PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.

com

Physicochemical Characterization of Water Hyacinth

(Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms)
Javier S. Lara-Serrano,a O. Miriam Rutiaga-Quiñones,b Javier López-Miranda,b
Héctor A. Fileto-Pérez,b Fabiola E. Pedraza-Bucio,c José L. Rico-Cerda,d and
José G. Rutiaga-Quiñones e,*

Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) is an aquatic flowering plant that

belongs to the Pontederiaceae family. The plant is a freshwater
hydrophyte that grows in subtropical and tropical regions of the world. The
objective of this study was to determine the physicochemical
characterization of roots, stems, and leaves of E. crassipes. The pH, ash,
1% alkali solubility, extractives, lignin, holocellulose, tannins, and calorific
value were determined. Our results showed that the mineral content is
relatively high, whereas that for lignin and tannins is low. The pH is
moderately acid, and the soluble substances easily dissolved in alkali or
organic solvents. Potassium, calcium, and silicon are the major
constituents present in the ash of this plant. The determined calorific value
was approximately 14.4 MJ/kg.

Keywords: pH; Ash; Extractives; Lignocellulosic material; Calorific value

Contact information: a: Tesista - Facultad de Ingeniería en Tecnología de la Madera (FITECMA), Edificio

D, CU, Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo (UMSNH), Av. Fco. J. Múgica S/N. Col.
Felicitas de Río, Morelia, Michoacán, C.P. 58040; b: Departamento de Ingenierías Química y Bioquímica,
Instituto Tecnológico de Durango, Blvd. Felipe Pescador 1830 Ote., Col. Nueva Vizcaya, Durango, Dgo.,
C.P. 34080, México; c: FITECMA, Edificio D, CU, UMSNH, Av. Fco. J. Múgica S/N. Col. Felicitas de Río,
Morelia, Michoacán, C.P. 58040; d: Facultad de Ingeniería Química, Edificio V1, UMSNH, Av. Fco. J.
Múgica S/N. Col. Felicitas de Río, Morelia, Michoacán, C.P. 58040; e: Director de Tesis, FITECMA,
Edificio D, CU, UMSNH, Av. Fco. J. Múgica S/N. Col. Felicitas de Río, Morelia, Michoacán, C.P. 58040;
* Corresponding author: [email protected]

INTRODUCTION

The water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms) is an aquatic flowering

plant that belongs to the Pontederiaceae family. The plant is a freshwater hydrophyte that
grows in subtropical and tropical regions of the world. Sometimes the water hyacinth is
considered an undesirable weed; but various studies have reported its uses, such as in the
production of ethanol (Manivannan et al. 2012; Awasthi et al. 2013; Fileto-Pérez et al.
2013; Manivannan and Narendhirakannan 2014); as an adsorbent for heavy metals present
in polluted water (Murithi et al. 2014); for phytoremediation (Vijetha et al. 2014); as a raw
material for the production of biogas (Ochieng and Kaseje 2014); as a biofuel (Bergier et
al. 2012); and as a protein supplement in ruminant feed (Mako et al. 2011). Other works
have focused on the effect of extractives on its antimicrobial activity (Tharamaiselvi and
Jayanathi 2012), or its potential to provide phytosterols for the pharmaceutical industry
(Fileto-Pérez et al. 2015). The objective of this study was to determine the physicochemical
characterization of roots, stems, and leaves of E. crassipes with the aim of providing a basis
for future applications.

Lara-Serrano et al. (2016). “Water hyacinth,” BioResources 11(3), 7214-7223. 7214

PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
EXPERIMENTAL

Materials
Water hyacinth plants were collected from two different regions: El Tunal River
(TR), located in Durango, Durango, México (26°48´-22°19´ Latitude, 102°28´-107°11´
Longitude), at 1880 meters above sea level (masl) and from Yuriria Lake (YL) located in
Yuriria, Guanajuato, Mexico (20°14´24.07” Latitude, 101°07´12.98” Longitude), at 1737
masl. The plants were washed; roots, stems, and leaves are separated, and dried under
shade. The material was then milled and sieved. The plant portions smaller than 420 µm
were used in our study. Moisture content was determined by exposing the material at 105
± 3 °C according to the TAPPI T264 cm-97 method (2000a). All tests were repeated six
times. Mean values and standard deviation are reported.

Chemical Properties
The pH (Sandermann and Rothkamm 1959), ash content (TAPPI T211 om-93
2000b), ash microanalysis (Tellez et al. 2010), 1% alkali solubility (TAPPI T212 om-98
2000c), and extractives of the dry raw material were determined. The total extractives
content was determined by successive Soxhlet extractions using various organic solvents
(cyclohexane, acetone, and methanol) and finally hot water under reflux. For this purpose
each case was refluxed for 6 h. A rotary evaporator under vacuum was used for solvent
recovery. Lignin, holocellulose, and cellulose in the extractive-free material were
determined following the procedures reported by Runkel and Wilke (1951); Wise et al.
(1946); and ASTM D1103-60 (1981), respectively. Hemicellulose content was determined
by the difference between holocellulose and cellulose (Carballo-Abreu et al. 2004).

Tannins Content
The total extract, tannin content, and Stiasny number in the dry material were
determined accordingly to Yazaki and Hillis (1977) and Waterman and Mole (1994), using
water and ethanol as solvents.

Calorific Value
The calorific values of the sections of the water hyacinth were determined using a
colorimetric pump (Parr Model 6772, USA). For this purpose, 0.5 g of dried roots, stems,
and leaves, as original material, was pressed to form pellets in a laboratory press (Carver
model 4350-L) at 1,000 kg/cm2 that were then placed into the instrument. The
measurements were performed following the UNE-EN 14918 (2011) procedure. The
calorific value was also determined in the extractives-free material, lignin, and
holocellulose in the same process as the original material.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Chemical Properties
The basic characterization of E. crassipes is summarized in Table 1. The pH of all
portions of the plant was similar and equal to 4.6. The mineral content of the studied plants
ranged from 12.4 to 26.8 wt.%, with the samples collected from TR providing higher
inorganic substances than the samples obtained from YL. This may be due to the water
quality at the respective locations. The results reported for the same species by others are

Lara-Serrano et al. (2016). “Water hyacinth,” BioResources 11(3), 7214-7223. 7215

PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
of the same magnitude: 21.5% by Mako et al. (2011), 17% in leaves (Saha and Ray 2011),
19% by Promdee et al. (2012), 22.9% by Fileto-Pérez et al. (2013), and 12.4% in leaves
by Sotolu (2012).
Table 2 shows the microanalysis of ash. The major elements were silicon, calcium,
and potassium. High concentrations of potassium, chlorine, and calcium were detected in
stems, whereas potassium and calcium were the major elements present in leaves. It is
interesting to note that iron was only found in roots and stems. Most chemical elements
found here have been reported previously for this species (Mako et al. 2011; Sotolu 2012).
It is important to note that heavy metals were not found in the studied samples. The high
concentration of inorganic substances (Table 2) makes this plant attractive to use as
compost because minerals are important for plant growth (Restrepo and Pinheiro 2009).

Table 1. Characterization of E. crassipes from TR and YL

Collecting Plant part
Analysis
site Root Stems Leaves
TR 4.6 ± 0.01 4.7 ± 0.04 4.7 ± 0.14
pH
YL 4.6 ± 0.02 4.7 ± 0.06 4.7 ± 0.01
TR 26.0 ± 0.22 26.8 ± 0.39 19.9 ± 0.25
Ash (wt %)
YL 14.6 ± 0.09 14.4 ± 0.03 12.4 ± 0.04
TR 54.4 ± 0.21 52.4 ± 0.34 51.8 ± 0.27
Alkali solubility (wt %)
YL 55.9 ± 0.23 48.9 ± 0.19 51.2 ± 0.23
TR 35.9 ± 0.82 58.0 ± 0.78 47.5 ± 0.12
Total extractives (wt %)
YL 30.4 ± 0.42 31.9 ± 0.31 29.5 ± 0.02
TR 13.4 ± 0.53 4.5 ± 0.08 11.5 ± 0.91
Runkel lignin (wt %)
YL 8.8 ± 0.17 5.9 ± 0.18 14.3 ± 0.27
TR 23.7 ± 0.45 11.4 ± 0.50 17.1 ± 0.06
Holocellulose (wt %)
YL 43.4 ± 0.04 40.0 ± 0.34 36.8 ± 0.35
TR 16.0 ± 0.77 8.4 ± 0.21 8.7 ± 0.76
Cellulose (wt %)
YL 15.9 ± 0.45 14.2 ± 0.57 12.8 ± 0.30
TR 7.7 3.0 8.4
Hemicellulose* (wt %)
YL 27.5 25.8 24.0
*Hemicellulose content was calculated by the difference between holocellulose and cellulose.

Alkali solubility ranged from 48.9 to 55.9 wt.%, which is higher than those reported
for wood species (Bernabé-Santiago et al. 2013). It is known that hot alkali solution
extracts low-molecular-weight carbohydrates consisting mainly of hemicellulose and
degraded cellulose and this treatment can influence the natural durability of lignocellulosic
materials (TAPPI T212 om-98 2000). On the other hand, it is expected that water hyacinth
could be easily damaged by the action of microorganisms, because this plant has high alkali
solubility.
The total extractives content ranged from 29.5 to 58.0 wt.%, in agreement with or
higher than other values reported for tropical wood species (Rutiaga et al. 2010; Téllez et
al. 2010; Ramos-Pantaleón et al. 2011). The total solubility of E. crassipes samples was
obtained by a sequential extraction with cyclohexane, acetone, methanol, and hot water
(Table 3). The lowest extractives content (0.08 wt.%) was observed in roots using
cyclohexane, and the highest extractives content (35.3 wt.%) was in stems using hot water.
In general, the highest amount of extractives in E. crassipes was observed using methanol
and hot water as solvents, which confirms the high polyphenol content in these samples.
Lipophilic compounds were relatively abundant in our samples, except in the roots, which
had the lowest value (0.8 wt.%). The high content of extractives in E. crassipes can have a

Lara-Serrano et al. (2016). “Water hyacinth,” BioResources 11(3), 7214-7223. 7216

PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
negative impact if the plant is used as raw material for pulping processes because
extractives increase chemical consumption. However, E. crassipes is an attractive chemical
source of derivatives that remains to be explored.
The Runkel lignin content ranged from 5.9% to 14.3% (Table 1), similar to other
values reported for the same species: 3.5% by Kumar et al. (2009), 17% by Abdel-Fattah
and Abdel-Naby (2012), and 3.9% by Reales-Alfaro et al. (2013). The low lignin content
in E. crassipes makes this material attractive for the production of ethanol, as previously
suggested (Satyanagalakshmi et al. 2011; Abdel-Fattah and Abdel-Naby 2012; Ganguly et
al. 2012; Awasthi et al. 2013; Fileto-Pérez et al. 2013; Reales-Alfaro et al. 2013).

Table 2. Elemental Microanalysis of the Ash of E. crassipes (Atomic %),

Determined by EDS
Plant section
Elements Collecting site
Roots Stems Leaves
TR 0.67 ± 0.06 4.43 ± 0.60 1.51 ± 0.33
Sodium
YL 5.58 ± 0.16 2.01 ± 0.37 0.68 ± 0.32
TR 0.46 ± 0.05 5.33 ± 0.02 3.76 ± 0.59
Magnesium
YL 16.37 ± 0.43 6.00 ± 0.32 7.39 ± 0.66
TR 8.84 ± 0.53 0.82 ± 0.07 0.03 ± 0.01
Aluminum
YL 0.25 ± 0.01 0.27 ± 0.01 0.21 ± 0.01
TR 62.80 ± 0.06 8.06 ± 0.03 2.21 ± 0.03
Silicon
YL 1.61 ± 0.07 1.97 ± 0.70 2.23 ± 0.03
TR 1.81 ± 0.01 5.12 ± 0.06 8.61 ± 0.04
Phosphorus
YL 5.99 ± 0.25 4.64 ± 0.40 5.87 ± 0.73
TR 1.07 ± 0.09 2.44 ± 0.03 2.76 ± 0.02
Sulfur
YL 5.91 ± 0.21 0.37 ± 0.01 0.44 ± 0.03
TR 0.71 ± 0.01 19.43 ± 0.33 17.44 ± 0.12
Chlorine
YL 12.20 ± 0.25 21.47 ± 0.28 15.93 ± 0.57
TR 10.92 ± 0.03 38.36 ± 0.03 47.29 ± 0.30
Potassium
YL 21.79 ± 0.17 41.49 ± 0.55 42.11 ± 0.23
TR 5.30 ± 0.00 15.05 ± 0.05 16.11 ± 0.08
Calcium
YL 28.92 ± 0.59 20.27 ± 0.79 23.98 ± 0.63
TR 1.96 ± 0.03 0.70 ± 0.06 0.28 ± 0.02
Manganese
YL 1.16 ± 0.04 1.31 ± 0.03 1.16 ± 0.02
TR 5.45 ± 0.07 0.26 ± 0.01 nd
Iron
YL 0.21 ± 0.07 0.20 ± 0.05 nd
nd = not detected

Regarding polysaccharides in the water hyacinth samples, the holocellulose content

ranged from 11.4 to 43.3 wt.% (Table 1). The lowest content of cellulose (8.4 wt.%) was
observed in stems, and the highest (16.0%) was found in roots. The values found here were
low compared to other reports, for example, 18.2% by Kumar et al. (2009), and 18.2% by
Fileto-Pérez et al. (2013). The hemicellulose content in our samples ranged from 3 to 27.5
wt. %, which is smaller than the values reported in other studies for the same species:
48.7% (Kumar et al. 2009) and 49.3% (Fileto-Pérez et al. 2013). If E. crassipes were used
as a raw material in the pulping process, the pulp yield would be low because of the lower
polysaccharide content found in this plant.

Tannins Content
The evaluation of tannins in E. crassipes is summarized in Table 4. The values for
total extract (TE) ranged from 12.1 in roots to 15.7 wt.% in leaves, using ethanol and water

Lara-Serrano et al. (2016). “Water hyacinth,” BioResources 11(3), 7214-7223. 7217

PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
as solvents, respectively. These values are slightly higher than those reported for the barks
of some pine species (Rosales and González 2003) and in the range for those reported for
barks of other hardwood species: 11.1 wt.% for Erythroxylon compactum and 17.7 wt.%
for Senna skinneri (Colín-Urieta et al. 2013).
The Stiasny number (SN) in leaves ranged from 41.5% to 52.8% by aqueous and
ethanolic extraction, respectively. These values are similar to others reported for pine barks
(30 to 80 wt. %) (Rosales and González 2003) and lower than those published by Colín-
Urieta et al. (2013), who found 60.1 wt.% for Erythroxylon compactum and 79.4 wt.% for
Senna skinneri.

Table 3. Results of Successive Soxhlet Extraction using Various Solvents (wt.%)

Collecting Solvent
Samples
site Cyclohexane Acetone Methanol Hot water Total
31.6 ±
TR 0.8 ± 0.06 1.6 ± 0.06 4.9 ± 0.19 35.9 ± 0.82
0.68
Roots
14.1 ±
YL 0.8 ± 0.01 2.2 ± 0.02 13.3 ± 0.31 30.4 ± 0.42
0.14
35.3 ±
TR 3.4 ± 0.34 4.2 ± 0.42 15.1 ± 0.79 58.1 ± 0.78
Stems 0.10
YL 1.4 ± 0.01 2.6 ± 0.05 18.8 ± 0.04 9.1 ± 0.41 31.9 ± 0.31
19.9 ±
TR 6.9 ± 0.37 5.6 ± 0.25 15.2 ± 0.67 47.5 ± 0.12
0.41
Leaves
12.3 ±
YL 2.4 ± 0.01 2.2 ± 0.02 12.6 ± 0.02 29.5 ± 0.02
0.07

Table 4. Tannins in Roots, Stems, and Leaves from E. crassipes (wt. %)

Collecting Aqueous extraction Ethanolic extraction
Samples
site TE SN T TE SN T
14.3 46.3 6.5 13.5 51.3 6.9
TR
± 0.07 ± 0.11 ± 0.10 ± 0.01 ± 0.13 ± 0.10
Roots
13.3 44.8 6.0 12.1 51.2 6.2
YL
± 0.08 ± 0.01 ± 0.06 ± 0.07 ± 0.07 ± 0.06
13.8 43.8 6.0 14.9 47.4 6.7
TR
± 0.05 ± 0.21 ± 0.32 ± 0.07 ± 0.07 ± 0.21
Stems
12.7 42.6 5.4 13.9 46.4 6.4
YL
± 0.28 ± 0.04 ± 0.12 ± 0.07 ± 0.07 ± 0.06
15.7 41.5 6.4 13.1 52.4 6.9
TR
± 0.17 ± 0.05 ± 0.08 ± 0.07 ± 0.07 ± 0.05
Leaves
14.4 40.8 5.9 12.9 52.8 6.8
YL
± 0.02 ± 0.00 ± 0.01 ± 0.07 ± 0.07 ± 0.01

The amount of condensed tannins (T) in roots and leaves in our study ranged from
5.4 by aqueous to 6.9 wt.% by ethanolic extraction. This content is higher compared to that
reported for leaves (0.98%) in E. crassipes (Saha and Ray 2011) or similar to that found in
the bark of Pinus leiophylla (5.8%), Pinus durangensis (6.4%) (Rosales and González
2003), and in the bark of Erythroxylon compactum (5.6%) (Colín et al. 2013). However,
the tannin content in E. crassipes was lower than the value reported as suitable for
commercial potential (Colín-Urieta et al. 2013).

Lara-Serrano et al. (2016). “Water hyacinth,” BioResources 11(3), 7214-7223. 7218

PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
Calorific Value
To our knowledge, calorific data for water hyacinth has not been published
previously. The average calorific values of the water hyacinth presented in Table 5 are
comparable to that of switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) (16.2 MJ/kg) as reported by Mendu
et al. (2011) and are within the range of values determined for plants (10.04 to 19.19
MJ/kg) (Augustus et al. 2005). It is interesting to note that in this table, the calorific value
of the original materials are slightly lower than those for extractives-free materials. This is
contrary to the results presented by White (1987) for conifers, which might be due to the
absence of resins in water hyacinth compared to conifers; due to this, the resin contributes
positively to the calorific value of wood (Kollmann 1959). It is known that the calorific
value of a lignocellulosic material depends on its lignin content (Browning 1963). By
presenting our results of calorific values as a function of the lignin content (Table 1 and
Fig. 1), the dependence is clearly observed. The variations can be explained by considering
the differences in lignin composition, as reported by Kačik et al. (2012).

Table 5. Calorific Values of Sections of Water Hyacinth (MJ/kg)

Collecting Original Extractives-
Samples Holocellulose Runkel lignin
site material free material
Roots 15.03 ± 0.08 14.21 ± 0.12 11.95 ± 0.54 16.33 ± 0.57
TR Stems 13.12 ± 0.14 14.46 ± 0.13 12.66 ± 0.43 16.97 ± 0.18
Leaves 14.89 ± 0.36 15.88 ± 0.28 12.93 ± 0.43 17.23 ± 0.11
Average 14.35 14.85 12.51 16.84
Roots 14.33 ± 0.10 14.21 ± 0.01 13.03 ± 0.13 20.27 ± 0.30
YL Stems 13.69 ± 0.03 14.46 ± 0.01 13.74 ± 0.25 20.90 ± 0.10
Leaves 15.46 ± 0.15 15.89 ± 0.17 13.78 ± 0.09 21.17 ± 0.16
Average 14.49 14.85 13.52 20.78

15.5

15.0
Calorific value (MJ/kg)

14.5

14.0

13.5

13.0

4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Runkel lignin (%)

Fig. 1. Calorific value of water hyacinth as a function of lignin content

Lara-Serrano et al. (2016). “Water hyacinth,” BioResources 11(3), 7214-7223. 7219

PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
CONCLUSIONS

1. The composition and characteristics of plants from both sources slightly differed
according to the environmental conditions of the two collecting sites. Higher ash
content was found in the samples collected from TR compared with the samples
obtained from YL.
2. Lignin and polysaccharide contents were relatively low. The amount of extractives was
comparable to other lignocellulosic materials, the concentration of inorganic elements
was high, and the calorific values were similar to those reported for other woods.
3. The average calorific values of the sample were in the following order: lignin >
extractives-free material > original material > holocellulose.
4. No clear influence of ash content was observed on the calorific value of the original
material; however, the influence of lignin content on the calorific value was clear.
5. The data collected in this study over the chemical composition and calorific value has
led to the conclusion that this lignocellulosic material can be potentially useful for
various applications, the use as compost, and as extractives substances source.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors thank Dra. Ma. del Carmen Chávez Parga for technical assistance in
measuring the calorific values and to the Coordination of Scientific Research of the
Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo, under project No. CIC-21.3-JGRQ,
for the financial support.
This article is dedicated to the memory of Francisco Javier Pérez Medina
(Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo, México).

REFERENCES CITED

Abdel-Fattah, A. F., and Abdel-Naby, M. A. (2012). “Pretreatment and enzymatic

saccharification of water hyacinth cellulose,” Carbohydrate Polymers 87, 2109-2113.
DOI: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2011.10.033
ASTM (2000). “Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Part 22: wood, adhesives,” American
society for testing and materials, West Conshohocken, Philadelphia, 1192p.
ASTM D 1103-60 (1981). “Annual Book of ASTM Standards, standard method for
determining alfa-cellulose in wood,” American society for testing and materials, West
Conshohocken, Philadelphia.
Augustus, G. D. P. S., Kumari, D. D. S., Kumar M. J., Kanan, D., and Jayabalan, M.
(2005). “Phytochemical evaluation of plants of Western Ghats of Tamil Nadu, India,”
Asian Journal of Chemistry 17(4), 2076-2080.
Awasthi, M., Kaur, J., and Rana, S. (2013). “Bioethanol production through water
hyacinth, Eichhornia crassipes via optimization of the pretreatment conditions,”
International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering 3(3), 42-
46.

Lara-Serrano et al. (2016). “Water hyacinth,” BioResources 11(3), 7214-7223. 7220

PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
Bergier, I., Salis, S. M., Miranda, C. H. B., Ortega, E., and Luengo, C. A. (2012).
“Biofuel production from water hyacinth in the Pantanal wetland,” Ecohydrology and
Hydrobiology 12(1), 77-84. DOI: 10.2478/v10104-011-0041-4
Bernabé-Santiago, R., Ávila-Calderón, L. E. A., and Rutiaga-Quiñones, J. G. (2013).
“Componentes químicos de la madera de cinco especies de pino del municipio de
Morelia, Michoacán.” Madera y Bosques 19(2), 21-35.
Browning, B. L. (1963). The Chemistry of Wood, Interscience Publishers, New York,
NY.
Carballo-Abreu, L. R., Orea, U., and Cordero, E. (2004). “Composición química de tres
maderas en la provicnica de Pinar del Río, Cuba, a tres alturas del fuste comercial.
Parte 1. Corymbia citriodora,” Revista Chapingo Serie Ciencias Forestales y del
Ambiente 10(1), 57-62.
Colín-Urieta, S., Ochoa-Ruiz, H. G., and Rutiaga-Quiñones, J. G. (2013). “Tannin
content in the bark of two species of paracata (Erythroxylon compactum Rose and
Senna skinneri Benth. Irwin and Barneby),” Revista Chapingo Serie Ciencias
Forestales y del Ambiente 19(1), 115-124. DOI: 10.5154/r.rchscfa.2011.09.062
Fileto-Pérez, H. A., Rutiaga-Quiñones, J. G., Aguilar-González, C. N., Páez, J. B., López,
J., and Rutiaga-Quiñones, O. M. (2013). “Evaluation of Eichhornia crassipes as an
alternative raw material for reducing sugars production,” BioResources 8(4), 5340-
5348. DOI: 10.15376/biores.8.4.5340-5348
Fileto-Pérez, H. A., Rutiaga-Quiñones, O. M., Sytsma, M. D., Lorne, I. M, Luo, W,
Pankow, J. F., and Rutiaga-Quiñones, J. G. (2015). “GC/MS analysis of some
extractives from Eichhornia crassipes,” BioResources 10(4), 7353-7360. DOI:
10.15376/biores.10.4.7353-7360
Ganguly, A., Chatterjee, P. K., and Dey, A. (2012). “Studies on ethanol production from
water hyacinth – A review,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 16, 966-
972. DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2011.09.018
Kačik, F., Ďurkovič, J., and Kačíkova, D. (2012). “Chemical profiles of wood
components of poplar clones for their energy utilization,” Energies 5(12), 5243-5256.
DOI: 10.3390/en5125243
Kollmann, F. (1959). Tecnología de la Madera y sus Aplicaciones, Instituto Forestal de
Investigaciones, Experiencias y Servicios de la Madera. Madrid
Kumar, A., Singh, L. K., and Ghosh, S. (2009). “Bioconversion of lignocellulosic
fraction of water-hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) hemicellulose acid hydrolysate to
ethanol by Pichia stipites,” Bioresource Technology 100(13), 3293-3297. DOI:
10.1016/j.biortech.2009.02.023
Manivannan, A., Jayarani, P. H., and Narendhirakannan, R. T. (2012). “Enhanced acid
hydrolysis for bioethanol production from water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes)
using fermentating yeast Candida intermedia NRRLY-981,” Journal of Scientific and
Industrial Research 71(January), 51-56.
Manivannan, A., and Narendhirakannan, R. T. (2014). “Biodegradation of lignocellulosic
residues of water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) and response surface
methodological approach to optimize bioethanol production using fermenting yeast
Pachysolen tannophilus NRRL Y-2460,” International Journal of Biological,
Veterinary, Agricultural and Food Engineering 8(2), 157-162.
Mako, A. A., Babayemi, O. J., and Akinsoyinu, A. O. (2011). “An evaluation of nutritive
value of water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes Mart. Solms-Laubach) harvested from

Lara-Serrano et al. (2016). “Water hyacinth,” BioResources 11(3), 7214-7223. 7221

PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
different water sources as animal feed,” Livestock Research for Rural Development
23, 106.
Mendu, V., Harman-Ware, A. E., Crocker, M., Jae, J., Stork, J., Morton, S., Placido, A.,
Huber, G., and DeBolt, S. (2011). “Identification and thermochemical analysis of
high-lignin feedstocks for biofuel and biochemical production,” Biotechnology for
Biofuels 4(43), 1-13. DOI: 10.1186/1754-6834-4-43
Murithi, G., Onindo, C. O., Wambu, E. W., and Muthakia, G. K. (2014). “Removal of
cadmium (II) Ions from water by adsorption using water hyacinth (Eichhornia
crassipes) biomass,” BioResources 9(2), 3613-3631. DOI: 10.15376/biores.9.2.3613-
3631
Ochieng, E., and Kaesje, M. (2014). “An assessment of knowledge and use of water
hyacinth for production of biogas among beach communities in Kenya,” International
Journal of Social Sciences and Entrepreneurship 1(12), 132-139.
Promdee, K., Vitidsant, T., and Vanpetch, S. (2012). “Comparative study of some
physical and chemical properties of bio-oil from manila grass and water hyacinth
transformed by pyrolysis process,” International Journal of Chemical Engineering
and Applications 3(1), 72-75. DOI: 10.7763/IJCEA.2012.V3.163
Ramos-Pantaleón, D., Ávila-Calderón, L .E. A., Ochoa-Ruiz, H. G., and Rutiaga-
Quiñones, J. G. (2011). “Contenido de sustancias extraíbles en la madera de
Enterolobium cyclocarpum (Jacq.) Griseb. (Leguminosae),” Revista Ciencia Nicolaita
53(), 7-19.
Reales-Alfaro, J. G., Trujillo, L. T., Arzuaga, G., Castaño, H., and Polo, A. (2013). “Acid
hydrolysis of water hyacinth to obtain fermentable sugars,” CT&F - Ciencia,
Tecnología y Futuro 5(2), 101-112.
Restrepo-Rivera, J., and Pinheiro, S. (2009). Agricultura Orgánica, Satyagraha Juquira
Candirú, Colombia.
Rosales-Castro, M., and González-Laredo, R. F. (2003). “Comparación del contenido de
compuestos fenólicos en la corteza de ocho especies de pino,” Madera y Bosques
9(2), 41-49.
Runkel, R. O. H., and Wilke, K. D. (1951). “Zur Kenntnis des thermoplastichen
Verhaltens von Holz,” Holz als Roh-und Werkstoff 9(2), 260-270.
Rutiaga-Quiñones, J. G., Pedraza-Bucio, F. E., and López-Albarrán, P. (2010). “Main
chemical components of Dalbergia granadillo Pittier and Platymiscium lasiocarpum
Sandw wood,” Revista Chapingo Serie Ciencias Forestales y del Ambiente 16(2),
179-186. DOI: 10.5154/r.rchscfa.2010.04.023
Saha, S., and Ray, A. K. (2011). “Evaluation of nutritive value of water hyacinth
(Eichhornia crassipes) leaf meal in compound diets for Rohu, Labeo rohita
(Hamilton, 1822) fingerlings after fermentation with two bacterial strains isolated
from fish gut,” Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 11, 199-207. DOI:
10.4194/trjfas.2011.0204
Sandermann, W., and Rothkamm, M. (1959). “Über die Bedeutung der pH-Werte von
Handelshölzern und deren Bedeutung für die Praxis,“ Holz als Roh-und Werkstoff
17(11), 433-440. DOI.10.1007/BF02605386
Satyanagalakshmi, K., Sindhu, R., Binod, P., Usha, K., Sukumaran, R. K., and Pandey,
A. (2011). “Bioethanol production from acid pretreated water hyacinth by separate
hydrolysis and fermentation,” J. Sci. Ind. Res. 70(1), 156-161.

Lara-Serrano et al. (2016). “Water hyacinth,” BioResources 11(3), 7214-7223. 7222

PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
Sotolu, A. O. (2012). “Management and utilization of weed: Water hyacinth (Eichhornia
crassipes) for improved aquatic resources.” Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science
8(1), 1-8. DOI.10.3923/jfas.2012
TAPPI T264 cm-97 (2000a). “Preparation of wood for chemical analysis,” TAPPI Press,
Atlanta, GA.
TAPPI T211 om-93 (2000b). “Ash in wood and pulp,” TAPPI Press, Atlanta, GA.
TAPPI T212 om-98. (2000c). “One percent sodium hydroxide solubility of wood and
pulp,” TAPPI Press, Atlanta, GA.
Thamaraiselvi, P. L., and Jayanthi, P. (2012). “Preliminary studies on phytochemicals
and antimicrobial activity of solvent extracts of Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms.,”
Asian Journal of Plant Science and Research 2(2), 115-122.
Téllez-Sánchez, C., Ochoa-Ruiz, H. G., Sanjuán-Dueñas, R., and Rutiaga-Quiñones, J. G.
(2010). “Componentes químicos del duramen de Andira inermis (W. Wright) DC.
(Leguminosae),” Revista Chapingo Serie Ciencias Forestales y del Ambiente 16(1),
87-93. Doi:10.5154/r.rchscfa.2009.11.046
UNE-EN 14918 (2011). “Biocombustibles sólidos. Determinación del poder calorífico,”
CIEMAT – AEN/CTN 164 Biocombustibles sólidos CONFEMADERA, AENOR,
Grupo 35, Madrid, Spain.
Vijetha, P., Kumaraswamy, K., Prasanna Kumar, Y., Satyasree, N., and Siva Prasad, K.
(2014). “Biosorption of Cu, Zn and Pb by Eichhornia crassipes: Thermodynamic and
isotherm studies,” International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research 3(3),
439-443.
White, R. H. (1987). “Effect of lignin content and extractives on higher heating value of
wood,” Wood Fiber Sci. 19(4), 446-452.
Wise, L. E., Murphy, M., and d’Addieco, A. A. (1946). “Chlorite holocellulose, its
fraction and bearing on summative wood analysis and on studies on hemicelluloses,”
Paper Trade J. 122(6), 35-43.
Waterman, P. G., and Mole, S. (1994). “Analysis of phenolic plant metabolites,”
Blackwell Scientific Publications, pp 85-96.
Yazaki, Y., and Hillis, W. E. (1977). “Polyphenolic extractives of Pinus radiata bark,”
Holzforschung 31(1), 20-25. DOI.10.1515/hfsg.1977.31.1.20

Article submitted: October 1, 2015; Peer review completed: December 2, 2015; Revised
version received: June 20, 2016; Accepted: June 25, 2016; Published: July 13, 2016.
DOI: 10.15376/biores.11.3.7214-7223

Lara-Serrano et al. (2016). “Water hyacinth,” BioResources 11(3), 7214-7223. 7223