International Journal of Phytoremediation

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/bijp20

Sorption of cadmium, chromium, lead, and

vanadium from artificial wetlands using Lemna
aequinoctialis

Abraham O. Ekperusi, Francis D. Sikoki & Eunice O. Nwachukwu

To cite this article: Abraham O. Ekperusi, Francis D. Sikoki & Eunice O. Nwachukwu
(28 Oct 2023): Sorption of cadmium, chromium, lead, and vanadium from artificial
wetlands using Lemna aequinoctialis, International Journal of Phytoremediation, DOI:
10.1080/15226514.2023.2272766

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15226514.2023.2272766

View supplementary material

Published online: 28 Oct 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 47

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=bijp20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHYTOREMEDIATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/15226514.2023.2272766

Sorption of cadmium, chromium, lead, and vanadium from artificial wetlands

using Lemna aequinoctialis
Abraham O. Ekperusia�, Francis D. Sikokib, and Eunice O. Nwachukwuc
a
Africa Centre of Excellence in Oilfield Chemicals Research, University of Port Harcourt, Port Harcourt, Nigeria; bDepartment of Animal and
Environmental Biology, University of Port Harcourt, Port Harcourt, Nigeria; cDepartment of Plant Science and Biotechnology, University of
Port Harcourt, Port Harcourt, Nigeria

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The efficacy of the lesser duckweed, Lemna aequinoctialis (Welw.), to remediate varying concentra­ Constructed wetlands;
tions of cadmium, chromium, lead, and vanadium from an organo-metallic contaminated media was metal uptake;
tested in artificial surface wetland mesocosm experiment. A 100 g of fresh-weight duckweed was phytoextraction; phytoreme­
diation; pollutants
introduced into each of the mesocosm, except for the control setup and monitored for 120 days remediation
while the metals removal rate was quantified using an atomic absorption spectrometer. A time-
dependent and partial sorption of metals was observed with the highest removal rate recorded for
cadmium (71.96%), followed by lead (69.23%), vanadium (55.22%), and chromium (41.64%). The
uptake and bioaccumulation of metals were reflected in the increased plant biomass (p < 0.05,
F ¼ 97.12) and relative growth rate (p < 0.05, F ¼ 1214.35) in duckweed. A coefficient (r2) of 0.951,
0.919, 0.970, and 0.967 was recorded for cadmium, chromium, lead, and vanadium respectively, indi­
cating that the remediation of metals followed the first-order kinetic rate model. This study highlights
the efficacy of the lesser duckweed to preferentially remediate metals in an organo-metallic complex
medium for potential wastewater treatment in the petrochemical industry.

NOVELTY STATEMENT
Appling ecological or nature-based solutions for the treatment of complex wastewater from the
petrochemical industry in Africa remains a challenge due to the paucity of evidence-based science
to support the implementation that is acceptable to regulators and the industry. Although labora­
tory and field-based demonstration of phytoremediation studies has shown the potential of mac­
rophytes for the treatment of organic and inorganic pollutants, studies on the application of
duckweed for complex organo-metallic wastewater treatment for heavy metals are few. This study
demonstrates the efficacy of the lesser duckweed, Lemna aequinoctialis in the sorption of cad­
mium, chromium, lead, and vanadium from an organo-metallic complex with potential application
in the petrochemical industry.

GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

HIGHLIGHTS
� Oil spill releases hydrocarbons and associated metals into the environment.
� Hydrocarbons are degraded, but heavy metals remain in the environment.
� Lemna aequinoctialis demonstrated the partial sorption of metals in artificial wetlands.
� The phytoremediation of metal was time-dependent.
� The sorption rate fits into the first-order kinetic rate equation.

