Received: 26 December 2022 Revised: 11 May 2023 Accepted: 31 May 2023

DOI: 10.1002/cjce.25027

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Effect of plant density and hydraulic retention time on

phytoremediation of greywater using water hyacinth and
validation of its optimized result using artificial neural
network

Rajnikant Prasad 1,2 | Dayanand Sharma 3 | Ashutosh Kumar Pandey 4 |

Kunwar D. Yadav 1 | Sunil Kumar 5 | Hussameldin Ibrahim 6

1
Department of Civil Engineering, SV
National Institute of Technology, Surat, Abstract
India Water scarcity is a global issue and finding alternative ways to meet our water
2
Faculty of Civil Engineering, College of needs within available resources is becoming increasingly important. Repurposing
Militry Engineering, Pune, India
3
greywater for non-potable uses, such as irrigation and car washing, can help alle-
Civil Engineering Department, Sharda
University, Greater Noida, India
viate the demand for drinking water. Greywater recycling and reuse are viable
4
Centre for Energy and Environmental options to combat water scarcity. This study investigated the treatment of grey-
Sustainability-India, Lucknow, India water using phytoremediation, specifically focusing on the effect of water hyacinth
5
CSIR-National Environmental density and hydraulic retention time (HRT). An artificial neural network was used
Engineering Research Institute
to optimize these parameters in the treatment system. The experiment spanned
(CSIR-NEERI), Nagpur, India
6
Clean Energy Technologies Research
over 7 weeks and consisted of two phases. In phase I, different water hyacinth
Institute, Process Systems Engineering, densities (ranging from 1.0 to 4.0 kg/m2) were tested, while phase II examined
Faculty of Engineering and Applied various HRTs (ranging from 12 to 48 h). The results indicated that the optimal
Science, University of Regina, Regina,
Saskatchewan, Canada conditions for greywater treatment were a water hyacinth density of 2 kg/m2 and
an HRT of 48 h. Under these optimal conditions, the treatment system achieved
Correspondence
high removal efficiencies for turbidity (98.02 ± 0.75%), chemical oxygen demand
Hussameldin Ibrahim, Clean Energy
Technologies Research Institute, Process (59.42 ± 5.64%), ammonium-nitrogen (87.45 ± 7.29%), and phosphate (94.50
Systems Engineering, Faculty of ± 2.19%). However, the removal of total suspended solids was relatively low at
Engineering and Applied Science,
43.98 ± 9.20%. These findings were confirmed using an artificial neural network,
University of Regina, 3737 Wascana
Parkway, Regina, SK 4S 0A2, Canada. showing a strong correlation (R > 0.99). The study concludes that phytoremedia-
Email: hussameldin.ibrahim@uregina.ca tion using water hyacinth can be a viable option for greywater recycling and
reuse, effectively addressing water scarcity. The recommended optimal conditions
include a water hyacinth density of 2 kg/m2 and an HRT of 48 h.

KEYWORDS
floating plant, greywater, hydraulic retention time, density, water hyacinth

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2023 The Authors. The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Canadian Society for Chemical Engineering.

Can J Chem Eng. 2024;102:113–128. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/cjce 113


114
1 | INTRODUCTION
By 2030, rapid urbanization and population growth, with
around 55% of the world’s population residing in urban
areas, are anticipated to grow the water demand 60%.[1]
The increasing burden on the available freshwater
resources worldwide has led us to think of new ways to
meet our water demand within the available resources.
Reusing greywater (GW) after suitable treatment for non-
potable purposes like gardening, vehicle cleaning, and fire
fighting can reduce the potable water demand.[2] GW is an
encouraging, permanent source and accounts for more than
60%–70% of municipal wastewater generation.[3]
In many parts of the world, the floating freshwater
aquatic plant known as water hyacinth is considered a
noxious weed. The proliferation of water hyacinth results
in doubling its capacity within 15–20 days, depending
upon the nutrient availability. The proliferation is essen-
tial for wastewater remediation using phytoremediation
techniques. The criteria of phytoremediation include
rapid growth rate, high nutrient absorption rate, and ease
to harvest, which water hyacinth fulfills. Water scarcity
and hyacinth problems can be alleviated by utilizing
them under controlled conditions for GW treatment.
According to the different literature, water hyacinth
can be effectively used for the removal of pollutants from
pig farm wastewater,[4,5] domestic wastewater,[6–8] petro-
leum refinery wastewater,[9] institute wastewater,[10] pol-
luted rural river water,[11] aquaculture wastewater,[12]
dairy manure wastewater,[13] duck farm effluent,[14] and
textile effluent.[15,16] However, the key parameters driv-
ing aquatic plant treatment performance are plant
density, hydraulic retention time (HRT), and plant
growth rate.[17] The plant density selection is a significant
factor in treatment performance. The growth of water
hyacinth is directly correlated with nutritional availabil-
ity, environmental factors, and wastewater pH. Water
hyacinth flourishes due to the increased concentration of
nutrients. However, proliferation is directly proportional
to the decay rate, that is, the growth rate in particularly
nutrient-rich wastewater directly relates to decay and
decomposition. Hence, optimum initial plant density is
crucial in treatment performance to avoid decaying. It
also considers the frequency of harvesting needed for the
continuous operation of the treatment system.
Change in the retention time accounts for variation
in treatment performance. The retention time depends
on the pollution level in the wastewater. For example,
Rangel-Peraza et al.[10] reported a retention time of
4 days, Agarry et al.[9] and Shah et al.[18] reported
10 days, and Rezania et al.[6] reported 12 days of reten-
tion time for institute wastewater, petroleum refinery
wastewater, municipal wastewater, and domestic sewage,
1939019x, 2024, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cjce.25027 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [10/07/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
PRASAD ET AL.
respectively. Despite the variations in retention time
required for different types of wastewater treatment,
there is a lack of comprehensive studies that investigate
the effect of changing retention time on the treatment
efficiency for GW. Thus, there is a need for more research
to identify the optimum retention time and plant density
required for the effective treatment of GW.
Numerous methods are available for GW treatment
like physical, chemical, and biological treatment tech-
niques, having success in varying degrees. Many treat-
ment systems are efficient in treating GW. However,
these technologies cannot be implemented in developing
countries due to their capital, operation, and mainte-
nance costs.[19] The natural treatment system, which
relies on the natural process for contamination remedia-
tion, has been considered a promising method: economi-
cal and easy to operate. It involves a complex mechanism
between water, plants, substrates, and microorganisms
for removing contaminants like organic matter, nutri-
ents, and other pollutants from wastewater.[20]
Several studies are available on environment friendly
and economically viable technology.[21] Constructed wet-
land is a proven technology for wastewater treatment.
Vertical flow wetlands, horizontal sub-surface wetlands,
and free-flowing surface wetlands are the three primary
forms of man-made wetlands used in wastewater remedi-
ation.[20] The free water surface system comprises an area
of open water with floating vegetation or emergent
plants. Due to its oxygen enriching capacity, free water
surface systems are used for wastewater treatment from
different industries and domestic units.
An artificial neural network (ANN) is a convincing,
quick, flexible, and accurate modelling tool that uses
mathematical logic to mimic the way the human brain
recognizes patterns. When modelling complex interac-
tions between inputs and outputs, they are utilized as
modelling tools for non-linear statistical data.[22] ANNs
are effective mathematical tools for modelling, simulat-
ing, and optimizing different processes.[23–25] Applica-
tions of ANN include dye adsorption using zinc oxide,[26]
leachate adsorption,[27] and cattle dung and flower quan-
tity optimization for vermicomposting.[28] Using ANN,
the experimental dataset was validated and the optimum
outcome was predicted for water hyacinth density and
HRT for GW treatment in a floating plant treatment sys-
tem. This study predicted optimum water hyacinth den-
sity and HRT using multi-layered feed-forward ANN with
back-propagation (BP).[29] It solves the non-linear regres-
sion models.[30] BP was used to analyze the findings of the
network, which resulted in a reduction of error through the
process of tracing links between inputs and outputs.[31] Sev-
eral studies have proven the efficacy of ANN models for
envisaging the wastewater treated.[32,33]

PRASAD ET AL.
The research aimed to investigate the use of water
hyacinth for the treatment of GW through phytoremedia-
tion techniques. Specifically, it aimed to identify the opti-
mum initial plant density and HRT required for effective
treatment. The study also explore the use of constructed
wetlands as a natural and cost-effective method for GW
treatment. Furthermore, the study propose the use of
ANN as a modelling tool to predict the optimum outcome
of water hyacinth density and HRT for GW treatment in
a floating plant treatment systems.
2 | MATERIALS AND METHODS
Figure 1A depicts the flowchart of the methodology used
in the study. It provides a visual representation of the
study’s overall approach and helps to clarify the research
process.
2.1 | GW and water hyacinth collection
GW was collected from the student hostel at the Sardar
Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology (SVNIT),
Surat, India (21.1643
N, 72.7841
E). A separate collec-
tion system of capacity 350 L was installed for collecting
GW from hand basins, showers, and bathrooms. Daily,
250 L of GW was collected, and the remaining was
discarded.
Baby water hyacinths (10–12 cm height) were col-
lected from Hazira Lake of Surat, India, and stored in the
propagation area, which was used as a storage bank for
further studies. All foreign matter on the water hyacinth
was removed by thoroughly washing with tap water
before cultivation in the propagation area. Similar-sized
baby water hyacinth (70–100 g) with a 12–14 cm height
were used in phases I and II. The presence of new roots
and the higher nutrient requirements of baby water hya-
cinth compared to matured ones justify selecting the baby
water hyacinth. Moreover, the baby water hyacinth roots
release more oxygen into the water than the developed
roots.[34]
2.2 | Experimental set-up
Floating Pond Treatment Systems (FPTS) consist of four
rectangular reactors of 1.0 m long, 0.3 m wide, 0.3 m deep,
a surface area of 0.3 m2, and a total volume of 90 L
(Figure 1B). The inflow pipe (12.7 mm diameter) was
located at 0.2 m from the bottom of the reactor towards
the top, and the outflow pipe at 25 mm from the bottom at
the bottom of the reactor in the middle width. A header
1939019x, 2024, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cjce.25027 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [10/07/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
115
tank made of PVC with 1.2 m long, 0.83 m wide, and
0.34 m deep placed at 1.5 m height provided continuous
flow into the reactor. A pipe connected from the header
tank to each of the reactors equipped with a flow control
valve maintained the reactor’s hydraulic inflow rates. The
study was carried out for 31 days; after that, the water hya-
cinth started growing out of the reactor.
2.3 | Methodology
The study was carried out in two phases. Phase I deter-
mined the optimum water hyacinth density under a con-
stant 24 h HRT and 60 L/day flow rate. A volumetric
method was used to check the reactor inflow and outflow
rates. The water hyacinth density of 1, 2, 3, and 4 kg/m2
was used in the reactor and designated D1, D2, D3, and
D4, respectively. In phase II, the treatment performance
was evaluated at a water hyacinth density of 2 kg/m2 and
HRT of 12, 24, 36, and 48 h for the reactor and designated
as H1, H2, H3, and H4, respectively. The flow rate was
computed by considering the reactor’s theoretical HRT
and surface area. The HRT, t (h), was calculated using
Equation (1).
V Ay
t¼ ¼ ð1Þ
Q Q
Where Q (L/day) is the designed flow rate, which is
assumed constant, A (m2) is the surface area of the reac-
tor, V (m3) is the reactor volume, y is the depth of flow in
the floating plant treatment system.
2.4 | Sampling and analysis
The GW sampling started 7 days after planting to avoid
the initial fluctuations and allow water hyacinth to adopt
the new environment. The outflow (treated effluent) sam-
ple was collected using siphon action. The samples
(inflow and outflow) were collected daily from 9:00 to
10:00 AM and analyzed immediately or stored under refrig-
eration at 4
C for further determination. Chemical oxygen
demand (COD) was analyzed using a COD reactor at 150
C
for 2 h, and excess hot potassium dichromate was titrated
with ferrous ammonium sulphate. Ammonium-nitrogen
(NH4+-N) and phosphate (PO43) by stannous chloride
method were analyzed in accordance with standard proce-
dures (APHA 2012). Total suspended solids (TSS) were ana-
lyzed by the filtration method using Whatman GF/F filters.
The pH, water temperature, and TDS measurements
were done using a portable pH and TDS meter (Hanna
Instruments, HI98129, Romania).
1939019x, 2024, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cjce.25027 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [10/07/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
PRASAD ET AL.

F I G U R E 1 (A) Flowchart of the methodology. (B) Greywater treatment system used in this study. BOD, biochemical oxygen demand;
COD, chemical oxygen demand; HRT, hydraulic retention time; TDS, total dissolved solids; TSS, total suspended solids.
116
 1939019x, 2024, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cjce.25027 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [10/07/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
PRASAD ET AL. 117

2.5 | Statistical analysis Where N = Total number of data points; yAct,i ¼

Actual result; yprd,i ¼ Predicted result; ym = Mean value of
The experimental data were analyzed using SPSS 22.0, the result.
and p < 0.05 was interpreted for the insignificant differ- The commonly employed error function, MSE, was
ence level. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used in this study (Equation (3)),
performed to analyze the differences in the average out-
flow values for each physicochemical parameter. 1X N  2
MSE ¼ yin  ^yin ð3Þ
N I¼1

2.6 | ANN modelling

The ANN is a neural network toolbox (NNT) that makes
use of multi-layered hidden neural neurons to carry out
computational modelling for complex and non-linear
systems.[22] The ANN architecture developed for this study
was utilized to optimize water hyacinth density and HRT
for the GW treatment. Using MATLAB R2015a
(MathWorks Inc., USA), various ANN topologies were
trained to estimate the total number of neurons in the hid-
den layer. The training parameters used are provided in
Table 1. The ANN with minimum mean square error
(MSE) and maximum overall correlation coefficient (R)
reached closer to 1, and regression value (R2) calculated by
using Equation (2) was considered as optimal topology.[35]
N 
P 
yprd,i  yAct,i
R2 ¼ 1  i¼1N   ð2Þ
P cess resulting in the stoppage after 31 days.
yprd,i  ym
i¼1
Where, N = number of patterns used in training;
M = number of output nodes; i = Index of the input pat-
tern (vector); yin and ^yin ¼ Actual and predicted outputs.
3 | RESULTS A ND DISCUSSIONS
The FPTS showed quick start-up attributed to the rapid
growth of water hyacinth under phase I and II. The
results showed a strong relationship between the water
hyacinth density and HRT in the overall treatment per-
formance. The growth exceeded expectations to such an
extent that the baby plant roots floated in the air outside
the reactor and survived, showing that the mother plant
supplied the nutrients required for its growth through
stolon inside the reactor. Even though the baby plant sur-
vived, it was not directly involved in the treatment pro-

3.1 | Effect of temperature and pH

T A B L E 1 Artificial neural network training parameters for the
tabulated parameters.
Parameters
Model type
Transfer functions
Between hidden input–output
Between output-in and
output-out
Training function
Performance function
(termination criteria)
Adaption learning function
Optimum number of hidden
neurons for removal of pollutants
% data for training
% data for testing
% data for validation
Epochs limit (iterations)
GW temperature and pH significantly impact water hya-
Set value cinth growth[36] and can significantly affect the treatment
performance.[7] The average inflow GW temperature
Feed-forward-
backpropagation
was 25.25 ± 1.13
C, with an average outflow GW temper-
ature of 24.30 ± 1.43
C, 24.17 ± 1.40
C, 24.17 ± 1.39
C,
24.07 ± 1.41
C for reactor D1, D2, D3, and D4, respec-
TANSIGMOID tively, during the Phase 1 (Figure 2A). The reduction in
PURELIN the outlet GW temperature was observed compared to
the inlet. For phase II, the average inflow GW tempera-
Levenberg– ture was 27.49 ± 2.16
C with an average outflow GW tem-
Marquardt (TRAINLM) perature of 28.29 ± 2.43
C, 27.19 ± 2.23
C, 27.02 ± 2.13
C,
MSE < 0.01 and 28.79 ± 2.73
C, respectively for reactor H1, H2, H3,
and H4, respectively (Figure 3A).
LEARNGDM Similar to phase I, a slight reduction in GW tempera-
20 ture was observed for reactor H2 and H3, whereas for
reactor H1 and H4, an increase in water temperature was
70 observed. However, there was no significant difference
15 between the inflow and outflow as well as between differ-
ent outflows (p > 0.05) in phase I and phase II. Qin
15
et al.[7] reported a similar result, where the water temper-
1000
ature ranged between 24.5 and 31
C. The average

118
F I G U R E 2 Temporal variations in (A) water temperature, (B) pH, (C) turbidity; (D) total dissolved solids (TDS), and (E) total suspended
solids (TSS) during density study.
temperature in the present study lies between 21.8 and
29
C, which is considered ideal for water hyacinth
growth. However, the minimum and maximum water
temperatures for water hyacinth growth required are
12 and 35
C, respectively.[37] Thus, the study was carried
out under the suitable temperature required for water
hyacinth proliferation.
Water hyacinth is sensitive to the pH of the water in
which it is grown, affecting the treatment performance.
For phase I, inflow pH ranged between 7.42 and 7.86,
1939019x, 2024, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cjce.25027 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [10/07/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
PRASAD ET AL.
and outflow ranged between 7.17 and 7.92 for D1, 7.07
and 7.92 for D2, 7.11 and 7.85 for D3, and 7.10 and 8.04
for D4. Figure 2B shows a minor reduction in the pH of
the outflow in all the reactors. A significant difference in
pH was observed for inflow and outflow except for reac-
tors D4. However, significant difference ( p > 0.001) was
not observed between the outflow of the reactors D1, D2,
D3, and D4. For phase II, inflow pH ranged between 7.64
and 7.91, and outflow ranged between 7.42 and 7.71 for
H1, 7.39 and 7.71 for H2, 7.4 and 7.8 for H3 and 7.41 and

PRASAD ET AL.
F I G U R E 3 Temporal variations in (A) water temperature, (B) pH, (C) turbidity, (D) total dissolved solids (TDS), and (E) total suspended
solids (TSS) during hydraulic retention time study.
7.98 for H4 (Figure 3B). Significant difference (p < 0.001)
was observed between the inflow and outflow except for
H4. However, a significant difference was observed
between the outflows between the H1 and H4. That a
decrease in pH was observed in the outflow compared to
the inflow in phase I and phase II indicates diffusion of
atmospheric CO2 into the water column. Agarry et al.[9]
observed a pH range of 7.4 to 7.7 to treat petroleum refin-
ery wastewater. The pH range of 6 to 9 is optimum for
water remediation using macrophytes.[18] Moreover, the
pH range of 6.6 to 8 is required for the improved
1939019x, 2024, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cjce.25027 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [10/07/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
119
microbial activity required for nitrification. Therefore,
the pH in the present study was within the optimum
growth conditions required for water hyacinth growth
and development.
3.2 | Removal of turbidity, TDS, and TSS
performance
The stable colloidal suspensions in the GW were mea-
sured in turbidity and dissolved liquid content in

120
molecular and ionized in TDS[38] and were found to
reduce in both the phases of the study. For phase I, the
average inflow turbidity was 55.36 ± 6.63 NTU, and the
outflow turbidity was 6.09 ± 2.74 NTU, 4.48 ± 1.81 NTU,
4.35 ± 1.88 NTU and 4.98 ± 2.29 NTU for reactor D1, D2,
D3, and D4, respectively (Figure 2C). The corresponding
average turbidity removal was 88.94 ± 4.97%, 91.90
± 3.12%, 92.11 ± 3.28%, and 90.96 ± 4.13% for reactor D1,
D2, D3, and D4, respectively. The optimum turbidity
removal was observed in reactor D2 with an average
removal of 91.90 ± 3.12%. Increasing the water hyacinth
density beyond the density used in reactor D2 does not fur-
ther improve the turbidity removal efficiency. The turbidity
removal can be due to the dense root of the water hyacinth
trapping the colloidal suspension particles in the
GW. However, increasing water hyacinth density beyond the
density used in reactor D2 does not further contribute to
treatment performance.
For phase II, the average inflow turbidity was 40.32 ±
8.74 NTU, and outflow turbidity was 1.94 ± 1.04 NTU,
1.27 ± 0.82 NTU, 1.02 ± 0.81 NTU, and 0.79 ± 0.36 NTU
for reactor H1, H2, H3, and H4, respectively (Figure 3C).
The corresponding average turbidity removal was
95.21 ± 2.11%, 96.93 ± 1.70%, 97.38 ± 1.61%, 98.02 ± 0.75%
for reactor H1, H2, H3, and H4, respectively. It was
observed that with a reduction in GW flow rate, the turbid-
ity removal performance improved with maximum removal
observed in reactor H4.[39] The extensive water hyacinth
roots significantly contributed to the turbidity reduction
from GW.[40]
Significant turbidity removal was observed in all the
systems, irrespective of the water hyacinth density and
hydraulic loading rate. Moreover, the visual observation
of the reactor showed the presence of snails on the reac-
tor walls. These snails clean suspended solids and prevent
algal growth on the reactor walls.[41] The enhanced tur-
bidity removal was observed because of the settling of the
lighter organic matter on the roots of water hyacinth
through rhizofilteration, physicochemical absorption,
and accumulation of the heavier suspended particles at
the bottom of the reactor.[38] Therefore, reactor H4 (den-
sity 2 kg/m2 and HRT of 48 h) showed the highest turbid-
ity removal.
For phase I, the average inflow TDS was 384.68 ±
29.36 mg/L, and outflow TDS was 358.39 ± 24.42 mg/L,
360.61 ± 18.41 mg/L, 356.42 ± 16.05 mg/L, and 361.68 ±
17.57 mg/L for D1, D2, D3, and D4 reactor, respectively
(Figure 2D). The maximum reduction was observed in
reactor D3. In contrast to the high turbidity removal,
very low TDS removal was observed. Rezania et al.[42]
reported a similar result of 11% TDS removal from
domestic wastewater treatment. The corresponding
average TDS removal was 6.55 ± 6.63%, 5.85 ± 7.18%,
1939019x, 2024, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cjce.25027 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [10/07/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
PRASAD ET AL.
6.97 ± 6.39%, 5.58 ± 6.97% for reactor D1, D2, D3, and
D4, respectively.
For phase II, the average TDS inflow was 371.25 ±
19.28 mg/L and outflow TDS of 379.68 ± 38.27 mg/L,
368.35 ± 32.12 mg/L, 368.39 ± 38.10 mg/L, and 371.94 ±
45.17 mg/L for reactor H1, H2, H3, and H4, respectively
(Figure 3D). The corresponding TDS removal was 2.23 ±
8.20%, 2.25 ± 7.46%, 2.07 ± 7.78%, and 1.01 ± 9.60% for reac-
tors H1, H2, H3, and H4, respectively. Significant difference
(p > 0.1) was not observed between the inflow and the out-
flows for phases I and II. Similar results were reported by
Olukanni and Kokumo,[43] where a TDS reduction of 12.64%
was observed. Thus, it can be concluded that water hyacinth
does not significantly contribute to TDS removal.[44]
TSS represents the suspended matter present in the
GW. For phase I, the average inflow TSS was 137.52 ±
16.19 mg/L, and outflow TSS was 90.16 ± 13.18 mg/L,
88.81 ± 13.81 mg/L, 90.16 ± 13.18 mg/L, and 91.55 ±
13.21 mg/L, respectively for reactors D1, D2, D3, and D4.
The corresponding removal was 34.39 ± 6.42%, 35.40 ±
7.04%, 34.39 ± 7.89%, 16.00 ± 9.09% for reactors D1, D2,
D3, and D4, respectively was observed with maximum
reduction in reactor D2 (Figure 2E). Similar result
was observed for phase II, where the average TSS inflow
was 156.65 ± 22.48 mg/L, and average TSS outflow was
118.61 ± 9.62 mg/L, 108.35 ± 7.69 mg/L, 95.29 ± 5.85 mg/L,
and 86.0 ± 6.44 mg/L for reactors H1, H2, H3, and H4,
respectively (Figure 3E). The corresponding removal of 23.10
± 10.03%, 29.54 ± 10.39%, 37 ± 9.91%, and 43.98 ± 9.20% for
reactor H1, H2, H3, and H4 were observed in phase II. The
maximum removal was observed in reactor H4. Significant
difference (p < 0.001) was observed between the inflow and
outflow and different outflow. The removal mechanism
involves the trapping of suspended solids in the roots of
water hyacinth. Trapped solids are then mobilized by the
microorganisms present on the roots, acting as a site for
microbial growth, and, in the end, they settle at the bottom
of the reactor.[34] Similar results were reported by Rezania
et al.[42] with 34% of TSS removal, and Loan et al.[45] reported
44.4–53.4% for domestic wastewater treatment. However,
higher removal (91.8%) than the current study was observed
by Fazal et al.[46] for the treatment of industrial wastewater
using water hyacinth.
3.3 | Removal of COD, ammonium-
nitrogen, and phosphate
Reduction in the COD was observed in both the phases.
For phase I, the average inflow COD was 147.61
± 26.47 mg/L, and outflow COD was 91.61 ± 19.48 mg/
L, 76.42 ± 13.84 mg/L, 76.08 ± 12.82 mg/L, and 79.47
± 14.52, respectively for reactor D1, D2, D3, and D4

PRASAD ET AL.
F I G U R E 4 Temporal variations in (A) chemical oxygen demand (COD), (B) ammonium-nitrogen, (C) phosphate, (D) water hyacinth
weight during the density study.
(Figure 4A). The corresponding average removal effi-
ciency of 38.16 ± 5.28%, 48.09 ± 3.87%, 48.29 ± 2.84%,
and 45.61 ± 8.07% was observed for reactors D1, D2, D3,
and D4, respectively. The maximum removal was
observed for reactor D2, followed by D3, D4, and least
in D1.
For phase II, the average inflow COD was 103.74 ±
14.04 mg/L, and outflow COD was 57.25 ± 7.30 mg/L,
56.0 ± 4.86 mg/L, 44.68 ± 4.92 mg/L, and 41.53 ± 4.04 mg/L
respectively for reactors H1, H2, H3, and H4 (Figure 5A).
The corresponding average removal of 44.62 ± 4.02%,
45.37 ± 6.41%, 56.48 ± 5.33%, and 59.42 ± 5.64% was
achieved for reactors H1, H2, H3, and H4, respectively.
Significant ( p < 0.001) difference in the treatment perfor-
mance was observed between the inflow and outflow.
The highest average COD removal was observed for reac-
tor H2, followed by H3, H4, and H1. The water hyacinth
root system function, similar to the microbial growth
media, provided suitable conditions in the rhizosphere
for the microbial degradation of organic pollutants[11]
and nutrients into inorganic compounds used by water
hyacinth.[47] Similar treatment performance was reported
by Loan et al.[45] with 44.5–53.4% COD removal for
domestic wastewater treatment. However, higher COD
1939019x, 2024, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cjce.25027 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [10/07/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
121
removal was reported by Rezania et al.[6] with 95% COD
for domestic wastewater. Kumari and Tripathi[48]
reported 83.2% COD removal in municipal wastewater
using a combination of Salvinia natanas and water
hyacinth.
Ammonium-nitrogen is wastewater’s most effective form
of nitrogen.[49] For phase I, average inflow ammonium-
nitrogen was 7.06 ± 0.71 mg/L and outflow ammonium-
nitrogen was 4.33 ± 0.40 mg/L, 4.00 ± 0.33, 4.01 ± 0.69 mg/
L, and 4.35 ± 1.09 mg/L, respectively for reactors D1, D2,
D3, and D4 (Figure 4B). The corresponding average
ammonium-nitrogen removal was 38.45 ± 5.53%, 42.85
± 6.90%, 42.83 ± 10.28%, and 38.31 ± 14.42% for reactors
D1, D2, D3, and D4, respectively. Significant (p < 0.001) dif-
ference was observed between inflow and outflow with
maximum reduction in reactor D2, followed by D3, D1,
and D4. Higher removal was observed for reactor D2,
providing optimum density. Further increase in the
water hyacinth density reduces the average removal
efficiency because increased density increases the rate
of decay in the reactor, thereby reducing pollutants.
For phase II, the average inflow ammonium-nitrogen
was 8.04 ± 1.38 mg/L and outflow ammonium-nitrogen
was 4.92 ± 1.44 mg/L, 3.78 ± 0.96 mg/L, 2.42 ± 0.86 mg/L,

122
F I G U R E 5 Temporal variations in (A) chemical oxygen demand (COD), (B) ammonium-nitrogen, (C) phosphate, (D) water hyacinth
weight during the hydraulic retention time study.
and 1.02 ± 0.62 mg/L respectively for reactors H1, H2,
H3, and H4 (Figure 5B). The corresponding average
ammonium-nitrogen removal was 39.27 ± 12.42%,
52.64 ± 9.65%, 69.65 ± 9.34%, and 87.45 ± 7.29% from
reactors H1, H2, H3, and H4, respectively. Significant
( p < 0.001) difference was observed for inflow and out-
flows. Reactor H4 obtained the highest removal with
an HRT of 48 h. This can be attributed to the availabil-
ity of enough contact time between the nutrients pre-
sent in the GW and water hyacinth roots.
The ammonium-nitrogen removal can be attributed
to plant uptake, bacterial nitrification, and denitrifica-
tion. Moreover, the physical structure of water hyacinth
obtains the nutrition directly from the water column, as
they are floating into the water and are not rooted in the
substrate. Valipour et al.[34] reported an average
72 ± 1.84% ammonium-nitrogen reduction, showing pri-
marily water hyacinth roots in the transportation and
shoots accumulating a considerable amount of nitrogen
and phosphorous compared to the root area. Akinbile
and Yusoff[12] observed 96.12% ammonium-nitrogen
removal from wastewater.
1939019x, 2024, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cjce.25027 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [10/07/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
PRASAD ET AL.
Phosphorous is present in the form of phosphate, and
only the orthophosphate form is used by the plants in the
wetland-type of treatment systems. For phase I, the
average inflow phosphate was 0.98 ± 0.17 mg/L and
outflow phosphate was 0.71 ± 0.18 mg/L, 0.58 ± 0.17 mg/L,
0.59 ± 0.13 mg/L, and 0.56 ± 0.11 mg/L for reactors D1,
D2, D3, and D4, respectively (Figure 4C). The correspond-
ing average phosphate removal was 27.63 ± 10.50%, 41.99
± 9.41%, 39.56 ± 09.06% and 42.23 ± 12.37% was observed
in reactors D1, D2, D3, and D4, respectively. Significant
difference (p < 0.001) was observed between the inflow and
the outflow. With an increase in water hyacinth density,
the phosphate requirement increases for the growth result-
ing in phosphate removal. However, increased density also
results in increased plant litter decaying rate, which needs
to be frequently removed to maintain the treatment perfor-
mance. Reduced removal in reactor D3 can result from the
decaying process in the treatment system, which continues
to reactor D4. The maximum phosphate reduction was
observed for reactor D2, followed by D4, D3, and D1.
For phase II, the average inflow phosphate was 1.09 ±
0.14 mg/L and outflow phosphate was 0.34 ± 0.12 mg/L,

PRASAD ET AL.
0.24 ± 0.11, 0.18 ± 0.11, and 0.06 ± 0.03 mg/L for reactors
H1, H2, H3, and H4, respectively (Figure 5C). The corre-
sponding average phosphate removal was 69.02 ± 8.07%,
78.92 ± 7.37%, 84.23 ± 7.28%, and 94.50 ± 2.19% was
observed in reactors H1, H2, H3, and H4, respectively. Simi-
lar to turbidity, the removal percentage increases with an
increase in HRT. A significant difference between the differ-
ent outflow was observed. A reduction in phosphate removal
was observed due to the plants dead and decaying in the
reactor.[43] A sudden spike in the phosphate reduction was
observed as seen from the Figure 5C, which can be the result
of the decaying process during which the rate of release of
phosphate was more than the rate of removal. These findings
were comparable to those previously reported where the
methods of nitrogen removal by water hyacinth include
plant uptake and the effect of rhizospheric microbes.[50]
Kutty et al.[51] reported 83% reduction in phosphate on 48 h
retention time and 84% reduction on the 4 days retention
time. Further increase in HRT does not increase treatment
performance. In contrast, Mahunon et al.[4] reported 99.35%
removal with an HRT of 15 days to treat pig farm wastewa-
ter. However, lower phosphate removal was observed by
Loan et al.[45] with the removal of 56.7–61.4% observed. The
initial phosphate removal occurs through the plant and
microbial uptake, as well as sedimentation. The sustainable
phosphate removal method includes adsorption, accumula-
tion, and burial in the reactor bottom. Further, the microbes
present on the water hyacinth roots may have played a
substantial part in the phosphate removal owing to the
biological and biochemical mineralization of organic phos-
phorous.[52] The plant uptake is recycled back into the water
columns through the plant growth, death, and decay cycle.
Overall, the performance of FPTS was considerable for GW
treatment in both phase studies.
Merino-Solís et al.[53] showed that increasing the HRT
led to a significant improvement in the removal efficiency
of COD, TSS, ammonium-nitrogen, and total nitrogen. The
maximum removal efficiency of COD, TSS, ammonium-
nitrogen, and total nitrogen were achieved at an HRT of
6 days, which were 95.8%, 96.2%, 99.7%, and 95.8%, respec-
tively. However, increasing the HRT beyond 6 days did not
result in further significant improvements in the removal
efficiency of these pollutants. The study highlights the
importance of optimizing the HRT for the efficient removal
of pollutants in ecological wastewater treatment systems.
3.4 | Effect of time on treatment
performance
In FPTS with plant-like water hyacinth (rapid growth),
timely harvesting plays a critical role in treatment perfor-
mance. When a higher initial plant density is used, it
1939019x, 2024, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cjce.25027 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [10/07/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
123
increases the initial treatment performance; however,
this increases the harvesting frequency. Across all plant
treatment systems, the lower the maintenance, the
greater the utilization rates. Therefore, it is necessary to
find the optimum water hyacinth density that provides
the optimum harvest rate. Additionally, it was observed
that matured water hyacinth is not as effective as baby
plants in the treatment performance. This can be due to
the fact that the roots of the matured plant turned black
and the decomposition started. The decomposition pro-
cess results in the release of nutrients into the water col-
umn, making it ineffective in further treatment. In the
case of baby plants, nutrients are required for their
growth and multiplication. In the preliminary study of
water hyacinth growth patterns, it was observed that
after developing 4–5 baby plants (stolon growth), the
mother plant’s nutrients uptake reduces, and it survives
only to nourish the baby plant via stolon.
At this stage, the mother plant’s rapid decaying rate
needs to be removed to maintain the treatment perfor-
mance; otherwise, nutrients are recycled back into the
water column. Thus, harvesting is crucial to avoid the addi-
tion of pollutants from the decaying process of water hya-
cinth. In this study, based on the ammonium-nitrogen and
phosphate removal performance (Figure 5B,C), the removal
efficiency decreases after 20–22 days, indicating the degra-
dation of matured water hyacinth biomass. Therefore, it is
necessary to harvest the matured water hyacinth biomass
within 20–22 days, keeping the young water hyacinth for
further treatment. In contrast, Rezania et al.[42] reported
14 days for harvesting water hyacinth for domestic waste-
water treatment in a continuous treatment system.
3.5 | Growth of water hyacinth
The growth of water hyacinth relates to the uptake of
nutrients for growth and development. In the current
study, biomass growth was recorded at the start and end
of the experiment. From the visual appearance, rapid
growth was observed in both phase studies, which can be
related to the presence of sufficient nutrients. Initially,
the growth of mosquito larva was observed in the reactor,
which was overcome using covering the study area using
mosquito net. Although the plant was appropriately
washed before its use in the reactor, small organisms like
snails attached to the roots of water hyacinth and frogs
were observed. The number of snails increased with time.
Their presence showed the effectiveness and replicates
the natural treatment system where other microbiota also
help in the remediation of pollutants. At the beginning of
the second phase study, yellow striped armyworm, Spo-
doptera ornithogalli, was observed, reducing leaf growth.

124
The reactor was restarted with new seeding of water hya-
cinth, and the development of yellow striped armyworm,
Spodoptera ornithogalli, was not observed.
The measurement of water hyacinth biomass showed
that density and HRT influenced the growth. For phase I,
an increase in the biomass weight was inversely
proportional to the initial plant density. The water hya-
cinth initial weight was 300, 600, 900, and 1200 g, which
increased to 386 g (128.66%), 528 g (88.0%), 670 g
(174.44%), and 750 g (62.50%) for D1, D2, D3, and D4,
respectively (Figure 4D). An increase in weight was
observed between the initial and final weights and in
between the final weights. The number of water hyacinth
increased to 10, 19, 25, and 28 from 4, 7, 13, and 16 in
reactors D1, D2, D3, and D4, respectively. A higher
increase in weight can be attributed to the increase in the
baby plants’ numbers through stolon. Lower plant den-
sity showed the highest increased weight due to the
increased free surface area for baby plant growth and
multiplication. However, when this free surface reduces
by increasing the plant density, it reduces stolon growth;
hence the fight for space, light, and nutrients produces
many immature baby plants.
For phase II, water hyacinth weight was reduced with
an increase in HRT. The initial water hyacinth weight
was 600 g in all the reactors, and the final weight was
1365, 1208, 1058, and 1032 g for reactors H1, H2, H3, and
H4, respectively. The corresponding increased weight
was 765 g (127.50%), 608 g (101.33%), 458 g (76.33%), and
432 g (72.0%) for reactors H1, H2, H3, and H4, respec-
tively. The increase in weight was observed between the
initial and final weight (Figure 5D). Initially, 7 baby
water hyacinths were seeded into the reactor, which
increased to 19, 17, 16, and 15 in reactors H1, H2, H3,
and H4, respectively.
The biomass weight was greater in the reactor with
higher HRT than in those with lower HRTs. The
increased retention time increases the plant’s nutrient
uptake and hence can relate to the increased growth. In
the case of short retention time, the plant’s nutrient
absorption reduces, as seen through treatment perfor-
mance. The current study showed that growth and multi-
plication reduce when the water hyacinth plant is short
on nutrients.
3.6 | Harvesting and use of harvested
water hyacinth
Harvesting is a crucial parameter in GW treatment using
a floating plant (water hyacinth). The nutrient uptake
capacity of water hyacinth reduces with age as the plant
moves towards maturity; after that, the degradation
1939019x, 2024, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cjce.25027 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [10/07/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
PRASAD ET AL.
starts. In the meantime, the plant occupies space in the
treatment system with overall performance close to nega-
tive since, during the degradation process, nutrients are
released back into the water. When the matured plant,
known as the mother plant, has produced enough stolon
plants, these baby plants in the growing phase have high
nutrient uptake potential compared to the mother plant.
Initially, the mother plant provides nutrients for the
growth and development of the baby plants using stolon,
and once the baby plants develop roots, the stolon and
mother plant lose their purpose and start decomposing.
To avoid decomposition, harvesting the mother plant
becomes crucial. Moreover, the increase in density
reduces plant productivity, causing significant differences
in treatment performance. The increased density causes a
sizeable dying and decaying process and considerably
reduces the treatment performance.
The primary mechanism for nitrogen and phospho-
rous removal was through water hyacinth uptake. The
harvested water hyacinth can be used as a rich source of
nitrogen and phosphorous for soil enrichment. The
most feasible and economical method of utilization is
compost production or use as such in gardens. The bio-
mass can be decomposed to form a compost to increase
soil fertility by providing a source of carbon, nitrogen,
and potassium.[54]
3.7 | Optimization and validation
using ANN
To mathematically validate the optimization results,
ANN was used. ANN model was used by Behera et al.[55]
to inspect and predict CH4 (%) using extracted LPG and
leachate. Pandey et al.[56] studied the impact of HRT and
biodegradability for sludge acidogenesis using opera-
tional parameters of the reactor through ANN, and other
studies show how machine learning is important in natu-
ral sciences from waste to energy production.[24,32,33,57,58]
In the current study, ANN model was used with water
temperature, pH, TDS, phosphate, COD, and
ammonium-nitrogen as input variables and phosphate,
COD, and ammonium-nitrogen as targets for water hya-
cinth density and HRT optimization (input provided as
supplementary). In the obtained results from the output
it was observed that the 20 optimum hidden neurons
were directly dependent on the predicted phosphate,
COD, and ammonium-nitrogen, with water hyacinth
density and HRT optimization from ANN model as
shown in Figure 6.
The backpropagation model of ANN was used to
study the water hyacinth harvesting pattern behaviour by
selecting a model with the highest R value and lower
 1939019x, 2024, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cjce.25027 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [10/07/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
PRASAD ET AL. 125

F I G U R E 6 The schematic diagram for the hidden neural network used for water hyacinth density optimization and effect of hydraulic
retention time (HRT) study. COD, chemical oxygen demand; TDS, total dissolved solids.

MSE value for the purpose of training, testing, and HRT and output parameters more accurately with
validating the datasets. The model of ANN was used to the selected input values which were collected from the
optimize and predict the density of water hyacinth and laboratory investigation. The data obtained from the

126
F I G U R E 7 Comparison of predicted and experimental phosphate, chemical oxygen demand (COD), and ammonium-nitrogen removal
for the optimum (A) water hyacinth density (2 kg/m2) and (B) hydraulic retention time (48 h).
experimental work was used to train and construct the
neural network model. Out of the 31 experimental data
points, 70% were used to train the model and the remain-
ing 30% (15% + 15%) for the testing, training, and valida-
tion of the model. Continuous monitoring data of
phosphate, COD, and ammonium-nitrogen, analyzed
daily during the experiment, was further used to predict
phosphate, COD, and ammonium-nitrogen removal
using the neural network model. The obtained results
showed the phosphate, COD, and ammonium-nitrogen
removal for water hyacinth density and HRT optimiza-
tion as shown in Figure 7A,B, respectively. The present
study also reflected the predicted and actual phosphate,
COD, and ammonium-nitrogen removal up to ±4% error.
The training of model was performed until the value of
R reached up to a constant value near to 1, and the MSE
lower value was predicted with the help of Equation (3).
The training (R) coefficient for phosphate, COD, and
ammonium-nitrogen removal was 0.99 for each, which
showed that the ANN model efficiently learned the inter-
disciplinary relation between input and output variables,
as shown in Figure 6. The validation and test coeffi-
cient®for each category was 1, concluding that the model
was efficient enough to generalize and test the data with
similar order capacity. The model results showed that
the most outstanding performance after neuron optimi-
zation was with 6–20–1 topology, and it was selected
for the developed model for phosphate, COD, and
ammonium-nitrogen removal for water hyacinth den-
sity and HRT optimization, respectively, as shown in
Figures 6 and 7.
These figures showed the ANN output plots in train-
ing, validation, testing, and all datasets, as well as the
R values and MSE of training datasets for water hyacinth
density optimization and HRT.
1939019x, 2024, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cjce.25027 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [10/07/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
PRASAD ET AL.
4 | CONCLUSIONS
This study investigated the effect of plant density and HRT
on the GW treatment capacity of FPTS using water hya-
cinth. The study found that a water hyacinth density of
2 kg/m2 and HRT of 48 h achieved an average removal
efficiency of 1.01 ± 9.60%, 44.91 ± 8.54%, 97.92 ± 0.76%,
59.62 ± 7.97%, 73.80 ± 23.68%, and 91.92 ± 10.38% for
TDS, TSS, turbidity, COD, ammonium-nitrogen, and phos-
phate, respectively. The results were validated using ANN,
which showed a strong correlation coefficient (R > 0.99).
The study suggested that water hyacinth needs to be har-
vested every 20–22 days to maintain its effectiveness in the
treatment system. However, further studies are required to
be investigated for the long-term treatment performance
of FPTS using water hyacinth and to develop treatment
systems that can improve the removal of solids. Overall,
the findings of this study suggested that FPTS using water
hyacinth could be an effective decentralized treatment
option for wastewater treatment.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Rajnikant Prasad: Conceptualization; data curation;
formal analysis; investigation; methodology; writing –
original draft. Dayanand Sharma: Methodology;
resources; writing – review and editing. Ashutosh Kumar
Pandey: Resources; writing – review and editing.
Kunwar D. Yadav: Project administration; resources; super-
vision; writing – review and editing. Sunil Kumar: Writing
– review and editing. Hussameldin Ibrahim: Data cura-
tion; validation; writing – review and editing.
F U N D I N G IN F O R M A T I O N
This research did not receive any specific grant from pub-
lic, commercial, or not-for-profit funding agencies.

