Advances in Applied Physiology

2021; 6(2): 33-37

http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/j/aap
doi: 10.11648/j.aap.20210602.12
ISSN: 2471-9692 (Print); ISSN: 2471-9714 (Online)

Effects of Sole and Combined Physical Filtration Materials

on Physicochemical and Microbiological Properties of
Waste Waters
Akinbuwa Olumakinde1, *, Agele Samuel2
1
Department of Plant Science and Biotechnology, Adekunle Ajasin University, Akungba Akoko, Nigeria
2
Department of Crop, Soil and Pest Management, Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria

Email address:
*
Corresponding author

To cite this article:

Akinbuwa Olumakinde, Agele Samuel. Effects of Sole and Combined Physical Filtration Materials on Physicochemical and Microbiological
Properties of Waste Waters. Advances in Applied Physiology. Vol. 6, No. 2, 2021, pp. 33-37. doi: 10.11648/j.aap.20210602.12

Received: September 6, 2021; Accepted: November 5, 2021; Published: November 17, 2021

Abstract: Agricultural re-use of waste waters is a feasible alternative for increasing water resources for agriculture. Several
methods have been adopted for improving waste water quality for safe re-use in agriculture. However, these methods are
complex and difficult to use by local farmers. Hence, a study was conducted to examine the effects of a simple and cost-
effective waste water treatment methods on physicochemical and microbial properties of waste waters. The research was
conducted in the Department of Crop, Soil and Pest Management, the Federal University of Technology, Akure (FUTA). Waste
waters consisted of: fish pond effluent and municipal stream. Materials used for physical filtration of waste waters include:
granite, rice husk, charcoal, and pure river sand. Prior to and after treatments, the waste waters were subjected to chemical
analysis (pH, electrical conductivity (EC), Nitrate, Cl, P, Ca, and Mg), physical analysis (Total solid, Total dissolved solid and
Total suspended solid), and microbiological analysis (Total faecal coliforms, bacteria, yeast and fungi). Results obtained
showed that sole and combined applications of physical filtration materials significantly reduced microbial loads in waste
waters. Similarly, significant reductions in total solid (TS), total suspended solid (TSS) and total dissolved solid (TDS) were
obtained for waters filtered with the filtration materials, both in the single and combined applications. The highest significant
pH, EC and chloride were recorded in untreated fishpond effluent (T1), while fishpond effluent filtered with rice husk (T5)
recorded the highest Significant Ca and Mg. Highest significant Nitrate was recorded in municipal wastewater filtered with
rice husk (T11), while highest significant P was obtained at T5 and T11. Results of this research showed improvement in the
quality parameters of waste waters filtered with sole and combined filtration materials.
Keywords: Cucumber, Microbiological Analysis, Municipal Stream

approach in water management, and this has in great extent

1. Introduction reduced the force enforced on available water supply due to
Continuous rise in global population and industrialization population growth [4]. According to Heidarpour et al., the
has resulted to increases in the volume of waste generation recycling of waste waters for irrigation purpose will
including waste water yearly [1]. The indiscriminate considerably reduce the amount of water that is required to
discharge of waste waters into rivers and lakes without be removed from global water sources [5]. Waste waters
adequate treatment has resulted into contamination of water serve as good source of water and nutrients for crops,
bodies in many regions of the world [2]. Contamination of therefore, reuse of waste waters serve to maintain soil and
water bodies has become a global concern as a result of the crop productivity and protection of the environment [6].
growing population of the world which is in boundless need Waste water also contains significant amounts of organic and
of fresh water [3]. inorganic nutrients, especially nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P),
Waste water recycling has become a generally acceptable potassium (K) and micronutrients [7], hence, its reuse can
 Advances in Applied Physiology 2021; 6(2): 33-37 34

save a lot of fertilizer expenditures when used in agriculture T6=Fish pond effluent filtered with combined physical
[8]. filters
However, the direct application of untreated waste waters T7=Untreated municipal waste water
on crop land is associated with a many risks such as Crop T8=Municipal waste water filtered with granite
yields reduction, crop quality deterioration, contamination of T9=Municipal waste water filtered with charcoal
crops with pathogens and intestinal helminthes [9]. T10=Municipal waste water filtered with pure river sand
Therefore, in order to reduce the health hazards and damage T11=Municipal waste water filtered with rice husk
to the natural environment, waste waters must be treated T12=Municipal waste water filtered with combined
before reuse especially for agricultural irrigation [10]. Waste physical filters
water reuse in agriculture must comply with re-use standards Each treatment was replicated four (4) times.
to minimize environmental and health risks [11].
There are several methods/technologies for treating waste 2.4. Analysis of Treated and Untreated Waste Waters
waters for re-use in agriculture. These methods are complex Prior to and after treatments, the waste waters were
and difficult to use by local farmers. Also, high capital subjected to chemical, physical, and microbiological
required for the construction of these waste water treatment analyses. The pH of each water samples was determined
systems as well as skilled staff needed to operate the systems, using Metro pH meter model E250, and the EC was
which even become more technical each day, are other measured using conductivity meter. Total solids, dissolved
limiting factors [12]. Hence, the need to provide a simple and solids and suspended solids were determined using the
cost effective treatment facility for wastewater re-use for AOAC method of analysis (1984). Chloride ion in water
agriculture. samples was measured titrimentrically using the Mohr’s
method. Calcium and magnesium ions in water samples were
2. Materials and Methods determined using the EDTA titration method. Nitrate
concentration in water samples was determined by sodium
2.1. Experimental Site hydroxide colorimetric method.
The experiment was carried out in the screen house of the Data were subjected to One-way ANOVA and means were
Department of Crop, Soil and Pest Management, The Federal separated with Tukey HSD test at 5% level of probability
University of Technology, Akure. using SPSS 24.0 version.

2.2. Sources of Waste Water 3. Results and Discussion

Waste waters used for the experiment consist: (i) Fish pond The microbial and physicochemical properties of the
effluent (FPE) which was collected from a local fish pond, treated waste waters, when compared to the untreated waste
Oda Road, Akure, Ondo State; and (ii) Municipal waste water samples, showed improved water Quality. The results
water (MWW) which was collected from a stream situated revealed that separate and combined applications of physical
along FUTA South Gate, Akure, Ondo State. filtration materials (granite, charcoal, pure river sand, and
2.3. Treatment of Waste Waters rice husk) reduced microbial loads (total faecal colifroms,
bacteria, fungi, and yeast) after treatment. Several filtration
Waste water treatment consisted of primary and secondary materials have been adopted for waste water treatment such
treatments. In the primary waste water treatment (PWWT), as sand, peat, wood by-products, biochar, coconut shells,
waste waters were allowed to settle in two separate clean glass bead, and other commercially available filtration
basins for 24 hours. Solid and heavy particles, settled at the materials which considerably reduced microbial loads [13].
bottom of the basins, were removed, and the waters were Many studies have reported efficient bacteria (4.85–6.8 log10
carefully decanted to another separate two basins. Sodium CFU/100 mL) and protozoa (2 log10 CFU/100 mL) removal
hypochlorite (NaOCl) was applied as disinfectant to the through filtration process [14, 15]. Morató et al. and Alufasi
decanted waters before they were subjected to secondary et al. reported that the effectiveness of filtration mainly
treatments. In the secondary waste water treatment (SWWT), depends on the characteristics of the pathogen and filtration
the decanted waters from the PWWT were subjected to media, including the type, texture, and size [16, 17]. The total
physical filtration using filtration materials solely and in coliforms of the treated waste waters varied between 14.67 to
combination. The filtration materials were applied in layers 225.33 MPN/100mL. These results conformed to the
in the filtration facility constructed. acceptable faecal coliform levels of ≤ 1000 MPN/100 mL in
Treatments evaluated includes: waste water for use in agriculture [18]. Bacterial population
T0=Borehole water (Control) varied between 53.33 to 160.00 CFU/ml, yeast varied
T1=Untreated fish pond effluent between 25.00 to 256.67 SFU/ml, and fungi varied between
T2=Fish pond effluent filtered with granite 7.00 to 31.00 SFU/ml. Jenkins et al. reported an average
T3=Fish pond effluent filtered with charcoal removal of 1.8 log10 units, that is, 98.5% of fecal coli
T4=Fish pond effluent filtered with pure river sand bacteria from a river water augmented with waste water over
T5=Fish pond effluent filtered with rice husk 10 weeks in a filter filled with fine sand [19]. However,
35 Akinbuwa Olumakinde and Agele Samuel: Effects of Sole and Combined Physical Filtration Materials on
Physicochemical and Microbiological Properties of Waste Waters

significant reductions in microbial loads were obtained when and phytoplankton harboring V. cholera [20]. The treatments
the physical filtration materials were used when combined reduced V. cholerae concentrations by 95 to 99%. Also
(T6 and T12). This is in accordance with the result obtained by Serpieri et al. concluded that UV filters reduced
Huq et al. who reported that various types of sari cloth (fine microbiological contamination in treated waste water
mesh, woven cotton fabric) and nylon mesh used in single or significantly [21].
multiple layers removed from water samples the zooplankton

Table 1. Microbial loads of treated and untreated waste waters.

Microbial load
Water sources Total faecal coliforms (MPN/100ml) Bacteria (CFU/ml) Yeast (SFU/ml) Fungi (SFU/ml)
T0 0.00a 16.33a 0.00a 0.00a
T1 1100.00g 1240.00e 990.00e 53.00e
T2 225.33f 163.33d 115.00abc 15.33bc
T3 56.00bc 71.33bc 168.67bc 14.67abc
T4 150.00e 160.00d 201.67c 12.33abc
T5 97.00cd 66.67bc 25.00ab 15.67bc
T6 46.67ab 53.33b 27.67ab 12.33abc
T7 1263.02h 1260.00e 586.67d 101.67f
T8 143.33de 80.00c 122.67abc 17.00bcd
T9 145.33de 110.00bc 256.67c 31.00d
T10 225.33f 90.54bc 120.00abc 23.67bc
T11 149.32e 83.33c 33.33ab 20.00bcd
T12 14.67ab 56.67b 32.00ab 7.00ab

Mean with the same letter (s) in superscript on the same column are not significantly different at p=0.05 (Tukey HSD). T0=Borehole water (Control),
T1=untreated fish pond effluent, T2=fishpond effluent filtered with granite, T3=fishpond effluent filtered with charcoal, T4=fishpond effluent filtered with river
sand, T5=fishpond effluent filtered with rice husk, T6=fishpond effluent filtered with combined physical filters, T7=untreated municipal wastewater,
T8=municipal wastewater filtered with granite, T9=municipal wastewater filtered with charcoal, T10=municipal wastewater filtered with river sand,
T11=municipal wastewater filtered with rice husk, T12=municipal wastewater filtered with combined physical filters

Table 2. Physical properties of treated and untreated waste waters.

Waste water physical properties

Water sources Total solid (mg/l) Total dissolved solid (mg/l) Total suspended solid (mg/l)
T0 16.01a 8.64a 8.17a
T1 110.81d 37.25f 85.67d
T2 48.33b 20.66bcd 28.39b
T3 53.09bc 22.91cde 32.04bc
T4 49.01b 19.47bc 30.79bc
T5 49.99bc 20.01bc 30.66bc
T6 48.72bc 18.79b 28.98b
T7 141.49e 52.43g 93.97e
T8 56.11bc 25.43e 35.50c
T9 58.92c 26.51e 36.24c
T10 54.07bc 23.34cde 34.02bc
T11 54.70bc 24.32de 35.58c
T12 50.84bc 20.48bcd 30.17bc
WHO - 500.00 -

Mean with the same letter (s) in superscript on the same column are not significantly different at p=0.05 (Tukey HSD). T0=Borehole water (Control),
T1=untreated fish pond effluent, T2=fishpond effluent filtered with granite, T3=fishpond effluent filtered with charcoal, T4=fishpond effluent filtered with river
sand, T5=fishpond effluent filtered with rice husk, T6=fishpond effluent filtered with combined physical filters, T7=untreated municipal wastewater,
T8=municipal wastewater filtered with granite, T9=municipal wastewater filtered with charcoal, T10=municipal wastewater filtered with river sand,
T11=municipal wastewater filtered with rice husk, T12=municipal wastewater filtered with combined physical filters.

The performance of the constructed filtration facility as Health Organization 1989 and Food and Agricultural
well as selected physical filtration materials such as granite, Organization 1999 standards and guidelines for safe reuse of
charcoal, rice husk and pure river sand were assessed in this waste water in agriculture. According to Gao et al., microbial
study in terms of removal efficiency of Total Solid (TS), compositions are affected by the pH of solutions or substrate
Total Suspended Solids (TSS), Total Dissolved Solid (TDS), [22]. High TS, TDS, and TSS values were obtained for
Electric Conductivity (EC) along with improvement of pH untreated wastewaters (Table 2). High TS, TDS, and TSS in
quality of raw waste waters. The pH of the treated waters untreated wastewaters (T1 and T7) is due to the existence of
varied between 6.9 and 7.7 which agrees with the World colloidal and non-settleable solids including large sand
 Advances in Applied Physiology 2021; 6(2): 33-37 36

particles, clay and fine silt. In the present study, significant carrying capacity due to the presence of free ionized
reductions in TS, TDS, and TSS were obtained with the constituents [26, 27]. The permissible limit of EC by FAO is
application of physical filtration materials, both in the single 1400 µS/cm [28]. The EC values of untreated waste waters
and combined applications. The low levels of total solids (T1 and T7) were observed as 1321.33 µS/cm and 943.67
(TS), total dissolved solids (TDS) and total suspended solids µS/cm respectively. In the present study, significant
(TSS) in the treated waste waters were similar to earlier reductions in EC values were found with application of the
reports of Rasool et al. who reported about 87% reduction in physical filters, both in the sole and combined applications.
TS, 62.8% reduction in TDS, and 99.9% reduction in TSS Pitchard et al. opined that the reductions in the TSS play a
while using pilot-scale stone media trickling filter [23]. In key role in the decline of EC values [29]. Also, Khan et al.
addition, Khan et al. reported reduction in TDS (66%) and found out that fixed biofilm reactor integrated with a sand
TSS (100%) by integrating stone media trickling filter with column filter was effective in reduction of the EC value [24].
sand column filter [24]. The treated wastewater was found to The results of this research also showed that chloride
be feasible for agriculture and safe disposal based on the concentrations in the treated waste waters is far below the
recommended TDS (<1000 mg/L) and TSS (25–80 mg/L) concentration of chlorides (250 mg/liter) for discharge into
values [25]. Reduced EC and chloride concentration were the receiving environment [30]. Similarly, nitrate, Ca, Mg,
also recorded in treated waste waters. EC is used to indicate and P values obtained for treated waste waters fell within the
the salinity potential of water by measuring the current recommended WHO guidelines of 10 mg/L [25].

Table 3. Chemical properties of treated and untreated waste waters.

Chemical Compositions
Water sources pH Ec (µ.S/cm) Cl (mg/l) Ca (ppm) Mg (ppm) N (mg/l) P (ppm)
T0 6.71a 240.00a 53.64a 32.25def 19.26g 4.30d 0.65a
T1 7.81g 1321.33h 46.28a 28.15bcd 16.83f 5.05f 1.49bc
T2 7.40de 613.67f 216.28e 33.23ef 19.83h 4.54de 1.67c
T3 7.30cd 328.33b 324.82f 26.12bc 16.99f 4.42d 2.04c
T4 7.30cd 415.67d 127.81b 26.25bc 15.62e 4.51de 1.67c
T5 6.90ab 286.67ab 223.65e 28.31cd 12.25c 4.75de 24.54g
T6 7.05bc 392.00cd 193.69cd 32.29def 19.23g 4.57de 4.80d
T7 7.44def 949.33g 53.23a 6.52a 3.64a 2.50a 1.82c
T8 7.70fg 550.00e 177.85b 23.31b 13.83c 3.13b 0.84a
T9 7.70fg 648.67b 186.32c 40.17g 24.26j 3.62c 0.46a
T10 7.65efg 529.00d 179.83c 28.14bcd 16.83f 3.16de 0.40a
T11 7.40de 331.33bc 213.92de 31.54def 10.85b 3.66c 18.83f
T12 7.20cd 338.33bc 107.27b 34.05f 20.44i 3.41bc 6.60e
WHO 6.5-8.5 1400.00 250.00 75.00 50.00 10.00 200.00

Mean with the same letter (s) in superscript on the same column are not significantly different at p=0.05 (Tukey HSD). T0=Borehole water (Control),
T1=untreated fish pond effluent, T2=fishpond effluent filtered with granite, T3=fishpond effluent filtered with charcoal, T4=fishpond effluent filtered with river
sand, T5=fishpond effluent filtered with rice husk, T6=fishpond effluent filtered with combined physical filters, T7=untreated municipal wastewater,
T8=municipal wastewater filtered with granite, T9=municipal wastewater filtered with charcoal, T10=municipal wastewater filtered with river sand,
T11=municipal wastewater filtered with rice husk, T12=municipal wastewater filtered with combined physical filters

4. Conclusion
Results of this research showed improvement in the quality References
parameters (physical, chemical and microbial) of waste waters [1] Thapliyal, A., Vasudevan, P., Dastidar, M. G., Tandon, M. and
filtered with sole and combined filtration materials (granite, Mishra, S. (2011). Irrigation with domestic wastewater: responses
charcoal, rice husk, and river sand). Total solid (TS), total on growth and yield of ladyfinger (Abelmoschus esculentus) and on
dissolved solid (TDS) and total suspended solid (TSS) were Soil Nutrients. Journal of Environmental Biology. 32: 645-651.
highest in untreated municipal waste water (T7) while pH and [2] Khan, S., Cao, Q., Zheng, Y. M., Huang, Y. Z. and Zhu, Y. G.
EC were highest in untreated fish pond effluent (T1). Microbial (2008). Health risks of heavy metals in contaminated soils and
loads were also higher in both untreated fish pond effluent (T1) food crops irrigated with wastewater in Beijing, China.
and untreated municipal waste water (T7). However, Sole use Environmental pollution, 152 (3), 686-692.
of filtration materials (granite, charcoal, rice husk, and river [3] Alfonso-Muniozguren, P., Lee, J., Bussemaker, M.,
sand) improved waste water quality (physical, chemical and Chadeesingh, R., Jones, C., Oakley, D. and Saroj, D. (2018).
municipal properties). Waste water quality was further A combined activated sludge-filtration-ozonation process for
enhanced upon treatment with combined filtration materials. abattoir wastewater treatment. Journal of Water Process
There is need to assess the growth and yield responses of Engineering, 25 (February), 157–163.
agricultural crops to the treated waste waters.
37 Akinbuwa Olumakinde and Agele Samuel: Effects of Sole and Combined Physical Filtration Materials on
Physicochemical and Microbiological Properties of Waste Waters

[4] Zahedi, A., Monis, P., Gofton, A. W., Oskam, C. L., Ball, A., Water science and technology, 70 (1), 108-113.
Bath, A., Bartkow, M., Robertson, I. and Ryan, U. (2018).
Cryptosporidium species and subtypes in animals inhabiting [19] Jenkins, M. W., Tiwari, S. K., and Darby, J. (2011). Bacterial,
drinking water catchments in three states across Australia. viral and turbidity removal by intermittent slow sand filtration
Water Resources, 134, 327–340. for household use in developing countries: Experimental
investigation and modeling. Water research, 45 (18), 6227-
[5] Heidarpour, M., Mostafazadeh-Fard, B., Koupai, J. A. and 6239.
Malekian, R. (2007). The effects of treated wastewater on soil
chemical properties using subsurface and surface irrigation [20] Huq, A., Xu, B., Chowdhury, M. A., Islam, M. S., Montilla, R.
methods. Agricultural Water Management, 90: 87-94. and Colwell, R. R. (1996). A simple filtration method to
remove plankton-associated Vibrio cholerae in raw water
[6] Alobaidy, A. H. M. J., Al-Sameraiy, M. A., Kadhem, A. J. and supplies in developing countries. Applied and environmental
Majeed, A. A. (2010). Evaluation of treated municipal microbiology, 62 (7), 2508-2512.
wastewater quality for irrigation. Journal of Environmental
Protection, 1 (03), 216. [21] Serpieri, N., Moneti, G., Pieraccini, G., Donati, R., Mariottini,
E. and Dolara, P. (2000). Chemical and microbiological
[7] Ghafoor, A., Rauf, A. and Arif. M. (1996). Soil and plant characterization of drinking water after filtration with a
health irrigated with Paharang drain sewage effluents at domestic-size charcoal column and ultraviolet sterilization.
Faisalabad. Pakistan. Journal of Agricultural Science, 33: 73– Urban Water, 2, 13-20
76.
[22] Gao, P., Xu, W., Sontag, P., Li, X., Xue, G., Liu, T. and Sun,
[8] Ibrahim, M. and Salmon, S. (1992a). Chemical composition of W. (2016). Correlating microbial community compositions
Faisalabad city sewage effluents: Nitrogen, phosphorus and with environmental factors in activated sludge from four full-
potassium contents. Journal of Agricultural Resources, 30: scale municipal wastewater treatment plants in Shanghai,
381-390. China. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 100 (10),
4663-4673.
[9] Zavadil, J. (2009). The effect of municipal wastewater
irrigation on the yield and quality of vegetables and crops. [23] Rasool, T., Rehman, A., Naz, I., Ullah, R. and Ahmed, S.
Soil and Water Resources, 4 (3): 91-103. (2018). Efficiency of a locally designed pilot-scale trickling
biofilter (TBF) system in natural environment for the
[10] Pereira, L. S., Cordery, I. and Iacovides, I. (2002). Coping treatment of domestic wastewater. Environmental technology,
with Water Scarcity. UNESCO, Paris. 39 (10), 1295-1306.
[11] Saldías, C., Speelman, S., Amerasinghe, P. and Van [24] Khan, Z. U., Naz, I., Rehman, A., Rafiq, M., Ali, N. and
Huylenbroeck, G. (2015). Institutional and policy analysis of Ahmed, S. (2015). Performance efficiency of an integrated
wastewater (re) use for agriculture: case study Hyderabad, stone media fixed biofilm reactor and sand filter for sewage
India. Water Science and Technology, 72 (2), 322-331. treatment. Desalination and Water Treatment, 54 (10), 2638-
2647.
[12] Kivaisi, A. K. (2001). The potential for constructed wetlands
for wastewater treatment and reuse in developing countries: a [25] WHO. Guidelines for the Safe Use of Wastewater. Excreta and
review. Ecological engineering, 16 (4), 545-560. Greywater in Agriculture. Volume 2. Wastewater Use in
Agriculture; WHO Press: Geneve, Switzerland, 2006.
[13] Nilsson, C., Renman, G., Westholm, L. J., Renman, A. and
Drizo, A. (2013). Effect of organic load on phosphorus and [26] Norton-Brandão, D., Scherrenberg, S. M. and van Lier, J. B.
bacteria removal from wastewater using alkaline filter (2013). Reclamation of used urban waters for irrigation
materials. Water research, 47 (16), 6289-6297. purposes–a review of treatment technologies. Journal of
environmental management, 122, 85-98.
[14] Sleytr, K., Tietz, A., Langergraber, G. and Haberl, R. (2007).
Investigation of bacterial removal during the filtration process [27] Khan, S. A., Sharma, G. K., Malla, F. A., Kumar, A. and
in constructed wetlands. Science of the Total Environment, Gupta, N. (2019). Microalgae based biofertilizers: a
380 (1-3), 173-180. biorefinery approach to phycoremediate wastewater and
harvest biodiesel and manure. Journal of Cleaner production,
[15] Redder, A., Dürr, M., Daeschlein, G., Baeder-Bederski, O., 211, 1412-1419.
Koch, C., Müller, R. and Borneff-Lipp, M. (2010).
Constructed wetlands–Are they safe in reducing protozoan [28] FAO. Advances in the Assessment and Monitoring of
parasites. International journal of hygiene and environmental Salinization and Status of Biosaline Agriculture. Reports of
health, 213 (1), 72-77. Expert Consultation Held in Dubai, United Arab Emirates;
FAO: Rome, Italy, 2007.
[16] Morató, J., Codony, F., Sánchez, O., Pérez, L. M., García, J.
and Mas, J. (2014). Key design factors affecting microbial [29] Pritchard, M., Craven, T., Mkandawire, T., Edmondson, A. S.
community composition and pathogenic organism removal in and O’neill, J. G. (2010). A comparison between Moringa
horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetlands. Science of oleifera and chemical coagulants in the purification of
the Total Environment, 481, 81-89. drinking water–An alternative sustainable solution for
developing countries. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth,
[17] Alufasi, R., Gere, J., Chakauya, E., Lebea, P., Parawira, W. Parts A/B/C, 35 (13-14), 798-805.
and Chingwaru, W. (2017). Mechanisms of pathogen removal
by macrophytes in constructed wetlands. Environmental [30] Ukpong, E. C. and Agunwamba, J. C. (2012). Dispersion
Technology Reviews, 6 (1), 135-144. Characteristics of Settleable and Dissolvable Pollutants in
Waste Stabilization Ponds. Global Journal of Engineering
[18] Miranda, N. D., Oliveira, E. L. and Silva, G. H. R. (2014). Research, 11 (2), 87-98.
Study of constructed wetlands effluent disinfected with ozone.