CONTACT Abraham O. Ekperusi ekperusiab@gmail.com Africa Centre of Excellence in Oilfield Chemicals Research, University of Port Harcourt, Port
Harcourt, P.M.B. 5323, Rivers State, Nigeria.
�Present Address: Department of Environmental Management and Pollution, Nigeria Maritime University, Okerenkoko, Delta State, Nigeria.
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at publisher’s website.
� 2023 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 A. O. EKPERUSI ET AL.
Introduction
Petroleum remains a crucial energy source to the global
economy, despite significant investment in alternative energy
sources. Many developing economies particularly in the glo­
bal south rely on petrochemicals to meet their energy
demand and economic investment (Ekperusi et al. 2017).
During oil spills, petroleum hydrocarbons and several
impurities like heavy metals associated with oil are released
into the environment (Ahmad et al. 2010; Ekperusi et al.
2017). After the spill, volatile hydrocarbons evaporate from
soil and water, while larger carbon chains are naturally
degraded by microbial action leaving heavy metals in the
environment due to their non-biodegradable nature
(Adesiyan et al. 2018). Many of the non-essential metals are
toxic and are classified as possible human carcinogens
(Nguyen et al. 2005; Tchounwou et al. 2012). Exposure to
elevated levels of non-essential metals results in degenerative
bone disease, central nervous system damage, endocrine dis­
ruption, congenital disorders, liver, and kidney problems
(Nguyen et al. 2005; Adesiyan et al. 2018).
Several species of terrestrial and aquatic plants have been
tested for their ability to remove various contaminants from
the environment (Van Epps 2006; Ekperusi et al. 2019). The
efficacy of plants to bioaccumulate significant levels of met­
als is a characteristic present in several plant species and
approximately 0.2% of all angiosperms (Sarma 2011;
Ekperusi et al. 2019; Baek et al. 2021; Ahmad et al. 2023;
Zhou et al. 2023). Aquatic macrophytes are applied in nat­
ural or artificial wetlands for the removal of a wide range of
pollutants from aquatic ecosystems. Artificial wetlands are
designed to mimic natural wetlands to treat contaminants in
surface waters, waste streams, runoff, municipal and indus­
trial wastewater, sewage effluents, aquaculture discharge,
mine drainage, and petroleum wastes (ITRC 2003; Ekperusi
et al. 2019; Zhou et al. 2023). Duckweeds are a group of
aquatic floating macrophytes with global distribution
(Hillman and Culley 1978; Landolt 1980). The duckweed
(Lemnaceae) group is represented by 37 species sorted into
five genera (Landoltia, Lemna, Spirodela, Wolffia, and
Wolffiella), based on their morphology (Liu et al. 2021;
Zhou et al. 2021). Unlike other angiosperms, members of
the group have their leaves and stems fused into a simple
structure known as fronds, which is supported by a fragile
root system (Zhou et al. 2023). Due to their simplified struc­
ture, invasive nature, sporadic reproduction, and high meta­
bolic activities, duckweeds play an essential role in the
ecology of reservoirs including nutrient recycling and regu­
lating oxygen balance worldwide (Zhou et al. 2021, 2023).
Their simplified nature has also increased attention to duck­
weed research and potential application in various sectors
(Ekperusi et al. 2019; Zhou et al. 2023).
Duckweed is consumed as protein for animal and human
food as a substitute for meat with the potential to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions (Ekperusi et al. 2019; Baek et al.
2021; Zhou et al. 2023). Duckweed has also been explored
for its use in pharmaceuticals, biofuels, space exploration,
bioplastics, and remediation of contaminants (Baek et al.
2021; Ort� uzar et al. 2022; Zhou et al. 2023). Duckweed can
withstand and thrive in polluted environment and bio­
accumulate pollutants from surface waters (Miretzky et al.
2004; Shuvaeva et al. 2013; Ekperusi et al. 2019; Zhou et al.
2023).
Several species within the five genera have been applied
for the uptake and removal of organic and inorganic pollu­
tants in constructed wetlands (Sukumaran 2013; Muradov
et al. 2014; Preetha and Kaladevi 2014; Ekperusi et al. 2019,
2020; Baek et al. 2021; Ort� uzar et al. 2022; Zhou et al.
2023), but there is a paucity of literature on the use of
Lemna aequinoctialis for the remediation of heavy metals
associated with petroleum in artificial wetlands. This study
aimed to assess the efficacy of L. aequinoctialis in removing
metals from contaminated media with the objectives to (i)
understand the plant growth condition under organo-metal
contamination, (ii) determine plant growth characteristics in
contaminated media, and (iii) assess the metal removal rate
by duckweed in artificial wetlands.
Materials and method
Duckweed collection and preparation
Duckweed colonies for the study were collected with poly­
propylene containers from natural wetlands in Effurun,
Delta State after permission was granted for sample collec­
tion by landowners. At the lab, the collected duckweeds
were rinsed thoroughly with tap water to remove debris and
transferred into culture containers with distilled water for
growth and acclimation before use. Duckweeds were cul­
tured (see Figure S1) in nutrient solution under prevailing
environmental conditions; temperature (27–34 � C), photo­
period (12 h), and relative humidity (63–67%). Voucher
specimens (NG/UP/191022) of duckweed were prepared and
deposited at the herbarium at the Department of Plant
Science and Biotechnology. Identification of duckweed was
carried out using historical references with the aid of appro­
priate taxonomic keys (Datko et al. 1980; Landolt 1980,
1986; Mbagwu and Adeniji 1988). Prior to use, samples of
duckweed were analyzed for heavy metals contamination
and were found negligible for the metals applied in this
study.
Experimental setup
The experimental design and setup followed a previously
described method (Ekperusi et al. 2020). An artificial sur­
face-constructed wetland (ASCW) was created using polyvi­
nyl tanks. Two sets of experimental tanks were added 8 L of
distilled water and contaminated with 10 mL of crude oil
(API of 33.51 and specific gravity of 0.85) with metals in the
following concentrations; 3.21, 11.4, 0.39, and 3.64 mg L−1,
respectively, for cadmium, chromium, lead, and vanadium
to simulate a spill environment. A 5 mL of a nutrient solu­
tion containing NPK was added to each ASCW and allowed
to stand for 7 days. After 7 days, 100 g of acclimated duck­
weed was added to one set of the contaminated ASCW,
while the second set was without duckweed (control setup).
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHYTOREMEDIATION 3

Figure 1. Experimental setup (a) wetland with contaminants, (b) contaminants and duckweed, (c) duckweed only.

