## 4 Discussion  
### Suitability of Treated Wastewater to Be Used for Irrigation  
Results of the analysis of TWW from the MWTP used in this study, presented in Table 1, indicated that water pH was above the FAO threshold and RSA threshold, and EC was within the thresholds [30; 31]. Irrigating with water above the threshold conditions may induce salt stresses in soil, thus influencing the soil fertility status and physiological growth of plants. The basic cations such as calcium and magnesium, when introduced to the soil, increase the soil pH and form insoluble compounds, thus increasing the phytoavailability of sodium, which is toxic to C3 plants as is not required for physiological processes [32]. Limpopo province is characterized as a semi-arid region; as such, the high TDS, pH, and EC of TWW from the MWTP used in the present study may induce salinity conditions in the soil. Thus, TWW from the MWTP is suitable for short-term site-specific irrigation on well-drained soils [31]. Furthermore, the concentration of non-essential toxic elements in TWW from the MWTP was above the FAO threshold, with the exception of Pb and Cd. Meanwhile, the concentration of non-essential toxic elements was within the RSA threshold, except for As. The presence of toxic elements in TWW is substantiated by previous studies that reported that TWW is contaminated with essential heavy metals and non-essential heavy metals, which are toxic to trophic levels over time [14]. [PERSON] et al. [16] reported an increase \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Treatments** & \begin{tabular}{c} **SOC \(\pm\) SD** \\ **(\%)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **R.I.** \\ **(\%)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **pH-H\({}_{2}\)O \(\pm\) SD** \\ **(\%)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **R.I.** \\ **(\%)** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **EC \(\pm\) SD (mS/m)** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **R.I.** \\ **(\%)** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline P.I & 1.14 b \(\pm\) 0.21 & - & 8.58 d \(\pm\) 0.09 & - & 72.85 a \(\pm\) 2.57 & - \\ Control & 0.56 a \(\pm\) 0.18 & \(-\)51 & 8.09 b \(\pm\) 0.02 & \(-\)6 & 451.33 c \(\pm\) 111.51 & 520 \\ _A. flavus_ & 0.45 a \(\pm\) 0.21 & \(-\)60 & 8.55 d \(\pm\) 0.02 & \(-\)0.39 & 97.77 a \(\pm\) 21.44 & 34 \\ _S. aureus_ & 0.42 a \(\pm\) 0.12 & \(-\)63 & 7.27 a \(\pm\) 0.04 & \(-\)15 & 258.03 b \(\pm\) 122.2 & 254 \\ _P. aeruginosa_ & 0.41 a \(\pm\) 0.15 & \(-\)65 & 8.32 c \(\pm\) 0.02 & \(-\)3 & 107.9 a \(\pm\) 18.76 & 48 \\ _E. Coli_ & 0.55 a \(\pm\) 0.02 & \(-\)52 & 8.33 c \(\pm\) 0.04 & \(-\)3 & 53.7 a \(\pm\) 15.91 & \(-\)26 \\ _p_-value & \(\leq\)0.001 & \(\leq\)0.001 & \(\leq\)0.001 & \(\leq\)0.001 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Effects of bioremediation on selected soil properties. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Treatments** & \begin{tabular}{c} **N \(\pm\) SD** \\ **(\%/kg)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **R.I.** \\ **(\%)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **P \(\pm\) SD** \\ **(mg/kg)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **R.I.** \\ **(\%)** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **K \(\pm\) SD** \\ **(mg/kg)** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **R.I.** \\ **(\%)** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline P.I & 898.25 c \(\pm\) 31.84 & - & 32.80 d \(\pm\) 2.52 & - & 65.03 f \(\pm\) 1.22 & - \\ Control & 742.06 a \(\pm\) 26.85 & \(-\)17 & 26.17 b \(\pm\) 1.17 & \(-\)20 & 62.47 e \(\pm\) 1.47 & \(-\)4 \\ _A. flavus_ & 845.26 b \(\pm\) 8.72 & \(-\)6 & 30.17 c \(\pm\) 0.6 & \(-\)8 & 32.60 a \(\pm\) 0.17 & \(-\)50 \\ _S. aureus_ & 723.83 a \(\pm\) 2.22 & \(-\)19 & 31.30 cd \(\pm\) 0.78 & \(-\)5 & 47.77 c \(\pm\) 2.32 & \(-\)27 \\ _P. aeruginosa_ & 830.30 b \(\pm\) 28.23 & \(-\)8 & 20.30 a \(\pm\) 0.1 & \(-\)38 & 36.30 b \(\pm\) 0.3 & \(-\)44 \\ _E. coli_ & 811.02 b \(\pm\) 15.51 & \(-\)10 & 29.07 c \(\pm\) 1.53 & \(-\)11 & 58.87 d \(\pm\) 1.04 & \(-\)10 \\ _p_-value & \(<\)0.001 & \(<\)0.001 & \(<\)0.001 & \(<\)0.001 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}