Arsenic removal efficiency of experimental macrophytes from media.
Abstract
The present investigation deals with the detoxification of arsenic contaminated water using phytoremediation technique. Three macrophytes Azolla pinnata, Lemna minor, and Hydrilla verticillata were exposed to 1.0 ppm of an arsenic salt (sodium arsenite) separately as well as in combination (ALH) for 10 days. The concentration of arsenic in control (wild) macrophytes was below detectable limit. Following exposure, the concentration of arsenic increased steadily in all the plants, and after 10 days, the efficacy of arsenic depletion in phytoremediated media was in the order: A. pinnata (88.06%) > L. minor (82.56%) > H. verticillata (77.53%) and 85.50% when applied in combination (ALH). It was found that A. pinnata can detoxify the arsenic contaminated water most efficiently.
Keywords
- arsenic contamination
- bioaccumulation
- macromolecular depletion macrophytes
- phytoremediation
1. Introduction
In recent years, the areas having arsenic contamination in the ground as well as surface waters are enlarging rapidly in India and its neighboring countries [1, 2, 3]. Arsenic is for the most part distributed into the nature in form of either metalloids or chemical compounds, which causes a variety of pathogenic conditions as well as cutaneous and visceral malignancies [4]. Arsenic shows toxicity even at low exposures [5] and causes black foot disease [6]. It is posing great challenge to environmental biologists as well as toxicologist to negotiate the problem. A cost effective technologies are needed to eliminate it from the contaminated water. Phytoremediation is a novel, cost effective and eco-friendly bioremediation technology for environmental cleanup. Bioremediation using macrophytes has been a successful tool to detoxify metal contaminations from variously polluted effluents [7, 8]. Under present evaluation, the arsenic removal competencies from arsenic contaminated water were assessed using three widely distributed aquatic macrophytes (
2. Materials and methods
The experimental aquatic plants (
The percentage of removal efficiency of arsenic by aquatic macrophytes was calculated (Table 1) by using the following formula:
Macrophytes | Initial as concentration in media (ppm) | Residual as concentration in media (ppm) | Efficiency (%) |
---|---|---|---|
1.0 | 0.119 (11.9%) |
88.06 | |
1.0 | 0.174 (17.4%) |
82.56 | |
1.0 | 0.224 (22.4%) |
77.53 | |
Mixture of three macrophytes ( |
1.0 | 0.145 (14.5%) |
85.50 |
where C1 is the initial concentration of arsenic in the media, and C2 is the final concentration of arsenic in the media.
The bioaccumulation coefficient is defined as the ratio of the concentration of arsenic in the plant and the concentration of residual arsenic in the medium where the plants are growing [10]. The bioaccumulation coefficient was calculated as follows:
The average bioaccumulation coefficients for the aquatic plants tested here are illustrated in Figure 1.
Magnesium ions were analyzed by flame photometer. For chlorophyll estimation, the total chlorophyll was extracted in 80% chilled acetone using Arnon’s method [11], prior to observation using a spectrophotometer. The protein content was estimated following Lowry et al. method [12]. Test water was bioremediated with the macrophytes for 10 days. About 1.0 g of each of the plants was collected from experimental setups on different periods (0, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 10th days). For the arsenic analysis, the harvested plants were dried at 80°C. The dried plant materials were digested with acid mixture of HNO3:HClO4 (5:1 v/v) on a hot plate till a clear solution was obtained. Double distilled water was added to make up the volume to 5 mL. A graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrophotometer (Perkin-Elmer 2380) was used to analyze the arsenic accumulation. All results related to each plant setups were expressed as means followed by standard error of mean. Treatment effects were determined by analyses of variance using the general linear model procedure of the standard statistical analysis system followed by Dunnett’s
3. Results and discussion
Following exposure to the arsenic solution, the macrophytes did not exhibit significant morphological alteration up to 4 days. Then marked deterioration in the physical appearance of all the three plants was noted in the four experimental setups. The deterioration of the plant health became more extensive after 10 days. However, condition of
Exposure period | Biomolecules | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Control (wild) | Chlorophyll | 2.767 ± 0.203a | 2.533 ± 0.116a | 3.267 ± 0.392a | 2.946 ± 0.008a |
Mg2+ | 0.438 ± 0.0014b | 0.556 ± 0.001b | 0.519 ± 0.001b | 0.607 ± 0.004b | |
Proteins | 75.033 ± 1.519c | 94.833 ± 1.476c | 82.867 ± 0.284c | 84.833 ± 1.161c | |
1st day | Chlorophyll | 2.633 ± 0.088a | 2.173 ± 0.039a | 2.75 ± 0.252a | 2.836 ± 0.024a |
Mg2+ | 0.434 ± 0.001b | 0.514 ± 0.001b | 0.516 ± 0.001b | 0.584 ± 0.004b | |
Proteins | 70.306 ± 0.454c | 90.153 ± 0.608c | 80.42 ± 1.242c | 80.886 ± 0.315c | |
2nd day | Chlorophyll | 2.093 ± 0.064a | 1.926 ± 0.039d | 2.65 ± 0.078a | 2.473 ± 0.041a |
Mg2+ | 0.416 ± 0.001b | 0.511 ± 0.001b | 0.507 ± 0.001b | 0.558 ± 0.007b | |
Proteins | 66.383 ± 1.732d | 82.013 ± 0.325e | 72.78 ± 0.015d | 72.667 ± 0.576d | |
3rd day | Chlorophyll | 1.997 ± 0.097e | 1.786 ± 0.032d | 1.84 ± 0.041e | 1.867 ± 0.029e |
Mg2+ | 0.407 ± 0.001b | 0.492 ± 0.001b | 0.504 ± 0.001b | 0.542 ± 0.004b | |
Proteins | 62.356 ± 0.305f | 76.82 ± 2.061f | 66.956 ± 2.14f | 66.903 ± 0.214f | |
4th day | Chlorophyll | 1.873 ± 0.0218e | 1.416 ± 0.088d | 1.736 ± 0.044e | 1.773 ± 0.012e |
Mg2+ | 0.402 ± 0.001b | 0.485 ± 0.001b | 0.502 ± 0.001b | 0.5073 ± 0.004b | |
Proteins | 56.946 ± 2.153g | 70.053 ± 0.913g | 62.703 ± 2.123f | 64.623 ± 0.446f | |
5th day | Chlorophyll | 1.713 ± 0.027e | 1.166 ± 0.044d | 1.573 ± 0.062e | 1.156 ± 0.024e |
Mg2+ | 0.396 ± 0.001b | 0.480 ± 0.001b | 0.496 ± 0.001b | 0.477 ± 0.001b | |
Proteins | 54.573 ± 1.097g | 64.403 ± 1.188h | 57.906 ± 1.166f | 58.453 ± 1.622g | |
6th day | Chlorophyll | 1.503 ± 0.933e | 0.926 ± 0.039d | 1.383 ± 0.084e | 1.306 ± 0.022e |
Mg2+ | 0.378 ± 0.002b | 0.473 ± 0.001b | 0.492 ± 0.001b | 0.455 ± 0.004b | |
Proteins | 48.383 ± 0.661h | 56.687 ± 1.567i | 44.38 ± 1.603g | 50.686 ± 2.391h | |
7th day | Chlorophyll | 1.283 ± 0.116e | 0.796 ± 0.029d | 1.133 ± 0.060e | 1.836 ± 0.059e |
Mg2+ | 0.368 ± 0.002b | 0.465 ± 0.002b | 0.489 ± 0.001b | 0.438 ± 0.004b | |
Proteins | 42.233 ± 0.913i | 48.226 ± 0.597j | 34.86 ± 0.311h | 42.576 ± 0.864i | |
10th day | Chlorophyll | 0.673 ± 0.092j | 0.503 ± 0.029k | 0.693 ± 0.088i | 0.653 ± 0.057j |
Mg2+ | 0.309 ± 0.023k | 0.409 ± 0.015b | 0.471 ± 0.001b | 0.382 ± 0.004k | |
Proteins | 35.593 ± 1.161l | 39.156 ± 2.158l | 28.343 ± 1.472j | 35.806 ± 1.675l |
During phytoremediation, the concentration of arsenic in the media decreased progressively, and the residual arsenic concentrations were 11.93, 17.49, and 22.46 % in
Biomass of all the three macrophytes (
Macrophytes | Fresh wt. (g) taken at initial day of experiment | Changes of biomass (g) at the end of 7 days of experiment | Changes of biomass (g) at the end of 10 days of experiment |
---|---|---|---|
10.00 ± 0.00a | 11.55 ± 0.551a (+15.5%) |
8.95 ± 0.550b (−10.5%) |
|
10.00 ± 0.00a | 11.00 ± 0.550a (+10%) |
9.50 ± 0.635b (−5%) |
|
10.00 ± 0.00a | 11.25 ± 0.635a (+12.5%) |
9.65 ± 0.650b (−3.5%) |
This increase perhaps may partially be due to progressive accumulation of arsenic by these plants. The increase was insignificant after 7 days and onward of exposure. All these plants continued to exhibit detectable arsenic concentrations (Table 4). However, after 14 days, they decayed extensively. The bioaccumulation coefficients for the aquatic plants tested in this experiment are shown in Figure 1. The results display the bioaccumulation coefficient and illustrate the difference in arsenic accumulation among various macrophyte species. Decrease in the amount of arsenic in the media was due to bioaccumulation of this metalloid by the macrophytes, as reflected by the presence of this metal in the plant tissues (
Period of exposure | Macrophytes | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Control (wild) | ϕ | ϕ | ϕ | ϕ |
1st day | 0.071 ± 0.004a | 0.077 ± 0.004a | 0.084 ± 0.005a | 0.105 ± 0.001a |
2nd day | 0.134 ± 0.003a,b | 0.133 ± 0.008b | 0.176 ± 0.002a | 0.169 ± 0.009a |
3rd day | 0.267 ± 0.012b | 0.217 ± 0.002c | 0.274 ± 0.002b | 0.253 ± 0.020b |
4th day | 0.346 ± 0.008b,c | 0.290 ± 0.003d | 0.353 ± 0.022b | 0.323 ± 0.001c |
5th day | 0.443 ± 0.012c,d | 0.353 ± 0.002d | 0.466 ± 0.001b,c | 0.367 ± 0.001d |
6th day | 0.553 ± 0.008 e | 0.476 ± 0.005e | 0.593 ± 0.001c,d | 0.462 ± 0.007e |
7th day | 0.657 ± 0.024f | 0.586 ± 0.001f | 0.654 ± 0.002 d,e | 0.687 ± 0.003f |
10th day | 0.823 ± 0.020g | 0.775 ± 0.005g | 0.880 ± 0.003g | 0.853 ± 0.006g |
Bharti and Banerjee [13] observed certain degree of difference in sum of the amounts of metals left behind in the phytoremediated coal mine effluent and metal accumulated in the plant tissues after phytoremediation. This was due to their sedimentation, adsorption to the clay particles and organic matters, co-precipitation with secondary minerals, cation-anion exchange, and complexation [7, 18]. In this case, such difference was not noticed because unlike coalmine effluent, the nature and concentration of contaminants in the arsenic solution were simple. A survey of Figure 2 clearly shows that uptakes of arsenic in all the macrophytes are time dependent up to 10 days of treatment. Figure 3 illustrated the relationship between arsenic uptake by the plants and its depletion from the contaminated medium. All the three macrophytes are useful for decontamination of arsenic. This study suggests that
Acknowledgments
The senior author gratefully thanks the University Grant Commission, Government of India, New Delhi, India for providing a Senior Research Fellowship. The authors also wish to thank Prof. A. K. Rai, Head, Department of Botany for providing atomic absorption spectrophotometer (AAS) facility.
References
- 1.