A third set of the ASCW tanks was added with duckweed, Plant biomass and relative growth rate
distilled water, and nutrients without contaminants. The
Plant biomass (fresh weight) was determined following the
setup was repeated in triplicates (Figure 1). The ASCW was
method described by Vollenweider (1974). Plants were har­
monitored daily for 120 days. Distilled water was regularly
vested from the wetlands, washed with tap water several
added to replace water loss due to evapotranspiration.
times, and sorted into beakers. The plants were allowed to
air dry and weighed (Denver Instruments, Model APX-200)
Laboratory analysis for the measurement of biomass. The relative growth rate
(RGR) was calculated following methods described by
Samples for laboratory analysis were collected with appro­ Tkalec et al. (1998)
priate sampling bottles and transported to the lab for chem­
ical analysis. In situ measurements and all samples for number of fronds at day n − number of fronds at day 0
laboratory analyses were collected bi-monthly (0, 15, 30, 45, RGR ¼
number of fronds at day 0
60, 75, 90, 105, and 120 days) throughout the study. The pH (1)
in wetlands was determined with a digital pH meter
(Hanna, HI9813) after calibration with a buffer solution.
where RGR, plant relative growth rate (grams/grams/day); n,
Conductivity was measured with the aid of a conductivity
number of fronds at n (120) days; 0, number of fronds at
meter (Hanna, HI9812) after calibration using a KCl solu­
the start day of the experiment.
tion. Determination of cadmium, chromium, lead, and van­
adium in wetlands was done following methods described
earlier (ASTM. 2017) using Solaar Thermo Elemental Contaminant removal efficiency
Atomic Absorption Spectrometer (AAS – Model SG 71906).
The removal rate for metals in the wetlands was calculated
About 100 mL of the sample was drawn into a 150 mL bea­
using methods described by Megateli et al. (2013)
ker with the addition of 5.0 mL of concentrated nitric acid
(HNO3). The solution was evaporated to near dryness using Co − Ct
an oven set at 60 � C. After cooling down, another 5.0 mL of Rð%Þ ¼ � 100 (2)
Co
HNO3 was added to the beaker and covered with a watch
glass. The beaker was returned to the oven and the heating
R (%), removal rate of the contaminant in wetlands; Co,
was continued until complete digestion of the sample was
initial contaminant level at the start of the experiment
achieved. Another 2 mL of HNO3 was further added to the
(mg L−1 ); Ct, final contaminant level at the end of the
residue and washed with distilled water. The solution was
experiment (mg L−1).
filtered into a 100 mL volumetric flask to remove silicate
and other insoluble materials and the volume made up to
the mark. The filtrate was aspirated into the air-acetylene Bioconcentration factor (BCF)
flame (fast sequential) of the spectrometer to determine the
The BCF was calculated as the concentration of metals in
concentration of heavy metals present in the sample.
the tissue of duckweed over the concentration in wetlands
Standards were treated with 10 mL of sample filtrate and
as described by Rahmani and Sternberg (1999)
5 mL of diphenylcarbazide before analysis. At the termin­
ation of the experiment, samples of duckweed were col­ �
lected, air-dried, and digested with HNO3. The digested HMP mgkg−1
BCF ¼ � (3)
sample was filtered using Whatman 42 filter paper and HMS mgL−1
made to volume with distilled water. The filtrate was ana­
lyzed with AAS to determine the concentration of heavy BCFheavy metals, bioconcentration factor for heavy metals;
metals present in duckweed. All chemical reagents and HMP, heavy metal concentration in plant (mg kg−1); HMS,
blanks used were of analytical grades. heavy metal concentration in wetlands (mg L−1).
4 A. O. EKPERUSI ET AL.
First-order kinetic rate equation
Experimental data were inputted into the first-order kinetic
rate equation described by Benefield and Randall (1980) to
model the contaminant removal rate
InCt ¼ InC0 –kt (4)
−1
Ct, concentration of parameter at time, t (mg L ); Co, initial
concentration of parameter at time, t (mg L−1); k, first-order
rate constant (day−1); t time (day).
Data analysis
Data were analyzed using Statistical Package for Social
Sciences (SPSS) version 21. Descriptive statistics such as
means, standard errors, and percentages were summarized,
while one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied
for the level of significance at p < 0.05 probability level, fol­
lowed by a post-hoc test (Duncan) where necessary. Graphs
were created using Microsoft Excel v.2020.
Results and discussion
Plant growth condition
Plant growth characteristic is essential in determining the
general health condition of a plant. In this study, the colony
of L. aequinoctialis remains healthy throughout the study
with no obvious inhibition or chlorosis in the contaminated
wetlands. A similar observation was reported with duckweed
species (L. aequinoctialis, Lemna punctata, Lemna turioni­
fera, Spirodela polyrhiza, and Lemna minuta) exposed to
manganese, chromium, and phenol (Paisio et al. 2018; Zhou
et al. 2019).
The introduction of a nitrogenous fertilizer as a source of
nutrients may have aided the growth condition of duckweed.
Zhou et al. (2021) also observed no signs of chlorosis for six
species of duckweed (L. punctata, L. aequinoctialis, Lemna
minor, L. turionifera, S. polyrhiza, and Wolffia globosa) with
a nitrate medium. In contrast, Kishchenko et al. (2023)
reported severe chlorosis and death of S. polyrhiza in a man­
ganese setup with nitrate, while mild chlorosis with ammo­
nia as the nitrogen source. Other studies reported oxidative
stress and impairment with L. minor and Lemna gibba
exposed to cadmium, copper and chromium (Megateli et al.
€ unc€
2009; Uç€ u et al. 2013). The level of inhibition reported
in these studies may have resulted from the high concentra­
tion of metals (ranging from 1 to 100 mg L−1) compared to
our study. Exposing macrophytes to concentrations of met­
als beyond their tolerable threshold could result in physio­
logical stress, chlorosis, and death.
Plant biomass and relative growth rate
Plant biomass and RGR are two parameters that express the
general growth condition of a plant exposed to stressors in
the environment. Plant biomass measured in fresh or dry
weight could be assessed for the determination of protein,
nutrient content, or contaminant level in plant tissues
(Roberts et al. 1985).
Plant biomass initially decreased in wetlands by 2.16% in
the first 15 days. This decrease may be connected to the ini­
tial stress of duckweed exposed to an environmental con­
taminant in the wetland. Sun et al. (2013) reported a
significant decreased in plant biomass by 31.2%, 38.5%, and
39.5%, respectively with Acorus calamus, Iris pseudacorus,
and Typha orientalis exposed to heavy metals in effluents. In
our study, after 15 days, plant biomass did not only recov­
ered, but it increased significantly (p < 0.05, F ¼ 97.121)
throughout the study, reaching 83.50% compared to the
control which was 34.57% (Figure S2). Significant increases
in plant biomass have been reported with macrophytes on
various effluents with metal accumulation (Mohedano et al.
2012; Sun et al. 2013; Bokhari et al. 2019). In a recent study,
increased plant biomass was also reported for manganese
and nitrate medium (Kishchenko et al. 2023), while no
change in plant biomass was reported in a boron-contami­
nated media with L. gibba (Zhou et al. 2023).
Plant RGR with L. aequinoctialis increased significantly
(p < 0.05, F ¼ 1214.345) from 0.012 to 0.952 g/g/day com­
pared to the control (from 0.041 to 0.678 g/g/day). Similar
RGR was observed in the phytoremediation of metals using
L. gibba and L. minor (Sobrino et al. 2010; Uç€ € unc€u et al.
2013). Sobrino et al. (2010) reported the highest RGR in the
first 3 days, while in our study the highest RGR was
observed at day 120 (Figure S3). The application of a con­
stant concentration of metals for the study period could be
responsible for the time-dependent increase in RGR
observed in our study. The reverse is the case for studies
where metals or contaminant concentrations were increased
with an increase in time.
Physicochemical condition of wetlands
The mean pH of wetlands after contamination was 6.42. It
increased significantly (p < 0.05, F ¼ 6.071) after the intro­
duction of L. aequinoctialis by 2.34% (6.57) but decreased by
15.42% (5.43) in the control setup (Figure 2a). The increased
pH in the presence of duckweed could be attributed to the
decreasing metal concentration associated with duckweed
activities in the wetland. A significant improvement was
observed in the physicochemical parameters including pH
(from 6.74 to 7.5) for the phytoremediation of iron, copper,
zinc, lead and cadmium with L. minor and Pistia stratiotes
(Br�ahaița et al. 2015). A corresponding increase in pH (from
7.2 to 7.5) was reported for the decrease in arsenic from 6
to 0.1 mg L−1 (Jasrotia et al. 2017). Furthermore, Zhou et al.
(2021) and Kishchenko et al. (2023) reported increased pH
in media with nitrate while the reverse was the case with
ammonia, reflecting a limiting potential of the latter as a
nitrogen source for duckweed.
The conductivity of contaminated wetlands was
22.33 ± 1.33 lS/cm. It increased significantly (p < 0.05,
F ¼ 10.203) with the application of duckweed by 44.78%
(32.33 ± 2.63), while it decreased by 2.24% (22.83 ± 0.73) in
the control setup (Figure 2b). A similar increasing

