Reduction of hydrocarbon pollutants by hyacinth plants (<i>Eichhornia crassipes</i>)

Syahril Nedi; Irwan Effendi; Afrizal Tanjung; Elizal Elizal

doi:10.12688/f1000research.131846.2

Home Browse Reduction of hydrocarbon pollutants by hyacinth plants (Eichhornia...

ALL Metrics

-

Views

-

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Research Article

Revised

Reduction of hydrocarbon pollutants by hyacinth plants (Eichhornia crassipes)

[version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]

Syahril Nedi ¹, Irwan Effendi¹, Afrizal Tanjung¹, Elizal Elizal¹

PUBLISHED 12 Sep 2023

Author details Author details

¹ Faculty of Fisheries and Marine, Universitas Riau, Pekanbaru, Riau, 28293, Indonesia

Syahril Nedi
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Irwan Effendi
Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Afrizal Tanjung
Roles: Data Curation, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

Elizal Elizal
Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

This article is included in the Plant Science gateway.

Abstract

Background: The application of phytoremediation by utilizing plants has been used to control oil pollution in waters. One of the plants that can act as a phytoremediator is the hyacinth because this plant can reduce various pollutants including petroleum hydrocarbons. This study aims to study the reduction ability of petroleum hydrocarbons at different concentrations including improving water quality.
Methods: This research used an experimental method implementing a Completely Randomized Design (CRD) with one factor, namely TPH concentration with five treatment levels and three replications. The treatments were as follows E1 (10 mg/L), E2 (30 mg/L), E3 (50 mg/L), E4 (70 mg/L), and E5 (90 mg/L), and E0 (control) was carried out only at the highest concentration (90 mg/L), aiming to see whether there was a TPH reduction process without plants. Maintenance of water hyacinth was carried out in media with salinity (3 ppt). Observations were made for 14 days, with measurements of TPH and leaf chlorophyll content observed at D-1, D-7 and D-14. While water quality parameters such as temperature, pH and dissolved oxygen were observed every 2 days
Results: The results showed that the hyacinth plant was able to reduce hydrocarbon in terms of total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) by 79% while it was only between 17–27% naturally without the hyacinth. The reduction of TPH in the water was in line with the decrease of chlorophyll in the leaves of hyacinths, and it was followed by the increase of dissolved oxygen in the water media.
Conclusions: In conclusion, hyacinths can reduce petroleum hydrocarbons and they can improve the water quality as well. Futhermore, water hyacinth which are commonly found in freshwater can be used as phytoremediatiors in coastal area; its application in coastal areas requires futher study

Keywords

Hydrocarbon pollutants, Hyacinths, Phytoremediation, TPH, Chlorophyll

Corresponding author: Syahril Nedi

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: Authors express their gratitude to the Research and Community Service Institute of the Universitas Riau, which has funded this research through the DIPA Universitas Riau in 2022 (Grant No. LPPM-UNRI/2022/KOM/1007/145).
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Copyright: © 2023 Nedi S et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Nedi S, Effendi I, Tanjung A and Elizal E. Reduction of hydrocarbon pollutants by hyacinth plants (Eichhornia crassipes) [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2023, 12:728 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.131846.2) First published: 22 Jun 2023, 12:728 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.131846.1) Latest published: 12 Sep 2023, 12:728 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.131846.2)

Revised Amendments from Version 1

1. Additional literature used such as Chakravarty et al. (2023), Chakravarty et al. (2022), Chakravarty & Deka (2021), and Kalita et al. (2022).
2. The use of control (E0) in this study was carried out only at the highest concentration (90 mg/L), the aim was to see whether there was a reduction in TPH without plants.
3. Research gap: only carried out at limited salinity, namely 3 ppt
4. Water quality parameters, such as temperature, pH and dissolved oxygen were observed in-situ using a water checker. While chlorophyll measurements were carried out directly using a Chlorophyll-meter on plant leaves.

To read any peer review reports and author responses for this article, follow the "read" links in the Open Peer Review table.

Introduction

Oil pollution is a common problem in coastal waters; such as oil slicks or spills. Most of the oil contains toxic hydrocarbon compounds that are vulnerable to habitats and biota. Common ways to encounter this pollution are through the oil boom, skimmer, dispersant, and bioremediation.¹^–⁷ Bioremediation is a way to clean up contaminants in an environment by living organisms; for example, the use of bacteria and water plants.

Water hyacinth is one of plants that can be used as phytoremediator. This plant is easy to find in freshwater both in land and coastal area. Beside it grows faster, high adaption in nature.⁸ This plant has ability to absorb pollutant with faster proliferation in a water.⁹

Research on using hyacinth as a phytoremediator has been well documented¹⁰^–¹² including to industrial waste.¹³^,¹⁴ Furthermore, this plant can also reduce about 99.5% of hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)) in waste water, as well as to reduce TDS, BOD, and COD content.¹⁴ Even though this plant can also be used as phytoremediator to heavy metal such as Hg and MeHg attaching on leafs of plants.¹⁵

According to Priya and Selvan, water hyacinth can be used as a bioindicator of heavy metals in aquatic ecosystems.¹⁶ In addition, water hyacinth as phytoremediators is cost-effective and eco-friendly and well-documented.¹⁷^,¹⁸ Based on this circumstance, the author is interested in testing the ability of the hyacinth plant to reduce hydrocarbon pollutants in saline water.

Method

Time and place

This research was conducted in June 2022 at the Lagio Laboratory, Pekanbaru. The test plant, hyacinth, was taken from the reservoir of Binawidya Campus, Faculty of Fisheries and Marine, Universitas Riau. Meanwhile, the hydrocarbon pollutants used come from Pertamina DEX Solar from Pekanbaru gas stations. The seawater was taken from the coastal waters of Dumai and composted fertilizer was also used for the test plants. The plants were grown in 20 L plastic washbasins.

Research methods

This experiment used Completely Randomized Design (CRD) method with one factor and five levels of hydrocarbon concentrations treatments; three replications of each treatment. The treatments were: E1 = 10 mg/L, E2 = 30 mg/L, E3 = 50 mg/L, E4 = 70 mg/L, E5 = 90 mg/L and E0 = without plant. The E0 played as a control to know the natural evaporation and transpiration during observation. The reductions of the petroleum hydrocarbon in the treatments were measured in terms of total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH).

Procedure

Acclimatization to salinity

The container used was a black tub with a volume of 10 L of 15 units. The research was started by acclimatizing hyacinth plants to different salinities, namely 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 ppt. In each container, 200 g of hyacinth was added and its growth was observed for seven days. Plant growth was seen based on changes in leaf color, root condition, and number of leaves. The acclimatization results showed that the test medium with a salinity of 3 ppt was suitable for plants to grow in coastal areas, some plants at salinity 5,7, and 9 died after being given salinity treatment.

Petroleum hydrocarbon observations

After determining the suitable salinity for the test plants, they were then planted in petroleum hydrocarbon pollutant solutions with different concentrations, namely 10, 30, 50, 70, and 90 mg/L, and without plants (control). The first step was a black tub with a volume of 20 L of 15 units filled with 10 L of water with a salinity of 3 ppt. Then 50 g of fertilizer was added to each container and 200 g of test plants were added. After that, petroleum hydrocarbons were added according to the concentration determined and observed for 14 days.¹⁹^,²⁰ The observations were conducted from the first day (D-1), seventh day (D-7), and fourteenth day (D-14) by using ASTM 7066-04 (FTIR) method.

The parameters observed were total petroleum hydrocarbons, water quality (temperature, pH, DO, and salinity), and plant conditions (leaf color, root condition, and stem shape). To maintain the salinity in the test container, fresh water was added according to a predetermined volume limit, i.e. 10 L. Each container was marked, to determine the level of water whose volume is 10 L.

Leaf chlorophyll measurement

The measurement of chlorophyll was carried out with chlorophyll meter (KWF type). It was carried out by placing the hyacinth leaf in the sensor area of the equipment; the reading could be occurred between seconds. The Chlorophyll measurements of the treatments were conducted in situ between 10.00 AM–03.00 PM.

Data analysis

Data on TPH concentration and chlorophyll were tabulated and analyzed using SPSS version 23. Data were analyzed using a One Way ANOVA with a confidence level of 95% and continued by a Student Newman Keuls (SNK) test if necessary.

Result

Total petroleum hydrocarbon concentration

The phytoremediators (hyacinths) could grow well in the tested media; with 3 ppt of saline water at 10–20 cm in height after acclimation. The content of hydrocarbon pollutants can naturally decrease, this also occurs in the treatment without the addition of plants; this is thought to be due to evaporation (E0). The concentrations of TPH in all treatments at the time of observations can be seen in Table 1.

Table 1. The concentrations and the reduction of total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) in each media of treatments on each observation day.

Treatment/TPH con. (mg/L)	TPH concentration (mg/L)				Total reduction (mg/L)
	D-7		D-14
	Con.	Red.	Con.	Red.
E1 (10)	3.70±0.20	6.30±0.02^a	2.10±0.10	1.60±0.08^a	7.90±0.10^a
E2 (30)	17.33±0.76	12.67±0.76^b	11.23±0.25	6.10±0.51^bc	18.77±0.25^b
E3 (50)	23.73±1.25	26.27±1.25^d	19.07±0.95	4.66±0.30^b	30.93±0.95^d
E4 (70)	37.07±1.05	32.93±1.05^e	29.27±1.25	7.80±0.20^c	40.73±1.25^e
E5 (90)	42.73±1.95	47.27±1.95^f	33.73±0.25	9.00±1.70^d	56.27±0.25^f

Table 1 showed that the TPH in all treatments reduced after the seventh day (D-7) and the 14^th day (D-14) of observations. The reductions were higher on the seventh day in comparison to the 14^th day of observation. These reductions ranged from 6.3–47.27 mg/L and from 1.6–9 mg/L consecutively. However, the total reductions ranged from 7.9–56.27 after the 14^th day of observations. This means that the longer the observation time the higher the TPH reductions. The affectivity of the plant to reduce TPH showed the same pattern due to the time constraint of observations.

In addition, there was a significant effect of hydrocarbon concentrations on the plant’s ability to reduce TPH, based on ANOVA analysis that p<0.05.

This shows that water hyacinth is able to absorb hydrocarbons up to a concentration of 90 mg/L.

The treatment without a phytoremediator (E0) can only reduce the TPH by as much as 17.78% after the 7^th day (D-7) and 27.78% after the 14^th day (D-14). In contrast, it ranged between 41.67% and 63% reduction using a phytoremediator. The highest effectivity of reductions was found at the treatment E10 (79%) with 10 ppm of petroleum hydrocarbon because the reduction process will be optimum at lower concentrations of pollutants (Figure 1).

Figure 1. The effectiveness of the plant in decreasing total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH).

Chlorophyll content and water quality

Chlorophyll is also an indication of the productivity of green plants and is one of the important elements in the process of photosynthesis. The results showed that the amount of chlorophyll in the leaves of the test plant (hyacinth) decreased in line with the increase in hydrocarbon pollutants and the length of observation time (Figure 2). At the beginning of maintenance, the chlorophyll content in hyacinth leaves was 48.3 units. Along with TPH administration, there was a decrease in chlorophyll concentration in hyacinth leaves. In treating hydrocarbon pollutants (e.g. E5), the amount of chlorophyll encountered was 17.9 units on the seventh day and 13.9 on the 14^th day.

Figure 2. Chlorophyll content (mg/L) in hyacinth leaves based on observation time.

Differences in pollutant concentration treatment influence the chlorophyll content in hyacinth leaves (p<0.05). Another parameter of water quality is dissolved oxygen (DO). In control media (without plants), the average DO on the first day (D-1) was 3.0 mg/L; it increased to 3.3 mg/L and 3.5 mg/L after seven and 14 days consecutively. It indicated that the DO naturally increased with the pollutant hydrocarbon. However, the increases of DO were higher in the treatments with hyacinth phytoremediators; it was up to 20% compared to the treatments without the phytoremediator plants.

Variations in the concentration of hydrocarbon pollutants affect the dissolved oxygen of the test medium. The higher the concentration of hydrocarbon pollutants given, the higher the decrease in DO content in the test media water (Figure 3).

Figure 3. The decrease in dissolved oxygen (DO) in each treatment at the time of observation.

However, the DO figures were slightly higher based on the days of observations and concentrations; D-14>D-7>D1. Temperature plays an important role in plant life and growth. A good temperature for the plant to grow is known as the optimum limit of temperature. At this limit, plants can grow well both in terms of morphology and physiology. Temperature conditions at the treatment with 10 mg/L hydrocarbon without phytoremediator’s plant (E0) were seen to decrease in line with the observation time ((D-1, D-2, and D-3); see Figure 3).

Figure 4 shows that the presence of hydrocarbon pollutants affected the temperature of the water test medium. On the seventh and 14^th days, the same concentration of hydrocarbon pollutants occurs with a decrease in temperature by 0.2–0.3°C.

Figure 4. The temperature of the control medium (E0) on each day of observations.

The temperature in the treatment medium with different concentrations of hydrocarbon pollutants and phytoremediators (E1–E5) can be seen in Figure 5.

Figure 5. The temperature of treatment media at various concentrations during observation.