PRASAD ET AL.
FI NAN CIA L I NT ER ES TS
The authors declare they have no financial interests.
N O N - F I N A N CI A L IN TE R E S T S
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial
interests to disclose.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
P EE R R EV IE W
The peer review history for this article is available at
https://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway/wos/peer-review/
10.1002/cjce.25027.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The data that support the findings of this study are avail-
able from the corresponding author upon reasonable
request.
ORCID
Hussameldin Ibrahim https://orcid.org/0000-0002-
7118-2580
R EF E RE N C E S
[1] United Nations, The World’s Cities in 2018, Data Booklet
(ST/ESA/SER.A/417). 2018, https://digitallibrary.un.org/
record/3799524?ln=en (accessed: April 2023).
[2] S. Pradhan, S. G. Al-Ghamdi, H. R. Mackey, Int. Biodeterior.
Biodegrad. 2019, 145, 104792.
[3] A. K. Vuppaladadiyam, N. Merayo, A. Blanco, J. Hou,
D. D. Dionysiou, M. Zhao, Algal Res. 2018, 35, 106.
[4] S. E. R. Mahunon, M. P. Aina, A. V. O. Akowanou,
E. K. Kouassi, B. K. Yao, K. Adouby, P. Drogui, Environ. Sci.
Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 29219.
[5] F. Li, X. He, A. Srishti, S. Song, H. T. W. Tan, D. J. Sweeney,
S. Ghosh, C.-H. Wang, Bioresour. Technol. 2021, 327, 124809.
[6] S. Rezania, M. Ponraj, M. Fadhil Md Din, S. Chelliapan,
F. Md Sairan, Desalin. Water Treat. 2014, 57, 1.
[7] H. Qin, Z. Zhang, M. Liu, H. Liu, Y. Wang, X. Wen, Y. Zhang,
S. Yan, Ecological Engineering 2016, 95, 753.
[8] P. Sharma, A. K. Pandey, A. Udayan, S. Kumar, Bioresour.
Technol. 2021, 326, 124750.
[9] S. E. Agarry, K. M. Oghenejoboh, G. K. Latinwo,
C. N. Owabor, Environ. Technol. 2018, 41, 1793.
[10] J. G. Rangel-Peraza, K. Mendivil-García, C. I. G. Cedillo-Herrera,
J. J. Rochín-Medina, A. E. Rodríguez-Mata, Y. A. Bustos-
Terrones, Environ. Technol. 2019, 40, 633.
[11] B. Lu, Z. Xu, J. Li, X. Chai, Ecological Engineering 2018,
110, 18.
[12] C. O. Akinbile, M. S. Yusoff, Int. J. Phytorem. 2012, 14, 201.
[13] S. Tripathi, P. Sharma, D. Purchase, R. Chandra, Bioresour.
Technol. 2021, 333, 125192.
[14] J. Lu, Z. Fu, Z. Yin, J. Environ. Sci 2008, 20, 513.
[15] A. K. Pandey, V. K. Gaur, A. Udayan, S. Varjani, S.-H. Kim,
J. W. C. Wong, Chemosphere 2021, 272, 129936.
1939019x, 2024, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cjce.25027 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [10/07/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
127
[16] R. Prasad, D. Sharma, K. D. Yadav, H. Ibrahim, Can. J. Chem.
Eng. 2021, 100, 439.
[17] H. Hu, X. Li, S. Wu, C. Yang, Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 315,
123809.
[18] M. Shah, H. N. Hashmi, A. Ali, A. R. Ghumman, J. Environ.
Health Sci. Eng. 2014, 12, 1.
[19] V. Arunbabu, S. Sruthy, I. Antony, E. V. Ramasamy, Journal
of Water Process Engineering 2015, 7, 153.
[20] R. H. Kadlec, R. Knight, J. Vymazal, H. Brix, P. Cooper,
R. Haberl, Constructed wetlands for pollution control: processes,
performance, design and operation, IWA Publishing, London
2000.
[21] Y. M. Patil, V. K. Patki, S. Jahagirdar, R. Karale,
V. Angathekar, Mater. Today: Proc. 2021, 45(7), 6946.
[22] K. D. Navamani, B. C. H. Aditya Narayana, M. Arivazhagan,
J. Environ. Manage. 2018, 206, 69.
[23] F. M. Elfghi, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2016, 113, 264.
[24] K. K. Kishore, M. Singh, N. Khatri, Fuel 2023, 334, 126549.
[25] N. Khatri, A. K. Vyas, A. S. H. Abdul-Qawy, E. R. Rene,
Environ. Res. 2023, 217, 114843.
[26] M. Maghsoudi, M. Ghaedi, A. Zinali, A. M. Ghaedi,
M. H. Habibi, Spectrochim. Acta, Part A 2015, 134, 1.
[27] N. G. Turan, B. Mesci, O. Ozgonenel, Chem. Eng. J. 2011,
173, 98.
[28] A. Hosseinzadeh, M. Baziar, H. Alidadi, J. L. Zhou, A. Altaee,
A. A. Najafpoor, S. Jafarpour, Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 303,
122926.
[29] D. Sharma, A. K. Pandey, K. D. Yadav, S. Kumar, Bioresour.
Technol. 2021, 324, 124672.
[30] D. B. Das, T. Thirakulchaya, L. Deka, N. S. Hanspal, Environ.
Processes 2015, 2, 1.
[31] A. Witek-Krowiak, K. Chojnacka, D. Podstawczyk, A. Dawiec,
K. Pokomeda, Bioresour. Technol. 2014, 160, 150.
[32] N. Khatri, K. K. Khatri, A. Sharma, Water Sci. Technol. 2019,
80, 213.
[33] N. Khatri, K. K. Khatri, A. Sharma, Journal of Water Process
Engineering 2020, 37, 101477.
[34] A. Valipour, V. K. Raman, Y. H. Ahn, Water 2015, 7, 329.
[35] B. Ait-Amir, P. Pougnet, A. El Hami, in Embedded Mechatro-
nic Systems (Eds: A. El Hami, P. Pougnet), ISTE Press, London
2015, p. 151.
[36] A. Hailu, E. G. Degaga, Journal of Natural Sciences Research
2018, 8, 94.
[37] D. J. Kriticos, S. Brunel, PLoS One 2016, 11, 1.
[38] D. Selvaraj, G. Velvizhi, J. Environ. Manage. 2021, 286, 112253.
[39] C. O. Akinbile, T. A. Ogunrinde, H. Che bt Man, H. A. Aziz,
Int. J. Phytorem. 2016, 18, 54.
[40] R. Bhutiani, D. R. Khanna, V. Tyagi, F. Ahamad, International
Journal of Research 2015, 3, 1.
[41] J. Wang, G. Fu, W. Li, Y. Shi, J. Pang, Q. Wang, W. Lü, C. Liu,
J. Liu, Aquaculture and Fisheries 2018, 3, 22.
[42] S. Rezania, M. F. M. Din, S. M. Taib, F. A. Dahalan, A. R. Songip,
L. Singh, H. Kamyab, Int. J. Phytorem. 2016, 18, 679.
[43] D. O. Olukanni, K. O. Kokumo, American Journal of Engineering
Research 2013, 2, 450.
[44] G. R. Munavalli, P. S. Saler, Water Sci. Technol. 2009,
59, 713.
[45] N. T. Loan, N. M. Phuong, N. T. N. Anh, Environ. Eng.
Manage. J. 2014, 13, 2031.

128
[46] S. Fazal, B. Zhang, Q. Mehmood, Ecological Engineering 2015,
84, 551.
[47] C. R. Penton, J. L. Deenik, B. N. Popp, G. L. Bruland,
P. Engstrom, D. S. Louis, J. Tiedje, Soil Biol. Biochem. 2013,
57, 362.
[48] M. Kumari, B. D. Tripathi, Ecological Engineering 2014, 62, 48.
[49] W. H. T. Ting, I. A. W. Tan, S. F. Salleh, N. A. Wahab, Journal
of Water Process Engineering 2018, 22, 239.
[50] A. Bednarek, S. Szklarek, M. Zalewski, Ecohydrol. Hydrobiol.
2014, 14, 132.
[51] S. R. M. Kutty, S. N. I. Ngatenah, M. H. Isa, A. Malakahmad,
Engineering Technology 2009, 60, 826.
[52] M. Truu, J. Juhanson, J. Truu, Sci. Total Environ. 2009, 407,
3958.
[53] M. L. Merino-Solís, E. Villegas, J. de Anda, A. Lopez-L opez,
Water (Switzerland) 2015, 7, 1149.
[54] W. Su, Q. Sun, M. Xia, Z. Wen, Z. Yao, Resources 2018, 7, 46.
[55] S. K. Behera, S. K. Meher, H. S. Park, Clean Technol. Environ.
Policy 2015, 17, 443.
1939019x, 2024, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cjce.25027 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [10/07/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
PRASAD ET AL.
[56] P. A. Kumar, J. Park, A. Muhorakeye, R. Morya, S. H. Kim,
Bioresour. Technol. 2023, 372, 128629.
[57] A. K. Pandey, J. Park, J. Ko, H. H. Joo, T. Raj, L. K. Singh,
N. Singh, S. H. Kim, Bioresour. Technol. 2023, 370, 128502.
[58] D. Singh, D. Chavan, A. K. Pandey, L. Periyaswami, S. Kumar,
Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 785, 147243.
SU PP O R TI N G I N F O RMA TI O N
Additional supporting information can be found online
in the Supporting Information section at the end of this
article.
How to cite this article: R. Prasad, D. Sharma,
A. K. Pandey, K. D. Yadav, S. Kumar, H. Ibrahim,
Can. J. Chem. Eng. 2024, 102(1), 113. https://doi.
org/10.1002/cjce.25027