Figure 2. Physicochemical parameters (mean ± SE) for (a) pH and (b) conductiv­
ity in artificial wetlands with L. aequinoctialis.
Figure 3. Removal rate for heavy metals (mean ± SE) with time (from day 0 to 120 days) for (a) cadmium, (b) chromium, (c) lead, and (d) vanadium in contaminated
artificial wetlands with L. aequinoctialis and control setup.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHYTOREMEDIATION 5
conductivity trend was also observed for the phytoremedia­
tion of metals with L. minor and P. stratiotes (Br�ahaița et al.
2015).
Heavy metals removal from wetlands
There was a decreasing trend observed in the concentration of
metals from cadmium (3.21–0.90 mg L−1), chromium (11.48–
6.70 mg L−1), lead (0.39–0.12 mg L−1), and vanadium (3.64–
1.63 mg L−1), respectively, in wetlands with duckweeds. The
decrease in metal concentration highlights the efficacy of L.
aequinoctialis for the sorption of metals from contaminated
media. The initial concentration of manganese decreased sig­
nificantly from 4.12 to 0.097 mg L−1 with the application of L.
aequinoctialis (Zhou et al. 2019), while the powdery form of L.
aequinoctialis was effective in the removal of lead as high as
20 mg L−1 from wetlands (Chen et al. 2013).
For each metal profile, cadmium decreased significantly
(p < 0.05, F ¼ 12.335) by 4.36%, 11.21%, 19.94%, 32.40%,
41.75%, 57.32%, 64.80%, and 71.96% after 15, 30, 45, 60, 75,
90, 105, and 120 days, respectively. A similar decreasing
trend was also observed for chromium (7.06%, 13.15%,
16.9%, 13.76%, 22.74%, 37.81%, 39.72%, and 41.64%), lead
(17.95%, 20.51%, 30.77%, 41.03%, 53.85%, 51.28%, 58.97%,
and 69.23%), and vanadium (2.47%, 4.12%, 15.66%, 26.37%,
32.97%, 40.11%, 46.98%, and 55.22%), respectively
(Figure 3). In general, no significant variation was observed
in the removal rate of chromium (p > 0.05, F ¼ 1.999), lead
6 A. O. EKPERUSI ET AL.
(p > 0.05, F ¼ 0.650), and vanadium (p > 0.05, F ¼ 2.212) in
the study. The potential route for metal removal from artifi­
cial wetlands was the sorption and methylation or chelation
via enzymatic action in the tissues of duckweed (Pilon-Smits
2005; Mkandawire and Dudel 2007).
Aquatic macrophytes including duckweed can detoxify
organic compounds like hydrocarbons and industrial dyes
via biosorption and cellular metabolism (Ekperusi et al.
2020; Zhou et al. 2023), but for non-biodegradable inor­
ganics like heavy metals, sorption is through chelation,
sequestration, and compartmentalization in intracellular tis­
sues. This is aided by antioxidant enzyme activities to
reduce metal stress and toxicity (Baek et al. 2021; Zhou
et al. 2023).
An aquatic ecosystem with a pH less than 6.5 as observed
at the beginning of the study could leach metal ions into the
media thereby increasing their mobility. Not only were met­
als bioavailable for uptake, but duckweed was also effective
in the sorption of metals from the contaminated wetland.
The highest percentage removal rate among the heavy met­
als in this study was recorded with cadmium (71.96%), fol­
lowed by lead (69.23%), vanadium (55.22%), and chromium
(41.64%) in the following decreasing order; Cd > Pb > V >
Cr. The factor responsible for the sorption trend observed
in this study may be connected with the speciation and
mobility of the metals present in light crude oil as applied
in this study. Previous studies on duckweed reported similar
or higher removal rates compared to this study. Tang et al.
(2017) reported increased efficiency of lead removal with L.
aequinoctialis (97.81%), L. punctata (98.10%), and S. poly­
rhiza (98.04%). Metals such as aluminum, cadmium, chro­
mium, copper, nickel, lead, and zinc were remediated with
percentages ranging from 49% to 93% in artificial wetlands
treating domestic effluents in Flanders (Lesage et al. 2007),
while an 84% removal rate was reported with L. minor for
cadmium, copper, lead, and nickel in a municipal and
industrial effluent (Bokhari et al. 2016). The variation
reported in previous studies compared to our study could be
associated with the metal concentration, study duration, and
nutrients solution applied. Aside from the behavior of met­
als in contaminated media, the preferential accumulation of
contaminants in multi-contaminated media could provide a
better understanding of contaminant removal rates by duck­
weeds. In a previous study, Zhou et al. (2021) reported that
all six species of duckweed (L. punctata, L. aequinoctialis, L.
minor, L. turionifera, S. polyrhiza, and W. globose) demon­
strated an apparent preference for ammonia over nitrate.
Similarly, L. minor preferentially favored the uptake of cal­
cium sulfate over magnesium (Walsh et al. 2020). So, the
traits or intracellular factors in L. aequinoctialis that favored
the preferential removal of cadmium over lead, vanadium,
and chromium given their initial concentration remains
unclear. Future studies on intracellular activities could pro­
vide more insight in this regard.
In this study, metal sorption from the media was time-
dependent. This is similar to the removal of cadmium, cop­
per, lead, and nickel from industrial and municipal effluents
(Bokhari et al. 2016). In contrast, increasing the initial
concentration of lead from 10 to 40 mg L−1 resulted in a
decrease in the remediation potentials of L. aequinoctialis
(Tang et al. 2017). Shuvaeva et al. (2013) also indicated that
metal uptake increases at the inception of the study but
decreases with time. In this regard, metal removal from wet­
lands could be more favorably disposed toward using a con­
stant concentration compared to increasing concentration
with increased in time.
Bioconcentration factor (BCF)
In this study, the BCF was calculated as the concentration of
metals in duckweed over the concentration in the wetlands.
The BCF for metals in wetlands with L. aequinoctialis were
2.54, 0.74, 3.25, and 1.24 for cadmium, chromium, lead, and
vanadium, respectively (Figure S4). A BCF value greater
than 1 is a good indication of a plant with high potency for
metal uptake (Landis et al. 2011). The BCF values reported
in our study were greater than 1, except for chromium
which makes L. aequinoctialis an effective phytoremediation
agent for metal sorption in artificial wetlands. A similar
trend was reported with aquatic plants for chromium, cop­
per, lead, aluminum, cadmium, iron, and zinc (Galal and
Farahat 2015; Galal et al. 2017). Chaudhary and Sharma
(2019) reported higher BCF for cadmium and chromium
with L. gibba thereby demonstrating hyper-accumulation
potentials compared to L. aequinoctialis.
Relationship between physicochemical parameters and
heavy metals
The relationship between the pH, conductivity, and metals
was assessed using Pearson’s correlation. The pH of wet­
lands had a significant (0.01, 2-tailed) positive correlation
with conductivity (0.549) and a significant negative correl­
ation with cadmium (0.470), vanadium (0.347), and chro­
mium (0.296). No significant correlation was observed
between pH and lead (Table S1). On the other hand, con­
ductivity had a strong positive correlation with pH and a
strong negative correlation with cadmium (0.728), chro­
mium (0.563), lead (0.472), and vanadium (0.406). A signifi­
cant correlation was reported for copper, zinc, manganese,
nickel, lead, chromium, and aluminum in wetlands with L.
€ unc€
minor (Uç€ u et al. 2013; Tunca et al. 2016) and between
iron, zinc, copper, chromium, and cadmium with P. strat­
iotes, S. polyrhiza, and Eichhornia crassipes (Mishra and
Tripathi 2008). A strong positive correlation was found in
metals removal with submerged macrophytes (Xing et al.
2013) and for the removal of arsenic with Vallisneria natans
(Chen et al. 2017). No correlation was observed with copper
in the phytoremediation of metals with duckweed (U瀀 unc€ u
et al. 2013).
First-order kinetic rate model
Certain chemical and biological degradation processes follow
linearly the first-order kinetic rate model, which is charac­
terized by a single exponential rate constant. The data

