Floating wetlands: an innovative tool for wastewater

0 downloads 0 Views 1MB Size Report
Jun 22, 2018 - Additionally, organic contaminants which are already taken up ... Natural floating wetlands (NFWs), also known as floating marshes, are ... density plant holding material or by using plants with ... construction materials, such as polyester sheets, PVC pipes, and .... A study on picker weed and soft-stem.

 

Review Floating wetlands: an innovative tool for wastewater treatment†

Munazzam Jawad Shahid1, Muhammad Arslan2, Shafaqat Ali1, Muhammad Siddique1, and Muhammad Afzal3* 1

Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Government College University, Faisalabad, Pakistan

2

Department of Environmental Biotechnology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Leipzig,

Germany 3

Soil and Environmental Biotechnology Division, National Institute of Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering,

Faisalabad, Pakistan

Correspondence: Dr. M. Afzal, Soil and Environmental Biotechnology Division, National Institute of Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering (NIBGE), P. O. Box 577, Jhang Road, Faisalabad, Pakistan Email: [email protected]

†This

article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as an ‘Accepted Article’, doi: [10.1002/clen.201800120] © 2018 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim Received: 5 March 2018; Revised: 22 June 2018; Accepted: 13 August 2018

 

Abstract Floating treatment wetland (FTW) is an effective, and sustainable technology for wastewater treatment. It has been widely adopted for treating various kinds of polluted water including agricultural runoff, stormwater, industrial effluents, etc. In FTWs, plants are vegetated on a floating mat while their roots are extended down to the contaminated water acting as biological filters. Nutrients and potentially toxic metal(s)/element(s) are taken up from the wastewater by plants through their roots whereas organic matter is degraded by the microorganisms forming biofilms on the roots and mat surface. Additionally, organic contaminants which are already taken up by the plants are degraded by endophytic bacteria in planta. This article provides an overview of FTWs and its application for wastewater treatment. The key factors which have an impact on the performance of FTWs are also described. Lastly, potential role of combined use of plants and bacteria in FTWs for the maximum remediation of polluted water is emphasized.

Abbreviations: BOD, biochemical oxygen demand; COD, chemical oxygen demand; CW, constructed wetland; FTW, floating treatment wetland; HRM, hydroponic root mat; HCB, hexachlorobenzene; NFW, natural floating wetland; NH4+–N, ammonium nitrogen; TN, total nitrogen; TOC, total organic carbon; TP, total phosphorus; TSS, total suspended solids

Keywords: Floating treatment wetlands, plant-bacteria synergism, wastewater, pollutants, plants, bacteria

1- Introduction Natural floating wetlands (NFWs), also known as floating marshes, are present in many areas of the world. They comprise emergent vascular plants that grow over the surface of free water by a mat of alive and dead roots, peat, and/or detritus [1--3]. In nature, they perform a variety of ecosystem services related to hydrological, biological and biogeochemical processes [4, 5]. An increasingly important service is treatment of wastewater due to the ability of plants to absorb nutrients and/or degrade toxic compounds. The history of using NFWs to treat contaminated water dates back to the classical era [6]. Nevertheless, first comprehensive description was provided by Russel in 1942 who used the term “flotant” and described the formation of these thick root mats that allows emergent macrophytes to grow on the floating mat [7]. Later, van Duzer compiled the bibliography on NFWs from about 1800 literature sources in 20 languages and described their important features such as development scheme, basis of buoyancy, ecological characteristics, control and management, wildlife habitat, and enhancement of water quality [8]. In recent years, variants of NFWs are exploited to treat anthropogenic discharge such as municipal wastewater, agriculture runoff, industrial effluents, etc. [9--13]. This includes constructed wetlands (CWs), floating treatment wetlands (FTWs), hydroponic root mats (HRMs), etc. (Table 1) [14--16]. In FTWs, plants are grown

 

hydroponically on floating structures such as tethered buoyant mats/rafts while their roots are extended down to the pelagic zones touching the system’s bottom (Fig. 1) [17]. The treatment system shares features of both pond and wetland where hydraulic gradient is established between the root network and the pond bottom, and pollutants are trapped, filtered, and/or degraded by the combined action of roots and their associated microbial communities [18]. The commercial application of FTWs was first seen for the remediation of eutrophic lakes in Germany and for rivers in Japan [19, 20]. Currently, they are being used to treat hypertrophication [21--26], sewage and domestic wastewater [27--34], combined sewer overflow [35], contaminated groundwater [36, 37], stormwater [38--47], acid mine drainage [48--50], poultry effluent [51], piggery effluent [52], boron enriched water [53], polluted river water [54], and nutrients enriched water [55, 56]. Recently, the plant--bacteria partnerships have been exploited in FTWs for the maximum remediation of contaminated water [14, 34, 57, 58]. This review presents insights into the structure and design of FTWs, the role of plants and bacteria and their synergism in the removal of pollutants from wastewater, and the factors affecting treatment performance. Moreover, benefits and limitation of using FTWs in multiple contexts are also discussed.

2- Structure of FTWs The structure of FTWs is strikingly similar to the other traditional wetlands except that, in FTWs, plants are supported by artificial buoyant mats. These floating mats keep plants crown elevated above the water level thus letting them establish their roots in the deeper zones. Buoyancy in FTWs is maintained either by using low density plant holding material or by using plants with aerenchymatous abilities [59--61]. For instance, variety of construction materials, such as polyester sheets, PVC pipes, and bamboo containing meshes, have been used to construct the floating structures (Fig. 2). On the other hand, helophytic plants are preferred in designing FTWs as they possess natural ability of entrapping gases within the rhizomes, making them to float on the water surface. Nevertheless, durability, functionality, weight, environmental sensitivity, anchoring, flexibility, and cost are the principal factors in designing buoyant mats [39]. Comprehensively speaking, an artificially designed floating mat should complement the natural floating mat that is made up of intertwined roots, rhizome, organic matter, and plant litter [16].

3- Role of plants In FTWs, plants perform several functions necessary for the wastewater treatment [62]. This includes stabilization of the pond bed, reducing water flow and turbulence, increasing sedimentation, trapping/filtering suspended particles, and providing habitat for the development of microbial communities [62, 63]. The biological processes are more effective in FTWs as compared to the constructed wetlands due to the free suspension of roots in the water column, which establishes direct contact between contaminants and the rootassociated microbial community [46]. Microorganisms decompose organic matter into simple nutrients which are removed by plants through direct uptake [64, 65]. Moreover, the roots grew horizontally and vertically developing a large surface area for the nutrients uptake [66]. Plants also release various kinds of organic compounds (root exudates) that regulate the biological processes such as denitrification [67]. This is particularly effective for nutrient-rich surface water in which nitrate reducers convert nitrates into N2 gas and release it into the atmosphere. Furthermore, plants take up nutrients for their growth and development and hence lower the eutrophication level. It has been reported that emergent plant

 

species in floating wetlands are able to take up nitrogen from 200 to 2500 kg ha--1 per year [65, 67]. Accordingly, plants boost the removal of fine suspended particles by adhering them to the root system and cause a prominent reduction in turbidity of water. Plants also produce bioactive compounds that undergo physicochemical changes in water body leading to enhanced sorption and sedimentation processes [17, 63, 68]. A few plant species such as helophytes release atmospheric oxygen into the rhizosphere [69, 70]. This release of oxygen takes place mostly in daylight due to photosynthesis [71, 72]. The oxygen released by roots regulates redox potential [73], which affect the nitrogen fate, oxidation of specific phytotoxins, and aerobic degradation of organic matter by microorganisms [74].

4- Plant--bacterial synergism in FTWs Interactions between plants, water and microorganisms are not fully explored in FTWs, yet bacteria play a vital role in such systems [75]. Bacteria degrade organic pollutants, produce phytohormones, increase disease resistance in the host plant, and remove stress due to the presence of contaminants [81--83]. In return, they get nutrients and residency in different parts of the plant. Floating treatment wetlands technology, an in situ solar powered remediation in synergism with bacteria, has great potential for ecosystem restoration with minimum site disturbance, maintenance and financial input [34, 76]. Although plants can partially degrade the organic compounds, nevertheless complete degradation is indispensable without effective partnership with microorganisms [76, 77]. The partnership can be neutral, commensal, and dormant [75, 78--80]. Plant roots are the primary site for bacteria to colonize plant tissue. However, they do not remain limited to roots and enter the plant to dwell inside and to get nutrients [81--84]. Bacteria that colonize on the root surface are known as rhizobacteria whereas those who colonize in the plant interior are known as endophytic bacteria [81, 84]. These bacteria render degradation of toxic organic compounds into CO2 and H2O which are subsequently used by the plants or released from the system with no toxic effects (Fig. 3). Biodegradation of hexachlorobenzene (HCB) in water has been effectively accomplished by rhizosphere effect of Typha angustifolia and specific bacterial community found in the rhizosphere [96]. In an evaluation of using vetiver plantlets (Vetiveria zizanioides) grown on a floating platform for degradation of phenol, it was found that rhizomicrobial growth was 100 times more on roots of vetiver plantlets which increased the degradation rate of phenol by more than three-fold [97]. Similar to the rhizospheric degradation, inoculation of endophytic bacteria, Microbacterium arborescens (TYSI04) and Bacillus pumilus (PIRI30), helped Typha domingensis to degrade organic pollutants present in the textile effluent, along with reduced toxic effects and improved plant health [85]. Accordingly, endophytes inoculation to Pisum sativum enhanced removal of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid without its accumulation in plant’s tissues [83]. The pollutant degradation by endophytic bacteria is not limited to organic contaminants only but can be equally exploited in remediation of metal(s)/element(s). For example, application of endophytic bacteria, previously isolated from Prosopis juliflora grown in soil contaminated with tannery effluent with a high concentration of potentially toxic metals (Cr, Cd, Pb, Cu, and Zn), expressively enhanced the uptake of Cr in ryegrass [86, 87]. Similarly, uptake of Zn was increased considerably by inoculation of two grass species, Festuca rundinacea and Lolium perenne, by the endophytic bacterial strain Neotyphodium [88]. Besides degradation, plant--bacteria synergism can also improve the nutrients removal from contaminated water. Li et al. [89] investigated the potential of plants--microorganism synergism by using two species of

 

perennial grasses (L. perenne) and a microbial consortium. The results showed that plant--microbial synergism enhanced the removal of total nitrogen (TN), ammonium (NH4+–N), and total phosphorus (TP) from wastewater [89]. In another study, tall fescue plants (F. arundinacea) in combination with denitrifying polyphosphate accumulating microorganisms exhibited significantly more TN, TP, orthophosphate, NH4+-N, and nitrate (NO3--) removal from wastewater as compared to fescue plants without bacterial inoculation [99]. More examples of plant--bacteria partnership for enhanced removal of pollutants are described in Table 2.

5- Factors affecting FTWs performance 5.1.Water depth Water depth is an important factor to be considered while designing the FTWs. This is because of the reason that the FTW system is devoid of soil/substrate and plants solely depending on their rooting structure in the free water column for nutrients acquisition. For root development, at least 0.8--1 m of water depth is required for horizontal and vertical growth [16]. However, increased water depth enhances the treatment performance of FTWs due to increased contact time of pollutants with roots and the microbial biofilm [17]. Additional factors such as type of wastewater, treatment purpose, and inflow variations also determine the choice of the water depth. For instance, low water depth is suitable to remove fine particles and suspended solids due to increased contact between roots, wastewater, and microorganisms [36]. On the other hand, high water depth is more suitable to remediate coarse suspended solids by sedimentation due to the formation of a free water zone below the mat down to the bottom of the water column [90].

5.2. Plants Various plant types have been used to establish FTWs, e.g., Agrostis alba, Canna flaccid, Carex lasiocarpa, Chamaedaphen calyculata, Glyceria maxima, Menyanthes trifoliate, Myrica gale, Phragmites australis, Panicum hemitomon, Pontederia cordata, Torilis japonica, Typha latifolia, T. angustifolia, etc. [18, 91, 92]. Their choice largely depends on type of contamination, ability of plants to make dense root structures, adoptability to water composition and climatic condition, and local availability and influence. Nevertheless, plants having a fibrous root system, high transpiration rate, release of oxygen through roots in the water, and high total nitrogen removal rate are extensively employed in FTWs [49, 89]. This is particularly true when the wastewater contains high organic matter and poor dissolved oxygen. Helophytes such as Juncus effuses, and P. australis are the most suitable choices because of their ability to transport atmospheric oxygen into the plant rhizosphere. Similarly, A. alba, C. flaccid, P. cordata and T. japonica were found to be effective for nutrient removal [93, 94]. In another study, T. japonica has shown better nutrient removal rates via biomass-based method compared to area-based method [93]. The plant growth and gain in biomass depend on plant species, age, type of wastewater, nutrients concentration, redox condition of water, trophic level of water, and supporting mat [95]. High nutrient load and toxic compounds may affect development of plants especially at the young stage [96]. In an earlier study, root development in six species namely Oenanthe javanica, Gypsophila sp., Salix babylonica, Gardenia jasminoides, Rohdea japonica, and Dracaena sanderiana were observed to be 10.9, 10.8, 9.0, 6.1, 4.5, and 4.1 cm, respectively [54]. Oenanthe javanica exhibited more roots than the other plants and hence was considered as a suitable plant type for FTWs. Likewise, another study reported Juncus edgariae to develop intensive root

 

network (root length of 87 cm) during the treatment of storm wastewater [43]. Some wetland plants are found to be sensitive to the variation of water level such as T. domingensis showing about 52% decrease in biomass due to water level fluctuation [97]. Whereas some species, such as Juncus spp., Phalaris arundinacea and P. australias, have great morphological adaption to the fluctuation of water levels [95, 98]. These plants can be utilized in stormwater ponds which show great fluctuations of the water level.

5.3. Season and temperature Solar radiations and air temperature have a prominent effect on wetland performance [145]. This is because of the reason that pollutants are degraded from the wastewater via a combination of biogeochemical processes governed by meteorological parameters. It is not easy to measure their effect individually [72, 99]; nevertheless, seasonality has been considered a prominent factor in the pollutant removal. During spring, microbial proliferation and plant growth are enhanced which promote pollutant degradation whereas during fall and winter, reduced plant growth and bacterial metabolism result in less removal of contaminants. Picard et al. conducted a study to analyze this effect and reported that nutrient removal was maximum during plants growing season (Jun--Oct) and minimum in winter (Nov--Mar) [100]. This positive relationship between temperature and nutrients removal was also reported in few other studies [85, 101]. It has been further argued that the treatment performance for all pollutants does not solely depend on temperature [99]. For instance, nitrogen removal is directly related to temperature and season because bacteria involved in biological nitrification--denitrification processes are highly sensitive to temperature changes. The highest removal of TN has been noted for a temperature range from 5 to 15 °C [33]. By contrast, temperature change had a low impact on the process of phosphorus removal, i.e., even in temperature range of 5 to 15 °C during summer and autumn, phosphorus removal appeared to be unaffected [100--103]. Seasonal differences in combination with plant species also strongly affect total organic carbon (TOC) removal and oxidation of the root zone. Increased temperature of >35 °C showed a decline in TOC content of the wastewater which was the result of increased microbial activity [104--106]. In contrast, efficiency of plants to remove organic matter was reduced significantly with change in temperature from 24 to 4 °C [150]. Lastly, chemical oxygen demand (COD) can also be influenced by the combined effect of season, temperature, and vegetation [104].

5.4. Aeration The nutrients removal in ecological approaches for wastewater treatment such as wetlands can be maximized by improving the aeration of wastewater [107, 108]. The aeration develops the aerobic micro-zones which stimulate the biofilm production in the substrate. It promotes individual as well as simultaneous removal of ammonium and nitrate by the aerobic processes. In a study, nitrate/nitrite removal was improved from 1.7 to 33.8% with an increase in gas--water ration from 0 to 5 units in FTWs [26]. The aerated wetlands have been found to have lower CH4 fluxes than non-aerated units as aeration helps efficient release of oxidized nitrogen over ammonium in the effluent. The oxidized nitrogen is better than ammonium due to its low toxicity and easy removal by denitrification in the natural system [109]. Likewise, COD reduction in winter as compared to summer can be improved by aeration system [109, 110].

 

5.5. Plants harvesting Active plant harvesting can be utilized to expedite additional nutrients removal and to limit internal nutrient cycle in FTWs [44]. Previous study reported that about half of the nutrients are accumulated in the shoots of wetland plants [17]. The aerial biomass has been positively linked to the removal of nitrogen and phosphorus. As plant shoots can accumulate more nutrients during vegetative stage [111], it is important to observe the temporal accumulation in order to optimize the harvesting strategy. A study on picker weed and soft-stem bulrush recommended harvesting in July/August and in October, respectively, to obtain maximum nutrients removal. Another study also suggested harvesting in July and October for maximum removal of phosphorus and nitrogen [44]. Interestingly, external changes in the environment such as temperature may cause the transfer of nutrients from above to below ground tissues [112]. Therefore, harvesting should be performed when high accumulation of nutrients is observed in harvestable parts of plants in FTWs [38]. In a study conducted in Singapore, above ground tissue of Chrysopogon zizanioides and T. angustifolia were repeatedly harvested within a year and analyzed. Phosphorus and nitrogen contents in the shoots tissues were decreased when shoots acquired maturity [113]. Therefore, it was recommended that shoots should be harvested before the culmination of growing season to achieve the maximum removal of nutrients. On the contrary, it is important to consider that harvesting increases organic carbon removal [114, 115] and hence may result in a potential decrease of carbon available to nitrogen processing bacteria [84]. The early shoot harvesting, on the other hand, may decrease the nutrients removal efficiency of the plants thus reducing their ability to remobilize nutrients from the stem to the storage organs [116]. Moreover, it is noteworthy that harvesting should not affect the plant health. Harvesting of the whole plant, as mentioned by White and Cousin [46], is more violent and less sustainable practices as compared to harvesting of only above mat tissues for nutrients removal. Harvesting of entire plants may lead to the complete removal of plants from floating structure and growth media, hence, increases operational and maintenance costs making this approach un-economical [46].

6- Pollutants removal mechanism The application of FTWs can remove both organic and inorganic (nutrients, potentially toxic metals and suspended solids) pollutants from wastewater by different mechanisms as explained below.

6.1 Organic matter In FTW systems, microorganisms attached to the roots, rhizomes, and substrate, contribute vitally to the removal of organic matter from wastewater [33, 119]. Nevertheless, other processes such as filtration, nutrient assimilation, and oxygenation also contribute to the removal of organic matter from the water column [118, 120, 121]. The biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and COD ratio is a key driver to investigate the presence of organic matter and its degradability. It has been reported that wastewater with a BOD/COD ratio >0.5 contains higher load of organic matter and hence are easily biodegradable [122, 123]. Since most of the wastewater has BOD/COD ratio ranging between 0.6 and 0.8 [124]; application of FTWs can reduce high proportion of COD and BOD without any additional procedure [29, 34, 125]. Nevertheless, based on the literature, Chen et al. [14] reported that efficiency of FTWs for COD and BOD removal varies from 17 to 84%, and 36 to 90%, respectively.

 

6.2 Nutrients Nutrients removal in FTWs takes place through a number of biogeochemical processes [25]. First of all, plants develop strong root systems which can dynamically uptake nutrients from the water column [126—129]. This is mainly true for nitrogen as ammonia and NO2—are adsorbed quickly by higher plants and microalgae which are commonly found in water ponds [130, 131]. Nevertheless, some plants also demand NO3—at their specific stages of life cycle for its reproduction process [132]. Nitrogen removal efficiency of FTWs depends upon growth characteristics of plant species, plant age, climate, wastewater, and other environmental circumstances [179]. The average nitrogen absorption rate by plants is highly variable, reported in the range of between 4 and 90%. Since direct uptake cannot exceed beyond a certain limit, further nitrogen removal is aided by microbial biofilm developed on the root surface through biological nitrification—denitrification processes [134, 135]. Ammonia is oxidized to NO3—through NO2—by nitrifying bacteria in aerobic conditions, and NO3—is restored to molecular nitrogen by denitrifying bacteria. This nitrogen is released into the atmosphere in the form of N2 gas. Denitrification in eutrophic water takes place in the availability of sufficient amount of NO 3—and easily available organic compounds (Fig. 1) [136, 137]. The removal mechanisms for phosphorus in FTWs are sorption, complexation, precipitation, and assimilation into microbial and plant biomass [89, 138, 39]. The soil and litter particles perform a key role in long-term storage of phosphorus in wetlands. The rates of phosphorus uptake by vascular plants have been studied by many researchers and found that biomass removal with its accumulated phosphorus is an effective way to control eutrophication in freshwater [140,141]. The phosphorus removal potential of FTWs depends upon the plant growth rate and phosphorus uptake by tissues [142]. Wen and Recknagel [129] reported a phosphorus removal rate of 0.086 g m—2 per day under controlled conditions in an FTW study. In another study, FTW planted with J. 8ffuses removed 48% phosphorous within seven-day retention time from nutrients enriched water [143]. In a recent study, Keizer-Vlek et al. reported a 60% removal of phosphorous by FTW system applied for the remediation of eutrophic water [55].

6.3 Potentially toxic metals In FTWs, processes like adsorption, metal sulfides formation, direct uptake by plants, bacteria and algae, and entrapment into the roots biofilm play key role in potentially toxic metals removal (Fig. 4) [18]. Several potentially toxic metals can bind to tiny clay particles which are precipitated to the system’s bottom [117, 144— 147]. This precipitation is stimulated by roots exudates by forming metals sulfides and hydroxides [148—150]. The roots in the water column increase the humic content of suspended particles by releasing of rhizodeposits such as dead tissues, exudates, excretion and lysates, and enhance complexation and flocculation of dissolved metals [151, 152]. The dead parts of plants and release of organic compounds in the water increase the sorption of dissolved potentially toxic metals [117]. The precipitated potentially toxic metals are often taken up by the plant tissues, particularly the roots. Ladislas et al. [41] reported successful uptake of Ni and Zn in Juncus and Carex species grown in an FTW experiment. Additionally, rhizo- and endophytic bacteria are found to have a key role in the potentially toxic metals remediation. Inoculation of these bacteria enhanced potentially toxic metals removal rate due to their capacity of the sorbing metallic ions on the cell walls [153]. Moreover, they increased the bioavailability of potentially toxic

 

metals and hence uptake by plants [87, 154]. A number of attempts have been made to establish successful partnerships between plant and metal-resistance bacteria for effective treatment of potentially toxic metals contaminated water [84, 155—159]. In a recent study, FTWs vegetated with Brachia mutica removed potentially toxic metals (Cd, Fe, Cu, Cr, Mn, Co, Pb) from the sewage effluent and the iron removal was 79 to 85% [34]. The dissolved oxygen in FTW also plays important role in the removal of metals by creating suitable conditions for the formation of particulate metal sulfides [18, 160]. Depletion of oxygen by microbes on the rhizoplane also prompts the reduction of potentially toxic metals such as Cr, Mn, and Fe [95]. Moreover, the combined action of microorganisms and oxygen prompt the formation of iron and manganese plagues on the roots of the plants [161, 162]. These plagues are responsible for binding metals such as Zn or Cu [163]. The removal of Zn and Cu by plague was 2 and 10%, respectively. This removal is strongly associated with the amount of dissolved oxygen, pH, and specific conductivity of the water column. In an earlier study, roots accumulated 40% of Cu and 80% of Zn of the total amount of metals accumulated in the plants [58]. In another earlier study, roots were found to accumulate almost two-fold higher amount of metals as compared to shoots in wetland studies receiving agricultural and highway runoff [117]. Although plants remove metals through uptake, it is not a prime process for removal of potentially toxic metals from the FTW system [17, 18, 164, 165]. The decay of the dead plant parts and reduced conditions are supposed to be liable for Zn removal by enhancing sorption, flocculation and stable storage of Zn by binding to organic matter and sulfides and subsequent settlement on the bottom of the pond [166]. In the sediment of a wetland, the binding of metals with organic carbon and sulfide affects the metal sequestration as well as control their bioavailability. In the sediment of a retention pond, Cu is more efficiently sorbed by organic matter. This binding of Cu with humic acid is more stable than binding of Zn with 9luvic acids [167, 168]. The sediment with accumulated metals in an FTW pond may have a little adverse effect on the biota, however, the toxicity of metals in an FTW pond depends upon metals bioavailability. About 80% of Cu and Zn bound to organic matter and sulfide was found stable under reduced conditions in an FTW pond [58]. Although sediment re-suspension may affect the bioavailability of metals, very limited re-suspension was noticed in FTWs [169]. A summary of previous research work about the removal of organic matter, nutrients and potentially toxic metals by FTWs is described in Table 3.

6.4 Suspended solids Total suspended solids (TSS) are mainly removed by physical settling and filtration process in FTWs. Minimized turbulence and free water layer between root mats and system’s bottom create ideal conditions for the particles sedimentation [95]. Moreover, roots of plants allow entrapping/filtering of the suspended particles. In an earlier study, FTWs showed a successful potential to remove TSS and sediment-bound pollutants from stormwater [47]. Another study reported the success of FTWs applied to an acid mine drainage pond, which was able to capture 2.2 kg of solids/m2 of floating vegetation after two growth seasons [48]. The trapped solids sporadically sloughed from roots and settled to the pond’s bottom which opened up more root surfaces for further entrapment. Tanner and Headley reported 34--44% reduction in fine suspended solids while using FTWs for stormwater treatment [17]. Likewise, a pond with floating plant mats showed 41% more reduction in TSS than a pond without any FTW system [117]. The average TSS removal rates in many earlier studies were reported between 2.7 and 7.1 g m--2 per day with a highest removal rate of 45 g m--2 per day [19, 24, 41, 164].

 

Besides entrapment, role of microbial community is evident only when a major portion of suspended solid is organic [118].

7- Benefits of FTWs The FTWs can be installed in any pond or existing water body without any digging/earth moving [47], and can remove pollutants from the water without additional land acquisition [47, 90]. The FTWs don’t decrease the storage volume of the pond due to their floating nature [47]. While utilizing the power of nature and sunlight, polluted water can be cleaned by FTWs in a sustainable way, with minimum maintenance and operational cost. Floating treatment wetland does not require any complex technological tool for its installation. Moreover, its operation and maintenance do not need any synthetic chemical input. Therefore, low capital and minimum/no operational costs make this technology an affordable and applicable approach, especially in developing countries, for the remediation of sewage and industrial wastewater. Overall, FTW is a low-cost technology compared with constructed wetlands and conventional wastewater treatment technologies. The hanging roots of plants below mat provide a large area for biofilms development and wastewater treatment [17]. The FTWs even have been proved effective for treating of polluted surface water, sewage, industrial, and agricultural wastewater [10, 14, 34, 65, 95, 170]. Retention ponds are efficient to remove coarse and particulate forms of contaminants but not capable of removing dissolved contaminants effectively [171]. Although constructed wetlands can efficiently remove soluble pollutants and associated fine particles, these wetlands need large area and are unable to tolerate extended duration of high water levels. Floating treatment wetlands can efficiently address all these issues [172]. These can be used in flooding areas as the fluctuation or inundation doesn’t have any detrimental effect on FTWs due to their floating nature [16]. Additionally, FTWs can provide a sustainable wildlife habitat for fish, birds, and invertebrates [55]. Moreover, FTWs can effectively be used to solve problems associated with eutrophication which are common in other wetland systems due to free-floating aquatic plants such as water hyacinth, water lettuce and duckweed [55, 173]. The FTWs emerged as promising eco-technology due to great aesthetic value which can be increased further by using flowering plants [55, 56]. Floating treatment wetlands have potential to balance water temperature of the aquatic pond due to coverage of large surface area and long retention time [130]. In a comparison study between FTWs and natural wetland, a slight decrease in temperature of FTW outflow was noted due to shading of water column [174, 175].

8- Limitations of FTWs Despite the fact that FTW has various advantages and capability to treat various kinds of wastewater, it also has some limitations which might hinder its application and performance in the field and industry. For example, emergent macrophytes grown on a floating mat require a support to fix the floating raft with plants on it at the water surface [176]. The anchoring to the floating rafts is a difficult task. Moreover, for the proper functioning of FTWs, a minimum water depth should be maintained to avoid plant roots to grow deeper into the sediments at the basin of FTWs. If the water rises like during storm events, the plant rooted to basin will cause the floating rafts to sink in water. It can lead to the death of macrophytes as well as severe damage to the floating structure [16]. The huge size of floating rafts may reduce the area of the pond for recreation activities like boating and fishing. Besides, plants should be harvested as a whole or above ground tissues periodically [44]. Proper harvesting and

 

management of macrophytes may need some labor work. The invasive and undesirable plants may harm the macrophytes on the FTWs and minimize its efficiency. Although FTWs have been proved efficient to treat various kinds of wastewater even containing different potentially toxic metals [18, 160, 177, 178], urban/agricultural runoff containing a high concentration of oil and herbicides may harm the aquatic plants and microorganisms [179]. Any damage to macrophytes and biofilm will ultimately decrease the pollutant removal efficiency of the FTWs.

9- Conclusions and future prospects Floating treatment wetlands system is an innovate tool for the treatment of water containing various kinds of pollutants. Although its pollutants removal mechanisms are similar to surface flow wetlands, its floating nature made it applicable for ponds, lake, and rivers with fluctuating water level. Most of the plant species used in FTWs are perennial species, which possess different properties such as root biomass, root length, height, and nutrient uptake. Plant roots system plays a crucial role in the removal of pollutants from wastewater by their direct uptake, provide residency and nutrients for the development of microbial biofilm, and filtration of the polluted water. The below-floating mat portion of macrophytes is reported to accumulate more nutrients as compared to the upper portion of plants. Although FTWs are efficient in both tropical and temperate climates, low temperature in temperate climate can reduce the performance of FTWs. Floating treatment wetlands are designed depending upon knowledge of researchers, availability of local material of floating mat, and indigenous plants. There is a need to develop some standards about the type of macrophytes, their nutrients uptake potential, structure and material of floating mat, plants density, plants harvesting and disposal procedure, hydraulic loading rate, retention time, and suitability of FTWs for their application at pilot scale for different types of wastewater. The microorganisms play an important role in degradation of organic pollutants. The investigation about the type of microorganisms specific for various kinds of pollutants, their organic pollutants degradation capacity, plant growth-promoting activities, performance, and synergetic relation with plants can help to improve the efficiency of FTWs. Harvesting of the plants in FTWs plays a vital role to remove nutrients from wastewater permanently. Further research is needed to investigate the removal of the whole plant or harvesting of specific plant portions for the maximum removal of pollutants from wastewater. Factors such as season for harvesting, multiple harvests in one season, and possible damage due to harvesting need further exploration. The plants used in FTWs mostly belong to grass family and can serve as a potential feed for livestock. Moreover, there is need of further research about nutritional values of these harvested plants and the ultimate effect on livestock health and products such as milk and meat.

Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Higher Education Commission, Pakistan (grant number 1-52/ILSUITSP/HEC/2014 and 20-3854/R&D/HEC/14), and International Foundation of Science, Sweden, and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (grant number W/5104-2).

The authors have declared no conflict of interest.

 

References [1] K. Ellery, W. Ellery, K. Rogers, B. Walker, Formation, colonization and fate of floating sudds in the Maunachira river system of the Okavango Delta, Botswana, Aquat. Bot. 1990, 38 (4), 315-329. [2] C.T. Mallison, R.K. Stocker, C.E. Cichra, Physical and vegetative characteristics of floating islands, J. Aquat. Plant Manage. 2001, (39), 107-111. [3] C.E. Sasser, J.G. Gosselink, G.P. Shaffer, Distribution of nitrogen and phosphorus in a Louisiana freshwater floating marsh, Aquat. Bot. 1991, 41 (4), 317-331. [4] M. Scholz, Wetland Systems - Storm Water Management Control, Springer-Verlag: Berlin, Germany 2010. [5] W.J. Mitsch, J.G. Gosselink, C.J. Anderson, L. Zhang, Wetland Ecosystems, John Wiley & Sons,

Hoboken, NJ, USA 2009. [6] V. Singh, L. Thakur, P. Mondal, Removal of lead and chromium from synthetic wastewater using Vetiveria zizanioides. Clean -- Soil Air Water 2015, 43(4), 538-543. [7] D. Xie, H. Zhou, H. Ji, Y. Chen, S. An, Effects of buoyancy and season on turion dispersal of submerged macrophyte Potamogeton crispus L., Clean -- Soil Air Water 2015, 43(3), 324-329. [8] L. Wang, H. Gan, F. Wang, X. Sun, Q. Zhu, Characteristic analysis of plants for the removal of nutrients from a constructed wetland using reclaimed water, Clean -- Soil Air Water 2010, 38(1), 35-43. [9] M. Scholz, R. Harrington, P. Carroll, A. Mustafa, The integrated constructed wetlands (ICW) concept, Wetlands 2007, 27 (2), 337-354. [10] A. Ijaz, Z. Iqbal, M. Afzal, Remediation of sewage and industrial effluent using bacterially assisted floating treatment wetlands vegetated with Typha domingensis, Water Sci. Technol. 2016, 74, 2192-2201. [11] M. Shehzadi, K. Fatima, A. Imran, M. S. Mirza, Q. M. Khan, M. Afzal, Ecology of bacterial endophytes associated with wetland plants growing in textile effluent for pollutant-degradation and plant growthpromotion potentials, Plant Biosystems 2016, 150, 1261-1270. [12] K.P. Weber, M. Gehder, R.L. Legge, Assessment of changes in the microbial community of constructed wetland mesocosms in response to acid mine drainage exposure, Water Res. 2008, 42 (1), 180-188. [13] J. Nyquist, M. Greger, A field study of constructed wetlands for preventing and treating acid mine drainage, Ecol. Eng. 2009, 35 (5), 630-642. [14] K. Rehman, A. Imran, I. Amin, M. Afzal, Inoculation with bacteria in floating treatment wetlands positively modulates the phytoremediation of oil field wastewater, J. Hazard. Mater. 2018, 349, 242-251. [15] D. Moreno, C. Pedrocchi, F.A. Comín, M. García, A. Cabezas, Creating wetlands for the improvement of water quality and landscape restoration in semi-arid zones degraded by intensive agricultural use, Ecol. Eng. 2007, 30 (2), 103-111. [16] T. Headley, C. Tanner, Floating treatment wetlands: an innovative option for stormwater quality applications, 11th International Conference on Wetland Systems for Water Pollution Control, Indore, India 2008. [17] C.C. Tanner, T.R. Headley, Components of floating emergent macrophyte treatment wetlands influencing removal of stormwater pollutants, Ecol. Eng. 2011, 37 (3), 474-486. [18] R.H. Kadlec, S. Wallace, Treatment wetlands, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL 2008. [19] S. Hoeger, Schwimmkampen Germany's artificial floating islands, J. Soil Water Conserv. 1988, 43 (4), 304-

 

306. [20] K. Nakamura, Y. Shimatani, O. Suzuki, S. Oguri, T. Yasumochi, The ecosystem of an artificial vegetated island, Ukishima. Lake Kasumigaura 1995, 1406-1409. [21] Q.-T. Wu, T. Gao, S. Zeng, H. Chua, Plant-biofilm oxidation ditch for in situ treatment of polluted waters, Ecol. Eng. 2006, 28 (2), 124-130. [22] M. Li, Y.-J. Wu, Z.-L. Yu, G.-P. Sheng, H.-Q. Yu, Nitrogen removal from eutrophic water by floating-bedgrown water spinach (Ipomoea aquatica Forsk.) with ion implantation, Water Res. 2007, 41 (14), 31523158. [23] H.-L. Song, X.-N. Li, X.-W. Lu, Y. Inamori, Investigation of microcystin removal from eutrophic surface water by aquatic vegetable bed, Ecol. Eng. 2009, 35 (11), 1589-1598. [24] M. Li, Y.-J. Wu, Z.-L. Yu, G.-P. Sheng, H.-Q. Yu, Enhanced nitrogen and phosphorus removal from eutrophic lake water by Ipomoea aquatica with low-energy ion implantation, Water Res. 2009, 43 (5), 1247-1256. [25] F. Zhao, S. Xi, X. Yang, W. Yang, J. Li, B. Gu, Z. He, Purifying eutrophic river waters with integrated floating island systems, Ecol. Eng. 2012, (40), 53-60. [26] W. Dunqiu, B. Shaoyuan, W. Mingyu, X. Qinglin, Z. Yinian, Z. Hua, Effect of artificial aeration, temperature, and structure on nutrient removal in constructed floating islands, Water Environ. Res. 2012, 84 (5), 405-410. [27] S. Ayaz, O. Saygin, Hydroponic tertiary treatment, Water Res. 1996, 30 (5), 1295-1298. [28] J. Cubillos, D. Paredes, P. Kuschk, Comparison between floating plant mat and horizontal subsurface flow CW for the treatment of a low strength domestic wastewater, Joint Meeting of Society of Wetland Scientists, Wetpol and Wetland Biogeochemistry Symposium 2011, pp. 3-8. [29] J. Faulwetter, M.D. Burr, A.B. Cunningham, F. Stewart, A.K. Camper, O.R. Stein, Floating treatment wetlands for domestic wastewater treatment, Water Sci. Technol. 2011, 64 (10), 2089-2095. [30] M. Hijosa-Valsero, R. Sidrach-Cardona, J. Martín-Villacorta, E. Bécares, Optimization of performance assessment and design characteristics in constructed wetlands for the removal of organic matter, Chemosphere 2010, 81 (5), 651-657. [31] L. Zhang, H. Shao, Heavy metal pollution in sediments from aquatic ecosystems in China, Clean -- Soil Air Water 2013, 41, 878-882. [32] T. Saeed, A. Al-Muyeed, R. Afrin, H. Rahman, G. Sun, Pollutant removal from municipal wastewater employing baffled subsurface flow and integrated surface flow-floating treatment wetlands, J. Environ. Sci. 2014, 26 (4), 726-736. [33] A.M. Van de Moortel, E. Meers, N. De Pauw, F.M. Tack, Effects of vegetation, season and temperature on the removal of pollutants in experimental floating treatment wetlands, Water Air Soil Pollut. 2010, 212 (14), 281-297. [34] A. Ijaz, G. Shabir, Q.M. Khan, M. Afzal, Enhanced remediation of sewage effluent by endophyte-assisted floating treatment wetlands, Ecol. Eng. 2015, (84), 58-66. [35] A.M. Van de Moortel, G. Du Laing, N. De Pauw, F.M. Tack, Distribution and mobilization of pollutants in the sediment of a constructed floating wetland used for treatment of combined sewer overflow events, Water Environ. Res 2011, 83 (5), 427-439.

 

[36] Z. Chen, P. Kuschk, N. Reiche, H. Borsdorf, M. Kästner, H. Köser, Comparative evaluation of pilot scale horizontal subsurface-flow constructed wetlands and plant root mats for treating groundwater contaminated with benzene and MTBE, J. Hazard. Mater. 2012, (209), 510-515. [37] Z. Chen, P. Kuschk, H. Paschke, M. Kästner, J.A. Müller, H. Köser, Treatment of a sulfate-rich groundwater contaminated with perchloroethene in a hydroponic plant root mat filter and a horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetland at pilot-scale, Chemosphere 2014, (117), 178-184. [38] K.E. Borne, Floating treatment wetland influences on the fate and removal performance of phosphorus in stormwater retention ponds, Ecol. Eng. 2014, (69), 76-82. [39] M. Kerr‐Upal, M. Seasons, G. Mulamoottil, Retrofitting a stormwater management facility with a wetland component, J. Environ. Sci. Health 2000, 35 (8), 1289-1307. [40] S. Khan, B.W. Melville, A. Shamseldin, Design of storm-water retention ponds with floating treatment wetlands, J. Environ. Eng. 2013, 139 (11), 1343-1349. [41] S. Ladislas, C. Gerente, F. Chazarenc, J. Brisson, Y. Andres, Floating treatment wetlands for heavy metal removal in highway stormwater ponds, Ecol. Eng. 2015, (80), 85-91. [42] D. Revitt, R. Shutes, N. Llewellyn, P. Worrall, Experimental reedbed systems for the treatment of airport runoff, Water Sci. Technol. 1997, 36 (8-9), 385-390. [43] C.C. Tanner, T. Headley, Floating treatment wetlands–an innovative solution to enhance removal of fine particulates, copper and zinc, NZWWA J. 2008, 26-30. [44] C.-Y. Wang, D.J. Sample, C. Bell, Vegetation effects on floating treatment wetland nutrient removal and harvesting strategies in urban stormwater ponds, Sci. Total Environ. 2014, (499), 384-393. [45] C.-Y. Wang, D.J. Sample, S.D. Day, T.J. Grizzard, Floating treatment wetland nutrient removal through vegetation harvest and observations from a field study, Ecol. Eng. 2015, (78), 15-26. [46] S.A. White, M.M. Cousins, Floating treatment wetland aided remediation of nitrogen and phosphorus from simulated stormwater runoff, Ecol. Eng. 2013, (61), 207-215. [47] R.J. Winston, W.F. Hunt, S.G. Kennedy, L.S. Merriman, J. Chandler, D. Brown, Evaluation of floating treatment wetlands as retrofits to existing stormwater retention ponds, Ecol. Eng. 2013, (54), 254-265. [48] M. Smith, M. Kalin, Floating wetland vegetation covers for suspended solids removal. Treatment wetlands for water quality improvement, Proceeding of Quebec 2000 Conference, CH2MHILL, Canada 2000. [49] H. Li, H. Hao, X. Yang, L. Xiang, F. Zhao, H. Jiang, Z. He, Purification of refinery wastewater by different perennial grasses growing in a floating bed, J. Plant Nutr. 2012, 35 (1), 93-110. [50] J. Richter, A. Wiessner, A. Zehnsdorf, J.A. Müller, P. Kuschk, Injection of hydrogen gas stimulates acid mine drainage treatment in laboratory‐scale hydroponic root mats, Eng. Life Sci. 2016, 16 (8), 769-776. [51] J. Todd, E.J. Brown, E. Wells, Ecological design applied, Ecol. Eng. 2003, 20 (5), 421-440. [52] R. Hubbard, G. Gascho, G. Newton, Use of floating vegetation to remove nutrients from swine lagoon wastewater, Trans. ASAE 2004, 47 (6), 1963. [53] J. Xin, B. Huang, Effects of pH on boron accumulation in cattail (Typha latifolia) shoots, and evaluation of floating islands and upward flow mesocosms for the removal of boron from wastewater, Plant Soil 2017, 412 (1-2), 163-176. [54] L. Zhu, Z. Li, T. Ketola, Biomass accumulations and nutrient uptake of plants cultivated on artificial floating beds in China's rural area, Ecol. Eng. 2011, 37 (10), 1460-1466.

 

[55] H.E. Keizer-Vlek, P.F. Verdonschot, R.C. Verdonschot, D. Dekkers, The contribution of plant uptake to nutrient removal by floating treatment wetlands, Ecol. Eng. 2014, (73), 684-690. [56] N.-B. Chang, Z. Xuan, Z. Marimon, K. Islam, M.P. Wanielista, Exploring hydrobiogeochemical processes of floating treatment wetlands in a subtropical stormwater wet detention pond, Ecol. Eng. 2013, (54), 66-76. [57]

H. Saleem, K. Rehman, M. Arslan, M. Afzal, Enhanced degradation of phenol in floating treatment wetlands by plant-bacterial synergism. Int. J. Phytorem. 2018, 20 (7), 692-698.

[58] H. Saleem, M. Arslan, K. Rehman, R. Tahseen, M. Afzal, Phragmites australis—a helophytic grass—can establish successful partnership with phenol-degrading bacteria in a floating treatment wetland, Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2018, corrected proof. DOI: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2018.01.014 [59] F. Fink, W.J. Mitsch, Hydrology and nutrient biogeochemistry in a created river diversion oxbow wetland, Ecol. Eng. 2007, 30 (2), 93-102. [60] B. Gopal, Natural and constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment: potentials and problems, Water Sci. Technol. 1999, 40(3), 27-35. [61] E.H. Hogg, R.W. Wein, The contribution of Typha components to floating mat buoyancy, Ecology 1988, 69(4), 1025-1031. [62] J. Vymazal, Plants used in constructed wetlands with horizontal subsurface flow, Hydrobiologia 2011, 674 (1), 133-156. [63] F.M. Stewart, T. Muholland, A.B. Cunningham, B.G. Kania, M.T. Osterlund, Floating islands as an alternative to constructed wetlands for treatment of excess nutrients from agricultural and municipal wastes–results of laboratory-scale tests, Land Contam. Reclamat 2008, 16 (1), 25-33. [64] P.F. Breen, A mass balance method for assessing the potential of artificial wetlands for wastewater treatment. Water Res. 1990, 24 (6), 689-697. [65] S. Billore, J. Sharma, Treatment performance of artificial floating reed beds in an experimental mesocosm to improve the water quality of river Kshipra, Water Sci. Technol. 2009, 60 (11), 2851-2859. [66] C.-H. Yen, K.-F. Chen, Y.-T. Sheu, C.-C. Lin, and J.-J. Horng, Pollution source investigation and water quality management in the carp lake watershed, Taiwan, Clean -- Soil Air Water 2012, 40, 24-33. [67] H. Wand, G. Vacca, P. Kuschk, M. Krüger, M. Kästner, Removal of bacteria by filtration in planted and non-planted sand columns, Water Res. 2007, 41 (1), 159-167. [68] U. Stottmeister, A. Wießner, P. Kuschk, U. Kappelmeyer, M. Kästner, O. Bederski, R. Müller, H. Moormann, Effects of plants and microorganisms in constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment, Biotechnol. Adv. 2003, 22 (1), 93-117. [69] J. Armstrong, W. Armstrong, Light‐enhanced convective throughflow increases oxygenation in rhizomes and rhizosphere of Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steud., New Phytol. 1990, 114 (1), 121-128. [70] M. Drew, P. Saglio, A. Pradet, Larger adenylate energy charge and ATP/ADP ratios in aerenchymatous roots of Zea mays in anaerobic media as a consequence of improved internal oxygen transport, Planta 1985, 165 (1), 51-58. [71] H.G. Williams, A. Białowiec, F. Slater, P.F. Randerson, Diurnal cycling of dissolved gas concentrations in a willow vegetation filter treating landfill leachate, Ecol. Eng. 2010, 36 (12), 1680-1685. [72] O.R. Stein, P.B. Hook, Temperature, plants, and oxygen: how does season affect constructed wetland performance?, J. Environ. Sci. Health 2005, 40 (6-7), 1331-1342.

 

[73] A. Białowiec, L. Davies, A. Albuquerque, P.F. Randerson, The influence of plants on nitrogen removal from landfill leachate in discontinuous batch shallow constructed wetland with recirculating subsurface horizontal flow, Ecol. Eng. 2012, (40), 44-52. [74] W. Armstrong, D. Cousins, J. Armstrong, D. Turner, P. Beckett, Oxygen distribution in wetland plant roots and permeability barriers to gas-exchange with the rhizosphere: a microelectrode and modelling study with Phragmites australis, Ann. Bot. 2000, 86 (3), 687-703. [75] H. Wu, K. Xu, X. He, X. Wang, Removal of nitrogen by three plant species in hydroponic culture: plant uptake and microbial degradation, Water Air Soil Pollut. 2016, 227 (9), 324-332. [76] A. Ijaz, A. Imran, M.A. Ul-Haq, Q.M. Khan, M. Afzal, Phytoremediation: recent advances in plantendophytic synergistic interactions, Plant Soil 2016, 405, 179-195. [77] M. Robles-Pliego, E. J. Olguín, J. Hernández-Landa, R. E. González-Portela, G. Sánchez-Galván, F. Cuervo-López, Dual purpose system for water treatment from a polluted river and the production of Pistia stratiotes biomass within a biorefinery, Clean -- Soil Air Water 2015, 43, 1514-1521. [78] B. Mitter, G. Brader, M. Afzal, S. Compant, M. Naveed, F. Trognitz, A. Sessitsch, Advances in Elucidating Beneficial Interactions Between Plants, Soil, and Bacteria, in: L.S. Donald (Ed.) Advances in Agronomy, Academic Press, Burlington, USA 2013, 121, 381-445. [79] Y.C. Li, D.Q. Zhang, M. Wang, Performance evaluation of a full-scale constructed wetland for treating stormwater runoff, Clean -- Soil Air Water 2017, 45 (11), 1600740. [80] M. Afzal, S. Yousaf, T.G. Reichenauer, A. Sessitsch, Ecology of alkane-degrading bacteria and their interaction with the plant, in: F. J. de Bruijn (Ed.) Molecular Microbial Ecology of the Rhizosphere, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, USA 2013, pp. 975-989. [81] S. Khan, M. Afzal, S. Iqbal, Q.M. Khan, Plant-bacteria partnerships for the remediation of hydrocarbon contaminated soils, Chemosphere 2013, 90, 1317-1332. [82] M. Arslan, A. Imran, Q.M. Khan, M. Afzal, Plant–bacteria partnerships for the remediation of persistent organic pollutants, Environ. Sci. Poll. Res. 2017, 24, 4322-4336. [83] S. Khan, M. Afzal, S. Iqbal, M.S. Mirza, Q.M. Khan, Inoculum pretreatment affects bacterial survival, activity and catabolic gene expression during phytoremediation of diesel contaminated soil, Chemosphere 2013, 91, 663-668. [84] M. Afzal, Q.M. Khan, A. Sessitsch, Endophytic bacteria: prospects and applications for the phytoremediation of organic pollutants, Chemosphere 2014, (117), 232-242. [85] M. Shehzadi, M. Afzal, M.U. Khan, E. Islam, A. Mobin, S. Anwar, Q.M. Khan, Enhanced degradation of textile effluent in constructed wetland system using Typha domingensis and textile effluent-degrading endophytic bacteria, Water Res. 2014, (58), 152-159. [86] S. Kouki, N. Saidi, F. M'Hiri, A. Hafiane, A comparative study of nutrients, cadmium, and chromium bioremoval efficiencies of three emergent macrophytes from a metal-contaminated wastewater, Clean -Soil Air Water 2015, 43, 1531-1537. [87] M.U. Khan, A. Sessitsch, M. Harris, K. Fatima, A. Imran, M. Arslan, G. Shabir, Q.M. Khan, M. Afzal, Crresistant rhizo-and endophytic bacteria associated with Prosopis juliflora and their potential as phytoremediation enhancing agents in metal-degraded soils, Front. Plant Sci. 2015, (5), 755. [88] A. Noyola, A. Padilla-Rivera, J. M. Morgan-Sagastume, L. P. Güereca, F. Hernández-Padilla, Typology of

