AN ANALYSIS OF A CONSTRUCTED WETLAND FOR

TREATING ROAD RUNOFF IN IRELAND

BY NEIL HIGGINS
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL
NEIL.HIGGINS@DUBLINCITY.IE
Summary
Constructed wetlands have been widely used and examined for the treatment of sewage,
and for urban and agricultural runoff. Moreover, they have recently become a more
common feature on road networks as a treatment facility for highway runoff. Despite the
increase in popularity there is still relatively little data available on their treatment
performance and its relationship with the design parameters. In the autumn of 2004 the
first constructed wetland system to exclusively store and treat runoff from a major
highway in Ireland was established. The site was located adjacent to the M7 motorway,
which links the towns of Kildare and Portlaoise and has an average daily traffic flow of
approx 30,000 vehicles. The wetland was designed and constructed as a free-surfaceflow system with a mix of two plant species, Phragmites australis and Typha latifolia.
The performance efficiency of the system has been evaluated since spring 2005 analysing
a mixture of physical and chemical parameters associated with road runoff (such as heavy
metals), which have fluctuated notably throughout the monitoring period. The pollutant
load removal efficiency for total suspended solids was 95%, 85% for total phosphate,
74% for total organic carbon, 86% for total copper, 95% for total zinc, 86% for total
cadmium and 85% for total lead respectively. These results would suggest that the
constructed wetland is very efficient at removing pollutant loads in highway runoff.
Introduction
The construction of motorway grade roads in Ireland has intensified in recent years under
the driving influence of the Irish Governments National Development Plan 2000-2006
and concomitant with the development of the road network has been an increase in traffic
densities. With vehicle numbers reaching some 1.8 million in Ireland (NRA, 2005),
traffic numbers on many roads are now exceeding the 30,000 vehicles per day threshold
limit set for implication of mitigation methods, as laid out in the UK Design Manual for
Roads and Bridges (1998) which has been adopted by the National Roads Authority in
Ireland. These guidelines recommend that some form of mitigation, whether vegetative
or structural should be incorporated into the infrastructure of any road exceeding the
threshold traffic flow limit. EU legislation, in particular the Water Framework Directive
2000 is also applying pressure for the control of discharges to any receiving water
whether ground or surface (EU, 2000). With the Irish climate and geological features
favourable for wetland growth and prosperity, their use as a possible mitigation method
to treat highway runoff has now become a topic of wide interest

Constructed wetland basins normally comprise of a non-soil substrate and a permanent,

but usually shallow volume of water that can be almost entirely covered in aquatic
vegetation (Halcrow, 1998). The wetlands provide physical, chemical, and biological
water quality treatment of highway runoff (CIRIA, 1998; Halcrow, 1998). Physical
treatment occurs as a result of decreasing flow velocities in the wetland, which promotes
sedimentation, evaporation, adsorption, and filtration (Halcrow, 1998). Biological
processes include decomposition, plant uptake and removal of nutrients, plus biological
transformation and degradation (CIRIA 1998, Halcrow, 1998). The overall treatment
performance of the constructed wetland is influenced both by its design and the way it
has been constructed. Factors such as: local climate, topography and geology; traffic
loadings (present and future); road drainage area; land availability; cost size/extent and
type of receiving water body; water quality classification and objective; and
environmental enhancement value will all dictate whether a constructed wetland is
appropriate for a site (Schutes et al., 1999). Few full-scale trials using wetlands to
intercept and treat road runoff have been reported to date, but the studies that have been
undertaken (Bulc et al., 2003; Revitt et al., 2004) demonstrate that wetlands can be one
of the most efficient practices for flood attenuation, reduction of peak discharges and
overall enhancement of the water quality. The added vegetation has been shown to
promote a significant removal of soluble constituents such as nutrients and dissolved
metals as reported in a desk study by Mudge and Ellis (2001). This review of previous
in-situ studies on wetlands reported pollutant removal efficiencies of 70% to 95% for
total suspended solids, 50% to 85% for hydrocarbons and 40% to 75% for various metals
(including up to 40% for the dissolved metal fraction).
This paper presents the initial results of the performance of a constructed wetland, in
response to a series of storm events that has been built to receive the runoff from a new
motorway in Ireland as located in Figure 1.

Fig. 1: Location of Wetland Site

METHODOLOGY
Constructed Wetland Design
The site selected for the construction of the wetland was located adjacent to the new
motorway linking the towns of Kildare and Portlaoise in the East of Ireland. This site
was preferable as the road had a predicted traffic count of at least 30,000 vehicles per day
and also allowed the research team safe and easy access to construct the wetland before
the road went live to commuting vehicles.
The overall design of the constructed wetland was determined from guidelines contained
in two interim manuals: Treatment of highway runoff using constructed wetlands
(Halcrow, 1998); and Review of the design and management of constructed wetlands
(CIRIA, 1998). The hydrological data and pollutant loading rates from two other roads in
Ireland that were being monitored as part of a wider overall research project in to
highway runoff were also used to formulate the design. The first step was to design the
pipe network into the wetland in order to avoid any blockages or backflow onto the road.
The critical inflow Qc into the system for a one-year return period was calculated as 58 l/s
using the Rational Method. The required pipe diameter into the wetland was determined
to be a 375 mm pipe onto which four 0.1 m diameter pipe inlets were attached via saddles
at equal spacings across the width of the wetland to ensure even flow distribution. These
inlets discharged onto stone gabions to prevent localised scouring and channelling. The
outlet pipes were a similar setup with mobile T-pieces used as weirs to control the water
level within the wetland. The dimensions of the system were calculated on the basis of
modelling the wetland as a simple reservoir system. As the area in which to construct the
wetland was limited, a minimum retention period of 1 hour was chosen, contrary to the
recommended minimum period of 5 10 hours (Halcrow, 1998). The dimensions were
based around a maximum 1-hour rainfall event with a 1-year return period recorded as
7.8 mm per hour for the area.
Other critical factors used in the design were that the depth of the wetland was no greater
than 0.4 metres at any point and the cross sectional slope was between 0.5 and 1% of the
total longitudinal length. The final dimensions of the wetland worked out to be 14m wide
by 19.5m length with a cross sectional slope of 1%. When the excavation was completed
the clay base was compacted several times to produce a relatively impermeable layer.
The permeability of the clay liner was subsequently tested using the Double Ring
Infiltrometer, which yielded a value of K < 1x10-9m/sec. The importance of this liner
was to minimise loss of the runoff down through the base, which in turn could impact
upon the underlying groundwater. Once the base was completed a 120mm layer of
topsoil was added and the section was divided into two subsections, cells A and B as seen
in Figure 2. Cell A was planted with 500 Phragmites australis and cell B with 500 Typha
latifolia - approximately four reeds per square metre.

Fig. 2: Diagram of wetland system

Fig.3: Elements of Wetland System

MONITORING
The site was installed with an ISCO 674 0.1mm tipping bucket rain gauge, which
recorded the rainfall on a one-minute time series. The flow into the wetland was
measured with a low profile ISCO 750 area velocity flow module which was placed
within the inlet pipe to measure the average velocity (using the Doppler effect principle)
and depth (hydrostatic pressure) of the flow in the pipe. On the contrary the flow out of
the wetland system was deemed to have a much smaller flow rate than the inlet so a vnotch weir system with an ISCO 730 bubble module to measure the depth was installed
and a relationship between depth and flow over the v-notch was established. Probes that
measured the temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen and conductivity were also installed in
both the inlet and outlet. All these devices led into the central mother system, an ISCO
6712 automatic sampler (Fig. 4), which acted as a storage cell but also took samples of
the runoff via a suction tube deposited into a series of 300 ml bottles.
Once all monitoring equipment was correctly in place, the sampler was programmed to
activate when a certain criteria was met, such as the recording of a depth of rainfall. The
pacing at which the samples were taken was regulated by the flow in the pipe, for
instance a sample of runoff would be taken after every 3 m3 of runoff had passed the flow
meter. This setup worked well in capturing the entirety of the main storm events. In the
time period from summer to autumn 2005 six major storm events were captured and fully
sampled. The samples of runoff were collected at both the inlet and outlet and
transported immediately back to the laboratory where they were analysed for a number of
parameters commonly found in highway runoff, including total suspended solids, total
organic carbon, total phosphorus and four heavy metals, zinc, cadmium, copper and lead
respectively. The water quality analysis was carried out in the laboratory in accordance
with the Standard Methods (APHA, 1998).

Fig.4: Automatic sampler, rain gauge and flow monitoring equipment

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Hydrological Analysis
The hydrological characteristics of the 6 storm events sampled for untreated runoff into
the wetland and treated runoff out of the wetland during the summer and autumn seasons
of 2005 are summarised in Table 1 with the hydrographs shown in Figure 2. The data
presented covers intensive monitoring over a three-month episode during which a number
of short duration intense storm events were captured.
The constructed wetland performed well hydraulically, buffering the inflow to the system
from the highway and substantially reducing the peak flow by as much as 96%. The total
volume entering the wetland was efficiently stored within the system, particularly during
the month of August, which had frequent intense storm events with associated high
pollutant loads. The runoff was detained by the wetland for a number of days and then
was discharged by the following storm events. The hydraulic retention times (HRT) for
the wetland during these periods varied from between 1 and 12 days. Outflow from the
wetland was a steady low flow with little potential for erosion of the receiving river with
a mean flow as much as 94% lower than the inflow. In all, the wetland provided both
sufficient storage and flow attenuation so that a number of processes such as
sedimentation, filtration and biodegradation could be effectively harnessed for the
removal of pollutants.
Peak
Flow

Volume
Date

Mean
Flow

Inlet

Outlet

Reduction

Inlet

Outlet

Reduction

Inlet

Outlet

Reduction

(m3)

(m3)

(%)

(l/s)

(l/s)

(%)

(l/s)

(l/s)

(%)

18Aug05

39.52

3.52

91.1

10.74

0.53

95.1

3.87

0.25

93.5

23Aug05

10.62

1.02

90.4

6.69

0.23

96.6

1.36

0.12

91.2

09Sep05

65.86

13.36

79.7

12.02

1.31

89.2

3.41

0.55

83.9

26Sep05

56.6

47.80

15.6

16.43

10.55

35.8

4.72

1.66

64.8

28Sep05

33.61

13.88

58.7

20.07

1.86

90.7

5.09

0.54

89.4

10Oct05

98.99

52.70

46.8

21.37

3.91

81.8

3.23

1.39

57.0

MEAN

50.86

22.05

63.7

14.55

3.06

81.5

3.61

0.75

80.0

Table 1: Summary of hydrological data for events sampled during 2005

Inflow vs Outflow for Wetland 9 Sept 05

Rainfall

Inflow

Inflow Sample

Outflow

Outflow Sample

18

0
0.2

15

F lo w (l/s )

0.6

0.8
1

1.2
3

R a in fa ll (m m )

0.4
12

1.4

1.6

09:00

10:20

11:40

13:00

14:20

15:40

17:00

18:20

19:40

21:00

22:20

23:40

Time

Inflow vs Outflow for Wetland 28 Sept 05

Rainfall

Inflow

Inflow Sample

Outflow

Outflow Sample

30

25

Flow (l/s)

20
1
15
1.5
10
2

5
0
13:40

Rainfall (mm)

0.5

2.5
14:40

15:40

16:40

17:40

18:40

19:40

Time

Fig. 5: Hydrographs of two storm events sampled during autumn 2005

Hydrochemical Analysis
Water quality analysis was carried out on each of the samples to determine the
concentrations of total suspended solids, total organic carbon, total phosphate and four
heavy metals, zinc, lead, cadmium and copper. However, it was clear from a visual
comparison of the influent and effluent samples that the wetland was certainly
functioning well in terms of removing the sediment from the runoff.

Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

Inflow values of TSS ranged between 43 and 437 mg/l. These values were comparable
with earlier findings from the wider research project of direct highway runoff and were
found to be dependent on a number of factors including rainfall intensity, antecedent
conditions and traffic densities. The outflow values ranged between 10 and 32 mg/l
respectively. The removal efficiencies of TSS fluctuated from 87.6 to 92%, with an
average of 88.3%, which is relatively high and confirmed, as indicated by the visual
inspection, that the wetland was behaving as an excellent sedimentation system.
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Inflow values of TOC were quite variable and ranged between 2.23 and 47.04 mg/l.
These values are considered to be high which possibly can be explained by the fact that
the highway was new and had just been surfaced with a thick layer of bitumen. The
outflow values were also surprisingly variable ranging from 2.74 to 13.4 mg/l. The
removal efficiency of the wetland fluctuated from a negative value of -22 to 40.4%, with
an average of 13.7%. It is suggested that this relatively poor performance is primarily
due to the wetland not effectively removing the organic fraction in the form of oil since
no oil interceptor had been installed upstream of the wetland process. It is therefore
recommended that an oil interceptor should always be incorporated as an inherent part of
this treatment technology.
Total Phosphate (TP)
Inflow values of TP ranged between 0.096 and 0.614 mg/l. The outflow values ranged
between 0.06 and 0.188 mg/l. The removal efficiency varied between 52 to 75%, with an
average of 62%. The dominant removal process of the phosphates removal was assumed
to be sedimentation.
Heavy Metals: Zinc, Copper, Cadmium and Lead
Inflow values of zinc ranged between 0.081 and 0.426 mg/l. Outflow values were much
lower and ranged between 0.012 and 0.045 mg/l. The corresponding removal efficiencies
varied between 75 to 90.6%, with a high average of 85%. Inflow values of copper ranged
between 0.019 and 0.095 mg/l. Outflow values ranged between 0.008 and 0.039 mg/l.
Removal efficiencies varied between 50 to 79.7%, with an average of 68.4%. Inflow
values of lead ranged between 0.027 and 0.092 mg/l. Outflow values ranged between
0.016 and 0.045 mg/l. Removal efficiencies varied between 47.1 to 70%, with a high
average of 61.6%. Inflow values of cadmium ranged between ND and 0.008 mg/l.
Outflow values ranged between ND and 0.002 mg/l. Removal efficiencies varied
between 50 to 71.4 %, with a high average of 61.9%. Heavy metal analysis is ongoing
and in particular is focusing on the dissolved fraction, which is the most toxic state.
With both the hydraulic and water quality data available, the total pollutant loading rates
into and out of the wetland have been calculated for each individual month of monitoring
as summarised in Table 2. It can be seen that removal rates of pollutant loads were very
high particularly during the month of August when the wetland was growing steadily.

LOAD(g)
TSS

Aug-05

Sep-05

Oct-05

Aug-05

Sep-05

Oct-05

7,650

24,100

23,800

INLET

10.2

33.3

18.8

OUTLET

85.4

1,660

1,260

OUTLET

0.13

2.31

1.08

%RED*
TCd
INLET

98.9

93.1

94.7

98.8

93.1

94.3

0.51

%RED
TP
INLET

0.27

0.70

12.1

40.3

32.0

OUTLET

0.01

0.11

0.11

OUTLET

0.17

10.6

6.02

%RED
TCu
INLET

95.7

83.7

79.2

98.6

73.8

81.2

2.77

6.76

5.91

%RED
TOC
INLET

48.7

1,620

580

0.056

1.26

0.69

OUTLET

4.18

708

157

%RED
TPb
INLET

98.0

81.4

88.4

%RED

91.4

56.3

72.8

4.07

9.51

7.01

OUTLET

0.17

1.79

1.45

%RED

95.9

81.1

INLET

OUTLET

Mean

95.6

86.2

86.2

LOAD(g)
TZn

Mean

95.4

84.5

73.5

85.5
79.4
*%RED: Percentage reduction in load

Table 2: Loading rates in grams into and out of the constructed wetland
Difference between Plant Species
A semi partition was constructed between the wetland cells A and B, which allowed
runoff to flow freely throughout the system. Research is now focusing on the effluent
from each cell A and B; however, during the monitoring period, grab samples of runoff
were collected from specific locations within each cell. Water quality analysis for TSS
gives an initial indication that cell A which is planted with Phragmites australis was
performing up to twice as efficiently with respect to TSS removal compared to cell B
planted with the Typha latifolia. It should be noted that TSS removal would be expected
to correlate closely with the heavy metal and total phosphate fraction. A plausible reason
could be due to the more rapid propagation of the Phragmites australis compared to the
Typha latifolia, which would promote a more even distribution of flow across the width
of the wetland and thus more optimal conditions for solid settlement.
Specific Conductivity, pH, Dissolved Oxygen, and Temperature
The average inflow concentration of DO was 6.9 mg/l and was noted to be highly
variable compared to the more stable DO levels at the outlet, which averaged 7.7 mg/l.
This rise in DO was assumed to be due to the high air-water interface of the shallow
surface water wetland and relatively low organic content. Inflow temperatures ranged
from 2 to 22C with an average of 13.3C. Average outflow temperature was 14.3C,
ranging from 10 to 20C. The average increase of 1C suggests the wetland maybe acting
as a heat sink and is discharging slightly warmer water to receiving water body. The
9

average specific conductivity was 10S/cm at the inflow and 125S/cm at the outflow
respectively. The specific conductivity was important in calculating the optimal retention
time of the wetland. The inflow values of pH ranged from 4 to 8 and the outflow values
ranged from 7.5 to 9. The average value of the inflow was 7.2, and 8.4 at the outflow
respectively. It is well documented that wetlands act as buffer zones neutralizing the
acidic nature of the inflow. The pH and net acidity/alkalinity of the water are particularly
important because pH influences a number of reactions within the wetland and hence a
number of the treatment processes (Kadlec and Knight, 1996).
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this study show that the constructed wetland performed exceptionally well
in pollutant removal efficiency for a number of parameters particularly suspended solids
and heavy metals. The dominant process involved in the removal of pollutants appeared
to be due to sedimentation of the solid fraction. Research is still ongoing as the wetland
matures and other treatment processes such biological interactions develop. The
influence of the plant species was not examined thoroughly but early indications suggest
that the faster propagation of the Phragmites australis plant compared to the Typha
latifolia has provided a greater surface area to inhibit short-circuiting through the wetland
and thus promote more optimal hydraulic conditions for solid settlement.
Further investigation will be carried out on the capability of the wetland to remove the
dissolved fraction of the pollutants especially the heavy metals in addition to the overall
pollutant removal efficiency as the wetland matures and flourishes. The final goal of the
future research will be to formulate design criteria so that constructed wetlands can be
used successfully to treat runoff from highways under Irish conditions.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The work was funded by Irelands National Development Plan under the ERTDI,
managed by the Environmental Protection Agency and co-funded by the National Roads
Authority. The project team included Paul Johnston, Neil Higgins, and Laurence Gill
from Trinity College and Dr Michael Bruen and Mesfin Desta from University College
Dublin.
REFERENCES
APHA (1998). Standard methods for the examination of water and waste water.
Technical report, American Public Health Association, Washington DC, 20th. edition.
Bulc. T. and Slak A.S. Performance of a constructed wetland for highway runoff
treatment. Wat. Sci. Tech., 48: 315-322.
CIRIA (1998). Review of the Design and Management of Constructed Wetlands.
Technical Report, CIRIA, Report 180

10

DMRB-UK (1998). Design manual for roads and bridges: Water quality and drainage,
volume 11, sec 3, part 10. Technical report, Highways Agency, UK.
EU (2000) Water Policy Framework Directive 2000/60/EC, European Commission,
December 2000
Halcrow Group Ltd & Middlesex University (1998). Treatment of highway runoff using
constructed wetlands: An interim manual. Halcrow Group Ltd & Middlesex University,
Urban Pollution Research Centre, Environment Agency Thames Region, Reading.
Kadlec, R.H. and Knight, R.L. (1996). Treatment Wetlands. Lewis Publishers, CRC
Press, Inc. Boca Raton, Florida, USA
Mudge, G. and Ellis J.B, 2001. Guidelines for the Environmental Management of
Highways, Chapter 4, 67-102, the Institution of Highways and Transportation, London,
UK.
NRA (2005) National Roads and Traffic Flow 2004, National Roads Authority
Preliminary Report, March 2005
Revitt, D.M. and Schutes, R.B.E. (2004). The performances of vegetative treatment
systems for highway runoff during dry and wet conditions. Sci. Total Envir., 335: 261270.
Schutes, R.B.E. and Revitt, D.M. (1999). The design of vegetative constructed wetlands
for the treatment of highway runoff. Sci. Total Envir., 235: 189-197.

11