Chowdhury TR, Basu GK, Mandal BK, Biswas BK, Samanta G, Chowdhury UK, Chanda CR,Lodh D, Roy SL, Saha KC, Roy S, Kabir S, Quamruzzaman Q, Chakraborti D. Arsenic poisoning in the Ganges delta. Nature. 1999; 401 :545-546 - 2.
Rahman MM, Chowdhury UK, Mukherjee SC, Mondal BK, Paul K Lodh D, Biswas BK, Chanda CR, Basu GK, Saha KC, Roy S, Das R, Palit SK, Quamruzzaman Q, Chakraborti D.Chronic arsenic toxicity in Bangladesh and West Bengal, India – A review and commentary. Journal of Toxicology. Clinical Toxicology. 2001; 39 :683-700 - 3.
Chakraborti D, Hussain A, Allauddin M. Arsenic: Environmental and health aspects with special reference to ground water in South Asia. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A: Toxic Hazard Substance Environmental Engineering. 2003; 38 :11-15 - 4.
Matsui M, Nishigori C, Toyokuni S, Takada J, Akaboshi M, Ishikawa M. The role of oxidative DNA damage in human arsenic carcinogenesis: Detection of 8-hydroxy-2¢-deoxyguanosine in arsenic-related Bowen’s disease. The Journal of Investigative Dermatology. 1999; 113 :26-31 - 5.
Dikshit AK, Pallamreddy K, Reddy LVP, Saha JC. Arsenic in ground water and its sorption by kimberlite tailings. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A Environmental Science. 2000; 35 :65-85 - 6.
Lin T-H, Huang Y-L, Wang M-Y. Arsenic species in drinking water, hair, fingernails, and urine of patients with blackfoot disease. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A: Current Issues. 1998; 53 :85-93 - 7.
Mishra VK, Upadhyay AR, Pathak V, Tripathi BD. Phytoremediation of mercury and arsenic from tropical opencast coalmine effluent through naturally occurring aquatic macrophytes. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution. 2008; 192 :303-314 - 8.
Rahman MJ, Hasegawa H. Aquatic arsenic: Phytoremediation using floating macrophytes. Chemosphere. 2011; 83 :633-646 - 9.
Kumar R, Banerjee TK. Arsenic bioaccumulation in the nutritionallyimportant catfish Clarias batrachus exposed to the trivalent arsenic salt,sodium arsenite. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 2012;89 :445-449 - 10.
Robinson BH, Mills TM, Petit D, Fung LE, Green SR, Clothier BE. Natural and induced cadmium-accumulation in poplar and willow: Implications for phytoremediation. Plant and Soil. 2000; 227 :301-306 - 11.
Arnon DE. Copper enzyme in isolated chloroplast, polyphenol oxidase in Beta vulgaris . Journal of Plant Physiology. 1949;24 :1-15 - 12.
Lowry OH, Rosebrough NJ, Farr AL, Randall RJ. Protein measurement with the Folin phenol reagent. The Journal of Biological Chemistry. 1951; 193 :265-275 - 13.
Bharti S, Banerjee TK. Phytoremediation of the coalmine effluent. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 2012; 81 :36-42 - 14.
Satyakala G, Jamil K. Chromium induced biochemical changes in Eichhornia crassipes (Mart) solms and Pistia stratiotes. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 1992; 48 :921-928 - 15.
Delgado M, Bigeriego M, Guardiola E. Uptake of Zn, Cr and Cd by water hyacinths. Water Research. 1993; 27 :269-272 - 16.
Sharma P, Dubey RS. Lead toxicity in plants. Brazilian Journal of Plant Physiology. 2005; 17 :35-52 - 17.
Arvind P, Prasad MNV. Cadmium-zinc interactions in a hydroponic system using Ceratophyllum demersum L.: Adaptive ecophysiology, biochemistry and molecular toxicology. Brazilian Journal of Plant Physiology. 2005;17 :3-20 - 18.
Khellaf N, Zerdaoui NM. Growth response of the duckweed Lemna minor to heavy metals pollution. Iran. Journal of Environmental Health Science and Engineering. 2009;6 :161-166