Table 1. First-order kinetic rate modeling for heavy metals removal in wetlands.
Metals (mg L−1) Treatments 1st order model
Cadmium Setup y ¼ −0.011(t) þ 1.3257
Control y ¼ 1 � 10−5(t) þ 1.1648
Chromium Setup y ¼ −0.0047(t) þ 2.4618
Control y ¼ −0.0006(t) þ 2.4626
Lead Setup y ¼ −0.009(t) − 0.941
Control y ¼ 0.0009(t) − 0.9709
Vanadium Setup y ¼ −0.0069(t) þ 1.385
Control y ¼ −0.0002(t) þ 1.2844
generated from this study were subjected to a first-order
kinetic rate model to predict the remediation rate of metals
in wetlands with duckweed. A best line of fit was drawn for
metals and r2 was found with a coefficient of 0.951, 0.919,
0.970, and 0.967 for cadmium, chromium, lead, and van­
adium, respectively, which indicates the reasonable fitness of
the remediation rate to the first-order kinetic model (Table
1). On the kinetic removal of chromium from water using
P. stratiotes, Chakraborty et al. (2014) reported that a best
line of fit was shown with r2 at 0.923 which indicated effi­
cient removal following the first-order kinetic model. Also,
chromium uptake and removal by duckweed fitted well into
the model with a coefficient of 0.98 (Oporto et al. 2006).
Conclusion
Non-essential metals associated with hydrocarbons are
released into the environment during oil spills where they
become persistent due to their non-biodegradable nature.
Designing appropriate methods for their removal from the
environment is vital to the proper functioning of ecosystems
and public health. In this study, the invasive aquatic plant L.
aequinoctialis demonstrated strong potential to withstand
elevated concentrations of metals with partial sorption from
artificial wetlands. Future studies will focus on the preferen­
tial accumulation and fate of metals in duckweed to eluci­
date the dynamics and interaction of inorganic compounds
in plant tissues as part of the comprehensive remediation
strategies for environmental management.
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge the Africa Centre of Excellence in Oilfield Chemicals
Research for funding the doctorate program.
Disclosure statement
The authors declare that no competing interest exists.
Author contributions
A.O.E. – conception and design, methodology, experiment, analysis,
and interpretation of data, draft manuscript, and revision of the manu­
script. F.D.S. – conception and design, supervision, validation, and
revision of the manuscript. E.O.N. – conception and design, supervi­
sion, validation, and revision of the manuscript.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHYTOREMEDIATION 7
1st order rate constant (k) t1/2 (days) r2
0.011 63.0 0.9509
0.00001 69310.0 0.008
0.0047 147.5 0.9186
0.0006 1155.2 0.6997
0.009 77.0 0.9696
0.0009 770.1 0.4876
0.0069 100.4 0.9672
0.0002 3465.5 0.3036
Data availability
All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this
published article (and its Supplementary Information file).
References
Adesiyan IM, Bisi-Johnson M, Aladesanmi OT, Okoh AI,
Ogunfowokan AO. 2018. Concentrations and human health risk of
heavy metals in rivers in southwest Nigeria. J Health Pollut. 8(19):
180907. doi: 10.5696/2156-9614-8.19.180907.
Ahmad H, Tsafe AI, Zuru AA, Shehu RA, Atiku FA, Itodo AU. 2010.
Physicochemical and heavy metals values of Nigerian crude oil sam­
ples. Int J Nat Appl Sci. 6(1):10–15.
Ahmad I, Gul I, Irum S, Manzoor M, Arshad M. 2023. Accumulation
of heavy metals in wild plants collected from the industrial sites-
potential for phytoremediation. Int J Environ Sci Technol. 20(5):
5441–5452. doi: 10.1007/s13762-022-04340-3.
ASTM. 2017. Standard guide for chemical analysis of metals and metal
bearing ores by flame atomic absorption spectrophotometry.
American Society for Testing and Materials International. doi: 10.
1520/E1024-97.https://www.astm.org/e1024-97.html.
Baek G, Saeed M, Choi HK. 2021. Duckweeds: their utilization, metab­
olites and cultivation. Appl Biol Chem. 64(1):73. doi: 10.1186/
s13765-021-00644-z.
Benefield LD, Randall CW. 1980. Biological process design for waste­
water treatment. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. p. 86–92.
Bokhari SH, Ahmad I, Mahmood-Ul-Hassan M, Mohammad A.
2016. Phytoremediation potential of Lemna minor L. for heavy
metals. Int J Phytoremediation. 18(1):25–32. doi: 10.1080/
15226514.2015.1058331.
Bokhari SH, Mahmood-Ul-Hassan M, Ahmad M. 2019. Phytoextraction
of Ni, Pb and, Cd by duckweeds. Int J Phytoremediation. 21(8):799–
806. doi: 10.1080/15226514.2019.1566882.
Br�ahaița ID, Malschi D, Popița EG. 2015. Phytoremediation study of
water polluted with heavy metals using floating macrophytes: Lemna
minor and Pistia stratiotes. AES Bioflux. 7(2):155–162.
