jannat, S. Bioremediation Potential of Plant-Bacterial Consortia for Chlorpyrifos Removal Using Constructed Wetland. Front. Environ. Sci. 2022, 10, 880807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kannan, P.; Verma, I.; Banerjee, B.; Saleena, L.M. Unveiling bacterial consortium for xenobiotic biodegradation from Pichavaram mangrove forest soil: A metagenomic approach. Arch. Microbiol. 2024, 206, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Tangri, N. Waste incinerators undermine clean energy goals. PLoS Clim. 2023, 2, e0000100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Luo, Y.; Ye, M.; Zhou, Y.; Su, R.; Huang, S.; Wang, H.; Dai, X. Assessing the Environmental Impact of Municipal Waste on Energy Incineration Technology for Power Generation Using Life Cycle Assessment Methodology. Toxics 2024, 12, 786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Flafel, H.M.; Rafatullah, M.; Lalung, J.; Kapoor, R.T.; Siddiqui, M.R.; Qutob, M. Enhancing the efficiency of phytoremediation using water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) for 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid removal with modified biochar as an assisted agent. Chemosphere 2024, 367, 143591. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
Water 17 01080 g001
Figure 1. Collection and establishment of lab. based nursery of aquatic plants.
Figure 1. Collection and establishment of lab. based nursery of aquatic plants.
Water 17 01080 g001
Water 17 01080 g002
Figure 2. Control treatment (T0).
Figure 2. Control treatment (T0).
Water 17 01080 g002
Water 17 01080 g003
Figure 3. Effluent + E. craassipes (T1).
Figure 3. Effluent + E. craassipes (T1).
Water 17 01080 g003
Water 17 01080 g004
Figure 4. Effluent + P. strateotes (T2).
Figure 4. Effluent + P. strateotes (T2).
Water 17 01080 g004
Water 17 01080 g005
Figure 5. Effluent + L. minor (T3).
Figure 5. Effluent + L. minor (T3).
Water 17 01080 g005
Water 17 01080 g006
Figure 6. Wastewater quality analysis in laboratory.
Figure 6. Wastewater quality analysis in laboratory.
Water 17 01080 g006
Water 17 01080 g007
Figure 7. Comparison of the reduction in total dissolved solids (TDS) (a) and electrical conductivity (EC) (b) across four different treatments, showing the variation in treatment efficacy.
Figure 7. Comparison of the reduction in total dissolved solids (TDS) (a) and electrical conductivity (EC) (b) across four different treatments, showing the variation in treatment efficacy.
Water 17 01080 g007
Water 17 01080 g008
Figure 8. Comparison of the reduction in key wastewater quality parameters, including salinity (a), pH (b), total hardness (c), chloride (d), and ammonia (e), across four different treatment approaches, highlighting the variation in treatment efficacy.
Figure 8. Comparison of the reduction in key wastewater quality parameters, including salinity (a), pH (b), total hardness (c), chloride (d), and ammonia (e), across four different treatment approaches, highlighting the variation in treatment efficacy.
Water 17 01080 g008
Water 17 01080 g009
Figure 9. Evaluation of the nitrate (a) and sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) (b) removal across four different treatment approaches, highlighting the variation in treatment efficacy.
Figure 9. Evaluation of the nitrate (a) and sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) (b) removal across four different treatment approaches, highlighting the variation in treatment efficacy.
Water 17 01080 g009
Water 17 01080 g010
Figure 10. Temporal variation in least significant difference (LSD) values for various metrics.
Figure 10. Temporal variation in least significant difference (LSD) values for various metrics.
Water 17 01080 g010
Water 17 01080 g011
Figure 11. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) results for various parameters.
Figure 11. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) results for various parameters.
Water 17 01080 g011
Water 17 01080 g012
Figure 12. Statistical significance (p-values) of treatment effects on various parameters. Note: The supplementary data are available in Table S1–Table S19.
Figure 12. Statistical significance (p-values) of treatment effects on various parameters. Note: The supplementary data are available in Table S1–Table S19.
Water 17 01080 g012
Table 1. Wastewater quality standards.
Table 1. Wastewater quality standards.
S/NoParameterUnitPEQS *FAO **
1pH-6–96.5–8.4
2TDS mg/L<35000–2000
3EC -0–3 mS/cm
4Salinity ---
5Temperature °C<30-
6Chloride mg/L<1000<1065
7Nitrate mg/L5–3010
8Ammonium mg/L400–5
9Calcium mg/L-0–400
10Sodium mg/L-0–920
11Magnesium mg/L-0–60.75
12Total Hardnessmg/L--
13 SAR Ratio-0–15
Note(s): * Punjab Environmental Quality Standards. ** Food and Agriculture Organization [32].
Table 2. Effect of aquatic plants treatments on physiochemical characteristics of mixed industrial textile effluent.
Table 2. Effect of aquatic plants treatments on physiochemical characteristics of mixed industrial textile effluent.
TreatmentRetention Time (Days)TDS (mg/L)EC mS/cmSalinity pHTotal Hardness (mg/L)Chloride
(mg/L)		Nitrate
(mg/L)		Ammonium (mg/L)
T0040716.073.048.54602188209113.8
533134.942.518.813902141140811.09
1027324.072.18.71381191326.059.8
T1040716.073.048.54602188209113.8
526753.9927.75382155213749.1
1026003.8827.98302121456.6
T2040716.073.048.54602188209113.8
5338552.57.9445517693278.7
1032804.82.48.413951437128.5
T3040716.073.048.54602188209113.8
535085.222.698.14420190710819.3
1034495.142.68.47405164820.99.2
Table 3. Comparison of removal efficiencies with previous studies.
Table 3. Comparison of removal efficiencies with previous studies.
Pollutant Eichhornia
crassipes (This Study)		Eichhornia
crassipes (Previous Studies)		Pistia
stratiotes		Lemna minor
TDS (%) 83.480–85 [44]75.6
EC (%)Significant
reduction 		Reduction with increased HRT [47] Moderate
reduction		Low
reduction
Chloride (%)933.153.3 [45]Low
absorption [48]		Minimal
impact
Nitrate (%)9990–95 [14,41]Moderate
removal 		Moderate
removal
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Khan, S.N.; Anjum, L.; Arshad, A.; Ali, S.; Aleem, M.; Nasir, A. Nature-Based Solution for Wastewater Treatment and Reuse Using Phytoremediation with Floating Plants. Water 2025, 17, 1080. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17071080

AMA Style

Khan SN, Anjum L, Arshad A, Ali S, Aleem M, Nasir A. Nature-Based Solution for Wastewater Treatment and Reuse Using Phytoremediation with Floating Plants. Water. 2025; 17(7):1080. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17071080

Chicago/Turabian Style

Khan, Shahbaz Nasir, Lubna Anjum, Arfan Arshad, Saqib Ali, Mannan Aleem, and Abdul Nasir. 2025. "Nature-Based Solution for Wastewater Treatment and Reuse Using Phytoremediation with Floating Plants" Water 17, no. 7: 1080. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17071080

APA Style

Khan, S. N., Anjum, L., Arshad, A., Ali, S., Aleem, M., & Nasir, A. (2025). Nature-Based Solution for Wastewater Treatment and Reuse Using Phytoremediation with Floating Plants. Water, 17(7), 1080. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17071080

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop