Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 26, Issue 10, pp 10057–10069 | Cite as

Phytoremediatory efficiency of Chrysopogon zizanioides in the treatment of landfill leachate: a case study

  • Elisa Fasani
  • Giovanni DalCorsoEmail author
  • Andrea Zerminiani
  • Alberto Ferrarese
  • Paolo Campostrini
  • Antonella FuriniEmail author
Research Article

Abstract

A common approach for waste management is their disposal in landfills, which is usually associated with the production of dangerous gases and of liquid leachate. Due to its toxicity, polluted liquid negatively impacts on the environment with the possible contamination of large volumes of soil, groundwater, and surface water. Leachate remediation is therefore subject of intensive research, and phytoremediation has been achieving increasing interest in recent decades. We describe here the suitability of vetiver grass for the remediation of two leachates collected in urban landfills of northern Italy, characterized by different composition. Our objective was measuring the accumulation/tolerance potential of this species and the evapotranspiration ability in a pot experiment, to evaluate applicability of vetiver plants for the reduction and decontamination of landfill leachate. Plants were grown for 4 months in pots with a zeolite growth bed and watered with either tap water (control) or undiluted landfill leachate. Plant growth and fitness and elemental content in shoots and roots were evaluated at the end of the experiment. In these experimental conditions, the high bioaccumulation of metals highlights the suitability of this species for its employment in phytoremediation; however, vetiver growth under leachate treatment was strongly dependent on leachate composition, making a case-to-case evaluation of plant tolerance necessary before large-scale application.

Keywords

Chrysopogon zizanioides Vetiver Landfill leachate Rhizofiltration Nitrogen Metals 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Acknowledgment should be provided to the ADEP agency (Ing. Gabriele Rampanelli, Agenzia per la Depurazione – Autonomous Province of Trento – Italy) and to landfill directors, who supplied the leachates analyzed.

Funding

The project here presented has been funded by the Joint Project University Enterprise 2015.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Zerminiani A., Ferrarese A., and Campostrini P. are founders and managers of the company Bio Soil Expert srl.

Supplementary material

11356_2019_4505_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (99 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 99 kb)

References

  1. AACC International (2012) Approved methods of analysis, 11th Ed., method 46-30.01 (crude protein—combustion method). St. Paul, MN, USAGoogle Scholar
  2. Akinbile CO, Yusoff MS, Ahmad-Zuki AZ (2012) Landfill leachate treatment using sub-surface flow constructed wetland by Cyperus haspan. Waste Manag 32:1387–1393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Angin I, Turan M, Ketterings QM, Cakici A (2008) Humic acid addition enhances B and Pb phytoextraction by vetiver grass (Vetiveria zizanioides (L.) Nash). Water Air Soil Pollut 188:335–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anning AK, Korsah PE, Addo-Fordjour P (2013) Phytoremediation of wastewater with Limnocharis flava, Thalia geniculata and Typha latifolia in constructed wetlands. Int J Phytoremediation 15(5):452–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. AOAC International (2016) Official methods of analysis of AOAC International, 20th Ed. Gaithersburg, MD, USAGoogle Scholar
  6. Aronsson P, Dahlin T, Dimitriou I (2010) Treatment of landfill leachate by irrigation of willow coppice—plant response and treatment efficiency. Environ Pollut 158(3):795–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Badejo AA, Omole DO, Ndambuki JM, Kupolati WK (2017) Municipal wastewater treatment using sequential activated sludge reactor and vegetated submerged bed constructed wetland planted with Vetiveria zizanioides. Ecol Eng 99:525–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Banerjee R, Goswami P, Pathak K, Mukherjee A (2016) Vetiver grass: an environment clean-up tool for heavy metal contaminated iron ore mine-soil. Ecol Eng 90:25–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Beebe DA, Castle JW, Molz FJ, Rodgers JH (2014) Effects of evapotranspiration on treatment performance in constructed wetlands: experimental studies and modeling. Ecol Eng 71:394–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Białowiec A, Albuquerque A, Randerson PF (2014) The influence of evapotranspiration on vertical flow subsurface constructed wetland performance. Ecol Eng 67:89–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bruch I, Fritsche J, Bänninger D, Alewell U, Sendelov M, Hürlimann H, Hasselbach R, Alewell C (2011) Improving the treatment efficiency of constructed wetlands with zeolite-containing filter sands. Bioresour Technol 102(2):937–941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Calheiros CSC, Duque AF, Moura A, Henriques IS, Correia A, Rangel AOSS, Castro PML (2009) Substrate effect on bacterial communities from constructed wetlands planted with Typha latifolia treating industrial wastewater. Ecol Eng 35:744–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chen Y, Shen Z, Li X (2004) The use of vetiver grass (Vetiveria zizanioides) in the phytoremediation of soil contaminated with heavy metals. Appl Geochem 19:1553–1565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cheng CY, Chu LM (2011) Fate and distribution of nitrogen in soil and plants irrigated with landfill leachate. Waste Manag 31(6):1239–1249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Choo TP, Lee CK, Low KS, Hishamuddin O (2006) Accumulation of chromium (VI) from aqueous solutions using water lilies (Nymphaea spontanea). Chemosphere 62:961–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. D. Lgs. 152/2006 (2006) Norme in material ambientaleGoogle Scholar
  17. Danh LT, Truong P, Mammucari R, Tran T, Foster N (2009) Vetiver grass, Vetiveria zizanioides: a choice plant for phytoremediation of heavy metals and organic wastes. Int J Phytoremediation 11(8):664–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Deifel KS, Kopittke PM, Menzies NW (2006) Growth response of various perennial grasses to increasing salinity. J Plant Nutr 29(9):1573–1584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dimitriou I, Aronsson P (2010) Landfill leachate treatment with willows and poplars—efficiency and plant response. Waste Manag 30:2137–2145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dumble P, Ruxton C (2001) Guidance on the monitoring of landfill leachate, groundwater and surface water. In: UK Environment AgencyGoogle Scholar
  21. Edelstein M, Plaut Z, Dudai N, Ben-Hur M (2009) Vetiver (Vetiveria zizanioides) responses to fertilization and salinity under irrigation conditions. J Environ Manag 91(1):215–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gautam M, Agrawal M (2017) Phytoremediation of metals using vetiver (Chrysopogon zizanioides (L.) Roberty) grown under different levels of red mud in sludge amended soil. J Geochem Explor 182:218–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gomes HI (2012) Phytoremediation for bioenergy: challenges and opportunities. Environ Technol Rev 1(1):59–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ghosh M, Paul J, Jana A, De A, Mukherjee A (2015) Use of the grass, Vetiveria zizanioides (L.) Nash for detoxification and phytoremediation of soils contaminated with fly ash from thermal power plants. Ecol Eng 74:258–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Halim AA, Aziz HA, Johari MA, Ariffin KS (2010) Comparison study of ammonia and COD adsorption on zeolite, activated carbon and composite materials in landfill leachate treatment. Desalination 262(1–3):31–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jerez Ch JA, Romero RM (2016) Evaluation of Cajanus cajan (pigeon pea) for phytoremediation of landfill leachate containing chromium and lead. Int J Phytoremediation 18:1122–1127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jones DL, Williamson KL, Owen AG (2006) Phytoremediation of landfill leachate. Waste Manag 26:825–837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Justin MZ, Pajk N, Zupanc V, Zupančič M (2010) Phytoremediation of landfill leachate and compost wastewater by irrigation of Populus and Salix: biomass and growth response. Waste Manag 30(6):1032–1042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kaseva ME (2004) Performance of a sub-surface flow constructed wetland in polishing pre-treated wastewater—a tropical case study. Water Res 38:681–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Keizer-Vlek HE, Verdonschot PFM, Verdonschot RCM, Dekkers D (2014) The contribution of plant uptake to nutrient removal by floating treatment wetlands. Ecol Eng 72:684–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kim KR, Owens G (2010) Potential for enhanced phytoremediation of landfills using biosolids—a review. J Environ Manag 91:791–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kjeldsen P, Barla MA, Rooker AP, Baun A, Ledin A, Christensen TH (2002) Present and long-term composition of MSW landfill leachate: a review. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 32:297–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kulikowska D, Klimiuk E (2008) The effect of landfill age on municipal leachate composition. Bioresour Technol 99(13):5981–5985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Li W, Zhou Q, Hua T (2010) Removal of organic matter from landfill leachate by advanced oxidation processes: a review. Int J Chem Eng 2010:270532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Liao SW, Chang WL (2004) Heavy metal phytoremediation by water hyacinth at constructed wetlands in Taiwan. J Aquat Plant Manage 42:60–68Google Scholar
  36. Licht L, Aitchison E, Rock SA (2004) Evapotranspirative tree caps: research prototype results, full-scale case histories, and possible future designs. In: SWANA Landfill Symposium, Monterey, CA, 21–25 JuneGoogle Scholar
  37. Ministero delle politiche agricole e forestali - Italy (1999). Decreto Ministeriale del 13/09/1999, Approvazione dei metodi ufficiali di analisi chimica del suoloGoogle Scholar
  38. Mojiri A, Ziyang L, Tajuddin RM, Farraji H, Alifar N (2016) Co-treatment of landfill leachate and municipal wastewater using the ZELIAC/zeolite constructed wetland system. J Environ Manag 166:124–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nable RO, Bañuelos GS, Paull JG (1997) Boron toxicity. Plant Soil 193:181–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nagendran R, Selvam A, Joseph K, Chiemchaisri C (2006) Phytoremediation and rehabilitation of municipal solid waste landfills and dumpsites: a brief review. Waste Manag 26:1357–1369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Perbangkhem T, Polprasert C (2010) Biomass production of papyrus (Cyperus papyrus) in constructed wetland treating low-strength domestic wastewater. Bioresour Technol 10:833–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pfaff JD (1993) Method 300.0: determination of inorganic anions by ion chromatography. Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  43. Porra RJ, Thompson WA, Kriedemann PE (1989) Determination of accurate extinction coefficients and simultaneous equations for assaying chlorophylls a and b extracted with four different solvents: verification of the concentration of chlorophyll standards by atomic absorption spectroscopy. Biochim Biophys Acta Bioenerg 975:384–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rai PK (2008) Heavy metal pollution in aquatic ecosystems and its phytoremediation using wetland plants: an ecosustainable approach. Int J Phytoremediation 10(2):133–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rana G, Katerji N (2000) Measurement and estimation of actual evapotranspiration in the field under Mediterranean climate: a review. Eur J Agron 13(2–3):125–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Renou S, Givaudan JG, Poulain S, Dirassouyan F, Moulin P (2008) Landfill leachate treatment: review and opportunity. J Hazard Mater 150(3):468–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sang N, Han M, Li G, Huang M (2010) Landfill leachate affects metabolic responses of Zea mays L. seedlings. Waste Manag 30:856–862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sepaskhah AR, Yousefi F (2007) Effects of zeolite application on nitrate and ammonium retention of a loamy soil under saturated conditions. Soil Res 45(5):368–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Shammas NK, Wang LK (2009) SBR systems for biological nutrient removal. In: Wang LK, Shammas NK, Hung YT (eds) Advanced biological treatment processes. Humana Press, New York, pp 157–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Soda S, Hamada T, Yamoaka Y, Ike M, Nakazato H, Saeki Y, Kasamatsu T, Sakurai Y (2012) Constructed wetlands for advanced treatment of wastewater with a complex matrix from a metal-processing plant: bioconcentration and translocation factors of various metals in Acorus gramineus and Cyperus alternifolius. Ecol Eng 39:63–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tripathi V, Edrisi SA, Abhilash PC (2016) Towards the coupling of phytoremediation with bioenergy production. Renew Sust Energ Rev 57:1386–1389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Truong P, Danh LT (2015) The vetiver system for improving water quality, 2nd edn. The Vetiver Network International, San Antonio, TX, USAGoogle Scholar
  53. Truong P, Gordon I, Armstrong F, Shepherdson J (2002) Vetiver grass for saline land rehabilitation under tropical and Mediterranean climate. Proc. Productive Use and Rehabilitation of Saline Lands Australian National Conference, Fremantle, October 2002Google Scholar
  54. Truong P, Hart B (2001) Vetiver system for wastewater treatment. Office of the Royal Development Projects Board, Bangkok, ThailandGoogle Scholar
  55. Truong P, Tan Van T, Pinners E (2008) Vetiver systems application—a technical reference manual. The Vetiver Network International, San Antonio, TX, USAGoogle Scholar
  56. U.S. EPA (1996) Method 3050B: acid digestion of sediments, sludges, and soils, revision 2. Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  57. Van der Bruggen B, Vandecasteele C, Van Gestel T, Doyen W, Leysen R (2003) A review of pressure-driven membrane processes in wastewater treatment and drinking water production. Environ Prog 22(1):46–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wagner S, Truong P, Vieritz A, Smeal C (2003) Response of vetiver grass to extreme nitrogen and phosphorus supply. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Vetiver and Exhibition, Guangzhou, China, InGoogle Scholar
  59. Wang Q, Cui Y, Dong Y (2002) Phytoremediation of polluted waters potentials and prospects of wetland plants. Acta Biotechnol 22(1–2):199–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wen D, Ho Y-S, Tang X (2006) Comparative sorption kinetic studies of ammonium onto zeolite. J Hazard Mater 133:252–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Xin J, Huang B (2017) Comparison of boron uptake, translocation, and accumulation in reed, cattail, and vetiver: an extremely boron-tolerant plant, vetiver. Plant Soil 416(1–2):17–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Xin J, Huang B (2018) Comparison of boron uptake and translocation in two vetiver genotypes and evaluation of boron removal efficiency of vetiver floating islands. Int J Phytoremediation 20(8):847–854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Yalcuk A, Ugurlu A (2009) Comparison of horizontal and vertical constructed wetland systems for landfill leachate treatment. Bioresour Technol 100(9):2521–2526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zalesny RS Jr, Bauer EO (2007) Evaluation of Populus and Salix continuously irrigated with landfill leachate I. Genotype-specific elemental phytoremediation. Int J Phytoremediation 9(4):281–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Zalesny JA, Zalesny RS Jr, Coyle DR, Hall RB (2007a) Growth and biomass of Populus irrigated with landfill leachate. For Ecol Manag 248(3):143–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Zalesny JA, Zalesny RS Jr, Wiese AH, Hall RB (2007b) Choosing tree genotypes for phytoremediation of landfill leachate using phyto-recurrent selection. Int J Phytoremediation 9(6):513–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiotechnologyUniversity of VeronaVeronaItaly
  2. 2.Bio Soil Expert srlRoveretoItaly

Personalised recommendations