Chakraborty R, Karmakar S, Mukherjee S, Kumar S. 2014. Kinetic
evaluation of chromium (VI) sorption by water lettuce (Pistia).
Water Sci Technol. 69(1):195–201. doi: 10.2166/wst.2013.667.
Chaudhary E, Sharma P. 2019. Chromium and cadmium removal from
wastewater using duckweed – Lemna gibba L. and ultrastructural
deformation due to metal toxicity. Int J Phytoremediation. 21(3):
279–286. doi: 10.1080/15226514.2018.1522614.
Chen G, Feng T, Li Z, Chen Z, Chen Y, Wang H, Xiang Y. 2017.
Influence of sulfur on the arsenic phytoremediation using
Vallisneria natans (Lour.). Hara. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol.
99(3):411–414. doi: 10.1007/s00128-017-2135-1.
Chen L, Fang Y, Jin Y, Chen Q, Zhao Y, Xiao Y, Zhao H. 2013.
Biosorption of Pb2þ by dried powder of duckweed (Lemna aequi­
noctialis). Chin J Appl Environ Biol. 19(6):1046–1052. doi: 10.3724/
SP.J.1145.2013.01046.
Datko AH, Mudd SH, Giovanelli J. 1980. Lemna paucicostata Hegelm.
6746: life cycle and characterization of the colony types in a popula­
tion. Plant Physiol. 65(5):913–923. doi: 10.1104/pp.65.5.913.
Ekperusi AO, Nwachukwu EO, Sikoki FD. 2020. Assessing and model­
ling the efficacy of Lemna aequinoctialis for the phytoremediation of
8 A. O. EKPERUSI ET AL.
petroleum hydrocarbons in crude oil-contaminated wetlands. Sci
Rep. 10(1):8489. doi.: doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-65389-z.
Ekperusi OA, Aigbodion IF, Iloba BN, Okorefe S. 2017. Assessment
and bioremediation of heavy metals from crude oil contaminated
soil by earthworms. Ethiop J Env Stud Manage. 9(2):1036–1046. doi:
10.4314/ejesm.v9i2.9S.
Ekperusi OA, Sikoki FD, Nwachukwu EO. 2019. Application of com­
mon duckweed (Lemna minor) in phytoremediation of chemicals in
the environment: state and future perspective. Chemosphere. 223:
285–309. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.02.025.
Galal TM, Farahat EA. 2015. The invasive macrophyte Pistia stratiotes
L. as a bioindicator for water pollution in Lake Mariut, Egypt.
Environ Monit Assess. 187(11):701–711. doi: 10.1007/s10661-015-
4941-4.
Galal TM, Gharib FA, Ghazi SM, Mansour KH. 2017.
Phytostabilization of heavy metals by the emergent macrophyte
Vossia cuspidata (Roxb.) Griff.: a phytoremediation approach. Int J
Phytoremediation. 19(11):992–999. doi: 10.1080/15226514.2017.
1303816.
Hillman WS, Culley DD. 1978. The use of duckweed. Am Sci. 66:
442–451.
ITRC. 2003. Technical and regulatory guidance document for con­
structed treatment wetlands (WTLND-1). Interstate Technology and
Regulatory Council. Dec. p. 199.
Jasrotia S, Kansal A, Mehra A. 2017. Performance of aquatic plant spe­
cies for phytoremediation of arsenic-contaminated water. Appl
Water Sci. 7(2):889–896. doi: 10.1007/s13201-015-0300-4.
Kishchenko O, Stepanenko A, Straub T, Zhou Y, Neuh€auser B,
Borisjuk N. 2023. Ammonium uptake, mediated by ammonium
transporters, mitigates manganese toxicity in duckweed, Spirodela
polyrhiza. Plants (Basel). 12(1):208. doi: 10.3390/plants12010208.
Landis WG, Sofield RM, Yu MH. 2011. Introduction to environmental
toxicology: molecular structures to ecological landscapes. 4th ed.
Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. p. 117–162.
Landolt E. 1980. Key to the determination of taxa within the family of
Lemnaceae. Ver€offentlichungen des Geobotanischen Institutes der
Eidgen€ ossischeTechnische Hochschule. Stiftung Rubel Z€ urich. 70(1):
13–21.
Landolt E. 1986. The family of Lemnaceae a monographic study. Vol.
1, Biosystematic investigations in the family of duckweeds
(Lemnaceae). Zurich: Veroffentlichungen des Geobotanischen,
Instituts der ETH, Stiftung Rubel.
Lesage E, Rousseau DPL, Meers E, Tack FMG, De Pauw N. 2007.
Accumulation of metals in a horizontal subsurface flow constructed
wetland treating domestic wastewater in Flanders, Belgium. Sci
Total Environ. 380(1–3):102–115. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2006.10.
055.
Liu Y, Xu H, Yu C, Zhou G. 2021. Multifaceted roles of duckweed in
aquatic phytoremediation and bioproducts synthesis. GCB
Bioenergy. 13(1):70–82. doi: 10.1111/gcbb.12747.
Mbagwu IG, Adeniji HA. 1988. The nutritional content of duckweed
(Lemna paucicostata Hegelm) in the Kainji Lake area, Nigeria.
Aquat Bot. 29(4):357–366. doi: 10.1016/0304-3770(88)90079-4.
Megateli S, Dosnon-Olette R, Trotel-Aziz P, Geffard A, Semsari S,
Couderchet M. 2013. Simultaneous effects of two fungicides (copper
and dimethomorph) on their phytoremediation using Lemna minor.
Ecotoxicology. 22(4):683–692. doi: 10.1007/s10646-013-1060-2.
Megateli S, Semsari S, Couderchet M. 2009. Toxicity and removal of
heavy metals (cadmium, copper, and zinc) by Lemna gibba.
Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 72(6):1774–1780. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2009.
05.004.
Miretzky P, Saralegui A, Fernandez CA. 2004. Aquatic macrophytes
potential for the simultaneous removal of heavy metals (Buenos
Aires, Argentina). Chemosphere. 57(8):997–1005. doi: 10.1016/j.che­
mosphere.2004.07.024.
Mishra VK, Tripathi BD. 2008. Concurrent removal and accumulation
of heavy metals by the three aquatic macrophytes. Bioresour
Technol. 99(15):7091–7097. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2008.01.002.
Mkandawire M, Dudel EG. 2007. Are Lemna spp effective phytoreme­
diation agents? Bioremediation. Biodivers Bioavailab. 1(1):56–71.
Mohedano RA, Costa RHR, Tavares FA, Filho PB. 2012. High nutrient
removal rate from swine wastes and protein biomass production by
full-scale duckweed ponds. Bioresour Technol. 112:98–104. doi: 10.
1016/j.biortech.2012.02.083.
Muradov N, Taha M, Miranda AF, Kadali K, Gujar A, Rochfort S,
Stevenson T, Ball AS, Mouradov A. 2014. Dual application of duck­
weed and azolla plants for wastewater treatment and renewable fuels
and petrochemicals production. Biotechnol Biofuels. 7(1):30. doi: 10.
1186/1754-6834-7-30.
Nguyen HL, Leermakers M, Osan J, Torok S, Baeyens W. 2005. Heavy
metals in Lake Balaton: watercolumn, suspended matter, sediment
and biota. Sci Total Environ. 340(1–3):213–230. doi: 10.1016/j.scito­
tenv.2004.07.032.
Oporto C, Arce O, Van den Broeck E, Van der Bruggen B,
Vandecasteele C. 2006. Experimental study and modelling of Cr
(VI) removal from wastewater using Lemna minor. Water Res.
40(7):1458–1464. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2006.01.037.
Ort�uzar M, Esterhuizen M, Olic� on-Hern�andez DR, Gonz�alez-L�opez J,
Aranda E. 2022. Pharmaceutical pollution in aquatic environments:
a concise review of environmental impacts and bioremediation sys­
tems. Front Microbiol. 13:869332. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.869332.
Paisio CE, Fernandez M, Gonzalez PS, Talano MA, Medina MI,
Agostini E. 2018. Simultaneous phytoremediation of chromium and
phenol by Lemna minuta Kunth: a promising biotechnological tool.
Int J Environ Sci Technol. 15(1):37–48. doi: 10.1007/s13762-017-
1368-1.
Pilon-Smits E. 2005. Phytoremediation. Annu Rev Plant Biol. 56:15–39.
doi: 10.1146/annurev.arplant.56.032604.144214.
Preetha SS, Kaladevi V. 2014. Phytoremediation of heavy metals using
aquatic macrophytes. World J Environ Biosci. 3(1):34–41.
Rahmani GNH, Sternberg SPK. 1999. Bioremoval of lead from water
using Lemna minor. Bioresour Technol. 70(3):225–230. doi: 10.1016/
S0960-8524(99)00050-4.
Roberts MJ, Long SP, Tieszen LL, Beadle CL. 1985. Chapter 1 –
Measurement of plant biomass and net primary production. In:
Techniques in bioproductivity and photosynthesis. Pergamon
International Library of Science, Technology, Engineering and Social
Studies. 2nd ed. p. 1–19. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-08-031999-5.50011-X.
Sarma H. 2011. Metal hyperaccumulation in plants: a review focusing
on phytoremediation technology. J Environ Sci Technol. 4(2):118–
138. doi: 10.3923/jest.2011.118.138.
Shuvaeva OV, Belchenko LA, Romanova TE. 2013. Studies on cad­
mium accumulation by some selected floating macrophytes. Int J
Phytoremediation. 15(10):979–990. doi: 10.1080/15226514.2012.
751353.
Sobrino AS, Miranda MG, Alvarez C, Quiroz A. 2010. Bio-accumula­
tion and toxicity of lead (Pb) in Lemna gibba L (duckweed).
J Environ Sci Health A Tox Hazard Subst Environ Eng. 45(1):107–
110. doi: 10.1080/10934520903389267.
Sukumaran D. 2013. Phytoremediation of heavy metals from industrial
effluent using constructed wetland technology. AEES. 1(5):92–97.
doi: 10.12691/aees-1-5-4.
Sun H, Wang Z, Gao P, Liu P. 2013. Selection of aquatic plants for
phytoremediation of heavy metal in electroplate wastewater. Acta
Physiol Plant. 35(2):355–364. doi: 10.1007/s11738-012-1078-8.
Tang J, Chen C, Chen L, Daroch M, Cui Y. 2017. Effects of pH, initial
Pb2þ concentration, and polyculture on lead remediation by three
duckweed species. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 24(30):23864–23871.
doi: 10.1007/s11356-017-0004-4.
Tchounwou PB, Yedjou CG, Patlolla AK, Sutton DJ. 2012. Heavy met­
als toxicity and the environment. Exp Suppl. 101:133–164. doi: 10.
1007/978-3-7643-8340-4_6.
Tkalec M, Cifrek ZV, Regula I. 1998. The effect of oil industry ‘high
density brines’ on duckweed Lemna minor L. Chemosphere. 37(13):
2703–2715. doi: 10.1016/S0045-6535(98)00156-8.
Tunca EU, €
€ Olmez €
TT, Ozkan AD, Altında�g A, Tunca E, Tekinay T.
2016. Correlations in metal release profiles following sorption by
Lemna minor. Int J Phytoremediation. 18(8):785–793. doi: 10.1080/
15226514.2015.1131241.

€ unc€
Uç€ u E, Tunca E, Fikirdeşici S, Altında�g A. 2013. Decrease and
increase profile of Cu, Cr and Pb during stable phase of removal by
duckweed (Lemna minor L.). Int J Phytoremediation. 15(4):376–384.
doi: 10.1080/15226514.2012.702808.
€ unc€
Uç€ €
u E, Tunca E, Fikirdeşici S, Ozkan AD, Altında�g A. 2013.
Phytoremediation of Cu, Cr and Pb Mixtures by Lemna minor. Bull
Environ Contam Toxicol. 91(5):600–604. doi: 10.1007/s00128-013-
1107-3.
Van Epps A. 2006. Phytoremediation of petroleum hydrocarbons, solid
waste and emergency response. Office of Superfund Remediation
and Technology Innovation. Washington, DC: United States
Environmental Protection Agency.
Vollenweider RA. 1974. A manual on methods for measuring primary
production in aquatic environments. IBP Handbook No. 12
International Biological Programme. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell
Scientific Publications. p. 225.
Walsh E,� Paolacci S, Burnell G, Jansen MAK. 2020. The importance
of the calcium-to-magnesium ratio for phytoremediation of dairy
industry wastewater using the aquatic plant Lemna minor L. Int J
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHYTOREMEDIATION 9
Phytoremediation. 22(7):694–702. doi: 10.1080/15226514.2019.
1707478.
Xing W, Wu H, Hao B, Huang W, Liu G. 2013. Bioaccumulation of
heavy metals by submerged macrophytes: looking for hyperaccumu­
lators in eutrophic lakes. Environ Sci Technol. 47(9):4695–4703. doi:
10.1021/es303923w.
Zhou Y, Bai T, Kishchenko OM. 2019. Potential of Lemnoideae species
for phytoremediation of fresh water with elevated manganese con­
centration. Innov Biosyst Bioeng. 3(4):232–238. doi: 10.20535/ibb.
2019.3.4.183207.
Zhou Y, Kishchenko O, Stepanenko A, Chen G, Wang W, Zhou J, Pan
C, Borisjuk N. 2021. The dynamics of NO3− and NH4þ uptake in
duckweed are coordinated with the expression of major nitrogen
assimilation genes. Plants (Basel). 11(1):11. doi: 10.3390/
plants11010011.
Zhou Y, Stepanenko A, Kishchenko O, Xu J, Borisjuk N. 2023.
Duckweeds for phytoremediation of polluted water. Plants (Basel).
12(3):589. doi: 10.3390/plants12030589.