Comparative Mercury Removal by Four Aquatic Macrophytes from ASGM-Contaminated Liquid Waste

  • Nur Rismawati Faculty of Public Health, Universitas Muhammadiyah Palu, Sulawesi Tengah, Indonesia
  • Hamidah Hamidah Faculty of Public Health, Universitas Muhammadiyah Palu, Sulawesi Tengah, Indonesia
  • Abdullah Rahman Zain Faculty of Agriculture, Universitas Tompotika Luwuk, Sulawesi Tengah, Indonesia
DOI: https://doi.org/10.56338/jphp.v6i2.8844
Keywords: Mercury, Phytoremediation, Aquatic Macrophytes, ASGM Wastewater, Water Hyacinth

Abstract

Introduction: Artisanal and small-scale gold mining (ASGM) is a major source of mercury contamination in aquatic environments, threatening ecosystems and human health. Conventional remediation is often costly and difficult to apply in resource-limited mining areas. Phytoremediation using aquatic macrophytes offers a low-cost alternative. This study compared observed water-phase mercury removal by Ipomoea aquatica, Pistia stratiotes, Nymphaea spp., and Eichhornia crassipes under standardized bench-scale laboratory conditions.

Methodology: ASGM liquid waste with an initial dissolved mercury concentration of 0.00448 mg/L was used. Each species was tested in triplicate over a 14-day exposure period, with water samples analyzed on Day 0, Day 9, and Day 14. Mercury concentrations were measured using Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry, and removal effectiveness was calculated as percentage reduction from baseline. Because biomass-normalized uptake, plant tissue mercury accumulation, and abiotic controls were not included, findings are interpreted as plant-associated water-phase reductions rather than definitive evidence of uptake mechanisms.

Results: All species substantially reduced dissolved mercury, with clear interspecies variation. By Day 14, water hyacinth reduced mercury to 0.00003–0.00004 mg/L, corresponding to 99.11–99.33% removal. Lotus showed comparable performance, achieving 98.21–98.44% removal. Water spinach produced intermediate reductions of 85.04–94.42%, with an approximate mean of 89.17%, while water lettuce showed the lowest removal range of 83.71–86.38%, with an approximate mean of 84.89%. Reductions were evident by Day 9 and greatest by Day 14. Mechanistic interpretations related to root morphology, biomass, rhizosphere processes, or internal translocation should remain cautious because these parameters were not directly measured.

Conclusion: Aquatic macrophytes can substantially reduce dissolved mercury in ASGM-contaminated liquid waste under bench-scale conditions. Water hyacinth showed the highest observed removal, followed closely by lotus. Field application requires ecological containment, safe biomass disposal, abiotic control assessment, effluent characterization, and further tissue-based uptake studies.

References

  1. Yoga GP, Sari AA, Nurhati IS, Hindarti D. Mercury contamination on aquatic organisms in related to artisanal small-scale gold mining activity in Indonesia: A mini review. In: IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. IOP Publishing; 2022. p. 12023. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1062/1/012023
  2. Hacon S de S, Oliveira-da-Costa M, Gama C de S, Ferreira R, Basta PC, Schramm A, et al. Mercury exposure through fish consumption in traditional communities in the Brazilian Northern Amazon. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(15):5269. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17155269
  3. Domingues VS, Colmenero C, Vinograd M, Oliveira-da-Costa M, Balbueno R. Mercury dynamics and bioaccumulation risk assessment in three gold mining-impacted amazon river basins. Toxics. 2024;12(8):599. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics12080599
  4. Adebote MO, Aggrey-Fynn J, Mensah PK. Assessing mercury and lead pollution in the Ankobra estuary due to artisanal mining activities: Implications for water quality and aquatic life. PLoS One. 2025;20(6):e0325909. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0325909
  5. Chiapella AM, Eagles?Smith CA, Strecker AL. From forests to fish: Mercury in mountain lake food webs influenced by factors at multiple scales. Limnol Oceanogr. 2021;66(4):1021–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/lno.11659
  6. Puty B, Leão LKR, Crespo-Lopez ME, Carvalho APCPS, Fagundes NCF, Maia LC, et al. Association between methylmercury environmental exposure and neurological disorders: A systematic review. J Trace Elem Med Biol. 2019;52:100–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtemb.2018.12.001
  7. de Matos LS, Correa ASAS, da Silva SAA, Muniz CC, Ignacio ARA. Mercury concentrations in fish and human health assessment in preflood phase of a hydro dam in Teles Pires River, Southern Brazilian Amazon. Elem Sci Anth. 2021;9(1):20. https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.2021.02
  8. Day NK, Schmidt TS, Roberts JJ, Osmundson BC, Willacker JJ, Eagles-Smith CA. Mercury and selenium concentrations in fishes of the Upper Colorado River Basin, southwestern United States: A retrospective assessment. PLoS One. 2020;15(1):e0226824. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226824
  9. Rodriguez-Levy IE, Van Damme PA, Carvajal-Vallejos FM, Bervoets L. Trace element accumulation in different edible fish species from the Bolivian Amazon and the risk for human consumption. Heliyon. 2022;8(11). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11649
  10. Candeago R, Kim K, Vapnik H, Cotty S, Aubin M, Berensmeier S, et al. Semiconducting polymer interfaces for electrochemically assisted mercury remediation. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2020;12(44):49713–22. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.0c15570
  11. Aljohani MM, Makki AA, Alqarni AA, Albalawi KA, Albalawi AS, Alharbi MJ, et al. Adsorbents used for removal of mercury from aqueous solutions: a review. Int Res J Pure Appl Chem. 2022;23:43–55. https://doi.org/10.9734/IRJPAC/2022/v23i130455
  12. Zhang D, Crini G, Lichtfouse E, Rhimi B, Wang C. Removal of mercury ions from aqueous solutions by crosslinked chitosan?based adsorbents: A mini review. Chem Rec. 2020;20(10):1220–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/tcr.202000073
  13. Mohamed HI, Ullah I, Toor MD, Tanveer NA, Din MMU, Basit A, et al. Heavy metals toxicity in plants: understanding mechanisms and developing coping strategies for remediation: a review. Bioresour Bioprocess. 2025;12(1):95. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40643-025-00930-4
  14. Khan F, Tehseen M, Ali S, Ali B, Fatima K, Khaliq H, et al. Environmental toxicology of heavy metals: Chemical strategies for mitigation. Kashf J Multidiscip Res. 2025;2(02):1–17. https://doi.org/10.71146/kjmr253
  15. Liu Z, Zhu Z, Jin L, Hu S. UV Induced Advanced Oxidation Process for the Degradation of Organic Mercury and Its Application to Mercury Speciation by Atomic Fluorescence Spectrometry. At Spectrosc. 2022;43(6):465–73. https://doi.org/10.46770/AS.2022.228
  16. New WX, Ogbezode JE, Gani P. Nanoparticles in soil remediation: Challenges and opportunities. Ind Domest Waste Manag. 2023;3(2):127–40. https://doi.org/10.53623/idwm.v3i2.357
  17. Kiyono M, Ohshiro Y, Nakamura R, Uraguchi S, Takanezawa Y. Molecular Toxicology of Methylmercury and Phytoremediation of Toxic Metals for Human Health. BPB Reports. 2023;6(4):126–32. https://doi.org/10.1248/bpbreports.6.4_126
  18. Makarova A, Nikulina E, Tsirulnikova N, Avdeenkova T, Pishchaeva K V. Potential of S-containing and P-containing complexones in improving phytoextraction of mercury by Trifolium repens L. Saudi J Biol Sci. 2021;28(5):3037–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjbs.2021.02.045
  19. Bajpai DA. International journal of advanced research in science, communication and technology (ijarsct). Int J Adv Res Sci Commun Technol (IJARSCT)(April 01, 2024) Int J Adv Res Sci Commun Technol 0 [1048175/ijarsct-16987]. 2024; https://doi.org/10.48175/ijarsct-16987
  20. Cosio C. Inorganic mercury and methyl-mercury uptake and effects in the aquatic plant Elodea nuttallii: a review of multi-omic data in the field and in controlled conditions. Appl Sci. 2020;10(5):1817. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10051817
  21. Ryzhenko N, Zhavryda D, Bokhonov Y, Ryzhenko D. Mercury contamination in soil, water, plants, and hydrobionts in Kyiv and the Kyiv region. Polish J soil Sci. 2021;54(2):185–99. https://doi.org/10.17951/pjss.2021.54.2.185
  22. Napaldet JT, Buot IE. Absorption of lead and mercury in dominant aquatic macrophytes of Balili River and its implication to phytoremediation of water bodies. Trop Life Sci Res 31: 19–32. 2020. https://doi.org/10.21315/tlsr2020.31.2.2
  23. Gomez FH, Collivignarelli MC, Masoud AMN, Carnevale Miino M, Torres KC, Quintero JA, et al. Mercury removal from mining wastewater by phytoaccumulation in autochthonous aquatic plant species. Clean Technol. 2023;5(3):839–51. https://doi.org/10.3390/cleantechnol5030041
  24. Polecho?ska L, Klink A. Macrophytes as passive bioindicators of trace element pollution in the aquatic environment. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Water. 2023;10(2):e1630. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1630
  25. Bekeowei RA, Bariweni PA. A study of aquatic macrophyte for remediation of chromium and cadmium in wastewater effluents in Yenagoa Metropolis, Niger Delta. J Appl Nat Sci. 2022;14(4). https://doi.org/10.31018/jans.v14i4.3808
  26. Singh SS, Meitei MD, Upadhyay KK, Chanda R, Mawi R, Singh NS, et al. Bioremediation of toxic metals using aquatic macrophytes: Challenges and opportunities. CLEAN–Soil, Air, Water. 2024;52(11):e202400273. https://doi.org/10.1002/clen.202400273
  27. Gentes S, Monperrus M, Legeay A, Gassie C, Maury-Brachet R, Andre JM, et al. Influence of macrophyte and gut microbiota on mercury contamination in fish: a microcosms study. Appl Sci. 2020;10(4):1500. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10041500
  28. Moura VL, de Lacerda LD. Mercury sources, emissions, distribution and bioavailability along an estuarine gradient under semiarid conditions in northeast Brazil. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(24):17092. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192417092
  29. Garcia MMA, Ribeiro DG, Melo EI, Dias RM. Salvinia spp. in the post-treatment of landfill leachate. Rev Vértices. 2024;26(3):e26323389–e26323389. https://doi.org/10.19180/1809-2667.v26n32024.23389
  30. Fonge BA, Awo ME, Tabot P, Akango C, Kenko D, Djeugo C. Accumulation of heavy metals by some aquatic macrophytes in two streams along the tiko-douala highway, Cameroon. Int J Plant Sci. 2023;1–13. https://doi.org/10.9734/ijpss/2023/v35i12683
  31. Ajiboye A V, Badmos B, Adelodun AA, Babatola JO. Effect of Different Biomass Levels of Eichhornia crassipes and Pistia stratiotes on Nutrients, Organics, and Heavy Metals Removal from Wastewater. Ind Domest Waste Manag. 2024;4(2):118–31. https://doi.org/10.53623/idwm.v4i2.501
  32. Anuradha A, Yadav BK. Eichhornia crassipes macrophytes for treatment of heavy metal contaminated water. In: EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts. 2022. p. EGU22-106. https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu22-106
  33. Mareri B, Kitur E, Obade P. Bioaccumulation of zinc, lead, cadmium in water hyacinth, hippo grass and papyrus reed as water quality indicator in River Kisat in Kisumu County, Kenya. African J Pure Appl Sci. 2021;2(2):100–7. https://doi.org/10.33886/ajpas.v2i2.213
  34. Mahajan B, Shastri S, Londhe S. Waste removal efficiencies of floating macrophytes for restoration of polluted stream: an experimental analysis. Urban Sci. 2023;7(1):27. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci7010027
  35. Hermanto D, Ismillayli N, Herdiyanti N, Kamali SR, Aulia S. Validation of mercury speciation analysis in river around artisanal small-scale gold mining area in West Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia. Sci Technol Indones. 2022;7(3):379–84. https://doi.org/10.26554/sti.2022.7.3.379-384
  36. Galvão RB, da Silva Moretti AA, Fernandes F, Kuroda EK. Post-treatment of stabilized landfill leachate by upflow gravel filtration and granular activated carbon adsorption. Environ Technol. 2021;42(26):4179–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2020.1746838
  37. Danasla MA, Anjelita C, Julyanto RA. Phytoremediation as a Sustainable Solution for Mercury Contamination in Artisanal Gold Mining Sites: Insights from ASGM in South Lampung, Indonesia. J Presipitasi Media Komun dan Pengemb Tek Lingkung. https://doi.org/10.14710/presipitasi.v22i2.432-447
  38. Ali S, Abbas Z, Rizwan M, Zaheer IE, Yava? ?, Ünay A, et al. Application of floating aquatic plants in phytoremediation of heavy metals polluted water: A review. Sustainability. 2020;12(5):1927. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051927
  39. Nazir M, Roy K, Saha A, Saha D. A novel approach to explore new means of depletion of potable water crisis by phytoremediation of Abandoned Coalmine Pitlake and generate alternate livelihood: A case study of Raniganj Coalfield, West Bengal, India. In: Hydrology-current research and future directions. IntechOpen; 2024. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.1003927
  40. Jha K, Wu B, Aziz SQ, Ahmed HG, Ahmed MS. Sustainable solutions for water hyacinth invasion: Characteristics, impacts, control, and utilization. World J Adv Eng Technol Sci. 2024;12(1):47–58. https://doi.org/10.30574/wjaets.2024.12.1.0169
  41. Wijeyaratne WMDN, Liyanage UP. Multimetric socio?ecological assessment of water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes (Mart) solms) invasion of an urban Ramsar wetland lake. Lakes Reserv Res Manag. 2024;29(1):e12444. https://doi.org/10.1111/lre.12444
  42. Udume OA, Abu GO, Stanley HO. Composting: A low-cost biotechnological approach to ameliorating macrophyte nuisance in fresh waters. J Agric Ecol Res Int. 2021;22(3):47–71. https://doi.org/10.9734/JAERI/2021/v22i330191
Published
2026-07-01
How to Cite
Rismawati, N., Hamidah, H., & Abdullah Rahman Zain. (2026). Comparative Mercury Removal by Four Aquatic Macrophytes from ASGM-Contaminated Liquid Waste. Journal of Public Health and Pharmacy, 6(2), 416-429. https://doi.org/10.56338/jphp.v6i2.8844
Issue
Vol. 6 No. 2 (2026)
Section
Articles

Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of Public Health and Pharmacy

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with Journal of Public Health and Pharmacy retain the copyright of their work. The journal applies a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0), which grants the following rights:

  1. Copyright Retention: Authors retain the copyright of their work, maintaining full control over their intellectual property without restrictions.

  2. Right of First Publication: Authors grant the journal the right of first publication of their work. This ensures that the work is initially published and credited in Journal of Public Health and Pharmacy.

  3. License to Share and Reuse: The work is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0, allowing others to copy, distribute, remix, and build upon the work for any purpose, even commercially, as long as proper credit is given to the authors, and any new creations are licensed under the same terms.