| Literature DB >> 30853979 |
Pooja Mahajan1, Jyotsna Kaushal1, Arun Upmanyu1, Jasdev Bhatti1.
Abstract
Textile effluent released into water bodies is prone to be toxic for aquatic flora and fauna. In the present study, the phytoremediation potential of Chara vulgaris (C. vulgaris) is investigated for treatment of textile effluent. The highly concentrated and toxic textile effluent is diluted to different concentrations 10%, 25%, 50%, and 75% to check the accessibility of macroalgae to bear pollutant load of textile effluent. The toxicity of textile effluent is analysed by determining different water quality parameters, namely, pH, TDS, BOD, COD, and EC. The maximum reductions in TDS (68%), COD (78%), BOD (82%), and EC (86%) were found in the 10% concentrated textile effluent after 120 h of treatment. The highly concentrated textile effluent showed its toxic effect on macroalgae and it was found unable to show a remarkable change in water quality parameters of 75% and 100% textile effluent. The correlation coefficient values are determined using correlation matrix to identify the high correlation between different water quality parameters. The removal of toxic organic pollutants by C. vulgaris was confirmed by using UV-visible absorption spectra. Typical X-ray spectra recorded using EDXRF technique indicated the presence of heavy metals Cd in the dried sample of macroalgae after treatment which show its capability to remove toxic heavy metals from textile effluent. The reliability model has been proposed for treated textile effluents to identify percentage level of toxicity tolerance of waste water by macroalgae.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30853979 PMCID: PMC6377995 DOI: 10.1155/2019/8351272
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Toxicol ISSN: 1687-8191
Figure 1(a) Cross section view; (b) original image of Phytoreactor.
Comparison of physiochemical parameters of untreated effluent (100%) and 10% treated effluent before and after treatment of 120 h with EPA discharge limit.
| Parameter | EPA limit | Untreated effluent (100%) | Untreated effluent (10%) | Treated effluent (10%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| pH | 6-9 | 11.63 | 8.86 | 7.30 |
|
| ||||
| Temperature (°C) | 40 | 46 | 33 | 35 |
|
| ||||
| DO (mg L−1) | - | 0.6 | 5.6 | 7.2 |
|
| ||||
| BOD(mg L−1) | 50 | 395 | 65.50 | 14.41 |
|
| ||||
| COD (mg L−1) | 80 | 1926 | 216.29 | 38.93 |
|
| ||||
| TDS (mg L−1) | 2000 | 4210 | 525 | 168 |
|
| ||||
| EC (mho cm−1) | 1.5 | 3.87 | 0.75 | 0.07 |
Figure 2Variation in COD (a), BOD (b), and DO (c) as a function of time at different concentration.
Figure 3Variation in TDS (a), EC (b), and pH (c) as a function of time at different concentration.
Correlation matrix between different physiochemical parameters at different time interval.
| Conc. | pH | TDS | DO | BOD | COD | EC | Temp | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||
| Conc. | 1.000 | |||||||
| pH | 0.959 | 1.000 | ||||||
| TDS | 0.999 | 0.945 | 1.000 | |||||
| DO | -0.959 | -0.999 | -0.944 | 1.000 | ||||
| BOD | 0.998 | 0.973 | 0.995 | -0.973 | 1.000 | |||
| COD | 0.999 | 0.945 | 1.000 | -0.945 | 0.995 | 1.000 | ||
| EC | 0.996 | 0.970 | 0.993 | -0.968 | 0.996 | 0.993 | 1.000 | |
| Temp | 0.558 | 0.623 | 0.551 | -0.588 | 0.569 | 0.542 | 0.611 | 1.000 |
|
| ||||||||
| Conc. | 1.000 | |||||||
| pH | 0.996 | 1.000 | ||||||
| TDS | 0.992 | 0.996 | 1.000 | |||||
| DO | -0.975 | -0.964 | -0.942 | 1.000 | ||||
| BOD | 0.995 | 0.996 | 0.992 | -0.964 | 1.000 | |||
| COD | 0.988 | 0.990 | 0.997 | -0.931 | 0.992 | 1.000 | ||
| EC | 0.994 | 0.988 | 0.983 | -0.969 | 0.996 | 0.987 | 1.000 | |
| Temp | 0.558 | 0.563 | 0.536 | -0.582 | 0.623 | 0.571 | 0.637 | 1.000 |
|
| ||||||||
| Conc. | 1.000 | |||||||
| pH | 0.985 | 1.000 | ||||||
| TDS | 0.243 | 0.251 | 1.000 | |||||
| DO | -0.041 | -0.061 | -0.974 | 1.000 | ||||
| BOD | 0.282 | 0.302 | 0.978 | -0.961 | 1.000 | |||
| COD | 0.983 | 0.977 | 0.094 | 0.104 | 0.152 | 1.000 | ||
| EC | 0.974 | 0.987 | 0.399 | -0.213 | 0.446 | 0.944 | 1.000 | |
| Temp | 0.0734 | 0.197 | 0.530 | -0.577 | 0.554 | 0.003 | 0.248 | 1.000 |
|
| ||||||||
| Conc. | 1.000 | |||||||
| pH | 0.988 | 1.000 | ||||||
| TDS | 0.987 | 0.987 | 1.000 | |||||
| DO | -0.989 | -0.988 | -0.986 | 1.000 | ||||
| BOD | 0.982 | 0.997 | 0.977 | -0.975 | 1.000 | |||
| COD | 0.983 | 0.991 | 0.975 | -0.967 | 0.997 | 1.000 | ||
| EC | 0.978 | 0.985 | 0.994 | -0.985 | 0.971 | 0.962 | 1.000 | |
| Temp | 0.073 | 0.130 | 0.120 | -0.213 | 0.071 | 0.005 | 0.184 | 1.000 |
|
| ||||||||
| Conc. | 1.000 | |||||||
| pH | 0.977 | 1.000 | ||||||
| TDS | 0.987 | 0.974 | 1.000 | |||||
| DO | -0.986 | -0.976 | -0.993 | 1.000 | ||||
| BOD | 0.973 | 0.999 | 0.964 | -0.970 | 1.000 | |||
| COD | 0.980 | 0.999 | 0.975 | -0.975 | 0.997 | 1.000 | ||
| EC | 0.967 | 0.968 | 0.994 | -0.989 | 0.958 | 0.967 | 1.000 | |
| Temp | 0.073 | 0.033 | 0.108 | -0.192 | 0.0199 | 0.005 | 0.150 | 1.000 |
|
| ||||||||
| Conc. | 1.000 | |||||||
| pH | 0.995 | 1.000 | ||||||
| TDS | 0.986 | 0.984 | 1.000 | |||||
| DO | -0.983 | -0.971 | -0.993 | 1.000 | ||||
| BOD | 0.965 | 0.938 | 0.952 | -0.967 | 1.000 | |||
| COD | 0.979 | 0.959 | 0.975 | -0.984 | 0.995 | 1.000 | ||
| EC | 0.965 | 0.959 | 0.993 | -0.991 | 0.943 | 0.966 | 1.000 | |
| Temp | 0.074 | 0.066 | 0.114 | -0.161 | -0.0250 | 0.005 | 0.150 | 1.000 |
Figure 4UV-visible spectra of 10% textile effluent before and after treatment of 120 h.
Figure 5Typical X-ray spectra of C. vulgaris (a) before and (b) after treatment with 10% textile effluent.
Comparison of phytotoxicity of 50% untreated and treated textile effluent with control after 10 days.
| Parameters |
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Textile Effluent | Textile Effluent | |||||
| Control | Untreated | Treated | Control | Untreated | Treated | |
| G (%) | 100 | 0 | 90 | 100 | 0 | 80 |
| PL | 7.1 | 0 | 5.6 | 10.6 | 0 | 7.2 |
| RL | 3.7 | 0 | 2.0 | 5.6 | 0 | 4.1 |
∗ G (%), germination percentage; PL, plumule length; RL, radical length.
Figure 6Reliability model for phytoremediation treatment of textile effluent by C. vulgaris.
Nomenclature for reliability mathematical model.
| S | Operative state of Phytoremediation process. |
| S | Failure state of Phytoremediation process. |
| S | Water Quality Parameter COD range 100-2000 mg L−1 |
| P |
|
| P |
|
| S | Failure due to low range of |
| S | Failure due to high range of |
| TE | Textile Effluent in different concentration |
| where | |
| P | Probability of |
| P | Probability of |
| P | Probability of TE |
| P | Probability in 500 mg L−1 |
| q | Failure Probability of |
| q2: | Failure Probability of |
| q | Failure Probability of TE |
| q | Failure probability of |
| X | Success state of treatment of TE. |
| X | Failure state due to TE of concentration |
| X | Failure state due to algae with less amount. |
| r | Replacement cost due to failure in initial stage (S |
| r | Replacement cost due to failure in treatment stage (X |