 

municipal wastewater treatment technologies in Latin America, Clean -- Soil Air Water 2012, 40, 926-932. [89] M. Afzal, S. Yousaf, T.G. Reichenauer, A. Sessitsch, The inoculation method affetcs colonization and performance of bacterial inoculant strains in the phytoremediation of soil contaminated with diesel oil, Int. J. Phytorem. 2012, 14, 35-47. [90] X. Fan, B. Cui, K. Zhang, Z. Zhang, H. Zhao, Construction of river channel-wetland networks for controlling water pollution in the Pearl River Delta, China, Clean -- Soil Air Water 2012, 40 (10), 10271035. [91] A.R. Council, Application of Floating Wetlands for Enhanced Stormwater Treatment: A Review, Technical Publication 2006, 324. [92] T.A. DeBusk, J.E. Peterson, K.R. Reddy, Use of aquatic and terrestrial plants for removing phosphorus from dairy wastewaters, Ecol. Eng. 1995, 5 (2-3), 371-390. [93] S.A. White, B. Seda, M. Cousins, S.J. Klaine, T. Whitwell, Nutrient remediation using vegetated floating mats. SNA Research Conference 2009, pp. 39-43. [94] L. Cui, Y. Ouyang, Q. Lou, F. Yang, Y. Chen, W. Zhu, S. Luo, Removal of nutrients from wastewater with Canna indica L. under different vertical-flow constructed wetland conditions, Ecol. Eng. 2010, 36 (8), 1083-1088. [95] Z. Chen, D.P. Cuervo, J.A. Müller, A. Wiessner, H. Köser, J. Vymazal, M. Kästner, P. Kuschk, Hydroponic root mats for wastewater treatment, Environ Sci. Pollut. Res Int. 2016, 23 (16), 15911-15928. [96] L.P. Lamers, L.L. Govers, I.C. Janssen, J.J. Geurts, M.E. Van der Welle, M.M. Van Katwijk, T. Van der Heide, J. G.M. Roelofs, A.J.P. Smolders, Sulfide as a soil phytotoxin, Front. Plant Sci. 2013, 4. [97] B.M. Deegan, S.D. White, G.G. Ganf, The influence of water level fluctuations on the growth of four emergent macrophyte species, Aquat. Bot. 2007, 86 (4), 309-315. [98] C.M. Bonilla-Warford, J.B. Zedler, Potential for using native plant species in stormwater wetlands, Environ. Manage. 2002, 29 (3), 385-394. [99] R.H. Kadlec, K. Reddy, Temperature effects in treatment wetlands, Water Environ. Res 2001, 73 (5), 543557. [100]

M. Afzal, S. Yousaf, T.G. Reichenauer, M. Kuffner, A. Sessitsch, Soil type affects plant colonization,

activity and catabolic gene expression of inoculated bacterial strains during phytoremediation of diesel, J. Hazard. Mater. 2011, 186, 568-1575. [101]

D.J. Spieles, W.J. Mitsch, The effects of season and hydrologic and chemical loading on nitrate

retention in constructed wetlands: a comparison of low-and high-nutrient riverine systems, Ecol. Eng. 1999, 14 (1), 77-91. [102]

R.H. Kadlec, Chemical, physical and biological cycles in treatment wetlands, Water Sci. Technol.

1999, 40 (3), 37-44. [103]

H.B. Wittgren, T. Maehlum, Wastewater treatment wetlands in cold climates, Water Sci. Technol.

1997, 35 (5), 45-53. [104]

S. Ashraf, M. Afzal, M. Naveed, M. Shahid, Z. Ahmad Zahir, Endophytic bacteria enhance

remediation of tannery effluent in constructed wetlands vegetated with Leptochloa fusca, Int. J. Phytorem. 2018, 20, 121-128. [105]

S. Ashraf, M. Afzal, M. Naveed, R. Tahseen, Z.A. Zahir, Enhanced remediation of tannery effluent in

 

constructed wetlands augmented with endophytic bacteria, Desalin. Water Treat. 2018, 102, 93-100 [106]

G. Maltais-Landry, R. Maranger, J. Brisson, Effect of artificial aeration and macrophyte species on

nitrogen cycling and gas flux in constructed wetlands, Ecol. Eng. 2009, 35 (2), 221-229. [107]

Z. Hussain, M. Arslan, M.H. Malik, M. Mohsin, S. Iqbal, M. Afzal, Treatment of the textile industry

effluent in a pilot-scale vertical flow constructed wetland system augmented with bacterial endophytes, Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 645, 966-973. [108]

G. Maltais-Landry, R. Maranger, J. Brisson, F. Chazarenc, Nitrogen transformations and retention in

planted and artificially aerated constructed wetlands, Water Res. 2009, 43 (2), 535-545. [109]

C. Ouellet-Plamondon, F. Chazarenc, Y. Comeau, J. Brisson, Artificial aeration to increase pollutant

removal efficiency of constructed wetlands in cold climate, Ecol. Eng. 2006, 27 (3), 258-264. [110]

S. Ashraf, M. Afzal, K. Rehman, M. Naveed, Z.A. Zahir, Plant-endophyte synergism in constructed

wetlands enhances the remediation of tannery effluent, Water Sci. Technol. 2018, 77(5), 1262-1270. [111]

S. Yousaf, M. Afzal, T.G. Reichenauer, C.L. Brady, A. Sessitsch, Hydrocarbon degradation, plant

colonization and gene expression of alkane degradation genes by endophytic Enterobacter ludwigii strains, Environ. Pollut. 2011, (159), 2675-2683. [112]

L.H. Chua, S.B. Tan, C. Sim, M.K. Goyal, Treatment of baseflow from an urban catchment by a

floating wetland system, Ecol. Eng. 2012, (49), 170-180. [113]

M.T. Ahsan, M. Najam-ul-haq, M. Idrees, I. Ullah, M. Afzal, Bacterial endophytes enhance

phytostabilization in soils contaminated with uranium and lead, Int. J. Phytorem. 2017, (19), 937-946. [114]

C.C. Hoffmann, L. Heiberg, J. Audet, B. Schønfeldt, A. Fuglsang, B. Kronvang, N.B. Ovesen, C.

Kjaergaard, H.C.B. Hansen, H.S. Jensen, Low phosphorus release but high nitrogen removal in two restored riparian wetlands inundated with agricultural drainage water, Ecol. Eng. 2012, (46), 75-87. [115]

K. Nakamura, Y. Shimatani, Water purification and environmental enhancement by artificial floating

island, Proceedings of Asia Waterqual in Korea. IANQ 1997, 888-895. [116]

K.E. Borne, E.A. Fassman, C.C. Tanner, Floating treatment wetland retrofit to improve stormwater

pond performance for suspended solids, copper and zinc, Ecol. Eng. 2013, (54), 173-182. [117]

A. Karathanasis, C. Potter, M. Coyne, Vegetation effects on fecal bacteria, BOD, and suspended solid

removal in constructed wetlands treating domestic wastewater, Ecol. Eng. 2003, 20 (2), 157-169. [118]

K. Fatima, A. Imran, I. Amin, Q.M. Khan, M. Afzal, Successful phytoremediation of crude-oil

contaminated soil at an oil exploration and production company by plants--bacterial synergism, Int. J. Phytoremediation 2018, (20), 675-681. [119]

N. Tara, M. Afzal, T.M. Ansari, R. Tahseen, S. Iqbal, Q.M. Khan, Combined use of alkane-degrading

and plant growth-promoting bacteria enhanced phytoremediation of diesel contaminated soil, Int. J. Phytorem. 2013, 16, 1268-1277. [120]

G. Merlin, J.-L. Pajean, T. Lissolo, Performances of constructed wetlands for municipal wastewater

treatment in rural mountainous area, Hydrobiologia 2002, 469 (1), 87-98. [121]

K. Boonsong, M. Chansiri, Domestic wastewater treatment using vetiver grass cultivated with floating

platform technique, J. Technol. 2008, 12 (2), 73-80. [122]

Y. Yang, A. Costa, N. Leonhardt, R.S. Siegel, J.I. Schroeder, Isolation of a strong Arabidopsis guard

cell promoter and its potential as a research tool, Plant Methods 2008, 4 (1), 6.

 

[123]

J. Vymazal, Constructed wetlands for treatment of industrial wastewaters, Ecol. Eng. 2014, 73, 724-

751. [124]

X. Li, R. Guo, Comparison of nitrogen removal in floating treatment wetlands constructed with

Phragmites australis and Acorus calamus in a cold temperate zone, Water Air Soil Pollut. 2017, 228 (4), 132-136. [125]

C.E. Boyd, Vascular aquatic plants for mineral nutrient removal from polluted waters, Econ. Bot. 1970,

24 (1), 95-103. [126]

M. Karpiscak, K. Foster, S. Hope, P. Warshall, Using water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes L.) to treat

municipal wastewater, Arid Lands Newsletter (USA) 1992). [127]

H. Brix, Do macrophytes play a role in constructed treatment wetlands?, Water Sci. Technol. 1997, 35

(5), 11-17. [128]

L. Wen, F. Recknagel, In situ removal of dissolved phosphorus in irrigation drainage water by planted

floats: preliminary results from growth chamber experiment, Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2002, 90 (1), 9-15. [129]

B. Singh, A. Guldhe, I. Rawat, F. Bux, Towards a sustainable approach for development of biodiesel

from plant and microalgae, Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 2014, 29, 216-245. [130]

S.P. Cuellar-Bermudez, G.S. Aleman-Nava, R. Chandra, J.S. Garcia-Perez, J.R. Contreras-Angulo, G.

Markou, K. Muylaert, B.E. Rittmann, R.P.-Saldivar, Nutrients utilization and contaminants removal. A review of two approaches of algae and cyanobacteria in wastewater, Algal Res. 2016, 24, 438-449. [131]

C. Gupta, D. Prakash, Duckweed: an effective tool for phyto-remediation, Toxicol. Environ. Chem.

2013, 95 (8), 1256-1266. [132]

M. Borin, M. Salvato, Effects of five macrophytes on nitrogen remediation and mass balance in

wetland mesocosms, Ecol. Eng. 2012, (46), 34-42. [133]

Y.-F. Lin, S.-R. Jing, T.-W. Wang, D.-Y. Lee, Effects of macrophytes and external carbon sources on

nitrate removal from groundwater in constructed wetlands, Environ. Pollut. 2002, 119 (3), 413-420. [134]

C.C. Tanner, R.H. Kadlec, M.M. Gibbs, J.P. Sukias, M.L. Nguyen, Nitrogen processing gradients in

subsurface-flow treatment wetlands—influence of wastewater characteristics, Ecol. Eng. 2002, 18 (4), 499520. [135]

G.A. Evdokimova, L.A. Ivanova, N.P. Mozgova, V.A. Myazin, N.V. Fokina, Floating bioplato for

purification of waste quarry waters from mineral nitrogen compounds in the Arctic, J. Environ. Sci. Health 2016, 51 (10), 833-838. [136]

J.W. Lengeler, G. Drews, H.G. Schlegel, Biology of the Prokaryotes, Georg Thieme Verlag, Stuttgart

1999. [137]

C. Tanner, J. Sukias, M. Upsdell, Substratum phosphorus accumulation during maturation of gravel-

bed constructed wetlands, Water Sci. Technol. 1999, 40 (3), 147-154. [138]

Q. Xian, L. Hu, H. Chen, Z. Chang, H. Zou, Removal of nutrients and veterinary antibiotics from swine

wastewater by a constructed macrophyte floating bed system, J. Environ. Manage. 2010, 91 (12), 26572661. [139]

C.C. Tanner, Plants for constructed wetland treatment systems—a comparison of the growth and

nutrient uptake of eight emergent species, Ecol. Eng. 1996, 7 (1), 59-83. [140]

M. Greenway, A. Woolley, Constructed wetlands in Queensland: performance efficiency and nutrient

 

bioaccumulation, Ecol. Eng. 1999, 12 (1), 39-55. [141]

C. Huang, J. Bai, H. Shao, H. Gao, R. Xiao, L. Huang, P. Liu, Changes in soil properties before and

after wetland degradation in the Yellow River Delta, China, Clean -- Soil Air Water 2012, 40, 1125-1130. [142]

J. Lynch, L.J. Fox, J.S. Owen Jr, D.J. Sample, Evaluation of commercial floating treatment wetland

technologies for nutrient remediation of stormwater, Ecol. Eng. 2015, (75), 61-69. [143]

R.M. Harrison, S.J. Wilson, The chemical composition of highway drainage waters, III. Runoff water

metal speciation characteristics, Sci. Total Environ. 1985, 43 (1-2), 89-102. [144]

M. McBride, Environmental Chemistry of Soils, Oxford Univ. Press, New York 1994.

[145]

S. Nelson, D. Yonge, M. Barber, Effects of road salts on heavy metal mobility in two eastern

Washington soils, J. Environ. Eng. 2009, 135 (7), 505-510. [146]

B. Béchet, B. Durin, M. Legret, P. Le Cloirec, Size Fractionation of Heavy Metals in Highway Runoff

Waters. In: Rauch S., Morrison G., Monzón A. (eds) Highway and Urban Environment. Alliance for Global Sustainability Book Series (Science and Technology: Tools for Sustainable Development), Springer, Dordrecht 2009, pp. 235-244. [147]

I.A.H. Schneider, J. Rubio, Sorption of heavy metal ions by the nonliving biomass of freshwater

macrophytes, Environ. Sci. Technol. 1999, 33 (13), 2213-2217. [148]

M. Vainshtein, P. Kuschk, J. Mattusch, A. Vatsourina, A. Wiessner, Model experiments on the

microbial removal of chromium from contaminated groundwater, Water Res. 2003, 37 (6), 1401-1405. [149]

P. Miretzky, A. Saralegui, A.F. Cirelli, Simultaneous heavy metal removal mechanism by dead

macrophytes, Chemosphere 2006, 62 (2), 247-254. [150]

A. Neori, K.R. Reddy, H. Číšková-Končalová, M. Agami, Bioactive chemicals and biological—

biochemical activities and their functions in rhizospheres of wetland plants, Bot. Rev. 2000, 66 (3), 350378. [151]

A.P. Mucha, C.M.R. Almeida, A.A. Bordalo, M.T.S. Vasconcelos, Salt marsh plants (Juncus

maritimus and Scirpus maritimus) as sources of strong complexing ligands, Estuarine Coastal Shelf Sci. 2008, 77 (1), 104-112. [152]

M. Mullen, D. Wolf, F. Ferris, T. Beveridge, C. Flemming, G. Bailey, Bacterial sorption of heavy

metals, Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1989, 55 (12), 3143-3149. [153]

A. Sessitsch, M. Kuffner, P. Kidd, J. Vangronsveld, W.W. Wenzel, K. Fallmann, M. Puschenreiter,

The role of plant-associated bacteria in the mobilization and phytoextraction of trace elements in contaminated soils, Soil Biol. Biochem. 2013, (60), 182-194. [154]

Y. Ma, M. Rajkumar, H. Freitas, Inoculation of plant growth promoting bacterium Achromobacter

xylosoxidans strain Ax10 for the improvement of copper phytoextraction by Brassica juncea, J. Environ. Manage. 2009, 90 (2), 831-837. [155]

M. Rajkumar, S. Sandhya, M. Prasad, H. Freitas, Perspectives of plant-associated microbes in heavy

metal phytoremediation, Biotechnol. Adv. 2012, 30 (6), 1562-1574. [156]

S. Reichman, Probing the plant growth-promoting and heavy metal tolerance characteristics of

Bradyrhizobium japonicum CB1809, Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2014, (63), 7-13. [157]

G.M. Gadd, Metals, minerals and microbes: geomicrobiology and bioremediation, Microbiology 2010,

156 (3), 609-643.

 

[158]

L.-J. Zhu, D.-X. Guan, J. Luo, B. Rathinasabapathi, L.Q. Ma, Characterization of arsenic-resistant

endophytic bacteria from hyperaccumulators Pteris vittata and Pteris multifida, Chemosphere 2014, (113), 9-16. [159]

K.R. Reddy, R.D. DeLaune, Biogeochemistry of wetlands: science and applications, CRC Press, Boca

Raton, FL 2008. [160]

D. Emerson, J.V. Weiss, J.P. Megonigal, Iron-oxidizing bacteria are associated with ferric hydroxide

precipitates (Fe-plaque) on the roots of wetland plants, Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1999, 65 (6), 2758-2761. [161]

W.J. Liu, Y.G. Zhu, Iron and Mn plaques on the surface of roots of wetland plants, Acta Ecol. Sin.

2005 25 (2), 358-363. [162]

Z. Ye, K. Cheung, M. Wong, Copper uptake in Typha latifolia as affected by iron and manganese

plaque on the root surface, Can. J. Bot. 2001, 79 (3), 314-320. [163]

C.L. Murray-Gulde, G.M. Huddleston, K.V. Garber, J.H. Rodgers, Contributions of Schoenoplectus

californicus in a constructed wetland system receiving copper contaminated wastewater, Water Air Soil Pollut. 2005, 163 (1), 355-378. [164]

C.B. Sekomo, E. Nkuranga, D.P. Rousseau, P.N. Lens, Fate of heavy metals in an urban natural

wetland: the Nyabugogo Swamp (Rwanda), Water Air Soil Pollut. 2011, 214 (1-4), 321-333. [165]

T.S. Wood, M.L. Shelley, A dynamic model of bioavailability of metals in constructed wetland

sediments, Ecol. Eng. 1999, 12 (3), 231-252. [166]

A. Piccolo, The supramolecular structure of humic substances, Soil Sci. 2001, 166 (11), 810-832.

[167]

C. Durand, V. Ruban, A. Amblès, Mobility of trace metals in retention pond sediments, Environ.

Technol. 2004, 25 (8), 881-888. [168]

S.-X. Zhu, P. Zhang, H. Wang, H.-L. Ge, J. Chang, S. Chang. Plant species richness affected nitrogen

retention and ecosystem productivity in a full-scale constructed wetland, Clean -- Soil Air Water 2012, 40, 341-347. [169]

R. Hubbard, W. Anderson, G. Newton, J. Ruter, J. Wilson, Plant growth and elemental uptake by

floating vegetation on a single-stage swine wastewater lagoon, Trans. ASABE 2011, 54 (3), 837-845. [170]

M. Van Buren, W. Watt, J. Marsalek, Enhancing the removal of pollutants by an on-stream pond,

Water Sci. Technol. 1996, 33 (4-5), 325-332. [171]

H. Bavor, C. Davies, K. Sakadevan, Stormwater treatment: do constructed wetlands yield improved

pollutant management performance over a detention pond system?, Water Sci. Technol. 2001, 44 (11-12), 565-570. [172]

X. Shen, D. Huang, C. Zhang, K. Hu, Performance evaluation of constructed wetlands treating

wastewater treatment plant effluent in Taihu Lake, China, Clean -- Soil Air Water 2018, 46 (1), 1600442. [173]

A.A. Keller, L. Cavallaro, Assessing the US Clean Water Act 303 (d) listing process for determining

impairment of a waterbody, J. Environ. Manage. 2008, 86 (4), 699-711. [174]

C. Ahn, W.J. Mitsch, Scaling considerations of mesocosm wetlands in simulating large created

freshwater marshes, Ecol. Eng. 2002, 18 (3), 327-342. [175]

N. Fonder, T. Headley, Systematic classification, nomenclature and reporting for constructed treatment

wetlands. Water and Nutrient Management in Natural and Constructed Wetlands, Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands 2010, pp. 191-219.

 

[176]

J.S. Dunbabin, K.H. Bowmer, Potential use of constructed wetlands for treatment of industrial

wastewaters containing metals, Sci. Total Environ. 1992, 111 (2-3), 151-168. [177]

J. Carleton, T. Grizzard, A. Godrej, H. Post, Factors affecting the performance of stormwater treatment

wetlands, Water Res. 2001, 35 (6), 1552-1562. [178]

X. Liu, H. Xu, X. Wang, Z. Wu, X. Bao, An ecological engineering pond aquaculture recirculating

system for effluent purification and water quality control, Clean -- Soil Air Water 2014, 42, 221-228. [179]

Z. Hussain, M. Arslan, M.H. Malik, M. Mohsin, S. Iqbal, M. Afzal, Integrated perspectives on the use

of bacterial endophytes in horizontal flow constructed wetlands for the treatment of liquid textile effluent: Phytoremediation advances in the field, J. Environ. Manage. 2018, 224, 387-395. [180]

M. Tsezos, Metal-microbes interactions: beyond environmental protection, Adv. Mater. Res. 2009, 71-

73, 527-532.

Fig. 1. Schematic representation of floating treatment wetlands elucidating pollutants removal by different mechanisms. Figure 2: Schematic representation of a floating mat with vegetation. Figure 3: Degradation of organic compounds by plant-bacteria partnership. Figure 4: Remediation of heavy metals by bacterial interaction (re-drawn from [180]).

Table 1. Diverse terminology for floating treatment wetlands Specific term

Reference

Constructed floating wetlands

[27]

Floating island

[23,47]

Floating treatment wetlands

[11, 25, 28, 38-41, 49, 50, 58-60]

Artificial floating beds

[48]

Floating island system

[19]

Floating beds

[43]

Floating bioplato

[61]

Hydroponic root mats

[44]

Table 2. Plant bacteria partnership for pollutants remediation Plant

Bacterium

Pollutant

Reference

Ricinus communis

Pseudomonas sp. M6; Pseudomonas

Ni, Cu and Zn

[100]

jessenii M15

 

Panicum virgatum

Burkholderia xenovorans LB400

Organic pesticides;

[101, 102]

PCBs Festuca pratensis,

Neotyphodium coenophialum

Cd

[103]

Pantoea stewartii ASI11, Microbacterium

Cr, Mn, Ni, Pb and TOC

[104]

Festuca arundinacea Leptochloa fusca

arborescens HU33, and Enterobacter sp. HU38 Populus trichocarpa

Pseudomonas putida W619-TCE

TCE

[88]

Typha domingensis

M. arborescens HU33, P. stewartii ASI11,

COD, BOD and Cr

[105]

and Enterobacter sp. HU38 Populus trichocarpa

Methylobacterium populi

TNT, RDX and HMX

[106]

Lolium multiforum

Enterobacter ludwigii strains

Diesel

[107]

Solanum nigrum

Serratia sp. LRE07

Cd, Cr, Pb and Cu

[108]

Lolium multiflorum

Pseudomonas sp. strain ITRI53,

Diesel

[109]

M. arborescens HU33, P. stewartii ASI11,

Cr, Mn, Ni, Pb, COD,

[110]

and Enterobacter sp. HU38

BOD and TOC

Sorghum bicolor

Bacillus sp. SLS18

Cd and Mn

[111]

Populus trichocarpa

Enterobacter sp. Strain PDN3

TCE

[112]

Leptochloa fusca

P. stewartii ASI11, Enterobacter sp.

U and Pb

[113]

Pseudomonas sp. strain MixRI75 Brachiaria mutica

HU38, and M. arborescens HU33 Sedum alfredii

Sphingomonas SaMR12

Zn

[114]

Salix alba

Pseudomonas putida PD1

Cd

[115]

Amaranthus

Rahnella sp. JN27

Cd

[116]

Noccaea

Microbacterium sp. NCr-8, Arthrobacter

Ni

[117]

Caerulescens, Thlaspi

sp. NCr-1, Bacillus sp. NCr-5, Bacillus sp.

perfoliatum

NCr-9, Kocuria sp. NCr-3

Leptochloa fusca,

Acinetobacter sp. strain BRSI56,

Crude oil

[118]

Brachiaria mutica

Pseudomonas aeruginosa strain BRRI54

Diesel

[119]

hypochondriacus, Amaranthus mangostanus

and Klebsiella sp. strain LCRI87 Axonopus affinis

Pseudomonas sp. ITRH25, Pantoea sp. BTRH79 and Burkholderia sp. PsJN

HMX, octahydro-1,3,5,7-tetranitro-1,3,5,7-tetrazocine; PCB, polychlorinated biphenyl; RDX, 1,3,5-trinitro1,3,5-triazacyclohexane; TCE, 1,1,1-trichloroethane; TNT, 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene

 

Table 3. Removal of organic matter, nutrients and heavy metals from wastewater by floating treatment wetland Wastewater

Study

Floating mat

Plant

Pollution reduction

Reference

Pilot

Composed of plastic pipes with foam to

Care spp., Lythrum salicaria,

TN: 42%, NH4-N: 35%, P: 22%, COD:

[27]

scale

create buoyancy covered with rough

Phragmites australis, and Juncus

53%

messed wire netting and on the top of

effusus

level Domestic

netting coconut coir was put to hold vegetation. Domestic

Laborato

Composed of porous commercial mats

ry scale

made

from

100%

Cyperus ustulatus

TN: 50%, COD: 90%

[23]

[11]

recycled

plastic/shredded carpet fibers contained a porous mesh. Storm

Pilot

Floating mats made of inter-wined

Carex virgate, Cyperus ustulatus,

Cu: 5.6--7.7 mg/m2 per day, Zn: 25--104

water

scale

polyester fiber with approximately 95%

Juncus

mg/m2 per day P: -3--27 mg/m2 per day,

porosity, and patches of polystyrene

Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani

FSS: 34--44%

TN and TP mass uptake (g/m2):

edgariae,

and

foam for buoyancy, supported with fiberglass rods arranged criss-crossed from corner to corner of tanks. Domestic

Field

Pipe-rope bed supported with PVC

Oenanthe

javanica

scale

pipes, ropes fixed around PVC pipes,

Gypsophila

sp.

each rope having knots to grow and fix

japonica

(Rj),

plants.

sanderiana

Oj),

(Gy),

(Ds),

Rohdea

Oj: 2.17 and 0.167, Gy: 3.92 and 0.247,

Dracaena

Rj: 0.51 and 0.062, Ds: 1.72 and 0.078,

Gardenia

Gg: 0.61 and 0.075, Gp: 0.64 and 0.071,

jasminoides Var. grandiflora (Gg), Gardenia prostrata

jasminoides (Gp),

babylonica (Sb)

and

Var. Salix

Sb:4.48 and 0.331

[48]

 

Pisitia

NH+4-N: 36.9%, NO3--: 44.8%, NO2---N:

reppens,

25.6%, TP: 53.2%, Cr: 87%, Cu, AS,

verticillata,

Cd, Hg, Pb: 43--55%, and E. coli: 61--

Polluted

Field

Made form PVC pipes, two adsorptive

Eichhirnia

crasslpes,

river water

scale

biofilm materials composed of multi-

stratiotes,

Jussiaea

faced hollow ball made of bamboo slice

Hydrocotyle

hollow ball and elasticity packing were

Hydrocharis dubia, Myriophyllum

set under the plastic nets. Plants

aquaticum, Pontederia cordata,

transplanted into nylon rhizo-bags filled

Canna indica, and Calla palustris

[19]

71%

with soil and charcoal. At upper side plastic net was set to prevent plant lodging. Refinery

Pilot

Floating bed made form polyethylene

Geophila herbacea, Caddieshack,

TN: 60%, TP: 56%, COD: 52--67%, and

scale

foam.

and Lolium perenne

TPH: 40--55%

Storm

Field

Floating mat was made of polyethylene.

Carex virgata

TSS: 41%, Zn: 40%, Cu: 39%, and Cu:

water

scale

Storm

Field

Mats constructed from extruded plastic

Juncus

water

scale

woven together with injected closed cell

Andropogon

foam and internally supported with PVC

Hibiscus moscheutos

[43]

[58]

16% effuses,

Carex

TN: 48%, TP: 39%, and TSS: 78%

[41]

Juncus effuses and Canna flaccida

N: 28.5 g/m2, and P: 1.69 g/m2

[40]

[50]

gerardii,

stricta, and

pipes. Storm

Pilot

Floating mats were Beemats: buoyant

water

scale

interlocking mat square joined using

runoff

nylon connectors and secured with locking waster to maintain integrity.

Subtropical

Field

Floating mats (BioHaven® Floating

Juncus effuses and Pontederia

TN: 15.7%, nitrate and nitrate-nitrogen:

storm water

scale

Island) were used. Floating mats were

cordata

20.6%, ammonia-nitrogen: 51.1%, TP:

composed of fine inter-wined polymer strands of 5% fiber and 95% pore space bonded to provide a 3-dimentional nonwoven matrix with an area of 7.4 m2.

47.7%, and OP: 79%

 

Urban

Field

Tech-IA floating element each having

wastewater

scale

rectangular lattice shape, made from

Iris pseudacorus

NO3-N: 82%, NH4-N: 20%, COD: 13%,

[25]

and BOD5: 5%

ethylene-vinyl acetate Storm

Field

Floating mat was made of ethylene-vinyl

Carex virgata

Cu: 17--83 mg/kg and Zn: 37--785

[58]

water

scale

acetate

Domestic

Field

Floating mat made of polyethylene

Pontederia cordata

TN: 68.6% and TP: 70.3%

[207]

Floating mat made of polyethylene

Carex virgata

TP: 27% and Fe: 13.48%

[32]

N: 21.4 mg/plant, and P: 3.8 mg/plant

[38]

N: 277 mg/m2 per day and P: 9.32

[49]

mg/kg

scale Storm

Field

water

scale

Urban

Pilot

Floating mat was constructed from PVC

Pontederia

runoff

scale

pipes, plastic mesh and pot holders.

Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani

cordata,

and

Plants planted in hydroponic pots filled with coir fiber Lake water

Pilot

Floating mats prepared from styrofoam

scale Domestic

Pilot

Beemat® and Bioheaven®

Iris

pseudacorus

and

Typha

2

angustifolia

mg/m per day

Juncus effusus

TN: 25%, TP: 4%, TN: 0.025 g/m2 per

[59]

day, TP: 0.0076 g/m2 per day

scale Sewage

Pilot

Floating mats were made from

Brachiaria mutica with three

TN: 33%, PO4: 18%, COD: 80%,

effluent

scale

Jumbolon Board, five holes of diameter

endophytic bacterial strain

BOD5: 90%

Typha latifolia

Boron removal by first cycle: 12.5--

[28]

5 cm in each were made in each mat for plant holding Boron

Pilot

Floating

enriched

scale

Floating Island International, Shepherd,

21.4% and by second cycle: 11.0--

MT, USA.

14.2%

water

island

manufactured

by

Waste

Field

Frame made from plastic pipes with

Ereophorum polystachion,

quarry

scale

foam plastic floaters. Carpet like grass

Ereophorum scheuchzeri, and

mats were grown floating mats

Equisetum palustre

waters

Total nitrogen: 53--90%

[47]

[61]

 

mat

was

prepared

with

Juncus effusus

SO42--: 87%, Fe: 100%, Al: 99.8%, Mn:

Acid mine

Lab

Floating

drainage

scale

polyethylene

Domestic

Lab

Plastic foam with five holes on each

Phragmites australis, Acorus

Nitrogen removal by P. australis: 91.5

scale

sheet

calamus

and 84.2% and by A. calamus: 84.2 and

97.4%, Zn: 99.6%

82.2% FSS, fixed suspended solids; TPH, total petroleum hydrocarbon

[44]

[60]

 

Fig. 1.

 

Figure 2:

 

Figure 3:

 

Figure 4: