Journal of Scientific & Industrial Research DOMESTIC WASTEWATER TREATMENT: PART I - CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS VASUDEVAN et al : LOCALIZED Vol.

70, August 2011, pp. 583-594

583

Localized domestic wastewater treatment: part I - constructed wetlands (an overview)

Padma Vasudevan1*, Paul Griffin 3, Alan Warren4, Alka Thapliyal2 and Mamta Tandon1
1

Centre for Rural Development & Technology, 2 Centre for Energy Studies, Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, India
4

Severn Trent Water Limited, PO Box 5309, Coventry, CV3 9FH, UK Department of Zoology, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK Received 04 May 2011; revised 09 May 2011; accepted 13 May 2011

Constructed wetlands (CW) are an alternative localized treatment technology suitable for reducing BOD, COD, NPK and pathogens to acceptable levels for subsequent use of treated water, especially for irrigation. Dissolved chemicals and heavy metals are also reduced to an extent. CWs are extensively used in developed countries for secondary and tertiary treatment of domestic sewage and treatment of surface run off as well as industrial effluents. But CWs are yet to be commercialized in developing countries. Also detailed mechanisms involved in the treatment, especially role of macrophytes and microorganisms, need to be understood. Precautions must be taken in the use of CWs to prevent proliferation of mosquitoes. This review presents prospects and problems in propagating CWs for different types of wastewater, with special focus on domestic wastewater treatment. Keywords: Constructed wetland, Domestic wastewater, Macrophytes, Microorganisms, Nutrients

Introduction Constructed wetlands (CW) are gaining importance as an effective and low-cost alternative to conventional wastewater treatment plants that involve large capital investments and operating costs. In developed countries, CWs have been commercialized for treatment of a variety of effluents. In many Asian and African cities, population growth has outpaced improvements in sanitation and wastewater infrastructure, making management of urban wastewater a tremendous challenge 1-3. In less developed countries, many villages now have piped water and amount of wastewater generated is increasing. Faecal matter is deposited in septic tanks or soak pits where available. Domestic sullage (grey water) flows through open channels and collects in low lying areas and gets contaminated by faecal matter and other solid wastes. Thus a lot of wastewater is being generated in cities, villages and industrial units by human activities, but number of centralized facilities and their treatment capacity is far from adequate. Due to a shortage of water for irrigation, farmers in peri-urban areas of many developing countries are using
*

domestic and other wastewater effluents for raising crops and often use undiluted wastewater to provide nutrients4,5 . This practice can severely harm human health and environment due to associated pathogens, as well as allowing heavy metals and other undesirable constituents from water to enter food chain 6 . Use of CWs for initial treatment could greatly reduce adverse environmental and health impacts from wastewater irrigation7,8 . This review presents types of CWs, wastewater treatment mechanism in CWs, performance efficiency and costs involved in operating CWs. Constructed Wetlands (CWs) CW comprises a bed of soil, sand or gravel, which together treat wastewater. Root system of plants and media (soil and stone) act as filters and support biofilms, which help in removing contaminants. In addition, plants utilize nutrients and bioaccumulate contaminants such as metals. First experiment using wetlands with macrophytes for wastewater treatment was carried out in Germany during 19509 . Various European countries including UK adopted this technology during 1980s and first European Design Guidelines were published following International Conference on the use of CWs in water pollution control, Cambridge, UK in 1990.

Author for correspondence E-mail: padmav10@gmail.com

584

J SCI IND RES VOL 70 AUGUST 2011

Guidelines for Municipal water treatment by CW have been developed in several countries including Australia and USA. CWs are classified based on the basis of vegetation type (emergent, submerged, floating leaved, free-floating) and hydrology (free water surface and subsurface flow)10 . Subsurface flow wetlands are further classified according to flow direction [vertical (V) or horizontal (H)]. For better performance, different types of CWs are sometimes combined into hybrid systems 11,12.
Types of Constructed Wetlands (CWs) Free Water Surface Constructed Wetland (FWS CW)

A typical FWS CW with emergent macrophytes comprises a shallow sealed basin or sequence of basins, containing 20-30 cm of rooting media, with a water depth of 20-40 cm. Emergent vegetation covers a significant proportion of surface, usually > 50%. Naturally occurring species may also be present in addition to planted macrophytes. Litter provides organic carbon necessary for denitrification, which may proceed in anoxic pockets within litter layer. Besides municipal wastewater, FWS CWs are used to treat storm water run off, landfill leachate, agricultural and drainage run off and industrial effluents. Sizing of FWS CWs is usually based either on volume or area. Area-based methods assess pollutant reduction using overall wetland area, while volume-based methods use a hydraulic retention time to assess pollutant removal. For achieving target effluent concentration of BOD5 (20-30 mg/l), TSS (20-30 mg/l) and TKN (10 mg/ l), loading rates recommended13,14 are of the order of BOD5 (3-6 g/m2 d), TSS (3-7 g/m2 d) and TKN (1.5 g/ m2 d) respectively. FWS CWs are efficient in removal of organics through microbial degradation and settling of colloidal particles. Suspended solids are removed by settling and filtration through dense vegetation. Nitrogen (N) is removed primarily through nitrification (in water column) and subsequent denitrification (in litter layer). Ammonia volatilization occurs under higher pH caused by algal photosynthesis. Phosphorus (P) removal is usually low due to limited contact of water with soil particles, which are responsible for absorption or precipitation of P. Uptake of nutrients by macrophytes represents only temporal storage because these nutrients are released back into water when plants decay11,15.
Horizontal Flow Constructed Wetland (HF CW)

through porous media under the surface of bed down a small gradient at floor level until it reaches outlet zone, where it is collected. In initial stages of HF CW development, soil media was extensively used16 and marketed as root zone treatment. Subsequently, soil was replaced by washed gravel (grain size, 5-20 mm). Widespread use of common reed (Phragmites australis) has led to HF CW being called Reed Beds, though in practice any pollution-tolerant deep-rooted emergent macrophyte can potentially be used. In media, pollutants are removed by microbial degradation and chemical and physical processes in a network of aerobic, anoxic and anaerobic zones with aerobic zones being restricted to the surface and areas adjacent to roots where oxygen leaks to substrate 17 . Organic compounds are microbially degraded under anoxic/anaerobic conditions as concentration of dissolved oxygen in filtration beds is very limited18 . Suspended solids are retained essentially by filtration and sedimentation and removal efficiency is usually very high15 . Major removal mechanism for N in HF CWs is denitrification. Removal of ammonia is limited due to lack of oxygen in filtration bed due to permanent waterlogged conditions 19 . Phosphorus (P) is removed primarily by ligand exchange reactions, where phosphate displaces water or hydroxyls from the surface of iron and aluminum hydrous oxides. Siliceous gravels are the most popular media, so unless special materials are used, removal of P is usually low 19 . Most important role of plants in HF CWs is provision of hydraulic pathways through media to maintain hydraulic conductivity. Secondary roles are provision of surfaces (roots and rhizomes) for the growth of attached bacteria, radial oxygen loss (oxygen diffusion from roots to rhizosphere), nutrient uptake and insulation of bed surface in cold and temperate regions 20 . HF CWs are commonly used to treat domestic and municipal waters and area requirement for UK conditions and per capita loadings is 5 m2 PE (person equivalent). To achieve BOD5 and TSS of 30 mg/l in outflow, USEPA recommends loadings of 6 g/m2 d and 20 g/m2 d respectively.
Vertical Flow Constructed Wetlands (VF CW)

HF CWs consist of a bed of media, usually gravel or soil, sealed by an impermeable layer and planted with wetland vegetation. Wastewater is fed at inlet and flows

In VF CWs, wastewater is pumped in large batches to the bed and allowed to percolate through media. A new batch is fed only after all water has drained from the bed. This allows for diffusion of oxygen from air into bed and makes VF CW efficient for nitrification and achievement of ammoniacal nitrogen standards 21 . VF CWs can provide some denitrification if design allows part of the bed to be left flooded22 . VF CWs are also

VASUDEVAN et al : LOCALIZED DOMESTIC WASTEWATER TREATMENT: PART I - CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS

585

effective in removing organics and suspended solids. Removal of P is low unless media with high sorption capacity are used15 . As compared to HF CWs, VF CWs require less land (1-3 m2 PE-1) 23-25. Early VF CWs were composed of several stages with beds in the first stage fed in rotation. More recently, many small VF CWs treating domestic only flows are being built with one bed designed for long resting intervals and these are marketed as compact VF CWs 24 . In upflow vertical CWs, wastewater is fed at the bottom of wetland. Water percolates upward and then it is collected either near surface or on the surface of wetland bed26 . Removal of organics is high in all types of VF CW.
Hybrid Constructed Wetland (VF HF)

Fig. 1Longitudinal section through a HF CW

VF - HFs that combine VF and HF stages27 are in operation in many countries around the world and are used especially when removal of ammonia-N and totalN is required15 .
Design of CWs

Important parameters in wetland design are surface area, depth and pollutant load in wastewater. Loading rate of wastewater is also dependent on type of wetland28 . Shallow depths that help in better aeration of water are beneficial. CWs having water depths of 3050 cm have been evaluated for efficacy in treating septic effluents prior to disposal on land. Other studies29-31 on evaluation of subsurface flow wetlands included wetlands that were 60100 cm deep. Plants used in purification process need to satisfy following criteria: 1) ability to grow in permanently or intermittently saturated ground or media; 2) must be tolerant of wastewater contaminants; 3) aggressive plants, which are not readily displaced by other less suitable species, are preferred but they should not proliferate as weeds; 4) should grow readily from seed to facilitate establishment; (5) should have extensive and deep root systems to maximize surface area for biofilm growth and maintain hydraulic conductivity within media. For floating species, deep root systems promote flocculation and sedimentation; if possible they should promote treatment process as with oxygen leakage from roots of common reed (P. australis). Species, which act as hyper-accumulators of nutrients or other contaminants, especially heavy metals, may be favoured for specific applications and they should be of local provenance to increase biodiversity and avoid introduction of unwelcome alien species.

At present, most common aquatic plants used in subsurface wetlands are bulrush (Scirpus), cattail (Typha) and reeds (Phragmites). Many other types of macrophytes such as Vetiveria (Chrysopogon zizanioides) are gaining importance. Ornamental plants could function as an important part of a wastewater treatment system and also provide economic benefits. Wolverton32 reported that calla lily (Zantedeschia aethiopica), canna lily (Canna flaccida), and three other ornamental plant species planted in a rock filter used to treat septic tank effluents were able to add oxygen and increase biological activity in septic bed. Neralla et al33 concluded that ornamental plants, including canna lilies, were as effective as cattails in improving quality of effluents from septic tanks, but noted that use of cattails led to 200% more water loss through evapotranspiration in comparison to flowering plants. Hydroponic cultivation is also being integrated in CWs34 .
Commercial CWs for Domestic Wastewater Treatment in UK

Among various types of CWs, horizontal sub-surface flow type is most common. A cross section of a typical horizontal sub-surface flow reed bed (Fig. 1) from UK comprises a shallow excavation with a plastic liner to prevent partially treated water from leaking out into groundwater, or groundwater from entering excavation if water table is high. No liner required if low permeability clay is present. There is an inlet distribution section where pipes or a trough distribute flow evenly over the width of excavation onto large stonesc:, which distribute flow down into the media having sufficiently high hydraulic conductivity to permit water to flow under media surface. This facilitates contact of water with plant roots and rhizomes and their associated microfauna. A large specific surface area for biofilm development is also essential. Among many types of media being used, most popular is well rounded siliceous gravel (size, 4-15 mm).

586

J SCI IND RES VOL 70 AUGUST 2011

Final section of HF CW is for effluent collection and for controlling water levels within the system. Typically, effluent collection zones comprise large stones that overlie an agricultural drainage pipe running full width of the bed and terminating in a level control chamber with an adjustable outlet height, which, in its simplest form, may be no more than a plastic pipe with a chain attached to chamber surface. Optimum water depth is just below the media surface. Level control pipe should be capable of completely draining the bed to maximise hydraulic gradient as media clogs with accumulated solids over time, and to facilitate maintenance and repair. As such there is a significant head loss, most of which is associated with the depth of media used. Bed depth should be at least the average depth of root penetration and a figure of 0.6 m is widely used. Greater depths increase head loss correspondingly. A bund depth suitable for accumulation of plant litter and sludge solids over many years is also provided. A typical system might have 1.1 m total head loss from invert of inlet pipework to distribution system. UK practice is to use P australis, or sometimes Typha latifolia, and a minor industry has grown up providing pot-grown seedlings for planting of new or refurbished systems. Secondary treatment HFCWs are dimensioned at 5 2 m PE-1 or higher, where a hydraulic PE is considered to be 200 l per person per day, a typical value in Western Europe. Such systems are most commonly used for small rural populations. Life of such systems is typically 5-10 years, depending on how generously they are sized. High suspended solids loads may lead to rapid clogging and a reduced asset life. Tertiary treatment application is widespread in UK in order to provide additional BOD and suspended solids removal from good quality secondary treatment effluents where very high standards are required for protection of receiving watercourse. Nitrate removal (30-40%) may be expected. In such cases, 2 HFCWs are typically dimensioned at 0.7-1.0 m PE-1 and are economically viable for populations up to 2000. Reed beds at higher end of dimensioning criteria quoted may also be used for treatment of dilute storm water, thereby having a combined function. Storm water only HFCWs vary in size greatly and may be used either for stormwater treatment, or as part of sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) (Fig. 2). Special arrangements are needed to allow addition of water to ensure plant survival during dry periods when water levels are reduced due to evapo-transpiration. Nominal retention time in a secondary treatment reed bed (size, 5 m2 PE-1) is 5 days. This means that

Fig. 2Aerial photograph of a combined tertiary treatment and stormwater treatment CW following a rotating biological contactor (courtesy Paul Griffins)

pathogenic organisms must face an extended period in a hostile environment, and this leads to high percentage removals of many species of concern to human health. Subsurface flow CWs do not provide suitable conditions for proliferation of mosquitoes due to absence of free surface water, on which mosquitoes rely for egg-laying and for development of juvenile stages. HF CWs are oxygen limited and to achieve significant removal of ammoniacal nitrogen, VF CWs are needed. These are shallow trickling filters with small media (an upper sand layer) and rely upon a pulsed input of wastewater to flood surface of VF CW, followed by a period of drainage, when bed becomes aerobic and treatment occurs. Pulsed input is achieved by either a pump or a high capacity siphon. VF CWs are typically dimensioned for a total area of 3m2 PE-1 or higher. Several VF CWs in series may be required to achieve requisite level of treatment.
Performance Efficiency

Nutrient content of wastewater is a valuable resource if irrigation is primary use, but if discharge to watercourses occurs then nutrient content may lead to eutrophication of water body with consequent ecological damage 35,36 . Vymazal10 compiled data on treatment efficiencies of a large number of CWs and found average removal efficiencies for BOD, TSS and nutrients [N, total nitrogen (TN), ammoniacal nitrogen (NH4 N) and P] in FWS, HF and VF (Table 1). Additional studies3744 on BOD and nutrient removal by CWs from domestic wastewater have also been carried out (Table 2). Presence of detergents could be problematic due to their poor biodegrability and surface activity45 . Average

VASUDEVAN et al : LOCALIZED DOMESTIC WASTEWATER TREATMENT: PART I - CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS

587

treatment efficiency of anionic tensides removal in CWs was 67%. Varying rates in reduction of different surfactants from wastewater using wetlands or dry landbased treatment systems have also been reported46-49. Belmont & Medcalfe47 showed that subsurface CWs can reduce nonylphenol ethoxylate surfactants in treated wastewaters. Mori et al48 reported that rhizosphere microbes around giant duckweed (Spirodela polyrrhiza) play an important role in degradation of surfactants. Waterborne pathogens 50,51 of serious risk to humans include bacteria (Salmonella typhi, Campylobacter sp., and Escheri chia coli), viruses (enteroviruses and Hepatitis A) and protozoans (Entamoeba histolytica,
Table 1Average performance efficiencies (% removal) by different types of constructed wetlands (CWs) for BOD, TSS and nutrients Types of CW FWS HF VF BOD 73 75 90 TSS 72 75 89 TP 40 50 56 TN 48 38 43 NH4 N 45 35 73

Giardia intestinalis and Cryptosporidium hominsi). Ability of CWs to reduce pathogenic microorganisms in wastewater effluent is well established50,52-56. Removal rates for faecal coliforms (>99%) generally equal or exceed those described for conventional biological wastewater treatment processes 5 7 - 5 9 (Table 3). Comparable high removal efficiencies have also been reported for bacteriophages, coliphages and viruses in subsurface flow CWs64 . However, removal of parasitic protozoa and helminths from wastewaters in CWs has been only rarely investigated. Nevertheless removal efficiencies appear to be relatively high53, 64-66. Metals are persistent in environment and accumulate in sediments and plants within CWs. Some of these metals are hazardous to public health, even at ppm levels. For example, arsenic can cause disorder of dermal and nervous systems, cadmium, mercury and chromium cause kidney damage, and lead causes anemia and mental retardation. Some studies on removal of metals 67-75 from domestic wastewaters in CWs are listed (Table 4).
Wastewater Treatment Mechanisms in Constructed Wetlands (CWs)

FWS, free water surface CWs; HF, horizontal flow CWs; VF, vertical flow CWs; BOD, biological oxygen demand; TSS, total suspended solids; TP, total phosphorus; TN, total nitrogen; and NH4 N, ammonical nitrogen

Waste water is treated in CWs by adsorption (chemical attachment and chelation to active surface of

Table 2Studies related to nutrient removal from domestic wastewater (% efficiency in paranthesis) Types of wastewater Black/grey domestic wastewater treatment 37 Domestic effluent 38 Domestic wastewater23,39-42 Parameters studied TSS, COD, BOD5 , NNH4 +, N-NO x , Ntot, TC TSS & total BOD5 , N & P TSS, COD (80%) removal of NO3 - & NH4 (50%) BOD (75%), TSS (88%) BOD (8090%), TSS, VSS, NH4 N, total P Plant spp -

Lemna gibba L. Typha angustifolia T. latifolia L. or Festuca arundinacea Schreb. Canna accida, Cyperus alternifolius, Sagittaria lancifolia, Scirpus sp., T latifolia, Collocasia esculenta, Gladiolus sp., Iris sp., & Thalia sp. T. latifolia Scirpus cyperinus, Phragmites australis Typha sp. & Phragmites sp.

NH4 + (18.1-46.2%) and TKN (39-68%) BOD (95%) and Nitrification (90%) Mix of domestic and 1.53% industrial wastewater43 Mix of domestic and agricultural wastewater44 BOD (70-80%), COD (5075%) and TSS (80-90%) COD (80-90%), total N & total P

P. australis

588

J SCI IND RES VOL 70 AUGUST 2011

Table 3Studies on pathogen removal by constructed wetlands (CWs) Types of wastewater Storm water
60

Pathogens Faecal bacteria

Plant spp Schoenoplectus mucronatus, Eleocharis acuta, Baumea rubiginosa, Typha domingensis Phragmites australis, Typha orientalis, Scirpus validus,Lemna minor

Secondary municipal wastewater40,61-63

Escherichia coli, faecal streptococci, total coliforms, Faecal coliforms, Salmonella sp. Clostridium perfringens C. perfringens spores and Pseudomonas aeruginosa Faecal coliforms, S.typhimurium, Giardia cryptosporidium, PRD-1 Faecal coliforms E. coli and MS-2 Coliphage Faecal coliform

Miscanthus sinensis giganteus, Phragmites australis Eichhornia crassipes, duckweed

Typha latifolia L.) or fescue (Festuca arundinacea Schreb.) Cyperus alternifolius, Cyperus isocladus, Typha latifolia and Iris sp. Lemnagibba L. Canna accida,, Cyperus alternifolius, Sagittaria lancifolia, Scirpus sp., T. latifolia, Collocasia esculenta, Gladiolus sp., Iris sp. and Thalia sp. Typha sp. and Phragmites sp.

Domestic wastewater38,41,56

Faecal coliforms

Mix of domestic and 1.5-3% industrial wastewater43 Mix of domestic and agricultural wastewater44

Total coliforms, Faecal coliforms and Faecal streptococci Faecal coliform

P. australis

media), filtration (by planting substrate and biofilm network), precipitation, redox chemistry (reduction and oxidation due to redox gradient present in the system), predation (grazing by micro fauna), sedimentation (settling and deposition of large solids at low velocities), phytoremediation (active uptake of pollutants into roots and leaves of plant) and biological degradation (biomass production by nutrient and organic matter mineralization).
Role of Macrophytes

and can be treated by growth of roots and rhizomes that form a network of underground channels; iv) roots of floating plant species promote flocculation and sedimentation of suspended material; and v) degradation of plant material and trapped organic matter releases soluble carbon, which allows natural denitrification to occur in oxygen limited conditions.
Role of Microorganisms

Role of plants in wastewater treatment by CWs include: i) providing attachment sites for microorganisms responsible for many of the treatment processes; ii) uptake of nutrients (N & P) and metals, although harvesting may be needed in order to realize benefits, otherwise decay may release what is accumulated; (iii) improving hydraulic conductivity of media, and extending period, in which wastewater is in contact with plants

Macrophytes play a secondary role in degradation of organic matters in wetland systems 76 . CWs rely primarily on microorganisms to perform treatment processes, which include degradation of organic matter (OM), removal of N and precipitation of metals 77 . Microorganisms may also be involved in removal of parasites and pathogens. Most studies of microbial communities focused on bacteria and a few have focused on fungi78 and protozoa 79 . Molecular methods [16S rRNA library technique and PCR-

VASUDEVAN et al : LOCALIZED DOMESTIC WASTEWATER TREATMENT: PART I - CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS

589

Table 4Heavy metal removal by constructed wetlands (CWs) Types of wastewater Secondary domestic wastewater treatment but receives stormwater as well67 Water from domestic wastes, food & metallurgical factories, printing factory, Zn smelter, Mn smelting plant 68 Sewage was obtained from a drain of some factories in Jinhua, Zhejiang, China69 Wastewater from the industrial processes and sewage from factory were treated together70 Heavy metals Cd, Cu, Pb, Zn, Cr, Ni, Al, Fe, and Mn Cd, Mn and Pb Plant name Phragmites australis

Potamogeton pectinatus L. & Potamogeton malaianus Miq. R. carnea, A. gramineus, A. orientale, A. calamus, I. pseudacorus, L. salicaria Eichhornia crassipes (water hyacinth), Typha domingensis (cattail) and Panicum elephantipes (elephant panicgrass) T. latifolia L. Phragmites australis

BOD, COD, TN, TP and Mn, Fe, Cu, Cr, Pb, Cd Cr, Ni & Zn

Stream carrying secondary effluent 71 Municipal wastewater72

Mn, Cu, Cd, Co, Zn, Pb, Ni and Cr Al, As, B, Ba, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, Mn, Mo, Ni, Pb, Se, Sn, V, U and Zn Sb, U, Cu, Pb, Cd, Ba, Mo, Cr, gallium Sn, Be, Fe, Ni, thallium, Se, Hg & vanadium, Ag, Ru, B, Li, Sr, Co, Mn, As, Pa As, Ba, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, Ga, Hg, Mn, Ni, Pb, Sb and U Pb, Cu, Cr, Zn, Fe, Mg, and Mn

Municipal wastewater73

P. Phalaris

Municipal sewage 74

Phalaris arundinacea

Six different locations on sewage carrying canals including an industrial effluent-fed fish pond75

denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE)] are being used to reveal bacterial diversity in CWs and to characterize communities present. In one study80 , 166 bacterial sequences were verified, 80% of which were affiliated with Proteobacteria and included representatives of all five classes within that group. In another wetland system used for treating swine waste, bacterial communities were dominated by well-known soil bacteria 81 (Pseudomonas, Arthrobacter and Bacillus). However, patterns of microbial diversity and function are currently difficult to determine. Zhang et al82 reported that microbial biomass, but not activity, is correlated with hydrophyte species richness in CWs. In VF CWs, one study83 revealed that bacterial biomass is significantly higher in surface regions than in subsurface, whereas in another study84 bacterial populations showed little variation with depth.

Organic Matter (OM) Degradation

A major objective of wastewater treatment is reduction of organic content (carbonaceous BOD). Microbially-mediated removal of OM may be carried out either aerobically or anaerobically. Aerobic degradation of soluble organic chemicals is governed by two groups of microorganisms: aerobic chemoheterotrophs, which oxidise organics and release ammonia; and chemoautotrophs, which oxidise ammoniacal nitrogen to nitrite and nitrate (nitrification). Both groups consume organics but faster metabolic rate of heterotrophs means that they are mainly responsible for reduction in system BOD. Insufficient supply of oxygen will greatly reduce performance of aerobic biological oxidation in CW. However, if oxygen supply is not limited, aerobic degradation will be governed by the

590

J SCI IND RES VOL 70 AUGUST 2011

amount of available OM17 . Anaerobic degradation occurs within CWs in absence of oxygen and is carried out by anaerobic heterotrophic bacteria. It is slower than aerobic degradation. When oxygen is limiting at high organic loadings, anaerobic degradation will predominate 17 .
Nitrogen Removal

diversity exists within CW89 . Potential importance of SRBs in CWs has further been highlighted90 .
Removal of Pathogens and Parasites Indicator Organisms

Major removal mechanisms of N in CWs are nitrification and denitrification. Nitrification is a chemoautotrophic process in which ammonia is oxidised to nitrate by nitrifying bacteria (Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter) in aerobic zones. Nitrifying bacteria are sensitive organisms and are inhibited by a range of environmental conditions 17 including high concentrations of NH4 N, pH (7.5-8.6), temperatures below 4 or 5C and oxygen concentrations below 1 mg/l. Denitrification is conversion of nitrate to N2 gas and can be achieved biologically under anoxic conditions. Several genera of heterotrophic bacteria (Achromobacter, Aerobacter, Alcaligenes, Bacuillus, Brevibacterium, Flavobacterium, Lactobacillus, Micrococcus, Proteus, Pseudomonas and Spirillum) are capable of denitrification. Denitrification may be inhibited by several factors including presence of dissolved oxygen, insufficient carbon (OM) and temperatures below 5C17 . Recently, alternative microbial pathways for N depletion in CWs have been reported including heterotrophic nitrification, anaerobic ammonium oxidation (ANAMMOX), anaerobic methane oxidation and oxygen-limited autotrophic nitrification and denitrification85-87.
Metals Removal

Because of wide range of organisms involved and difficulty in detecting, it has long been the practice to use indicator organisms to monitor presence of faecal contamination in general, and of pathogens in particular. Most commonly used indicators in wastewater treatment systems are coliform bacteria (especially faecal coliforms such as E. coli) and faecal streptococci. Other organisms that have been used are bacteriophage and coliphage viruses91 . There are, however, no reliable indicators of protozoa or helminth parasites so these are monitored directly.
Removal Mechanisms

Microbially-mediated metals removal in CWs can be carried out aerobically by metal oxidising bacteria (MOB), or anaerobically by sulphate reducing bacteria (SRB). Former include oxidation of metals (iron, nickel, copper, lead and zinc) by MOB (Thiobacillus ferrooxidans in case of iron) followed by precipitation of metal oxyhydroxides. In anaerobic zones, activity of SRB results in reduction of sulphate ions to produce hydrogen sulphide, which is ionised in water to give sulphide ions that react with metal ions to produce metal sulphide which precipitates. In addition to reducing sulphur compounds, activity of SRBs also generates alkalinity in CWs 17, 88 . SRB community in a CW has been characterized using a combination of enrichment culture and molecular methods. This revealed presence of 12 genotypes, four of which could be identified with previously known taxa suggesting that a novel SRB

A variety of processes66,92,93 (filtration through substrate and attached biofilm, sedimentation, aggregation, oxidation, exposure to biocides, antiobiosis, predation, attack by lytic bacteria and viruses, natural die-off and competition for limiting nutrients or trace elements) are involved in removal of pathogens and parasites from wastewaters in CWs. In free surface water systems, temperature, solar radiation and media filtration are considered to be the most significant factors affecting removal of faecal coliforms 94 . By contrast, in subsurface flow wetlands, aeration and hydraulic flow 55,95, microbial competition and predation96, 97, natural dieoff95,98 and inactivation99 are reported as being of most significance. Filtration, entrapment and sedimentation have been cited as likely important processes in removal of relatively large structures [protozoan (oo)cysts and helminth ova], whereas natural die-off is not thought to be an important process because of prolonged survival of many types of cysts and ova in environment100 .
Constructed Wetlands as Mosquito Breeding Sites

A major requirement for mosquitoes is water standing for some duration, which can be as little as one week, containing food and protection cover. Mosquitoes are common inhabitants of natural wetlands so their invasion of CWs with free water surface should be expected101 . However, such problems do not apply to subsurface flow CWs, which, when managed properly, do not provide breeding sites for mosquitoes. On free water surface wetland systems, Karpiscak et al 1 0 2 showed that mosquito populations in an area of Arizona, USA, increased, sometimes by several orders of magnitude

VASUDEVAN et al : LOCALIZED DOMESTIC WASTEWATER TREATMENT: PART I - CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS

591

for several years, after CWs had become operational. By contrast, Anderson et al1 0 3 found that mosquito numbers were not significantly higher after construction of a wetland in an area of eastern North Carolina, USA. A number of design and operational parameters, which have been demonstrated to reduce mosquito larval numbers in CWs104-107, include introducing a variety of macrophytes, thinning vegetation to reduce shading, designing deeper ponds with steep sides, conserving natural populations of macroinvertebrate predators and/ or introducing larvivorous predators, maintaining high levels of dissolved oxygen, and periodically draining wetland. Most studies on mosquito populations specifically related to CWs have been carried out in developed countries, and very few studies have been carried out in less-developed countries with tropical climates such as India.
Costs

for paper making, compost111 and floriculture, thereby providing employment and further economic justification. Conclusions Constructed wetlands (CWs) are being extensively used in developed countries to treat domestic, agricultural, and industrial wastewaters and urban and highway run off. This review covers current status of application of CWs in wastewater treatment especially of domestic wastewater, describing alternative CW designs and cost, treatment mechanisms operative, and efficiency of removal of various pollutants. Acknowledgements Authors thank financial support through EPSRC, UK (grant reference EP/E044360/1) and RC-UK DST (EP/ G021937/1) India funded project. References
1 Qadir M, Wichelns D, Raschid-Sally L, McCornick P G, Drechsel P, Bahri A & Minhas P S, The challenges of waste water irrigation in developing countries, Agric Water Manage, 97 (2010) 561-568. Confronting the realities of wastewater use in agriculture, in Water Policy Briefing 9 [International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Colombo, Sri Lanka], 2003. Minhas P S & Samra J S, Quality Assessment of Water Resources in Indo-Gangetic Basin Part in India (Central Soil Salinity Research Institute, Karnal, India) 2003, 68. Keraita B N & Drechsel P, Agricultural use of untreated urban wastewater in Ghana, in Wastewater Use in Irrigated Agriculture, edited by C A Scott, N I Faruqui & L Raschid-Sally (CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK) 2004,101-112. Scott C A, Faruqui N I & Raschid-Sally L, Wastewater use in irrigated agriculture: management challenges in developing countries, in Wastewater Use in Irrigated Agriculture, edited by C A Scott, N I Faruqui & L Raschid-Sally (CABI Publishing, UK) 2004. Qadir M, Sharma B R, Bruggeman A, Choukr-Allah R & Karajeh F, Nonconventional water resources and opportunities for water augmentation to achieve food security in water scarce countries, Agric Water Manage, 87 (2007) 2-22. Recycling realities: managing health risks to make wastewater an asset, in Water Policy Briefing 17 [International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Colombo, Sri Lanka], 2006. Guidelines for the safe use of wastewater, excreta and grey water, in Wastewater Use in Agriculture, vol II (WHO, Geneva) 2006. Seidel K, Die Flechtbinse Scirpus lacustris, in kologie, Morphologie und Entwicklung, ihre Stellung bei den Volkern und ihre wirtschaftliche Bedeutung (Schweizerbartsche Verlagsbuchnadlung, Stuttgart, Germany) 1955, 37-52. Vymazal J, Constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment, Water, 2 (2010) 530-549. Kadlec R H & Wallace S D, Treatment Wetlands, 2nd edn (CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA) 2008.

Basic investment costs for CWs include land, site investigation, system design, earthwork, liners, filtration media (HF and VF CWs) or rooting media (FWS CWs), planting, hydraulic control structures and miscellaneous costs (fencing and access roads). Vymazal & Krpfelov 15 summarized available data from HF CWs in the USA, Czech Republic, Portugal and Spain and findings are as follows: excavation cost, 7 - 27.4; gravel, 27 - 53; liner, 13 - 33; plants, 2 - 12; plumbing, 6 - 12; control structures, 3.1 - 5.7; miscellaneous, 1.8 - 12%. Individual costs can vary widely in different parts of the world. Also, larger systems demonstrate greater economies of scale 13 . The total investment costs vary even more, and the cost could be as low as 29 USD per m2 in India 108 or 33 USD per m2 in Costa Rica109 , or as high as 257 EUR per m2 in Belgium110 . Capital costs for FWS CWs are usually less than for subsurface flow systems mainly because cost for media is limited to rooting soil on the bottom of beds. CWs have very low operation and maintenance costs. In addition, wetlands having a higher rate of biological activity than most ecosystems can transform many of the common pollutants that occur in conventional wastewaters into harmless byproducts or essential nutrients that can be used for additional biological productivity. Economic benefits from CWs are an important consideration especially in developing countries, where additional incentives are required to encourage communities to maintain treatment wetlands. Gains in vegetation biomass in CWs can provide economic returns to communities when harvested for biogas production, animal feed, fiber

10 11

592
12

J SCI IND RES VOL 70 AUGUST 2011

13

14

15

16

17

18

19 20 21

22 23

24

25

26

27

28

29

Vymazal J, Horizontal sub-surface flow and hybrid constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment, Ecol Engg, 25 (2005) 478-490. Wallace S D & Knight R L, Small Scale Constructed Wetland Treatment Systems. Feasibility, Design Criteria, and O&M Requirements (Water Environ Res Foundation, Alexandria, VA, USA) 2006. Constructed Wetlands Treatment of Municipal Wastewater. Manual. EPA625/R-99/010 (US Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, USA) 2000. Vymazal J & Krpfelov L, Wastewater Treatment in Constructed Wetlands with Horizontal Sub-Surface Flow (Springer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands) 2008. Brix H & Schierup H H, Sewage treatment in constructed wet lands-Danish experience, Water Sci Tech, 21 (1989) 1665-1668. Cooper P F, Job G D, Green M B & Shutes R B E, Reed Beds and Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment (WRC Publications, Medmenham, UK) 1996. Vymazal J & Krpfelov L, Is concentration of dissolved oxygen a good indicator of processes in filtration beds of horizontal-flow constructed wetlands? in Wastewater Treatment, Plant Dynamics and Management, edited by J Vymazal (Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands) 2008, 311-317. Vymazal J, Removal of nutrients in various types of constructed wetlands, Sci Tot Environ, 380 (2007) 48-65. Brix H, Functions of macrophytes in constructed wetlands, Wat Sci Tech, 29 (1994) 71-78. Veenstra S, The Netherlands, in Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment in Europe, edited by J Vymazal et al (Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands) 1998, 289-314. Harber R & Perflers H, Nutrient removal in the reed bed system, Water Sci Tech, 23 (1991) 729-737. Brix H, The use of vertical flow constructed wetlands for on-site treatment of domestic wastewater: New Danish guidelines, Ecol Engg, 25 (2005) 491-500. Cooper P F, A review of the design and performance of vertical flow and hybrid reed bed treatment systems, Water Sci Tech, 40 (1999) 1-9. Molle P, Linard A, Boutin C, Merlin G & Iwema A, How to treat raw sewage with constructed wetlands: an overview of French systems, Water Sci Tech, 51 (2005) 11-21. Cooper P F, The performance of vertical flow constructed wetland systems with special reference to the significance of oxygen transfer and hydraulic loading rates, Water Sci Tech, 51 (2005) 81-90. Vymazal J, Constructed wetlands with horizontal sub-surface flow and hybrid systems for wastewater treatment, Ecol Engg, 25 (2005) 478-490. Steiner G R & Watson J T, General Design, Construction, and Operation Guidelines: Constructed Wetlands Wastewater Treatment Systems for Small Users Including Individual Residences, 2nd edn, Technical Report Series, TVA/WM-93/10, Resource Group, Water Management Branch (Tennessee Valley Authority, Charranooga, TN) 1993. Gersberg R M, Elkins B V & Goldman C R, Use of artificial wetlands to remove nitrogen from wastewater, J Water Pollut Contr Fed, 56 (1984) 152-156.

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44 45

Gersberg R M, Elkins B V, Lyon S R & Goldman C R, Role of aquatic plants in wastewater treatment by artificial wetlands, Water Res, 20 (1986) 363-368. Vymazal J, Constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment in Czechoslovakia, in Proc Conf Constructed Wetlands for Water Quality Improvement, edited by G A Moshiri (CRC Press, Boca Raton) 1993, 255-260. Wolverton B C, Aquatic plant/microbial lters for treating septic tank efuent, in Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment, edited by D A Hammer (Lewis Publishers, New York) 1990. Neralla S, Weaver R W & Lesikar B J, Plant selection for treatment of septic effluent in subsurface wetlands. ASAE, onsite wastewater treatment, in 8th Nat Symp on Individual and Small Community (Sewage Syst, Orlando, FL, USA) 1998. http://www.ecosanres.org/pdf_files/Nanning_PDFs/Eng/ Cui%20Lihua%2033_C12x.pdf, Cui L, Luo S, Zhu X & Liu Y, Treatment and utilization of septic tank effluent using vertical flow constructed wetlands and hydroponic cultivation of vegetables (South China Agricultural University) Eco San Res, Copyright 2002. USEPA, Method Guidance and Recommendations for Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Testing (Office of Water, Washington DC) 2000. Reddy K R & DAngelo E M, Biogeochemical indicators to evaluate pollutant removal efficiency in constructed wetland, Water Sc Tech, 35 (1997) 1-10. Masi F, Hamouri B El, Shafi H A, Baban A, Ghrabi A & Regelsberger M, Segregated black/grey domestic wastewater treatment by Constructed Wetlands in the Mediterranean basin: the Zero-m experience, in Int Conf on Wetland Systems for Water Pollution Control (Indore, India) 1-7 November 2008, 35-41. Ran N, Agami M & Oron G, A pilot study of constructed wetlands using duckweed (Lemna gibba L.) for treatment of domestic primary effluent, Water Res, 38 (2004) 2241-8. Belmont M A, Cantellano E, Thompson S, Williamson M, Sanchez A & Metcalfe C D, Treatment of domestic waste water in a pilot-scale natural treatment system in central Mexico, Ecol Engg, 23 (2004) 299-311. Karathanasis A D, Potter C L & Coyne M S, Vegetation effects on fecal bacteria, BOD and suspended solid removal in constructed wetlands treating domestic wastewater, Ecol Engg, 20 (2003) 157. Neralla S, Weaver R W, Lesikar B J & Persyn R A, Improvement of domestic wastewater quality by subsurface constructed wetlands, Biores Technol, 75 (2000) 19-25. Huang J, Reneau R B & Hagedorn C Jr, Nitrogen removal in constructed wetlands employed to treat domestic wastewater, Water Res, 34 (2000) 2582-2588. Solano M L, Soriano P & Ciria M P, Constructed wetlands as a sustainable solution for wastewater treatment in small villages, Biosyst Engg, 87 (2004) 109-18. Kern J & Idler C, Treatment of domestic and agricultural wastewater by reed bed systems, Ecol Engg, 12 (1999) 13-25. Justina M Z, Vrhovseka D, Stuhlbacherb A & Bulca T G, Treatment of wastewater in hybrid constructed wetland from the production of vinegar and packaging of detergents, Desalination, 247 (2009) 101-110.

VASUDEVAN et al : LOCALIZED DOMESTIC WASTEWATER TREATMENT: PART I - CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS

593

46

47

48

49

50 51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

Federle T W & Schwab B S, Mineralization of surfactants by microbiota of aquatic plants, Appl Environ Microbiol, 55 (1989) 2092-2094. Belmont M A & Metcalfe C D, Feasibility of using ornamental plants (Zantedeschia aethiopica) in subsurface flow treatment wetlands to remove nitrogen, chemical oxygen demand and nonylphenol etoxylate surfactants A laboratory-scale study, Ecol Engg, 21 (2003) 233-247. Mori K, Toyama T & Sei K, Surfactants degrading activities in the rhizosphere of giant duckweed (Spirodela polyrrhiza), Jap J Water Treat Biol, 4 (2005) 129-140. Huntsman B E, Staples C A, Naylor C G & Williams J B, Treatability of nonylphenol etoxylate surfactants in on-site wastewater disposal system, Water Environ Res, 78 (2006) 2397-2404. Kadlec R H & Knight R L, Treatment Wetlands (Lewis Publishers, New York) 1996. www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/GDWQ/Microbiology/ GWDWQMicrobiological2.html, WHO, Water, Sanitation, and Health, 2000. Schreijer M, Kampf R, Toet S & Verhoeven J, The use of constructed wetlands to upgrade treated sewage effluents before discharge to natural surface water in Texel Island, The Netherlands - pilot study, Water Sci Tech, 35 (1997) 231-237. Stott R, Jenkins T, Shabana M & May E, A survey of the microbial quality of wastewaters in Ismailia, Egypt and the implications for wastewater reuse, Water Sci Tech, 35 (1997) 211-217. Hill V R & Sobsey M D, Microbial indicator reductions in alternative treatment systems for swine wastewater, Water Sci Tech, 38 (1998) 119-122. Decamp O & Warren A, Investigation of Escherichia coli removal in various designs of subsurface flow wetlands used for wastewater treatment, Ecol Engg, 14 (2000) 293-299. Neralla S & Weaver R W, Phytoremediation of domestic wastewater for reducing populations of Escherichia coli and MS-2 Coliphage, Environ Tech, 21 (2000) 691-698. Nuttall P M, Boon A G & Rowell M R, Review of the design and management of constructed wetlands, Report R 180 [Construction Industry and Research and Information Association (CIRIA), UK] 1997. Vymazal J, Removal of enteric bacteria in constructed treatment wetlands with emergent macrophyte: A Review, J Environ Sci Health, 40 (2005) 1355-1367. Warren A, Decamp O & Ramirez E, Removal kinetics and viability of bacteria in horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetlands, in Proc 7th Int Conf on Wetland Systems for Water Pollution Control (IWA and University of Florida, Gainesville) 2000, 493-500. Mndez H, Geary P M & Dunstan R H, Surface wetlands for the treatment of pathogens in storm water, three case studies at Lake Macquarie, NSW, Australia, in 11th Int Conf on Wetland Systems for Water Pollution Control (Indore, India) 1-7 November 2008, 608-614. Song Z W, Wu L, Yang G, Xu M & Wen S P, Indicator microorganisms and pathogens removal function performed by copepods in constructed wetlands, Bull Environ Contam Toxicol, 81 (2008) 459-463. Sleytr K, Langergraber G, Tietz A & Haberl R, Investigations to characterize bacterial removal processes in different

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

subsurface vertical flow constructed wetlands, in 11th Int Conf on Wetland Systems for Water Pollution Control (Indore, India) 1-7 November 2008, 260-267. Karim M R, Manshadi F D, Karpiscak M M & Gerba C P, The persistence and removal of enteric pathogens in constructed wetlands, Water Res, 38 (2004) 1831-1837. Gersberg R M, Brenner R, Lyon S R & Elkins B V, Survival of bacteria and viruses in municipal wastewaters applied to artificial wetlands, in Aquatic Plants for Water Treatment and Resource Recovery, edited by K R Reddy & W H Smith (Magnolia Pubishing, Orlando FL) 1987, 237-246. Rivera F, Warren A, Ramirez E, Decamp O, Bonilla P, Gallegos E, Calderon A & Sanchez T T, Removal of pathogens from wastewaters by the root zone method (RZM), Water Sci Tech, 32 (1995) 211-218. Oswald E, Schmidt H, Morabito S, Karch H, Marches O & Caprioli A, Typing of intimin genes in human and animal enterohemorrhagic and enteropathogenic Escherichia coli: characterization of a new intimin variant, Inf Immun, 68 (2000) 64-71. Lesage D P L, Rousseau E, Meers F M G, Tack N & De Pauw, Accumulation of metals in a horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetland treating domestic wastewater in Flanders, Belgium, Sci Tot Environ, 380 (2007) 102-115. Peng K, Luo C, Lou L, Li X & Shen Z, Bioaccumulation of heavy metals by the aquatic plants Potamogeton pectinatus L. and Potamogeton malaianus Miq. and their potential use for contamination indicators and in wastewater treatment, Sci Tol Environ, 392 (2008) 22-29. Zhang X, Liu P, Yang Y & Chen W, Phytoremediation of urban wastewater by model wetlands with ornamental hydrophytes, J Environ Sci, 19 (2007) 902-909. Maine M A, Sune N, Hadad H, Sanchez G & Bonetto C, Nutrient and metal removal in a constructed wetland for wastewater treatment from a metallurgic industry, Ecol Engg, 26 (2006) 341347. Sasmaz A, Obekb E & Hasar H, The accumulation of heavy metals in Typha latifolia L. grown in a stream carrying secondary effluent, Ecol Engg, 33 (2008) 278-284. Vymazal J, Krpfelov L, vehla J, Chrastn V & tchov J, Trace elements in Phragmites australis growing in constructed wetlands for treatment of municipal wastewater, Ecol Engg, 35 (2009) 303-309. Vymazal J, Krpfelov L, vehla J & tchov J, Removal of trace elements in three constructed wetlands in the Czech Republic, in 11th Int Conf on Wetland Systems for Water Pollution Control (Indore, India) 1-7 November 2008, 579-588. Krpfelov L, Vymazal J, vehla J & tchov J, Trace elements in Phalaris arundinacea in a constructed wetland receiving municipal sewage: a multiple harvest experiment, in 11th Int Conf on Wetland Systems for Water Pollution Control (Indore, India) 1-7 November 2008, 589-594. Chattopadhyay B, Chatterjee A & Mukhopadhyay S K, Bioaccumulation of metals in the East Calcutta wetland ecosystem, Aquac Eco Health Manage, 5 (2002) 191-203. Stottmeister U, Wiebner A, Kuschk P, Kappelmeyer U, Kastner M et al, Effects of plants and microorganisms in constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment, Biotech Adv, 22 (2003) 93-117.

594
77

J SCI IND RES VOL 70 AUGUST 2011

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

Faulwetter J L, Gagnon V, Sundberg C, Chazarenc F, Burr M D et al, Microbial processes influencing performance of treatment wetlands: A review, Eco Engg, 35 (spl Issue) (2009) 987-1004. Giraud F, Guiraud P, Kadri M, Blake G & Steiman R, Biodegradation of anthracene and fluoranthene by fungi isolated from an experimental constructed wetland for wastewater treatment, Water Res, 35 (2001) 4126-4136. Chen Q, Tam N F, Shin P K S, Cheung S & Xu R, Ciliate communities in a constructed mangrove wetland for wastewater treatment, Mar Poll Bull, 58 (2009) 711-719. Li Y H, Zhu J N, Zhai Z H & Zhang Q, Endophytic bacterial diversity in roots of Phragmites australis in constructed Beijing Cuihu wetland (China), FEMS Microbiol Lett, 309 (2010) 84-93. Dong Z & Reddy G B, Soil bacterial communities in constructed wetlands treated with swine wastewater using PCR-DGGE technique, Biores Technol, 101 (2009) 1175-1182. Zhang C, Wang J, Liu W, Zhu S, Ge H et al, Effects of plant diversity on microbial biomass and community metabolic profiles in a full-scale constructed wetland, Ecol Engg, 36 (2010) 62-68. Zhou Q, He F, Zhang L P, Wang Y F & Wu Z B, Characteristics of the microbial communities in the integrated vertical-flow constructed wetlands, J Environ Sci (China), 21 (2009) 1261-1267. Sleytr K, Tietz A, Langergraber G, Haberl R & Sessitsch A , Diversity of abundant bacteria in subsurface vertical flow constructed wetlands, Ecol Engg, 35 (spl Issue) (2009) 1021-1025. Dong Z & Sun T, A potential new process for improving nitrogen removal in constructed wetlands. Promoting co-existence of partial nitrification and ANAMMOX, Ecol Engg, 31 (2007) 69-78. Gajewska M, Pathways of nitrogen compounds depletion in hybrid constructed wetlands, in Proc 11 th Int Conf on Wetland Systems Technology in Water Pollution Control (Indore, India) 1-7 November 2008, 242-248. Zhu G, Jetten M S M, Kuschk P, Ettwig K F & Yin C, Potential roles of anaerobic ammonium and methane oxidation in the nitrogen cycle of wetland ecosystems, Appl Microbiol Biotech, 86 (2010) 1043-1055. Kalin M, Fyson A & Wheeler W N, The chemistry of conventional and alternative treatment systems for the neutralization of acid mine drainage, Sci Tot Environ, 366 (2006) 395-408. Faulwetter J L, Burr M D, Stein O R & Camper A K, Characterization of sulphate reducing bacteria in constructed wetlands, Proc 11 th Int Conf on Wetland Systems Technology in Water Pollution Control (Indore, India) 1-7 November 2008, 276-283. Park N, Lee J, Chon K, Kang H & Cho J, Investigating microbial activities of constructed wetlands with respect to nitrate and sulfate reduction, Desal Wat Treat, 1 (2009) 172-179. Funderberg S W & Sorber C A, Coliphages as indicators of enteric viruses in activated sludge, Water Res, 19 (1985) 547-555. Green M B, Griffin P, Seabridge J K & Dhobie D, Removal of bacteria in subsurface flow wetlands, Water Sci Tech, 35 (1997) 109-116. Decamp O & Warren A, Bacterivory in ciliates isolated from constructed wetlands (reed beds) used for wastewater treatment, Water Res, 32 (1998) 1989-1996.

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101 102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

Khatiwanda N R & Polprasert C, Kinetics of faecal coliform removal in constructed wetlands, Water Sci Tech , 40 (1999) 109-116. Williams J, Bahgat M, May E, Ford M & Butler J, Mineralisation and pathogen removal in Gravel Bed Hydroponic constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment, Water Sci Tech, 32 (1995) 49-58. Decamp O & Warren A, Bacterivory in ciliates isolated from constructed wetlands (reed beds) used for wastewater treatment, Water Res, 32 (1998) 1989-1996. Karim M R, Glenn E P & Gerba C P, The effect of wetland vegetation on the survival of Escherichia coli, Salmonella typhimurium, bacteriophage MS-2 and polio virus, J Water Health, 6 (2008) 167-175. Gersberg R M, Lyon S R, Brenner R & Elkins B V, Fate of viruses in artificial wetlands, Appl Environ Microbiol, 53 (1987) 731-736. Boutlier L, Jamieson R, Gordon R, Lake C & Hart W, Adsorption, sedimentation, and inactivation of E. coli within wastewater treatment wetlands, Water Res, 43 (2009) 4370-4380. Stott R, Jenkins T, Bahgat M & Shalaby I, Capacity of constructed wetlands to remove parasite eggs from wastewaters in Egypt, Water Sci Tech, 40 (1999) 117-123. Dale P E R & Knight J M, Wetlands and mosquitoes: a review, Wetlands Ecol Manage, 16 (2008) 255-276. Karpiscak M M, Kingsley K J, Wass R D, Amalfi F A, Friel J et al, Constructed wetland technology and mosquito populations in Arizona, J Arid Environ, 56 (2004) 681-707. Anderson L, OBrien K & Hartwell M, Comparisons of mosquito populations before and after construction of a wetland for water quality improvement in Pitt County, North Carolina, and data-reliant vectorborne disease management, J Environ Health, 69 (2007) 26-33. Russell R C, Constructed wetlands and mosquitoes: health hazards and management options - an Australian perspective, Ecol Engg, 12 (1996) 107-124. Greenway M, Dale P & Chapman H, An assessment of mosquito breeding and control in four surface flow wetlands in tropical-subtropical Australia, Water Sci Tech, 48 (2003) 249-256. Dimeont S A W, Mosquito larvae density and pollutant removal in tropical wetland treatment systems in Honduras, Environ Int, 32 (2006) 332-341. Gingrich J B, Anderson R D, Williams G M & OConnor L, Stormwater ponds, constructed wetlands, and other best management practices as potential breeding sites for West Nile virus vectors in Delaware during 2004, J Am Mosquito Cont Assoc, 22 (2006) 282-291. Billore S K, Singh N, Sharma J K, Dass P & Nelson R M, Horizontal subsurface flow gravel bed constructed wetland with Phragmites karka in central India, Water Sci Technol, 40 (1999) 173-171. Dallas S, Scheffe B & Ho G, Reed beds for greywater treatmentcase study in Santa ElenaMonteverde, Costa Rica, Central America, Ecol Engg, 23 (2004) 55-61. Rousseau D P L, Vanrolleghem P A & De Pauw N, Constructed wetlands in Flanders: a performance analysis, Ecol Engg, 23 (2004) 151-163. Lakshman G, Ecotechnological opportunities for aquatic plants a survey of utilization options, Proceedings of Aquatic Macrophytes for Water Treatment and Resource Recovery, edited by K R Reddy & W H Smith (Magnolia Publishing, Orlando, FL) 1987, 49.