Based on this figure, it can be seen that the temperature of the media increases in line with the increase in pollutant concentration and the length of time of observation. The increase in temperature may be closely related to the hydrocarbon reduction process that releases heat by phytoremediators when carrying out water purification. The increase in temperature may be closely related to the hydrocarbon reduction process that releases heat by phytoremediators when carrying out water purification and it might be due to the phytoremediator process and pollutant degradation.

The degree of acidity (pH) is the concentration of hydrogen ions in the water. The pH of the growing water of treatments tended to decrease along with the higher concentration of pollutants; it might be due to the phytoremediator process and pollutant degradation. The decrease was 0.4–0.7 between D-1 and D-14 (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Decrease in water pH on the treatment of differences in concentration and observation time.

Discussion

Water hyacinth is a native freshwater plant from South America.²¹^–²³ The results showed that this plant grows well at a salinity of 3 ppt; Ting et al., 2018²⁴ also reported that this plant can adapt and grow at a salinity of <5 ppt. In addition, this plant can act as a phytoremediator against toxic pollutants derived from petroleum hydrocarbons. The effectiveness of TPH reduction depends on the concentration and length of time of observation (Table 1 and Figure 1). Meanwhile, optimum reduction efficiency is found in treatments with low concentrations (10 mg/L); i.e. 63% on D-7 and 79% on D-14. The process of reducing TPH by this plant is inseparable from its root system which acts as an absorbent and then spreads to all parts of the plant.²⁵^–²⁷ Some of the organic content contained in hydrocarbon pollutants is used as nutrients for plants; Oke et al., 2020²⁸ reported that the highest absorption of hydrocarbons by 100 g of hyacinth is 72%. The presence of biodegradable bacteria in the water hyacinth root system may also play a role in the process of reducing TPH in the test media, according to Xia & Ma (2006)²⁹ the presence of bacteria in roots can degrade pollutants by 12%. Thus, these plants can purify water contaminated by hydrocarbon pollutants.

Although water hyacinths can reduce TPH and purify water, it has an impact on the growth of the test plants. This condition was indicated by a decrease in the amount of chlorophyll in each treatment along with an increase in concentration and length of observation time (Figure 2).

The decrease in the amount of chlorophyll on the leaves is inseparable from the disruption of metabolic processes in plants so that their productivity is disturbed. Plants exposed to pollutants for a certain time will experience chlorosis due to inhibition of the chlorophyll synthesis.³⁰ Of course, a decrease in the amount of chlorophyll affects the process of photosynthesis and enrichment of DO in waters.

In the control treatment without hyacinths (E0), it was seen that DO increased in line with the observation time (Figure 3). The amount of DO in the treatment with hyacinths was higher than without plants or controls. The increase in DO may come from the diffusion of oxygen from the air as well as the photosynthetic activity of phytoplankton and test plants. Nevertheless, DO conditions decreased with increasing concentrations of hydrocarbons and the length of time of observation (Figure 5). The same condition is also shown by the temperature and pH of the water test plant (Figure 6). The decrease could be due to the reduction of chemical processes and the decomposition of TPH. Where in these processes, in addition to requiring oxygen, there is also absorption and release of heat, including the use of hydrogen ions which affect the pH of water.

Conclusion

Hyacinth plants can reduce hydrocarbon pollutants. The effectiveness of the reduction of hydrocarbon pollutants by hyacinths can reach 79% at a hydrocarbon pollutant concentration of 10 mg/L. The presence of hydrocarbon pollutants has led to a decrease in chlorophyll in the leaves of hyacinths. Hyacinths can absorb organic matter without using oxygen for the decomposition process. Differences in pollutant concentration treatment influence the chlorophyll content in hyacinth leaves (p<0.05). Watered hydrocarbon pollutants are tolerated by hyacinth plants and can prevent water quality degradation.

Data availability

Underlying data

Zenodo: Reduction of Hydrocarbon Pollutants by Hyacinth Plants (Eichhornia crassipes), https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7659979.³¹

This project contains the following underlying data:

• EXCEL KONFILASI DATA ECENG GONDOK (1).xlsx (Effectiveness Hyacinth, water quality and Chlorophyll)

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Laboratory of Fisheries Universitas Riau.

References

1. Nedi S, Pramudya B, Riani E, et al.: Karakteristik Lingkungan Perairan Selat Rupat. J. Environ. Sci. 2010; 4(1): 25–35.
2. Chakravarty P, Deka H, Chowdhury D: Antharacene removal potential of green synthesized titanium dioxide nanoparticle (TiO₂- NPs) and Alcaligenes feacalis HP8 from Contaminated.Chomosphere.2023; 321: 138102. Publisher Full Text
3. Chakravarty P, Chowdhury D, Deka H: Ecological risk assessment of priority PAHs pollutants in crude oil contaminated soil and its impacts on soil biological properties.J. Hazard. Mater.2022; 437: 129325. Publisher Full Text
4. Chakravarty P, Deka H: Enzymatic defence of Cyperus brevifolius in hydrocarbons stress environmental and changes in soil propertis. Sci. Rep. 2021; 11: 718.
5. Kalita M, Chakravarty P, Deka H: Understanding biochemical defense and phytoremediation potential of Leucas aspera incrude oil polluted soil.Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.2022; 29: 57579–57590. Publisher Full Text
6. Sayed K, Baloo L, Sharma NK: Bioremediation of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) by bioaugmentation and biostimulation in water with floating oil spill containment booms as bioreactor basin. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2021; 18(5): 2226). PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
7. Silva IA, Almeida FCG, Souza TC, et al.: Oil spills: impacts and perspectives of treatment technologies with focus on the use of green surfactants. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2022; 194(143): 143. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
8. Gupta AK, Yadav D: Biological control of water hyacinth. Environmental Contaminant Review . 2020; 3(1): 37–39.
9. Rezania S, Ponraj M, Talakiekhozani A, et al.: Perspectives of phytoremediation using water hyacinth for removal of heavy metals, organic and inorganic pollutants in wastewater. J. Environ. Manage. 2015; 163: 125–133.
10. Nag S, Biswas S: Bioremediation — the natural solution. Development in Wastewater Treatment Research and Processes. 2022. Publisher Full Text
11. Saleh HM: Water hyacinth for phytoremediation of radioactive waste simulate contaminated with cesium and cobalt radionuclides. Nucl. Eng. Des. 2012; 242: 425–432. Publisher Full Text
12. Saleh HM: Biological Remediation of Hazardous Pollutants Using Water Hyacinth- A Review. J. Biotechnol. Res. 2016; 2(11).
13. Chaithra KS, Lokeshappa B, Gabriel KP: Water Hyacinth-A potential Phytoremediator and Biofertilizer. Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol. 2016; 3(8).
14. Saha P, Shinde O, Sarkar S: Phytoremediation of industrial mines wastewater using water hyacinth. Int. J. Phytoremediation. 2017; 19(1). Publisher Full Text
15. Chattopadhyay S, Fimmen RL, Yates BJ, et al.: Phytoremediation of mercury and methyl mercury contaminated sediments by water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes). Int. J. Phytoremediation. 2012; 14: 142–161.
16. Priya ES, Selvan PS: Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes)-An efficient and economic adsorbent for textile effluent treatmenteA review.Arab. J. Chem.2014. Publisher Full Text
17. Hakeem KR, Sabir M, Öztürk M, et al.: Phytoremediation: An Eco-Friendly Green Technology for Pollution Prevention, Control and Remediation. Soil Remediation and Plants. 2015.
18. Newete SW, Byrne MJ: The capacity of aquatic macrophytes for phytoremediation and their disposal with specific reference to water hyacinth. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2016; 23(11): 10630–10643. Publisher Full Text
19. Zhang Z, Hou Z, Yang C, et al.: Degradation of n-alkanes and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in petroleum by a newly isolated Pseudonomas aeruginosa DQ8. Bioresour. Technol. 2011; 102(5): 4111–4116. Publisher Full Text
20. Parida P, Satapathy KB, Mohapatra A: Phytoremediation potential of aquatic macrophyte Azolla pinnata R.BR and Salvinia molesta Mitchell to remove chromium from waste water. Plant Arch. 2020; 20(1): 2560–2595.
21. De Carvalho LB, Junior CWR: Control of water hyacinth: a short review. Commun. Plant Sci. 2019; 9(1). Publisher Full Text
22. Munjeri K, Ziuku S, Maganga H, et al.: On the potential of water hyacinth as a biomass briquette for heating applications. Int. J. Energy Environ. Eng. 2016; 7(1): 37–43. Publisher Full Text
23. Patoka J, Bláha M, Kalous L, et al.: Potential pest transfer mediated by international ornamental plant trade. Sci. Rep. 2016; 6: 6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
24. Ting WHT, Tan IAW, Salleh SF, et al.: Application of water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) for phytoremediation of ammoniacal nitrogen: A review. J. Water Process. Eng. 2018; 22: 239–249. Publisher Full Text
25. Wagiono W, Atmono A, Wulandari D: Pengaruh Variasi Waktu Terhadap Penurunan Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH) pada Proses Bioremediasi Limbah Oli dengan Metode Biostimulasi. Jurnal Lingkungan Dan Sumberdaya Alam (JURNALIS). 2022; 5(2): 109–120. Publisher Full Text
26. Kalsum U, Napoleon A, Yudono B: Efektivitas Eceng Gondok (Eichhornia crassipes), hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata), dan rumput paying (Cyperus alternifolius) dalam pengolahan limbah grey water. J. Penelit. Sains. 2015; 17(1): 20–25. Publisher Full Text
27. Ahmad H, Adiningsih R: Efektivitas Metode Fitoremediasi Menggunakan Tanaman Eceng Gondok dan Kangkung Air dalam Menurunkan Kadar BOD dan TSS pada Limbah Cair Industri Tahu. J. Farmasetis. 2019; 8(2): 31–38. Publisher Full Text
28. Oke FM, Ndiribe CC, Musa SI: Bioremediation of diesel polluted soils with Eichhornia crassipes (water hyacinth). Not. Bot. Horti. Agrobot. Cluj Napoca. 2020; 12(4): 920–928. Publisher Full Text
29. Xia H, Ma X: Phytoremediation of ethion by water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) from water. Bioresour. Technol. 2006; 97(8): 1050–1054. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
30. Caroline J, Moa GA: Fitoremediasi Logam Timbal (Pb) Menggunakan Tanaman Melati Air (Echinodorus palaefolius) pada Limbah Industri Peleburan Tembaga dan Kuningan. Seminar Nasional Sains Dan Teknologi Terapan III. 2015.
31. Nedi S, Effendi I, Tanjung A, et al.: Reduction of Hydrocarbon Pollutants by Hyacinth Plants (Eichhornia crassipes). [Data set]. Zenodo. 2023. Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 22 Jun 2023

Author details Author details

¹ Faculty of Fisheries and Marine, Universitas Riau, Pekanbaru, Riau, 28293, Indonesia

Syahril Nedi
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Irwan Effendi
Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Afrizal Tanjung
Roles: Data Curation, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

Elizal Elizal
Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

Authors express their gratitude to the Research and Community Service Institute of the Universitas Riau, which has funded this research through the DIPA Universitas Riau in 2022 (Grant No. LPPM-UNRI/2022/KOM/1007/145).
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Article Versions (2)

version 2

Revised

Published: 12 Sep 2023, 12:728

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.131846.2

version 1

Published: 22 Jun 2023, 12:728

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.131846.1

Copyright

© 2023 Nedi S et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

0

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Nedi S, Effendi I, Tanjung A and Elizal E. Reduction of hydrocarbon pollutants by hyacinth plants (Eichhornia crassipes) [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2023, 12:728 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.131846.2)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?

Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE

ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Version 2

VERSION 2

PUBLISHED 12 Sep 2023

Revised

Views

2

Reviewer Report 08 Aug 2024

Santhana Krishnan, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Songkhla, Thailand

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.155785.r305684

The manuscript is not written well. It doesn’t follow the scientific standards.

Some of the specific comments are provided below.
1. Abstract: In Methods section, TPH should be given in full form in the first appearance.
... Continue reading

The manuscript is not written well. It doesn’t follow the scientific standards.

Some of the specific comments are provided below.
1. Abstract: In Methods section, TPH should be given in full form in the first appearance.
2. I would see clusters of references for the first 3 lines. Authors must eliminate those multiple references. After that please check the manuscript thoroughly and eliminate ALL the lumps in the manuscript. This should be done by characterizing each reference individually. This can be done by mentioning 1 or 2 phrases per reference to show how it is different from the others and why it deserves mentioning.
3. Introduction is very small with no information. For instance, in the introduction, you need to connect the state of the art to your paper goals. Please follow the literature review by a clear and concise state of the art analysis. This should clearly show the knowledge gaps identified and link them to your paper goals. Clearly discuss what the previous studies that you are referring to.
4. In your discussion section, please link your empirical results with a broader and deeper literature review. For instance, RSM, Hyacinth significance in TPH removal, etc.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Environmental chemical Engineering

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Views

7

Reviewer Report 10 Nov 2023

Anithadevi Kenday Sivaram, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.155785.r205638

Thanks for revising the manuscript. However, some queries not addressed in version 2 need to be addressed.

Specific comments:

Introduction:
The introduction section needs further improvement by addressing all the previous comments.
... Continue reading

Thanks for revising the manuscript. However, some queries not addressed in version 2 need to be addressed.

Specific comments:

Introduction:
The introduction section needs further improvement by addressing all the previous comments.

Methods:

Please include the initial measured concentration, their percentage recovery, and the basis for choosing different TPH concentrations for your study.
Please add a section on the TPH extraction and analysis procedure in water and plants and the QA/QC procedure.

Results:

Please include standard deviation (SD) in all the figures, wherever applicable.
Overall, the explanation of the results can be improved.

Discussion:
The discussion part still focused on the results. Needs comprehensive discussion and comparison with other similar works.

Conclusion:
Please provide an overall conclusion rather than repeating the results in the section.

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Phytoremediation, Ecotoxicology

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Views

6

Reviewer Report 03 Oct 2023

Hemen Deka, Ecology and Environmental Remediation Laboratory, Department of Botany, Gauhati University, Guwahati, Assam, India

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.155785.r205639

The issues raised with the MS during the evaluation process have been addressed ... Continue reading

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 22 Jun 2023

Views

5

Reviewer Report 29 Aug 2023

Hemen Deka, Ecology and Environmental Remediation Laboratory, Department of Botany, Gauhati University, Guwahati, Assam, India

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.144729.r196910

Overall comments:
The authors of the manuscript conducted research on “Reduction of hydrocarbon pollutants by hyacinth plants (Eichhornia crassipes)’—however, the authors must make it more evident in their paper to outline the design of the study and methods. ... Continue reading

Overall comments:
The authors of the manuscript conducted research on “Reduction of hydrocarbon pollutants by hyacinth plants (Eichhornia crassipes)’—however, the authors must make it more evident in their paper to outline the design of the study and methods. The manuscript's writing and discussion are not up to mark, requiring thorough improvements across all sections. In addition to addressing scientific shortcomings, the entire paper necessitates careful editing and enhancement. Make sure that your manuscript has been thoroughly edited for proper use of the English language and accurate technical terminology.

Authors should have a strong justification for choosing only hyacinth plants (Eichhornia crassipes). Why not other aquatic plants? It should be mentioned more elaborately in the introduction part itself.

Certain errors in spelling are also noticeable. Please correct these mistakes.

Specific comments:
Abstract:

Requires modifications. Please incorporate more numerical date into the abstract.

Introduction:

Introduction part is very poor. It should be expanded.
This section lacks clear cut objective of the study. Also highlight the significance of the topic, identify research gaps, and explain how this paper will contribute theoretically, empirically, and methodologically.

Research methods:

How was petroleum hydrocarbon was added to the water? Isn’t it non-polar? Write the detail procedure.

Petroleum hydrocarbon observations

What is the concentration of total petroleum hydrocarbons in control without plants?
How do you calculate total petroleum hydrocarbons, pH, DO etc.? Give standard protocol.
Table 1: concentration of petroleum hydrocarbon in E0=?

Data analysis

In which significance level data were analyzed?

Result:

Please rewrite the section so that it becomes readable for readers.

Total petroleum hydrocarbon concentration

"This is thought to be due to evaporation (E0)" - you should mention this line in ‘Discussion’.
3rd para: What is E10?
Table 2, 2nd column-last row: Is Con. of E0=90? I can’t understand. Why do you keep only one concentration for total petroleum hydrocarbons in E0? Why not other concentrations like 10, 30, 50 and 70 ppm as mentioned in the treatments with phytoremediator?
The figures and tables can't communicate on their own. Instead, the authors should explain the insights revealed by the findings. In Figure 2, 5 and 6, check the Y-axis title and give proper units
You have taken three replicas, right? Then why didn’t you mention about standard deviations in any of the figures. Also, In each figure, instead of putting values above the line or bar, you should give a clear cut idea about significant variations in the values.

Chlorophyll content and water quality

In the treatment without hydrocarbons (E0): What is E0? Previously, in Table 2 you mentioned E0 as without phytoremediator? Here you have mentioned E0 as without hydrocarbons. Please give a detail information about the treatments with proper notation.
"Temperature conditions at the treatment with 10 ppm hydrocarbon without phytoremediator’s plant (E0) were seen to decrease in line with the observation time ((D-1, D-2, and D-3)" - Isn’t it D-1, D-7, D14?
In Figure 3 red line indicates ‘with plant’- What is the notation for this treatment? Please give in details.
"Based on this figure, it can be seen that the temperature of the media increases in line with the increase in pollutant concentration and the length of time of observation." - The figure is not indicating itself the findings.
"The increase in temperature may be closely related to the hydrocarbon reduction process that releases heat by phytoremediators when carrying out water purification" & "ii) it might be due to the phytoremediator process and pollutant degradation." - these two sentences should be written in discussion part.
"The pH of the growing water of treatments..." - What is 'growing water'?
I recommend for revising the discussion to better address the theoretical, empirical, policy, and methodological issues presented in the paper. Also, more recent literature in the introduction and discussion section is of required. For better representation your MS, you may add new references and work; the following are suggested references: Chakravarty & Deka (2021)¹; Chakravarty et al. (2022)²; Kalita et al. (2022)³; Boruah et al. (2020)⁴; Chakravarty et al. (2023)⁵.

Conclusion:

The concluding section is quite brief. Kindly present the specifics of your work concisely, making it easily accessible to everyone.

References:

All references according to the journal format.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required.
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

References

1. Chakravarty P, Deka H: Enzymatic defense of Cyperus brevifolius in hydrocarbons stress environment and changes in soil properties.Sci Rep. 2021; 11 (1): 718 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
2. Chakravarty P, Chowdhury D, Deka H: Ecological risk assessment of priority PAHs pollutants in crude oil contaminated soil and its impacts on soil biological properties.J Hazard Mater. 2022; 437: 129325 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
3. Kalita M, Chakravarty P, Deka H: Understanding biochemical defense and phytoremediation potential of Leucas aspera in crude oil polluted soil.Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2022; 29 (38): 57579-57590 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
4. Boruah T, Chakravarty P, Deka H: Phytosociology and antioxidant profile study for selecting potent herbs for phytoremediation of crude oil-contaminated soils.Environ Monit Assess. 2020; 192 (12): 766 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
5. Chakravarty P, Deka H, Chowdhury D: Anthracene removal potential of green synthesized titanium dioxide nanoparticles (TiO2-NPs) and Alcaligenes faecalis HP8 from contaminated soil.Chemosphere. 2023; 321: 138102 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Bioremediation and phytoremediation of hydrocarbons and heavy metals

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Views

15

Reviewer Report 21 Aug 2023

Anithadevi Kenday Sivaram, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.144729.r192190

In this manuscript, the author applied phytoremediation using water hyacinth to remove the total petroleum hydrocarbons from the water. The work is presented with current literature. However, there are issues with the experimental techniques and methods. Firstly, the method section ... Continue reading

In this manuscript, the author applied phytoremediation using water hyacinth to remove the total petroleum hydrocarbons from the water. The work is presented with current literature. However, there are issues with the experimental techniques and methods. Firstly, the method section lacks information on how the TPH concentration in water is measured after spiking, the QA/QC procedure for TPH analysis and spiking recovery (%). Secondly, the procedure for other parameters (DO, Salinity) were missing. Finally, it is important to include bioaccumulation in the hyacinth by measuring the concentration of TPH in the hyacinth.

Specific comments:

Abstract:

Please rewrite the last three sentences in the background.
Please give the details on the treatments and control clearly for better understanding. As per the results, there are 2 controls i) one without plant grown in 90 ppm TPH and ii) another with plant and without TPH concentration for biochemical and TPH analysis.
It is good to change the concentration expression to mg/L rather than expressing it as ppm. Also, measured TPH concentration can be provided rather than the nominal concentration.

Introduction: Too short. It would be better to add about the i) toxic properties of TPH; ii) remediation methods followed; iii) Significance of phytoremediation; iv) why water hyacinth and previous reports to support your plant and TPH selection.

Materials and Methods:

Please mention the controls used for the experiment.
It is recommended to include the measured concentrations and the basis for choosing different TPH concentrations.
Please add a section on the TPH analysis procedure in water and plants and QA/QC procedure.
Please add on the pH, DO and salinity experiment procedure.

Result:

Table 2. It is better to provide the results in terms of removal percentage by merging the results in Fig.1 to Table 2 for better clarity.
Fig.2 can be removed.
It is suggested to include standard deviation (SD) in all the figures.
Figure 7. Is the E0 with TPH conc?
Overall, the explanation of the results can be improved.

Discussion: The discussion part focused more on results. Needs comprehensive discussion.

Conclusion: Explains only results and also repeats the contents present in the abstract and result section. Please revise.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Phytoremediation, Ecotoxicology

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 22 Jun 2023

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2	3
Version 2 (revision) 12 Sep 23	read	read	read
Version 1 22 Jun 23	read	read

Anithadevi Kenday Sivaram, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
Hemen Deka, Gauhati University, Guwahati, India
Santhana Krishnan, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Thailand

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Sign up for content alerts

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

2 Views

08 Aug 2024 | for Version 2

Santhana Krishnan, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Songkhla, Thailand

2 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved With Reservations

The manuscript is not written well. It doesn’t follow the scientific standards.

Some of the specific comments are provided below.
1. Abstract: In Methods section, TPH should be given in full form in the first appearance.
2. I would see clusters of references for the first 3 lines. Authors must eliminate those multiple references. After that please check the manuscript thoroughly and eliminate ALL the lumps in the manuscript. This should be done by characterizing each reference individually. This can be done by mentioning 1 or 2 phrases per reference to show how it is different from the others and why it deserves mentioning.
3. Introduction is very small with no information. For instance, in the introduction, you need to connect the state of the art to your paper goals. Please follow the literature review by a clear and concise state of the art analysis. This should clearly show the knowledge gaps identified and link them to your paper goals. Clearly discuss what the previous studies that you are referring to.
4. In your discussion section, please link your empirical results with a broader and deeper literature review. For instance, RSM, Hyacinth significance in TPH removal, etc.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Environmental chemical Engineering

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

7 Views

10 Nov 2023 | for Version 2

Anithadevi Kenday Sivaram, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia

7 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved With Reservations

Thanks for revising the manuscript. However, some queries not addressed in version 2 need to be addressed.

Specific comments:

Introduction:
The introduction section needs further improvement by addressing all the previous comments.

Methods:

Please include the initial measured concentration, their percentage recovery, and the basis for choosing different TPH concentrations for your study.
Please add a section on the TPH extraction and analysis procedure in water and plants and the QA/QC procedure.

Results:

Please include standard deviation (SD) in all the figures, wherever applicable.
Overall, the explanation of the results can be improved.

Discussion:
The discussion part still focused on the results. Needs comprehensive discussion and comparison with other similar works.

Conclusion:
Please provide an overall conclusion rather than repeating the results in the section.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Phytoremediation, Ecotoxicology

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

6 Views

03 Oct 2023 | for Version 2

Hemen Deka, Ecology and Environmental Remediation Laboratory, Department of Botany, Gauhati University, Guwahati, Assam, India

6 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

The issues raised with the MS during the evaluation process have been addressed adequately. The MS has been significantly improved and can be accepted for publication.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Bioremediation and phytoremediation of hydrocarbons and heavy metals

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

5 Views

29 Aug 2023 | for Version 1

Hemen Deka, Ecology and Environmental Remediation Laboratory, Department of Botany, Gauhati University, Guwahati, Assam, India

5 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved With Reservations

Overall comments:
The authors of the manuscript conducted research on “Reduction of hydrocarbon pollutants by hyacinth plants (Eichhornia crassipes)’—however, the authors must make it more evident in their paper to outline the design of the study and methods. The manuscript's writing and discussion are not up to mark, requiring thorough improvements across all sections. In addition to addressing scientific shortcomings, the entire paper necessitates careful editing and enhancement. Make sure that your manuscript has been thoroughly edited for proper use of the English language and accurate technical terminology.

Authors should have a strong justification for choosing only hyacinth plants (Eichhornia crassipes). Why not other aquatic plants? It should be mentioned more elaborately in the introduction part itself.

Certain errors in spelling are also noticeable. Please correct these mistakes.

Specific comments:
Abstract:

Requires modifications. Please incorporate more numerical date into the abstract.

Introduction:

Introduction part is very poor. It should be expanded.
This section lacks clear cut objective of the study. Also highlight the significance of the topic, identify research gaps, and explain how this paper will contribute theoretically, empirically, and methodologically.

Research methods:

How was petroleum hydrocarbon was added to the water? Isn’t it non-polar? Write the detail procedure.

Petroleum hydrocarbon observations

What is the concentration of total petroleum hydrocarbons in control without plants?
How do you calculate total petroleum hydrocarbons, pH, DO etc.? Give standard protocol.
Table 1: concentration of petroleum hydrocarbon in E0=?

Data analysis

In which significance level data were analyzed?

Result:

Please rewrite the section so that it becomes readable for readers.

Total petroleum hydrocarbon concentration

"This is thought to be due to evaporation (E0)" - you should mention this line in ‘Discussion’.
3rd para: What is E10?
Table 2, 2nd column-last row: Is Con. of E0=90? I can’t understand. Why do you keep only one concentration for total petroleum hydrocarbons in E0? Why not other concentrations like 10, 30, 50 and 70 ppm as mentioned in the treatments with phytoremediator?
The figures and tables can't communicate on their own. Instead, the authors should explain the insights revealed by the findings. In Figure 2, 5 and 6, check the Y-axis title and give proper units
You have taken three replicas, right? Then why didn’t you mention about standard deviations in any of the figures. Also, In each figure, instead of putting values above the line or bar, you should give a clear cut idea about significant variations in the values.

Chlorophyll content and water quality

In the treatment without hydrocarbons (E0): What is E0? Previously, in Table 2 you mentioned E0 as without phytoremediator? Here you have mentioned E0 as without hydrocarbons. Please give a detail information about the treatments with proper notation.
"Temperature conditions at the treatment with 10 ppm hydrocarbon without phytoremediator’s plant (E0) were seen to decrease in line with the observation time ((D-1, D-2, and D-3)" - Isn’t it D-1, D-7, D14?
In Figure 3 red line indicates ‘with plant’- What is the notation for this treatment? Please give in details.
"Based on this figure, it can be seen that the temperature of the media increases in line with the increase in pollutant concentration and the length of time of observation." - The figure is not indicating itself the findings.
"The increase in temperature may be closely related to the hydrocarbon reduction process that releases heat by phytoremediators when carrying out water purification" & "ii) it might be due to the phytoremediator process and pollutant degradation." - these two sentences should be written in discussion part.
"The pH of the growing water of treatments..." - What is 'growing water'?
I recommend for revising the discussion to better address the theoretical, empirical, policy, and methodological issues presented in the paper. Also, more recent literature in the introduction and discussion section is of required. For better representation your MS, you may add new references and work; the following are suggested references: Chakravarty & Deka (2021)¹; Chakravarty et al. (2022)²; Kalita et al. (2022)³; Boruah et al. (2020)⁴; Chakravarty et al. (2023)⁵.

Conclusion:

The concluding section is quite brief. Kindly present the specifics of your work concisely, making it easily accessible to everyone.

References:

All references according to the journal format.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required.
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

References

1. Chakravarty P, Deka H: Enzymatic defense of Cyperus brevifolius in hydrocarbons stress environment and changes in soil properties.Sci Rep. 2021; 11 (1): 718 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
2. Chakravarty P, Chowdhury D, Deka H: Ecological risk assessment of priority PAHs pollutants in crude oil contaminated soil and its impacts on soil biological properties.J Hazard Mater. 2022; 437: 129325 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
3. Kalita M, Chakravarty P, Deka H: Understanding biochemical defense and phytoremediation potential of Leucas aspera in crude oil polluted soil.Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2022; 29 (38): 57579-57590 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
4. Boruah T, Chakravarty P, Deka H: Phytosociology and antioxidant profile study for selecting potent herbs for phytoremediation of crude oil-contaminated soils.Environ Monit Assess. 2020; 192 (12): 766 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
5. Chakravarty P, Deka H, Chowdhury D: Anthracene removal potential of green synthesized titanium dioxide nanoparticles (TiO2-NPs) and Alcaligenes faecalis HP8 from contaminated soil.Chemosphere. 2023; 321: 138102 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Bioremediation and phytoremediation of hydrocarbons and heavy metals

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

15 Views

21 Aug 2023 | for Version 1

Anithadevi Kenday Sivaram, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia

15 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved With Reservations

In this manuscript, the author applied phytoremediation using water hyacinth to remove the total petroleum hydrocarbons from the water. The work is presented with current literature. However, there are issues with the experimental techniques and methods. Firstly, the method section lacks information on how the TPH concentration in water is measured after spiking, the QA/QC procedure for TPH analysis and spiking recovery (%). Secondly, the procedure for other parameters (DO, Salinity) were missing. Finally, it is important to include bioaccumulation in the hyacinth by measuring the concentration of TPH in the hyacinth.

Specific comments:

Abstract:

Please rewrite the last three sentences in the background.
Please give the details on the treatments and control clearly for better understanding. As per the results, there are 2 controls i) one without plant grown in 90 ppm TPH and ii) another with plant and without TPH concentration for biochemical and TPH analysis.
It is good to change the concentration expression to mg/L rather than expressing it as ppm. Also, measured TPH concentration can be provided rather than the nominal concentration.

Introduction: Too short. It would be better to add about the i) toxic properties of TPH; ii) remediation methods followed; iii) Significance of phytoremediation; iv) why water hyacinth and previous reports to support your plant and TPH selection.

Materials and Methods:

Please mention the controls used for the experiment.
It is recommended to include the measured concentrations and the basis for choosing different TPH concentrations.
Please add a section on the TPH analysis procedure in water and plants and QA/QC procedure.
Please add on the pH, DO and salinity experiment procedure.

Result:

Table 2. It is better to provide the results in terms of removal percentage by merging the results in Fig.1 to Table 2 for better clarity.
Fig.2 can be removed.
It is suggested to include standard deviation (SD) in all the figures.
Figure 7. Is the E0 with TPH conc?
Overall, the explanation of the results can be improved.

Discussion: The discussion part focused more on results. Needs comprehensive discussion.

Conclusion: Explains only results and also repeats the contents present in the abstract and result section. Please revise.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Phytoremediation, Ecotoxicology

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

[1] 1. Nedi S, Pramudya B, Riani E, et al.: Karakteristik Lingkungan Perairan Selat Rupat. J. Environ. Sci. 2010; 4(1): 25–35.

[2] 2. Chakravarty P, Deka H, Chowdhury D: Antharacene removal potential of green synthesized titanium dioxide nanoparticle (TiO₂- NPs) and Alcaligenes feacalis HP8 from Contaminated.Chomosphere.2023; 321: 138102. Publisher Full Text

[3] 3. Chakravarty P, Chowdhury D, Deka H: Ecological risk assessment of priority PAHs pollutants in crude oil contaminated soil and its impacts on soil biological properties.J. Hazard. Mater.2022; 437: 129325. Publisher Full Text

[4] 4. Chakravarty P, Deka H: Enzymatic defence of Cyperus brevifolius in hydrocarbons stress environmental and changes in soil propertis. Sci. Rep. 2021; 11: 718.

[5] 5. Kalita M, Chakravarty P, Deka H: Understanding biochemical defense and phytoremediation potential of Leucas aspera incrude oil polluted soil.Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.2022; 29: 57579–57590. Publisher Full Text

[6] 6. Sayed K, Baloo L, Sharma NK: Bioremediation of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) by bioaugmentation and biostimulation in water with floating oil spill containment booms as bioreactor basin. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2021; 18(5): 2226). PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[7] 7. Silva IA, Almeida FCG, Souza TC, et al.: Oil spills: impacts and perspectives of treatment technologies with focus on the use of green surfactants. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2022; 194(143): 143. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[8] 8. Gupta AK, Yadav D: Biological control of water hyacinth. Environmental Contaminant Review . 2020; 3(1): 37–39.

[9] 9. Rezania S, Ponraj M, Talakiekhozani A, et al.: Perspectives of phytoremediation using water hyacinth for removal of heavy metals, organic and inorganic pollutants in wastewater. J. Environ. Manage. 2015; 163: 125–133.

[10] 10. Nag S, Biswas S: Bioremediation — the natural solution. Development in Wastewater Treatment Research and Processes. 2022. Publisher Full Text

[11] 11. Saleh HM: Water hyacinth for phytoremediation of radioactive waste simulate contaminated with cesium and cobalt radionuclides. Nucl. Eng. Des. 2012; 242: 425–432. Publisher Full Text

[12] 12. Saleh HM: Biological Remediation of Hazardous Pollutants Using Water Hyacinth- A Review. J. Biotechnol. Res. 2016; 2(11).

[13] 13. Chaithra KS, Lokeshappa B, Gabriel KP: Water Hyacinth-A potential Phytoremediator and Biofertilizer. Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol. 2016; 3(8).

[14] 14. Saha P, Shinde O, Sarkar S: Phytoremediation of industrial mines wastewater using water hyacinth. Int. J. Phytoremediation. 2017; 19(1). Publisher Full Text

[15] 15. Chattopadhyay S, Fimmen RL, Yates BJ, et al.: Phytoremediation of mercury and methyl mercury contaminated sediments by water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes). Int. J. Phytoremediation. 2012; 14: 142–161.

[16] 16. Priya ES, Selvan PS: Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes)-An efficient and economic adsorbent for textile effluent treatmenteA review.Arab. J. Chem.2014. Publisher Full Text

[17] 17. Hakeem KR, Sabir M, Öztürk M, et al.: Phytoremediation: An Eco-Friendly Green Technology for Pollution Prevention, Control and Remediation. Soil Remediation and Plants. 2015.

[18] 18. Newete SW, Byrne MJ: The capacity of aquatic macrophytes for phytoremediation and their disposal with specific reference to water hyacinth. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2016; 23(11): 10630–10643. Publisher Full Text

[19] 19. Zhang Z, Hou Z, Yang C, et al.: Degradation of n-alkanes and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in petroleum by a newly isolated Pseudonomas aeruginosa DQ8. Bioresour. Technol. 2011; 102(5): 4111–4116. Publisher Full Text

[20] 20. Parida P, Satapathy KB, Mohapatra A: Phytoremediation potential of aquatic macrophyte Azolla pinnata R.BR and Salvinia molesta Mitchell to remove chromium from waste water. Plant Arch. 2020; 20(1): 2560–2595.

[21] 21. De Carvalho LB, Junior CWR: Control of water hyacinth: a short review. Commun. Plant Sci. 2019; 9(1). Publisher Full Text

[22] 22. Munjeri K, Ziuku S, Maganga H, et al.: On the potential of water hyacinth as a biomass briquette for heating applications. Int. J. Energy Environ. Eng. 2016; 7(1): 37–43. Publisher Full Text

[23] 23. Patoka J, Bláha M, Kalous L, et al.: Potential pest transfer mediated by international ornamental plant trade. Sci. Rep. 2016; 6: 6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[24] 24. Ting WHT, Tan IAW, Salleh SF, et al.: Application of water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) for phytoremediation of ammoniacal nitrogen: A review. J. Water Process. Eng. 2018; 22: 239–249. Publisher Full Text

[25] 25. Wagiono W, Atmono A, Wulandari D: Pengaruh Variasi Waktu Terhadap Penurunan Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH) pada Proses Bioremediasi Limbah Oli dengan Metode Biostimulasi. Jurnal Lingkungan Dan Sumberdaya Alam (JURNALIS). 2022; 5(2): 109–120. Publisher Full Text

[26] 26. Kalsum U, Napoleon A, Yudono B: Efektivitas Eceng Gondok (Eichhornia crassipes), hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata), dan rumput paying (Cyperus alternifolius) dalam pengolahan limbah grey water. J. Penelit. Sains. 2015; 17(1): 20–25. Publisher Full Text

[27] 27. Ahmad H, Adiningsih R: Efektivitas Metode Fitoremediasi Menggunakan Tanaman Eceng Gondok dan Kangkung Air dalam Menurunkan Kadar BOD dan TSS pada Limbah Cair Industri Tahu. J. Farmasetis. 2019; 8(2): 31–38. Publisher Full Text

[28] 28. Oke FM, Ndiribe CC, Musa SI: Bioremediation of diesel polluted soils with Eichhornia crassipes (water hyacinth). Not. Bot. Horti. Agrobot. Cluj Napoca. 2020; 12(4): 920–928. Publisher Full Text

[29] 29. Xia H, Ma X: Phytoremediation of ethion by water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) from water. Bioresour. Technol. 2006; 97(8): 1050–1054. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[30] 30. Caroline J, Moa GA: Fitoremediasi Logam Timbal (Pb) Menggunakan Tanaman Melati Air (Echinodorus palaefolius) pada Limbah Industri Peleburan Tembaga dan Kuningan. Seminar Nasional Sains Dan Teknologi Terapan III. 2015.

[31] 31. Nedi S, Effendi I, Tanjung A, et al.: Reduction of Hydrocarbon Pollutants by Hyacinth Plants (Eichhornia crassipes). [Data set]. Zenodo. 2023. Publisher Full Text

Reduction of hydrocarbon pollutants by hyacinth plants (Eichhornia crassipes)

Abstract

Keywords

Revised Amendments from Version 1

Introduction

Method

Time and place

Research methods

Procedure

Data analysis

Result

Total petroleum hydrocarbon concentration

Table 1. The concentrations and the reduction of total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) in each media of treatments on each observation day.

Figure 1. The effectiveness of the plant in decreasing total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH).

Chlorophyll content and water quality

Figure 2. Chlorophyll content (mg/L) in hyacinth leaves based on observation time.

Figure 3. The decrease in dissolved oxygen (DO) in each treatment at the time of observation.

Figure 4. The temperature of the control medium (E0) on each day of observations.

Figure 5. The temperature of treatment media at various concentrations during observation.

Figure 6. Decrease in water pH on the treatment of differences in concentration and observation time.

Discussion

Conclusion

Data availability

Underlying data

Acknowledgements

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated